Tell-Tale Signs of the Types

[Usehername]

Am I the only one who that divides up personalities into sub factors and measures each trait? It seems like most generalise to a particular type, or some hybird of the two, with the emphasis on finding a "type".

(ie: I measure I/E, T/F, N/S, J/P by observing actions and adding ticks next to each side, then combine them into a sub-trait scores, which when strong enough, indicates an overall trait (ie: I+/E- score))

I do this too, I'm just more wrong than my temperament method IMO, so I don't do it with people I don't know well.

 

[ygolo]

A desire to socialize is something of E, but the desire and having social skills are totally different.

Social skills are something an S, and particularly SF, tends to have more of. It's easier for them to fit in.

An N, on the other hand, may wish to socialize, but they are often less effective. And since their behavior is less mainstream, they have greater risk of becoming alienated, because an S-dominated world perceives the N's unconventional behavior as obnoxious. Individualistic behavior is often considered anti-social or non-social.

There are some who consider unconventional behavior as obnoxious. I say screw them!

But usually I have found that unconventional behavior comes only as a shock or surprise, not as something obnoxious. Although, I still sometimes feel like most people think my behavior is unacceptable, I realize that most just think it's strange.

Some people actually chose to hang out with strange people, because they tend to be more tolerant of other strange people....and there is no such thing as normal.

 

[ygolo]

Am I the only one who that divides up personalities into sub factors and measures each trait? It seems like most generalise to a particular type, or some hybird of the two, with the emphasis on finding a "type".

(ie: I measure I/E, T/F, N/S, J/P by observing actions and adding ticks next to each side, then combine them into a sub-trait scores, which when strong enough, indicates an overall trait (ie: I+/E- score))

It seems like you are trying to mentally run the tests and I thought even the pros. say that the tests usually get one letter wrong-- Hence the charge by critics of being just a form of cold-reading. I don't think any test has passed a double-blind application for consistency (If that's changed. Please, let me know).

I find that using multiple models and cross-checking is working better than most things I've tried (not that I've had much luck in general).

Looking for clear preferences seem like they get only one letter for me, usually E/I, and that's if I see people in many contexts. Even then, I find that some I would type as Es (especially EFJs) actually get very quiet in 1:1 situations (with me), then I get confused, are they just acting as extroverts, or have I shut down the stimulus that they need to keep their energy high.

The way I nailed down my own type was Temperament+Interaction Style. Plus I was very sure I was an I, an somewhat sure I was a P.

I sometimes find the motive/structure distinction useful for distinguishing technical SPs and NFs from technical NTs and SJs, since they tend to have the ability to move to pretty much any level along the abstract to concrete scale. The N/S distinction is essentially useless in the circles I hang out in.

Similarly, in a corporate environment, it seems like the type of complaints I hear from people regarding the organization, "not enough freedom" vs. "not enough direction", is helpful in distinguishing NF/SJs from NT/SPs (though this has to be weighed against how much chaos or oppression is apparent).

Still looking into some peoples cubes can potentially give a clear P vs J impression (usually just shows a clear P). Then, if this is confirmed by their scheduled vs. probing styles, that is another clue.

Some one you wants a lot of direction, likes things scheduled, and tends to ignore motive in structuring people gives me a strong SJ vibe, thought she could be an NTJ also (but the wanting a lot of direction part, I think, makes it less likely).

Someone who wants the freedom to act in the moment to make an impact, is very probing, has a messy room/cube/car, and very motive focused I would guess as SP, though could be an NP or even INJ. But then I could look at interaction style and the T/F preference to get more evidence.

I think you get the idea. Sorry, I am being long winded again.

 

[The Ü™]

There are some who consider unconventional behavior as obnoxious. I say screw them!

But usually I have found that unconventional behavior comes only as a shock or surprise, not as something obnoxious. Although, I still sometimes feel like most people think my behavior is unacceptable, I realize that most just think it's strange.

Some people actually chose to hang out with strange people, because they tend to be more tolerant of other strange people....and there is no such thing as normal.

ENxPs tend to be quirky, INxJs tend to be stubbornly rebellious, because they are both dominant N's.

 

[ygolo]

ENxPs tend to be quirky, INxJs tend to be stubbornly rebellious, because they are both dominant N's.

Some people like outspoken individuals. Life is more interesting with these types around.

 

[The Ü™]

Some people like outspoken individuals.

And some people don't...particularly SJs.

 

[ygolo]

And some people don't...particularly SJs.

I know some ISTJs and even an ESTJ that does. The ESTJ is very traditional himself, but acts like a side kick to an INTP.

 

[ptgatsby]

It seems like you are trying to mentally run the tests and I thought even the pros. say that the tests usually get one letter wrong-- Hence the charge by critics of being just a form of cold-reading. I don't think any test has passed a double-blind application for consistency (If that's changed. Please, let me know).

