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!
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."
Answers:
1. eNTJ
2. INTJ
3. ENtP
4. ESFJ
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.
Uber -- which elements stood out to you? What did you employ to distinguish reliable data from background noise?
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 "talkshit 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?
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.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.
Of course, one could wonder if Cenomite made those profiles all up...
Yes, there's that too... I guess it's not so much the behaviour as working out the intent behind it that matters more.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.
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.(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.
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.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.
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.
Of course, one could wonder if Cenomite made those profiles all up...