Hello ToKers,
Terrific presentation and discussion!
As many people on this list serve know, (and to the dismay of many of you, I'm sure) I'm far more intrigued by type theory than trait theory. On of the claims I often hear is that type theory isn't as reliable as trait theory, (a claim I still think is a bit dubious). Nevertheless, I have to chuckle a little bit at that claim after hearing Steve's talk because insofar that type theory is less reliable, than perhaps that is a
virtue. LOL!
On a more serious note, I find it interesting that it could be argued that the "fact - value" dichotomy is "baked into" type theory in a fundamental way --- specifically, in regards to the two Judging (i.e., decision-making) preferences: Thinking and Feeling, with "Thinking" roughly corresponding with "facts" and Feeling roughly corresponding with "values".
When taking it a step further, and looking at whether those preferences are Extraverted or Introverted, (note how, contrary to popular mischaracterization, it's
not the person-as-a-whole that's extraverted or introverted), you come up with the function-attitudes, (and "attitude" here simply refers to an attentional orientation, whether outwardly or inwardly):
- Introverted Thinking (Ti) --- a general preference for "logical facts" in decision making
- Extraverted Thinking (Te) --- a general preference for "empirical facts" in decision making
- Introverted Feeling (Fi) --- a general preference for "intrapersonal values" in decision making
- Extraverted Feeling (Fe) --- a general preference for "interpersonal values" in decision making
Not to say that one will always use one of these --- just that one typical prefers one over the others. And even then, any "preference" is itself an implicit value judgement.
Furthermore, opposing tendencies are paired together: Ti with Fe, and Te with Fi, with one of those preferences taking predominance over the other. That is, one pair is valued in an absolute sense, but within each pair, one has more relative value than the other. So absolute value vs. relative value is also implicit in type theory.
In theory, change is part-and-parcel of type theory. That is, in the first half of life, there is a differentiation of function-attitudes into opposing tendencies, (e.g., Ti vs Fe), with one preference being conscious, and the other being relegated to the unconscious. Later in life, such opposing tendencies tend toward being reconciled and reintegrated (i.e., individuation).
Lastly, and in relation to Pepper's Four World Hypotheses, this all strikes as being Organicist, which I would consider the polar opposite of the (pernicious) Formism of trait theory. But then, it would seem like type theory is synthetic by definition anyways, since it deals with the person-as-a-whole first, and the parts secondarily, while trait theory is analytic, since it approaches personality primarily as people-as-parts, reflecting more the relative value of analytic thinking over synthetic thinking on the part of trait theorists and "scientific" psychologists in general.
Sincerely,
Jason Bessey