Why do people have a problem with people mistyping themselves?

[Nijntje]

I dislike the sentence structure of the title.

Also, i'm slightly confused in regards to the OP, is this about issues arising from all types being self mis-reported or a general NT/NF conflict?

 

[Tiltyred]

She wants to know why she gets yelled at when she claims to be a type she obviously* is not.

(arguably -- meaning it's "obvious" to others)

 

[Nijntje]

because people are dicks?

 

[Tiltyred]

Don't talk about the NTs that way. Some of my best friends are NTs.

 

[Cellmold]

Don't talk about the NTs that way. Some of my best friends are NTs.

But doesnt that just make you a dick by association?

 

[Tiltyred]

I can be kinda dickish sometimes.

 

[onemoretime]

It is somewhat annoying when various people talk about their "four INFJ friends" or something like that. It's very unlikely that you, or anyone for that matter, has four friends who would type as INFJ. It's also unlikely that everyone in your family is an intuitive if there are four or more people in it; the numbers strongly lean toward someone being a sensor.

So it goes with the N/S divide in general. Intuitives aren't necessarily smarter or more talented than Sensors are. On the other hand, my suspicion is that intuitives tend to feel far more alienated than sensors do, even around other intuitives. With the F/T divide, I get the sense that it's more of a "grass is greener" thing than anything else. It's irritating because the person doesn't necessarily give the impression that he or she understands the downsides of that judging style, and just asserts that the positives apply.

 

[greenfairy]

She wants to know why she gets yelled at when she claims to be a type she obviously* is not.

(arguably -- meaning it's "obvious" to others)

No one can know what type I am, because typology is largely a bunch of nonsense. I fit being an introvert, I am definitely N, I prefer thinking and objectivity over feeling, and I am generally perceiving rather than judging. And I test as INTP. Simple. By the rules, I'm INTP, even if I'm like none other you have ever observed. I fit it enough. Get over it, everyone.

Typing is pretty much entirely subjective anyway, since it involves personality, which is an inner world, and self reporting of that inner world. There is no objective set of criteria to determine it. There is no objective reality of what each type is like. And there are multiple levels of error. So if someone types her/himself as something, then they are at that moment for all practical purposes. It really doesn't matter. They don't need to be put into a permanent category. People rarely fit into permanent categories. It's just a theory that there is some underlying personality type that never changes, but no one can prove it. People change radically all the time. And that produces type variation and ambiguity.


(I know I said before that I don't resist being categorized, but I changed my mind. It's a new way of looking at the world.)


And one more thing: these types are supposed to be used to better understand people. If I see myself in a certain type, then that's the side of myself I want to be understood at the moment. I want the characteristics, both the strengths and weaknesses of that type which I have to be understood by others. Declaring me another type defeats the purpose. I tell people in real life I'm INTP because I want to be treated like one, not like another type. For example, I want people to tell me the brutal truth rather than assuming I'm all sensitive and can't handle it. I want people to understand that my mind is analyzing things constantly and I can't shut it off without music or dance or conscious meditation, or sex. I want people to know that I like abstract theories, and that I have to understand the underlying principles of things for anything to make sense. I fit INTP enough to use it to help people better understand me, and that's pretty much the point.

 

[copperfish17]

Well, you're still typing yourself based on which traits you like in people & how you want to be seen/treated by others. Which isn't the right way to type yourself, but at this point I should know that nothing will convince you that you aren't INTP (which seems to be everyone else's consensus though, sighhhh). I really don't understand how you could so... flippantly ignore golden (typing) advice from a number of wise members on this forum who now seem to have wasted their breaths.

I give up - crazy can't be reasoned with. Fool yourself if you so wish, but don't expect everyone else to be fooled.

It's funny that I probably relate less to the generic, flat INTP profiles on the interwebs than you claim to do. Oh well, I'm outta here.

 

[Cellmold]

It is somewhat annoying when various people talk about their "four INFJ friends" or something like that. It's very unlikely that you, or anyone for that matter, has four friends who would type as INFJ. It's also unlikely that everyone in your family is an intuitive if there are four or more people in it; the numbers strongly lean toward someone being a sensor.

Of course I dont want to be one of those people who questions statistics and numbers just because he may or may not like it. After that statistics thread I found myself making peace with it in fact.

But I always find it intellectually dishonest to assume the accuracy of something when the subject of measurement is so intangible.

It could be true and I dont discount it at all, I merely ask people to question such absolutes once in a while and subject them to a bit of critical analysis.
It could just be me getting caught up in the details, but when I see a statistic im always curious about it's validity, especially since we live in an age of 'news-statistics' that are often grossly misappropriated. Because of this I like to follow these numbers back and see how they were gathered in the first place, I like to see the process and judge for myself.

But once again I am not discounting, just questioning. Afterall there has to be some objective ledge for us to latch onto, otherwise we would never agree upon anything and all definitions would be rendered moot.

