MBTI is almost useless

["?"]

Finally, in the last few months, I've begun to understand MBTI. There are no logical inconsistencies in my understanding, and I can break down any behavior into functions. The problem is, there is always more than one way to describe a behavior from a functional standpoint. Ne, Fi, Te, Si can solve the same problem that Se, Ti, Fe, Ni can solve. They can explain their thought processes in the same way.

So the question comes, what next? Do I stick around to learn more if possible and to maybe share my insights on expounding on the system, do I take what I have learned and help those now learning, do I go on to some other subject of interest? What is the finality of knowing? Your choice and yours alone because those seem to be the three options.

 

[Mole]

I think the value of MBTI Central is the people here. We are many and varied from many points on the globe.

And what is most valuable about the people here is the interactions.

It is through the interactions we become present for one another and for ourselves.

We are, each one of us, a present to the other.

And as a bonus, MBTI Central is well run and tolerant.

 

[Xander]

Reduction process...

I don't need the MBTI labels because I operate just fine without labels... = good for you. No seriously and with no malice.

You are not your MBTI type and your type is not you. Your type is a tool a hypothesis zero against which you can compare yourself and learn. If you already know then it's use is reduced.

Dissonance, you typed your friend after knowing them? That's not a good practice, the additional knowledge can lead you astray. Those who gain an INTJs confidence will begin to see the emotion and the influences and can fail to see how they appear to those they don't know and hence don't type them as INTJ. I fell into that trap trying to type my long term ENFP friend and thought he was something similar to me or when trying to rationalise my type to others. The thing is I am typed as INTP because according to the system of MBTI I am an INTP in classification. However you will not often find me doing things as the hypothesis zero expects. I do however find that by comparing myself to that hypothesis zero that I can explain myself better and also understand some of the under currents of my nature better.

As for the whole being an INFJ who prefers T.. you ever think that's part of your 9 facet? For example most INTPs who I speak to do not balance their types (a couple of notable exceptions like Jack and IF#### (never can recall the number)) who are both 5s and yet seem to understand balance as I do rather than the intensity shown in most examples I've met.

See for me it's never been about learning about the MBTI as a system via books and dissertations but rather by studying people and then finding out their type and seeing how all the Fs I know do one particular thing. This way I've kind of built up my own list of traits which I associate with each type based upon the people I've know of that type (chatting with my father, who's a pro in this kinda stuff, also has helped a great deal).

Something that is consistently put to me in discussion with my father and in general is that a persons type is not a final chapter.. it's more the prologue so you have some context by which to base the book which you are about to read. Sure it may end up that with all the twists and turns that the story takes that the origional prologue means less but it was still the first step into that world and provided the basis for your understanding. That's what the MBTI is supposed to be, a basis for understanding. All the prescriptive thoughts that people insist on propogating only makes things worse. It's about preferences and nuances which can and do contradict the stated preferances. To describe people in full detail would require great works of writing and be almost useless in discussion, except for perhaps Bluewing, hence the MBTI's types are the abbreviated and simplified versions.. the people whom the type begins to descibe are however complex things and should never be considered to be limited by their type.

 

[redacted]

Dissonance, you typed your friend after knowing them? That's not a good practice, the additional knowledge can lead you astray. Those who gain an INTJs confidence will begin to see the emotion and the influences and can fail to see how they appear to those they don't know and hence don't type them as INTJ.

You're saying I should type on less information as opposed to more? That seems worse than my method. Any INTJ is going to have visible Fi, even on the first interaction I have with them. People in general are not much of a mystery to me, I just work out the little kinks over time. There are a few exceptions, but they're hard to fit into the MBTI framework anyway, which means I need the information it would take to get to know them to fit them into MBTI in the first place.

If you type people before you get to know them you're likely going to be wrong about their type in a lot of cases, which is much worse than just being unsure about their type...

As for the whole being an INFJ who prefers T.. you ever think that's part of your 9 facet?

You're saying I should explain why I don't fit cleanly into one arbitrarily defined system by using another arbitrarily defined system? Seems kinda odd.

