do you think, subconsciouly people pick a type to hate than every person they've

[prplchknz]

ever hated is automatically that type? I'm just wondering if there's some truth to this theory or if i'm just speaking out my bunghole.

 

[Laurie]

Only the type I don't like does that.

 

[Qlip]

Nah, anytime that I've blanket hated a type, it's because their type reminds me of somebody I already hate. Once I'm aware of it I get over it, eventually.

 

[SilkRoad]

Given a lot of the feedback on ESTJs and ESFJs that you see on this forum and others - I'd say yeah, that's spot on.

 

[Xenon]

Sort of, but I think it's more specific than that. Like, they'll pick up on a stereotype, like xSTJs are bossy and have sticks up their asses and insist on sticking to stupid rules for no good reason, or ExFJs are phony and meddlesome and want the entire world to behave as if we're in Pleasantville, and then whenever they see these traits in someone they'll assume the person must be a certain type.

They do it plenty for positive and neutral traits as well as negative ones.

 

[Elfboy]

ever hated is automatically that type? I'm just wondering if there's some truth to this theory or if i'm just speaking out my bunghole.

I have to try really hard not to do this

 

[EJCC]

I hate a wide enough variety of people that it's not really possible for me to do that.

I've seen it on the forum, though. Big time. (Especially in the way that [MENTION=7063]SilkRoad[/MENTION] just described.

 

[skylights]

Given a lot of the feedback on ESTJs and ESFJs that you see on this forum and others - I'd say yeah, that's spot on.

Sort of, but I think it's more specific than that. Like, they'll pick up on a stereotype, like xSTJs are bossy and have sticks up their asses and insist on sticking to stupid rules for no good reason, or ExFJs are phony and meddlesome and want the entire world to behave as if we're in Pleasantville, and then whenever they see these traits in someone they'll assume the person must be a certain type.

They do it plenty for positive and neutral traits as well as negative ones.

This is what I was thinking of, too. Certain groups tend to get villified as a result of people's negative experiences combined with stereotyping.

I have read so much crap on the intarwebs saying xSTJs like to enforce rules or xSFJs are straight out of the Stepford Wives.... I think it's easier for people to group and villify than to accept that they have personal weaknesses that make them averse to others with certain characteristics. And perhaps it's stereotyping, myself, but I think honestly Ns are more likely to do this, because our perception is auto-set on generalizing - not to mention that a lot of Ns aren't the most socially graceful, and many seem to experience difficulty interacting with more expressive, pragmatic types.

It's just easier to write people off as that personality type than to come to terms with your own hangups.

 

[garbage]

God, yes, people do this all the time.

They type a person in their heads. If they don't like that person, then that draws them away from that type. They then get drawn away from any else who they believe has that same type and make generalizations about the type itself.

It's magical, circular, and a convenient but terrible heuristic.

 

[Cellmold]

God, yes, people do this all the time.

They type a person in their heads. If they don't like that person, then that draws them away from that type. They then get drawn away from any else who they believe has that same type and make generalizations about the type itself.

It's magical, circular, and a convenient but terrible heuristic.

Pretty much this.

 

[garbage]

On the other side of the coin, there's the whole "That type you're ranting and raving about? Yeah.. that's not my type.. you're describing one that's, like, one letter off from mine."

Let's also not forget the dozens of people who recognize their own psychological nuances and intricacies by going through different self-typings like candy or through lowercase or 'x' designations, and yet deal with others as if they are cardboard cutouts

Guess what! If you're so complicated and intricate, then so is everyone else.

 

[skylights]

Also N/S and T/F scales have yet to be shown to have any scientific accuracy.

Not that it means the theory is useless, but, well... it certainly has its limitations.

 

[Nocapszy]

i like all the types, and i can think of at least one person from every type that i hate.

go figure that shit out, purple!

 

[Cellmold]

Also N/S and T/F scales have yet to be shown to have any scientific accuracy.

Not that it means the theory is useless, but, well... it certainly has its limitations.

How would you go about showing how they are accurate using a scientific method? Bear in mind the inherent flaws in tests.

