• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

MBTI types with an X - something doesn't sit well with me...

S

Society

Guest
i noticed some people here have an x in their MBTI type, i am guessing representing that they either feel they are "in the middle", "both"... and something doesn't make sense to me:

let's take an ENxP:
both ENTP & ENFP have the same dominant & inferior functions...

but then we have a huge difference:

ENTP:
Auxiliary: Introverted Thinking
Tertiary: Extraverted Feeling

ENFP:
Auxiliary: Introverted Feeling
Tertiary: Extraverted Thinking

it's not just a question here about whether they are more F or more T, they would have to be perfectly balanced on 3 dimensions:
1) between introverted thinking and extroverted thinking
2) between introverted feeeling and extroverted feeling
3) between their auxilary function and their tertiary function

can anyone of the ENxPs testify that this really applies to them?

how about an ExTP same aux & ter functions, but now it gets worst, not only do they need to be:
1) perfectly balanced between introverted sensing and extroverted sensing
2) perfectly balanced between introverted intuition and extroverted intuition
but also:
3) perfectly balanced between their dominant function and their inferior function

this pretty much goes on to all MBTI types with x's... what am i missing? how can that possibly make sense?
 

tine5

New member
Joined
Feb 29, 2012
Messages
52
MBTI Type
ISTP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Oh, well with mine that's not the case at all. The X means I'm unsure :) I'm learning the functions of Se and Ne and found that no one could explain them so they actually seemed different without stereotyping! I've had a great person tell me a bit more abou them and done a questionnaire or three and got Se, so it's probably that, I'm just waiting to be sure!!
 
S

Society

Guest
Oh, well with mine that's not the case at all. The X means I'm unsure :) I'm learning the functions of Se and Ne and found that no one could explain them so they actually seemed different without stereotyping! I've had a great person tell me a bit more abou them and done a questionnaire or three and got Se, so it's probably that, I'm just waiting to be sure!!

i see... and i think i can help with only one question:
are you more absorbed in the details around you for what they are or for what they remind you of?
 

INTP

Active member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
7,803
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx
X just means unknown, even tho some people dont get that
 

Thinkist

New member
Joined
Dec 7, 2011
Messages
128
MBTI Type
ISTP
Enneagram
9w1
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I use a lower case x for an unsure trait and an upper case X for balanced one. Also for an X in the E/I dimension, there's not much to it. For instance, an XSTP would use Ti and Se equally, as well as Ni and Fe equally.

An X in the J/P dimension however...
 
S

Society

Guest
X just means unknown, even tho some people dont get that

hmm.. it comes to me that without knowing their order, simply knowing which functions you have -if your intuition is introverted or extraverted and so on, you would be left with 4 options, and at least 2 of them won't share any letters at all.

for example, if you know you have Fe, Si, Ne & Ti, your 4 options would be ESFJ/ISFJ/ENTP/INTP, so given the order is left unknown, you would still know nothing about your letters, since ESFJ and INTP don't share any letters at all (but have the same functions).

so just from not knowing the order, it would basically be xxxx. or exsexsexsex... which means your ex has hooked up 3 times since the breakup. and that's just salt on open wounds man. why bring that up? why?! ok moving on...

now let's say you know the functions, but not the order, but you do know the order within your judgement functions and/or within your perception functions, let's say you know that your Ti is greater then your Fe, in that case the only place you can have an X is in the start (xNTP).

and among those functions, if you know the place of at least one of those functions, for example which function is dominant, or which one is inferior, then you know your entire MBTI type.

if you know the order but not the functions, you would have two X's, for example if you know that your N>T>F>S you would have xNTx, or if you know your S>F>T>N, you would have xSFx. knowing one letter would tell you the other.

i just don't see any one missing variable where you can have an X anywhere else but the start (except, you know, 3rd marriages, but they have a divorce rate higher then 70%)
 

INTP

Active member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
7,803
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx
hmm.. it comes to me that without knowing their order, simply knowing which functions you have -if your intuition is introverted or extraverted and so on, you would be left with 4 options, and at least 2 of them won't share any letters at all.

for example, if you know you have Fe, Si, Ne & Ti, your 4 options would be ESFJ/ISFJ/ENTP/INTP, so given the order is left unknown, you would still know nothing about your letters, since ESFJ and INTP don't share any letters at all (but have the same functions).

