Make your own description.

[King sns]

Looking back over my time at type c, I can't help but feel that while the theory does a great job in describing human characteristics, the actual classification system may be all together invalid.

Thinking over the 16 MBTI types, I can only think of five types that I don't relate to much at all in their descriptions. While I have spent a while on the ESFP side of myself, and enjoy that side of myself the most, I could have just as easily been speaking from a lot of other points of view.

Same goes for enneagram types. There are only three that really don't speak to me at all. (And when I work out the tritypes, one of those that I sort of relate to doesn't end up in a type or a wing.) What's up with tritypes? People embody 6 of those 9 types? (I really do enjoy reading the mentalities and seeing how they are present in other people and myself). At the same time, the strict categorizations are for the birds. It seems more accurate to compile all of these mentalities together and then go through and be able to make your own description.

This song reminds me of this site.

[YOUTUBE="XlEsBaAFPoo"]"Grace Kelly" By Mika[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Such Irony]

I've been going through the same thoughts myself. Some types come closer to describing me than others but no one type can describe me in my entirety. Like you, there are only a few types that I don't relate to at all. There are several types that I sort of relate to. They are quite different from me, yet I can still resonate with them on some level.

Enneagram is even worse than MBTI in regards to this. Only 2 and 8 can totally be ruled out. 3 and 7 are unlikely but there are aspects of these types I can identify with. This means that there are 5 of the 9 (over half!) of the enneagram types that are reasonably plausible for me. Right now I lean most towards 5 but I could probably make a good case for 1, 4, 6, and 9 if I wanted to.

 

[esidebill]

Description like...

You're a Bill. You like building stuff, but as long as it's not like a log cabin. You're bad with girls, but great with women. You're good at everything.

 

[King sns]

I've been going through the same thoughts myself. Some types come closer to describing me than others but no one type can describe me in my entirety. Like you, there are only a few types that I don't relate to at all. There are several types that I sort of relate to. They are quite different from me, yet I can still resonate with them on some level.

Enneagram is even worse than MBTI in regards to this. Only 2 and 8 can totally be ruled out. 3 and 7 are unlikely but there are aspects of these types I can identify with. This means that there are 5 of the 9 (over half!) of the enneagram types that are reasonably plausible for me. Right now I lean most towards 5 but I could probably make a good case for 1, 4, 6, and 9 if I wanted to.

Exactly! You know where I'm coming from. Not only that, but I relate to a ton of people on this site, (some near opposites at times) and think, "We're actually probably the same, just interpreting our personalities differently." Since anyone can make a case for a description as vague as all the functions.

The enneagrams are interesting, and in going through them, some of the descriptors deeply resonate with me. But there are areas of almost all of them that deeply resonate with me at sometime or another. (Except for 1,2, and 6.)

Description like...

You're a Bill. You like building stuff, but as long as it's not like a log cabin. You're bad with girls, but great with women. You're good at everything.

Silly, but essentially, yes.

 

[Southern Kross]

Personally, I only really identify with two enneagram types (which are my type and wing), and all but a few of the MBTI types don't apply to me at all. I don't know, perhaps there are some people that wear many hats in terms of behaviour and my personality is simply more concentrated in form or limited in scope

It really depends on the strength of the description; it needs to remain specific enough to set sufficient limitations and general enough that it can cover variations within the type - it sounds simple but so many slip up in this regard. Also lot of people continue to circulate misconceptions (eg. feeling= emotion) or false caricatures, which unfortunately causes unnecessary confusion. I swear if I have to hear much more of the emo kid or 'fluffy bunny' BS about INFPs, I might just jump ship and become a INTP.

