Poor MBTI typing practices on this forum.

[Athenian200]

Here are some things that we need to do away with if we are to accurately type people:

1. Confirmation bias.

I know that you prefer to affirm people's self-image rather than tell them that you think they're a different type, but you're NOT helping them by just reinforcing their assumptions if they've mistyped themselves. I see entirely too many situations where a person is clearly a different type, and they ask about it, but the majority of people find a way to make the type the person originally chose "fit."

2. Unofficial behaviorist function test.

Come on, we all know that test is broken. For one thing, function use is not equivalent to function preference. For another, the definitions of the functions on that test are behaviorist and differ from the actual MBTI definitions. They also seems somewhat biased towards certain functions, and against others. Finally, functions are not about behavior or skill, they're about how a person thinks, which is not as easy to assess.

3. Liberal allocation of the shadow functions.

If a claimed INFJ seems more like an ISTP, people will just cite tertiary Ti and inferior Se as the culprits. If an claimed INTP seems more like an ISFJ, people will just cite tertiary Si and inferior Fe as the culprits. Sigh... the shadow does NOT work that way. A person's basic behavior while not under stress, would not be more like that of their shadow, at least not until they're older and they've consciously tried hard to integrate it. I can tolerate a provision for allowing the shadow traits to come up once in a while when it's not part of the typical pattern, but you can't use that to dismiss a huge, major pattern in their personality!

4. The T/F gender socialization card.

I can buy it only in very limited circumstances. Sure, this might explain away a few superficial traits, or maybe even major ones if the person had a VERY harsh upbringing that emphasized gender roles and was forced against their preference repeatedly. I don't think this is as common as people are imagining, though. The reality is that this card is effectively used to make it such that a woman can show far more F preferences and still be called T, while a man can show far more T preferences and still be called F. They're basically lowering the standards in an attempt to make the distribution of T and F more equal. But in reality, it doesn't work that way. The standards should not be lowered, because there are T women and F men who have CLEAR preferences, and often without even going too far outside of gender roles. Accept that this function sometimes shows a gender bias and move on... don't try to artificially "repair" that bias with this card, please? You're only making it harder for women that are only slightly expressed Fs, or men that are only slightly expressed Ts, to determine their type.

5. Overuse of Keirsey's temperaments.

I'm guilty of this myself at times. But seriously, his temperament descriptions were extremely shallow and stereotypical... also, they discount the importance of the dominant function, and make the auxiliary too important. Not to mention that they group Sensors differently from Intuitive types. I don't agree with the assumptions behind why T/F isn't as important for one group as it is for the other. I think those assumptions underestimate the intelligence and decision-making capacities of Sensors. SF and ST are just as valid, if not more so, as SJ and SP... even though I admit to having been programmed to think otherwise at one point.

6. "Weak" letters that don't fit the type pattern.

One's dominant function should never be "weak." One can have a weak auxiliary, but the dominant function should always be fairly strong, or that means you're a different type. I would think this would be obvious, considering that the dominant function is supposed to represent the consciousness and the self-image.I can accept a weak I/E, because that just means you have a strong auxiliary. I can also accept a weak auxiliary indicated by a weak letter associated with it. But I do not buy the whole concept of a weak dominant, or a weak J/P. J/P has less to do with behavior in terms of organization/punctuality/neatness, and more to do with functions. The difference between J/P types is a completely different functional order, and you should be able to tell which one you have, unless you're completely mistyped.

7. Use of third-party systems that attempt to convert MBTI types.

Whether it's the classic 4 or 5 temperament system, Socionics, or Beren's interaction styles, this method is somewhat unreliable. It's based on a separate system of typology that is different from MBTI, and finding a result within these systems does not tell you your MBTI type. You could even be a different type in these systems than in MBTI.

8. Assumption that functions can be individually developed.

This doesn't work. When one has Fe, they have Ti. They can't go out and develop Te. Sure, they can emulate Te behaviors and learn to communicate effectively with Te users, but that's not developing Te. They may be learning skills traditionally associated with Te, but their motivations for learning them will likely be related their dominant or auxiliary. Fe would want to learn Te skills in order to get along with Te users, for instance. Ni might want to learn Te skills in order to more effectively shape their environment into what they would like to see. Give me just about any skill or concern, and I can give you each function's possible motivation for having it.

Well, that's my rant. I'm sure people will disagree with me here, but it's all just my opinion, and I hope I get a few people to think about these things. There have to be better ways of assessing type. I'm going to try and come up with a few, later on.

