Stereotyping

[Mal12345]

Can someone please explain to me where the stereotyping occurs in the MBTI? Or the Enneagram for that matter? At least define "stereotyping."

 

[Riva]

If not for stereotyping why distinguish between different types of personalities in the 1st place?

This also applies to enneagrams and other tests.

So while 'someone' is 'explaining' the OP, try to explain how personality types could survive if not for stereotyping.

---

Oh wait, I have reasons myself.

---

keeps the post anyway.

 

[Mal12345]

If not for stereotyping why distinguish between different types of personalities in the 1st place?

This also applies to enneagrams and other tests.

So while 'someone' is 'explaining' the OP, try to explain how personality types could survive if not for stereotyping.

---

Oh wait, I have reasons myself.

---

keeps the post anyway.

I think you just need an example of a complaint about stereotyping:

"See I'm glad you're posting instead of the multitude on here who insist that the stereotypes are what decide [on type - Mal]. As a newcomer I used to think that thinkers didn't feel as much as feelers, but I've learned that isn't true--it's just how you handle it instinctively."

Is there a problem in the logic here? What exactly am I seeing?

 

[King sns]

Stereotypes simply lack balance and in the case of this forum, are placed more heavily/harshly on some types than others. So while some are considered humans with depth, others appear to be two dimensional bots. Everyone uses all the functions, (or in your case Mal, if you're not thinking along the lines of JCF), everyone still lands on a spectrum. Virtually everyone. So calling people by extremes of behavior is a total cop out and requires very little thought and true analysis. The system and the stereotypes elminate all the "whys?" of behavior. I find the "whys" are more important than the labels themselves. In some cases, there is genuine stereotypical behavior resulting from types. But almost everyone has depth or potential for depth. For me, it's more fun to talk about that end of things and slower but more accurate at the end of the day.

(Oh, and if you're trying to type mass amounts of people stereotypes are a bit easier, that's what the system is for. Better for groups than individuals.)

 

[garbage]

Initial thoughts.

Generalizing and simplifying through categories is very, very useful, but only to a certain extent. We all make sense of the world through categorizations and all, but we should also know well enough when nuances in the definitions of those categories don't fit in individual members of those categories. To most people, "stereotyping" probably means "taking a category's definition too far in describing individuals." "Too far" is pretty subjective and based upon individual understanding of the categorical system, though.

Certain typology systems are structured in a way that try to explain too much. They're precise and logically coherent, but that says next to nothing about how they'd fare when brought to the "real world."


My favorite phenomenon is when people insist that everyone falls strictly within a particular type and argue types of certain individuals to death, yet they frequently change their own self-typing, presumably because they discover another aspect of themselves and try to explain it through a different type. (If you are so flexible and forgiving with your self-understanding, why aren't you so in your understanding of others?)

 

[Mal12345]

Stereotypes simply lack balance and in the case of this forum, are placed more heavily/harshly on some types than others. So while some are considered humans with depth, others appear to be two dimensional bots. Everyone uses all the functions, (or in your case Mal, if you're not thinking along the lines of JCF), everyone still lands on a spectrum. Virtually everyone. So calling people by extremes of behavior is a total cop out and requires very little thought and true analysis. The system and the stereotypes elminate all the "whys?" of behavior. I find the "whys" are more important than the labels themselves. In some cases, there is genuine stereotypical behavior resulting from types. But almost everyone has depth or potential for depth. For me, it's more fun to talk about that end of things and slower but more accurate at the end of the day.

(Oh, and if you're trying to type mass amounts of people stereotypes are a bit easier, that's what the system is for. Better for groups than individuals.)

The statement was, "See I'm glad you're posting instead of the multitude on here who insist that the stereotypes are what decide [on type - Mal]." You say stereotypes lack balance. Is balance required in deciding on type? No.

Here is an example of stereotyping:

"All Mexicans have black hair and brown eyes."

