People: they're so much more than their type...

[Kalach]

Yeah?

Because they're also their diet, which I'm sure is interesting. And their childhood history. And the list of accidents that happened to them. And the books they read. And the parents they had and the color of their skin. And where they lived before they could choose for themselves.

And other fascinating stuff.


And that's important... because...


If it doesn't change your type, if indeed it feeds into your type and is read the way your type would read it, handled the way your type handles it...


So, yeah, type is just a PART of who you are, right? I keep hearing this. What's the other part, again? The history and accidents over which your type is instantiated?


The rest of the stuff that people keep on being fascinated by... what is it?



Just curious.

 

[Gen]

Not for INTJ's. INTJ's actually are just robots.

 

[Serendipity]

Yeah?

Because they're also their diet, which I'm sure is interesting. And their childhood history. And the list of accidents that happened to them. And the books they read. And the parents they had and the color of their skin. And where they lived before they could choose for themselves.

And other fascinating stuff.


And that's important... because...


If it doesn't change your type, if indeed it feeds into your type and is read the way your type would read it, handled the way your type handles it...


So, yeah, type is just a PART of who you are, right? I keep hearing this. What's the other part, again? The history and accidents over which your type is instantiated?


The rest of the stuff that people keep on being fascinated by... what is it?



Just curious.

Please elaborate on your assumption of Type.
I'll make the assumption of MBTI.


Would you say that you can read everything and everyone out there? Ever come across a problem that has perplexed you? One that isn't significantly explained by what type they percieve themselves to be? Or the type you perceive them to be?

If...

No: Nice for you.
Yes: That's your answer.

 

[Lark]

I think typologies are only one conceptualisation of clusters of traits, traits are determined by a lot of things, I tend to think the two greatest ones are biography and biology but even at that the economy and culture of any society will further shape individuals by channelling individual types in such a way as to meet with the demands of the economy and society.

Which isnt alwys a bad thing. No knee jerk libertarianism or existentialism here.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

Typology is a low resolution view of human behavior.

Environment, culture, socio-economic status, socialization, physiology/health, indulgence/deprivation, exposure/shelteredness, education, religion, ideals, assumptions and prejudices, etc. add up to more than type imo. Each person is more complex than an observing person can ever fully understand. Typology attempts to extract root issues that apply more broadly and with complexity, but it does not paint an entire picture. I find this is true when I apply it to myself as well as to others.

 

[Not_Me]

Not for INTJ's. INTJ's actually are just robots.

That does not compute.

 

[Kalach]

Hey, don't look at me, I'm just a system builder wondering about obscure variables. So what I'm getting so far:

Type is a macro view, and if you give a damn about people (or about sustaining a macro project) you'll sometimes give a damn about the details of the people, yeah?

Or, actually, if you give a big damn about people, you'll eschew type altogether and build a personal picture from the details, yeah?


So it's a matter of interest (and sometimes efficacy)?


The biggest group of typable people I've met and related too have been ENFPs. I am aware they are not interchangeable. At least one's a guy, others are young girls, one is a mature woman, and I relate to them all differently. But not that differently. Monster differences in relatings go to the INFJs, ENFJs, and ESFJs I know. Really different from relating to the ENFPs. Also, ENTJs. Although seemingly similar, the relationships are substantially different from the ENFPs. And so on.

Interesting project for the future: almost everyone I know is Chinese, but due to circumstances, almost everyone I meet in the immediate future won't be Chinese. I wonder if it will make much difference.

 

[thisGuy]

type is not a part of who you are, it is the basis, the foundation of who you are

i think anyways. values, belief systems, the outside world are processed cognitively through the functions

am i so laid-back because im an ENTP or am i an ENTP because im so laid-back

 

[King sns]

type is not a part of who you are, it is the basis, the foundation of who you are

i think anyways. values, belief systems, the outside world are processed cognitively through the functions

am i so laid-back because im an ENTP or am i an ENTP because im so laid-back

whatever, Thatgirl.
or whatever your name is.
You all just look like NT's to me.

 

[Kalach]

type is not a part of who you are, it is the basis, the foundation of who you are

i think anyways. values, belief systems, the outside world are processed cognitively through the functions

I agree.

And every time I say I do I worry that I'm wrong. But... how can the presence of preferred cognitive functions within your "self" NOT be substantially defining of that self? The "self" is something other than the cognitive processing of the world as it comes at you?

 

[lamp]

it feeds into your type and is read the way your type would read it, handled the way your type handles it

agree. People are not more than their type, probably, but people are really complicated and there exists variation within type such that people can be unique.