 

[greenfairy]

Well, you're still typing yourself based on which traits you like in people & how you want to be seen/treated by others. Which isn't the right way to type yourself, but at this point I should know that nothing will convince you that you aren't INTP (which seems to be everyone else's consensus though, sighhhh). I really don't understand how you could so... flippantly ignore golden (typing) advice from a number of wise members on this forum who now seem to have wasted their breaths.

I give up - crazy can't be reasoned with. Fool yourself if you so wish, but don't expect everyone else to be fooled.

It's funny that I probably relate less to the generic, flat INTP profiles on the interwebs than you claim to do. Oh well, I'm outta here.

I don't know that I'm typing myself that way- it just makes sense to me. And it's just a temporary kind of type, as I can't neatly put myself into one. Convincing me I'm not INTP is fine, but not-INTP is not a type. I don't see that I fit INFP or INTJ any more. They're about the same in my mind. As for advice, I have expressed appreciation for all of it that I find to be useful and respectful, and taken it into consideration. Not agreeing doesn't mean I haven't listened. I may decide on a type some day which is other than INTP, and it might be because of what people have told me; but that time is not now.

So, how did you decide on your type? In what ways are you INTP that you think I am blatantly not, and what makes you sure of your type if you relate less to the profiles?

 

[greenfairy]

So several people have implicitly called me crazy or irrational or both. Is this the popular consensus?

 

[Little_Sticks]

So several people have implicitly called me crazy or irrational or both. Is this the popular consensus?

Hah hah.

 

[copperfish17]

I don't know that I'm typing myself that way- it just makes sense to me. And it's just a temporary kind of type, as I can't neatly put myself into one. Convincing me I'm not INTP is fine, but not-INTP is not a type. I don't see that I fit INFP or INTJ any more. They're about the same in my mind. As for advice, I have expressed appreciation for all of it that I find to be useful and respectful, and taken it into consideration. Not agreeing doesn't mean I haven't listened. I may decide on a type some day which is other than INTP, and it might be because of what people have told me; but that time is not now.

Okay, I see. Thanks for clarifying.

I decided not to curse you with a specific type 'cause I don't think I have enough information in my hands to do that. With the INFP vs INTJ thing - the former makes use of Ne and the latter, Ni. Ni would be foreign to an INFP (or an INTP; both INFPs and INTPs have auxillary Ne instead), as Ne would be foreign to an INTJ. INTJs' primary cognitive function is Ni - Ne, then, would automatically become their demonic (8th; least preferred) function.

So, how did you decide on your type? In what ways are you INTP that you think I am blatantly not, and what makes you sure of your type if you relate less to the profiles?

How did I decide on my type? I read a lot of in-depth material/threads on the cognitive functions, and discovered that how I process and express information aligns more with Ti rather than Te, Ne rather than Ni, Si rather than Se, and Fe rather than Fi. Spending a lot of time with my INTJ best friend (who prefers all the opposite functions) proved to be a rather enlightening experience actually; while we tended to agree on a lot of things and possessed very similar traits, (after butting heads several times in drawn-out, tedious debates) it became obvious to both of us that we didn't process information like each other at all. However, both of us could understand (with some effort) where the other person was coming from. I guess you could say that we learned to appreciate and respect each other's thought processes.

To answer your second question: I don't think you're INTP because I don't think you reason along the lines of Ti logic/in the Ti mindset. I was able to observe Te-style thinking/logical procedures though. There really isn't much else I could say about this issue, as 1) I don't know you in person and 2) my only source of information on you is this thread, and you haven't expanded upon which cognitive functions you prefer with the following pairings: Ne vs Ni, Se vs Si.

I think you've already figured out that the MBTI profiles aren't supposed to be 100% accurate descriptions of people of each type. As to why I find some parts of INTP profiles unrelatable: Most people who know me IRL consider me a polite person, and I'm not one to hurl hurtful truths at people just for the sake of being honest. I'm not a fan of being "brutal" with truth; I would say that I prefer being tactful over being honest. This may not be related to type, but I don't swear or cuss a whole lot - generally I'm pretty soft-spoken. I can handle myself in social settings. I'm not emotionally retarded, am capable of feeling emotions strongly, and can (more often than not) successfully comfort those in distress. I don't push my T-solutions onto suffering people, and don't feel uncomfortable expressing my feelings and emotions (though I don't do it often, haha). I could go on, but I'll stop here for now.

 

[Cellmold]

[MENTION=15773]greenfairy[/MENTION]

Make a video, that's always fun. It most likely wont make much difference but it could help if you portray yourself as an archetype of what people seem to believe constitutes an INTP.

So...monotone voice, not much body movement apart from the hands which will be used as visual aids to draw the idea for the viewer....there are probably more but since im only joking it doesn't matter. Oh yeah dont mention liking anything, because liking something is a preference of value and we all know thinkers dont have those....

However putting the joke paragraph above to the side for a moment, a video could be interesting. Unless you have already done one somewhere and ive missed it, or you dont have the technology to make a video.

One of the big problems with forums such as these is that you can pass yourself off as anything given enough time, information, practice and understanding.

