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

[Maou]

This site hasn't historically had too many active INTJs. The site owner's an INTJ who, if I recall correctly, has more conservative views. Not sure if he's a libertarian or more conservative. Coriolis is a libertarian INTJ, albeit they're socially more left. Edgar's an INTJ who's definitively not a left-winger. And so on.

So, they're not being banned for having right winged views. They're being banned for assorted recurring rule violations which isn't unusual for immature INTJs.

I see what you mean, thanks for your input. I am still rather new after all.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

I’d add that while I welcome others’ insights, it’s frustrating when someone repeatedly tells me they think I’m x or y type without providing any reasoning.

Example: “you’re ENFJ. Deal with it.”

If all they have to go on is a vibe and they are unable to articulate further, then I at least appreciate being told it’s a vibe over being given zero reasoning.

Obvious exceptions would be in fluff threads like “is the person above you accurately typed?” and similar threads, in which case I’ve noticed that a detailed back and forth between people often derails the generally non serious flow and causes other members to get skipped. There’s a few members (I’m not going to name anyone) who don’t seem to get the fluffy nature of that thread and have in the past taken it way too seriously (myself included, when I was a newer member and didn’t yet “get” how that thread works). In those instances where someone wants more reasoning and explanation, I think it is better if they either take the discussion to private channels or move it to a type me thread

 

[Z Buck McFate]

This is a site that was designed for typological discussion and there is less and less of that now I think because people ARE more afraid of the social consequences of doing it.

I think there's less discussion about typology because a lot of us have been here for years and have already discussed it ad nauseam.

As for whether or not it's offensive to question someone's type, I don't think there's a definitive answer. I don't think there's much point in trying to establish that it's unreasonable to get offended though, because it's actually just as often the case that someone is getting pushy about type theory for ego identity reasons of their own (for example: needing to be right; needing to be considered insightful by others; having some need to direct shared reality, etc). In other words, what others have said about the intention behind it. And as others pointed out, it's practically impossible to prove intention.

Are there currently social consequences for mentioning it to someone only once or twice? And/or is there any reason to mention it more than once or twice? I can see how there might be social consequences for getting just a little bit relentless, but I can't help but think that anyone who feels the need to get even remotely relentless maybe ought to check their own intentions before focusing on the other person's intentions for not listening. I haven't seen [MENTION=29687]Frosty[/MENTION] get relentless myself, but I have seen it happen - and I don't think negative social consequences for that are about pushing a certain type for someone so much as just getting relentless about feedback for someone who has made it clear that they don't want to hear it.

 

[Edgar]

Eg. Someone claiming the following, in the middle of a political debate.

You're obviously a sensor because you're too stupid to be an iNtuitive.

You've hit on something important, albeit not directly. The key reason why people get buttflustered when someone questions their type because they feel they have a vested interest in certain (often misguided and inaccurate) descriptions of their chosen type. Your example being a good one - the assumption that being an NT means you're smart. NTs by their definition rely on logic, but that does not make them inherently smart. Let me tell you, I've met my share of retarded NTs who wielding logic like a monkey would wield an iPhone with its shit smeared paws. I've also met impressively intelligent Sensors and Feelers. For the curious and the autistic, I recommend checking out Taylor Swift's court testimony if you want to see an example of an ISFP being smart - that "ditsy singer" made the opposing counsels look like fools.

tl;dr Being one type or the other doesn't have any relation to being smart, stupid, or being prone any specific mental illness.

 

[ceecee]

I think there's less discussion about typology because a lot of us have been here for years and have already discussed it ad nauseam.

As for whether or not it's offensive to question someone's type, I don't think there's a definitive answer. I don't think there's much point in trying to establish that it's unreasonable to get offended though, because it's actually just as often the case that someone is getting pushy about type theory for ego identity reasons of their own (for example: needing to be right; needing to be considered insightful by others; having some need to direct shared reality, etc). In other words, what others have said about the intention behind it. And as others pointed out, it's practically impossible to prove intention.

