[MBTI General] Typing someone.. it's so hard to do...

[violett]

Could you expand? Why would you wish for innocence? Would that not also be akin to ignorance? Kind of like wishing you didn't speak the same language as someone who you don't like...

I mean it would be nice to get to know who they are without knowing anything about their type at all, with the innocence of a child learning the mystery of another human being.

 

[Studmuffin23]

I mean it would be nice to get to know who they are without knowing anything about their type at all, with the innocence of a child learning the mystery of another human being.

One of the most intelligent statements I have encountered on this forum.

 

[Xander]

I mean it would be nice to get to know who they are without knowing anything about their type at all, with the innocence of a child learning the mystery of another human being.

The way I see it, I'm discovering a person but instead of describing them as Dave and to anyone else they're a Dave I can relate what kind of person they are with fewer words and greater clarity. Of course they won't know Dave till they meet him but they'll have some insight.

After all, most people tend to call someone "reliable" or "argumentative" and then you find that the next person has a completely different take. The problem is its like describing a meal as "nice". It means the world to you but virtually nothing to anyone else.

 

[lkjhgfdsa]

U guys got it all wrong mbti is inborn forever lifelong and determines your destiny. That's why it's useful cuz for example EXTJs would be the luckiest and INFPs suffer failure.

 

[Entropic]

Should check this forum more often, heh. Typing is difficult until you get a feel for how each type works and manifests. It's a process that's very difficult to describe, though I did record a video recently of how I approach it where I vocalize my thoughts more directly instead of just providing a summary:

 

[Jaguar]

After all, most people tend to call someone "reliable" or "argumentative" and then you find that the next person has a completely different take.

I was reading an ENTP's post from years ago and thought nothing of it. An ENFP read the same post and flipped their lid telling him to chill out, but for the life of me I couldn't figure out why. You'd think he just clubbed a baby seal based on the ENFP's reaction. I didn't view him as argumentative at all, but she did.

 

[Cellmold]

Should check this forum more often, heh. Typing is difficult until you get a feel for how each type works and manifests. It's a process that's very difficult to describe, though I did record a video recently of how I approach it where I vocalize my thoughts more directly instead of just providing a summary:

What about if people fit the pattern because of pressures to conform to that pattern?

And what was that about "fits the definition that you want to work with"? What does that mean? You just make it up as it suits?

 

[Entropic]

What about if people fit the pattern because of pressures to conform to that pattern?

And what was that about "fits the definition that you want to work with"? What does that mean? You just make it up as it suits?

I've never run into a person who can emulate cognition to such a degree that you can't tell whether it is their innate disposition or not. I don't find that's the case. People can hide it as in, not openly vocalize it, but it will slip through anyway. When I look at patterns, I look at what seems to belie their words, what kind of worldview and how they orient themselves towards the world that they ultimately harbor.

And no, I don't come up with definitions on the fly but I operate with the definitions that Jung originally laid out. I may incorporate other sources such as socionics as well.

 

[Cellmold]

I've never run into a person who can emulate cognition to such a degree that you can't tell whether it is their innate disposition or not. I don't find that's the case. People can hide it as in, not openly vocalize it, but it will slip through anyway. When I look at patterns, I look at what seems to belie their words, what kind of worldview and how they orient themselves towards the world that they ultimately harbor.

And no, I don't come up with definitions on the fly but I operate with the definitions that Jung originally laid out. I may incorporate other sources such as socionics as well.

That method of recognition just sounds like personal taste, which is what pretty much everyone does with these systems to some extent. And Jung's definitions are a bit wandering and open to some debate, although some of it is clear cut; I need to go over Psychological Types for a clear example.

To be fair you did say the method was difficult to describe but I didn't really retain what you were saying in that video, might need to watch it again.

 

[Xander]

Sometimes people conform to pressures not out of choice but out of conditioning. Those are hard to spot.

I go back to the example of an ENFP spending hours cramping his hand drawing exacting patterns over and over. Showing signs of ocd, which would be very odd for a P.

His behaviour fitted more of an ENFJ or perhaps an ENTJ. The things that betrayed him were small characteristics shown up in his MBTI type. I'm not sure how it would have been spotted using the functions or trying to guess how his mind was making the thoughts.

In the end the telltale was his test result which showed a minor preference for J. With what was known of him and the tenancy for those showing a minor preference for J actually being P (apparently a true J tends to show a clear preference for it, it's us Ps who waver... No shock there) the assessor typed him as ENFP. Once he'd read the description he agreed, which is the best for on confirmation.

 

[Jaguar]

What about if people fit the pattern because of pressures to conform to that pattern?

That's not uncommon.
People can be blind as to what comes naturally to them:

William had been experiencing some of the stages of mid-life, and had come to realize that he had accommodated his personality so much, to suit the demands of the world, that his real personality and preferences had been hidden from his conscious awareness. Towards the end of the counseling period, he charts his personal development through life using the Mental Muscle Diagram.

