Type Shaming Threads

[geedoenfj]

I'm already ashamed of my type

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

It really doesn't bother me, although I don't feel strongly enough about it one way or the other. I guess I kind of used to do that a little bit, but I've grown out of it. I assume if I have issues with a particular person, it could be for any number of reasons, some of which have to do with me, and some of which have to do with the other person, and I don't really know which of those reasons, if any, are MBTI related.

 

[OrangeAppled]

If it can legitimately be connected to type, then it is interesting. Everyone has flaws, and I think it is useful to discuss the patterns in types; if there are common strengths, then there is the flipside of flaws that tend to go hand-in-hand. It is just a part of the whole picture, which I prefer over some delusional, overly positive portrait. Chalking everything up to "anybody can have that flaw" or "it's not type related" all the time misses nuances and basically demeans the whole system (so then what are you doing here?).

I also want to be careful to not dismiss things just because motive isn't totally pure. People can still bring a truth to light even if their motive is not good. If someone has a complaint, then I try and see if it is really a type pattern playing out, regardless of their attitude.

But there are times when the premise is just off and it is not possible to explain it in terms of type, yet the person demands that. Yes, I know we are talking about the recent "Fi dependency" thread. What is described doesn't strike me as fitting the pattern.

My tendency then is to question the accuracy of the premise, wonder how a person came up with it, and then that almost always leads to some emotional motive that is more about their personal problems than type theory. I may try and still look at it from the perspective of type, offering a different interpretation as a possibility, but often that isn't what the person really wants anyway. If you ask someone what they want, but they don't respond to that, then there is not much to be said. It just turns into a childish "No, YOU!" argument.

 

[Evo]

But there are times when the premise is just off and it is not possible to explain it in terms of type, yet the person demands that.

Yes this is dumb when that happens.

But other than that happening, I still don't see a problem, even if it isn't type related. I think it's great to explore the topic either way.

And even if the information is wrong, who cares? People should be smart enough to discern that on their own. Can't right every wrong...

 

[Dreamer]

The beauty of personality forums like this is that you can discuss the various differences between types and to get a better understanding of where people are coming from and how they process information. The type rant threads themselves don't bother me so much as people's inability, or rather, refusal to understand where other people are coming from. I wouldn't be so quick to vilify an OP of said thread types, but try to see what they do not understand of the type they are attempting to shame. Being around so many TJs in my life, I've learned to seek clarification of the things they say since they can often times be much more blunt with their words. Are they trying to offend me? Most times not. But since they don't wrap emotion into their words, they don't find issue in delivering words in such a way.

Typology and this site on the whole, has allowed me to access other types so readily that I get personally offended by people's words far less easily since I can now better understand various personally type approaches.

In a way, shaming those that shame certain personality types, is really no different to me.

I totally understand where the OP of this thread is coming from though and can see the frustration in it for sure.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

The beauty of personality forums like this is that you can discuss the various differences between types and to get a better understanding of where people are coming from and how they process information. The type rant threads themselves don't bother me so much as people's inability, or rather, refusal to understand where other people are coming from. I wouldn't be so quick to vilify an OP of said thread types, but try to see what they do not understand of the type they are attempting to shame. Being around so many TJs in my life, I've learned to seek clarification of the things they say since they can often times be much more blunt with their words. Are they trying to offend me? Most times not. But since they don't wrap emotion into their words, they don't find issue in delivering words in such a way.

Typology and this site on the whole, has allowed me to access other types so readily that I get personally offended by people's words far less easily since I can now better understand various personally type approaches.

In a way, shaming those that shame certain personality types, is really no different to me.

I totally understand where the OP of this thread is coming from though and can see the frustration in it for sure.

Except that it isn't rejecting and shaming an entire category of people who may or may not be guilty of a behavior. It only applies to people who actually do the behavior, regardless of type. It's not calling anyone evil, but just a request to see if anyone cares to stop an irrational behavior that is unlikely to result in productive discussion. You agree it can be taken too far, right? There are limits. The only question is where is that limit? Each person will answer differently. I think calling entire categories of people evil is prejudicial and not analytical. Is that a point that needs further evidence to be convincing?

 

[Yama]

I love being repeatedly accused of "hiding something socially unacceptable" despite multiple times saying that I am not.

I also love being told that I'm going to grow up to be a deadbeat abusive drunk or something similar because that's what ISFJs are apparently.

I also love that almost no one gave a shit about any of the other functions being attacked except for Fi.

 

[Norrsken]

All FJs are manipulative emotional sluts, [MENTION=23583]Yamato Nadeshiko[/MENTION] being the biggest one.

 

[Yama]

All FJs are manipulative emotional sluts, [MENTION=23583]Yamato Nadeshiko[/MENTION] being the biggest one.

