Type descriptions & people

[Ghost of the dead horse]

I get this kind of feeling from people & descriptions:

10% of the people don't have a good match between themselves and any personality description, even of their own type.
20% of the people seem a bit like their own type and almost equally like some of the neighboring types.
40% of the people have a moderate match with the type description of their own type, but still have much in common with one or two neighboring types.
20% of the people have a good match with their type description, with little question about the type designation.
10% of the people seem much like their own type descriptions, much more than those of any other type.

What are your impressions about it?

 

[Robert165]

I get this kind of feeling from people & descriptions:

10% of the people don't have a good match between themselves and any personality description, even of their own type.
20% of the people seem a bit like their own type and almost equally like some of the neighboring types.
40% of the people have a moderate match with the type description of their own type, but still have much in common with one or two neighboring types.
20% of the people have a good match with their type description, with little question about the type designation.
10% of the people seem much like their own type descriptions, much more than those of any other type.

What are your impressions about it?

sorry but i tink people make too big a deal of types. i've been wanting to talk with some of you about this......

 

[Ghost of the dead horse]

Type descriptions don't seem to describe the majority of the people very exactly. If that's what there is to types, then typology isn't pertinent to the majority. Yet, it seems to resonate with some more than the others.

 

[Robert165]

Type descriptions don't seem to describe the majority of the people very exactly. If that's what there is to types, then typology isn't pertinent to the majority. Yet, it seems to resonate with some more than the others.

i agree it can be diagnostic
what i disagree with is limiting yourslef based upon your type
(i think its a good starting point but not the end all be all)

 

[Ghost of the dead horse]

Yeah, I'm in the anti-limiting camp, as well

I just thought that rather than define the tool's validity for all, I'd define different validity for different groups of people.

 

[Robert165]

Yeah, I'm in the anti-limiting camp, as well

great minds think alike :hi:

 

[Matthew_Z]

I'm a card-carrying member of the "caring too much about my own type" club. It's more of a tattoo, really. I'm looking into getting it removed with lasers. Lasers are pretty cool, anyways.

Even the most myopic person could see that more than type goes into determining a person's personality. In my observations, there are two more dichotomies commonly used when analyzing a person's type: Healthy/Unhealthy (or mature/immature) and female/male. Type is mostly a subconscious entity. (as with many things dealing with preferences, especially innate ones) One large problem with descriptions is that they delve, at least partly, into a person's conscious and/or observable actions, which type does not necessarily predict. (although there are occasional, impossible-to-prove, correlations observed) Age and experience, cultural background, and other factors affect a person's behavior, not strictly MBTI type.

 

[Robert165]

I'm a card-carrying member of the "caring too much about my own type" club. It's more of a tattoo, really. I'm looking into getting it removed with lasers. Lasers are pretty cool, anyways.

Even the most myopic person could see that more than type goes into determining a person's personality. In my observations, there are two more dichotomies commonly used when analyzing a person's type: Healthy/Unhealthy (or mature/immature) and female/male. Type is mostly a subconscious entity. (as with many things dealing with preferences, especially innate ones) One large problem with descriptions is that they delve, at least partly, into a person's conscious and/or observable actions, which type does not necessarily predict. (although there are occasional, impossible-to-prove, correlations observed) Age and experience, cultural background, and other factors affect a person's behavior, not strictly MBTI type.

sounds like a good philosphy to me

 

[sofmarhof]

I was astounded by the first INTP description I read. Later, I was looking for ISFJ descriptions, and realized that there just aren't any good ones out there. They're only written by humans. Whether people fit their supposed descriptions has a lot to do with what descriptions are in existence.

 

[Ghost of the dead horse]

When I got out of my life-long shyness, I felt for a while a very close match with the exploring, daring ENTP type. I guess, that was the biggest single feeling of match with any one type, though situational.

 

[EJCC]

I was dumbfounded by the ESTJ type description when I first read it, because it describes me so well. There are things that some descriptions of them assume, which don't describe me, though, e.g:
1. that I'm athletic and/or in the military and/or a businessperson,
2. that I'm super manly, and
3. that I'm an enneagram 1, 3 or 8.

Most of the differences between me and the ESTJ stereotype, I think are because of these factors:
1. I'm a GIRL,
2. I was raised by an INTP and an INFJ, and most of my friends throughout my childhood grew up to be Ns, and
3. I'm an enneagram 6 (phobic, 7 wing).

But yeah, I always test pretty highly on all the functions. I'm not borderline on anything. Sometimes I test borderline on E/I, but I'm SO TOTALLY NOT AN ISTJ, even though I can be shy. So it works

 

[ChocolateMoose123]

I think being female and having a more socially acceptable "male" personality is tough. You're always against the grain.

 

[EJCC]

^ Absolutely! Bonding moment!

...And we shall call ourselves... The Exclusive Society of Thinking Wimminz!

 

[BlackCat]

There should be a misfit club for F men and T women. Then we can hook up!

 

[EJCC]

^
Best plan I've ever heard in my life? Quite possibly.

 

[ChocolateMoose123]

^ Absolutely! Bonding moment!

...And we shall call ourselves... The Exclusive Society of Thinking Wimminz!

I second this motion.