Im not saying you cant of course, id love to see a scientific study on this stuff, one that really delved into it, rather than being based around group studies that basically hinge entirely on the test that the individuals took being 100% right in the first place.

I did wonder about neuroscience as in Dario Nardi.

 

[skylights]

How would you go about showing how they are accurate using a scientific method? Bear in mind the inherent flaws in tests.

Im not saying you cant of course, id love to see a scientific study on this stuff, one that really delved into it, rather than being based around group studies that basically hinge entirely on the test that the individuals took being 100% right in the first place.

I did wonder about neuroscience as in Dario Nardi.

Well, exactly. It's pretty hard to establish that validity. You could get internal validity by having people do self-assessment over and over again, and checking if from year to year they still believe they are the same type, but testing external validity would be hard. INTP brother and I can agree that he is more logical than me, but how do we establish empirically how logical we are? And then compared to everyone else. Everyone involved would have to learn the MBTI inside out and agree on one interpretation of the theory and then we could still only have a cross-sectional, because assuming some people would change their idea of their type at some time it'd be hard to establish external validity at all... ahhhh... an INTx should figure this out.

I like the neuroscience route too, but you'd have to wire up a LOT of heads. Sounds like a project for some budding neuroscientist on TypeC....

 

[prplchknz]

i like all the types, and i can think of at least one person from every type that i hate.

go figure that shit out, purple!

I''m the same way, actually. I wasn't saying everybody does what I describe in the OP, so stop being all offended when there's no need to be offended.

 

[Nocapszy]

k wut,,

 

[garbage]

Well, exactly. It's pretty hard to establish that validity. You could get internal validity by having people do self-assessment over and over again, and checking if from year to year they still believe they are the same type, but testing external validity would be hard. INTP brother and I can agree that he is more logical than me, but how do we establish empirically how logical we are? And then compared to everyone else. Everyone involved would have to learn the MBTI inside out and agree on one interpretation of the theory and then we could still only have a cross-sectional, because assuming some people would change their idea of their type at some time it'd be hard to establish external validity at all... ahhhh... an INTx should figure this out.

I like the neuroscience route too, but you'd have to wire up a LOT of heads. Sounds like a project for some budding neuroscientist on TypeC....

Yes, all of this.

We have a few potential measures that we could treat as objective or empirical: results from self-report (the more consistent, the better, but we don't even have internal reliability), assessments by experts, and, well, the budding neuroscience stuff. Some of these are more reliable/valid than others, but, no matter which measure we choose, we must recognize its limitations. The measures that involve either self-assessment or outside assessment absolutely hinge upon clear definitions, which.. yeah, we still don't have.

This sort of thing is exactly my area of research. This shit gets all kinds of conflated and confused, man. Many conversations that occur on this forum that have actually been resolved (or deemed irrelevant) decades ago.


We may as well come to grips with the notion that, right now, we're clustering people in our own heads in a way that makes sense to (and is useful for) us, but probably doesn't make a lick of sense when thrown out there into the outside world. One consequence of that is this whole business of striving for an 'objective' measure by which to classify other people, sometimes in unwarranted and unfortunately negative ways.

 

[skylights]

We may as well come to grips with the notion that, right now, we're clustering people in our own heads in a way that makes sense to (and is useful for) us, but probably doesn't make a lick of sense when thrown out there into the outside world. One consequence of that is this whole business of striving for an 'objective' measure by which to classify other people, sometimes in unwarranted and unfortunately negative ways.

Yeah. I worry about what going so deep into this theory has done to my own understanding of people and the world, honestly. Sometimes I think I need to just cut it out, leave, find a new theory. If it weren't for the forum community, I doubt I would have lingered so long. Certainly I've learned much about myself, and some about others, but I think in ways I've also deluded myself, and I now tend to see things in type I never would have looked at in type before - and I wonder if that encourages my mind to create problems that otherwise wouldn't exist.

 

[INTP]

i think that people see present through the lens of the past. if they have had some really negative interactions with people who behaves in a certain way, and now see someone new who behaves in similar ways, they tend to unconsciously project these negative aspects of the person in the past to this new person. but this also works with positive and neutral stuff