Full article here:

Myers Briggs and Personal Growth

 

[Cellmold]

That's not uncommon.
People can be blind as to what comes naturally to them:



Full article here:

Myers Briggs and Personal Growth

Interesting.

Of course William's story sounds pretty miserable to me; an account of how the mainstream (or rather profitable) working world is biased towards certain archetypes in ignorance of anything else. But maybe so because that's what works. It wouldn't be easy I know that. However in the end he had to sacrifice a life of comfortable money for a more comfortable working environment. It was spelt out as if it were a final end to the issue, but I suspect down the line he may need to change it up again for financial reasons.

Money is security, but little else to me, however it is also required to operate in virtually any way in a so-called modern setting. I mean you're born into it. I've never enjoyed or really tolerated any job I've worked because they all seem to require this intense depersonalisation of the individual to the point where you are just expected to tow a line without ever really examining what they are actually asking you to do, or what effects it has on you and others. For example basic retail such as on a till requires (from my perspective) an alarming amount of intense concentration.

You have to be aware of what you're pressing on a till, how much change, the behaviour of the customer, any potential shop-lifters, you're own attitudes and social graces, all the technical processes in transactions outside the norm and of course any one of those splits off into a myriad of variables and traits which are all minefields without any safety (E6 I know...). It's like Wallace & Gromit: The wrong trousers with the final chase scene on the train; Gromit is placing the track, but out of desperation rather than focus and there isn't a set angle of reliability in any of it, except that the track (once laid) will precipitate where the train goes.

Also I don't think anyone actually enjoys those jobs, they really are about tolerance and how much you can put up with depersonalisation until you crack.

 

[Xander]

Also I don't think anyone actually enjoys those jobs, they really are about tolerance and how much you can put up with depersonalisation until you crack.

This is why good hr is so important. You shouldn't feel like that.

When most consumers go out they want to deal with people and not "server number 7". When I did sales it was dealing with customers that made my day. They appreciated my enthusiasm for the products and my knowledge. I wasn't just any old guy behind the counter, I was that guy. Of course the management there aren't anything to go by so I left for greener pastures.

In my current role I'm supposed to be known and treated as a grade 4 (out of ten grades plus the uber management who are above grade 10) but I don't pay one bit of attention to it and as a result, people know who I am and what I can do. They don't know as much about the faceless masses.

To some extent it's a failure of the organisation not to value individualism. To some extent it's the individuals failure to make something of themselves.

 

[Entropic]

That method of recognition just sounds like personal taste, which is what pretty much everyone does with these systems to some extent. And Jung's definitions are a bit wandering and open to some debate, although some of it is clear cut; I need to go over Psychological Types for a clear example.

To be fair you did say the method was difficult to describe but I didn't really retain what you were saying in that video, might need to watch it again.

Sure, it's a matter of interpretation, hence I use a lot of the defintions offered by socionics since they are a lot clearer than Jung's. It's very intuitive to me at least.

 

[Cellmold]

Sure, it's a matter of interpretation, hence I use a lot of the defintions offered by socionics since they are a lot clearer than Jung's. It's very intuitive to me at least.

Ah right. I never trust intuition personally; that might be a point of difference here.

 

[Entropic]

Ah right. I never trust intuition personally; that might be a point of difference here.

I'm an intuitive dominant type, after all, so everything boils down to trusting what my gut says to me. Usually it's very right.

 

[Cellmold]

I'm an intuitive dominant type, after all, so everything boils down to trusting what my gut says to me. Usually it's very right.

Yeah, mine is usually wrong and I have to remember not to project that onto those who are usually right.

 

[johnnyyukon]

This was the very first site I used to type myself. It's kind of funny in it's simplicity, but I find it works a lot for others:

Get "The Code!!" haha

What's My Personality - Find Out Your Personality Code

 

[highlander]

If I had to prioritize, I'd probably put them in this order:

1. cognitive functions - rely on this first;look for ones you can discern then look for ordering
2. look for their temperament - this is harder to tell but you know, some people stand out as SJs or Nts or Sps or NFs
3. look for clues as to whether they are extraverted or introverted

I have wondered about using interaction styles on this as well but haven't tried it much.

 

[IZthe411]

I think looking for cognitive functions is the best way to go. You have to look beyond what they are saying and doing, as this is a behavioral approach. It's also not an instant thing either, as it takes time to establish patterns; It's best to be with a person in a variety of settings as well. It's also best if they aren't aware that you are typing them, so that they don't feel that they are under a microscope. Some people tense up if they know they are being watched. Over time, even if the person has mastered the ability to think and do like another type, who they truly are bleeds out. You just have to be sharp enough to catch it.