Typology's Paradox: How Classification Can Help and Harm

Explore the paradox of typology in this episode of Beyond Personality Types. Hosts Linda Berens and Olivier Caudron discuss how personality classification systems can both aid and harm personal growth. Learn the importance of viewing personality types holistically, avoiding stereotypes, and fostering empathy. Gain practical tips to navigate these complexities effectively. Ideal for type practitioners and enthusiasts looking to deepen their understanding beyond MBTI™.

Olivier Caudron [00:00:03]:
Have you ever found yourself in a situation where after disclosing someone's style preferences you felt like you were shutting the door on further communication? Hello and thank you for tuning in. In today's episode Linda and I uncover a notion that you might never have thought about Because typology is a classification system it is a paradox. While identifying one's personality is a helpful personal growth insight, it can also be a harmful box. As practitioners and type enthusiasts, it's crucial that we remain mindful of this double edged sword. Understanding the paradox of typology ensures that we approach others with empathy and respect for their unique complexity Throughout our conversation, Linda will provide a comprehensive view of this paradox and explain why understanding pattern theory is so vital. With her insights, you will be equipped to guide others in identifying their core preferences and strengths. More importantly, you'll be able to do so while avoiding the pitfalls of stereotypes and misjudgments. At the end of the episode, I'll share practical tips on how to apply Linda's insights in your practice or discussions about time, empowering you to make a real difference and foster a more understanding and considerate community.

Olivier Caudron [00:01:42]:
Without further ado, let's see how tackling this paradox can help you go beyond personality types.

Linda Berens  [00:01:53]:
The paradox of typology is that it's a classification system that is stable, meaning the pen is a pen. A human being is a human being. If a dog is a dog, chair is a chair. This is the topic related to type doesn't change or does type change. And a good classification system, meaning an accurate one, would mean that it doesn't change. So it's actually not untrue to say I'm a theorist because that's the name of the pattern. It is untrue to say I'm an INTP because that's a shortcut that people don't recognize as a pattern. It stands for a pattern.

Linda Berens  [00:02:38]:
Dario and I named this pattern designer theorizer because that is captured the essence or the theme of the pattern.

Olivier Caudron [00:02:48]:
I'm still struggling with the idea of classification and keeping the pattern and the whole in mind while you are classifying?

Linda Berens  [00:02:58]:
What I think people don't get about it is the patternness. What does a pattern mean? There's an organizing principle to a pattern, and we can look at different aspects of a pattern. If you just said thinking type, that's a very broad category. What does it mean? So you miss the sort of the essence of what's important if you don't look at a broader pattern.

Olivier Caudron [00:03:25]:
So what's what's the difference with someone saying I am a theorist?

Linda Berens  [00:03:31]:
Well, to my knowledge, it's accurate to say I'm a human being. The thing is that classification systems are, in a way, figments of our imagination. It's how we've been taught to think about things. The question is, what's useful? Is it useful to think about I'm a theorist, and how is that more useful than saying I'm an INTP? Well, if we say I'm an INTP, and then we'll say, you're such a p because, you know, you never wanna organize things. Well, that's not true. That's trying to identify something as a pattern that's not a pattern because the j and p don't mean too much accurately. I have all kinds of organization in my head, and that's what p tells me. The way I organize things is more in my head and not in the environment.

Linda Berens  [00:04:16]:
Mhmm. But it also is very limiting because I also can organize things. And if it's supposed to be in closure and openness, there are times there are certain ways I'm pretty close, but they're mostly about the categories in my head, not so much about meeting a deadline. The only time I'm really good at meeting a deadline is when I'm working with someone else or I have to submit something. And so if you and I are working on something and and I say I'm gonna do something, I'll do that. But if I say to myself I'm gonna do something, well, there's always something that means that so because of the categories in my head, I know that that comes in part from extroverted feeling because I have a sense of connection, and I don't wanna break the connection, and I don't wanna let someone down. There's a way in which typologies are dangerous, and there are ways in which they're useful. And you notice that's not a dichotomy.