See for me it's never been about learning about the MBTI as a system via books and dissertations but rather by studying people and then finding out their type and seeing how all the Fs I know do one particular thing.

That's the thing. Not all Fs I know do one particular thing. This is really the entire reason for my post.

A metaphor for you: how do you define the word "game" so that everything that we call a game is classified as one and everything that we don't call a game is not? The point is, there is no clean divide between game and not game just like there is no clean divide between F and T. I guarantee if you made some statement "all Ts I know do this", I would fit. And most of the generalizations I've heard about Fs don't apply to me.

There's a theory about classification called prototype theory. There is some prototype for a concept, and you measure whether or not something fits the concept by how closely it relates to the prototype. In fact, you can have a bunch of prototypes and just measure the closeness to one of them (this has some other name that I'm forgetting). So even that resolves the boundaries for "game". It STILL doesn't resolve the boundaries of T and F.

The truth is, F doesn't necessarily mean F>T and T doesn't necessarily mean T>F. IJs and EPs can have reversed F and T order, and IPs and EJs can have reversed N and S order.

And that's not even my main qualm with the system. I can handle that part. The part I can't handle is watching people apply these "profiles" or whatever generalization they've observed to individuals. Especially if they don't have a coherent view of the system in the first place.

 

[Xander]

You're saying I should type on less information as opposed to more? That seems worse than my method. Any INTJ is going to have visible Fi, even on the first interaction I have with them. People in general are not much of a mystery to me, I just work out the little kinks over time. There are a few exceptions, but they're hard to fit into the MBTI framework anyway, which means I need the information it would take to get to know them to fit them into MBTI in the first place.

If you type people before you get to know them you're likely going to be wrong about their type in a lot of cases, which is much worse than just being unsure about their type...

Woah there... BIG leap.

Process A, know basics about person. Probably things which are clear now are preferences as according to MBTI. Know a person REALLY well, know the contradictions and label the person by name first. The first case you've possibly picked up enough to type them, second case you may get confused with the presence of contradictory information.

You're saying I should explain why I don't fit cleanly into one arbitrarily defined system by using another arbitrarily defined system? Seems kinda odd.

Balance the black and the white. If I guess right you see that there's a whole plethora of grey in between.. locate yourself within one of the hectars of shade.

Personally I'm not really a typical 9 nor a typical INTP (I'm expecting a few nods when people read that bit )... why should I worry? The 9 does actually add F to my setup though as I am trying to empathise to understand people's motivations so I can mediate better. It's not the type defining me but me using the type to communicate that habit in shorthand. You don't really expect INTP 9 to sum me up as a whole?

That's the thing. Not all Fs I know do one particular thing. This is really the entire reason for my post.

Really? You don't get a warm vibe from Fs that Ts tend to lack unless you get really close? Odd.

Realistically the Fs I know don't really appear the same but that vibe is still there. With the Ts I think it's more the "sharpness" that I pick up.. almost like they're ready for the next brain teaser or something... Dom's the exception... he's kinda both but I like exceptions... I don't believe in certainty.

A metaphor for you: how do you define the word "game" so that everything that we call a game is classified as one and everything that we don't call a game is not? The point is, there is no clean divide between game and not game just like there is no clean divide between F and T. I guarantee if you made some statement "all Ts I know do this", I would fit. And most of the generalizations I've heard about Fs don't apply to me.

Congrats you're developed... what's the problem with being an exceptional person?

There's a theory about classification called prototype theory. There is some prototype for a concept, and you measure whether or not something fits the concept by how closely it relates to the prototype. In fact, you can have a bunch of prototypes and just measure the closeness to one of them (this has some other name that I'm forgetting). So even that resolves the boundaries for "game". It STILL doesn't resolve the boundaries of T and F.

The truth is, F doesn't necessarily mean F>T and T doesn't necessarily mean T>F. IJs and EPs can have reversed F and T order, and IPs and EJs can have reversed N and S order.

So your gripe is that people are more diverse than the system allows for? Correct. What's your point? Throw it out? Why? Have you gotten rid of mental arithmatic because you bought a calculator?

