You make good points. I think that INFP, to me, is much less than its stereotypes. INFP is Fi with Ne... but what does that mean? I guess that is why its so much easier to use stereotypes, especially for people who know nothing about MBTI in the first place.
The type means much more than the pure functions infer but the person means a lot more than just the type. Though one is descriptive of the other, one is not the other. An apple is green, green is not apple.
You value stereotypes, I'm glad that you can admit that. I think that all human beings -need- stereotypes to an extent. Its impossible to understand the world without them (and I use "understanding" arbitrarily.) Then again, is it impossible to understand the world without stereotypes? I guess it is possible but the effort of viewing every single piece of something with an empty slate is inefficient.
To see everything objectively you would have to be nothing.
I was wrong in assuming all INTPs are alike." As opposed to saying "he must not be an INTP.. at least not a typical one." [/quote]
That's the entire point behind one of the quotes in my signature. The base MBTI book states that "All ENFPs are like all other ENFPs, like some other ENFPs, like no other ENFP".
I almost feel like MBTI is a roadblock to understanding a person when it is used incorrectly....which is unfortunate because it was created to be used as a tool for better understanding.
Could this not be said for the misunderstanding of all things? Religion when used correctly and understood fully is a boon to society but when used poorly it is a bane the same as a gun.
I will say that the stereotypes aren't so bad to the point that they need to be completly wiped from descriptions altogether, though I would like to see how it would look without them. You are probably correct in saying the problem can be remedied by re-educating those people who misuse it. But, Xander, I am curious as to how you would go about doing such a thing.
I was trained well by my ENTJ father. You wait until you can bear it no longer and then simply state "I'm sorry but you're going to have to die" and then carry it though. It's kind of evolved natural selection in practice
If that happened to me, I would question whether I had evaluated his type correctly, and I would also adjust my stereotype if it turned Jim was indeed an INTP.
It has been said that a wise man knows that he knows nothing. I think you get that.
So I am careful to make sure my "people boxes" are not too rigid.
I think that this is key to good use of the MBTI. The boxes are more rigid than the individual being typed. If they weren't then you would be reduced to just saying "This is Jim, he's a person".
I'm going to put these two together because, the way I see it, people aren't of a specific type. They're just slotted into types so it make it easier for us to categorize their motives and behaviors.
I'm beginning to think that this is what is meant by "dynamic type". Perhaps it's supposed to infer that although you may be an ESFJ you are not always an ESFJ in effect, not purely. It is only saying that if you were to take the average then you are an ESFJ and that this colours most of what you do.
An analogy is the rainbow. The visible spectrum contains a continuous range of wavelength from 400 - 700nm. But we say the rainbow has 7 colors: red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet. Why? To make it easier for us to describe them. Same goes for MBTI types.
That is an excellent example. I'll send that one along to my father for consideration in his book if you don't mind.
Existence of functions and function ordering... I think there's indications that cognitive functions exists and that everybody can and does use all 8. We do have preferences though and that leads to function ordering. I think it's safe to say that our dominant (1') and auxiliary (2') functions are first to develop and thus we can categorize people based on those two... which typology tries to do. After that, I doubt people develop the other functions in the same order. The so-call complete functional ordering, Berens' theories etc is a load of bulls. Just take a look at people's cognitive functions testing results and you'll see that there is no patterns beyond the 1st two functions.
Two things, aside from that I've never read Berens' theories. I think that the dominant functions are those we find easiest to work with. Just like the handedness example in mainstream MBTI literature. So yeah perhaps it is the first one we pick up, without studying a child under a microscope to see when they develop a left or right hand preference I'm thinking that you're probably right.
The second thing is in reference to function order. I think that you type only displays what your original preference order would be if you were a classic example of the type (probably an example that is purely theoretical in nature). The actual results shown by people will include what development they have gone through, their experiences and influences. That's why they don't really correlate neatly.
Point two, similar to the dynamic type idea... what we develop is use dependent. Throw ourselves in a theoretical environment, Ti and Te is more likely be to developed than say Fi or Fe. Our minds are also adaptive to environmental changes. We have a tendency to use pre-existing principles when responding to new stimuli... but these principles can be overridden by experience, which we obtain by immersion in a specific sort of environment.