so just from not knowing the order, it would basically be xxxx. or exsexsexsex... which means your ex has hooked up 3 times since the breakup. and that's just salt on open wounds man. why bring that up? why?! ok moving on...

now let's say you know the functions, but not the order, but you do know the order within your judgement functions and/or within your perception functions, let's say you know that your Ti is greater then your Fe, in that case the only place you can have an X is in the start (xNTP).

and among those functions, if you know the place of at least one of those functions, for example which function is dominant, or which one is inferior, then you know your entire MBTI type.

if you know the order but not the functions, you would have two X's, for example if you know that your N>T>F>S you would have xNTx, or if you know your S>F>T>N, you would have xSFx. knowing one letter would tell you the other.

i just don't see any one missing variable where you can have an X anywhere else but the start (except, you know, 3rd marriages, but they have a divorce rate higher then 70%)

Yes, especially the exsex thing. But some people might not be sure about the functions at all, but know that they are extraverts and intuitive, which would make them ENXX, now if they would look at it bit closer and find out that they are also T types, but unsure about J/P, they would be ENTX, not knowing if its dom Te aux Ni or Dom Ne aux Ti, because not understanding the functions properly, or they might in reality even be ESTJ with strong tert Ne, who knows? I know i dont because i dont know these people and not even sure if they even exist at all, but are just products of my imagination that im using as an example. However, im quite certain that there are other people in the real world who are like my imaginary friends i just made up.

People often get confused about their type because of their persona, which is not the real personality, but a mask they learned to put in order to handle people, its like the false self in some other psychology text books. Some people not intune with their true self might confuse their persona with their real personality, even answer the test according to persona, not the real self, which would potentially give false results from the test(especially since newbs only look at stereotypes).
 
S

Society

Guest
Yes, especially the exsex thing. But some people might not be sure about the functions at all, but know that they are extraverts and intuitive, which would make them ENXX

that makes sense in the Keirsey temperment model, where each letter actually means something on it's own...

but in the MBTI, knowing that your an ENxx just tells you that your dominant is an extraverted something - while telling you nothing about what it actually is, and without knowing what is Ni & Ne and Si & Se as the prime examples of what MBTI means by intuition & sensing how could you tell that your intuition as defined by the MBTI is more dominant then your sensing as defined by the MBTI? other then that, ENxx's don't really share anything in common:
Ne Ti Fe Si =ENTP
Ne Fi Te Si =ENFP
Fe Ni Se Ti =ENFJ
Te Ni Se Fi =ENTJ

i am getting a hint that keirsey really screwed people over by not coming up with his own type codes... where are the pitchforks?
 

Saslou

New member
Joined
Feb 1, 2009
Messages
4,910
MBTI Type
ESFJ
Lol, i only have one x in my type but if i had it my way there would be two/three of them. I don't like the functions because when i have tried to apply it on this site, people have stepped in and told me that the example i'm giving is something else so my judgement is clouded/indecisive in this regard.

The last few times I've taken the test I've got I-55%, N-55%, F-55%, P65% and on the socionics test i got INFj however previously I've bounced all over the place.

Nowadays i try not to pay too much attention to the type of people and more of what they are writing about.


Yes, especially the exsex thing. But some people might not be sure about the functions at all, but know that they are extraverts and intuitive, which would make them ENXX, now if they would look at it bit closer and find out that they are also T types, but unsure about J/P, they would be ENTX, not knowing if its dom Te aux Ni or Dom Ne aux Ti, because not understanding the functions properly, or they might in reality even be ESTJ with strong tert Ne, who knows? I know i dont because i dont know these people and not even sure if they even exist at all, but are just products of my imagination that im using as an example. However, im quite certain that there are other people in the real world who are like my imaginary friends i just made up.

People often get confused about their type because of their persona, which is not the real personality, but a mask they learned to put in order to handle people, its like the false self in some other psychology text books. Some people not intune with their true self might confuse their persona with their real personality, even answer the test according to persona, not the real self, which would potentially give false results from the test(especially since newbs only look at stereotypes).

