Is it a personal offense for someone to question your type?

[The Cat]

also I thought this was a different thread; though I would never admit my mistake publicly due to my notorious hubris.

 

[Amberiat]

ISFJ gang represent

 

[typologyenthusiast]

It is interesting why you inquire about this. I wonder the motive behind this. My sister (ISTP) told me that she will not tell something to someone if she feels that it will offend the person even if it would actually be good for the person to know it.

 

[Mind Maverick]

I don't encounter issues with people questioning my type, I kind of expect that and don't care...as Yuu said, I'm secure enough not to give a shit what others think...I have more of a problem with people who are overly sensitive to counterarguments against the type they perceive me as. It's like they can say whatever they want, insist you're whatever type they want to, and then if you dare say anything about that you're suddenly defensive and so forth.

EDIT
I do care when I'm mistyped as something that clearly reflects the fact that I'm being misunderstood, however. I don't like being mistyped as a 4, for example...not due to the association with the type, but due to the fact that people are assuming I'm ways that I am not. This is particularly true when my intentions / motives are innocent but being labeled as something negative (such as general openness and transparency being labelled "attention seeking"). So basically, what I really have an issue with is not being mistyped, but being associated with negative qualities that I don't actually have.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

A funny thing I've noticed about people - particularly after this last summer is that there is a way people can be so certain of their opinion regardless of the amount of information they have. I ended up having arguments about who my mother was with a person who never met her, but only heard about her. Nevermind that I've spent decades knowing this woman and have studied psychology, etc. This happened in relationship to other people as well. It's the same problem when someone argues with you about who YOU are. There is something odd about much human nature that settles into opinion based on personal ego strength and entitlement and not level of knowledge or accuracy of argument. Because this is so prevalent, I prefer to avoid debates with online acquaintances or strangers about who I am. Offended isn't really the word, but the absurdity of it strikes me. If it was a rare person who took into account differing levels of knowledge, had an accurate understanding of typology, had the capacity to revise their own perceptions, was aware of the limits of those impressions in this abstracted environment, then it could be useful, but that is a rare case.

Debates about external topics can have the sam problem, but it is more possible to discuss verifiable, measurable information. "Who am I?" is subjective because it is an interplay of perception and behavior. The latter can be addressed, but the former is quite intangible.

 

[EcK]

Yeah I'm not sure because typing someone as a sensor was a way to underhandily call someone stupid back in the day.

Don't be silly purps, most Ns are stupid too.



as to myself - no I couldn't care less if someone "mistypes me". I don't think the MBTI is some kind of hyper precise tool. But if you ask any group about 50-100 questions about their personal preferences then break down the answers into 16 subgroups, chances are you'll get people with more things in common than average inside each group. It's not surprising in any way and it would take a REAL fuckup to mess something like that up.

So yes I think the MBTI works to some degree, but no I don't think it's some kind of profound expression of my ethics or identity in general. I do not associate it with my ego perception, because l'm Not an insecure child, so being "mistyped' can no more hurt me than if someone didn't like my car. These are just tools, they are what we make of them and - like their human homonymes, they only matter as much as we allow them to.

 

[Statice]

If the person provide me with their thought process, I don't mind, it gives me an opportunity to learn and refine my own views.

 

[Dan the INFP man]

I do get annoyed when people I know don't believe I'm introverted by citing times where I showed extroverted behavior. They don't understand the circumstances or energy that may have gone into that.

Just Because I'm Friendly Doesn't Mean I'm Not an Introvert

 

[Mind Maverick]

I do get annoyed when people I know don't believe I'm introverted by citing times where I showed extroverted behavior. They don't understand the circumstances or energy that may have gone into that.

Just Because I'm Friendly Doesn't Mean I'm Not an Introvert

Yeah, I think thats another thing that bugs most people...stereotyping.

 

[Yuurei]

Yeah, I think thats another thing that bugs most people...stereotyping.

Personally, I think it's difficult to accurately type anyone over the internet.

Despite being called a "personality" type, it's less about one's outward personality and more about their inner workings.

