Oh no! how could I have been so wrong!!!

[Thalassa]

I imagine Solitarywalker with curlers in his hair, in a pink bathrobe, waving his cane at small children passing by his home, and growling, "Stop using folk typology, you whipper-snappers!".

I imagine that SolitaryWalker sits at his computer with curlers in his hair in a pink bathrobe feeling superior to people on this site for using folk typology, and imagining it works because we can't see him.

 

[highlander]

Lets see, what story do I have about an embarrassing mistyping? I had a pseudo-intellectual philosophy major help me write my first book and at times we discussed my project to come, the Principles of Typology. He once told me that everyone is an ENFP because they all seem just like him. To this person's mind, every person has a jovial, upbeat as well as attention seeking nature and they must therefore be all ENFPs. I don't know why he assumed that if a person is jovial, upbeat and attention seeking, he must be an ENFP; but nonetheless, this is what he did.

You wrote Principles of Typology? It's in front of me at this very moment. I'm reading it right now. Exceptional book!!! Really, really good. Wow.

 

[Venom]

I used to make the mistake of under attributing ESFJ and ENFP. They are A LOT more common then I previously thought. Giving people the tests and then talking with them about it has opened my eyes!

As soon as I figured out that male ESFJs dont come off as homemakers I was much more able to type them. As soon as I realized that ESFJ females actually party as hard as the ESFP females, I once again stopped under typing them.

The people that usaully end up testing ENFP, I almost always think of as some sick conglomeration of ISFP and ESTP --> ridiculous scheming that made me think "ESTP salesman" and the chillax care not about tommorow made me think "ISFP"...I finally got over this though. After accepting the low energy nature of a lot of ENXPs, I've stopped under typing them.

 

[Udog]

Yup, I've noticed how male FJs often come across as TJs.

 

[Jaguar]

Lets see, what story do I have about an embarrassing mistyping? I had a pseudo-intellectual philosophy major help me write my first book ... To this person's mind, every person has a jovial, upbeat as well as attention seeking nature and they must therefore be all ENFPs.

It's not half as bad as this nonsense you wrote about "deplorable" SJs:

... you are one of the few Ss that I think deserve some respect. Even more so meritorious for being an SJ who does not have a compulsion to enforce sensless and arbitrary rules.

So to humor your Si a bit, I didnt get my facts straight, I have made contact with at least on S that I can regard as something other than deplorable through and through.

Anyone who would write comments like that has no business even dealing with typology, much less writing a book on the subject.
The prejudice is palpable.

 

[JocktheMotie]

I've found the "best" [if there is such a thing] way to type people quickly is to use Keirsey's abstract/concrete and utilitarian/cooperative dichotomies in language and disposition. Things like "he likes science" or "she likes to dance and write poetry" for me have always been really shitty methods that I've had to shake, since the newcomer can get confused easily.

However, it still won't be perfect because people have the advantage of knowing their own mental processes over you, so all you're seeing is the exhibited behavior and not necessarily the subconscious cognitive tendencies that lead to it.

People can barely type themselves, typing others without extensive personal knowledge can be pretty much impossible.

 

[Queen Kat]

I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out that I'm wrong about myself.

 

[highlander]

It's not half as bad as this nonsense you wrote about "deplorable" SJs:

Anyone who would write comments like that has no business even dealing with typology, much less writing a book on the subject.
The prejudice is palpable.

Hmm...

I would not jump to conclusions without reading it. I'm not finished yet, but there is some quite good material which provides substantial insight.

 

[highlander]

You can preview some of it online. I read some of it online here first.

Principles of Typology - Google Books

Then I read the Amazon.com reviews here:

Amazon.com: Principles of Typology (9781438927145): Aleksey Bashtavenko: Books

Definitely worth the money.

 

[matmos]

I imagine that SolitaryWalker sits at his computer with curlers in his hair in a pink bathrobe feeling superior to people on this site for using folk typology, and imagining it works because we can't see him.

No. He's naked.

 

[Jaguar]

I would not jump to conclusions without reading it.

He has posted online for years. I already know what he thinks.

No. He's naked.

 

[highlander]

He has posted online for years. I already know what he thinks.

Yes, I understand but isn't there a difference between posting online and a coherent organized piece of work?