Linda Berens  [00:05:08]:
Dangerous means they do harm. If I say you're such a catalyst, and that implies that, of course, you don't think or whatever it is. You don't follow rules or you're not spontaneous, but those things aren't true. There's a danger with typology, but it's an accurate label. Is it helpful? Most of the time. I mean, I don't think it's helpful when somebody gets labeled as something they're not or if it's in a derogatory way, however, in the pattern that's there from birth. And if you've not grown up in a an environment that allows that to express, that's a kind of trauma. Having a typology can be very helpful because it releases some of the trauma of being told that you're not okay how you are.

Linda Berens  [00:05:51]:
It's useful also to help people interpersonally to recognize a perspective that somebody's coming from. So, to me, the typology gives us a vocabulary for understanding people's perspectives. And when we understand their perspectives, we can shift our own perspective. We can more consciously ignore their perspective. Because, if we don't pay attention to their perspective, we are going to do harm, potentially. Or something's gonna fail because it was an important perspective that needed to be taken into account. And we might demean someone.

Olivier Caudron [00:06:26]:
In the word typology, there's the meaning of study. In that case, it's constrictive because it's doing the classification in order to understand typology becomes harmful when it is only typing. When someone is stating I'm doing typology, but actually it's using typology in order to put everybody in a box.

Linda Berens  [00:06:50]:
Mhmm. The anthropology definition is it's a division of culture by races. That's dangerous. And at the same time, we know that certain races have certain physical issues like sickle cell anemia. As I understand it, I'm not a student of it. If you have black ancestry, there might be a weakness in your system that needs to be attended to. The classification could be useful, but never when it's so broad that it encompasses value judgments. It's a paradox because if we don't have a name and a way of understanding different typological patterns, then we see those as bad, wrong.

Linda Berens  [00:07:34]:
When we have a way of understanding them as all having value, then we can proceed to self manage and manage our irritation and not being seen as right. We can make that special effort to understand where someone's coming from. The question is, how do you keep typology from being a sword that kills as opposed to a sword that cuts the cord, the ties to the trauma or the ties to negative interactions?

Olivier Caudron [00:08:02]:
So we are back to what I was saying. As soon as we start classifying, we are losing the pattern.

Linda Berens  [00:08:11]:
Not necessarily. We run the risk of ignoring the pattern. For me, the the pattern itself is the classification system. So we have 4 essential motivator patterns. We have 4 interaction style patterns. We have 16 personality type patterns. We have four intentional driver patterns. Those are patterns that have essential qualities and characteristics.

Linda Berens  [00:08:36]:
They have those essential qualities that there's an in a driver, a core driver, or a need that must be met, values that go with it, some behaviors and talents that go with that, and some behaviors. So if we understand the whole type, we understand something more about these essential qualities. If we say I'm an INTP, therefore I don't have feelings for people. Wrong. Because the fact that the feeling preference, which may or may not have anything to do with emotions, by the way, probably not. Mhmm. But the fact that doesn't show up in my type code doesn't mean that I don't do the other.

Olivier Caudron [00:09:15]:
Okay. Yeah. Yeah. That was I was wondering. Okay. Feeling. No. You're right.

Olivier Caudron [00:09:20]:
Yeah. I and t p because of the four letters.

Linda Berens  [00:09:23]:
And for you, with INFJ preferences, that doesn't mean that you don't have a logical bone in your body. You have lots of logical bones just like this argument or this discussion. Well, if this then that, that's logic. Right? The only reason the four letter type code is useful is it gives us a code to understand the pattern, the whole pattern at one level that we could may not be able to access if we don't know about that level. If Jung hadn't talked about those functions in their attitudes, if he had just stuck with extroversion and introversion, that wouldn't be very useful because the categorization system's too broad.

Olivier Caudron [00:10:03]:
Too broad. Yeah.

Linda Berens  [00:10:04]:
And introversion and extroversion, at least in my view and from what I've studied, is not a core principle. It's important, but it's not a core driver of who we are.