I agree with this completely. I don't perceive the vibe i give off here (high Fe) to be similar with the vibe i give off IRL as i surround myself with a lot of ENT's so we don't do the mushy gooey stuff and this allows me to be comfortable.

EDIT - Just to throw something else in the mix. I've just come across this post ..
Seems logical that ISFPs would do this: strong personal impressions (Fi-dom) based on sensory things (Se).
INFPs... I guess Fi coupled with Ne would instead give random bursts of outrage such as: "Oh my god, I just realized how people totally slaughter those poor baby seals! This just feels SO wrong!"

So my strong personal impressions are when i'm visiting other cultures or viewing beautiful architecture or just standing outside looking at the stars contemplating yet feeling so insignificant in the grand scheme of things.
Sensory - When i'm in nature sure, but seeing the door frame which hasn't moved in the last 3 years yet i still walk into it.
Then the Fi with Ne .. That happens all the time. It's like the dots have connected even though it isn't relevant to whatever i'm doing at that particular moment.

Can you see the kind of headf**k i get into??
 

INTP

Active member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
7,803
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx
that makes sense in the Keirsey temperment model, where each letter actually means something on it's own...

but in the MBTI, knowing that your an ENxx just tells you that your dominant is an extraverted something - while telling you nothing about what it actually is, and without knowing what is Ni & Ne and Si & Se as the prime examples of what MBTI means by intuition & sensing how could you tell that your intuition as defined by the MBTI is more dominant then your sensing as defined by the MBTI? other then that, ENxx's don't really share anything in common:
Ne Ti Fe Si =ENTP
Ne Fi Te Si =ENFP
Fe Ni Se Ti =ENFJ
Te Ni Se Fi =ENTJ

i am getting a hint that keirsey really screwed people over by not coming up with his own type codes... where are the pitchforks?

But you know, the reality is that both models are part of reality. Each letter means something on their own, but also functions play a deeper role to the letters.

For example someone might be sure that he is an extravert, but has no idea about the functions. Not knowing the functions behind the extraversion, doesent remove the fact that he is an extravert. People new to the system often only look at the stereotypes of type profiles, this sort of method gives you some idea about your type, but many people can identify themselves with multiple type descripions, as they are just stereotypes about the types and many people are not the stereotypical people. Also they might relate to the deacriptions with their persona, as i already mentioned, which might make them unsure about a single letter. Like some INFJ being able to relate to both INFJ and ISFJ profiles, because his family has forced him to act(raised him) more like ISFJ, even tho its not the real personality of him. Making him unsure about the dominant function.
 
S

Society

Guest
But you know, the reality is that both models are part of reality. Each letter means something on their own, but also functions play a deeper role to the letters.

For example someone might be sure that he is an extravert, but has no idea about the functions. Not knowing the functions behind the extraversion, doesent remove the fact that he is an extravert.

see i don't think that would work because the different uses of the word aren't speaking about the same things. you might know your an extravert because you have mad social skills granting you an awesome social life, but MBTI-wise it's entirely possible that your an INFJ who applies his Ni-Fe insights into people and learned how to use it for social situations. the word might be the same, but its simply not the same kind of extravert. sure, you might also happen be extraverted in the common use and extraverted in the MBTI use, but neither one means the other.
 

INTP

Active member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
7,803
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx
see i don't think that would work because the different uses of the word aren't speaking about the same things. you might know your an extravert because you have mad social skills granting you an awesome social life, but MBTI-wise it's entirely possible that your an INFJ who applies his Ni-Fe insights into people and learned how to use it for social situations. the word might be the same, but its simply not the same kind of extravert. sure, you might also happen be extraverted in the common use and extraverted in the MBTI use, but neither one means the other.

The word for this non MBTI is extroversion ;)
 

Halla74

Artisan Conquerer
Joined
Jan 20, 2009
Messages
6,898
MBTI Type
ESTP
Enneagram
7w8
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
i noticed some people here have an x in their MBTI type, i am guessing representing that they either feel they are "in the middle", "both"... and something doesn't make sense to me:

...<deleted for brevity>...

this pretty much goes on to all MBTI types with x's... what am i missing? how can that possibly make sense?

The only case where I've seen literature refer to the possibility of someone being "balanced" - so far as to actually "name" that phenomena - would be the case of people who are balanced on Extroversion/Introversion, aka "Ambiverts."