 

[Venom]

I've found the "best" [if there is such a thing] way to type people quickly is to use Keirsey's abstract/concrete and utilitarian/cooperative dichotomies in language and disposition. Things like "he likes science" or "she likes to dance and write poetry" for me have always been really shitty methods that I've had to shake, since the newcomer can get confused easily.

However, it still won't be perfect because people have the advantage of knowing their own mental processes over you, so all you're seeing is the exhibited behavior and not necessarily the subconscious cognitive tendencies that lead to it.

People can barely type themselves, typing others without extensive personal knowledge can be pretty much impossible.

+ 5 FTW

The majority of my "wrong typings" have been driven by trying to use functions ON OTHER PEOPLE (whose thoughts we cant hear! )

When someone thinks Te in their head, it might look SeTi. When someone thinks Ni in their head, it might look like NeTi etc etc etc ad infinitum...

I like to use initiating/responding, directing/informing, structure/motive pragmatic/affiliative to determine their interaction style and their temperament. When you overlap the two, you end up with a type. Its the only way to type someone without actually talking to them about it.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

I like to use initiating/responding, directing/informing, structure/motive pragmatic/affiliative to determine their interaction style and their temperament. When you overlap the two, you end up with a type. Its the only way to type someone without actually talking to them about it.

I'm kinda slow. What would this correspond to then?

 

[Jaguar]

Yes, I understand but isn't there a difference between posting online and a coherent organized piece of work?

Little Britney Spears could do better.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

It's not half as bad as this nonsense you wrote about "deplorable" SJs: .

Jaguar, you're just a troll who has nearly nothing to contribute to any thread. Pipe down.

[Anyone who would write comments like that has no business even dealing with typology, much less writing a book on the subject.
The prejudice is palpable.

Check the date of the post. I hold nearly none of the views on typology that I've held in 2007. However, those conclusions are well entailed by Keirsey's method of attributing personality qualities to people based on their type.

Little Britney Spears could do better.

You're astute, are you not?

 

[cascadeco]

Anyone else have similar stories to make me feel better about being wrong?

There are some people who I think are really hard to type. So, I'm certain of a couple of the dichotomies, but not on the others. In those cases I just leave it as an 'unknown', and I'm starting to decide if it's that hard to figure out, well, frankly it doesn't matter. (and it doesn't matter a huge amount in the big picture anyway!)

My aunt and uncle are ISxP's. I leave it at that. And, they'll never be taking the test, nor do I feel it necessary to show it to them, so I'll never know.

And the husband of one of my best friends.... I have no earthly idea, honestly, outside of the E. I go back and forth between any of the ExxP's, and ENFJ. haha. My best guess would be ENFP. He is E for certain, and I'm reasonably sure of the F (obviously not 100% though), and would choose P over J, but J isn't out of the question.

 

[Venom]

I'm kinda slow. What would this correspond to then?

I'll give ya the quick version:

1. Determine the interaction style:
--initiating or responding?
--directing or informing?
In charge - Initiating and Directing - ENFJ/ESTJ/ESTP/ENTJ
Get things going - Initiating and Informing - ENFP/ESFJ/ESFP/ENTP
Chart the course - Responding and Directing - INFJ/ISTJ/ISTP/INTJ
Behind the scenes - Responding and Informing - INFP/ISFJ/ISFP/INTP

2. Determine the temperament:
--Structure or Motive?
--Affiliative or Pragmatic?
NF -- Affiliative and Motive
NT -- Pragmatic and Structure
SP -- Pragmatic and Motive
SJ -- Affiliative and Structure

It then forms a grid, and you can overlap your answers from #1 and #2 to get a type.

It helps address some of the issues that function typing other people usually mess up: NFJs are the directive F's (when some incorrectly believe Fe to be the ultimate pleaser function), the STJs are affiliative (when the Te nature might mistakenly lead some to believe that they are pragmatists).

I think its best not to think in VVVtheseVVV terms and just convert at the end (helps remove bias):

Roughly:
initiating = E
responding = I

Directing = TJ, STP, NFJ
Informing = NFP, SFP, SFJ, NTP

Motive = SP/NF
Structure = SJ/NT

Affiliaitive = SJ/NF
Pragmatic = SP/NT

 

[JustHer]

What the hell is folk typology?

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

^oh, well, it's simple then^

i'll just print this out and make a cheat sheet to pull out next time I'm doing campfire typing.