CS Joseph answers the Acolyte question do you have any proof the type grid is real?
Transcript:
Welcome to the CS Joseph podcast. I’m your host CS Joseph, and we are doing more acolyte questions. Today’s this acolyte question episode. And if you guys want to get your questions answered here on the podcast and also on YouTube, become an acolyte member that is at CS joseph.ly, forward slash members or CS joseph.ly forward slash portal, make sure you’re already a journeyman member.
If you’re not go go there and become a journeyman member and then just upgrade your account from Acolyte. From there. If you have any questions about how to do that, or if you get lost, go ahead and send an email to open a ticket at support with support at CS Joseph dot life. So Just email support at CS Joseph dot life, you’ll have a ticket open for you.
Alright, so today’s question. So I’ll read you the entire question. So hey, I opted to ask a question that I’m sure a lot of people care about, and that could change my headspace. This is an intp asking this question by the way.
Generally, people believe that any typology systems are pseudoscience, nonsense, and accurate, so on. I personally that this idea falls into the myth that everybody is unique and special or equal. But besides that, this is context that will make you empathize with the main question. What is the proof that the typing system you teach is accurate, realistic and truthful, that people actually have attributes and functions as defined by their type? A lot of evidence I see is anecdotal.
I wonder if there is more. I would like to clarify that I believe in its accuracy myself as I am here. Thank you. So basically, what’s the proof that union analytical psychology is accurate, realistic, truthful, etc? Well, the first, the first piece of actual empirical evidence of it that we actually have comes from Dr.
Dario Nardi, and if you haven’t read the neuroscience of personality, or his other books, or have become familiar with his work, then you don’t understand that his entire purpose or his entire platform, all of his work, his life’s work, basically, is merging this so called pseudo science with empiricism. And he’s actually the first person who has been able to concretely prove in an empirical way through his, you know, brain scanning methodologies that brands react based on certain situations based on engaging with specific cognitive functions. That’s basically where it is. And that if you were to take Dr.
Darren Hardy’s work and combine it with the Type grid, you have something even more powerful because there’s a lot less risk of Miss typing when it comes to people being brain scan, which will further to make the which would further increase the integrity of the data that he’s collecting. For all of you out there who like to claim to be empiricists, even though you’re actually just armchair psychologists or armchair data science people, but whatever it is, what it is. The point is, is that like, really, if you really want to make the argument about empiricism and data collection and whatnot, and how can you concretely prove this, you really need to look to Dr. Dario Nardi, but outside of Dr.
Dario, you should probably consider also Plato and Plato’s Republic, where he spoke about the temperaments like people from ancient times have been talking about this form of psychology even since then. And then you have Carl Jung who made his observations. And then like, I don’t know, he became famous as a result, just like Freud did. But the thing you know, if we’re, if we’re always like focusing on the how something is done, and not the why, it’s very easy to say something as pseudoscience when you’re not really looking at the why.
And the other thing is to is that, to me, union, analytical psychology is completely self evident. Of course, it is because I share a bunch of anecdotal evidence. And it’s funny because most people assume anecdotal evidence is no evidence at all. You’d also you would often hear this from the empiricist who’s who claim that anecdotes is just another logical fallacy.
But it’s not. It really isn’t. And the reason why is because like, for example, STPs out there, then they will not even change their own thinking, or even agree with somebody unless they actually concretely see that someone has benefited or has life experience related to the claim that they’re making. So we have to have anecdotal evidence around because the most alpha of the types, the STPs, who usually used to be like warlords, you know, back in the day, when it was a very anarchical approach to society that we live in In order to convince them, you would have to have actual life experience and anecdotal evidence of backup, you’re saying otherwise, they would just completely dismiss you and potentially even kill you or cut off your head right then and there.
So please be aware of that. Okay, so this whole idea, this whole idea that anecdotal evidence is always a logical fallacy is technically false, because that’s not how the real word actually real world actually works. So you might want to bring that up in your arguments to those little T parents that are annoying you, Mr. EMTP? question asker.
Because they really don’t know what they’re talking. It’s kind of like someone saying, Well, I can’t I can’t see God. So God does must not exist. And it’s like, okay, yeah.