Certainly that is not a balanced view of Mexicans, and I myself have known some with blue or green eyes. Stereotyping also refuses to recognize distinctions, as if to say "all Mexicans are the same."

And indeed, there is an innately racial and very human background for this. Anybody of any race or culture who enters a foreign culture is going to omit the details. Those come with openness to mentally absorb the distinctions.

Anybody who hasn't had this experience of culture shock won't have any idea what I'm talking about and will likely think it can't apply to them. That is false.

But how is this an issue for typology? I've seen it declared to be an issue, but I have no idea how it came to be an issue in the 20 years since I last delved into the subject this deeply.

I agree with everything you say above, but I can't apply it back to the question of determining type.

 

[King sns]

The statement was, "See I'm glad you're posting instead of the multitude on here who insist that the stereotypes are what decide [on type - Mal]." You say stereotypes lack balance. Is balance required in deciding on type? No.

Here is an example of stereotyping:

"All Mexicans have black hair and brown eyes."

Certainly that is not a balanced view of Mexicans, and I myself have known some with blue or green eyes. Stereotyping also refuses to recognize distinctions, as if to say "all Mexicans are the same."

And indeed, there is an innately racial and very human background for this. Anybody of any race or culture who enters a foreign culture is going to omit the details. Those come with openness to mentally absorb the distinctions.

Anybody who hasn't had this experience of culture shock won't have any idea what I'm talking about and will likely think it can't apply to them. That is false.

But how is this an issue for typology? I've seen it declared to be an issue, but I have no idea how it came to be an issue in the 20 years since I last delved into the subject this deeply.

I agree with everything you say above, but I can't apply it back to the question of determining type.

Meh, answer to this question is obvious to me, so I won't elaborate too much, but yes. Balance is important when typing individuals. If you use the stereotype for ESTJ you may target a larger portion of ESTJ's than you do for say, ISFP's. But all in all each individual has their own set of behaviors and thought processes and over the course of typing someone (starting with the stereotypes in the beginning and working your way down to the nitty gritty) the answer often changes.

 

[Mal12345]

Meh, answer to this question is obvious to me, so I won't elaborate too much, but yes. Balance is important when typing individuals. If you use the stereotype for ESTJ you may target a larger portion of ESTJ's than you do for say, ISFP's. But all in all each individual has their own set of behaviors and thought processes and over the course of typing someone (starting with the stereotypes in the beginning and working your way down to the nitty gritty) the answer often changes.

Therefore you're not deciding on a type. You're searching for an ideal called "balance" and instead, the result is confusion ("the answer often changes").

And that's exactly why the poster I quoted can't determine her type. In avoiding the evils (as if) of stereotyping, she has failed to find her own type.

 

[Stanton Moore]

This is why typology is a limited exercise.

 

[Mal12345]

This is why typology is a limited exercise.

I went looking for the most innocuous definition of "stereotype" possible, and found this: "A stereotype is used to categorize a group of people." (That's not a proper definition, but then, UrbanDictionary is not a proper dictionary.)

What it really boils down to is that personality is not a person's essence. And stereotyping does not get down to essence. A type is the essence of personality, distilled down to the most basic traits (the Enneagram uses primary motivations). The mystical part tells us that this is not the essence of you.

Avoiding stereotyping (i.e., lumping oneself into a group having the same name because of traits held in common) is not getting to the essence of you either. In fact, it is not even typology. I think, in the long run, it is just the PC movement getting in the way and creating only confusion.

I agree that if stereotyping is a bad idea then we should get rid of it, and also, eliminate typology. This still doesn't achieve essence, but it certainly does make us feel superior.

 

[redacted]

Stereotyping happens in the typological sense when people confuse preference and ability.

 

[Stanton Moore]

Typology becomes a stereotype when it is used form an outside perspective rather than an internal one. It can be used for personal growth, just like astrology can, but in a place like this, that's not the focus.