Are there currently social consequences for mentioning it to someone only once or twice? And/or is there any reason to mention it more than once or twice? I can see how there might be social consequences for getting just a little bit relentless, but I can't help but think that anyone who feels the need to get even remotely relentless maybe ought to check their own intentions before focusing on the other person's intentions for not listening. I haven't seen [MENTION=29687]Frosty[/MENTION] get relentless myself, but I have seen it happen - and I don't think negative social consequences for that are about pushing a certain type for someone so much as just getting relentless about feedback for someone who has made it clear that they don't want to hear it.

Offensive? Nah, not to me. But if newer members want to have at it - go right ahead.

 

[Edgar]

This site hasn't historically had too many active INTJs. The site owner's an INTJ who, if I recall correctly, has more conservative views. Not sure if he's a libertarian or more conservative. Coriolis is a libertarian INTJ, albeit they're socially more left. Edgar's an INTJ who's definitively not a left-winger. And so on.

So, they're not being banned for having right winged views. They're being banned for assorted recurring rule violations which isn't unusual for immature INTJs.

I get called a left winger by right wingers and a left winger by right wingers. People think politics is team sports - "oh you MUST be supporting the other team if you're not cheering ours". No, I'm just stuck here at this stadium with you dumbshits.
I'm a firm believer Horse-shoe theory - the right and left extremes are closer to each other than they are to the center. I'll happily trash talk either end given the opportunity.

 

[Coriolis]

First, to answer your OP:

I think it is absolutely ridiculous when people act like it is WRONG for someone to DARE question their type. This is a typology website. This is a place where we are trying to understand typology. That means constantly evaluatig and reevaluation behavior and vauses for behavior to understand patterns of type. This is not a place where you get to DEMAND that people see you as a particular type and then when people DONT- get offended and act like they are doing something wrong for questioning you.

Personally, I feel that that behavior in and of itself shows that you have a problem that you are desperatly trying to fill with validation from a typlogy system- rather than actually trying to understand yourself.

To understand typology- peoplee need to feel free to question others. To understand what IS a type- people also need to not fear being called out when they try to determine what “isnt”. If no one is allowed to question- then typology goes from a living and constantly developing understanding to something that is dead and worn by people like a badge.

Again. In my opinion- this is a typology website and Im just... it seems more and more lately this has become less about people trying to understand themselves and others- and more about forcing people to understand them as they want to be seen.

Wrong in what sense to question someone's type? Sure, this is a typology forum, so that is either the subject or at least an undercurrent of much of the discussion here. Still, I think common courtesy applies. It is certainly acceptable if someone invites comment on their type, either explicitly or by making a "type me" thread, or by posting in threads like "is the member above correctly typed". I consider it fair game also if someone refers to it in passing, as in: "As an XYZW I have always had a hard time with [whatever]". Saying as part of your response that you don't see them as an XYZW, or perhaps even that you think they might be PQRS instead is again just responding to something they brought up.

I think it is a bit much, however, if everyone is just swapping chili recipes, and someone out of the blue tells another member, "By the way, I don't really think you are XYZW". If nothing else, it is a derail. Finally, as with most interactions here, if someone asks people, collectively or individually, not to question their type, they should stop just as a courtesy. Even if it is in the member's own type-me thread. The thread may die then, but that is their choice. It may not make sense, but then members have a right not to make sense, as long as it doesn't violate forum rules.

I think calling someone a type as a way to insult them is wrong. But I think if someone is willing to sit there and provide reasoning for why you DONT fit a type, serious well thought out reasoning, and then someone gets offended and that sort of thing is then seen as bullying or something- thats not right.

The caveat to what I wrote above is that, in all cases, the type questioning should be done with courtesy, and an understanding that the other member knows themselves better than you do. Perhaps people are being testier about it now because the manner of questioning is less respectful and constructive.