Absolutely. However, I don't see that are relevent if one intends to attempt to type. The question of "if I am doing this, why do I do it (x) way" is best answered by behaviour intentories. It helps that I think typing people is a waste of time, of course, since I'm very much a behaviouralist. That's all I really care about and inventoring past reactions is far more effective at predicting future behaviour. Same reason I care about the biological link - it is the base way of knowing that is connected so that reactions of one type can predict another reaction that isn't obvious. No biological background, no value to identifying the "type".

I guess that's what I was really asking. Why "type" people in boxes at all?

I find that using multiple models and cross-checking is working better than most things I've tried (not that I've had much luck in general).

Yup, I have my own internal model that I translate when people ask.

 

[cafe]

ENxPs tend to be quirky, INxJs tend to be stubbornly rebellious, because they are both dominant N's.

I am rarely rebellious. I don't like to be. I'd rather be a suck up and will be if circumstances allow. I usually only get rebellious if something is violating my values (a perceived gross injustice, for instance) or I'm being protective and I would rather none of that ever happened so it could be all harmonious and stuff.

 

[ygolo]

Absolutely. However, I don't see that are relevent if one intends to attempt to type. The question of "if I am doing this, why do I do it (x) way" is best answered by behaviour intentories. It helps that I think typing people is a waste of time, of course, since I'm very much a behaviouralist. That's all I really care about and inventoring past reactions is far more effective at predicting future behaviour. Same reason I care about the biological link - it is the base way of knowing that is connected so that reactions of one type can predict another reaction that isn't obvious. No biological background, no value to identifying the "type".

Oh. Well, we can notice people's habits without the aid of MBTI (or other inventories). I know a guy at work who almost always comes in later than everyone else (he also almost always stays latter than everyone else). He generally gets a pop-tart at breakfast time. He usually drinks a fat-free Milk Chung at lunch time.

People have particular events they participate in on regular days of the week. There is basketball night, ball-room dancing night, Chinese class night, a regular meeting of a chess club, etc.

You can tell if certain women are stressed if they aren't wearing making despite the fact that they usually do.

I think most people are noticing patterns in behavior (though some a lot better than others). I had a friend in college (ISTJ, I'm pretty sure), who was a regular Sherlock Holmes.

As for the value of "typing" people. I am not sure myself. It seems like you put in as much into making those models work as you get out from the models (so i becomes a simple short hand). So far, I agree with you, but I am not well-practiced, so there may be some benefit.

 

[Wolf]

Well, so far, online:
ISTJ - Perpetual inane thread generation.
INTP - Vague open-ended comments that are usually humorous. They may be inconsistent posters that appear and disappear unless the subject is notably interesting to them. Very passive.
INTJ - Expounds on an area of interest if someone accidentally stumbles over one...like land mines. They might also argue just to ruffle the feathers of types that are easy to ruffle.
ISTP - Will usually claim to be (or possibly even believe they are) an INTP because they get no respect otherwise, but can't hack the intellectualism and resort to being tin despots and annoying the hell out of the real rationals. How can you tell the difference? ISTPs are on way more than INTPs and the content of their average post will be vacuous chit-chat.
INFJ - Will try to understand all sides and smooth things out.
INFP - Makes an effort to be uplifting, and generally has strong views of how things should be to make everyone happy all the time.
ENTP - Will blather endlessly about their lives and loves, because nobody actually cares in person. They are much funnier in person than they are online.
ENFP - Bursts in, everyone loves the comments and goes wild, then they disappear. They do the same thing in meatspace.
ENFJ - Thinks they can smooth things over, but loves to argue with rationals in spite of complete inadequacy for the task. Almost invariably resorts to create straw men in an attempt to fight these much-hated rational opponents.
ESXX - Almost never post or IM, but you will find them on all the hip social networking sites like MySpace, Livejournal, Xanga, etc.
ISFX - Obvious because they are completely and hopelessly unable to follow a conversation or logical comment the first time. Expect them to respond with a totally off-the-wall comment about hurt feelings based on a misunderstanding when you were discussing something completely different. They do the exact same thing in person, making communication exceptionally difficult and unrewarding. I avoid them, including my mother.
ENTJ - Insufficient data.

 

[Recluse]

INTP - Vague open-ended comments that are usually humorous, somewhat inconsistent. Very passive.

Vague? Precisely how so? Somewhat inconsistent? No! Well, okay, perhaps on occasion. But on second thought, no! Very passive? Not an INTP! Just look at all the great things we hope to accomplish!

INTJ - Expounds on an area of interest if someone accidentally stumbles over one...like land mines. They might also argue just to ruffle the feathers of types that are easy to ruffle.

Perhaps someone needs to be engaged in another Food Fight, to relieve those feather-ruffling urges.

 

[meanlittlechimp]

I wonder if this is an extroverted way of typing. I agree with you. My readings of what type people are are drawn from body movements and how language is used, how people describe things, and responses/reactions in pivotal situations. Typing from work or school is THE WORST way to type people. If you do type, get them out of either setting to see how they really act. I've been shocked by some of my coworker's behavior at happy hour. It's really hard to explain, and something you have to a sizable amount of people to draw consistent conclusions from.

