Inconsistencies in descriptions of the types? Help?

[Scapegoated 4 fun]

So I was reading a description of the ESFJ personality type which said they are pragmatic and realistic but then later on it said they also have a characteristic of not being able to clearly see the consequences of their actions. Doesn't that seem a bit inconsistent/contradictory to you? How can one be both realistic and unable to see the consequences of their actions? To me, I'd assume they weren't very grounded in reality if they had no insight into the consequences of their actions. Also, they said that ESFJs are caring and sensitive but then they went on to say that they are quick to judge those with different values than them and can be vindictive when they feel they've been slighted, EVEN IF THE PERSON WHO THEY FEEL SLIGHTED THEM HAD NO IDEA WHAT THEY DID!! And yet they describe these same individuals as sensitive and caring in the same article without providing much of an explanation? I just don't get it, that doesn't seem sensitive OR caring to me. I don't even see how anyone could see it as being that? It seems like the opposite? What do you guys think? Have you noticed inconsistencies as well in the descriptions of the types to the point where you don't understand the differences between types because they're not clear enough? Let me know, thanks!

I will provide more examples of inconsistencies in type descriptions when I have more time.

 

[Red Ribbon]

What type descriptiona are you reading? Can you provide a link to them?

ESxx types are generally said to have poor long range thinking due to weak/devalued Ni. As for being extremely judgmental, dominant judging types are well, judging, more so than dominant perceiving types. This is true for all ExxJ and IxxP types. Also what do you mean by 'slighted?' can you provide a link to where you found this description?

 

[kotoshinohaisha]

Again, don't generalize people okay


Not all esfjs are bad people.

No specific types are good people.

That's bullshit.

Mbti is bullshit, so you better change your mind believing or questioning it.

Or you might as well be open minded to the fact that not all esfj are like that.

And they're might not even esfjs! XD

Anyways, it's within the person, not the type.

 

[Poki]

So I was reading a description of the ESFJ personality type which said they are pragmatic and realistic but then later on it said they also have a characteristic of not being able to clearly see the consequences of their actions. Doesn't that seem a bit inconsistent/contradictory to you? How can one be both realistic and unable to see the consequences of their actions? To me, I'd assume they weren't very grounded in reality if they had no insight into the consequences of their actions. Also, they said that ESFJs are caring and sensitive but then they went on to say that they are quick to judge those with different values than them and can be vindictive when they feel they've been slighted, EVEN IF THE PERSON WHO THEY FEEL SLIGHTED THEM HAD NO IDEA WHAT THEY DID!! And yet they describe these same individuals as sensitive and caring in the same article without providing much of an explanation? I just don't get it, that doesn't seem sensitive OR caring to me. I don't even see how anyone could see it as being that? It seems like the opposite? What do you guys think? Have you noticed inconsistencies as well in the descriptions of the types to the point where you don't understand the differences between types because they're not clear enough? Let me know, thanks! I will provide more examples of inconsistencies in type descriptions when I have more time.

That seems to fit. Just remember that we all have good and bad aspects of us that DO contradict. We are reality, not theory. One day we will be the strongest in the world and the next day we can be a blubbering fool. Theory will contradict because we contradict.

 

[kotoshinohaisha]

That seems to fit. Just remember that we all have good and bad aspects of us that DO contradict. We are reality, not theory. One day we will be the strongest in the world and the next day we can be a blubbering fool. Theory will contradict because we contradict.

Yesss and we're all HUMaNs capable of creating mistakes

 

[Scapegoated 4 fun]

That seems to fit. Just remember that we all have good and bad aspects of us that DO contradict. We are reality, not theory. One day we will be the strongest in the world and the next day we can be a blubbering fool. Theory will contradict because we contradict.

Sure, but then how do you reliably and consistently distinguish the types from one another? I think in general, people observably tend towards one way of acting versus another, the fact they have other aspects in their personality is irrelevant because they have an inclination towards something else. That's how typing works.... I think.

 

[Scapegoated 4 fun]

Yesss and we're all HUMaNs capable of creating mistakes

To varying degrees, let's not get too general here.

 

[kotoshinohaisha]

To varying degrees, let's not get too general here.

I'm not talking with you on that comment please.

 

[Scapegoated 4 fun]

I'm not talking with you on that comment please.

huh?