For example- when I first joined here I typed as INTP because I had this need, that I now recognize, to understand exactly why I never felt like “fit in” with female culture. I wasnt bubbly, I wasnt into makeup, I never cared for dolls and I related a lot to what I understood Ti/Ne to be at the time. People immediately started telling me I didnt seem very Ti. Everyone questioned my type. It kinda sucked a little bit because I really thought that I fit INTP to a tee when I came on here.

Eventually, this caused me to look around and try to understand why there was such a difference between how I perceived myself, how others perceived me, how I perceived typology, and how I really typed. It took a while but eventually I came around to the understanding that what I thought was me being a T type- was actually just that I wasnt an Fe type. It caused me to understand myself better as a person because I was willing to throw away a label that had served mostly just to make me feel better (even if it wasnt something that was conscious)

Had no one questioned my type I might still type myself as INTP. And maybe thats fine- but I am very happy that people DID question me- even if I didnt like it at the time- because it allowed me to step away from away from a label I was using as a shield and instead understand who I really was. It allowed me to fit a type to understand myself- instead of alter myself or answer questions, because of a cognitive bias, that turned me into someone who was desperate to fit a description to me.

IME, this is the greatest use of typing - not to slap a label on people, but as a framework to help you understand yourself better, and others. That whole idea of the disconnect between how you see yourself and how others see you is far more fundamental than any typing system. Working through it can be very useful, provided you have that external input to compare with your internal view. You may learn that you are neither the type you thought you were, nor the type that other person suggests you are, but something else instead. Here, it really is all about the journey.

-I see similar things from people on here all the time. New members who come on and demand that others see them as XNXX type- and then get upset when people offer solid reasons as why their perception of that individual is different. It means that, from what Ive seen, that person just gets more desperate to PROVE that they are a certain type- more distressed if you can believe it because they get SO defensive and offended that they start seeing people who DONT see them as that type as some sort of enemy.

I have seen this, too, and it is indeed unfortunate. I have also seen people whom I or others consistently disagree with about their type, and who take it all in stride, asking us to explain why we disagree, and folding that all in to their perspective rather than dismissing it outright.

How do you know what a type is? What criteria are you using?

Irrelevant. The purpose of the thread is to discuss the change in attitude toward type as a topic, specifically to the notion of questioning someone else's type. We actually discuss several typing systems here, so this discussion can and should be system agnostic.

This site hasn't historically had too many active INTJs. The site owner's an INTJ who, if I recall correctly, has more conservative views. Not sure if he's a libertarian or more conservative. Coriolis is a libertarian INTJ, albeit they're socially more left. Edgar's an INTJ who's definitively not a left-winger. And so on.

So, they're not being banned for having right winged views. They're being banned for assorted recurring rule violations which isn't unusual for immature INTJs.

Sorry, not libertarian, but your conclusion is right on the money.

 

[cascadeco]

You've hit on something important, albeit not directly. The key reason why people get buttflustered when someone questions their type because they feel they have a vested interest in certain (often misguided and inaccurate) descriptions of their chosen type. Your example being a good one - the assumption that being an NT means you're smart. NTs by their definition rely on logic, but that does not make them inherently smart. Let me tell you, I've met my share of retarded NTs who wielding logic like a monkey would wield an iPhone with its shit smeared paws. I've also met impressively intelligent Sensors and Feelers. For the curious and the autistic, I recommend checking out Taylor Swift's court testimony if you want to see an example of an ISFP being smart - that "ditsy singer" made the opposing counsels look like fools.

tl;dr Being one type or the other doesn't have any relation to being smart, stupid, or being prone any specific mental illness.

It boggles my mind that this isn't 'common knowledge' for everyone.

 

[Peter Deadpan]

There are so many problems with this that I don't even know where to start. I will preface this by saying that your point regarding people who are struggling with themselves and thus grasping onto a system for understanding and/or stability is valid in many cases, but it certainly does not explain every individual's reactivity to typing because people are incredibly diverse and there is no cookie cutter blanket of explanation.