 

[garbage]

I went looking for the most innocuous definition of "stereotype" possible, and found this: "A stereotype is used to categorize a group of people." (That's not a proper definition, but then, UrbanDictionary is not a proper dictionary.)

Your inquiry for people to define "stereotyping" was a good one.

If your provided definition isn't what people who bemoan stereotyping are actually using, and if you're using that definition, then you're not actually getting at why people view stereotyping as "bad" because you don't even mean the same thing by the word "stereotype."

That is, if the 'discontents' view it as "oversimplification" (presumably 'bad' by definition), and you view it as merely "simplification" (not necessarily bad in and of itself), then you'll just talk past one another.

Everyone would ideally use the same terms so that communication is clearer. But, apparently, language doesn't work that way.


For clarity, I'd imagine that the question should be as follows--to what extent is simplification "bad"? Why do some view low levels of simplification as "bad," and why don't others?

Of course, this assumes that the goal is to actually get the question answered more completely...

Stereotyping happens in the typological sense when people confuse preference and ability.

Typology becomes a steroetype when it is used form an outside perspective rather than an internal one. It can be used for personal growth, just like astrology can, but in a place like this, that'snot the focus.

+1 to both of these

 

[Jaguar]

Can someone please explain to me where the stereotyping occurs in the MBTI? Or the Enneagram for that matter? At least define "stereotyping."

• To give a fixed, unvarying form to.
• An idea, trait, convention, etc., that has grown stale through fixed usage.

Enneagram 8's are bullies.
Enneagram 4's are special snowflakes.

S's can't see the big picture.
N's don't deal with details.
T's are unemotional robots.
F's are emotional bunnies.

 

[Mal12345]

Your inquiry for people to define "stereotyping" was a good one.

If your provided definition isn't what people who bemoan stereotyping are actually using, and if you're using that definition, then you're not actually getting at why people view stereotyping as "bad" because you don't even mean the same thing by the word "stereotype."

That is, if the 'discontents' view it as "oversimplification" (presumably 'bad' by definition), and you view it as merely "simplification" (not necessarily bad in and of itself), then you'll just talk past one another.

Everyone would ideally use the same terms so that communication is clearer. But, apparently, language doesn't work that way.


For clarity, I'd imagine that the question should be as follows--to what extent is simplification "bad"? Why do some view low levels of simplification as "bad," and why don't others?

Of course, this assumes that the goal is to actually get the question answered more completely...




+1 to both of these

+1 to me for adding the obvious point that simplification is the best way to arrive at your type. As for oversimplification - I don't see it happening much if at all.

 

[Mal12345]

Typology becomes a stereotype when it is used form an outside perspective rather than an internal one. It can be used for personal growth, just like astrology can, but in a place like this, that's not the focus.

How is astrology used for personal growth?

 

[garbage]

+1 to me for adding the obvious point that simplification is the best way to arrive at your type. As for oversimplification - I don't see it happening much if at all.

Great. Now we're avoiding the use of ambiguous words and can actually discuss something.

"don't see it happening" where? On this forum? In MBTI workforce development? In clinical practice? In general?

If you mean the forum, I'm sure that someone can provide links to one of many 15+ page threads where people try to bend typology to explain inane details. The claim of overgeneralizing could use some good, solid evidence so that we can put the issue to rest once and for all.

 

[Mal12345]

Great. Now we're avoiding the use of ambiguous words and can actually discuss something.

"don't see it happening" where? On this forum? In MBTI workforce development? In clinical practice? In general?

If you mean the forum,

Just the forums. My workplace has no need for typology.

I'm sure that someone can provide links to one of many 15+ page threads where people try to bend typology to explain inane details. The claim of overgeneralizing could use some good, solid evidence so that we can put the issue to rest once and for all.

I'm sure I've been stereotyped according to my INTP type on a number of occasions here by some of the more vulgar forum members. And it wasn't an eye for an eye since I have no interest in using their inane or immature forms of reasoning.

An example from 15+ pages of a thread is something I'd be interested in looking over.