Thread: My Theory of personality types

Hello, My name is Kimani Shorter and I'm promoting my theory of personality types and also trying to get a Wikipedia entry for it. This is a summary of my theory and the three types I came up with.

http://kimanishorter.tripod.com/id1.html
http://kimanishorter.tripod.com/id2.html
http://kimanishorter.tripod.com/id3.html
http://kimanishorter.tripod.com/id4.html

It reconfigures some of Carl Jung's archetypes and some of the types found on the DSM into something new.

Hi Kimani. Welcome.

Just a friendly request though. As this is a discussion forum, we require that you at least describe your "theory" a bit and engage in discussion on it. Otherwise your post might simply be seen as spam, which is not allowed.

Thanks in advance.

My theory believes that certain specific archetypes can be applied to the disorder or condition that you have.

I am sorry, but a single sentence won't do. Would you mid explaining a bit?

I've taken six of Carl Jung's archetypes and paired each two of them together. The two archetypes are then matched to several disorders because of their equivalency. The end result is three distinct types. Each type is defined by two archetypes.

These are the three types.

http://kimanishorter.tripod.com/id2.html
http://kimanishorter.tripod.com/id3.html
http://kimanishorter.tripod.com/id4.html

Kimani, I'll ask again. Would you be kind enough to engage us in discussion? Your posts are still little more than spam designed to funnel traffic to your site. Like I said, this is a discussion forum, not an advertising board.

Your ideas sound interesting, but please elaborate a bit more. It is considered bad manners to expect everyone to leave this site and go to yours to be able to have some idea of what you are talking about. I am looking forward to your participation.

I'm trying to build or expand upon Carl Jung's initial concept of archetypes. I'm personalizing them by applying certain specific ones to people instead of using them in a general sense.

This process of personalizing them has resulted in the creation of three new personality types. Each type with 2 designated archetypes.

Im not a professional on pretty much anything lol but this is something that im interested in... I just wish your ideas were more developed. You have forgotten some of the bigger mental conditions such as ADD, ADHD, you did have Bipolar but their are many other common ones you forgot. I would love to know more about your ideas their interesting!

Originally Posted by Fmp2491

Im not a professional on pretty much anything lol but this is something that im interested in... I just wish your ideas were more developed. You have forgotten some of the bigger mental conditions such as ADD, ADHD, you did have Bipolar but their are many other common ones you forgot. I would love to know more about your ideas their interesting!

Yeah there are lots of disorders that aren't included because there aren't a combination of archetypes that really fit with any of them. I guess it's coincidence that most of the disorders that I've used don't stop people from being fairly productive members of society.

I am moving this thread to the New Hypothesis and Ideas thread. I think it fits better there.

Fmp2491 I responded to you before the thread was moved

Hello, my name is Kimani Shorter. I have developed a theory of personality types as well as a career guide which includes a questionnaire to go along with my theory. My idea is based on Carl Jung's theory of archetypes. This is a summary of my concept.

Summary

Sooooooo, what do you want to discuss HERE? Or is this just a means to funnel people to your site from here?

I haven't actually started trying to sell this. There is no description of my product or price list on my site. For now I would just like feedback on the concept. It's a psychology theory so you can discuss that aspect of it......

Could you give us a brief summary here for us to look at? its a little rude to post a link and expect everyone to go to that site rather then supplying information to start conversation here.

edit: Actually it looks like my exact questions were asked about a month ago when you posted your idea the first time. The two threads should be merged.

This thread and Kimani's new version of it http://www.thescienceforum.com/gener...eer-guide.html should be merged...

Shorter Typology


I found a relationship between Carl Jung’s theory of archetypes and disorders and have applied it to the professional world. My theory explores metaphysics and modern psychology. It reconfigures some archetypes and some of the types found on the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) as well a type not found on the DSM into something new.

Archetypes are primal symbols of people. These same archetypes are building blocks in determining personalities. Many individual archetypes are found in people at the same time / over a lifetime. These archetypes separately show fragments of people's unconscious minds. These archetypes combined display a large part or portion of the unconscious mind. When organized into groups of two they spell out psychological conditions. What seems random at first becomes very familiar when placed in a different context.

There are six archetypes in this equation. Each archetype represents a distinctive trait. The Child relies upon others. The Hero is troubled. The Mother is empathetic and comforting. The Shadow is a symbol of apathy. The Trickster lacks morals and standards. The Wise Old Man is insightful.