When I see people say that 'people are more than their type' I usually think that they are saying that people can act outside of their type's stereotypically expected gamut of actions, and still be consistent with their type.

Typology is a low resolution view of human behavior.

I like this

Type is a macro view, and if you give a damn about people (or about sustaining a macro project) you'll sometimes give a damn about the details of the people, yeah?

Or, actually, if you give a big damn about people, you'll eschew type altogether and build a personal picture from the details, yeah?

Type is a framework you start with. And as you get to know someone you fit their personal details to the framework. Type does not obscure or alter the 'personal picture'. If you never get to know someone, you still have the framework to go off of, and if the theory is good the framework is better than nothing.

 

[thisGuy]

I agree.

And every time I say I do I worry that I'm wrong. But... how can the presence of preferred cognitive functions within your "self" NOT be substantially defining of that self? The "self" is something other than the cognitive processing of the world as it comes at you?

but it IS defining of who you are.

the functions as they come to you present you with a perception of the world. that perception if based off of your exposure to the world. The exposure feeds your functions. Specifically the functions used to build a framework through which to judge the world (Fi, Si, Ti)

approaching it in another way, you are defined by the way you interact with the world. The way you interact with the world is defined by what you know about the world. What you know about the world comes from how you perceive the world. your perception of the world is drawn through what you think of the world. and what you think of the world comes from experiences and rationalizations as they appeal to you. And here come your functions, specifically Si, Fi, and Ti.

Thus, the presence of the functions only define your perception of the world.
It is through that perception that you are defined. Which is also why it is relatively easy to change your opinion about things...

 

[thisGuy]

whatever, Thatgirl.
or whatever your name is.
You all just look like NT's to me.

so like...non-terrestrial?

how mean

 

[kiddykat]

When I get to know a person, or if I try to get a feel for them, I look at them holistically. Meaning, regardless of type, there are various factors involved, which helps shapes a person's attitude, beliefs, and values that I take note of.

Ex:
-Background (where they came from, socioeconomic conditions, ethnicity, religion, family, birth order, geography, generation, experiences).
-Where/how they were raised (a person's past is part of who they are, but doesn't define them if they chose so).
-Beliefs (politics, family, gender, religion/non-religion).
-Likes/dislikes.
-Major life influences.

I think temperament is a huge key to a personality (perhaps 1/3rd of the pie), but when we look at the smaller elements/combine it together as a whole, that's where we are distinctly unique.

 

[Tamske]

Sure. I guess this isn't the first time this subject comes up.

1) Most persons don't fit one type.

2) Even for novel characters I want to know more than their type. Background, their goals in life, their weaknesses, their fears, their talents...

eg. Main Character is curious, afraid of heights, wants to help defend her country, is daughter of a carpenter, etc (add five more lines)
... and, oh yes, she's also an ESTJ.

Type is a framework you start with. And as you get to know someone you fit their personal details to the framework.

I don't do that. I can't type somebody unless I know him/her very well. I've tried to type some of my characters because I wanted to work them out. But then I realised I tried to fit them to a type. Of course, this isn't a problem for real people because well, they don't change when your idea of them changes. Imaginary characters, however, they are nothing more than what you think about them.
So I write first about them and only when I have some idea of their character, I try to type them. Type comes last.

 

[Asterion]

You think in a particular way, be it in leaps and bounds or distinct steps the way you think is put into a dichotemy. MBTI is a way for you to separate the way you think from the way others think. Which is why there are so many 4, 5 and 9s around here... I think.. not sure that it's related, I have an inkling... damned intuition.

 

[Gerbah]

So, yeah, type is just a PART of who you are, right? I keep hearing this. What's the other part, again? The history and accidents over which your type is instantiated?

I think these do determine your “self”, but only as far as your ego self goes, i.e. personality, which is how you see and feel your self as far as you are aware – your “idea” of your self. This is impacted by how others treat you, your experiences, etc. as well as your preferred cognitive functions because these affect the kind of information you take in and how you process that in relation to your idea of yourself. But this is still in the realm of ideas, information, images. So this "self" is still just an idea, an image.

An idea/image can change or be inaccurate, etc. But does who you are objectively change just because your idea about it changed? Logically, no. Ego self is thus an illusion, although it seems real.

I think though that the ego consciousness is a necessary thing in order for us to function in the world, but I think it is more of a vehicle of the self rather the self itself. So as far as type goes, ISTJ is how I maybe function in certain ways, but it isn't my actual "self". And neither is the sum of my history and accidents my "self" either.

 

[tastes_like_purple]

I think type is just an insight into the person but not the person as a whole