 

[kotoshinohaisha]

huh?

Nothing. I love you

 

[Poki]

Sure, but then how do you reliably and consistently distinguish the types from one another? I think in general, people observably tend towards one way of acting versus another, the fact they have other aspects in their personality is irrelevant because they have an inclination towards something else. That's how typing works.... I think.

When you talk about good/bad you have to look at how healthy person acts. Or else you are creating incorrect good/bad typings. Inappropriately assigning a bad trait to another. This is a very common phenomenon

The way i see typing is all of a persons idiosyncracies...the good, the nuetral, and the ugly. What they prefer within themselves and actions determine health of the person. An unhealthy ESFJ will lead toward the more negative aspects while a healthier one will lead toward the more positive. All fall somewhere between extremes.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

So I was reading a description of the ESFJ personality type which said they are pragmatic and realistic but then later on it said they also have a characteristic of not being able to clearly see the consequences of their actions. Doesn't that seem a bit inconsistent/contradictory to you? How can one be both realistic and unable to see the consequences of their actions? To me, I'd assume they weren't very grounded in reality if they had no insight into the consequences of their actions. Also, they said that ESFJs are caring and sensitive but then they went on to say that they are quick to judge those with different values than them and can be vindictive when they feel they've been slighted, EVEN IF THE PERSON WHO THEY FEEL SLIGHTED THEM HAD NO IDEA WHAT THEY DID!! And yet they describe these same individuals as sensitive and caring in the same article without providing much of an explanation? I just don't get it, that doesn't seem sensitive OR caring to me. I don't even see how anyone could see it as being that? It seems like the opposite? What do you guys think? Have you noticed inconsistencies as well in the descriptions of the types to the point where you don't understand the differences between types because they're not clear enough? Let me know, thanks!

I will provide more examples of inconsistencies in type descriptions when I have more time.

I agree that a lot of type descriptions are inconsistent, and can be even moreso between different sources. There is also a way that each type is beholden to certain dichotomies. I may need to come back after some thought relating specifically to ESFJ, but from what I understand there is a natural tendency towards consistency, and one archetypal ideal would be someone like the mother from "Wonder Years". It could be that being ingrained in personal experience, culture, habit, procedure, the way things have and should be done, etc, can result in rejecting behaviors that threaten that consistency, which would explain part of that description. I would think that an ESFJ would be very aware of consequences of familiar actions, but perhaps misjudge new actions? If the context or behavior is new, then there isn't a resource of experience to draw from to accurately assess outcomes?

I have noticed dichotomies in other types, like Fi having emotional sensitivity, but also having a lot of emotional endurance because its natural state is to process subjectivity, resulting in both apparently opposite outcomes. Ni has a broad/narrow dichotomy that is inherent in its perception. Ti has an objectivity/subjectivity dichotomy in its internal assumptions.

 

[Scapegoated 4 fun]

I agree that a lot of type descriptions are inconsistent, and can be even moreso between different sources. There is also a way that each type is beholden to certain dichotomies. I may need to come back after some thought relating specifically to ESFJ, but from what I understand there is a natural tendency towards consistency, and one archetypal ideal would be someone like the mother from "Wonder Years". It could be that being ingrained in personal experience, culture, habit, procedure, the way things have and should be done, etc, can result in rejecting behaviors that threaten that consistency, which would explain part of that description. I would think that an ESFJ would be very aware of consequences of familiar actions, but perhaps misjudge new actions? If the context or behavior is new, then there isn't a resource of experience to draw from to accurately assess outcomes?

I have noticed dichotomies in other types, like Fi having emotional sensitivity, but also having a lot of emotional endurance because its natural state is to process subjectivity, resulting in both apparently opposite outcomes. Ni has a broad/narrow dichotomy that is inherent in its perception. Ti has an objectivity/subjectivity dichotomy in its internal assumptions.

Yeah, I guess it would help me get a clearer picture of what the type was like if they used more examples. Instead of just saying "They are pragmatic and realistic" they should just give an example or a list of examples of things you're likely to see an ESFJ do on a typical day, their habits, routines etc. It'd be a lot clearer that way and not clouded by subjectivity and personal opinion like the phrase "they are pragmatic and realistic" is.