Should I take this site seriously??

[GHC]

Probably Not
I'm talking about a blog called the MBTI truths that I found while searching in the net.

MBTI truths

I don't know some of the definitions of these page make me angry cause it seems way to stereotyped or prejudiced with the authors view of the 16 personality types. What d you Think???

(Damn, I'm even doubting in submitting this thread LOL)

 

[speculative]

Admittedly, I just quickly scanned the things on that site relating to INFPs and got an overall "feel" for the blog pages. This stuff is harmless enough. The blogger provides no context for their expertise on the subject that I can surmise at a glance; their credibility is couched in the blogspot interface mostly it seems. By the same token, I could sign up for the site and blog about 14th century Scandanavian mythology with the same expectation of being taken seriously. In the end, do you gain anything useful from the writing? Does it make you see things in a different light, or help you gain some insight you would not have otherwise gained?

I found the layman's language of the favored/disfavored professions section kind of interesting. It's straightforward and easy to understand:

INFP
Favored
fantasy author
therapist
music composer
poet
Disfavored
manager
military leader
scam artist
police officer

 

[Snuggletron]

This is exactly why ENFPs are more interesting - more interesting people and better careers.
ENFP - actor, comedian, politician, writer, newscaster, journalist, Bill Moyers, Mark Twain, Dr. Suess, Bill Cosby, Arthur Miller, Charles Dickens.
ISTJ - clerk, accountant, truck driver, bureaucrat, financial officer, Warren Buffet, Dick Cheney, Herbert Hoover, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

I lol'd.

 

[Quinlan]

Awesome site, it speaks the truth.

 

[Ozz]

I ran the blog through the through the Typealyzer website and it came out as INTP.

 

[simulatedworld]

Sounds like it's got a pretty big dose of humor intentionally written into it.

 

[Mole]

Should I take this site seriously?

Of course we should.

We are an electronic tribe in the global village.

We are the shock of the new.

We are the shock troops of the new.

This is a wonderful place to learn about electronic tribalism and the global village.

This is an interactive site. So experiment, take a risk, and see what the response is - for the meaning of any communication is its response.

You will wait and wait to see if anyone responds to your post. The response is all. It is the meaning of your post.

After a while you will understand that you are no longer the author of posts, rather we are the author of the posts.

I disappears and turns into we.

So 'I' may not take this site seriously but 'we' do.

 

[Skyward]

Of course we should.

We are an electronic tribe in the global village.

We are the shock of the new.

We are the shock troops of the new.

This is a wonderful place to learn about electronic tribalism and the global village.

This is an interactive site. So experiment, take a risk, and see what the response is - for the meaning of any communication is its response.

You will wait and wait to see if anyone responds to your post. The response is all. It is the meaning of your post.

After a while you will understand that you are no longer the author of posts, rather we are the author of the posts.

I disappears and turns into we.

So 'I' may not take this site seriously but 'we' do.

I like your perspective and how you describe it, but how about a Yes or a No?

Personally I like the humor, just reading the topics is silly and fun. 'ESTPs are so much better than you' hell -I- get that vibe from them, as in, they seem that way, but are they REALLY that way? They tend to be popular and can do cool things, but really, theyre only better in the Sensor sense

Not to mention the 'ENFPs are better than ISTJs' post made me roll my eyes in its tongue-in-cheek hilarity.

Oh and I thought Samus was totally an ExTP of some kind. Maybe that's my mental image of ETPs is a tights-clad sexy chick in a supersuit?


In short: Don't take it seriously. Except for the 'Stereotypes in School' post, I think it's pretty spot on

 

[Totenkindly]

i actually thought this list was fairly close to home, as much as a stereotype list can be... it pretty much fits with the high school experience. I was even going to say this changes later in life as people get more well-rounded, but the writer even alludes to that in his introductory paragraph:

Stereotypes in school
The school environment is an excellent place to get a feel for the MBTI types in order to understand them better. I have grouped types with the same dominant function together since students are mostly developing their dominant function while they're in school. (The development of lesser functions usually occurs later in life.)

ESTJ: the bully who's not that smart
ENTJ: the bully who's actually pretty smart

ISTP: the quiet but cool guy who's really good at sports
INTP: the math and science genius

ESFJ: helpful and organized girls who are very affectionate and conform to every social standard
ENFJ: like ESFJ, + creativity, - conformity

ISFP: the nice guy/girl who's incredibly good at art
INFP: quiet goth people that take honors English and love writing

ESTP: the outgoing jock whom some people love and others hate
ESFP: the student wearing flashy clothes and getting bad grades

ISTJ: the straight A student who follows all the rules and gets annoyed when others don't
ISFJ: same as ISTJ, except they're more forgiving when you don't follow the rules

ENTP: the weird & crazy guy that challenges his teachers and argues a lot with others
ENFP: the silly person/goofball that's fun to be around for some reason

INTJ: the guy who knows everything about something and nothing about anything else
INFJ: the peer mediation students who resemble the school counselors

That being said, I disagree with some of his celebrity typing, and i couldn't tell if the rest was all serious or just sardonic.

