Our type descriptions?

[animenagai]

I was just thinking, a lot of the literature out there are often written by individual 'experts' who think they know all 16 types like the back of their hand and get a lot of things wrong. Why don't we as a forum set the record straight and work towards writing our own descriptions? Let the INTP's write the INTP description as a group, the ENFP's on the ENFP one etc. Not sure how we would do a lot of the S's just because we don't have enough members with those types. Yay or nay?

 

[ReflecTcelfeR]

I think that is the intent of INTPc and INTJc and so on, but I agree wholely that this is how descriptions should be written.

 

[garbage]

Some examples of what you're talking about:

• INFJ
• EII domain - Wikisocion

I personally like hearing descriptions 'from the horse's mouth' rather than from some dudes who created some theoretical framework that describes types from their own limited viewpoint, no matter how "objective" it is.

If you're using typology to understand people.. why not have them be the ones tell you about themselves? Hell, we've got a limited version of that in our 'post a freakin' video' thread.

 

[Lady_X]

I think it would be awesome if there was a directory or something of different types writing their personal description of what it means to be their type or how they experience it...just separated by tpes with numbered entries from various members..it could be stickied to the front page or something. It might help others to determine their owm type..it's a good idea..I like it and would try to participate...I'm not the best writer but that's okay..

 

[wolfy]

Here is an old thread I started Type Description Wiki. Something like that?

 

[animenagai]

For one thing, I've never seen an ENFP description I thought was spot on. I think NF's in general are painted as humanitarian saints of their community, it's almost like the writers often have certain qualities of a type they really want to emphasize. They have an idea of what each type is rather than an actual, deep understanding. I am confident that typology central can write better descriptions than any of the literature already out there. I say we get together, write some good descriptions and have a stickied thread with all of them.

 

[Aleksei]

I was just thinking, a lot of the literature out there are often written by individual 'experts' who think they know all 16 types like the back of their hand and get a lot of things wrong. Why don't we as a forum set the record straight and work towards writing our own descriptions? Let the INTP's write the INTP description as a group, the ENFP's on the ENFP one etc. Not sure how we would do a lot of the S's just because we don't have enough members with those types. Yay or nay?

Yay.

I think we should write descriptions that describe types as they are with varying levels of functional strength -- for example, someone with an overactive tertiary or inferior would act quite differently from someone whose perspective is shaped just by their first two functions.

I've actually toyed around with the idea of making personalized type profiles based on a person's type, functional strength and enneagram -- synthesizing how the types would interact.

 

[Such Irony]

I was just thinking, a lot of the literature out there are often written by individual 'experts' who think they know all 16 types like the back of their hand and get a lot of things wrong. Why don't we as a forum set the record straight and work towards writing our own descriptions? Let the INTP's write the INTP description as a group, the ENFP's on the ENFP one etc. Not sure how we would do a lot of the S's just because we don't have enough members with those types. Yay or nay?

I would be in favor of this and it would be interesting to see all 16 profiles. Sometimes it takes one to know one.

 

[Noon]

I've actually toyed around with the idea of making personalized type profiles based on a person's type, functional strength and enneagram -- synthesizing how the types would interact.

I've thought of a similar thing. This would be excellent.

 

[KDude]

A lot of the MBTI documentation is written with statistical research in mind. Some of these professional's lives revolve around interviewing, researching, and administering tests. The only problem with some of the shorter descriptions is that they're trying to touch base in a general way, and expect the reader to infer what relates personally. I think a lot of detailed descriptions are good though. Anyone who wants to define things personally should check up on some of it first to see if they even line up enough, rather than just do it out of protest of the shorter descriptions (some of it is a pretty good read anyways).

Personally, I don't want to speak for any type.. I could be totally lost, and have multiple personality order O_O

 

[Wonkavision]

I think it would be interesting.

Useful? ....ummmmm.......Maybe (though I kinda doubt it).

It couldn't hurt to try.


Also, it would be the Folk-Typiest Folk Typing in the History of Folk Typology.

.....Which may cause Solitary Walker's head to explode.

Which would probably be a good thing....


YEAH--LET'S DO IT.