For today’s post I have decided to use an excerpt from a post I read on a forum elsewhere. You will see how it undoubtedly drives home the fact that the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) is an extremely valid, useful tool in understanding human behavior and personality types in today’s modern world as opposed to those other dust-covered, subjective-based and observation-based theories.
Ever thought of creating your own personality type theory?*
the mbti is over 80 years old, and maybe it was more useful for describing how people were back then than it is now… cultures change so surely some of those type descriptions are no longer relevant. also, a lot of progress has been made into the study of human behavior since the 1930’s, and if the authors of the MBTI were alive today they’d probably revise the theory themselves.
what you know about people could be quite insightful. i was thinking about this today… how even on this forum, one infj is as distinctive from another infj as two people of opposite types are. you wouldn’t confuse (and i’m sorry for calling people out like this!) siamese cat, an infj, with ria, also an infj. and likewise i couldn’t see either being confused with enfp_can_be_shy, an enfp.
and let’s not forget the many, many threads here about people wondering if they’re really their type. maybe it’s not that you haven’t found your true type, maybe the theory itself is flawed, and can’t accurately categorize every one of 6 billion people into 16 neat little groups. the people who came up with the MBTI did not test everyone, obviously, and therefore their conclusions are definitely going to be biased towards the few people they met/tested. what if there was no one that fit your type in the test group? what if, of the say 100 people they tested when coming up the theory, there weren’t any infj’s, would the category of infj even exist? no. but infjs obviously still would, only they wouldn’t have been recognized as a distinctive type. maybe the same thing is true of people who fall half way between introvert and extrovert, sensor or feeler, etc. possibly there are additional categories which need to be added to the MBTI to make it more accurate, or maybe these labels need to be scrapped altogether and a totally new definition proposed. say “introvert” and “extrovert” are too simple to describe how people actually are, for instance, since there are times in all our lives where we are extroverted, and likewise when we want to be alone. those times when you’re not acting true to your type, ARE you not that type?
What more can I say? The author’s references to the biased conclusions made about personality types by the MBTI pretty much blow the whole theory out the window. There can absolutely not be a plausible theory that is subjective.
Regarding the “half way between” (types) is, in fact, one of the premises of the Wakefield Doctrine. That is to say, we are all born with qualities of all three personality types. It is the predominance of characteristics that determine which of the three types we are.
The point is that there is undeniably a need for a new personality type theory that is applicable in today’s modern world. Not from decades ago. And this new personality type theory is (drum roll please….) the Wakefield Doctrine!!
It is accessible, relatable, understandable, useful (shall I go on?). And it is based on perception thus making it free of subjectivity. Bottom line: we understand why people behave the way they do. And we know that you want to also. Who wouldn’t? “Why is my boss such an asshole?” “Why is she always the center of attention around guys?” and so on.
So get your asses over there and in no time you’ll have your frickin’ ah-ha eureka moment that you’ve been waiting for. And if you don’t believe me or are not even curious about the Doctrine then I don’t know what the hell planet you’re from.
*Elicity on infjs forums