The six archetypes are divided into three sets. There are two archetypes in each set. The combination of the two archetypes in each set results in a model for psychological conditions. What makes people unique and special is determined by what archetypes are found in them the most.
My theory believes that certain specific archetypes can be applied to the disorder or condition that you have. I've taken six archetypes and paired each two of them together. The two archetypes are then matched to several disorders because of their equivalency. The end result is three distinct types. Each type is defined by two archetypes.

The insightful nature of the Wise Old Man archetype and the troubled nature of the Hero archetype are equivalent to the brilliant but withdrawn nature of people with Asperger's and Bipolar Disorder.The devoted nature of the Mother archetype and the vulnerable nature of the Child archetype are equivalent to the nurturing dependent nature of people with Codependency Personality Disorder, Dependent Personality Disorder and Avoidant Personality Disorder. The apathetic nature of the Shadow archetype and the sneaky nature of the The Trickster archetype are equivalent to the apathetic manipulative nature of people with Narcissistic Personality disorder, Borderline personality disorder, Histrionic personality disorder and Sociopathy.

There are eleven psychological conditions / types used in this concept. They are Asperger's Syndrome, Bipolar 1, Bipolar 2, Cyclothymia, Avoidant, Codependency, Dependent, Borderline, Histrionic, Narcissism, and Sociopathy. The similar elements of these conditions unify them. They form an entity. These entities are used to define an individual. A person will gravitate towards one of these three entities / types much more than any of the others.

The Designer The Professional The Charmer
Based on certain archetypes people have different capabilities, strengths, and weaknesses. Learning about which archetypes a person displays will help them better understand these capabilities, strengths, and weaknesses and they can apply that information accordingly to professional aspects of their lives.

Everyone has a different role or function in society based on their disposition. My theory of personality helps highlight what people’s different roles or functions is society are. Some people are better at interpersonal skills. Some are quite skilled at being caretakers sand supporters.

The Designer
Archetypes:
The Hero - troubled
The Wise Old Man - profound
Tendencies: withdrawn, creative / insightful
Dominant Capabilities: composing, equating, calculating
Conditions: Asperger's Syndrome, Bipolar Spectrum



The Professional
Archetypes:
The Child - dependency, vulnerable
The Mother - nurturing, devoted
Tendencies: generosity, dedication, sacrifice, humility
Dominant Capabilities: consoling, comforting, compromising
Conditions: Avoidant, Codependency, Dependent


The Charmer
Archetypes:
The Shadow - apathy
The Trickster - devious, sneaky
Tendencies: impulsive, manipulative
Dominant Capabilities: enticing, seducing, tempting, exploiting
Conditions: Borderline, Histrionic, Narcissism, Sociopathy

Unfortunately I think there are so many areas of over lap with most people as to make the categorisations pretty much useless. I think if you were going to do it based purely on their dominant personality trait it would be more productive, though that said you'd need far more than three types.

Paleoichneum what do you think of it?

I added a career section to my site.

Links Deleted

Moderator Comment: Kimani, this is a discusion forum, not a post office.

That must have taken years of work!
How many studies did you perform?

Originally Posted by Kimani

I added a career section to my site.

<spam links removed>

So in other words, you ARE just trying to funnel people to your site with NO intention at all of discussion here. Could we get the links killed please?

I'm willing to discuss. I used websites that apply the Myers Briggs concept to careers to assist me in deciding what types match with what careers. Sort of cross referencing or synching together the Myers Briggs types with my types.

Personality Test Site
The Personality Page

Originally Posted by Kimani

Myers Briggs

Why would you bother using an unreliable method?

Question (again).
How many studies did you perform before working out your theory and types?

My theory is based on existing research that has been done that proves that there is a link between Bipolar Disorder and brilliance. I didn't perform any studies.

I did test the questionaire that I developed for my types on people.

I'm wondering why you don't find the Myers Briggs to be reliable.

Originally Posted by Kimani

My theory is based on existing research that has been done that proves that there is a link between Bipolar Disorder and brilliance. I didn't perform any studies.

So, in effect, it's all made up and unvalidated.
Oh yeah, "proved"? Link please.
Studies show that there is likely a correlation, but "proven"? No. Plus, of course the FACT that there are a number of types of bipolar.

I'm wondering why you don't find the Myers Briggs to be reliable.

