Do you see the problem with typing others? Is it worth it?

[ndovjtjcaqidthi]

Bill Clitton likes them with a few extra pounds.

That doesn't even look like Clinton! Weird.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

 

[the state i am in]

MBTI was designed as a tool to type yourself, not others, and providing a way to interact with people who seemingly already know their own types. Misidentifying yourself is always a danger, but mistyping others is more likely - you try to type based on impressions, but you can't really know what cognitive processes others use. You may mistype a stressful person frequently using his/her shadow functions instead of the real ones, and you might also encounter the problem of learned skills. If an INFP has a strong grip over his/her Si, yet prefers not to show his primary or secondary functions for whatever reason (social pressure, traumas etc.), you are likely to mistype him/her.

Some of you frequently type celebrities and people you've actually never met (!) at TypoC. Why? I don't see this as a moral issue, and I do realize that typing others might have some uses for both parties: they can be more tolerant, compassionate etc. towards each other, but what if you mistype someone, and start a conversation with false assumptions? What if you talk to an INFP as if he/she were an ISTP? This might really screw up the connection, and it might reinforce the unhealthy behavior of a stressful person.

I have a personal policy not to type anyone except for myself. Do you see the possible costs and benefits (for the lack of better words -> yuck, I hate these expressions) of typing someone? Is it still worth it? Why? Are there any other benefits of typing people?

in a sense, ideas, whether thru the specific language of jungian typology or not, are never real. ideas are how we understand experience. meanwhile, experience has no form without understanding. not like a simple line continuum but more like overlapping perspectives, like stereoscopic vision. we can't really escape from that. ideas don't get to rule the body any more than the body gets to rule the mind.

as far as concrete rules for labeling others, i think there are three helpful practices. first, observing yourself and trying to pay attention to what is happening within you, so that you aren't doing something as a way to not really own up to your own feelings, experiences, needs, etc. for instance, if you dislike someone, so you want to justify it with type, that's less constructive than examining the roots of your own feelings internally, just trying to find ideas that allow you to not really feel what you feel with real self-awareness, with a real focus on what you are currently experiencing and have experienced in the past. second, don't harm them. if what you are doing is harming the other person, stop. third, respect their experience and the way you affect their experience. you are entitled to your own process of organizing the ideas you use to understand the world around you and the others you interact with. that is the power of your voice. however, if you don't take any accountability in terms of meeting them in their own experience, in their own terms, then you will be in some sense denying much of who they are. moreover, you will just worsen your relationships and your ability to truly connect. you will lose the ability to be present with someone else. presence is inherently dynamic. certainty is the opposite of that.

i also think even if jungian typology is very helpful for the level of analysis it offers, it's far from the only one. it's far from complete.

 

[garbage]

Like any mental model I might use, I'd want to properly calibrate my own typological perception. That would often involve making some assertions (typing people) and testing them out (recategorizing them or refining my own understanding of type).

What if you talk to an INFP as if he/she were an ISTP? This might really screw up the connection, and it might reinforce the unhealthy behavior of a stressful person.

See also: talking to an INFP as if he/she completely fits type and function descriptions of an INFP.

 

[hornet]

Being an ISFP/ESI I'm supposed to have "x-ray vision" , once I learned Jungian types and realized what they boiled down to in an Se objective sense
my mistypes dropped significantly. I'm also much more conservative with typing people and drag my feet on putting a type on others.
It isn't easy, but if you really observe and know what to look for finding someones type is fairly easy.

 

[Chancelade]

Interesting; I would assume otherwise based on your personal policy.

Ah yes, sorry about that I wanted to write "no", but I'm high and it's difficult to concentrate. So to sum up: I don't think typing others is "worth it", but I think I get your point.

If someone doesn't have the awareness and self-control to regulate themself, then the exchange isn't worth it. But if they can - and I think we all can - then it is.

I tend to have a more pessimistic outlook when it comes to people.

as far as concrete rules for labeling others, i think there are three helpful practices. [...]

I can agree with this, still: it's very hard to judge whether you cause real harm by (mis)typing someone. It might not be apparent in the short term, and the person you have mistyped may not realise the root of the harm done. I assume these problems are even more frequent if you assist in determining the type of somebody online.

 

[Sunny Ghost]

MBTI was designed as a tool to type yourself, not others, and providing a way to interact with people who seemingly already know their own types. Misidentifying yourself is always a danger, but mistyping others is more likely - you try to type based on impressions, but you can't really know what cognitive processes others use. You may mistype a stressful person frequently using his/her shadow functions instead of the real ones, and you might also encounter the problem of learned skills. If an INFP has a strong grip over his/her Si, yet prefers not to show his primary or secondary functions for whatever reason (social pressure, traumas etc.), you are likely to mistype him/her.

Some of you frequently type celebrities and people you've actually never met (!) at TypoC. Why? I don't see this as a moral issue, and I do realize that typing others might have some uses for both parties: they can be more tolerant, compassionate etc. towards each other, but what if you mistype someone, and start a conversation with false assumptions? What if you talk to an INFP as if he/she were an ISTP? This might really screw up the connection, and it might reinforce the unhealthy behavior of a stressful person.

