Types are best at what they're worst at

[UniqueMixture]

I've noticed some of the most interesting personalities I've met are the ones who do the opposite of what they're "supposed" to be good at. I'm thinking of intps who are really good djs for example or an enfp ex who was a software engineer or an istj who is into personal growth/positive thinking/development. I think when a person is conscious of their weak points and actively develops them they become better at them than someone for whom it's a natural point of strength.

 

[Saslou]

I don't think it is necessarily type related but more to do with the values they hold and what goals they want to set themselves. Remember to type yourself a particular way can then limit you. I think if people are open to experimenting and not self limiting their abilities then we are all capable of accomplishing anything.

 

[Such Irony]

This is a great thread idea!


I'm a reference librarian and customer service is a large part of my job. I consider myself good at it but I do find it exhausting when I have to do it for several hours straight. I'm also discovering that I am good at working with children, something you would not expect with INTPs. I do the library storytimes when the youth services librarian is gone. I always have some performance anxiety going in to it but I've been told that I do very well, especially when being asked to do it on such short notice. I find that can rather instinctively know how to find and read stories expressively in ways that will keep kids engaged.

One thing I dislike about MBTI is that it when used wrong it can limit people. Fe is my inferior so I can't be good at and should avoid things involving lots of Fe. That type of thinking is destructive.

I know an ESFJ who is really good at math and logic puzzles, a few athletic INTJs and an ISTJ who is quite inventive and witty.

 

[garbage]

enfp [...] who was a software engineer

:hi: this is among one of my many hats.

Actually, one of my best friends is an ENFP who's more into software engineering than I am. By and large, he's a few years ahead of me in most areas of life (including, well, age). He's one of the nicest guys I know, and very smart to boot.

I think when a person is conscious of their weak points and actively develops them they become better at them than someone for whom it's a natural point of strength.

I don't know if the person who develops his weakness would be better than the expert at the subject of expertise, but they will bring a balanced, holistic perspective to the table--which can be extremely valuable.

I always have some performance anxiety going in to it but I've been told that I do very well, especially when being asked to do it on such short notice. I find that can rather instinctively know how to find and read stories expressively in ways that will keep kids engaged.

This is pretty cool. Performance anxiety isn't something that my type stereotypically struggles with, but I know that I have. Not so much anymore, though.

One thing I dislike about MBTI is that it when used wrong it can limit people. Fe is my inferior so I can't be good at and should avoid things involving lots of Fe. That type of thinking is destructive.

Wholeheartedly agree. While typology frameworks might make me aware of my potential biases, I prefer to test and stretch my limits through feedback by the real world. In general, we're all a lot more capable than we give ourselves credit for.

 

[Venom]

I'm an INFJ... And I work in athletics (Se! Although there definitely is a mental side to coaching).

I think Jungs archetypes sort of explain this... Although I got it from another book, they're attributed to Jung (I'll use my functions):

Hero Ni
Sage Fe
Magician Ti
Warrior Se

The hero "decides" the quest. The sage keeps the whole quest on course. The magician finds a way, but sometimes gets the whole thing off course with his mad science. The warrior then actually completes the quest. So with this sort of model, people focusing careers and hobbies on the 4th makes some sense.

 

[Coriolis]

People who focus on an area atypical for their type often bring to it different skills and perspective. This both serves to make them stand out, and can be a worthwhile addition to the more typical skills and mindset of their peers/colleagues.

 

[cascadeco]

People who focus on an area atypical for their type often bring to it different skills and perspective. This both serves to make them stand out, and can be a worthwhile addition to the more typical skills and mindset of their peers/colleagues.

I think this is a good point. I think it certainly holds true with my own career, as I think I DO stand out and am sought out/appreciated moreso than types who are 'typically' in this role. I have never honed in on or desired careers that are people-focused; hence I am where I am, I guess. But while the people element isn't my primary focus, I do work very effectively with people to accomplish things. I am in an IT-heavy environment, doing the business & systems analysis, and also project management, which is more typically associated with extroversion and Te, I think (I am certainly different from my PM peers, but have a very different advantage/edge to them in some ways). But I am able to do it well. I have always desired analysis-heavy roles, and am typically appreciated because I am even-keeled and 'logical' (but good with people too).

In my instance, the analysis element combined with lack of a desire to *focus* on the people element doesn't really counter my type, though, if you look at me from an Enneagram perspective rather than from an mbti perspective. And, from a purely 'natural strengths' perspective, I'm doing what I'm good at (I was in the 95th % for the analytical component of the GRE years and years ago..so this piece may be somewhat outside of type; dunno).

 

[UniqueMixture]

Just a point of clarification: I view the types as being more proned to pay attention to certain things than others but not necessarily as having more/less skill in any particular area. I think a lot of skills are mutually reinforcing both from an experiential and neurological standpoint (e.g. greater maths ability being correlate with appreciation for art)

 

[Anew Leaf]

I have a good friend who is an ENFP who is an accountant and LOVES it. I think she's crazy.

I, as a member of the ENTP race, am good at everything.

 

[INTP]

Yea, well might be because developing the opposite functions that you normally prefer is part of psychological growth. These opposite functions allow people to shine on things that are not typical for most people of that type.

 

[Ginkgo]

I've wondered if mental tasks that require developing subconscious modes of thinking would become more deliberate than modes of thinking normally found in the more conscious regions. Ie. I think that choosing to think in a way that challenges ones natural inclination gives one an edge over those who more comfortably ease into what becomes less of a choice the more they rely on what they prefer, simply because choice itself falls into disrepair if not exercised enough.

 

[Such Irony]

I have a good friend who is an ENFP who is an accountant and LOVES it. I think she's crazy.

I know one too. He's very good at what he does and enjoys it.

I, as a member of the ENTP race, am good at everything.

Are you good at being ISFJ?

 

[Elfa]

I think it's just an example that any type can be good at anything... You may know an INFP who's good at engeneering, but you may also know an INFP who is a good writer. An ESTJ may be a reeeeaaally good writer, but when we look at famous writers, you mostly find INxx (at least is what I see in sites). It's not that we say that an INFP should be a good writer because they have an dominant Fi, is that when we type good writers, we end up finding that they're maybe INFP or INxx.

Anyone could be exceptionally good at something if they go after it actively, may it be working on a weak spot or a supposedly strong spot.