- Type: NeTi
- Development: ll-l
- Attitude: Adaptive
I find myself (and others) making these kinds of macro groupings all the time, even though I’m unsure if it’s even correct or ethical to do so.
Mm. Generalized thinking along typological lines is something I used to engage in quite a bit, but the more I looked at the thoughts and tried to find where they were leading, the more I realized they were just leading me in circles, and often with a negative slant to them. This was primarily when I was younger and stereotyping based on MBTI, but I have definitely caught myself more than once trying to generalize with CT-based knowledge and finding the same problem: I simply didn’t know enough specifics to justify the generalizing, and so it was intellectually and ethically the wrong choice for me to continue doing it. I’m not saying that thinking in broader categories doesn’t have merit, because it can be extremely useful at times, just that for me it was often a hindrance to a more beneficial and substantive understanding of differing psychologies. The more I learn in any field, the more I realize how easily falsifiable my generalizations tend(ed) to be.
Having said all that, there are certain broad patterns that do appear pretty clearly to me, i.e. Japan having a culture dominated by the Fe-Ti axis. But even then it’s difficult to know precisely what to do with that information, besides just logging it and other likely aspects of Japanese culture that may have spiderwebbed from that foundation.