Limitations of Type

[Oberon]

After having read a fair survey of forum posts and topics, I notice that it's common for us to extrapolate all sorts of things from type. This tendency to read type into every aspect of a person's life is likely a distortion of the way people really work, if not outright incorrect.

For example, there are many factors that typing simply cannot take into account.

Intelligence is not a function of type (though test-taking ability may have a limited correlation). Likes, dislikes, and desires are only partly linked to type. Type does not account for acculturation, training, or life experience. Type does not correlate with physical or mental pathology.

Yet all of these things can and do influence an individual's decision-making process.

What are other ways in which personality typing is limited?

 

[Shimpei]

Age - you're not the same INTP at the age of 18, 30, 45 and 70 etc. You can even change type meanwhile.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

What are other ways in which personality typing is limited?

Overall character

One of the most flawed paths these discussions can go down is to assume morality is related to type. This comes out as one type being amoral, another is evil, etc. Type has to do with how information is processed, not what one chooses to value.

The second limitation of type discussions is their black-and-white nature. We get into all or nothing statements which lead to the ridiculous. Reducing temperament to 16 types gives us a lower resolution image of humanity. This is useful to enable us to manipulate and examine the pieces in manageable boundaries. If the pieces do not accurately capture the underlying principles, or if accurate principles are made too simplistic and absolute, then it's an exercise in futility. It is the study of approximation.

This is how i think of type descriptions:

Or when the theory is treated as far too simple and absolute:

 

[Totenkindly]

One of the most flawed paths these discussions can go down is to assume morality is related to type. This comes out as one type being amoral, another is evil, etc. Type has to do with how information is processed, not what one chooses to value.

... but ESFJs *are* evil...!

Seriously, though, I agree. There are definitely tendencies that can be described for each type -- their pitfalls, their strengths as people, what choices are hard for them, what sort of spirituality tends to feel more authentic to them -- but in terms of "good" vs. "bad" we are all on a level playing field.

The second limitation of type discussions is their black-and-white nature. We get into all or nothing statements which lead to the ridiculous. Reducing temperament to 16 types gives us a lower resolution image of humanity. This is useful to enable us to manipulate and examine the pieces in manageable boundaries. If the pieces do not accurately capture the underlying principles, or if accurate principles are made too simplistic and absolute, then it's an exercise in futility. It is the study of approximation.

Yes, exactly. Patterns necessarily discard details and focus merely on the generalizations or points of overlap. This allows us to make general predictions, have large broad understandings of things, but it is very much like trying to describe a particular description by only offer the algebraic/differential equation that lies underneath without providing any of the variable values. The equation is generic and needs to be that way, but life comes in the specifics and allows us to distinguish one thing from another.

Likewise, if you write a book where all the characters are pure archetypes, they do not come across as people -- they are generic and bland stereotypes. Life is in the details.

Or when the theory is treated as far too simple and absolute:

Ummm... HR Puffenstuff and... Shelly Winters?
(Or maybe Alice Cooper and Lief Garrett?)

 

[Athenian200]

I would be the first to concede that type is limited. But the reason it is discussed so much here is partially to improve it, and partially because it is a common language to express our views on something, since most of us understand it.

 

[targobelle]

It also doesn't take into account the person you want to be or the one you perceive yourself to be.

It's easy to 'fake' who you are inorder to make others like you and be accepting of you......

 

[Langrenus]

It also doesn't take into account the person you want to be or the one you perceive yourself to be.

It's easy to 'fake' who you are inorder to make others like you and be accepting of you......

Or, indeed, the opposite - certain individuals seem to use typology as an excuse for being outrageously offensive to others.

 

[The Ü™]

It also doesn't take into account the person you want to be or the one you perceive yourself to be.

Actually, I think the person you want to be is the unconscious indicator of your type. Because what you want is often an expression of who you are inside. Think of this way of typing as figuring out your MBTI Moon Sign.

And theoretically, the whole questionnaire is about your self-perception. Think of this way of typing as figuring out your MBTI Sun Sign.

And I guess some would take the test based on how others perceive them, in which case, I'd probably be an ENTP. I think of this way of typing as the MBTI Rising Sign. Inside, I'm an INTJ, but on the outside, I have the same exact functions, but they're focused in opposite directions.

 

[targobelle]

Interesting way to see it.

What I find extremely interesting is how the ENTP can mask as an INTJ... it made me understand why I chose my entp

I find it difficult to equate all these things to astrological differences, I mean I understand it and can see where you're going with it, but it's not really my things so I just have to think a little more.


