The Dangers of Nominalizing

"What's nominalizing?" you may ask.

nom•i•nal•ize (past and past participle nom•i•nal•ized, present participle nom•i•nal•iz•ing, 3rd person present singular nom•i•nal•iz•es) transitive verb
Definition:
1. form noun from word: to change a part of speech into a noun by the addition of a suffix

Now to the more important question: why would anyone discourage nominalizing about type? What’s the big deal?

In a nutshell, it alters the psychological type model from being a theory of preferences into something rigid and dogmatic. It treats people as "things" (nouns) instead of whole beings capable of great versatility (verbs).

All of the cognitive processes/functions/consciousnesses/complexes/archetypes (these are interchangeable terms, by the way) are best expressed as verbs. They are things we DO -- not things we ARE. In a way, they represent choices we can make.

So take, for example, iNtuition. When we access our iNtuition, we are iNtuiting. It is an active verb. When we nominalize that word, it becomes "intuitive." So to say we're "intuitives" removes us from the active-ness of the verb. It makes it a "thing" rather than an "action." It makes us a "thing" rather than a "doer."

How many times have you met someone who boasted they were an "intuitive," and they didn't have a clue what that really meant? If you asked them for an example of what that looks like for them, they probably couldn't tell you. It's a meaningless concept they got hold of. They don't know iNtuiting as a verb, an active process. They don't know how they access it, or how it works for them. All they know is that some "test" told them they were "intuitive," and now they're going to crow about it. (They may be using it to put down people who aren't that "thing.")

Now, I have a friend with ISFP preferences. Her name is Sarah. I submit to you that, while Sarah has a preference for Sensing, in fact she iNtuits quite effectively.

So if I label her a "Sensor" to distinguish her from my being an "iNtuitive," the implications seems to be that she is incapable of accessing iNtuition. And nothing could be further from the truth!

In fact, because iNtuiting is her Tertiary process, it can become quite inflated at times. I daresay there are times her iNtuiting looks more impressive than mine, and it's my favorite process!

So the problem with nominalizing psychological type terms is that it gives the impression we cannot all access and use all eight processes. Instead, we have Thinkers and Feelers, Judgers and Perceivers, Introverts and Extraverts. And that does not align with a model of preferences. Then we have people walking around labeling people "intuitives" and "sensors" like it's some variation of that "blue-eyed" and "brown-eyed" classroom experiment -- as if the room can be divided along these simplistic arbitrary lines. (Ouf, I'm certain Jung would not like that!)

Because of this kind of rigid categorization, there are now companies (and of course individuals) who refuse to work with this model any more (some of them very high profile!). They have found it creates more negative stereotype than it offsets. So there are negative consequences for speaking about the type patterns in this fashion. The model becomes restrictive rather than empowering. Our range of choices seem limiting, not freeing.

As neuro-linguistic experts know, the way we speak shapes the way we think. So take care to use terminology that represent the model the way it was intended to be used.