Poor MBTI typing practices on this forum.

[Orangey]

Athenian, your post is a good post given the premise that pre-given MBTI function order templates are okay.

Yes. But this is not unreasonable since the function order templates are what make MBTI.

 

[Athenian200]

Yes. But this is not unreasonable since the function order templates are what make MBTI.

On the other hand, it's possible that everyone else has been using, and wants to use, a system other than MBTI, which would make my complaints irrelevant.

If they could just decide whether they wanted to use Keirsey, or MBTI, or Berens, or what ever else they can think of, rather than trying to combine it all in one whole... things would be simpler.

 

[Ghost of the dead horse]

That's true. We would want some system that would elicit the inspiration brought to us by MBTI, but something that would have the correctedness of OCEAN.

Perhaps we're in the process of trying to synthesize a system of our own?

 

[lunalum]

Here are some things that we need to do away with if we are to accurately type people:

3. Liberal allocation of the shadow functions.
If a claimed INFJ seems more like an ISTP, people will just cite tertiary Ti and inferior Se as the culprits. If an claimed INTP seems more like an ISFJ, people will just cite tertiary Si and inferior Fe as the culprits. Sigh... the shadow does NOT work that way. A person's basic behavior while not under stress, would not be more like that of their shadow, at least not until they're older and they've consciously tried hard to integrate it. I can tolerate a provision for allowing the shadow traits to come up once in a while when it's not part of the typical pattern, but you can't use that to dismiss a huge, major pattern in their personality!

4. The T/F gender socialization card.
I can buy it only in very limited circumstances. Sure, this might explain away a few superficial traits, or maybe even major ones if the person had a VERY harsh upbringing that emphasized gender roles and was forced against their preference repeatedly. I don't think this is as common as people are imagining, though. The reality is that this card is effectively used to make it such that a woman can show far more F preferences and still be called T, while a man can show far more T preferences and still be called F. They're basically lowering the standards in an attempt to make the distribution of T and F more equal. But in reality, it doesn't work that way. The standards should not be lowered, because there are T women and F men who have CLEAR preferences, and often without even going too far outside of gender roles. Accept that this function sometimes shows a gender bias and move on... don't try to artificially "repair" that bias with this card, please? You're only making it harder for women that are only slightly expressed Fs, or men that are only slightly expressed Ts, to determine their type.

6. "Weak" letters that don't fit the type pattern.
One's dominant function should never be "weak." One can have a weak auxiliary, but the dominant function should always be fairly strong, or that means you're a different type. I would think this would be obvious, considering that the dominant function is supposed to represent the consciousness and the self-image.I can accept a weak I/E, because that just means you have a strong auxiliary. I can also accept a weak auxiliary indicated by a weak letter associated with it. But I do not buy the whole concept of a weak dominant, or a weak J/P. J/P has less to do with behavior in terms of organization/punctuality/neatness, and more to do with functions. The difference between J/P types is a completely different functional order, and you should be able to tell which one you have, unless you're completely mistyped.

8. Assumption that functions can be individually developed.
This doesn't work. When one has Fe, they have Ti. They can't go out and develop Te. Sure, they can emulate Te behaviors and learn to communicate effectively with Te users, but that's not developing Te. They may be learning skills traditionally associated with Te, but their motivations for learning them will likely be related their dominant or auxiliary. Fe would want to learn Te skills in order to get along with Te users, for instance. Ni might want to learn Te skills in order to more effectively shape their environment into what they would like to see. Give me just about any skill or concern, and I can give you each function's possible motivation for having it.

The problem we are left with, with disregarding all these clues, is that a lot more people than there already are, are left as XXXX. If one doesn't fit the pattern of their given type, but doesn't fit the other 15 patterns even more, then what is there left to do? Would you rather that most of us be XXXX?

I am seeing this way too often on the forum where someone who clearly looks more INTx than any of the other types, is said to not be that type because of an S or F function at an unusual 'strength.' The problem is, if that person decides to identify as an S or F type, then a whole lot more functions are atypical in strength. The N and T functions being in the dominant and auxillary should be a big red flag.

This is what happens when there are 16 boxes for nearly 7 billion people.