Apparently I tested at 51% "P" and 49% "J", but nonetheless, a Perceiver I am. :happy:

It would have been easier if the system were not able to score people on an even numbered scale, and with only integer values, thus forcing each cognitive function to yield a polarity of one preference or the other.

Is this not possible? :thinking:

:solidarity:

-Alex

P.S. I did read INTP's post about some people being unsure of one or more of their cognitive functions, and it did make sense to me, although I have not experienced it in determining my own type. For what it is worth, I did a quick analysis of all the type descriptions of types ExTx at http://similarminds.com/personality_types.html (because the descriptions are based on lists of "keyword" behaioral descriptions and thus easy to compare in MS Excel) and all 4 types had most of the same words in common. Granted these are not the best type descriptions on the WWW, the fact that many people have undoubtedly read poor type descriptions at one point or another seems to have legitimate possibility of confusing people.

Finally, I enjoyed reading the type descriptions on the WikiSocion site at http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Category:Type_descriptions because they were so damn descriptive, and even differentiated between men and women of the same type, which I have not seen on other type description pages.

-Alex
 

BlackCat

Shaman
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
7,038
MBTI Type
ESFP
Enneagram
9w8
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
It's not really acceptable because of the functions. If you put an X to mean even then it just doesn't make any sense... the only system where it's legit to put an x in your type is the Big 5 because it's a universally accepted aspect of the theory. If you only are using the dichotomies like F/T then I can see where putting an X would make sense for some people, but then again that's just looking at it wrong (it's being looked at like the Big 5, a series of on the surface traits vs psychological functions).
 
S

Society

Guest
The only case where I've seen literature refer to the possibility of someone being "balanced" - so far as to actually "name" that phenomena - would be the case of people who are balanced on Extroversion/Introversion, aka "Ambiverts."

Apparently I tested at 51% "P" and 49% "J", but nonetheless, a Perceiver I am. :happy:

It would have been easier if the system were not able to score people on an even numbered scale, and with only integer values, thus forcing each cognitive function to yield a polarity of one preference or the other.


Is this not possible? :thinking:

:solidarity:
on keirsey i get the entire range of xNxP myself, but on the MBTI that shouldn't happen.

if anything, i would say that the way to do it isn't to score the dimensions at all: rather, score each of the 8 functions: Ni, Ne, Fi, Fe, Ti, Te, Si, Se. in the same time, ask questions to determine if the tested subject is currently or recently being under a lot of stress, to acount for the possible activity of his shadow functions.

that's where things get interesting though: we can test the MBTI itself. on the user side, we can repriritize it by MBTI standards, a.k.a. I/E/I/E etc', but we can actually bring those rules to the test on our side.

find out what if some people do have both strong Fi and Fe, what if people have more then 3 extraverted functions, etc...

we can provide evidance to back the MBTI up scientifically, or fix it if it's wrong.
 

Oaky

Travelling mind
Joined
Jan 15, 2009
Messages
6,180
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
It's a very interesting thing, the thoughts between the different functions and how one cannot be a middle user based on such theory.
The thought is that we are seeing things through the abstract categorical system in which one is one over the other by default. I imagine things may be slightly more complex with the given systems and thoughts. If one were to say the example of Fe, Fi, Te and Ti, one would be able to scale them. Each function would use 2-dimensional scales, one of which would be the dichotomy of the F/T and the dichotomy of Introvertion/Extraversion. In essence if it were any other way, functions definitions would simply be random unrelated nodes of judgement or perception which would put the jungian works of the functional models at a dead end. Of course, one would realise it's not such the case with the full understanding of the functions including its scaling factor. If you bring about the example of Ti:

Ti will use the two scales of introversion/extraversion and thinking/feeling where the inclination from the 'unclear' midpoint of both scales would be introversion and thinking respectively. However, from again the unclear midpoint, the issue can be cause of greater confusion as to which is used at the particular time and so one who may be closer to that middle point of the scale, may type themselves as X within the MBTI dichotomies.

Picture3-1.png
Picture4-1.png

Let's take this example here ^^. The scale from Ti to Te and Ti to Fi bears its strength by what one could use with regards to the lack of strength of the other.