Yes, the biggest mistakes I made in typing early on is only observing/interacting with them ONLY at work or ONLY at play. My ENTJ friend when I first getting to know him, I typed as INFP because whenever I saw him (after work) he was ALWAYS stoned, buzzed and relaxed. When I saw him visited him at work one day, I was shocked by how wrong I was about him. Some introverts act very extroverted at work and vice versa.

People that only type by some theoretical framework from the literature often type people wrong because they oversimplify the theory or look at a function instead of the bigger picture. Just because one mostly acts introverted people often infer he can't be an ENTP - when many ENTPs actually are fairly introverted. You have to focus on more the essence that makes them tick, instead of just functions and bullet points on the mbti literature.

Also, I think some of the type descriptions are subtlely wrong, many descriptions make ISTPs out to blue collar mechanic/plumber daredevils - which is very misleading.

 

[htb]

many descriptions make ISTPs out to blue collar mechanic/plumber daredevils - which is very misleading.

I disagree, based on observation. But for aberrations that occur with exceptionally high intelligence, ISTPs conform to the archetype.

Incidentally, what are you saying about the Mario Brothers?

 

[Wolf]

Vague? Precisely how so? Somewhat inconsistent? No! Well, okay, perhaps on occasion. But on second thought, no! Very passive? Not an INTP! Just look at all the great things we hope to accomplish!

Sorry, I cleared it up some.
Vague - They expect you to be bright and intuitive enough to understand what they're talking about, but if you don't, they are mighty confusing.
Inconsistent - See above. I shouldn't have wrote that so fast and took off. They won't be perpetually around on a site unless they are interested in the subject, and even then they may disappear at any moment without saying anything. INTJs may do this, too, but a lot less than INTPs.
Passive - I stand by this. Even when on the offense, they're pretty passive, benign, etc. They'll feel things they won't/can't express.

 

[ygolo]

Well, so far, online:
ISTP - Will usually claim to be (or possibly even believe they are) an INTP because they get no respect otherwise, but can't hack the intellectualism and resort to being tin despots and annoying the hell out of the real rationals. How can you tell the difference? ISTPs are on way more than INTPs and the content of their average post will be vacuous chit-chat.

Hmmmm... I resemble that remark.

But these also...

Well, so far, online:
ISTJ - Perpetual inane thread generation.
INTP - Vague open-ended comments that are usually humorous. They may be inconsistent posters that appear and disappear unless the subject is notably interesting to them. Very passive.
INTJ - Expounds on an area of interest if someone accidentally stumbles over one...like land mines. [...]
[...]
INFJ - Will try to understand all sides and smooth things out.
INFP - Makes an effort to be uplifting, and generally has strong views of how things should be to make everyone happy all the time.
ENTP - Will blather endlessly about their lives and loves, because nobody actually cares in person. They are much funnier in person than they are online.
[...]

 

[meanlittlechimp]

I disagree, based on observation. But for aberrations that occur with exceptionally high intelligence, ISTPs conform to the archetype.

Incidentally, what are you saying about the Mario Brothers?

I don't think it's an aberration. ISTPs to me aren't daredevils, they might appear that way to Keirsey, because as an INTP, a lot of types seem like daredevils. But when an ESTP, ENTP or some of the other types view ISTPs - daredevil and risktaker is not what come to mind. Compared to the other introverts yes. But that's the problem, reference point.

Most ISTPs who I get to read their descriptions disagree with the daredevil and risk taking aspect. Also, I would say more engineers are ISTP than INTP, and when an ISTP who is a programmer or electrical engineer reads the description they mistype themselves as an INTP.

The description of artisans in general as hedonists is another thing that I disagree with. Most ENFPs, and ENTPs I know are more hedonistic than every single ISTP I have ever known or come across.

The idea of N as smart and theoretical while S is less sophisticated also leads to mistyping. I tend to have more logical and rational discussions with the ISTPs I know, over most ENFJs, ENFPs and even many ENTJs and ENTPs I come across.

 

[ptgatsby]

The idea of N as smart and theoretical while S is less sophisticated also leads to mistyping. I tend to have more logical and rational discussions with the ISTPs I know, over most ENFJs, ENFPs and even many ENTJs and ENTPs I come across.

*nod* They really need to strip the intelligence part out of MBTI and such. It confuses people way too much and you need to know a whole hell of a lot behind intelligence views and distributions to make any use of it.

 

[Recluse]

Sorry, I cleared it up some.

No need to. My post was a joke. (Apparently not a very good one--whoops!) I actually agree with you.

 

[Natrushka]

No need to. My post was a joke. (Apparently not a very good one--whoops!) I actually agree with you.

I snorted. It was amusing - not as amusing as Wolf taking it seriously, however.