I read the typelogic description when we did a "Knowing Yourself" week in Africa; I immediately identified with it incredibly deeply.
After I started researching when I got home, I grew to see it as sketchy--I'm always nervous someone will google this when I talk about my type as an INTJ and think things about me that aren't true. And I too am wary to send any xSxx type to read those descriptions--they really suck. Have you read the ISTJ version?! Gah.
Yes, I had the same reaction to reading about my type -- on one level, it felt really good to know that my preferences aren't inherently bad. On another level, it's scary to think that some people get their ideas about what it's like to be your type from descriptions that are imprecise and full of extreme generalizations. Thanks for sharing your reaction. That makes me feel a little better about my own reaction.
I'd like to assume that the reason the _S_ descriptions are really lacking and misleading is because the author has a limited imagination. Reading over the _N_ descriptions, I can well see how they have appeal for people, but even if you LOVED your type description, I think you'd have to be a pretty one-dimensional person to identify with just those behaviors, and not see yourself as being more well-rounded than that.
Speaking of which, I find it odd that I've run into people who get very defensive about the _S_ descriptions. They'll try to shoot down anybody who questions the accuracy of these descriptions by claiming they "know people like that," and that anyone who doesn't identify with them must then not prefer Sensing. I've never understood why this is. I mean, I
know I have a peference for Sensing. It's pretty obvious. And yet I
know I don't fit any of those type decriptions that rely on stereotypes or flowery prose to tell me what it hypothetically should be like to be me. I use intuition to support my preference. That's pretty obvious too. Not many descriptions even acknowledge the role that tertiary or inferior iNtuition plays in the psychological makeup of _S_s.
I try not to think about it, but sometimes when I'm reminded that these stereotypes exist it feels like a slap in the face.
It seems to me that type descriptions like Typelogic's are "shorthand" -- a way of categorizing extreme examples of contextual behavior and labelling it proof psychological preferences, so that those who enjoy doing so can memorize it and then go on to "instant type" everyone they meet. I hope that's of some use to them, but I'm guessing the people who do that aren't all that interested in putting type theory to practical use. Maybe I'm not very enamored with this because everyone I'm related to, work with and socialize seems to me to be pretty complex, regardless of whether they prefer iNtuition or Sensing.
Sarah
ISFP