What's funny is that the most emotionally manipulative person I come into regular contact with is an ENFP... but you don't see me making threads whining about how Fi types are emotionally manipulative and accusing anyone who disagrees of hiding something. lmaooo

 

[Norrsken]

What's funny is that the most emotionally manipulative person I come into regular contact with is an ENFP... but you don't see me making threads whining about how Fi types are emotionally manipulative and accusing anyone who disagrees of hiding something. lmaooo

Its also hilarious how unhealthy Fi types can actually manipulate situations seemingly even better than some of the twisted Fe types I've come across in my life. Gotta love it when they talk about how brutally honest they are and how important it is to keep it real but then they flip a table when you give them the same medicine.

 

[Yama]

Its also hilarious how unhealthy Fi types can actually manipulate situations seemingly even better than some of the twisted Fe types I've come across in my life. Gotta love it when they talk about how brutally honest they are and how important it is to keep it real but then they flip a table when you give them the same medicine.

I don't think it's about Fi or Fe being better at manipulation... and unhealthy Fi or Fe type can both be manipulative. What would make the discussion interesting and not shitty and biased like the current threads about it is how unhealthy Fi/Fe differ with manipulation. How they do it in different ways. Also, the keyword is unhealthy. The current threads assume that all Fi/Fe users are like this.

Just because there's an ENFP in my life that I have problems with, doesn't mean I project all of my problems with her onto all ENFPs. Which is exactly what these "truth about the functions" threads are doing.

 

[prplchknz]

What's funny is that the most emotionally manipulative person I come into regular contact with is an ENFP... but you don't see me making threads whining about how Fi types are emotionally manipulative and accusing anyone who disagrees of hiding something. lmaooo

yeah but any type can be emotionally manipulative. it comes down to the person and not their type sure different types might express it in different ways. but that does not mean all Fi users are emotionally manipulative. like i know SJ who are very controlling and perfectionist but i know SJs who are not same with every other fucking type. thats like saying i meet one person from montana and they have red hair and i go around trying to convince people that if someone has red hair they're from montana and if they don't have red hair and claim to be from montana they're lying

 

[Yama]

yeah but any type can be emotionally manipulative. it comes down to the person and not their type sure different types might express it in different ways. but that does not mean all Fi users are emotionally manipulative. like i know SJ who are very controlling and perfectionist but i know SJs who are not same with every other fucking type. thats like saying i meet one person from montana and they have red hair and i go around trying to convince people that if someone has red hair they're from montana and if they don't have red hair and claim to be from montana they're lying

Yeah, that's what I'm saying. And it was mentioned before in this thread that "but saying anyone can do it is boring!! When you attribute it to a type there's a discussion!" But the discussion would be 1. more accurate and 2. more interesting if we talked about how the behavior manifests in different types. So like, "What does unhealthy Fi vs unhealthy Fe manipulation look like?" instead of an OP that says "Fi/Fe/whatever function is the worst and it ALWAYS DOES THIS! all the time no exceptions"

 

[Lady Lazarus]

As one of the most frequently "involved" (if solely in the broad abstract as a type) I feel as if my reaction to being told to be ashamed in a manner so utterly bereft of guile (Actual intent aside due to failure) is to feel pride.

 

[Pionart]

Psychological Types have associated negative characteristics.

Most of you seem to have a very limited grasp of Jungian Psychology, however.

Ever heard of this thing called the SHADOW?

 

[Evo]

Except that it isn't rejecting and shaming an entire category of people who may or may not be guilty of a behavior. It only applies to people who actually do the behavior, regardless of type. It's not calling anyone evil, but just a request to see if anyone cares to stop an irrational behavior that is unlikely to result in productive discussion. You agree it can be taken too far, right? There are limits. The only question is where is that limit? Each person will answer differently. I think calling entire categories of people evil is prejudicial and not analytical. Is that a point that needs further evidence to be convincing?

So really, Im right in saying that it's not that you care if someone holds a certain view about a type, or whether it's wrong or right. It's the presentation of how they approach the argument?

Right... well this is exactly why those "evil stereotypes" are propagated btw ...

I'm looking for content, not presentation.

Anyway in reality shaming is detrimental to growth. And every function or type has its own reasons for doing what they do. Shaming is something that comes from the outside of someone. So if you clearly pick up that someone else is shaming a type, then you clearly know that they're unknowingeable about that type, because they're on the outside looking in.

If you know that they're unknowingeable, then why does it bother you? If they don't respond proportionately when you offer knowledge, they are clearly a troll, or unsolvable case.

I don't really see the problem. Other than the same ol' presentation argument masked as "misinformation"

 

[OrangeAppled]

Its also hilarious how unhealthy Fi types can actually manipulate situations seemingly even better than some of the twisted Fe types I've come across in my life. Gotta love it when they talk about how brutally honest they are and how important it is to keep it real but then they flip a table when you give them the same medicine.