The main reason is because... wait for it... studies show that it's not.
http://www.indiana.edu/~jobtalk/HRMW...velop/mbti.pdf
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yeah I've read the wikipedia entry for Myers Briggs so I've seen the reliability section before. I still have a lot of faith in it. I think it's a good source.

I think people who find the Myers Briggs interesting will find my concept interesting.

http://personalitycafe.com/general-psychology/76723-my-theory-personality-types.html

“There’s a lot of stuff out there like this. In some ways the approach might be a better method of categorizing than MBTI type codes but this is so adjectival I think it would be hard to standardize or apply across cultures.
Well I think recognizing the archetypes and their influences on a person is a good start. John Beebe does this by wrapping the functions in archetypes. It also doesn’t create the, often misleading judging/perceiving dichotomy that often gets so overinflated when people talk about type.”

Originally Posted by Kimani

I still have a lot of faith in it. I think it's a good source.

Why?

I think people who find the Myers Briggs interesting will find my concept interesting.

How did you validate your "concept"?

Did you see the link I posted to the feedback I got?

Here's another one.


http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/other-psychology-topics/53181-my-theory-personality-types.html

“I like your focus on disorders and coping mechanisms-it helps us recognize our flaws and get past them.”

I didn't see the previous one, but I am highly intrigued by the "feedback" on the second:
One comment saying not enough info comment and another referring to a crank concept.
Great testimonials!
/Sarcasm.
(Ever come across the phrase "Shoot yourself in the foot"?)

http://personalitycafe.com/general-psychology/76723-my-theory-personality-types.html


“There’s a lot of stuff out there like this. In some ways the approach might be a better method of categorizing than MBTI type codes but this is so adjectival I think it would be hard to standardize or apply across cultures.
Well I think recognizing the archetypes and their influences on a person is a good start. John Beebe does this by wrapping the functions in archetypes. It also doesn’t create the, often misleading judging/perceiving dichotomy that often gets so overinflated when people talk about type.”

The Triad Quantum

Oh goody!
You managed to get the word "quantum" in there.
That ALWAYS proves it's scientific.

Trash please...

You're not responding to what I've posted. You're just going off on your own tirade.

The quote was taken directly from that link.
However...

Math can be used to understand the human condition. Metaphysics and modern psychology are explored using a formula. This formula transcends those beliefs.

Math: you later state - "It's six archetypes divided into three sets. And so two archetypes in each set."
Notes:
1) Dividing by 2 is NOT mathematics, it's arithmetic.
2) One single "division" hardly constitutes a "formula". Much less one that "transcends beliefs".
Where's the metaphysics?
Oh yeah, MBTI is not "modern" psychology.

Other than that you have one guy saying "In some ways the approach might be a better method of categorizing than MBTI type codes" (while ignoring the fact that MBTI is hardly reliable) and THEN goes on to say "this is so adjectival I think it would be hard to standardize or apply across cultures", and in a later post says "it might be too broad and the manifestations of the archetypes are probably open to a lot of subjective interpretation". Hardly a rock solid testimonial.
Then there's the other guy (of a total of 2!) who is at least as dubious as me"

I'll ask again: how is this "theory" validated?
What experience/ qualifications do you have in this field?

PS, I apologise for "going off my own tirade" but I was so overwhelmed by the word "quantum" that I completely lost my cool. I nearly signed up up straight away.

Arithmetic is a branch of mathematics.

It's metaphysics because it deals with self-realization and self-knowledge in general.

Like the two women who created the MBTI I don't have a psych background. I've studied extensively and like them have developed this typology.

The only part of the theory that really needed validating was the bipolar disorder since it isn't common knowledge that there is a link between bipolar disorder and brilliance. But there is scientific research out there that proves that. The rest of the theory is just self evident.

Originally Posted by Kimani

Arithmetic is a branch of mathematics.

Ah right...
Except that
A) your theory doesn't actually USE either, and
B) it's not a "formula".
Oh, wait. Maybe using the word "mathematical" (and the word "metaphysical") was another attempt (like adding the word "quantum") at lending some sort of legitimacy to unsupported meanderings.
What do you say?

It's metaphysics because it deals with self-realization and self-knowledge in general.

Oops.

Like the two women who created the MBTI I don't have a psych background. I've studied extensively and like them have developed this typology.

Yeah, note the MBTI (created by two women with no background in the discipline) is hardly worth the paper it's written on.
You've "studied extensively"?
And here you are, only 25...
What do you call "extensive"?

