[MBTI General] A simplified way of determining other people's MBTI type

[/DG/]

Hey everyone, this is a duplicate post of one that is in my blog. I have posted the one in my blog for safe-keeping (so I can easily find it again), but I've reposted it here because I am also looking for opinions. I specifically would like help with simplifying the S/N dichotomy. It's the one I've always struggled the most to define in a simple manner...and the one I have almost never been able to identify in other people. It isn't perfect, but here you go:

"So over the years I've tried to come up a way to simplify the MBTI dichotomies. Sure, you can use one word to describe them right now (thinking, feeling, judging, perceiving, etc.), but I don't find these words useful. I've been trying to come up with a way to very easily type other people...and I think I've come close to cracking it. Also, I could've sworn I posted this somewhere else on the forums, but I can't seem to find it. If I have posted it before, the new addition is the discovery of the J/P simplification.

I/E - low vs. high energy levels

This one can be a bit tricky to spot because you have to compare the person to other people in the same age group. So my grandpa might seem like an introvert on his own, but if you compare him to other people of his age, he is a definite extravert. This also means that very young introverts can appear more extraverted than older introverts for example.

S/N - ????

T/F - task-oriented vs. people-oriented

This one may be defined improperly. Under Beren's interaction styles system, task-orientation vs. people-orientation are NOT evenly tied to T and F. In that system, STs and NJs are task oriented whereas SFs and NPs are people oriented. Intuitively, this doesn't entirely work for me (though I do like using and discussing her system). So I've left it as T = task-oriented (preferring to focus on objects/things) and F = people-oriented (preferring to focus on relationships/living beings). I can elaborate on this if needed.

J/P - type A personality vs. type B personality
Edit 2: Whoops...meant to type that I meant for this topic to SOLELY DISCUSS DICHOTOMIES! Sorry for any confusion.


This is my newest thought in the simplification. Whether or not MBTI intends for it to come across it this way, I've realized that type descriptions lean toward this sort of a description for J types vs. P types. For those unaware, the type A vs. type B personality system is a (flawed) system that states that there are two types of people in the world...type A is more high strung and driven whereas type B is more relaxed/laid back. It also helps me to realize why I seem to align more with the MBTI J type, but the big five's unstructured type. MBTI emphasizes more of the distinction I have written about above, whereas the big five simply uses organized vs. messy for its dichotomy."

One of the things about this simplification of the J/P dichotomy is that it may be biased toward typing more P types than there really are.

So it's not perfect, but what are your thoughts? Thanks!

Edit: So I think this type A vs. type B business will be able to determine the extreme Js, but not the more mild Js. I also think that no P types will accidentally be typed as Js in this system. So it is slightly biased in one direction.

 

[VagrantFarce]

I don't think there's much wrong with the typical description:

• Intuiting types prefer to make connections between seemingly disparate things, are good with abstraction, tend to daydream more often etc.
• Sensing types prefer to focus on the details, being grounded, and paying attention to what is "actually" going on

Personally, I tend to ignore the dichotomies when I'm typing others. I found a good way to narrow things down (and an easy one to notice) is to figure out whether they're Fe/Ti or Te/Fi.

• Fe/Ti types tend to be outwardly, and rather consciously, affiliative - you get the feeling they're warming up to you in a very circumstantial way. On the other side, when they're being quiet or introverted, they tend to be very holistic, patient and analytical in their thinking.
• Te/Fi types tend to be more "sincere" by comparison - outwardly they're more focused on what the plan is and figuring out how to "navigate" things, or inwardly things are "felt" very deeply.

Picking up on Ni/Se and Se/Ni can be more difficult, I've found...

• Ne/Si types, on the outside, tend to be "wacky" and imaginative - they jump from one concept to the other very, very quickly, in a way that leaves you breathless and hyped up. On the inside, they're extremely grounded and specific.
• Ni/Se types, on the outside, tend to be grounded and "immediate" - they're looking for what makes an impact, and they're capitalizing on it. On the inside, they're more vague and abstract, and tend to foster their own strange little worlds.

 

[/DG/]

I don't think there's much wrong with the typical description:

• Intuiting types prefer to make connections between seemingly disparate things, are good with abstraction, tend to daydream more often etc.
• Sensing types prefer to focus on the details, being grounded, and paying attention to what is "actually" going on

This is okay, but there are two issues.

1. I find it is more useful to the person reading the description than the one observing them.

2. Sensing types can most definitely be spacey and unaware of their surroundings. I have always identified heavily with sensing, but I am an extremely unobservant person in reality. I am too in my head (introversion) to notice or care about my environment.

Personally, I tend to ignore the dichotomies when I'm typing others. I found a good way to narrow things down (and an easy one to notice) is to figure out whether they're Fe/Ti or Te/Fi.

Whoops...I am a derp. I meant to type in the title that this thread was for simplifying the dichotomies.

• Fe/Ti types tend to be outwardly, and rather consciously, affiliative - you get the feeling they're warming up to you in a very circumstantial way. On the other side, when they're being quiet or introverted, they tend to be very holistic, patient and analytical in their thinking.
• Te/Fi types tend to be more "sincere" by comparison - outwardly they're more focused on what the plan is and figuring out how to "navigate" things, or inwardly things are "felt" very deeply.

In general, I would agree with this...though sometimes it doesn't work as well for Fi types.

Picking up on Ni/Se and Se/Ni can be more difficult, I've found...

• Ne/Si types, on the outside, tend to be "wacky" and imaginative - they jump from one concept to the other very, very quickly, in a way that leaves you breathless and hyped up. On the inside, they're extremely grounded and specific.
• Ni/Se types, on the outside, tend to be grounded and "immediate" - they're looking for what makes an impact, and they're capitalizing on it. On the inside, they're more vague and abstract, and tend to foster their own strange little worlds.

Again, I think this is a pretty nice description. It stinks that we don't see more explanations of function axis pairs out there.

 

[á´…eparted]

Eh, I am not so sure on the dichotomy differentiations your making here, mostly because I know of a number of people that run counter to it.

I think it's the nature of the beast that when it comes to typing people, there is no quick and simple way. People are just too complex.

 

[Southern Kross]

I appreciate the effort DG. I have often wished that there were more simple terms to use to explain to laymen, even if they were a little imperfect. I like your other ideas, but I think J/P might need some work. The A-B thing could be a little touchy for some people, and I'm not sure that most Js are even uptight enough to fit the description. I will think more on it.

What about experience-driven vs. theory-driven for S vs. N? It would cover it well, I think, without adding any unpleasant value judgements. Then Se vs. Si would be emerging vs. preceding experience. Ne vs Ni would be converging vs. diverging theory.