I made the comments I did b/c I have masked me for many years, and as of late the mask came off and I see who I really am and not who others have tried to make me, and not who I have tried to make me. There's nothing like 'shying' away from your type and who you are....

 

[Mycroft]

MBTI is about how you organize information at an unconscious level. It's not a personality type, which I quite like about it.

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

The biggest problem I see with MBTI is that it deals with probability and not certainty. And like all probability it can tell you what is definitely true about a group without being able to tell you what is definitely true about any individual in that group. In effect almost everyone is an exception to the typology in some way. On the other hand it can help still help us understand a lot about ourselves and each other.

MBTI is about how you organize information at an unconscious level. It's not a personality type, which I quite like about it.

Actually I'd say that it's both. The introverted functions (Ni, Si, Ti, Fi) explain the cognition of a person that others cannot see. On the other hand the extraverted functions (Ne, Se, Te, Fe) explain the cognition of a person that others can see and thus they in many ways shape an individual's personality.

 

[Mycroft]

Actually I'd say that it's both. The introverted functions (Ni, Si, Ti, Fi) explain the cognition of a person that others cannot see. On the other hand the extraverted functions (Ne, Se, Te, Fe) explain the cognition of a person that others can see and thus they in many ways shape an individual's personality.

True, but all that would change is the "flavor" of the external cognitive functions. What I mean more specifically is that I can stop receiving most input via Ni and manipulating it via Te about as much as I could decide that I'd like to stop being the race that I am. (To use myself as an example.) Type can change, of course, but this requires either a very long period of time or some extreme event in one's life.

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

True, but all that would change is the "flavor" of the external cognitive functions. What I mean more specifically is that I can stop receiving most input via Ni and manipulating it via Te about as much as I could decide that I'd like to stop being the race that I am. (To use myself as an example.) Type can change, of course, but this requires either a very long period of time or some extreme event in one's life.

Ah yes I see what you mean. A person is extremely limited in their ability to affect how and when their cognitvive functions work.

 

[wildcat]

Age - you're not the same INTP at the age of 18, 30, 45 and 70 etc. You can even change type meanwhile.

No.

You do not change type.
Look at the studies of identical twins who have lived under different conditions.
And then look at the studies of foster children who have lived in the same home.

When you live with your natural parents you get the inheritance in a double suit.
The environment has already been influenced by the genetic input.

Hence it is difficult to distinguish the phenotype from the genotype.
The original type can be seen best in the old age.

 

[Oberon]

No.

You do not change type.

This sounds like dogma to me. How do you know?

 

[The Ü™]

Type preferences can change as interests fluctuate, but temperament, in theory, stays the same.

And the correlation between Keirsey temperament and MBTI type is generally quite high. I think I read it was even higher than the correlation between MBTI and FFM, though they, too, are correlated, as Ptgatsby has pointed out on numerous occasions.

I'm gonna derail for a moment because I love to ramble:

Since I brought up FFM, Openness to Experience factor on FFM measures reflectiveness (Openness on FFM correlates to S and N, even though the factor title sounds more like J and P). I think reflectiveness is more related to Intuition than Introversion. Introversion is more related to your impressions of either what's around you or your own thoughts. Intuition literally means "to look inward," while Introversion is "to turn inward."

Alright. Now let's get the train back on the right track. That is all.

 

[wildcat]

This sounds like dogma to me. How do you know?

Hungarians changed their national type.
They changed their genes.
If you can change your genes you can change type.

 

[ptgatsby]

This sounds like dogma to me. How do you know?

By definition of type more than dogma. The only dogma that exists is the belief in type despite contrary evidence and/or alternative theories (not to say that exists, but by definition, that'd be where the dogma exists).

 

[wildcat]

After having read a fair survey of forum posts and topics, I notice that it's common for us to extrapolate all sorts of things from type. This tendency to read type into every aspect of a person's life is likely a distortion of the way people really work, if not outright incorrect.

For example, there are many factors that typing simply cannot take into account.

Intelligence is not a function of type (though test-taking ability may have a limited correlation). Likes, dislikes, and desires are only partly linked to type. Type does not account for acculturation, training, or life experience. Type does not correlate with physical or mental pathology.

Yet all of these things can and do influence an individual's decision-making process.

What are other ways in which personality typing is limited?

PTypes - Correspondence of PTypes, Keirsey, Enneagram, Psychiatric, and Astrological Types

Behaviorism is dead.

 

[Oberon]

Behaviorism is dead.

Amen!

I promise you, there is such a thing as cognition.