Concerned about the ethics of personality typology?
Spiral Shower 8.16.22
Are you concerned about the ethics of personality typology? You’re not alone. As someone who’s been interested in Jung’s theory of psychological types for about a decade now, I’ve seen the good, the bad, and the ugly when it comes to how this tool is used.
Just like any tool, how you use it matters. You can use a knife to chop an onion, or to stab someone, depending on the how and why behind the tool. The same goes for Jung’s theory of psychological types.
In the world of online forums and social media, I’ve noticed some themes regarding how people come and go from “the type community.” Often, people are really excited to engage in conversations about personality type so they can learn more about themselves and their loved ones. However, it isn’t long until you’re likely to come across a nasty stereotype that may leave a bad taste in your mouth.
In my experience, is far too often that people dramatically leave “the type community” — whether that be Twitter, Facebook groups, Discord, or another platform — due to its “toxicity.” I think that most of us can agree that the core theory itself is not toxic, but it’s how we use the tool that can become a problem. Unproductive debates, dehumanization, and assumptions are far too common in the culture of online typology communities, in my opinion.
Many people who are initially excited about type might come to find that the interactions they have within the type community may leave them with an unsettling feeling.
In my opinion, the main issue is an overall culture of dehumanization. Here are the main reasons for this.
The nature of online algorithms leaves a sense of detachment from humanity. It is far too easy for people to forget that they are talking to a real person behind the screen. People will often say things online that they would never say to a person’s face.
When talking about type, it is far too easy for people to talk to an individual as a type, rather than as a whole person. Remember, a personality type is an ego pattern — not the Self.
Online and off, stereotyping is a major ethical problem when it comes to talking about personality type theory. But the combination of these two forces above can create the perfect storm of dehumanization (or even cruelty) within online conversations.
The main question I am asking myself here is this: How can we get a better grasp of the why and the how behind the tool of personality type, so that we can improve our use of this tool, yielding more beneficial outcomes?
I don’t have all of the answers for this, but I have been volunteering with the Association for Psychological Type International (APTi) to chat with leaders in the type world. I’ve been wanting to get a better understanding of how the veterans manage these ethical problems. I’ve also been wanting to contribute to facilitating the flow of information across the different generations within the personality typology community.
On that note, I want to let you all know of an opportunity coming up.
Tomorrow (Wednesday, August 17th), APTi is hosting an online author roundtable where you can ask questions and share concerns about type ethics.
I’ll be there facilitating the roundtable, with special guest Karen Keefer, MA. Karen has been using type in a variety of settings for over 35 years. She recently wrote an article about her concerns about the ethics of personality type that is worth checking out. I will be commenting on some quotes from the article later on in this post.
The roundtable event is free for members of APTi, or $20 for nonmembers. I understand that the event is tomorrow and I am sharing this with you last minute. I am not 100% sure of the details yet, but there very well might be an opportunity to get access to the recording later on. I also may be able to get a deal for people I refer, particularly if you of a younger generation.
Whether you can attend or not, I’d love to know your ethical concerns. Please feel free to ask questions or add your comments below. Also, if you have any questions about APTi, comment here and I can get you any information you need.
According to Karen Keefer, “real harm is done” when type concepts are oversimplified and when people are unaware of their bias. I am glad that she framed it in this way in her article, and I completely agree. Although it may seem like splitting hairs to be overly particular about how we are talking about type, oversimplification really does cause harm in this case.
I want to take another moment to underscore the implications of this. Oversimplification of these concepts —> cause harm.
That seems straightforward enough. However, it is important to note, because when people in online type communities take the time to correct others about the information they are sharing about any given personality type or function, there are ethical reasons to do this that have nothing to do with just wanting to be a know it all.
I’d also like to underscore that being unaware of biases —> leads to harm.
This is why I am always beating my dead horse about individuation and the shadow functions. While I understand the desire to want to simplify type and discuss just the basics first, I do think that if people are only identifying with and familiar with their top two ego functions, there is an inherent issue. If people are unaware of their shadows, how will they be able to react appropriately or ethically when they meet their shadows in the form of another person of a different type?
There are two specific concerns that Karen mentioned that I’d like to highlight.
“Unfounded speculation about links between type and behavior can become ‘common knowledge,’ leading to widespread misunderstandings and misperceptions.”— Karen Keefer, MA
It is important to remember that Jung’s theory of psychological types is cognitive-based, not behavioral or trait-based. We should be careful to not associate behavior with type for any reason, no matter how tempting this may be. In my opinion, the only correct way to make behavioral links with type would be in the context of an individual reflecting on their own type pattern and their story. It is possible to see your own behavior as potential manifestations of your type pattern. However, these links are not directly causal.
For example, I as an ENFJ may notice that my inability to set boundaries with others might be somehow linked to my dominant extroverted feeling. However, that does not mean that extroverted feeling = struggle to set boundaries. Not every individual who values that function will have behavior that manifests in the exact same way as me, because I am my own unique person — and so are you.
“The ‘common understanding’ of type becomes based on stereotypes, and biased so that some types seem to be better than others.”— Karen Keefer, MA
Even though it is said that each of the 16 types are created equal, how we talk about this matters. As an ENFJ myself, I have had experiences where I have felt like people were talking to me as though I couldn’t possibly be an intellectual or intelligent, because I am not a thinking type. These stereotypes can become so strong that they become tough to crack. People see individuals through the lens of this common understanding of what that type means, and then are unable to see them properly.
One time I decided to do an experiment where I made a Twitter account that was an INTP just to see if people would treat me differently. It didn’t last long, but I will tell you that the amount of intellectual respect that is given to a supposed INTP man compared to an ENFJ woman is felt!
As another example, I have known of a couple of ESFJs who had struggled to find their best fit type because they did not relate to patronizing ESFJ stereotypes. These stereotypes aren’t just annoying, they prevent people from self-discovery and finding their best fit.
I could go on and on about typology and ethics, but I think that is enough for today. I hope to see some of you at the Author Roundtable. Please leave any comments and concerns you have here below.