Olivier Caudron [00:10:16]:
What do you refer to with, it's not a core principle?

Linda Berens  [00:10:21]:
For example, INTP, theorist. So theorist to me tells me that I have a need for competence and knowledge, and I'm driven constantly to refine that. And if I feel incompetent, then I have stress. Or I could go off track by increasing my competencies to the neglect of the logistics that need to be happening because logistics isn't part of the talent. I may have some skill, but it's not part of the talent. So there are all of these various ways of speaking about the patterns that can help us not put people in boxes, and that's partly because the pattern stays the same. So if we understand the essential qualities of the pattern, then it's the processes that help maintain the pattern that we can understand. Processes? Yeah.

Linda Berens  [00:11:14]:
The processes. So for example, abstract concrete language. Theorist has a preference for abstract language because abstract language is about theories. It's and it's the only language you can use to talk about theories. If you veer from abstract language and go into concrete language, you're now giving an instance which may not be true for all of the things that a theory would address. It doesn't mean that someone with a theorist pattern wouldn't ever use concrete language. Yeah. We have to.

Linda Berens  [00:11:46]:
Is it okay if I take a drink of coffee now? It's a drink. It's a cup of coffee. That's concrete language. The thing is you can't take the part for the whole, and parts are static. I have a bone that's a part of me. Now it will grow and it will develop a bit, but that bone doesn't transfer to skin. It doesn't become skin. So we can talk about the parts of the system, but the part is never the whole.

Linda Berens  [00:12:10]:
I'm way more than my bone and skin. Even if I just looked at my physical body, I'm way more than my bone and skin. The reason I use INTP, for example, or the four letter type code, because so many people speak that language. I would identify myself as a behind the scenes theorist with catalyst rising.

Olivier Caudron [00:12:29]:
Someone can come with INTP with the same conviction that INTP is a pattern. Someone studying the MBTI approach, knowing what is behind each letter in the code will have whole vision of each type.

Linda Berens  [00:12:49]:
There are some people who think more holistically and the way you get to think more holistically about the pattern, about what that type pattern is by having lots of experiences with people of that pattern. You don't come to understand what the essence of the pattern is by describing introversion, intuiting, thinking, and receiving. And that's what most people think of when they say the 4 letter code. They don't yet have the grasp of the whole theme. The saying, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, is true. So while you can look at our little themes, I don't know, like 12 little phrases, so for me it's becoming an expert, seeing new patterns and elegant connections, talent for design and redesign, notice the redesign part, you know, that's just some of them. That was just to give people a little short glimpse. And when I work with people, I usually list ask lots of questions.

Linda Berens  [00:13:52]:
I'm listening for a lot of patterns. I'm listening for whole type. I'm listening for essential motivators. I'm listening for, you know, interaction styles. Sometimes I can see that or hear it. Sometimes I can see intentional drivers. Sometimes what comes across is one of the eight functions, but most of the time there are these different patterns. So when I listen for those and I ask people to read 1 or 2 of these little themes, people will go, oh my god, that fits me.

Linda Berens  [00:14:20]:
Sometimes people have spent a lot of time looking at the parts and they can't figure out what their fit is. I ask them to read those little descriptions and that helps them figure out their pattern. If you never try on the sole of the shoe and you walk around in the shoe for a while before you some people do.

Olivier Caudron [00:14:38]:
Mhmm.

Linda Berens  [00:14:39]:
Depends upon how much money you have and how much you're willing to throw away.

Olivier Caudron [00:14:43]:
Let's say that even in in the shoe store, you try on the shoe and you walk a little bit with it to to check if it's, if Yeah. They fit. They're not forced to walk a long journey to realize if it's a shoe is a good fit or not.

Linda Berens  [00:14:59]:
If it isn't comfortable, you either put it in the closet, you throw it away, or you return it. That's really the discovery process in a nutshell.