Chances are good that I will slip back into these very behaviors and assumptions I described due to temptation by others, making me a hypocrite, but I still actually think they're flawed.

 

[KDude]

Well, I was thinking (as far as I go) that I could be an ISFP who just happens to expand my horizons by focusing my attention on a lot of concepts/ideas out there in the world remotely, just by virtue of being an avid reader or whatnot - I'm not inclined to be very action oriented, or climb mountains like Keirsey says that I would. I'm just not that cool, sorry. I'm more solitary and fine without needing some id experience. I think I can keep up or identify with stereotypically N traits like "theoretical", expansive, big picture oriented, and yet, I could still be ISFP. It's a thought at least.

 

[Athenian200]

Well, I was thinking (as far as I go) that I could be an ISFP who just happens to expand my horizons by focusing my attention on a lot of concepts/ideas out there in the world remotely, just by virtue of being an avid reader or whatnot - I'm not inclined to be very action oriented, or climb mountains like Keirsey says that I would. I'm just not that cool, sorry. I'm more solitary and fine without needing some id experience. I think I can keep up or identify with stereotypically N traits like "theoretical", expansive, big picture oriented, and yet, I could still be ISFP. It's a thought at least.

Well, the difference between INFPs and ISFPs, would be Ni/Se, and Si/Ne. Basically, if you can figure out whether your flavor of N is Ni or Ne, you know your type.

I think that Keirsey's description of SPs, especially ISxPs, is awful, even though I just used it in a thread, and in a semi-joking manner.

 

[burymecloser]

tl;dr

Actually, I read most of it. Some I agree with, some I don't. Typology is not an exact science with universally-recognised truths, and some of the points you state as fact are subject to dispute. Do you think you might be taking the issue of other people's types a little too seriously?

 

[Athenian200]

Do you think you might be taking the issue of other people's types a little too seriously?

Yes, probably.

In fact, I'm not at all certain of all these points. I just listed all the ones I could think of, because I see too many behaviors that have the potential to throw off an accurate typing, and it makes me wary. I'm pretty confident in #1, though... that's the worst one.

Mostly, I just want people questioning these things, because right now it seems like they don't.

 

[Orangey]

I agree with the OP. Also add #9 - "I want to be XXXX, therefore I am XXXX."

 

[KDude]

Well, the difference between INFPs and ISFPs, would be Ni/Se, and Si/Ne. Basically, if you can figure out whether your flavor of N is Ni or Ne, you know your type.

I think that Keirsey's description of SPs, especially ISxPs, is awful, even though I just used it in a thread, and in a semi-joking manner.

Well, I don't want to insult anyone, but I don't see any downsides with Ne. Ni is a sort of case-by-case basis when I see it in others. I think I might scrutinize it more than Si. I find myself at least trying to relate something to Si, to find an understanding. While there's times when I'm anxious or critical with some forms of Ni. Same with Se.

Basically, I'm probably just another INFP doing the old "pointlessly question your type" routine.

 

[Arclight]

So you are suggesting there is no such thing as cognitive balance? Last time I checked No one scores 100% on any function. Thus a J and P score that is close indicates just that.. A close score.. this in turn means a well balanced person.. not someone who be ashamed of themselves because they wont or can't fit into a box for someone else's convenience.

MY P an J score is always around 55/45 . What can I do about that, except float between the functions??

 

[Athenian200]

So you are suggesting there is no such thing as cognitive balance? Last time I checked No one scores 100% on any function. Thus a J and P score that is close indicates just that.. A close score.. this in turn means a well balanced person.. not someone who be ashamed of themselves because they wont or can't fit into a box for someone else's convenience.

MY P an J score is always around 55/45 . What can I do about that, except float between the functions??

You're misunderstanding my point. While the J or P might not be strongly expressed in terms of behavior, it's still there on a mental level. The problem is that the tests only measure behavior. So you're balanced in terms of acting out your J or P, but it's still there. To be honest, I think that J/P isn't a good dichotomy... it makes more sense to just pay attention to the dominant and auxiliary functions. Those are more important than whether you test as J or P.

The reason you can't have a weak J or P, is because J/P happen to have exclusive sets of functions. An IJ with a weak auxiliary might test as P, and an IP with a weak auxiliary might test as J, because their dominant Introverted functions are actually the opposite of what their code claims.

