Test your typing skills! Type these already-typed people

[Cenomite]

That's because he doesn't show much intuitive behavior to describe to other people that I can think of off-hand.

So he tested wrong or just doesn't show his N side much I suppose.

 

[zarc]

Answers:

1. eNTJ
2. INTJ
3. ENtP
4. ESFJ

Nightning came the closest.

For #1, one of three things could've happened...
1. I did a shitty job describing him
2. People did a shitty job typing him
3. He tested wrong
(4. A combonation)
His strengths reported from the humanmetrics test were:
1% E
39% N
61% T
12% J
Granted, I'm an INSANELY strong P, and I managed to score J on that test. So eNTP is also possible.


The others were pretty good!

1. Yea. To me, sounds like an unbalanced ESFP operating mostly on Se-Te. When he puts himself in an position of authority above you is it strained, as in it's not usually like him, or seems almost out of proportion to the situation? Does his authority seem naturally confident or does it seem aggressively so? Does he care that he's losing all that money?

2. I thought INTP due to a possible concentration of Ti-Si, the Si turning to repetitive tasks that he's used to, and that it might make a person OCDish. The intense outer defense isn't necessary of INTJs due to Fi giving them inner strength of their convictions and dealing with people-- even if they don't know how to deal with people, the confidence is usually there. If underdeveloped, INTPs' Fe wouldn't know how to respond to most people and have that 'outer defense' you mentioned. And the social skills, I think INTJs would sooner put themselves out there in order to infiltrate the environment with Te and learn how to adapt, so they make themselves better socially than INTPs. INTPs' Ne is only focused on their perceptual environment, so it's no shield against people and doesn't care to put itself out there other than to gather information for Ti.

He is quoted as saying, "I think that using logic to justify everything is good, and I seem to do that more than most people."

This also made me think Ti primary. INTJs would likely use their perception (Ni) to justify everything.

3. Mostly thought ETP. But the overall theme felt Se-Ti and not Ne-Ti. I'd think ESTPs would likely realise and apologise for hurting someone's feelings b/c it's more obvious (in an Se sense) and in their face than for an ENTP. More, but eh.

4. The most annoying (to type...) of all. Not being able to deal with her problems with others? An Fe Dom...? Hmm, seems more like an ESFP wouldn't know how to deal with their problems with others, if they were that unbalanced and cared enough to do it, rather than an EFJ. I don't think ESFJs would risk (most SJs don't like risk either) their placement in a group or they'd be discreet about all that back talking or just tell their most trusted friends. I'd think an EFJ would cut off ties with anyone once they've determined they didn't like them. I could see an EFP not giving a fuck about the consequences (possibly b/c they also can't see them). Does she like to keep those people around just to toy with them and have more stories to make fun of them with to her other friends?

Oh wells. T'was fun.

 

[me_plus_one]

I didn't look at what others posted.

1. ESTP
2. INTJ
3. ESFP
4. ESFJ


I am convinced I guessed at least three out of four. Or maybe not. Heh, I didn't do that bad after all.

 

[NewEra]

My guesses:

Person #1 - ENTP

Person #2 - INTJ

Person #3 - ENFP

Person #4 - ENTJ

 

[Night]

Valuable exercise, Cenomite.

This thread offers unusual distinction into some of the predominant stereotypes that infiltrate judgment on type classifications (mine, at least) while perhaps unveiling further some of the qualitative descriptions some mechanically associate with type.

1. Initially, I deduced my ESTP description on the basis of WHO the individual interacted with and HOW. Phrases like "he's a dick", or that he "talk shit to dealers and frequently loses money" created a visualization of a fast-talking, socially-adroit individual who was simultaneously comfortable with impulsive gambling while tailoring conversation to his immediate advantage.

In doing so, I glossed over what I concluded to be less expressive details (quality of his friendship; fashion sensibility) and, in the end, fabricated an inaccurate evaluation against certain "false positive" criteria. The error was in my inability to aptly select reasonable evidence from unimportant data.

Just a quick example of the processes that fueled my misconceptions.

Anyone else experience anything similar to this?

 

[The Ü™]

Answers:

1. eNTJ
2. INTJ
3. ENtP
4. ESFJ

Dammit, I should've posted my guesses (I was just afraid of being wrong and making myself look like an ass) -- my guesses were exactly the same, minus the lowercase letters.

 

[Night]

Uber -- which elements stood out to you? What did you employ to distinguish reliable data from background noise?

 

[garbage]

Anyone else experience anything similar to this?

Pretty much exactly, yeah.. the elements you posted seemed to scream Se-dominant, which is why I guessed ESTP.. with ENTJ as another possibility based on the rest of the description.

 

[Night]

In the end, I think the MBTI creates an arena where circular rationale is encouraged. Cenomite's thread provides a microcosm into this system of judgment.