Olivier Caudron [00:15:10]:
But back to the paradox of typology, genders is a good example. If we stay in the classification of male, female, it's the same as telling someone is INTP and just defining that person through the letters without taking into account that a male, it's not only because of the genitals, but, also for preference because of some genetics, but also the psychology. We have to take into account so many points if we want to respect the person. That's the idea. Normally with typology is to study in order to understand and respect the person.

Linda Berens  [00:15:59]:
Yeah. What is harmful, I think, is if you only look at INTP as thinking, regardless of whether it's an introverted or extroverted, then you have an expectation that person's cold and not friendly. Maybe 20% of the time that might be true for me. I'm not necessarily warm because I'm my mind's occupied doing other things. And then if you saw me in another situation, you might really see me as quite different. I often say in the class that David Keirsey, who was my professor and my mentor for years, he said you're an INFP. And I said, why? He said, you're not tough enough to be an INTP. I'm the one that knows.

Linda Berens  [00:16:45]:
And when I read INFP, a lot of it fits me. But when I look at who I really am, that doesn't fit me. He's really only looking at temperament for one thing, and he he was. I don't he didn't look at the 8 functions. He didn't like that model. Mhmm. He thought it was parts. And the way it was used, it was parts.

Linda Berens  [00:17:04]:
So that makes sense to me. But when he's talking about INTP, he's thinking theorist. He's also thinking about himself and the other people he's known and he's also thinking about male theorist and he doesn't really understand, did not really understand the nuances of what someone with INTP preferences looks like when they're a woman and a mother and a psychologist.

Olivier Caudron [00:17:30]:
Those are the limits of classification.

Linda Berens  [00:17:34]:
Yes.

Olivier Caudron [00:17:34]:
What you just said.

Linda Berens  [00:17:35]:
Plus, he didn't know type development. So he didn't know that I'm actually wired to develop extroverted feeling. I'm wired to do that.

Olivier Caudron [00:17:47]:
There's something that I don't understand about David Keirsey when you said that he was using 4 letter code for someone who came with the model of temperaments to reduce that model into a part. You just said that for him, it was taking into account all the elements for a Theorist, but as soon as he told you you are not an INTP, you are more INFP, he was not telling you directly, I don't see you as a a theorist, but more as an idealist.

Linda Berens  [00:18:19]:
Yeah. That's what I think he was seeing. And I think in that sense, he's seeing my life purpose. He's seeing my training. He's seeing all kinds of or was seeing all kinds of things. And then there's another piece. He studied all of these great thinkers, Kretschmer and Paracelsus, and he'd looked at all of those things. He said he didn't develop the theory.

Linda Berens  [00:18:42]:
He was just a fitter, meaning he fit all of those things together. Then he came across the Myers Briggs, and the description that Isabel Myers had written for INTP fit him so perfectly. He was then linked with the type community. It was just at the beginning of the formation of the Association For Psychological Type, and he was there when it was founded. It just Myers Briggs language then became part of his language. But much like me, what he would see and observe and listen for is temperament. And then because he had that other language, he tied it up. I would love to have him here with having this conversation, but he wasn't too open to it.

Linda Berens  [00:19:25]:
And that wasn't his job. His job was to see all of these things that related to these four patterns.

Olivier Caudron [00:19:32]:
He wanted to help the humanity, let's say, and yet is comment to you was very harmful.

Linda Berens  [00:19:39]:
Could have been, I don't, I think I had enough ego strength. Maybe it disrupted our relationship with them.

Olivier Caudron [00:19:44]:
Yeah. Maybe that motivated you to prove that you are a theorist behind the scene. For me, that's a good example that we can't say someone who is not.

Linda Berens  [00:19:56]:
Yeah. And I never unpacked that with him. So if I had unpacked it, I might have gotten to something deeper. Now he may have said, I think you're an INFP. He may have said, I see you as an INFP. I can't remember the words he used, but it's that difference, really a big difference. Because if you say you're an ESTJ, Olivier, if I said that to you, then I'm the expert and I've labeled you.

Olivier Caudron [00:20:20]:
Mhmm.

