Vent and Crazy Talk About MBTI Stereotypes.

[Mal12345]

Nah, that party is too conservative for me.

Ok then, you're wrong.

 

[Coriolis]

I've never heard that one about SPs. But what's wrong with positive generalizing? At least it's positive.

What's wrong is that it's wrong. Some generalizations are more accurate than others to begin with, but none describe everyone within a given type, and some are really no more true of one type than another (or at least apply to several types). Put another way, the generalization that, say, INTJs are more intelligent than other types might be "positive" for INTJs, but puts down every other type, without basis.

 

[Elocute]

I think the MBTI focuses too much on positivity. While unrelated on first glance, sites like erowid.org pay equal attention to the negative side of drugs and the positive. In this fashion, the drugs are as they are, and deicisons made can be more whole and secure.

Likewise, the MBTI should expound more on the roles of inferiors, even for superficial sites like humanetrics. The effect of this would be two fold:

1. Most of us know our strenghts and weaknesses. Being of extremes, it's easier to relate to two functions. Knowing their top and bottom function at least restricts them to a realistic subset of types.
2. The "my type can do anything" mentality will cease. Loads of people love the INTP and INTJ types, but if they were explained the rammifications of Inferior of Extravertd Feeling and Sensing, respectively, I think a good deal of mistypes would not relate or idealize it as much. Both of those inferiors can be pretty incapaciting early on in life.

 

[Coriolis]

I think the MBTI focuses too much on positivity. While unrelated on first glance, sites like erowid.org pay equal attention to the negative side of drugs and the positive. In this fashion, the drugs are as they are, and deicisons made can be more whole and secure.

This depends in large part on which set of type descriptions you read. Some are more balanced and realistic, some like those on Similarminds have a very negative slant. Many type qualities are a double-edged sword, useful in moderation, but harmful if taken too far. It is best to read a handful of descriptions rather than become fixated on one that seems appealing.

 

[Elocute]

This depends in large part on which set of type descriptions you read. Some are more balanced and realistic, some like those on Similarminds have a very negative slant. Many type qualities are a double-edged sword, useful in moderation, but harmful if taken too far. It is best to read a handful of descriptions rather than become fixated on one that seems appealing.

Well, that's precisely what I mean. Most of us heard of these theories through some inadvertent ad on the internet, or perhaps we heard it name-dropped once or twice in a college cours,e or a summer read. The first things people see are what creates the first impression, regardless of type. I think sites with large slants are doing the theory a serious disservice, and they are far in the majority.

This then creates a poor degree of standardization. By reading Soci and then Myer's Briggs, one would think they read something of near completly different origin. If there's not a lot of convergence, it becomes questionable as to what is correct, especially since there are very few "officials" as there are in less theorhetical psychology.

 

[Society]

What's wrong is that it's wrong. Some generalizations are more accurate than others to begin with, but none describe everyone within a given type, and some are really no more true of one type than another (or at least apply to several types). Put another way, the generalization that, say, INTJs are more intelligent than other types might be "positive" for INTJs, but puts down every other type, without basis.

i am not sure i follow - if a stereotype would be correct & it's premise factually true - would it still be flawed/wrong to use it?

 

[Saft]

I don't have a bulky body like O.J. or Tyson. Not even close. I have a tennis player body and, yes, I was on the tennis team in school.

For some reason I've always pictured you as being bulky.

 

[Jaguar]

Ok then, you're wrong.

No, I'm Jaguar.

 

[Coriolis]

Well, that's precisely what I mean. Most of us heard of these theories through some inadvertent ad on the internet, or perhaps we heard it name-dropped once or twice in a college cours,e or a summer read. The first things people see are what creates the first impression, regardless of type. I think sites with large slants are doing the theory a serious disservice, and they are far in the majority.

This then creates a poor degree of standardization. By reading Soci and then Myer's Briggs, one would think they read something of near completly different origin. If there's not a lot of convergence, it becomes questionable as to what is correct, especially since there are very few "officials" as there are in less theorhetical psychology.

There is no accounting for people who will hear an advertisement or sound byte and jump to conclusions without any further research. In fact, most advertisements depend on exactly this reaction. With something like MBTI, however, you get out what you put in. If you are unwilling to look into it and become informed, it will be no more than a parlor game to you, and no more useful.

i am not sure i follow - if a stereotype would be correct & it's premise factually true - would it still be flawed/wrong to use it?

If a stereotype is factually correct, it is a statistically supportable generalization rather than a stereotype. Contrast the statements: women have ovaries (not universal, but generally true); with Black people are lazy, or Jews are miserly.

 

[Elocute]

There is no accounting for people who will hear an advertisement or sound byte and jump to conclusions without any further research. In fact, most advertisements depend on exactly this reaction. With something like MBTI, however, you get out what you put in. If you are unwilling to look into it and become informed, it will be no more than a parlor game to you, and no more useful.


If a stereotype is factually correct, it is a statistically supportable generalization rather than a stereotype. Contrast the statements: women have ovaries (not universal, but generally true); with Black people are lazy, or Jews are miserly.

True, but I don't think the resources out there now make it easy to deciminate "truth." There are some extremely thought-provoking and well-written accounts of 16 types, but because many of the wirters have, at times, wildly varying conclusions, it makes it difficult to know the truth. I think this is different than someone who sees an advertisement on TV and has a knee-jer reaction. Knowing whether something helps acne can be searched for in peer-reviewed journals. There are near zero official MBTI/JCF material in comparison, For example, I've noticed a big difference in the "J" factor with XNXJ and XSXJ, but most material seems to focus on XSXJ versions.