And that's not even my main qualm with the system. I can handle that part. The part I can't handle is watching people apply these "profiles" or whatever generalization they've observed to individuals. Especially if they don't have a coherent view of the system in the first place.

So would it be fair to say that your problem lies not with the MBTI but in how it is used... sounds like you should correct the problem and not it's symptom. Just remove their heads... stops the problem immediately.

 

[redacted]

Woah there... BIG leap.

Process A, know basics about person. Probably things which are clear now are preferences as according to MBTI. Know a person REALLY well, know the contradictions and label the person by name first. The first case you've possibly picked up enough to type them, second case you may get confused with the presence of contradictory information.

I completely disagree with the bolded sentence. Even if it were true, you're going to communicate with them holding certain assumptions -- you WILL be a victim to confirmation bias unless you don't apply it at all, in which case it's pointless. It's true that if they happen to fit the archetype extremely well, you'll gain some insight, but if you go around assuming that, you'll underweight information when people don't fit their supposed type well.

The only accurate way to apply MBTI is to hold out on assessment until you know the ins and outs of their personality quite well, but at that point...well, you know their personality quite well.

No matter what, applying the system means applying black and white judgments to a grey reality. Unless you account for the greyness... which takes a lot of information.

It's not the type defining me but me using the type to communicate that habit in shorthand.

This is the one point I agree with, which I've stated multiple times throughout the thread.

Really? You don't get a warm vibe from Fs that Ts tend to lack unless you get really close? Odd.

I do in general. But if I type people based on that correlation, I'll mistype a lot of them. Straight up.

The truth is, Xander, making a mistake on just one person's type leads to consequences that far outweigh the benefits of typing 80% of others correctly.

Congrats you're developed... what's the problem with being an exceptional person?

The truth is, I'm not actually very well developed or mature. My Feeling is quite underdeveloped. The F in my type just led you to a false conclusion. See what I mean?

So your gripe is that people are more diverse than the system allows for? Correct. What's your point? Throw it out? Why? Have you gotten rid of mental arithmatic because you bought a calculator?

So would it be fair to say that your problem lies not with the MBTI but in how it is used... sounds like you should correct the problem and not it's symptom. Just remove their heads... stops the problem immediately.

In reality, though, I don't know anyone who correctly applies the system to the standards I hold (including myself, which is the point of this thread). Just one mistype has far more consequences than the system has to offer. Just one misapplication does the same.

Have you not been listening to me? If you use the system in the correct way, you need to account for the grey. In order to account for the grey, you need tons of information. To get that information, you already get the person in question. So why do you need MBTI?

Either you gain insight from applying the system in a black in white way, or it's pointless. I'm arguing that you don't gain enough insight from the black and white system to outweigh the problems with applying it that way.

 

[animenagai]

i love MBTI. it gives me tools to really understand where people are coming from. sure i may not be able to categorize them fully, but you can still find useful parts to it.

no offense, but i'm not sure i like a thread like this on a MBTI forum.

 

[redacted]

no offense, but i'm not sure i like a thread like this on a MBTI forum.

I'm sure you don't like it.

And how does this not belong in the forum? It's discussion about MBTI. There are plenty of bullshit threads here; this is certainly not one of them. You don't have to read it if you don't want to.

 

[Xander]

So why do you need MBTI?

Okay third try.. keep losing my responses.. bloomin logging in and out... stupid stuff!!!

My first use of the MBTI was to try to understand that my way of thinking is not universal. To try to recognise other's thinking and to allow for it.

The MBTI is not about applying labels to people but understanding them. To understand something you have to start with an assumption. That's just how us humans work.

 

[Xander]

i love MBTI. it gives me tools to really understand where people are coming from. sure i may not be able to categorize them fully, but you can still find useful parts to it.

no offense, but i'm not sure i like a thread like this on a MBTI forum.

If we don't challenge our premises we may stagnate. As long as it's civil what's the harm?

 

[animenagai]

If we don't challenge our premises we may stagnate. As long as it's civil what's the harm?

i guess you're right. my first instinct was that it's a bit like going to a ball game and saying the sport sucks. MBTI is what got us all together, so saying it's useless did not appeal to me.