First and foremost, the overwhelming majority of members here are sorely lacking in the knowledge/research department. There are an infinite number of resources for information about personality typing systems and cognitive functions, but most of them are far from what could be considered scholarly. This does nothing more than lay down a shoddy foundation and spray gasoline all over the dumpster fire that typing stereotypes are. Basically, I view most members here as weekend warriors and a small group as legitimate tradesman of typology. Whose foundation is gonna stand up to a storm? I can blow a lot of the foundations around here to the ground due to the extent of my own research, which I can assure you did not come from Personality Hacker. (Feel free to read all that shit, but then know that when you get really serious about typology, you have to completely unlearn it and start from scratch).

And speaking about scratching, a platform like this does nothing more than barely scraping the surface of a person's being. When you type people here, you are dong nothing more than typing a persona. If you don't think that you, to some extent at least, project a persona online, then I think you have bigger issues than the person who gets touchy about people mistyping them. At least that person probably knows that some of what they project isn't completely representative of their day-to-day truth. How many of the people that you've ("you" as in anyone) typed have you even seen a video of? One that is at least half an hour and goes further than fluff. Have you ever actually hung out with the person you are typing? If not, how can you possibly be confident that you haven't constructed a persona of them in your head? That's what humans do, so it's best not to kid yourself.

And oh my fuck with the stereotypes. Being funny doesn't automatically make someone Ne or an extrovert or a fucking 6w7 or a social-instinct-somewhere. 90% of you don't even know what the social instinct actually is. And that's fine if that's your prerogative, but just know that you are then completely unqualified to type anyone ever because you simply do not know your shit. And do you know what's super annoying? People who don't even know their own type assuredly typing others.

Despite my own reactivity to others typing me incorrectly or differently, I am actually quite open to being something completely different than what I see because I understand that the hardest parts to see are the ones that construct your core, which is why I have spent significant quantities of time researching and introspecting in the privacy of my own home on my own time. I have taken time to look past Peter Deadpan online. I have noticed where my mind goes every time I sit on a toilet or when I am driving or when someone makes me mad or when I feel flawed or even when I am avoiding something. It's actually very painful to look at yourself in such a way, and if you haven't hit that level of self-analysis in your typing journey, then I guarantee you are not quite there yet.

What bothers me is when people cannot see past my surface behaviors whatsoever. I honestly cannot fathom how at this point a single person here can type me as ESxP or a 6w7. That would be a very outwardly focused individual at baseline. If that was my actual type, I'm pretty sure I would have made a fucking video by now, but I haven't because I suffer from painful inhibition.

I guess for me, I just get pissed off when people can't see below the surface and it leaves me with the feeling of not being seen and only existing in a cheapened, shallow sense. It's a chronic issue in my life to be seen in ways that I am not, but because I keep so much of myself to myself because that is my natural coping mechanism, it's very hard for me to reconcile the differences in perspective. I accept that that is mostly my own fault, but it's maddening when others can't even acknowledge the possibility of such a dynamic in online typing.

 

[Population: 1]

Delivery is key. Come at someone like a know it all dripping with contempt and most people are going to disregard your view because you’re an ass and most people don’t seek the advice of an ass. State your reasoning in a concise and tactful manner and it should be received well, even if the recipient disagrees. Assuming they’re reasonable people. The process takes a level of maturity and diplomacy from both parties. That’s why it’s usually better to express the opinion in a format where it is being sought after.

It always amazes me when someone has the diplomatic finesse of a war hammer and is then surprised when their input isn’t well received.

 

[cascadeco]

And oh my fuck with the stereotypes. Being funny doesn't automatically make someone Ne or an extrovert or a fucking 6w7 or a social-instinct-somewhere. 90% of you don't even know what the social instinct actually is. And that's fine if that's your prerogative, but just know that you are then completely unqualified to type anyone ever because you simply do not know your shit. And do you know what's super annoying? People who don't even know their own type assuredly typing others.
.