With Extraverts, the weak J just reflects that the person has learned to be less rigid (perhaps developing their tertiary), it doesn't mean that their dominant function is underdeveloped.

I think J/P itself might have some flaws as a concept, honestly, but it's a part of determining function order.

 

[Arclight]

Also.. In relation to point #1

I have also experienced the opposite of this.. Where certain people feel very protective of their "type" and the little group they have formed around that type. They, it then seems, believe they are the keepers of that type, and they alone decide who "gets" into the club..
Which is fucking ludicrous and achieves the seemingly impossible task of blowing and sucking at the same time.

It's one reason I don't bother wearing my tested type.,

 

[Arclight]

You're misunderstanding my point. While the J or P might not be strongly expressed in terms of behavior, it's still there on a mental level. The problem is that the tests only measure behavior. So you're balanced in terms of acting out your J or P, but it's still there. To be honest, I think that J/P isn't a good dichotomy... it makes more sense to just pay attention to the dominant and auxiliary functions. Those are more important than whether you test as J or P.

The reason you can't have a weak J or P, is because J/P happen to have exclusive sets of functions. An IJ with a weak auxiliary might test as P, and an IP with a weak auxiliary might test as J, because their dominant Introverted functions are actually the opposite of what their code claims.

With Extraverts, the weak J just reflects that the person has learned to be less rigid (perhaps developing their tertiary), it doesn't mean that their dominant function is underdeveloped.

I think J/P itself might have some flaws as a concept, honestly, but it's a part of determining function order.

OK then, My preference is for J.. I just really put a lot of value on being flexible. because it helps me get along better with others.. which I think you already covered..

 

[Athenian200]

OK then, My preference is for J.. I just really put a lot of value on being flexible. because it helps me get along better with others.. which I think you already covered..

Exactly. You're Fe dominant, so your main value is getting along with others. If this requires you to be more flexible, you will be. Functionally it makes sense, but the test can't make that connection.

Another reason why your J could be weak, is because the J/P tests a little more for Te than for Fe.

 

[Arclight]

Exactly. You're Fe dominant, so your main value is getting along with others. If this requires you to be more flexible, you will be. Functionally it makes sense, but the test can't make that connection.

Another reason why your J could be weak, is because the J/P tests a little more for Te than for Fe.

Interesting..

 

[KDude]

I agree on J/P not always signifying much and that tests might be a little more geared towards T on that angle. Fi doms may very well be stuck in their ways a bit or pulled back and might come across "rigid" at times. While a Ni dom may not.. To use a popular reference, if you don't mind, I think that character in Buffy, Drusilla, is a kind of crazy INFJ caricature. She gets typed as ENFP often, but she is not Ne at all really. And her extroverted traits seems to be more Fe. She would never "test"as a J though, if she were real. Nor would some toned down realistic version of her.

 

[FakePlasticAlice]

Athenian - would you elaborate more on #5 please? It's something i really haven't gotten around to understanding yet but have always wondered why it's divided NF, NT, SP, SJ.

I think that character in Buffy, Drusilla, is a kind of crazy INFJ caricature. She gets typed as ENFP often, but she is not Ne at all really. And her extroverted traits seems to be more Fe. She would never "test"as a J though, if she were real. Nor would some toned down realistic version of her.

Dru seems to be Ni-ing all over the place

 

[garbage]

Okay, we've listed some texts and ideas that we should avoid.

Which texts and ideas should we actually trust? Which are we treating as authoritative on the subject?

Since there are so many conflicting or hazy ideas floating out there, people come in with completely different perceptions on what it even means to be a certain type. Squelch that, find common definitions, and we won't have this problem.

 

[Athenian200]

Athenian - would you elaborate more on #5 please? It's something i really haven't gotten around to understanding yet but have always wondered why it's divided NF, NT, SP, SJ.

I would be glad to do so.

Actually, MBTI doesn't define things that way. Isabel Myers herself actually originally defined the four temperaments as NF, NT, SF, and ST. However, she also defined them in terms of IJ, EP, IP, and EJ. More than one perspective, in other words. It was Keirsey who came along later and redefined them in the configuration that you see today. The reason he did it, was because he wanted to make the groupings fit with Galen's ancient temperament theory... that is, Melancholic, Sanguine, Choleric, and Phlegmatic. This was a flawed approach, however, because Jungian types were not meant to be grouped according to an alien paradigm like that. Jung had tried to improve on Galen's theory, and Keirsey's idea was actually a step backwards. It oversimplified the types.

