• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Mistyped TypeCentral Members

cascadeco

New member
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
9,083
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
9w1
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
If you can find flaws in the function-sequence approach, in terms of specific examples where I've outlined the reasoning, then tell me so. Ideally I look for multiple posts of at least 4 sentences/paragraphs, and then it's about identifying which line was more S, which was more T, which specific functions they were etc. and I haven't perfected the method so any direct critique is appreciated.

Ok, I'll bite. I admit I find it perplexing that you find your method of typing accurate, and I'll mention what I find to be totally obvious but it seems to be something you don't factor in at all, or disregard as irrelevant.

I'm less bothered by the fact you might have bias, but more bothered by wondering WHY you find relying on sentence deconstruction, and a handful of posts at that, as giving you the ability to accurately determine type.

From where I stand, your method of 'Sentence 1 = Ne, Sentence 2 = Si, Sentence 3 = Se, Sentence 4 = Ni, Sentence 5 = Ne', and so on, is not holistic at all and strikes me very much like those who selectively take verses from the Bible and utilize them to 'prove' a point (which: doesn't work, because as most people know, you can find a different verse in the bible that often contradicts that first verse -- thus, taking single sentences/statements ignores any larger holistic context of the book - or going back to typing, the person as a WHOLE).

I haven't read enough of your commentary to know whether you have a good handle on functions (at least - as they're commonly understood) or not, but let's say you do have a good grasp of functions. Do you factor in contextual responses? Do you factor in the fact that someone might write in a certain way in certain topics or towards certain people or will write in a different way if it's a topic about something utterly different? Or, I think I've read you write somewhere that you believe everyone does use all functions to some degree. If this is so, then how could you possibly type someone on here using a handful of posts when it could just be a snapshot of a given day they are having, or as stated previously, a more intellectual topic vs jokey topic, vs emotional topic, vs playful topic, vs philosophical topic, and so on. They might very well be using Fi and Te and Ne and whatnot in a given post (per dissection of line by line) -- but how useful is that really? What if in the larger context they use Se and Fe a lot more? Why do you find sentence deconstruction useful towards encompassing the persons' type as a whole?

I'll grant you that there are trends in writing style -- that a random ESFP on here is generally -- overall - let's say, 75% of the time -- going to write very differently from an INTP. But you have to look with a wider lens imo.

All of this is why some (many?) of your typings just seem ludicrous.

There's probably more I could break down for you but this is one of the main issues I have seen. Again, it seems obvious to me, but then too, obviously you view things differently. (?)
 

Sacrophagus

Mastermind Fieldmarshal
Joined
Jul 11, 2017
Messages
1,702
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
854
Ok, I'll bite. I admit I find it perplexing that you find your method of typing accurate, and I'll mention what I find to be totally obvious but it seems to be something you don't factor in at all, or disregard as irrelevant.

I'm less bothered by the fact you might have bias, but more bothered by wondering WHY you find relying on sentence deconstruction, and a handful of posts at that, as giving you the ability to accurately determine type.

From where I stand, your method of 'Sentence 1 = Ne, Sentence 2 = Si, Sentence 3 = Se, Sentence 4 = Ni, Sentence 5 = Ne', and so on, is not holistic at all and strikes me very much like those who selectively take verses from the Bible and utilize them to 'prove' a point (which: doesn't work, because as most people know, you can find a different verse in the bible that often contradicts that first verse -- thus, taking single sentences/statements ignores any larger holistic context of the book - or going back to typing, the person as a WHOLE).

I haven't read enough of your commentary to know whether you have a good handle on functions (at least - as they're commonly understood) or not, but let's say you do have a good grasp of functions. Do you factor in contextual responses? Do you factor in the fact that someone might write in a certain way in certain topics or towards certain people or will write in a different way if it's a topic about something utterly different? Or, I think I've read you write somewhere that you believe everyone does use all functions to some degree. If this is so, then how could you possibly type someone on here using a handful of posts when it could just be a snapshot of a given day they are having, or as stated previously, a more intellectual topic vs jokey topic, vs emotional topic, vs playful topic, vs philosophical topic, and so on. They might very well be using Fi and Te and Ne and whatnot in a given post (per dissection of line by line) -- but how useful is that really? What if in the larger context they use Se and Fe a lot more? Why do you find sentence deconstruction useful towards encompassing the persons' type as a whole?

I'll grant you that there are trends in writing style -- that a random ESFP on here is generally -- overall - let's say, 75% of the time -- going to write very differently from an INTP. But you have to look with a wider lens imo.

All of this is why some (many?) of your typings just seem ludicrous.

There's probably more I could break down for you but this is one of the main issues I have seen. Again, it seems obvious to me, but then too, obviously you view things differently. (?)


When someone can't make the difference between a fleeting feeling, a mood, a temperament, and a character, discussing typology with them seems useless.


Take Pita for example. As she put it "I'm a thinking feeling type, gee."
Sometimes she seems in some of her writings for the myopic eye like an ENTP, sometimes like an INTJ, but that would simply be the conclusion of someone who can't see further than their nose. Maybe a blind dyslexic.
 