 

[cascadeco]

Personally, I think it's difficult to accurately type anyone over the internet.

Despite being called a "personality" type, it's less about one's outward personality and more about their inner workings.

Though I 100% agree it's difficult to type over the internet, for my own part I do think outward personality and behavior is just as important as inner workings; says just as much about a persons character' and tendencies. But yeah, going by pure cognition when it comes to typing, by definition that's not going to have much to do with outward personality.

 

[Mind Maverick]

Personally, I think it's difficult to accurately type anyone over the internet.

Despite being called a "personality" type, it's less about one's outward personality and more about their inner workings.

Agree about the internet to some extent, as I think it's possible to really get to know people online more intimately...but as for inward/outward...whats inward will manifest outwardly. What makes the difference is categorizing and labelling before you see that happen sufficiently vs seeking actual understanding of their actions and whats behind them. Its problematic to try to take surface level observations and attach your own typology reasons as to why those are there, as opposed to understanding why those manifestations are what they are and then aligning what you learn about the person with the type.

 

[Saturnal Snowqueen]

We're on a typology forum, suck it up buttercup. I only really get offended if I feel like I'm being "gatekept" from being the type that I type as. If someone gives me a well thought out explanation, I'll be curious to listen. Sometimes when people pick at me it feels like they're putting words in my mouth or I feel like I'm being misunderstood, but that's not going to keep me from getting input from other people. I'm thirsty for typings.

 

[Coriolis]

We're on a typology forum, suck it up buttercup. I only really get offended if I feel like I'm being "gatekept" from being the type that I type as. If someone gives me a well thought out explanation, I'll be curious to listen. Sometimes when people pick at me it feels like they're putting words in my mouth or I feel like I'm being misunderstood, but that's not going to keep me from getting input from other people. I'm thirsty for typings.

I find it offensive only if someone insists they know better than the person whose type they are discussing. It is fine to present your own analysis and to disagree with someone's self-typing, but this is one of those cases where people just need to agree to disagree. Unless we know a member exceedingly well, our typing is based on just a small part of who they are as a person. This is why I put a premium on the observations that someone uses to justify a typing rather than on the end result type itself. I can fold those observations in with those of other people to help me get a more complete picture, including seeing into whatever blind spots I have.

 

[yeghor]

When someone is mistyped but is not aware of it and presents their true type's behaviour as normal for their alleged type, that creates a dissonance in that someone who is actually their alleged type looks as if they were not that type.

It also spreads misinformation about their alleged type and is a disservice to people who are actually their alleged type.

This is especially hurtful when people think they are intuitives and get an ego-boost from that yet get triggered when their alleged type is questioned rather than providing their own reasoning, because they then try to shut down debate and become vindictive against true intuitives and drive them out in forums like these. It is sad because intuitives are already driven out and shut down in real/sensor world, and that makes the same cycle repeat here online.

There should be an agreed methodology to cross-check at different levels if someone is correctly typed or not.

Personality development and self-actualization requires critical thinking and some level of skepticism about information received and the self so that we can audit and improve our internal processes continuously.

I would not mind my type being questioned so long as the challenger explains their reasoning and is not trying to be condescending or abusive and agrees to disagree.


Edit: Sometimes people mistakenly attach a higher value to being high in intuition cause it is rare and being rare has an intrinsic value right? Yet the real reason that intuitives are rare is because it is a deviation from the normal, and a consequence of some kind of defect in development. It comes with a price.

The more intuitive you are, the weirder you become in contrast to "normal/average" and the more you stand apart from the normal/average. That means you end up being alone in crowds. You cannot be popular and well-integrated in normal society and also high in intuition at the same time. This is especially true if you are a dominant intuitive.

 

[Earl Grey]

Sometimes people mistakenly attach a higher value to being high in intuition cause it is rare and being rare has an intrinsic value right? Yet the real reason that intuitives are rare is because it is a deviation from the normal, and a consequence of some kind of defect in development. It comes with a price.