 

[King sns]

Personally, I only really identify with two enneagram types (which are my type and wing), and all but a few of the MBTI types don't apply to me at all. I don't know, perhaps there are some people that wear many hats in terms of behaviour and my personality is simply more concentrated in form or limited in scope

It really depends on the strength of the description; it needs to remain specific enough to set sufficient limitations and general enough that it can cover variations within the type - it sounds simple but so many slip up in this regard. Also lot of people continue to circulate misconceptions (eg. feeling= emotion) or false caricatures, which unfortunately causes unnecessary confusion. I swear if I have to hear much more of the emo kid or 'fluffy bunny' BS about INFPs, I might just jump ship and become a INTP.

That's good to know. I was under the impression that the type descriptions were slightly fake. (Like, this site may be something like the WWE in some of the threads. Like "ENFP 7w6 in an EPIC BATTLE AGAINST THIS YEAR'S ONLY ESFJ!!!" ENFP comes out stage left in these big bright flamboyant clothes and ESFJ comes out stage right in a collared shirt and sweater vest.) I'm still pretty sure of my type, but it's more like an exaggerated caricature of myself. So predictable.

 

[garbage]

"You are a bologna. You're too lazy to write a description that would contain certain aspects of Ne, Fe, Ti, and Ni cognitive function descriptions, as well as aspects of Enneagram 6, 3, 5, and maybe also 1 descriptions, but that huge fuckin' mess would probably be about right, I guess"

What's up with tritypes? People embody 6 of those 9 types? (I really do enjoy reading the mentalities and seeing how they are present in other people and myself).

They're a way to give the system a bit more flexibility by allowing people to identify with more than one core type (just like this whole thread is doing anyway). That introduces its own problems, though, since it can be said to muddy up the system.

At the same time, the strict categorizations are for the birds. It seems more accurate to compile all of these mentalities together and then go through and be able to make your own description.

It would be great if more people actually thought this way, geez. The systems should be treated as guidelines, since the theories haven't exactly been rigorously tied to reality and so it's kind of dangerous to just state whether certain aspects of a system are ""true"" or not.

But, y'know, people can continue to conflate "According to this theoretical system," with "According to reality," until they are blue in the face.

 

[King sns]

"You are a bologna. You're too lazy to write a description that would contain certain aspects of Ne, Fe, Ti, and Ni cognitive function descriptions, as well as aspects of Enneagram 6, 3, and 5 descriptions, but that huge fuckin' mess would probably be about right, I guess"





They're a way to give the system a bit more flexibility by allowing people to identify with more than one core type (just like this whole thread is doing anyway). That introduces its own problems, though, since it can be said to muddy up the system.



It would be great if more people actually thought this way, geez. The systems should be treated as guidelines, since the theories haven't exactly been rigorously tied to reality and so it's kind of dangerous to just state whether certain aspects of a system are ""true"" or not.

But, y'know, people can continue to conflate "According to this theoretical system," with "According to reality," until they are blue in the face.

Yea, I guess I can't complain about the enneatypes trying to allow for a lot of room for change and relating to different stuff, since I do actually relate to a ton of that stuff, and the system never made it seem like that wasn't allowed.

Regarding the second part, you got to the heart of the matter. (The heart of the matter being that this is secretly a rant thread. )

Edit: Sometimes I hear these descriptions and think they're so vague at times that it's about as good as going to a cheap psychic- ("you're going to get something in the mail....") Well DUH!

 

[Asterion]

*uses pokedex on self*

"The Matt Pokemon:

Please refer to the Pokedex entry for Abra"



"Using its psychic power is such a strain on its brain that it needs to sleep for 18 hours a day."



---

Edit: I'm a 9, but I could relate to 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 to the point where I was semi convinced I was those types before I worked it out, now it seems blatantly obvious to me. All the types share a lot of similarities, as they should, we are all people, we all have the same set feelings, we're all living. To top it off, we can choose to defy our own instinct, complicating things even further. It's hard to absorb the whole enneagram after just glossing over some descriptions, it takes long enough to absorb one or two types fully, so unless you're lucky and your first guesses were accurate, it could take you months to work out which type you are, unless someone else does it for you.