Quote:
Originally Posted by sarah
Typelogic? That site is so full of contextual examples of behavior. If someone who cares about precision and accuracy wants to write descriptions of each type, then they need to fit everyone of that type, not just a few romantic examples that are dreamed up as being "typical." Don't you think so?
Looking at the ISFP description, very few people who aren't "wandering star" neo-hippies are going to relate to a portrait that paints all ISFPs as being that way. If people dismiss descriptions because the details don't fit (as people who prefer Sensing generally do), then they not only can't really benefit much from type theory, but they end up confusing other people by talking about their mistyped preferences.
No offense, seeing as how you like that site, but nobody I know who prefers Sensing fits the descriptions on that website. It's Just Not Helpful.
Sarah
ISFP
|
I read the typelogic description when we did a "Knowing Yourself" week in Africa; I immediately identified with it incredibly deeply.
After I started researching when I got home, I grew to see it as sketchy--I'm always nervous someone will google this when I talk about my type as an INTJ and think things about me that aren't true. And I too am wary to send any xSxx type to read those descriptions--they really suck. Have you read the ISTJ version?! Gah.