One way is that it could be represented by a sine curve.

z7O77.jpg


The wavelength represents how often a person retracts back to the pure logical mind processes whereas the amplitude represents how much distortion our logical processes are changed by feeling. It of course makes sense that pure logical thought has its impossibility of occurring by a lack of subconscious or conscious motivation to do so, so in essence a feeling is portrayed at all times the sine curve doesn't hit the center axis.

The x axis would represent direction. This would be the dichotomy of introversion to extraversion as purely directional modes of thought towards a particular aspect. Where as one would process the thought with logical construct to application (Te) the other would process the thought with application to logical construct (Ti).
 
G

garbage

Guest
The official MBTI tests score each dichotomy based upon a sliding scale--clarity of preference. That is, MBTI assumes that there is a preference for each dichotomy but that the test may not illuminate them all.

Uncertainties in preferences arise because because (a) the systems are imperfect, (b) people sometimes aren't sure of where they fall in those imperfect systems, and (c) people often conflate behavior and theoretical cognitive preference (in labeling both themselves and other people).


I'm choosing to represent myself, in summation, 'eNfx,' knowing full well that the Lifestyle dichotomy (J/P) is the 'worst possible place' to have an 'x' and that the theorists could all yell at me (but.. but!! the functions!! they're all flipped around!!). I've simply chosen to factor in (a) how clearly my preferences might seem to manifest from the outside (and, perhaps, from the inside as well) and (b) that I'm looking at myself from the perspective of bunch of systems in combination (okay, and also (c) that I think that the assumptions in type-based systems are largely baloney).
 
S

Society

Guest
It's a very interesting thing, the thoughts between the different functions and how one cannot be a middle user based on such theory.
The thought is that we are seeing things through the abstract categorical system in which one is one over the other by default. I imagine things may be slightly more complex with the given systems and thoughts. If one were to say the example of Fe, Fi, Te and Ti, one would be able to scale them. Each function would use 2-dimensional scales, one of which would be the dichotomy of the F/T and the dichotomy of Introvertion/Extraversion. In essence if it were any other way, functions definitions would simply be random unrelated nodes of judgement or perception which would put the jungian works of the functional models at a dead end. Of course, one would realise it's not such the case with the full understanding of the functions including its scaling factor. If you bring about the example of Ti:

Ti will use the two scales of introversion/extraversion and thinking/feeling where the inclination from the 'unclear' midpoint of both scales would be introversion and thinking respectively. However, from again the unclear midpoint, the issue can be cause of greater confusion as to which is used at the particular time and so one who may be closer to that middle point of the scale, may type themselves as X within the MBTI dichotomies.

Picture3-1.png
Picture4-1.png

Let's take this example here ^^. The scale from Ti to Te and Ti to Fi bears its strength by what one could use with regards to the lack of strength of the other.

One way is that it could be represented by a sine curve.

z7O77.jpg


The wavelength represents how often a person retracts back to the pure logical mind processes whereas the amplitude represents how much distortion our logical processes are changed by feeling. It of course makes sense that pure logical thought has its impossibility of occurring by a lack of subconscious or conscious motivation to do so, so in essence a feeling is portrayed at all times the sine curve doesn't hit the center axis.

The x axis would represent direction. This would be the dichotomy of introversion to extroversion as purely directional modes of thought towards a particular aspect. Where as one would process the thought with logical construct to application (Te) the other would process the thought with application to logical construct (Ti).

first of all - + 100 rep, i've had a very similar idea years ago when i just learned of the MBTI about representing the midway sections via a wave formation, somewhat inspired by one of the puzzles in Myst... doesn't seem so original now (pfft)... but still from a different direction:

my notion was that the level of extroversion vs. introversion of any given mental process can be described in terms of frequency, defined as the rate of the process relatively to the rate at which we experience it (RoE), and that most differences between an introverted and extroverted function can be defined by that frequency.

imagine a slow motion movie of a water stream: you would be able to see every wave as it breaks against the rocks, every droplet as it flies through the air and arches it's way back to break through the surface of the water. you would catch the patterns within it, learning what will come of each drop like a child learns to figure out where the ball will hit, you would be able to ignore the whole as it waits for you and break down the components of the otherwise chaotic system, as each drop flies the sight of the other drops in similar patterns would still be in your peripheral vision. you sit their in your peace of mind, waiting quietly for the movie to come to you.