 

[greenfairy]

[MENTION=15773]greenfairy[/MENTION]

Make a video, that's always fun. It most likely wont make much difference but it could help if you portray yourself as an archetype of what people seem to believe constitutes an INTP.

So...monotone voice, not much body movement apart from the hands which will be used as visual aids to draw the idea for the viewer....there are probably more but since im only joking it doesn't matter. Oh yeah dont mention liking anything, because liking something is a preference of value and we all know thinkers dont have those....

However putting the joke paragraph above to the side for a moment, a video could be interesting. Unless you have already done one somewhere and ive missed it, or you dont have the technology to make a video.

One of the big problems with forums such as these is that you can pass yourself off as anything given enough time, information, practice and understanding.

I shall! But at the present time I lack the technology. I have a video camera, but I have a lot studying and homework to do, and I have to go to work and socialize; so the chances I will have the time to figure out the camera and do the video any time in the near future are slim. Yeah, I'm not a techno wizard. -1 for INTP.

 

[Cellmold]

I shall! But at the present time I lack the technology. I have a video camera, but I have a lot studying and homework to do, and I have to go to work and socialize; so the chances I will have the time to figure out the camera and do the video any time in the near future are slim. Yeah, I'm not a techno wizard. -1 for INTP.

Well an aptitude with technology is a capability you aquire, I wouldnt say that being INTP would necessarily point you towards it. Possibly an INTP might pick it up quickly though. But id need to test that with someone born a long time before the modern technological era.

 

[greenfairy]

Okay, I see. Thanks for clarifying.

I decided not to curse you with a specific type 'cause I don't think I have enough information in my hands to do that. With the INFP vs INTJ thing - the former makes use of Ne and the latter, Ni. Ni would be foreign to an INFP (or an INTP; both INFPs and INTPs have auxillary Ne instead), as Ne would be foreign to an INTJ. INTJs' primary cognitive function is Ni - Ne, then, would automatically become their demonic (8th; least preferred) function.



How did I decide on my type? I read a lot of in-depth material/threads on the cognitive functions, and discovered that how I process and express information aligns more with Ti rather than Te, Ne rather than Ni, Si rather than Se, and Fe rather than Fi. Spending a lot of time with my INTJ best friend (who prefers all the opposite functions) proved to be a rather enlightening experience actually; while we tended to agree on a lot of things and possessed very similar traits, (after butting heads several times in drawn-out, tedious debates) it became obvious to both of us that we didn't process information like each other at all. However, both of us could understand (with some effort) where the other person was coming from. I guess you could say that we learned to appreciate and respect each other's thought processes.

To answer your second question: I don't think you're INTP because I don't think you reason along the lines of Ti logic/in the Ti mindset. I was able to observe Te-style thinking/logical procedures though. There really isn't much else I could say about this issue, as 1) I don't know you in person and 2) my only source of information on you is this thread, and you haven't expanded upon which cognitive functions you prefer with the following pairings: Ne vs Ni, Se vs Si.

I went about it much the same way. I first looked at the descriptions, then at the cognitive functions. I didn't compare all of them, because it seemed unnecessary after awhile. I thought Ti seemed familiar and accurate for me, and Fi seemed confusing and problematic. Ne fits. Si fits. Inferior Fe fits more than inferior Te, and it made a lot more sense for Fi to be a shadow function than Ti. Fe seemed more accurate than Fi. Everything fit. Until I came here and people started saying otherwise. That's basically it in a nutshell.

Now that you mention comparing all of the functions, I've been thinking about Ne vs. Ni and it seems kind of silly to think I'm Ni dominant. I do Ne all the time. Maybe more than anything. I have developed Ni it's true, and this helps facilitate type switching behavior by balancing opposing judging functions- but I definitely use Ne more than Ni.

 

[copperfish17]

I went about it much the same way. I first looked at the descriptions, then at the cognitive functions. I didn't compare all of them, because it seemed unnecessary after awhile.

Er, okay. I think you should finish your homework then.

 

[Cellmold]

Er, okay. I think you should finish your homework then.

Of course cognitive functions also run the risk of being intepreted on an individual level. I think what's needed more is an objective standard by which we can recognise them.

There are some rough templates that most people can agree on to represent a function. Afterall they are contextual, they have to be in order to work at all as an explanation.

Ive found over time that there appears to be a nice balance within theories like this. If you dont delve deep enough you run the risk of mistyping yourself because you didn't gather enough evidence. If you delve in too deep you end up over analysing each little facet of your perceived personality to the point that nothing means anything and anything can mean nothing.

I only say this because it's something ive been thinking about for a while in regards to cognitive functions. There has to be a balance between the objective and subjective or else it's meaningless.

I suppose the other problem is that any introvert function is going to be hard to define given that it is in the nature of introversion to present itself differently to each individual.

Especially the introverted perceiving functions Si and Ni. Si for example is the very personification of personalised experience. Just as Fi is the personification of personalised value judgements so too is Ti the personification of individualised frameworks of internal logical consistancy and principal.

So we can see the difficulty in typing, either by self or others.