I'm not sure if something like this can ever be standardized, It doesn't seem to be on most researcher's list

 

[Society]

f a stereotype is factually correct, it is a statistically supportable generalization rather than a stereotype. Contrast the statements: women have ovaries (not universal, but generally true); with Black people are lazy, or Jews are miserly.

ok, this changes the entire conversation though.. if we're defining stereotypes as incorrect generalizations to began with - then an accusation of stereotyping is first and foremost an accusation that what is getting attributed is incorrect... without some sort of counter argument or reasoning, that's just an empty accusation.

 

[Society]

f a stereotype is factually correct, it is a statistically supportable generalization rather than a stereotype. Contrast the statements: women have ovaries (not universal, but generally true); with Black people are lazy, or Jews are miserly.

ok, this changes the entire conversation though.. if we're defining stereotypes as incorrect generalizations to began with - then an accusation of stereotyping is first and foremost an accusation that what is getting attributed is incorrect... without some sort of counter argument or reasoning, that's just an empty accusation.

 

[Coriolis]

ok, this changes the entire conversation though.. if we're defining stereotypes as incorrect generalizations to began with - then an accusation of stereotyping is first and foremost an accusation that what is getting attributed is incorrect... without some sort of counter argument or reasoning, that's just an empty accusation.

It isn't as simple as that either. Stereotypes have at least a grain of truth in them, or they would not be recognizable. Jews, for instance, do have a historical association with money, especially money lending, since in the Europe of the middle ages, other means of livelihood were often barred to them. So, a stereotype is a generalization applied far more broadly than its underlying kernel of truth, or historical origin, can support.

 

[Coriolis]

True, but I don't think the resources out there now make it easy to deciminate "truth." There are some extremely thought-provoking and well-written accounts of 16 types, but because many of the wirters have, at times, wildly varying conclusions, it makes it difficult to know the truth. I think this is different than someone who sees an advertisement on TV and has a knee-jer reaction. Knowing whether something helps acne can be searched for in peer-reviewed journals. There are near zero official MBTI/JCF material in comparison, For example, I've noticed a big difference in the "J" factor with XNXJ and XSXJ, but most material seems to focus on XSXJ versions.

I'm not sure if something like this can ever be standardized, It doesn't seem to be on most researcher's list

What do you mean by "decimate truth"?

MBTI claims aren't that different from the kind of advertising you mention. In both cases, a person can choose to investigate the claim or conclusion further, or accept it as a knee-jerk reaction. There are refereed journals about MBTI as well, though ordinary folks often can't access scholarly journals, whether on psychology, medicine, or other fields. When authors vary significantly in their conclusions, the best approach is to read a good variety of interpretations, and look for the common elements. These are more likely to be accurate, and perhaps further research will help explain the remaining contradictions.

 

[Society]

It isn't as simple as that either. Stereotypes have at least a grain of truth in them, or they would not be recognizable. Jews, for instance, do have a historical association with money, especially money lending, since in the Europe of the middle ages, other means of livelihood were often barred to them. So, a stereotype is a generalization applied far more broadly than its underlying kernel of truth, or historical origin, can support.

that's a fine line though.

saying that all jews are miserly would be wrong (i really wish my mother would be at least a little bit miserly with her finances...), but to say that being miserly is a big part of the culture and upbringing common among eshkenazi (eastern european) jews would be true: while christian kids get gifts in chrismas we get hanukah guil - you give your kid money and then take it away from him by going with him to deposit it into a savings account, while some cultures ask "why would you want to succeed? you think your better then your father?!", jewish tradition has the line of "all your life work's will never pay enough for your mother's birth pain" <- essentially you owe your parents to succeed economically or your an ungrateful shmock of a child. and as we established in another conversation, there is a whole self feeding network affect of having people like you in various positions in life - the financial sector for jews is no exception. not to mention the actual clusters of connections that come along the community side of it - in my grandfather's synagogue in cape town prayer got done and the next step was everyone socializing outside and talking business while they are at it - at one point a banker was arranging a job for his niece in my grandfather's accountant firm.

would me or anyone be able to talk about that without being accused of stereotyping? let's pretend i was jewish - would i still be able too?

or the typological equivalence?

 

[Coriolis]

that's a fine line though.

saying that all jews are miserly would be wrong (i really wish my mother would be at least a little bit miserly with her finances...), but to say that being miserly is a big part of the culture and upbringing common among eshkenazi (eastern european) jews would be true: while christian kids get gifts in chrismas we get hanukah guil - you give your kid money and then take it away from him by going with him to deposit it into a savings account, while some cultures ask "why would you want to succeed? you think your better then your father?!", jewish tradition has the line of "all your life work's will never pay enough for your mother's birth pain" <- essentially you owe your parents to succeed economically or your an ungrateful shmock of a child. and as we established in another conversation, there is a whole self feeding network affect of having people like you in various positions in life - the financial sector for jews is no exception. not to mention the actual clusters of connections that come along the community side of it - in my grandfather's synagogue in cape town prayer got done and the next step was everyone socializing outside and talking business while they are at it - at one point a banker was arranging a job for his niece in my grandfather's accountant firm.

This is exactly what I mean. The highlighted is the grain of truth. Applying it to all Jews makes it a stereotype. I suspect there are even some eshkenazi who do not fit the des

would me or anyone be able to talk about that without being accused of stereotyping? let's pretend i was jewish - would i still be able too?

or the typological equivalence?

Yes, if you talk about it the way you did above, explaining the degree to which the generalization is applicable. The unqualified statement "all Jews are miserly", or the assumption that just because someone is INTJ he/she is good at math and science, would be stereotyping.