Why do we assume the NT is intelligent? Because most NTs have been observed to be intelligent.

Why is the SF popularly assumed to carefree? Because many SFs have been observed as carefree.

Statements of personal value (intelligent v. unintelligent) often infect judgment to the extent that passive observation becomes an experiment in identifying certain "context clues" that combine to illustrate common experience with Type A v. Type B.

Pretty much exactly, yeah.. the elements you posted seemed to scream Se-dominant, which is why I guessed ESTP.. with ENTJ as another possibility based on the rest of the description.

Thank you. Deconstructing methodology into individual motivators makes for interesting retrospection.

 

[The Ü™]

Uber -- which elements stood out to you? What did you employ to distinguish reliable data from background noise?

Well, the stereotypes described seemed all too obvious, so I was hesitant to jump to conclusions and make an ass out of myself.

But as for the first one, he certainly doesn't seem cooperative and rule-bound like an ESTJ, but something of a maverick. So why not ESTP? Well, the authoritative element suggested ENTJ, a "strategic initiator," as Keirsey now calls it.

The second one was just so obviously a stereotypical INTJ. It was basically a picture of Sheldon Cooper in The Big Bang Theory. Borderline autistic and in a world of his own.

The third had Ne written all over it. And coupled with the insensitivity and interest in computer programming, had to be a T.

The fourth is pretty much a bitchy mother type, a preppy, sorority sister, an organized ditz, an evil Catholic school girl, AKA ESFJ.

It just goes to prove that the stereotypes are real and should be believed in.

 

[Randomnity]

I'm surprised to see passive-aggressiveness in an ESFJ. I've seen that (almost?) exclusively in people I know or believe to be Ps, especially FPs...and I say that as a P. In particular the ESFJs I know are VERY far from *passive* aggression. Maybe it's a learned trait though (ie non-mbti).

 

[nightning]

This thread offers unusual distinction into some of the predominant stereotypes that infiltrate judgment on type classifications (mine, at least) while perhaps unveiling further some of the qualitative descriptions some mechanically associate with type.

1. Initially, I deduced my ESTP description on the basis of WHO the individual interacted with and HOW. Phrases like "he's a dick", or that he "talk shit to dealers and frequently loses money" created a visualization of a fast-talking, socially-adroit individual who was simultaneously comfortable with impulsive gambling while tailoring conversation to his immediate advantage.

In doing so, I glossed over what I concluded to be less expressive details (quality of his friendship; fashion sensibility) and, in the end, fabricated an inaccurate evaluation against certain "false positive" criteria. The error was in my inability to aptly select reasonable evidence from unimportant data.

Just a quick example of the processes that fueled my misconceptions.

Anyone else experience anything similar to this?

Yes. The descriptions are almost stereotypical... with the exception of person #1... which seems to be a mixture of stereotypical behaviour. Looking at this backwards, it's as if when we describe an individual, our knowledge of their type (or presumed type) influences what we focus on and thus what we mention.

I'm surprised to see passive-aggressiveness in an ESFJ. I've seen that (almost?) exclusively in people I know or believe to be Ps, especially FPs...and I say that as a P. In particular the ESFJs I know are VERY far from *passive* aggression. Maybe it's a learned trait though (ie non-mbti).

Actually, I've seen passive-aggressiveness in an ESFJ that I know. It's probably better labelled as "manipulative" behaviour. Playing on guilt and emotions in getting their way sort of thing. Very much Fe driven.

 

[Night]

Precisely.

When we latch on to these observed behavioral "receptors", we're buying into the theoretically-supported bias that gives centrifugal force to the MBTI as a measuring stick.

It is something of a chicken/egg scenario -- are we now impossibly bound (after understanding the MBTI) to spelunk for these would-be empirical "hotspots" that provide rationale that an individual is a certain type against his displayed behavior?

Perhaps our thinking caps are forever dented.

 

[cascadeco]

Actually, I've seen passive-aggressiveness in an ESFJ that I know. It's probably better labelled as "manipulative" behaviour. Playing on guilt and emotions in getting their way sort of thing. Very much Fe driven.

Yes, I think FJ's/ Fe's can be quite passive-aggressive and manipulative in this sense, but it's something Fi's can exhibit as well. So I don't think behaviorally it's a great indicator of type.

As for the exercise, it is interesting. Just illustrates various methods of typing, and also how the profiles, catchphrases, and rhetoric associated with each type influences how we go about typing people. (Question though: Since it IS a general classification system to begin with, and we have to classify in some way, maybe the catchphrases are the way we choose to do it? The method of typing doesn't really matter, as long as everyone agreed on the consistent best method to type!! haha)

Shall we decide to solely use profiles as the means of categorization and classification? Or dig deeper? Depending on the method, a single person could be classified as various types.

