Typewatching: How well do you guess other's types?

[Alesia]

I've known Myers-Briggs for 17 years now and have "typewatched" for quite some time. Although individuals can differ, here is my general take.

NTs - I can spot them a mile away. They just have a very potent obvious quality that stands out like no other.

One NT type gives me problems though. ENTPs. They can appear to be so like ESTPs. And I haven't met a whole lot of ENTPs, that I know of, so I don't have a good feel for them. It took a year of reading ESTP/ENTP descriptions and analyzing my ENTP boss to death, before I decided on ENTP. Then I asked him to take the test, and indeed he was.

SPs - I can also spot these a mile away. No problemo. And can usually get all four letters right.

NFs - Most I can spot. But again, sometimes I can have problems between SF and NF. And INFP (my own type) are the worst. I have four INFP freinds (I know because they told me so) and my father is INFP, yet, I find an unknown INFP to be very difficult to spot. There were two guys at work, that I finally decided were INFP. If I meet someone who is very vague and obtuse and very hard to read, and quiet, I tend to think INFP, but leave my opinion open.

SJs - yeah, they seem pretty straight forward. I may not get the E/I or T/F, but can get the SJ pretty quick.

So, what about you? And what kind of clues do you look for when trying to decide a type? I'm talking about people irl. Or do you try to guess?

[rivercrow]

I'm far more confident in person. I won't type if I don't get direct contact, either voice or in person--the opportunity for deception is too great.

Even then, I hold my theory as hypothesis for a long time. Not quick to leap to conclusions...which probably surprises a few people here.

[Maverick]

I have good intuitive grasp of other people's types and usually go "ah-ha, must be a type xxxx". If I'm not sure I have the major criteria for each dimensions in memory and will sort out each trait one by one. I didn't always function this way but with time I can just go by feeling.

[Alesia]

I'm far more confident in person. I won't type if I don't get direct contact, either voice or in person--the opportunity for deception is too great.

Even then, I hold my theory as hypothesis for a long time. Not quick to leap to conclusions...which probably surprises a few people here.

Yeah. When you can ineract with a person and watch them in social settings you can frequently quite easily catch the type. I've just done this for so long, that many times I can just "feel", like a vibe, the general temperament. Not the whole type, mind you. But SP, SJ, NF, NT. And even then I never leap to a conclusion. I just think, "wow, this person screams NT". Or acts SJ. But being my P self, I'm very comfortable with holding off and having a "hypothesis" (yep, that is the exact word I use, rivercrow) for a while.

[rivercrow]

Yep.

I've got an ongoing discussion with someone about whether they're I with good learned E skills or an E who's learned reflective I skills. At a certain point, these things start to blur.

Temperaments are easier to get a feeling for, tho. I like alternating Keirsey's temperaments with SF/ST/NT/NF pairs as well.

[Alesia]

Yep.

I've got an ongoing discussion with someone about whether they're I with good learned E skills or an E who's learned reflective I skills. At a certain point, these things start to blur.

Temperaments are easier to get a feeling for, tho. I like alternating Keirsey's temperaments with SF/ST/NT/NF pairs as well.

Right. The E/I can be very difficult if you see a person in only one situation. In most of the circles I run in people think I am very E. It's because I'm in philosophy, Buddist, Jungian, and other kinds of groups that center around a topic. When that happens I'm quite the yacker.

Plus, the older a person gets, and the more they work at developing other skills the more things start to really blur. I've given the MBTI test to "Senior Citizen" groups, and they usually can agree upon a type, though.

[SolitaryWalker]

I rarely make mistakes in typing others after having observed them for over a week. (Ti comes in handy here)

[Langrenus]

I rarely make mistakes in typing others after having observed them for over a week. (Ti comes in handy here)

Qualify this statement

[rivercrow]

Right. The E/I can be very difficult if you see a person in only one situation. In most of the circles I run in people think I am very E. It's because I'm in philosophy, Buddist, Jungian, and other kinds of groups that center around a topic. When that happens I'm quite the yacker.

Yeah. I have people tell me I'm extroverted all the time, but they see me in special situations where I'm the subject matter expert.

That very observation has made me much more cautious with casual typing.

Plus, the older a person gets, and the more they work at developing other skills the more things start to really blur. I've given the MBTI test to "Senior Citizen" groups, and they usually can agree upon a type, though.

My gut feeling is that the late teens through the 20s are the best time to get typed. After someone's been in the workforce--especially if they're not in-line with the socially-biased preferences--then the difference between "BE" and "DO" gets fuzzy, even in a self-assessment.

[SolitaryWalker]

Qualify this statement

Qualify would not be an appropriate word to use in your situation.

Clarify and expound would be more fitting because 'Qualify' implies--give meaning to the statement. It already had substance, yet the real issue was vagueness.

A well-developed Ti can help you cultivated skills in the enterprise of accurate and clear thinking when assessing systems. Ti-Ne can envision the typological system, and then use the Ti to assess how variables on the outside (people) fall into this system. And hence you can match up ideas connected with types with people pertaining to those types on the outside. Having accomplished this, your accuracy in 'typing' others should be very high.