The more intuitive you are, the weirder you become in contrast to "normal/average" and the more you stand apart from the normal/average. That means you end up being alone in crowds. You cannot be popular and well-integrated in normal society and also high in intuition at the same time. This is especially true if you are a dominant intuitive.

Have you ever talked to ENFPs, ENTPs, ENTJs, and ENFJs?

Not to mention, just because you're a certain type, it doesn't necessarily mean you'd be good at one thing over another, or have it predetermined you'd just be magically good that. There would be a lot more consistency between types if that were true.

There's breaking down stereotypes and all, but breaking down stereotypes by replacing them with other stereotypes, which is essentially still going by stereotypes doesn't quite work for the same reason as I had stated above. What you said in the bolded also fuels the typical INTX ego-boost (or IN-- types in general, though it seems to be worse in NTs) they have of believing that they are niche and elite with points of view that 'everyone out there' can't understand, which is how a lot of people flock to them to begin with. They fail to integrate because they are enabled by type descriptions that glorify them and handwaving their poor social skills, such as the above. People take it as being told that their experiences are to be expected but to stay in complacence instead of to understand and develop themselves, which is a huge waste of typology (and knowledge in general, in my opinion). Some people hold this deviance as a badge of pride and a reason to shut themselves off from anyone or any body of knowledge they deem 'inferior'.

A lukewarm, "Oh no, don't worry, we're bad too!" isn't the answer. What is valued by anyone and any society differs on a per individual and per society basis, regardless of type. The answer is to stop comparing who's more shiny (and stop being bothered by it) and focus on what works for you. Otherwise, it's like being jealous of someone else's shoe size when what you should be doing is focusing on and finding yours. It deepens the understanding of the type more than just understanding the type through how other types view them. Call it as you see it. Assess it as it is. No need to pander to what people feel about these descriptions just to make them feel better. Typology is supposed to help enlighten you to who you are, weak points and all, and avoiding that discomfort risks the individual missing the point.

Enough of this N-elitism in either direction.

 

[yeghor]

Have you ever talked to ENFPs, ENTPs, ENTJs, and ENFJs?

Not to mention, just because you're a certain type, it doesn't necessarily mean you'd be good at one thing over another, or have it predetermined you'd just be magically good that. There would be a lot more consistency between types if that were true.

There's breaking down stereotypes and all, but breaking down stereotypes by replacing them with other stereotypes, which is essentially still going by stereotypes doesn't quite work for the same reason as I had stated above. What you said in the bolded also fuels the typical INTX ego-boost (or IN-- types in general, though it seems to be worse in NTs) they have of believing that they are niche and elite with points of view that 'everyone out there' can't understand, which is how a lot of people flock to them to begin with. They fail to integrate because they are enabled by type descriptions that glorify them and handwaving their poor social skills, such as the above. People take it as being told that their experiences are to be expected but to stay in complacence instead of to understand and develop themselves, which is a huge waste of typology (and knowledge in general, in my opinion). Some people hold this deviance as a badge of pride and a reason to shut themselves off from anyone or any body of knowledge they deem 'inferior'.

A lukewarm, "Oh no, don't worry, we're bad too!" isn't the answer. What is valued by anyone and any society differs on a per individual and per society basis, regardless of type. The answer is to stop comparing who's more shiny (and stop being bothered by it) and focus on what works for you. Otherwise, it's like being jealous of someone else's shoe size when what you should be doing is focusing on and finding yours. It deepens the understanding of the type more than just understanding the type through how other types view them. Call it as you see it. Assess it as it is. No need to pander to what people feel about them just to make them feel better. Typology is supposed to enlighten you to who you are, weak points and all, and avoiding that discomfort risks the individual missing the point.

Enough of this N-elitism in either direction.

There's nothing about elitism in my post. I am saying that the loneliness is not a deliberate attempt by dominant intuitives to see themselves "above" the crowd. It is a reality that casts them "outside" the demeanor of average/normal people. Average does not insinuate inferiority. Average defines what is considered "normal" and what is more prevalent in a group of things. An average/normal apple is red and spherical. A purple apple is a deviation from the average, it does not mean because purple apple is very rare, it is automatically "better" then the average apple.