 

[BlueScreen]

I have a feeling Victor was answering for TC, which was my thought when I saw the thread title too. Haven't read the link yet. That would be on topic.

p.s. I agree, the list quoted above seems pretty right. ENFP one is reasonably accurate for me.

 

[Wyst]

I'm talking about a blog called the MBTI truths that I found while searching in the net.

I wouldn't recommend it. Not everything you read on the interwebz is true. Text books are the only trustworthy source.

 

[ajblaise]

Half the posts appear to be tongue-in-cheek. They're fine.

 

[Snuggletron]

my tongue's in my cheek. It's in the middle of both, actually.

 

[BlueScreen]

Yeh, they are quite amusing. As long as no one takes themselves too seriously.

I wouldn't recommend it. Not everything you read on the interwebz is true. Text books are the only trustworthy source.

Agree, there is a lot of biased stuff on the net that doesn't even try to be scientific. I do think observation is partly valid though. Experiment and observation are half of any science. Studying people from textbooks without the empirical side is IMO much worse than speculating and theorising from the observations. The ideal would be a combination of solid theory and observation. What attempts to occur on here .

 

[Wyst]

Agree, there is a lot of biased stuff that doesn't even try to be scientific. I do think observation is partly valid though. Experiment and observation is half of any science. Studying people from textbooks without the empirical side is IMO much worse than speculating and theorising from the observations. The ideal would be a combination of theory and observation.

I think you misunderstand me. What is contained is text books is just as good as empirical data. Think about it - each time they rewrite history we get closer to the truth - it's not like perspectives change or anything like that. Plus, each time modern day scientists rewrite facts, instead of making everyone more confused, we are able rest soundly knowing that scientists are infallible in their grasp of what's going on in the world.

 

[BlueScreen]

I think you misunderstand me. What is contained is text books is just as good as empirical data. Think about it - each time they rewrite history we get closer to the truth - it's not like perspectives change or anything like that. Plus, each time modern day scientists rewrite facts, instead of making everyone more confused, we are able rest soundly knowing that scientists are infallible in their grasp of what's going on in the world.

Your understanding of the text book is dependent on empirical data. Proper interpretation of the context, ambiguities, etc. requires a real world understanding of it. It is why they have laboratories in science. Without that you interpret it from your viewpoint rather than the objective one.

The empirical data is especially important in typology because it is not a solid theory, more a statistical guide. John down the road might understand people better just by looking at them than Jung did from a lifetime of INTJness. Jung gave a good framework for John to work from though.

 

[Wyst]

Your understanding of the text book is dependent on empirical data. Proper interpretation of the context, ambiguities, etc. requires a real world understanding of it. It is why they have laboratories in science. Without that you interpret it from your viewpoint rather than the objective one.

Exactly. Because laboratories can be set up in a way to be tweaked and explain context and ambiguities, what is written in textbooks based off un-corroborated and other globally accepted standards allows for all possibilities and not just one truth. When all ambiguities and possibilities are presented in textbooks in a confusing and decidedly non-academic manner, students then have the freedom to decide what truth is for them. I think this is manner is most respectful of human rights because no one should be told what is truth and what is false.

Who are you to tell me that I am subject to the 'law of gravity'!? I don't believe in gravity.

 

[BlueScreen]

Exactly. Because laboratories can be set up in a way to be tweaked and explain context and ambiguities, what is written in textbooks based off un-corroborated and other globally accepted standards allows for all possibilities and not just one truth. When all ambiguities and possibilities are presented in textbooks in a confusing and decidedly non-academic manner, students then have the freedom to decide what truth is for them. I think this is manner is most respectful of human rights because no one should be told what is truth and what is false.

Who are you to tell me that I am subject to the 'law of gravity'!? I don't believe in gravity.

. I actually believe that everyone has their own version of truth. But in this case the truth about people for them can be found from observing people (or at least this should be part of it). I have this fear that people decide what people are from textbooks, which makes no sense at all.

btw, in the first post I was just putting out ideas (my mind goes on tangents), most of it wasn't really connected to the agreeing with your post part. I looked at it again and should've put some enters in or something.

 

[The Outsider]

Yes, you should take that site seriously.

 

[Little Linguist]

Pfft, nah, according to this thing, I should be an IXXJ.

ISTJ: the straight A student who follows all the rules and gets annoyed when others don't (sort of)
ISFJ: same as ISTJ, except they're more forgiving when you don't follow the rules (yep)

ENTP: the weird & crazy guy that challenges his teachers and argues a lot with others (occasionally)

INTJ: the guy who knows everything about something and nothing about anything else (yep)
INFJ: the peer mediation students who resemble the school counselors (sometimes)

According to careers, something like xNFJ

NFJ
Favored
psychologist
missionary
English professor
nun
monk
author
Disfavored
sports statistician
athlete
sports announcer
security guard
salesman

ENFJ
Favored
teacher
comedian
actor
psychologist
Disfavored
pilot
vehicle transporter
car designer
mathematician
mechanic