Precisely. Hence no INTP is the same INTP after they have been exposed to exterior influences.
Hmmm... fancy doing a Schrodinger's cat example with types?
I see myself as a good example of this. I was first typed INFJ... now I'm closer to INTJ. Is it an environment induced change from F to T or is it the environment that leads to unmasking of my "actual" type? Not sure.
Well that's the thing isn't it. What we are is most often not what we were and the MBTI, as far as I understand it, is based more on what we were than what we are. It just helps us understand what we are by offering general predictions of patterns in our thinking.
Yes, type has as much to do with unconscious/subconscious tendencies as our deliberate actions. Unfortunately whenever you deal with the unconscious... evaluation becomes a great deal more difficult. You can't exactly ask people directly what's on their unconscious minds. Perhaps this is why people focus more on the conscious. Although the subconscious should be equally telling.
I think this is why I love those bits which tell you what the pitfalls are of a certain type as they tend to be more revealing about the persons subconscious.
Short of doing a proper study and testing the effectiveness of individual methods, I don't think this question can be answered. My suspicions is everybody is typing by comparing the person to some sort of mental pattern. Of cause, the type of pattern we have will be type dependent. An Si dominant will probably recall more details relating to specific mannerism, and quarks about different types more so than an Ni dominant individual. Clearly to ask an Ni dominant to use the Si method isn't going to work since they don't have the necessary details stored in their memories.
My rambling two cents that doesn't help.
It's your method and you can cry if you want to
Seems logical enough to me though.
This reflects how the "Temperament" contingency among type experts do it. Many, many others start with trying to identify the dominant function, what seems to be the person's motivation. Still others start with function pairs-ST, SF, NF, NT--and some of them think that's as close as you can get while avoiding too much bias.
Because the preferences are subgrouped in different ways for different purposes, I'm not sure there can be a universal method, nice as it might be. I suspect that people gain agility working with the method that is most apropo to the ways in which they use type. I for example use S and N so much with educators that I think I am very good at spotting those differences in constructive ways.
Perhaps then it show be taught as various approaches each shown to be a tool with relative strengths and weaknesses so that the user of the tools can select which tool is best applicable to the task at hand?
There does seem to be more literature available on what the types are, what it means and what it predicts than there is on how you should go about typing people. It seems that the current game of snap which most people engage in isn't as reliable as it perhaps should be.
#1 im going to ignore
#2 functions. personally, function orientation is the most important part of functions in general. without orientation they are pointless and have no power. a quick and dirty example of this is an ENFJ and an ENTP. an ENFJ uses Fe significantly different then an ENTP does, hopefully that is an obvious fact and it doesn't need to be explained. i will debate this point to the death if need be haha.
This is why I was hoping that function "users" would respond to #1 though. If you are observing a person in a less than ideal (for them) environment then the function usage will be slanted in favour of whatever they are using at that point in time.
#3 the subconscious is quite important and not in ways that we notice immediately. they (if you are talking functionally) are subconscious and tend to manifest themselves in a very off hand way and can almost seem childish at times. now if your just talking about subconscious cognitive processes NOT as defined by MBTI it is still the same. it is something that isn't easily accessable but does manifest itself in ways that you may not even notice. i would go into this more but im running on extremely low sleep.
So are you talking MBTI subconscious functions (ie the tertiary and inferior) or something else here? You've switched between MBTI and something undeclared.. either that or I'm confusing myself.
#4 i type by the temperaments. end of story. if someone else type by functions and gets the same type then great. if someone else types by some other random method, great. as long as we are typing right there is no right or wrong way to type. though i think whoever is being typed should read a few profiles of possible types and decide for themselves. they know quite a bit better than anyone else
That was one surprise I found whilst reading through the MBTI books. It states that the primary authority on a person's type is the person themselves. That seems to be kinda asking for trouble from an organisation that makes ends meet with computer readable tests and such.