(Just as a complete aside, I agree re people equating Ne quirkiness with being Ne-dom; imo, based on my knowing Ne-doms irl, and some online too, actual Ne doms are rarely the 'quirky' sort -- they're often actually more cutting/bleak/*heavy*... the aux often can take over. It's definitely not about being random and quirky and funny. Quirky humor and using Ne as something to play with and have fun with and it having a 'light' feel and tossing around random connections as seen online is very, very often tertiary Ne -- you'll see it a TON in ESxJ's. Even INxP's will use Ne in more of a 'playful' way than ENxP's)

 

[Frosty]

(Just as a complete aside, I agree re people equating Ne quirkiness with being Ne-dom; imo, based on my knowing Ne-doms irl, and some online too, actual Ne doms are rarely the 'quirky' sort -- they're often actually more cutting/bleak... the aux often can take over. It's definitely not about being random and quirky and funny. Quirky humor and using Ne as something to play with and have fun with and tossing around random connections as seen online is very, very often tertiary Ne -- you'll see it a TON in ESxJ's.)

Agree strongly with this. The tert function is the relief function- the function that basically a person has “usage” of but isnt what drives them. Because of this- the person generally shows their tert function in a very stereotypical child like way.

Basically my view is that- if a function never causes you problems- its probably not your dom function- the one that is actually what you at baseline exist through every single day. Ne dom isn just being cute and quirky- its dealing with people who think you are a complete spaz- its not being able to make decisions- its when your mind is being pulled in so many directions that you seem paranoid- its believing everything and believing nothing- its just as many negatives aspositives- and if I never ever see a person struggling with the negatives- either they arent acknowledged or they are just spoken about sort of in a scripted way but never SHOWN- that brings up red flags to me for a potential mistype.

Which DOESNT mean that I immediately go to that person and tell them that- all it means is that I have an example in my head that can move me closer improving my undetstanding of typology because now I can see what a ENXP mistype looks like and recognize the differences in presentation. And if at some point Im proven wrong and need to readjust I will- but seeing patterns in people and relating them to type I think can do nothing less than further typological understanding

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

There are so many problems with this that I don't even know where to start. I will preface this by saying that your point regarding people who are struggling with themselves and thus grasping onto a system for understanding and/or stability is valid in many cases, but it certainly does not explain every individual's reactivity to typing because people are incredibly diverse and there is no cookie cutter blanket of explanation.

First and foremost, the overwhelming majority of members here are sorely lacking in the knowledge/research department. There are an infinite number of resources for information about personality typing systems and cognitive functions, but most of them are far from what could be considered scholarly. This does nothing more than lay down a shoddy foundation and spray gasoline all over the dumpster fire that typing stereotypes are. Basically, I view most members here as weekend warriors and a small group as legitimate tradesman of typology. Whose foundation is gonna stand up to a storm? I can blow a lot of the foundations around here to the ground due to the extent of my own research, which I can assure you did not come from Personality Hacker. (Feel free to read all that shit, but then know that when you get really serious about typology, you have to completely unlearn it and start from scratch).

And speaking about scratching, a platform like this does nothing more than barely scraping the surface of a person's being. When you type people here, you are dong nothing more than typing a persona. If you don't think that you, to some extent at least, project a persona online, then I think you have bigger issues than the person who gets touchy about people mistyping them. At least that person probably knows that some of what they project isn't completely representative of their day-to-day truth. How many of the people that you've ("you" as in anyone) typed have you even seen a video of? One that is at least half an hour and goes further than fluff. Have you ever actually hung out with the person you are typing? If not, how can you possibly be confident that you haven't constructed a persona of them in your head? That's what humans do, so it's best not to kid yourself.

And oh my fuck with the stereotypes. Being funny doesn't automatically make someone Ne or an extrovert or a fucking 6w7 or a social-instinct-somewhere. 90% of you don't even know what the social instinct actually is. And that's fine if that's your prerogative, but just know that you are then completely unqualified to type anyone ever because you simply do not know your shit. And do you know what's super annoying? People who don't even know their own type assuredly typing others.