There is no mention of "above" or "better" in my post. You seeing it that way is coming from an inferiority complex getting triggered in you and projected on to me. It has nothing to do with me. You need to sort it out internally.

 

[Earl Grey]

There's nothing about elitism in my post. I am saying that the loneliness is not a deliberate attempt by dominant intuitives to see themselves "above" the crowd. It is a reality that casts them "outside" the demeanor of average/normal people. Average does not insinuate inferiority. Average defines what is considered "normal" and what is more prevalent in a group of things. An average/normal apple is red and spherical. A purple apple is a deviation from the average, it does not mean because purple apple is very rare, it is automatically "better" then the average apple.

You did not use the word, but your presentation leads to it, as I have explained. I also further illustrated how it can be read by both those who want to type as intuitives and who do types as intuitives and how it is a problem. Average and normal are different, just like rare does not mean 'good' or elite, and following that, a deviation also does not necessarily mean that it is unfortunate or a defect. Your logic was inconsistent, and your post did not help dispel the N-elitism that is present in type communities and type descriptions. Ousting them specially and predetermining who they are adds to that elitism and misinformation, even if it is something 'negative'.

There is no mention of "above" or "better" in my post. You seeing it that way is coming from an inferiority complex getting triggered in you and projected on to me. It has nothing to do with me. You need to sort it out internally.

This is exactly what stereotypes do to you. When you have a predetermined notion of what something means, you cannot understand anything that deviates.
It has everything to do with you because it was borne out of your sloppy post, which I have taken the time to dismantle.

Assess things as they are. You do not need to pander to what others feel about it. Putting down intuitives, or elevating them panders to people's subjective evaluation and opinions of the type, which is not a good diagnostic or descriptor of what the type actually is. This is true for anything.

 

[yeghor]

You did not use the word, but your presentation leads to it, as I have explained. I also further illustrated how it can be read by both those who want to type as intuitives and who do types as intuitives and how it is a problem. Average and normal are different, just like rare does not mean 'good' or elite, and following that, a deviation also does not necessarily mean that it is unfortunate or a defect. Your logic was inconsistent, and your post did not help dispel the N-elitism that is present in type communities and type descriptions. Ousting them specially and predetermining who they are adds to that elitism and misinformation, even if it is something 'negative'.

This is exactly what stereotypes do to you. When you have a predetermined notion of what something means, you cannot understand anything that deviates.
It has everything to do with you because it was borne out of your sloppy post, which I have taken the time to dismantle.

Assess things as they are. You do not need to pander to what others feel about it. Putting down intuitives, or elevating them panders to people's subjective evaluation and opinions of the type, which is not a good diagnostic or descriptor of what the type actually is. This is true for anything.

How would you define normal in a group of things?

 

[Earl Grey]

How would you define normal in a group of things?

I added it as an edit to my previous post, but because it also answers this one, here:

Also, you did assign that value judgement, even if you did not use the words 'above' or 'better':

and a consequence of some kind of defect in development. It comes with a price.

Assumptions and sloppy thinking always find a way to snake themselves out.
You somehow assumed that Intuitives would be intrinsically challenged somehow. That is something you would have to prove and clear out on your own, since you were the one who made the claim.

Whatever it is you are claiming is true or false for intuitives was on the basis of this baseline of 'normal' that you claim. It is on you to describe that and explain how it is a problem or even an indicator of type, or if it is somehow intrinsic to any type at all.


EDIT for others who want to know or like Maths:
If you want to get technical; average denotes a mean within a range.
Normal denotes a (usually expected) baseline within a range.

For example; mean snowfall for X year in New York is 10 inches tall. This deviates from the norm, as New York normally gets only 1 inch of snow.

A deviation is only a problem when it is. If sub-Sahara gets 10 inches of rainfall a deviation from the norm becomes a blessing instead. That is where you got sloppy, by tying averages to value judgements and expectations (norms) somehow. That is not how typology, or individuals work.