I've never thought the various theories lined up seamlessly with one another - i.e. simple profiles and the dichotomy approach, cognitive function approach, interaction/leadership styles, etc. If everyone decided to just stick to one approach, it might be more clear cut. It's combining these various methods (which are theories anyhow - I've never been convinced on the whole function order thing) that causes fuzziness and makes one person focus on certain aspects as their means of typing and defining type, and another person focus on other aspects as their means of defining type.

A consistent, unifying method would make things easier. But in the end, it is just a means of classifying personality trends - so it'll always just be a broad 'summary' of the person, leaving out the little idiosyncracies and the immense amount of psychological things that aren't accounted for by mbti.

Just my opinion though - and sorry for the wordiness.

 

[The Ü™]

Of course, one could wonder if Cenomite made those profiles all up...

 

[Night]

Of course, one could wonder if Cenomite made those profiles all up...

Would it change the unifying theme?

That is, that we look for popular traits against what the MBTI teaches and therefore unavoidably commit circular bias to ensure "accurate" classification.

I guess my primary charge is that much of what the MBTI offers is grounded in generalization, whereas other scientific models propose intimate evaluation as the basis for conclusion.

The common MBTI phrase that, "everyone is an exception" is something of an apologist approach and should cast doubt into the ultimate credibility of the MBTI as a model for reliable examination.

Maybe I'm overstating my basis. Perhaps the principle I've outlined is a given, and I've simply overlooked it up to this point.

 

[nightning]

Yes, I think FJ's/ Fe's can be quite passive-aggressive and manipulative in this sense, but it's something Fi's can exhibit as well. So I don't think behaviorally it's a great indicator of type.

Yes, there's that too... I guess it's not so much the behaviour as working out the intent behind it that matters more.

(Question though: Since it IS a general classification system to begin with, and we have to classify in some way, maybe the catchphrases are the way we choose to do it? The method of typing doesn't really matter, as long as everyone agreed on the consistent best method to type!! haha)

Shall we decide to solely use profiles as the means of categorization and classification? Or dig deeper? Depending on the method, a single person could be classified as various types.

Can there ever be a consistent method for typing? I guess the problem here is that none of the theories are all encompassing. So people pick and choose different aspect to best fit an individual.

I've never thought the various theories lined up seamlessly with one another - i.e. simple profiles and the dichotomy approach, cognitive function approach, interaction/leadership styles, etc. If everyone decided to just stick to one approach, it might be more clear cut. It's combining these various methods (which are theories anyhow - I've never been convinced on the whole function order thing) that causes fuzziness and makes one person focus on certain aspects as their means of typing and defining type, and another person focus on other aspects as their means of defining type.

When I type I actually take an aggregate of the dichotomy and cognitive functions... Actually, the objective isn't so much to type but to understand them. So I have no problems with using whatever I have on hand.

The issue with two people coming up with different type is interesting though. Just like when two different tests give you different answers, which one do you go with? Or neither? Or something in between? Or perhaps it doesn't matter at all?

 

[hokie912]

Yes, I think FJ's/ Fe's can be quite passive-aggressive and manipulative in this sense, but it's something Fi's can exhibit as well. So I don't think behaviorally it's a great indicator of type.

I talked about this recently with a friend who finds INFPs to be passive-aggressive, and we realized that it's probably a miscommunication thing. I don't think INFPs are actively passive-aggressive, but their non-directive style of communication sometimes makes them come across as such to strong Js. Like, some INFPs I've known will say, "Oh, we're out of paper." and not follow up on it, while a judging person expects to hear, "I'll get more paper," or at least "Could you pick up some paper?" So it might not be that their intention is to make someone else do what they want, but that's what comes across. I wonder if this applies to some extent to all types with strong Fi.

Most of the people I have met who strike me as actively passive-aggressive are FJs, but maybe that's just the sample of people I know. ISFJs seem to fall into that trap especially easily. Again, probably to some extent a communication issue.

 

[Cenomite]

Of course, one could wonder if Cenomite made those profiles all up...

No. That would pretty much void the effectiveness of this thread/exercise. If you don't believe me, please direct further comments to a wall.

 

[Venom]

my guesses, without looking for the answers somewhere in this thread:

1. ESTP
2. INTJ
3. ENTJ
4. ESFJ

edit:
ok so it seems my 1 and 3 are "wrong".

1. remove this sentence: "He walks around with a popped collar, frequently in casinos talking shit to dealers and losing money" and i would of guessed ENTJ for "1". Popped collars and losing money sounds like very un NTJ behavior...

3. the difference between ENTP and ENTJ is pretty hard for me to see if: they arent in charge of something, arent trying to become in charge of something, are young and/or if either on has an ounce of Fe/Fi (for each respective type).