My sister is an ESFJ and one of my best friends is an ENFJ. They're both 2w3 and I'm wondering the biggest differences between those two MBTI types.
INFJ with ESFJ sister sounds unlikely. Type runs in families.
Why do you think that?
I've heard that someone supposedly verified it,
and it seems to match my own experience,
for example it appears true of my own family
and furthermore makes sense in theory
Huh. So it's your theory and observation from your own family, which is a far cry from the bold definitive statement of 'Type Runs in Families'.
As for 'someone supposedly verifying it', that's pretty vague. Not only are there not 'proven' ways for determining someone is one and only one type (nor 100% definitive universally agreed upon ways of determining type), acting as if 'type' is genetically passed along is an unsubstantiated leap -- it's not as if Fe, Fi, Ne, Ni, Si, Se, Te, and Ti are even 'real' entities let alone a combination of known 'real things' that can be or are mapped to specific genes. So there's no way a statement can be made that type therefore 'runs in families'.
That's how Ni works,
Strong speculations based on manifesting patterns,
These can be changed as time goes on,
Or strengthened in the same direction,
And I feel that the evidence is telling.
Type can be verified,
And functions are in a sense real,
As real as memory,
And with the makings of a scientific theory.
If you think the claim is unsubstantiated,
You'll find that all talk of type is,
But it is not unsubstantiated,
If you know how to read the signs.
Well, one is FeSiNeTi, the other is FeNiSeTi.
INFJ with ESFJ sister sounds unlikely. Type runs in families.
Even if your theory is accurate, they could still be a copy of each parent since there are two types here.
This thread has a sample size of over 1000 responses. It doesn't align with your internal beliefs which haven't been proven.It's possible, just fairly unlikely.
I'll also add that the hereditariness of type is gender specific, so in this case it could for example be the two types of each grandmother.
This thread has a sample size of over 1000 responses. It doesn't align with your internal beliefs which haven't been proven.
What types are your family and friends?
What has been partially proven is that MBTI has a genetic component (twin studies) but this differs greatly from believing that MBTI types run in families.
So 1000+ people don't know how to type and your beliefs which haven't been proven in any way are accurate? Considering how your methodology for typing people by voice has already been disproved, I'm uncertain how you believe yourself to be capable of accurately typing sufficient to arrive at your conclusions.The data in that thread is invalid because most people don't know how to type.
So 1000+ people don't know how to type and your beliefs which haven't been proven in any way are accurate? Considering how your methodology for typing people by voice has already been disproved, I'm uncertain how you believe yourself to be capable of accurately typing sufficient to arrive at your conclusions.
So 1000+ people don't know how to type
and your beliefs which haven't been proven in any way are accurate?
Considering how your methodology for typing people by voice has already been disproved,
I'm uncertain how you believe yourself to be capable of accurately typing sufficient to arrive at your conclusions.
cascadeco said:Not to mention the fact that he revises his own typings and methodologies. Thus, he's no different/ has the same susceptibilities as anyone else and those he is critiquing when it comes to typing and retyping.
[MENTION=10808]bechimo[/MENTION] [MENTION=1206]cascadeco[/MENTION] [MENTION=195]Jaguar[/MENTION] As far as I am aware, none of you have made any relevant contributions to the field of typology, and you don't understand the subject well enough to make valid judgments about the validity of novel approaches.
It's possible, just fairly unlikely.
I'll also add that the hereditariness of type is gender specific, so in this case it could for example be the two types of each grandmother.
You're pointing to revision of typings and methodologies as a... flaw? That baffles me.
If you're criticising me for not having a 100% hitrate with typings, then find me a single person who does have a nearly 100% hitrate.
You can't, because such a person doesn't exist. (Am I wrong about that?)
[MENTION=10808]bechimo[/MENTION] [MENTION=1206]cascadeco[/MENTION] [MENTION=195]Jaguar[/MENTION] As far as I am aware, none of you have made any relevant contributions to the field of typology, and you don't understand the subject well enough to make valid judgments about the validity of novel approaches.
So, your critiques of my approach/approaches are irrelevant.
You can make claims to the effect of "we don't know for certain if you're correct" which is fine. I'm more aiming my message at people who are making an active effort to understand how type works, to get momentum going with the endeavour.
It's not a proven science, but do we have anything better? If you're aware of better approaches I'd like to hear them, but like I said I don't think any of you understand what you're talking about well enough to determine which approaches do or don't have merit.