The only part of the theory that really needed validating was... and off into a falsehood

Incorrect. The ENTIRE thing needs validating.
Otherwise it's A) not science and B) just as woo woo as the MBTI.

But there is scientific research out there that proves that.

Yeah, you've said that. And failed to provide the links I asked for.

The rest of the theory is just self evident.

Oh dear. Self-evident to whom?
Self-evident is not science. Self-evident tends to be a circular argument. Self-evident is first port of call for cranks.

When you found out that I didn't do any research or studies I kind of thought that would be the end of the conversation. I thought this just wouldn't be your thing and you'd move on. I didn't think you'd stick around and try to win me over with an argument / try to change my plans with this thing. I've gotten positive feedback on my concept from behavioral specialists. People actually in the field of psychology. I've had my website linked on a Arabic humanitarian / community outreach site as a theory of vocational guidance. I'm not chaning my plans just because of you.

Originally Posted by Kimani

When you found out that I didn't do any research or studies I kind of thought that would be the end of the conversation. I thought this just wouldn't be your thing and you'd move on.

It's not even this forum's kind of thing. We're a science site.

I didn't think you'd stick around and try to win me over with an argument / try to change my plans with this thing.

You misunderstand me. I'm well aware that changing the mind of a crank is next to impossible - what I'm really interested in are the psychological aspects - how far people will go to justify their wrong thinking, that sort of thing.

I've gotten positive feedback on my concept from behavioral specialists. People actually in the field of psychology. I've had my website linked on a Arabic humanitarian / community outreach site as a theory of vocational guidance.

I'm not at all surprised. If there's one thing the world has in plenty it's gullible and/ or ignorant fools And fellow scam artists looking for another "trend" to bandwagon on.

To be honest I could see a time when you get your own Wikipedia entry, I'm just not sure whether it'll be in the "Successful Scam Artists" category or "Significant Contibutors to the Rise of Global Stupidity".
Go peddle your nonsense, but be aware (try to be honest!) that, despite your claims, it is not "mathematical", nor is it "metaphysical", nor "quantum" and most especially it is not science.

As if the world didn't have enough specious crap getting the way...

I'm using math to reach these conclusions. Archetypes have been divided into sets and applied to disorders. So I don't understand how it's not mathematical to at least some extent. I can see your point about it not being a science.

Do you consider the Myers Briggs concept to be a successful scam?

Originally Posted by Kimani

I'm using math to reach these conclusions.

No you're not.
The only arithmetic you've shown is to divide 6 categories into 3.

So I don't understand how it's not mathematical to at least some extent.

Because there is no mathematics involved in the process itself.
You might as well claim that a gardener "uses" mathematics, simply because he's only used half the seeds in the pack.

Do you consider the Myers Briggs concept to be a successful scam?

Haven't I made that clear?
It's not reliable or scientific (it doesn't do what it claims to), but it's in widespread use.
The first makes it a scam, the second makes it successful.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Kimani

I'm using math to reach these conclusions.

No you're not.
The only arithmetic you've shown is to divide 6 categories into 3.

So I don't understand how it's not mathematical to at least some extent.

Because there is no mathematics involved in the process itself.
You might as well claim that a gardener "uses" mathematics, simply because he's only used half the seeds in the pack.

Do you consider the Myers Briggs concept to be a successful scam?

Haven't I made that clear?
It's not reliable or scientific (it doesn't do what it claims to), but it's in widespread use.
The first makes it a scam, the second makes it successful.

Ok explain to me how there is no mathematics involved in the process. I've taken six archetypes and divided them into sets of two which I have then applied or matched to several disorders.

Because any "mathematics" involved was used ONLY to arrive at the methodology which will THEN applied.
The "use" of the "theory" involves no mathematics whatsoever.
How much calculation is involved when you're using this "theory" on a subject?

Claiming your "theory" is mathematical is the equivalent of me claiming that digestion of my food is financial simply because I had to pay for the meal in the first place.

Oh so you're saying that since I'm not using math to help people decide on suitable careers based on their type the theory can't count as being mathematic.

Originally Posted by Kimani

Oh so you're saying that since I'm not using math to help people decide on suitable careers based on their type the theory can't count as being mathematic.

Correct.
If you aren't using maths then it's not a mathematical method.
Nor is the "theory" mathematical.

Well if we can seperate the actual theory from it's application as a career guide I fail to see how the theory by itself isn't mathematical.