Despite my own reactivity to others typing me incorrectly or differently, I am actually quite open to being something completely different than what I see because I understand that the hardest parts to see are the ones that construct your core, which is why I have spent significant quantities of time researching and introspecting in the privacy of my own home on my own time. I have taken time to look past Peter Deadpan online. I have noticed where my mind goes every time I sit on a toilet or when I am driving or when someone makes me mad or when I feel flawed or even when I am avoiding something. It's actually very painful to look at yourself in such a way, and if you haven't hit that level of self-analysis in your typing journey, then I guarantee you are not quite there yet.

What bothers me is when people cannot see past my surface behaviors whatsoever. I honestly cannot fathom how at this point a single person here can type me as ESxP or a 6w7. That would be a very outwardly focused individual at baseline. If that was my actual type, I'm pretty sure I would have made a fucking video by now, but I haven't because I suffer from painful inhibition.

I guess for me, I just get pissed off when people can't see below the surface and it leaves me with the feeling of not being seen and only existing in a cheapened, shallow sense. It's a chronic issue in my life to be seen in ways that I am not, but because I keep so much of myself to myself because that is my natural coping mechanism, it's very hard for me to reconcile the differences in perspective. I accept that that is mostly my own fault, but it's maddening when others can't even acknowledge the possibility of such a dynamic in online typing.

Word. Rigorous self analysis is the key. Not getting caught up in constructing a paper moon persona is key.

It’s why I periodically clear any type from my profile, lest I fall back into a pattern of looking at the shadow I’ve projected to others instead of looking into the source of the shadow. Looking at the source of the shadow, trying to shed the ego in order to really pore over all of my ugly little idiosyncrasies and tendencies, can be more difficult and sometimes it’s a lot more painful than the immediate but fleeting satisfaction that comes from convincing others I’m more like an idealized version of my true self, but it’s more rewarding in the long run. Otherwise I’m just engaging in public masturbation for a quick thrill

 

[LucieCat]

Well, I personally do not find it offensive. I suppose if it is done in an manner that is disparaging or can be seen as an attack on the other person, then I can see it being offensive to some. I cannot say if I'd see that as a personal offense since no one has approached me in that manner. I would imagine that I would just shrug and go about my day, as that is how I generally am with internet conflicts.

But I am sure it would impact other people differently. I have often found that I can let things slide easier than most. I've seen people almost nearly break down and panic or become angry over remarks I have considered as rude, but just let slide. That's one reason I'm fairly certain my Fi is auxiliary instead of dominant. For people with dominant Fi, I have noticed a trend that they feel things very deeply and viscerally in a way I really do not. I still definitely use Fi though, but in a different way.

 

[LucieCat]

Basically, I view most members here as weekend warriors and a small group as legitimate tradesman of typology. Whose foundation is gonna stand up to a storm? I can blow a lot of the foundations around here to the ground due to the extent of my own research, which I can assure you did not come from Personality Hacker. (Feel free to read all that shit, but then know that when you get really serious about typology, you have to completely unlearn it and start from scratch).

Out of curiosity, what do you find bad about Personality Hacker? Sorry if it's a bit off topic. I'm just curious. Personally, I'm not a big fan of how they utilize nicknames for the cognitive functions—mostly because perfectly suitable names already exist and I find it confusing to relearn terminology under different names. But I really cannot discredit people's work based solely on the fact I do not like what essentially comes down to their word choice.

And I agree with your point later on in the post that typing people online is typing a persona. Someone could pretend to be a vastly different person online than in real life. Or it could just be a manner of how people are complex and show different sides of themselves around different people and in different places.

The one theory thrown around about typology I am definitely a skeptic of is the idea of typing people by how they look or how they dress. I just don't buy into it at all personally.

