[MBTI General] Does your interaction style match your MBTI type?

[/DG/]

Hey guys. I'm interested in the interaction style system by Linda Here's and I want to know how well it fits you.

Please view this website and/or this thread to determine your interaction style. Then, please answer the poll on whether or not it fits your MBTI type.

In charge - ESTJ, ENTJ, ENFJ, ESTP
Get things going - ESFJ, ESFP, ENTP, ENFP
Chart the course - ISTJ, INTJ, INFJ, ISTP
Behind the scenes - ISFJ, ISFP, INFP, INTP

(Obviously this site will be dominated by the bottom two styles due to introversion.)

Thanks and feel free to comment.

 

[Pionart]

I'm clearly "responding" but I can't tell if I'm "directing" or "informing".

Tbh, I can't take asymmetric theories life this seriously. By asymmetric, I mean for example that you have a group with 3 EJs and a random EP thrown in. This is a similar issue that I have with the whole NT/NF/SP/SJ divide - why is N broken up by T/F whereas S is broken up by P/J?

I think having EP/IP/IJ/EJ and ST/SF/NT/NF groups make much more sense.

 

[/DG/]

I'm clearly "responding" but I can't tell if I'm "directing" or "informing".

IMO it's difficult to self-determine directing vs. informing, so it's best to then individually read the interaction style descriptions. I can't really determine whether or not I personally prefer to direct or inform, but I clearly prefer chart the course.

Chart the course types are more interested in staying on track in moving toward the goal, whereas behind the scenes types are more process oriented (it can be information or people focused). They don't mind meandering around because it will eventually get a better result (in their mind).

Tbh, I can't take asymmetric theories life this seriously. By asymmetric, I mean for example that you have a group with 3 EJs and a random EP thrown in. This is a similar issue that I have with the whole NT/NF/SP/SJ divide - why is N broken up by T/F whereas S is broken up by P/J?

I think having EP/IP/IJ/EJ and ST/SF/NT/NF groups make much more sense.

I sympathize with you there and part of the purpose of the poll is an attempt to determine how accurate the correlation is. If I were to completely ignore MBTI for a moment, I find Berens's interaction styles to be far more useful than Kiersy's temperaments. I read somewhere the reasoning behind this odd-looking MBTI-interaction styles correlation, but I can't recall it.

 

[á´…eparted]

In charge definitely fits me.

 

[HongDou]

Yes, I'm a big advocate for Interaction Styles.

 

[Chthonic]

I don't think any of those styles fit me. In general my method for interacting is to remove myself from the interaction by being busy doing something else. If I must....then I just tick the boxes that need to be ticked until I can once again resume not interacting. 100% of the time I could not care less about the outcome, I just want to get away. Which is why forum interactions suit me, I can simply respond to some stimuli and it's rare that anyone else will bother to yank my chain....it all just gets lost in the countless pages of responses.

 

[/DG/]

I don't think any of those styles fit me. In general my method for interacting is to remove myself from the interaction by being busy doing something else. If I must....then I just tick the boxes that need to be ticked until I can once again resume not interacting. 100% of the time I could not care less about the outcome, I just want to get away. Which is why forum interactions suit me, I can simply respond to some stimuli and it's rare that anyone else will bother to yank my chain....it all just gets lost in the countless pages of responses.

It's not about interacting with people in general. It's about how you interact within a group, particularly when there is a task to be done. Is it more important to you for the group to stay on task to move toward the goal, or are you fine if the group meanders a bit from the goal? You sound more behind the scenes based on what you've written. Are you an INTP?

 

[Harizu]

I am either ESTP or ENTP, and I either take charge or try to persuade and involve others (depending on the situation).
So yeah, it's accurate for me.

 

[Chthonic]

It's not about interacting with people in general. It's about how you interact within a group, particularly when there is a task to be done. Is it more important to you for the group to stay on task to move toward the goal, or are you fine if the group meanders a bit from the goal? You sound more behind the scenes based on what you've written. Are you an INTP?

it's not important to me what the group achieves, I'll just do whats required of me until it all ends. INTJ

 

[Eric B]

I'm clearly "responding" but I can't tell if I'm "directing" or "informing".

Tbh, I can't take asymmetric theories life this seriously. By asymmetric, I mean for example that you have a group with 3 EJs and a random EP thrown in. This is a similar issue that I have with the whole NT/NF/SP/SJ divide - why is N broken up by T/F whereas S is broken up by P/J?

I think having EP/IP/IJ/EJ and ST/SF/NT/NF groups make much more sense.

It's asymmetric, because you have two different systems mapped to each other. Interaction Styles is really the old classic temperament, which was simply hot/cold and moist/dry, which became initiating/responding and informing/directing. They just happened to fit onto the type system the way they do, as does the equally asymmetrical Keirsey.

Directing/informing is ultimately a bit more than just literal issuance of directions or information. It's how much you respond to approach by others. Even Keirsey described it as "defining the relationship" (you either define it, in which case, you will tend to "direct" the other person, or you let the other person define it, in which you soften the communication down to "informing").

 

[ceecee]

Chart the course - ISTJ, INTJ, INFJ, ISTP

Either this or behind the scenes but more often than not, it's coming up with the course. In charge - only when no one else is or they are incompetent. Getting things going - no. I'm not a good motivator/cheerleader.

 

[/DG/]

Either this or behind the scenes but more often than not, it's coming up with the course. In charge - only when no one else is or they are incompetent. Getting things going - no. I'm not a good motivator/cheerleader.

Chart the course can act a bit like in charge when no one is taking the lead. Think of it as a less dominant version of in charge, just as behind the scenes is a less dominant version of get things going.

 

[Eric B]

Yes, in many ways, the directing/informing dimension (part of a larger factor called "responsiveness") us more important than I/E. It's been said that I/E is what we say we want, while responsiveness is about what we really want [i.e. in interaction].

 

[Ene]

I think my should read...chart the course, stay the course and see it through until the end. Never quit. Never say die

 

[Zero-11]

Directing and Responding

 

[Entropic]

In-charge. I am still an introvert so I am on the low energy side and if there is someone with more energy and drive than I, I will let them have it unless they are incompetent, but by and large, I tend to innately and naturally seek to take control over situations including the formation of groups and the direction of the group. People also recognize this trait in me and often therefore ask me to lead.