Originally Posted by Kimani

Yeah I've read the wikipedia entry for Myers Briggs so I've seen the reliability section before. I still have a lot of faith in it. I think it's a good source.

I think people who find the Myers Briggs interesting will find my concept interesting.

http://personalitycafe.com/general-psychology/76723-my-theory-personality-types.html

“There’s a lot of stuff out there like this. In some ways the approach might be a better method of categorizing than MBTI type codes but this is so adjectival I think it would be hard to standardize or apply across cultures.
Well I think recognizing the archetypes and their influences on a person is a good start. John Beebe does this by wrapping the functions in archetypes. It also doesn’t create the, often misleading judging/perceiving dichotomy that often gets so overinflated when people talk about type.”

Interesting != reliable

Originally Posted by Kimani

Well if we can seperate the actual theory from it's application as a career guide I fail to see how the theory by itself isn't mathematical.

You really aren't very good at this are you?
Once again:
Claiming your "theory" is mathematical is the equivalent of me claiming that digestion of my food is financial simply because I had to pay for the meal in the first place.
Using your "reasoning" there's very little that isn't "mathematical".
Simply halving the number of options (on, apparently, no basis other than whim) is NOT mathematical.

And please note it isn't a theory.
"Theory" has a strict meaning, you appear to be using it in the "popular" sense (e.g. a guess) while hoping that someone believes that it's used in the scientific sense.
Is this deliberate dishonesty, or just another example of your general ignorance?

Originally Posted by Kimani

I'm using math to reach these conclusions. Archetypes have been divided into sets and applied to disorders. So I don't understand how it's not mathematical to at least some extent. I can see your point about it not being a science.

Do you consider the Myers Briggs concept to be a successful scam?

How about you show us the math you used. Walk us through the process of how you came to your conclusions.

Originally Posted by seagypsy

How about you show us the math you used.

He's admitted that the ONLY "maths" he used was to cut 6 categories down to 3. (I divided by 2! That MUST be mathematical!)

Note: those original 6 categories were developed by someone else (with no scientific basis whatsoever).
In other words, he's piling uniformed woo on top of someone else's uniformed woo and trying to sell that.

Carl Jung isn't necessarily uninformed woo. He is respected in the field of psychology. His theories and concepts hold a lot of weight to people in that field.

You can disagree with people and argue with people without being obnoxious. I don't think you are capable of that.

Archetypes are character traits in a lot of ways. There is definitely logic behind them. None of what I have done has been on a whim. Using them as character traits I have aligned them with disorders.

Originally Posted by Kimani

Carl Jung isn't necessarily uninformed woo.

I was actually referring to the women that thought up the Myers Briggs "test", but Jung had his fair share of woo moments too, and little to no scientific basis.

You can disagree with people and argue with people without being obnoxious. I don't think you are capable of that.

Oh, I see your mistake.
I'm not "disagreeing" with you, I'm pointing out that what you're promoting is unfounded trash.
There's a difference.
And I fail to see any need for politeness with someone who's attempting to foist this same unfounded trash onto the public.
You're a fraud and a charlatan and you expect me to be nice?
I'm more than capable of being non-obnoxious, but I reserve that for people who are themselves non-obnoxious.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

I'm more than capable of being non-obnoxious, but I reserve that for people who are themselves non-obnoxious.

I just want to point out that Dywyddyr is not making this up. I have seen him be non-obnoxious plenty of times. I have even seen him be nicer than he needed to be.

Originally Posted by seagypsy

I have even seen him be nicer than he needed to be.

Good grief!
You can't publicise that, it'll ruin my grumpy cantankerous ogre image.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by seagypsy

I have even seen him be nicer than he needed to be.

Good grief!
You can't publicise that, it'll ruin my grumpy cantankerous ogre image.

Should I imply that you were bribed? drugged? had a gun to your head?

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by seagypsy

I have even seen him be nicer than he needed to be.

Good grief!
You can't publicise that, it'll ruin my grumpy cantankerous ogre image.

Ruin?!
You have no understanding about magnitude or volume of evidence or how a slightly supported claim pales in comparison to overwhelmingly abundant evidence, do you?
Perhaps you should investigate which claim has a greater amount of support before spewing forth such idle-brained gibberish.

Originally Posted by Kimani

He is respected in the field of psychology.

Not much of a recommendation.

His theories and concepts hold a lot of weight to people in that field.

Appeal to authority. Is there any scientific evidence that his ideas were anything other than meaningless musings?