 

[Carebear]

Okay third try.. keep losing my responses.. bloomin logging in and out... stupid stuff!!!

My first use of the MBTI was to try to understand that my way of thinking is not universal. To try to recognise other's thinking and to allow for it.

The MBTI is not about applying labels to people but understanding them. To understand something you have to start with an assumption. That's just how us humans work.

If we don't challenge our premises we may stagnate. As long as it's civil what's the harm?

QFT.

 

[Delphyne]

The MBTI is not about applying labels to people but understanding them. To understand something you have to start with an assumption. That's just how us humans work.

That´s just how us NPs work. NPs use theories and systems as tools. They grab them, wield them and make adjustments while they try to work with them. It´s not the same with NJs because their function processes act in a different way. First, NJs need to question the validity of a theory or system. Dissonance is not the only NJ here who does this and I don´t think it´s helpful if they try to understand a theory in the NP way. But maybe it helps a little if they see the difference of how their approach differs from the NP approach.

 

[Jack Flak]

^Haha SUCKERS

 

[Xander]

i guess you're right. my first instinct was that it's a bit like going to a ball game and saying the sport sucks. MBTI is what got us all together, so saying it's useless did not appeal to me.

But most of them do suck...

That´s just how us NPs work. NPs use theories and systems as tools. They grab them, wield them and make adjustments while they try to work with them. It´s not the same with NJs because their function processes act in a different way. First, NJs need to question the validity of a theory or system. Dissonance is not the only NJ here who does this and I don´t think it´s helpful if they try to understand a theory in the NP way. But maybe it helps a little if they see the difference of how their approach differs from the NP approach.

Ah. Makes sense. Damn.

Well I can only convey as I understand it I guess...

Still. Damn.

 

[INTJMom]

I personally have found MBTT very useful - life-changing-ly useful - Thank-goodness-I-had-this-or-I-don't-know-where-I'd-be useful.
I don't personally relate to or agree with those who find it useless.
I guess it depends on what one tries to use it for.
I agree with Xander in that I use it to better understand people.
It helps me get along with them better.

 

[redacted]

my first instinct was that it's a bit like going to a ball game and saying the sport sucks.

The only problem with that analogy is that I've been a fan of this ball game for two years, and my opinion of it is just changing now. Plus, I've been on this forum for almost a year now, participating in hundreds of discussions.

Honestly, I mean no one any ill-will. But I feel obligated to share my ideas about the drawbacks to this system -- we all get comfortable here, and it's hard to question our own beliefs.

This is all about cognitive dissonance, really. The more you use a system, the harder it will be to tell yourself that it isn't valid, because doing so means you have to admit to yourself that you may have made many more mistakes than you had originally thought. It's the same idea with pledging a fraternity. A Brother is much more likely to discuss the negative aspects of the system right at the beginning. Once they go through the pledging process, thinking of the system as negative makes them wonder why they went through all the bullshit to join. So to resolve the potential dissonance, they will literally like the fraternity more, because it's more comfortable.

 

[edcoaching]

This is all about cognitive dissonance, really. The more you use a system, the harder it will be to tell yourself that it isn't valid, because doing so means you have to admit to yourself that you may have made many more mistakes than you had originally thought. It's the same idea with pledging a fraternity. A Brother is much more likely to discuss the negative aspects of the system right at the beginning. Once they go through the pledging process, thinking of the system as negative makes them wonder why they went through all the bullshit to join. So to resolve the potential dissonance, they will literally like the fraternity more, because it's more comfortable.

So you're talking about the theory as it's used in this forum? To me the test is real life. The more I use it as a tool for bringing understanding and change to teams and schools, and the more I see it work, the more I think it's a good thing...if it didn't work I'd be the first looking for a different toolkit...

 

[Simplexity]

delphyne made a great point! when its used as a flexible tool its highly effective IMO. A general guideline to begin to form a template, not some in depth extremely accurate psychoanalytic questionaire that gets to the root of any person. Mix and match it with your natural instincts and observations about a persons personality.

 

[Nocapszy]

Flexible can turn into flimsy.