 

[Kenneth Almighty]

Here ye, here ye! I demand thoust be stickieth!

(You can use my jizz if you want)

 

[burymecloser]

^It's "hear ye".


And "hear, hear!" God, I hate it when people write "here, here." What the fuck do they think that means?

 

[lunalum]

It seems that the poor typing on this forum goes beyond MBTI

 

[guesswho]

Typing wrong isn't the problem, typing everything is the problem.

Things are too complex to entirely fit inside a box we assign.

 

[Orangey]

Things are too complex to entirely fit inside a box we assign.

Well now isn't that the most creative thing I've heard all day.

 

[Poki]

Jung made no mention of J/P as an MBTI letter. It was added later on. The real purpose of J/P is to help designate whether the dominant function is a judging (T or F) one or a perceiving (S or N) one. People tack on qualities to J/P like neat vs. messy or punctual vs. always late that miss the point of what the J/P designation was originally intended for.

Not really. ISTP is P with a dom judging...INTJ is a J with a dom perception. It basically means either an internal perception(can be seen as a judging function) or an extraverted judging function is more prevelant. Ji is an internal deciding function and Pe is more of a pulling in data, while Pi is more of a data is already present. So Pe can be highly non social, but perceptive which is not "externally judgy".

J is not tied to T/F nor is P tied to S/N. It actually does best define personality, but not qualities. "Qualities" already have "judgmental" notation around the meaning. A J is more likely to care about being "percieved" as neat or orderly while a P is more likely to not care whether they are "percieved" as neat or messy. But its still a preference and certain situations like trying to impress or push away a single person or group CAN cause someont to act outside of there default personality.

 

[Edgar]

I was just PM'ing someone about the exact same issue (i.e. people being typetards).

A lot a folks associate a certain type with self worth (lol, stupid) and get severely butt hurt when someone suggests another type. Many others plain don't know wtf they are talking about. Also cognitive functions is so fucking vague and voodoo like that any slight variations in mood or style of talking can be "successfully" argued as an attribute of a specific type.

But my dear OP, you better shut your whore mouth about Kiersey. That man is a saint, despite his (oh so subtle) flaws.

 

[skylights]

Not really. ISTP is P with a dom judging...INTJ is a J with a dom perception. It basically means either an internal perception(can be seen as a judging function) or an extraverted judging function is more prevelant. Ji is an internal deciding function and Pe is more of a pulling in data, while Pi is more of a data is already present. So Pe can be highly non social, but perceptive which is not "externally judgy".

J is not tied to T/F nor is P tied to S/N. It actually does best define personality, but not qualities. "Qualities" already have "judgmental" notation around the meaning. A J is more likely to care about being "percieved" as neat or orderly while a P is more likely to not care whether they are "percieved" as neat or messy. But its still a preference and certain situations like trying to impress or push away a single person or group CAN cause someont to act outside of there default personality.

literally it tells you what is extraverted - Judging or Perceiving. someone who extraverts Judgment looks more decisive from the outside because they are more decisive in relation to external things. a P will tend to care less about external organization because our internal organization takes precedence.

personally i like being externally organized and do care about it, but when i get very stressed out, my external organization goes to hell because i am more concerned about the inward things.

 

[garbage]

It only becomes impossible if one takes too many constraints based on theory, not observance. The function order theory is a nice effort but not good.

This, too. If you're trying for a coherent explanation for human cognition, you might as well base it in reality. Otherwise, you end up with stuff like the following:

Also, you should add #10 - Arbitrary Function Equivalencies. Ti+Fe != Fi. Neither does Ni+Fe, or whatever other BS people come up with. You cannot rationalize things in this way and expect to come out with an accurate typing for yourself or for others. It just mires down the entire process in more confusion.

Seriously, I totally agree with this. The more unfounded constraints you place (e.g. "such and such a type only uses four functions, but that's okay because X+Y=Z") within your theory, the more ridiculous you're going to look when you attempt to perform the necessary mental gymnastics required to explain certain cognitive processes and behavior patterns.



Can I also add #n, which is the positive feedback loop of "Wait, who's this jerk? He must be using Te, because he's being a jerk. Probably ESTJ. Wait! Te must be a terrible function, because this ESTJ is a jerk!"