I have a personal policy not to type anyone except for myself. Do you see the possible costs and benefits (for the lack of better words -> yuck, I hate these expressions) of typing someone? Is it still worth it? Why? Are there any other benefits of typing people?

First of all, who does that?-Start a conversation with false assumptions of type?

I've heard people say that it puts people into neat little boxes, but I don't see it that way. I see it as a starting point in understanding where someone is coming from. I think it makes people more interesting, as opposed to boring or predictable. Behaviors are no longer seen as random, but deeply seated in certain cognitive functions or thought processes. It also makes it easier to see a persons strengths or weaknesses.

I think typing celebrities and characters from books or movies is just a fun little exercise to help grasp types and functions.

Also, a thorough understanding of types and functions will keep one from being blindsided by inconsistencies or deviations from a normal description of a type. Such as male ENFP's with heavy reliance on Ne+Te (for some reason this seems somewhat common), or INTP's with heavy reliance on Ti+Si.

 

[valaki]

Being an ISFP/ESI I'm supposed to have "x-ray vision" , once I learned Jungian types and realized what they boiled down to in an Se objective sense
my mistypes dropped significantly. I'm also much more conservative with typing people and drag my feet on putting a type on others.
It isn't easy, but if you really observe and know what to look for finding someones type is fairly easy.

What x-ray vision are you supposed to have just because of your type? ;p

I can agree with this, still: it's very hard to judge whether you cause real harm by (mis)typing someone. It might not be apparent in the short term, and the person you have mistyped may not realise the root of the harm done. I assume these problems are even more frequent if you assist in determining the type of somebody online.

What kind of harm would possibly be done?

 

[Chancelade]

What kind of harm would possibly be done?

Ha valaki nem járatos a tipológiában és mondjuk személyiségzavaros, vagy csak bizonytalan, akkor túlságosan is azonosulhat annak a típusnak a leírásával, amilyen típussal te azonosítottad. Ez főleg akkor rossz, ha ráadásul téves típusba skatulyázod. Szerintem ez nem ritka.

 

[valaki]

Ha valaki nem járatos a tipológiában és mondjuk személyiségzavaros, vagy csak bizonytalan, akkor túlságosan is azonosulhat annak a típusnak a leírásával, amilyen típussal te azonosítottad. Ez főleg akkor rossz, ha ráadásul téves típusba skatulyázod. Szerintem ez nem ritka.

You hungarian?

Btw you are right it's a good idea to warn people about this. But if you've given the warning, it should be OK.

 

[Chancelade]

Yeah, I suspected you're also Hungarian bc of your user name. Sorry

 

[valaki]

Yeah, I suspected you're also Hungarian bc of your user name. Sorry

semmi gond...

 

[hornet]

What x-ray vision are you supposed to have just because of your type? ;p

I can't remember exactly where I read it, but it was in some socionics profile.
The whole argument is that the ESI type when meeting others scrutinize them carefully to gague their level of ethics.
So we have a lot of practice figuring out people just by looking at them.
This isn't all that concious it just happens, though after I read it I have become more aware of it.

Ah found it.

ESI is often an excellent physiognomist. He is exceptionally observant; orienting by barely perceptible and only visible to him visual cues, he is able to formulate a precise idea of the character traits and overall nature of a person. Each person who appears in his field of view for the first time, ESI as if "dissects" by his penetrating "X-ray" gaze, being subjected to which leaves most feeling uncomfortable. Dreiser immediately forms an opinion about the ethical qualities of the individual before him. His most accurate and astute insights about the nature and motives of a person arise from such first snap impressions.

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/content.php/303-ISFj-profile-by-Stratiyevskaya

 

[valaki]

I can't remember exactly where I read it, but it was in some socionics profile.
The whole argument is that the ESI type when meeting others scrutinize them carefully to gague their level of ethics.
So we have a lot of practice figuring out people just by looking at them.
This isn't all that concious it just happens, though after I read it I have become more aware of it.

Ah found it.

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/content.php/303-ISFj-profile-by-Stratiyevskaya

Heh I see. Superpowers directly from the socionics god eh?

 

[hornet]

Heh I see. Superpowers directly from the socionics god eh?

Well knowing the process firsthand I would hardly call it a superpower.
Cause if that is a superpower then I guess every type has it's "power".
I doubt it is teachable though, I can see how it would be invisible to others.
Maybe other gammas can learn it.

 

[valaki]

Well knowing the process firsthand I would hardly call it a superpower.
Cause if that is a superpower then I guess every type has it's "power".
I doubt it is teachable though, I can see how it would be invisible to others.
Maybe other gammas can learn it.

Well I'm no gamma so I'll just have to take your word for it (not being a superpower).

 

[NK258]

I think it's okay to give feedback when someone asks. I think it's best if the person asking takes it within reasonable perspective and does their own research and reflection. For me, enneagram was more difficult to peg accurately right away. That actually took 6 months of reading, reflection and experience. I see no benefit in walking around playing typology police. It does more harm to others than good. But whatever makes people happy ya know ... It is what it is