You will not find an official MBTI source that supports the SP/SJ division, AFAIK.

To be honest, even MBTI is somewhat removed from Jung's theory, but not nearly as much as Keirsey, who redefined the types and their groupings based on behaviorist principles, and created an abstraction atop an abstraction. MBTI is close to Jung, but Keirsey is WAY off the mark.

 

[Athenian200]

Okay, we've listed some texts and ideas that we should avoid.

Which texts and ideas should we actually trust? Which are we treating as authoritative on the subject?

Well, I would treat Isabel Myers' Gifts Differing as authoritative. I would also treat C. G. Jung's Psychological Types as authoritative. Beyond that, I'm uncertain.

I like Lenore Thompson's ideas somewhat, as well as those of Beebe, but I'm not certain about them.

 

[Totenkindly]

I'm guilty of this myself at times. But seriously, his temperament descriptions were extremely shallow and stereotypical... also, they discount the importance of the dominant function, and make the auxiliary too important. Not to mention that they group Sensors differently from Intuitive types. I don't agree with the assumptions behind why T/F isn't as important for one group as it is for the other. I think those assumptions underestimate the intelligence and decision-making capacities of Sensors. SF and ST are just as valid, if not more so, as SJ and SP... even though I admit to having been programmed to think otherwise at one point.

I agree that SF and ST are worth exploring as archetypes in themselves, but how do you resolve the issue occuring from the reality that J/P means functions are entirely different?

ISFJ = Si + Fe + Ti + Ne
ISFP = Fi + Se + Ni + Te

So these two SF personalities actually have a lot less in common in some ways than the more conventional SJ/SP split.

I also think your gender T/F comments are too simplistic. Whether you like it or not, there are still both cultural and biological factors that impact thinking and behavior, as well as expression of emotions, all of which impacts type identification. You're right in that the card is probably overplayed, but it still needs to be taken into account.

Well, I would treat Isabel Myers' Gifts Differing as authoritative. I would also treat C. G. Jung's Psychological Types as authoritative. Beyond that, I'm uncertain.

Authoritative on what, again? Typology?

If you're talking about who is authoritative on Jung, it's kind of obvious that Jung would be authoritative on himself; and the same if you are talking about authoritative on MBTI, it would be one of the originators of the theory (Myers).

 

[Athenian200]

I agree that SF and ST are worth exploring as archetypes in themselves, but how do you resolve the issue occuring from the reality that J/P means functions are entirely different?

ISFJ = Si + Fe + Ti + Ne
ISFP = Fi + Se + Ni + Te

So these two SF personalities actually have a lot less in common in some ways than the more conventional SJ/SP split.

Well, no one ever brought that up with NTs and NFs, and the same issue applies there, doesn't it? Are you saying that the distance between the functions is less relevant for Ns? I think that's really an argument in favor of ignoring temperaments and focusing more on functions in general. It doesn't really justify the odd split Keirsey invented. Also, Keirsey didn't even use the functions in his theory... as far as I know, it's all behaviorist and focused on the four dichotomies. No functions to be spoken of are even found in his theory, so that that's basically attempting to justify it by applying something that doesn't apply within the framework of his theory.

I also think your gender T/F comments are too simplistic. Whether you like it or not, there are still both cultural and biological factors that impact thinking and behavior, as well as expression of emotions, all of which impacts type identification. You're right in that the card is probably overplayed, but it still needs to be taken into account.

I don't think this should be permitted to define male and female versions of the types, though. What's wrong with simply holding things constant, and allowing more females to test as F, and more males to test as T? Maybe the differences in cultural and biological factors mean that most men are simply less capable of being Fs than women, and that most women are less capable of being Ts than men. Rather than being regarded as a distracting influence and discounting it, maybe that should be considered part of the pattern. I'm not denying the impact, I'm just saying that perhaps we should evaluate the impact in a different manner. Especially since there do exist extreme Ts and extreme Fs even among the incorrect gender group, and they're very different from the typical "filtered" version of that type, and more like the original archetype.

Authoritative on what, again? Typology?

If you're talking about who is authoritative on Jung, it's kind of obvious that Jung would be authoritative on himself; and the same if you are talking about authoritative on MBTI, it would be one of the originators of the theory (Myers).

Well, MBTI is what the thread is about. And Jung is also fairly authoritative on MBTI, because Myers' herself used him as a source directly.