Here’s the thing, though, people couldn’t see germs either. But we found out that they exist. And people didn’t start really caring about that, until like, one doctor would deliver a baby in the morning, and then he wouldn’t wash his hands. And then he keeps delivering babies throughout the day, and then all those mothers would die, you see what I’m saying.
And that became a problem. That became a huge problem over time. And, yeah, all of a sudden, doctors realize we should probably be washing our hands. And then through washing your hands, all of a sudden the death stop, just because you can’t see it doesn’t mean it’s there.
And the other thing is like when it comes to doing analytical psychology, or when it comes to the Type grid, just use it yourself, devote yourself to learning how to use it as just a skill, right? And then eventually, you’ll understand you’ll start to see the patterns. Now, it’s kind of hard for wayfarers to see that because they’re expert at sensing, they lack the N E. And they also lack the TI logic as well as in you know, because let’s be honest, the Type grid is a very abstract calculus based array. And that can make things very difficult for people because a lot of people their minds just don’t work in calculus based, right because they either lack the TI I mean, it calculus is mostly logic.
It’s mostly based on deductive thinking and not actually inductive, thinking a lot. Most people assume it’s inductive because of how vectors are used to get into the various arrays. And that is where the induction is. But their arrays themselves fundamentally are deductive reasoning.
So Wayfarer types, and they’re usually the ones who are complaining about pseudoscience and logical fallacies to begin with. That’s not to say that philosophers do. But eventually, if you can turn on the extroverted intuition of a philosopher to the patterns that are actually presented within the Type grid, then all of a sudden, they’ll start, like, they’ll stop arguing with you, and then actually start experimenting with it on their own, and creating their own anecdotes that their use of the science itself. So but eventually, it’s not really going to matter, because Bucha and then any application that spawned off Bucha, with all of its data collection, we’re going to be able to see what the data shows with people’s behaviors over time.
And we’ll make that data available to people over time. And then because we’re not statistically relevant there, yeah, we have to get above 100,000 participants, and we’re just not there yet. But when we do, will become statistically irrelevant. And imagine all of the studies and all the ways we need to play with the data.
And then especially if we’re going to mix it with Dr. Dre and RDS work, at the same time still talking to him about that. With him collaborating directly with us and us collaborating with him and making all that data available, we will be able to bridge the gap between the so called pseudoscience and empiricism. So as a result, we will we will have that we will have that answer.
And we will be able to concretely prove that it’s actually really a true thing. So just let the software in Bucha develop over time. Eventually you all will see what I’m getting at and realize that oh yeah, here’s here’s actually the proof because there is actual statistical patterns that are being representative within all the users of this application. And if it was, if this was completely fake, and not actually really a science, then it would just be pure chaos, and there would be no pattern.
But the fact that there is a pattern is itself the reason as to why the science exists. It’s kind of like the zodiac. You know, I most people think the Zodiac and horoscopes is BS, and you know what it probably is, the thing is, is those that even I personally know that the Zodiac is, is incomplete. It’s actually 16 signs, it’s not 12.
And if people were to kind of like, redo their calendars with that in mind, then they would probably have a different, you know, way of doing it. It’s just that we can’t see the four missing constellations because the Earth is inside of those four constellations and we’d have to go to other constellations away from the Earth, and then look back towards the direction of the earth to see the missing constellations, okay? It’s no different than like that show Stargate where they had to know the symbol of the Stargate, which is their point. If origin they have to know the point of origin, because remember, folks, when you’re looking out of your eyes and seeing everything in the world around you, you don’t have a third party camera right here looking at you. Okay? This is why we can’t see the form is in constellations in the Zodiac even though the Zodiac is pseudoscience.
The thing is, though, is that even I have to admit, there’s still something to the zodiac. It’s just incomplete. And literally, that is why Myers Briggs Type Indicator union analytical psychology this whole time is pseudoscience. It’s because it is incomplete.
But I think between myself and Dr. Dario Nardi him and I working together, I think we can finally complete the science and we’ll be able to do that with Bucha and all of the participants of this great community to be able to get those empirics and make them available to everyone. So I very much look forward to that and we’ll continue to work to that end so Anyway, hopefully that answers your question. So thanks for watching and listening folks.
And I’ll see you guys tonight your store stone silver so can you cave you know, building
