I am sure we're all quite familiar with many of the absurd inferences people draw about a certain type. Common examples of such preposterous claims include the following.
Most of such claims imply that certain superficial behaviors are evidence that a person does or does not have a particular type.
1. I am a certain type therefore I have this or that quality. E.G, I am an INTJ and I am therefore very good at planning.
2. I am naturally good at X, therefore I am this or that type. E.G, I am always very imaginative, so I must be an N.
3. This person's line of reasoning is deplorable, so he cannot be a Thinking type.
4. This person is insensitive, chauvinistic, arrogant, repressive, so definitely not a Feeling type.
5. I am an Intuitive type, I've known my friend all of my life, he is too smart to be a sensor.
6. No way this guy is an intuitive type, he is too practical and pragmatic.
7. He takes control of his life, he thinks ahead, so he must be a J.
8. He is very judgmental and direct in his assessments of human behavior, J is for judging, right? So there you go, he is a judging type.
9. He is good at memorization, so he is definitely a Sensor.
10. This person is boring, so not an SP.
These basic statements merely represent a limited number of strategies that could be employed in spotting typological absurdities, but as a general principle, you can look for hasty generalizations, assertions that are almost completely divorced from the original Jungian theory, excessive personalization of type and so on.
What I ask you to do this in thread is the following, cite absurd typological statements without making any reference to their authors. The purpose of this thread is to shed light on how "folk typology" arises and hopefully motivate our members to think about this topic with greater care and precision. Individuals who uttered absurdities are more than welcome to make an appearance in this thread to defend their position or clarify their line of reasoning, however, it is not up to us decide if their identity is to be revealed. To avoid early polemics and accusations of trolling, I will not cite any statements that were made on this forum (at least not in the OP), I'll leave that to you!
When you cite the preposterous typological statement that was made on this forum, be sure to explicate your rationale for deeming it to be non-sensical and remain open to any possible objections that may arise.