now imagine the same movie but in fast motion. the chaotic system becomes even more chaotic, you catch glimpses of what's happening, your trying to figure out the possible variables of how everything was in the moments you missed to figure out the possibilities of where it might go again, you build generalizations to engulf it as a whole without seen what it's made of, your eyes are racing after the stream trying to catch more details, your always experiencing that your missing information so you look to find what others see and as you communicate it you force the view of the stream in your mind to slow down to the rate at which you communicate it.

thus:
when a mental process is moving at a slower frequency then the rate at which we experience it, it is an introverted process.
when a mental process is moving at a faster frequency then the rate at which we experience it, it is an extroverted process.

by illustrating this as frequency, and by calling the Y axis the level of awareness we have of a process, we gain the advantage of a clear visual depiction of for "multiply small glimpses of awareness" as the wave structure crosses the X line at a higher frequency vs. "long focused moments of awareness" as the wave structure crosses the X line at a lower frequency. hopefully the metaphor allows for the entire range between an introverted process and an extroverted process to be immediately and visually apparent.

____________________

i would also add another dimension to the new description, though i am not sure how to represent it on the visual metaphor:

adapting the information to ourselves vs. adapting ourselves to the information.

when we adapt the information to ourselves, we allow it to sink into the schemes and meanings that we recognize at the back of our heads, the patterns and subjective experiences that we intimately know, and process it from in a more Recognizable form. such is the case with intuition and feeling.

when we adapt ourselves towards the information, broken down into the various inputs and tidbits that we have, we experiencing it in it's raw detailed form, making new connections and Generating new mental schemes. such is the case with sensing and thinking.

so a function can be attempting to:
Generate schemes
Recognize schemes

and likewise, can still be perceiving or judgemental.
GP = S, GJ = T
RP = N, RJ = F

whatever way we depict it, it is entirely possible that we are able to do both in the same time, in fact i am pretty sure we almost always have too in order to come up or understand anything at all, so the description here shouldn't present a false dichotonmy but rather a full range of possible gray areas.
 

redacted

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
4,223
my notion was that the level of extroversion vs. introversion of any given mental process can be described in terms of frequency, defined as the rate of the process relatively to the rate at which we experience it (RoE), and that most differences between an introverted and extroverted function can be defined by that frequency.

I've always been under the impression that the rate of function usage is irrelevant to the introversion/extroversion -- those terms only apply to the scope of data the process uses. For example, Thinking is a deductive process (Feeling, too, for that matter) -- it is passed data from some perceiving function and combines it with its own premises to check for consistency. The only difference between Ti and Te would be which premises are built into the function. Te uses premises biased towards environmental relevance, whereas Ti uses premises biased towards internal relevance. I don't see how frequency has anything to do with this distinction, unless maybe you're using the word more metaphorically than I am assuming.

BTW, check out my type calculator in my signature; it's pretty relevant to your OP... (Does OP stand for original post or original poster? Hmmm; now I'm wondering about my usage. :))

Edit: oh shit the site went down; I'll post it later.
 

Little_Sticks

New member
Joined
Aug 19, 2009
Messages
1,358
There are a lot of reasons for this:

1. Some people use type to discriminate others.
2. A lot of people think type is about stereotypes, so people are hesitant to go with one.
3. Discussing this with an open mind is hard because of the common bigotry that goes with stereotypes.
4. This isn't the philosopher's stone of psychology, so some people are reluctant to take it too seriously.
5. There's going to be a difference between how someone acts in person and how they act online, versus how they act with their grandmother, versus how they act with their boss, versus how they act with their friends, versus how they score on the test, etc., so some people are genuinely confused by it all.
6. People who argue type is innate think everything else falls under persona, which is ignorant and makes people feel like their talk is cheap, so they ignore them (I do).

7. Some don't think it's a good idea to excuse behavior due to type.
8. Some don't like how type becomes a prophecy that partly determines our future if taken too seriously.

I'm going to stop. If you can get something constructive to discuss out of that, I'll be surprised. :D
 
Top