That may fall into double standards, but it is not really manipulative. Manipulation in IxFPs is something different still.

Most FPs I know can and do take what they dish out.
You will get a lot more discussion in a Fi criticism thread than in other types, perhaps making Fi types "easy targets" (trollish types know they can be engaged....I mentioned how young IxFPs may not question the premise enough in a post in another thread just now). Fi types openly discuss their vulnerabilities and flaws so much that they hand people ammunition. Other types may not be that naive.

I don't think it's about Fi or Fe being better at manipulation... and unhealthy Fi or Fe type can both be manipulative. What would make the discussion interesting and not shitty and biased like the current threads about it is how unhealthy Fi/Fe differ with manipulation. How they do it in different ways. Also, the keyword is unhealthy. The current threads assume that all Fi/Fe users are like this.

Just because there's an ENFP in my life that I have problems with, doesn't mean I project all of my problems with her onto all ENFPs. Which is exactly what these "truth about the functions" threads are doing.

This requires people admitting a type to have flaws. It doesn't mean admitting them for yourself or that they define a type, but being able to discuss specific ways your type may tend to "go wrong". As noted, if the premise is off, then yes, question it and maybe look at different ways to understand it.

Some types really put a wall up in these types of discussions and take questioning the premise too far. Every thread that discusses their type's flaws turns into scrutinizing the motives of the OP and dismissing their arguments as invalid because they don't deem them a trustworthy source. Yes, I am referring to NFJs mostly, as that's the go-to tactic. But hey, I have learned from observing it and applied that tactic at times, because sometimes a perspective really is total bunk and doesn't deserve exploring.

 

[Yama]

This requires people admitting a type to have flaws. It doesn't mean admitting them for yourself or that they define a type, but being able to discuss specific ways your type may tend to "go wrong". As noted, if the premise is off, then yes, question it and maybe look at different ways to understand it.

Some types really put a wall up in these types of discussions and take questioning the premise too far. Every thread that discusses their type's flaws turns into scrutinizing the motives of the OP and dismissing their arguments as invalid because they don't deem them a trustworthy source. Yes, I am referring to NFJs mostly, as that's the go-to tactic. But hey, I have learned from observing it and applied that tactic at times, because sometimes a perspective really is total bunk and doesn't deserve exploring.

In the case of Mal's series of threads, it seems clear to me that he is mostly just projecting his problems with individuals of a certain type onto the type as a whole, thus not leaving his threads open for any real kind of "discussion" beyond criticism, because doing so would invalidate his experiences. It is one thing to civilly discuss potential problems with a type, and other to do what he is doing in his threads--like, as I mentioned above, telling me that I'm hiding something "bad" despite me denying it multiple times, and claiming that if I haven't done anything socially wrong and amoral and evil yet that "trust me, you will" because he is projecting what one individual has done onto everyone of that type in a harmful and unproductive way. I am honestly surprised that nothing has been done about this yet and it is just left there and ignored by moderation.

 

[OrangeAppled]

So really, Im right in saying that it's not that you care if someone holds a certain view about a type, or whether it's wrong or right. It's the presentation of how they approach the argument?

I'm looking for content, not presentation.

That is very Fe mentality, IMO. In another thread I note there is validity in it, however.

There are extremes where content is missing in favor of presentation (what we often call emotional arguments and manipulative) or where presentation (or the source itself) is abrasive or weak but the content has sound reasoning and support (and dismissal of it can amount to a fallacy of attacking the character and not the argument). The latter is a problem because it does ask us to remove motive, and that becomes important in actually having a discussion. If their motive is not good, then they may not even be open to further reasoning, making the whole thing a waste of energy.

I think Fe types here are determining if it makes sense to engage at all, regardless if the argument is valid. They may resist validating it at all, thinking that also validates the approach. It basically is just a different focus - it's not the rationality of the argument, but the value of the interaction for them (or that's how it appears to me).

 

[OrangeAppled]

[MENTION=26674]theforsaken[/MENTION]

You know, it just dawned on me how what you described could be taken as manipulative, particulary by an FJ. I mean, does it look like the FP is setting a trap - they set a "tone" for communication style, and then when someone follows suit, they accuse the person of being mean?

I think this projects a Fe awareness we simply can be sorely lacking (and this happens with all types; we project our own awareness and lack of it in others looks deliberate). It generally doesn't occur to me that I have power to set tone. There being an agreed upon tone or style doesnt even occur to me. Instead of a deliberate manipulation, it's a big blindspot, but because it is not a blindspot for others, they may think we are just as aware and are being deliberate, therefore making it manipulative.

In the wise observation of a past poster here, it can be much easier to imagine someone having a function-attitude we dont have than them NOT having OUR preferred function-attitude.