Linda Berens  [00:20:21]:
If I said to you, gee, you are so good at logistics. You must have a preference for ESTJ, or I could even say, I see you as this. Or I would say to you, try this on and see how it fits. That's back to how to deal with the paradox of typology. At least in Western culture, and I can't speak to how it shows up other places, in the US, we love to classify, and we love to name things, and we love to put things in boxes. And it's useful to do that, but it's not useful to do that with a human.

Olivier Caudron [00:20:56]:
Why not?

Linda Berens  [00:20:57]:
Why not? Well, because if I'm the expert and I say to you this, you might go around trying to live your life like that. Go off and train change your profession. Say, oh, yeah. Maybe I should be a, I don't know, a bookkeeper. For me, my first conversation back to David was I had them took the Myers Briggs after he taught the pathology classes and I talked to him and I said, really? I don't think I can be a good counselor. I had some stereotypes. To be good counselors were extroverts and you would have an f in their type code or whatever. And he proceeded to tell me about the people he knew who were the best school counselors, who had NT preferences, who were theorist.

Olivier Caudron [00:21:45]:
With the conversation we just had, we should talk about personality preferences rather than personality types. As you said, classification is useful. That's sure, but it's not good for humans.

Linda Berens  [00:22:00]:
They might even be good for dogs.

Olivier Caudron [00:22:02]:
Well, not even because the breed mix.

Linda Berens  [00:22:05]:
Yeah. And they have their own little personalities.

Olivier Caudron [00:22:09]:
Classification needs to be sure to identify even a tree, because I know you love trees. Each tree, each oak tree is different from the other, even though it's a oak tree. But the shape, how it reacts with the soil, you know, the underground is, affecting them. So yes, the classification helps me to identify an oak tree from, an apple tree, an apple tree, but that doesn't give me all the information about that specific tree.

Linda Berens  [00:22:41]:
But it does tell you some things about what that tree needs to survive.

Olivier Caudron [00:22:45]:
Correct.

Linda Berens  [00:22:46]:
So that's back to why typology makes a difference because it gives us something important about our essence that we may need to

Olivier Caudron [00:22:57]:
know. Mhmm.

Linda Berens  [00:22:57]:
And when we're little kids, we don't have much control. As we get older, when we have that knowledge, we can say I'm a this, I'm a that, and that's probably not the language to use. Some of the paradox of typology or the dangers in it is that the descriptions can be so overly negative, overly positive, unrealistic, stereotypic that they can do harm. And that's the problem I see with the overuse of typologies. Not basing the descriptions on a wide pool of people, having the descriptions based on E plus N plus T plus J. You know, it's a parts based description. It really misses that whole theme back to the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

Olivier Caudron [00:23:49]:
Let's see now how can being aware of the type paradox help you in your practice. Well, that paradox awareness should allow you to expand the nuances of how you and others talk about type. I suggest 4 exercises to help you make something out of this episode. The first one, reflect and note which one, INTP or designer theorizer, is more useful to say if you want to help someone. The second exercise. List all the elements you can think of that make Typology a sword that hurts. Then, list all the elements that make Typology a sword that cuts the ties to trauma or negative interactions. The third exercise.

Olivier Caudron [00:24:39]:
Consider one of the 16 type patterns. For instance, INTP. List all you know and think about this pattern. Then identify what in your list is a bias, a judgment or a label you put on it. Do the same with your type preferences and write down every label and bias that tend to reduce who you are. The 4th exercise. Train yourself to have a more holistic view of each of the 16 type patterns. Start with your type preferences and gather as much as information as possible beyond the Myers Briggs Type Indicators descriptions.

Olivier Caudron [00:25:22]:
Read about your essential motivator, culture, cognitive functions, archetypes, etcetera. By engaging in these exercises, you can transform your understanding of the type classification system and learn how to navigate it more effectively. To learn more about the Interstrengths lenses, essential motivators, interaction styles, cognitive dynamics and intentional drivers, visit interstrengths.org. To procure yourself with the Understanding Yourself and Others series booklets, visit interstrength.org/shop.