 

[Peter Deadpan]

[MENTION=34748]LucieCat[/MENTION] - I prefer to stick with people and organizations who have committed to actual scientific research. I've read plenty of what I consider to be the pop culture version of typology, but it's extremely troubling when attempting to objectively define and measure cognitive functions, or anything really.

As it stands, personality typing for the most part is a pseudoscience. It doesn't always have to be that way but in order to get there, the scientific method needs to be employed, and the MBTI (any version) is neither objective nor scientific.

 

[cascadeco]

[MENTION=34748]LucieCat[/MENTION] - I prefer to stick with people and organizations who have committed to actual scientific research. I've read plenty of what I consider to be the pop culture version of typology, but it's extremely troubling when attempting to objectively define and measure cognitive functions, or anything really.

As it stands, personality typing for the most part is a pseudoscience. It doesn't always have to be that way but in order to get there, the scientific method needs to be employed, and the MBTI (any version) is neither objective nor scientific.

What are your thoughts on the fact that for most people / the world, mbti IS the pop culture version of it?

I sometimes wonder/muse about which is more real/'accurate' -- ie if mbti IS in fact just the surface-level stuff/impressions? I mean, if that's what most people have as their take-away, and how they utilize the system, then..... ???

(fwiw I personally value going in-depth into a persons' character, but that also can go much beyond mbti itself)

 

[Peter Deadpan]

What are your thoughts on the fact that for most people / the world, mbti IS the pop culture version of it?

I sometimes wonder/muse about which is more real/'accurate' -- ie if mbti IS in fact just the surface-level stuff/impressions? I mean, if that's what most people have as their take-away, and how they utilize the system, then..... ???

(fwiw I personally value going in-depth into a persons' character, but that also can go much beyond mbti itself)

MBTI is fatally flawed in my opinion.

MBTI is the test we've all taken a million times. That right there - the fact that WE take it based on what we see in ourselves - makes it 100% subjective. Science is not subjective, it's objective. It's impossible to objectively type oneself and we can't sidestep the ego.

Furthermore, there are no concise and consistent definitions of cognitive functions. That's why none of us have a solid grip on what they are, and if you think you do, you're probably still wrong. That's partially because it's difficult to filter out old bits of info that have borrowed into our brains.

I personally think Jungian types need to be stripped to bare bones and built again from the ground up, and there are people attempting to do this scientifically, but it's in its infancy.

 

[cascadeco]

MBTI is fatally flawed in my opinion.

MBTI is the test we've all taken a million times. That right there - the fact that WE take it based on what we see in ourselves - makes it 100% subjective. Science is not subjective, it's objective. It's impossible to objectively type oneself and we can't sidestep the ego.

Furthermore, there are no concise and consistent definitions of cognitive functions. That's why none of us have a solid grip on what they are, and if you think you do, you're probably still wrong. That's partially because it's difficult to filter out old bits of info that have borrowed into our brains.

I personally think Jungian types need to be stripped to bare bones and built again from the ground up, and there are people attempting to do this scientifically, but it's in its infancy.

Well yeah, I mean I can't disagree with that.

On my end I'm not as keen on the utility of building from the ground up, but I agree there is little objectiveness to any of it.

 

[Avocado]

(Just as a complete aside, I agree re people equating Ne quirkiness with being Ne-dom; imo, based on my knowing Ne-doms irl, and some online too, actual Ne doms are rarely the 'quirky' sort -- they're often actually more cutting/bleak/*heavy*... the aux often can take over. It's definitely not about being random and quirky and funny. Quirky humor and using Ne as something to play with and have fun with and it having a 'light' feel and tossing around random connections as seen online is very, very often tertiary Ne -- you'll see it a TON in ESxJ's. Even INxP's will use Ne in more of a 'playful' way than ENxP's)

Could also just be depression.

I will remember my conversations with [MENTION=10082]Starry[/MENTION], but will be taking leave of this forum soon. I have massive wealth, but no joy. Every day we simply inch closer to the void.