Peter Deadpan

phallus impudicus
Joined
Dec 14, 2016
Messages
8,883
When someone can't make the difference between a fleeting feeling, a mood, a temperament, and a character, discussing typology with them seems useless.


Take Pita for example. As she put it "I'm a thinking feeling type, gee."
Sometimes she seems in some of her writings for the myopic eye like an ENTP, sometimes like an INTJ, but that would simply be the conclusion of someone who can't see further than their nose. Maybe a blind dyslexic.

I'm a T heavy F-er. The most insufferable of INFPs.
 

Coriolis

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
27,230
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Fastest way to meet a dyslexic.
I assume you know what the dyslexic agnostic insomniac does at night . . .

 

Tater

New member
Joined
Jul 26, 2014
Messages
2,421
wool/Eevee/saudade: ENFJ E4
Forever: INFJ E3
Tomb1: ESTP E8
magnetica: INTJ E5
Peter Deadpan: ENFP E4
Codex: ENFP E8
Jaguar: ENTJ E8
ceecee: INTJ E8
Lib: INTJ cp E6
Salome: INTJ cp E6
InvisibleJim: INTJ cp E6
Typhon: ENFJ E3
phobik: ENTP E7
Obfuscate: INTJ E9
 

Luminous

༻✧✧༺
Joined
Oct 25, 2017
Messages
10,235
MBTI Type
Iᑎᖴᑭ
Enneagram
952
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
[MENTION=35566]Luminous[/MENTION] - I don't think you exhibit the defense mechanism of reaction formation as seen in ennea-type 1. You are a pretty straight shooter, from what I gather.

Do you think that the reaction is opposite to actual feeling? Or just different? And it would be unconscious, yes? So being angry, but not acting like a toddler throwing a tantrum isn't an example?
 

Sacrophagus

Mastermind Fieldmarshal
Joined
Jul 11, 2017
Messages
1,702
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
854
What kind of NF am I? Always assumed ENFP.

Based on vibe alone, you come off indeed as XNFP-ish. Any conclusion would be presumptuous since I don't really have a lot of data about you.

Try doing a type me thread or contribute more.
 

Vendrah

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
1,947
MBTI Type
NP
Enneagram
952
I know Im am kind of reinforcing the off topic but there are two things that I want to say. Ill be fast.

First, why do you guys seems so harsh sometimes? I wont quote directly but it is like, through a more indirectly manner... "your typing method is ridiculous", "you understand nothing", "I wonder how you...".
Well, to be honest this is wwaayy better than the brazilian right vs left discussion (or Messiah VS Messiah B), where not only they are rude but also quite stupid. Ok, ok, I really like when the community here points out when someone is not making any sense at all (while the brazilian right or left just praise with no use of logic), but, PLEASE, some people here have a hard time on your lives, sometimes just destroying one self-esteem is just not nice. The brazilians left and right desperately wants to destroy the other side self-esteem, because they just desperately needs to feel superior because otherwise their lives wont make sense, but, for you guys here, is that needed? I dont think so. I know that some typing methods are erroneous, but, please, be more sympathetic.

And second, do somebody know how to find your posts? Im saying that because my first post is about professions where shows the type distribuitions in some universities. Design students tends to be a lot ENTP and ENFP, in business we find a lot of ESTJs, ENTJs, ISTJs and ENTPs, in movie making we got a lot of INTJs and INTPs, and we I could go on. TypoC and PerC (Personality Cafe) is full of introverted intuitives, I think that also proceeds in some online sites such as OkCupid, but not social media. I could had a look and show all of this but I want to be fast and Im already off topic by the way, but, for PerC and TypoC, a good approach would be "Introverted Intuitive unless otherwise" (or disregard this previous typing by what is most common, it would be better).
 

Luminous

༻✧✧༺
Joined
Oct 25, 2017
Messages
10,235
MBTI Type
Iᑎᖴᑭ
Enneagram
952
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
[MENTION=32874]Vendrah[/MENTION]
There are several ways to find your posts... you can click on your name and then view posts, go to your profile and there are links under your picture, or use Advanced search. But sometimes the search function doesn't work properly and doesn't show the most recent results. You can also search in a specific thread by clicking on the Search Thread option toward the top of the thread, when you are in the thread itself.
 

Peter Deadpan

phallus impudicus
Joined
Dec 14, 2016
Messages
8,883
wool/Eevee/saudade: ENFJ E4
Forever: INFJ E3
Tomb1: ESTP E8
magnetica: INTJ E5
Peter Deadpan: ENFP E4
Codex: ENFP E8
Jaguar: ENTJ E8
ceecee: INTJ E8
Lib: INTJ cp E6
Salome: INTJ cp E6
InvisibleJim: INTJ cp E6
Typhon: ENFJ E3
phobik: ENTP E7
Obfuscate: INTJ E9

Don't push me down that Ne vs Fi road again, maaan. I'm in recovery.
 

Peter Deadpan

phallus impudicus
Joined
Dec 14, 2016
Messages
8,883
Do you think that the reaction is opposite to actual feeling? Or just different? And it would be unconscious, yes? So being angry, but not acting like a toddler throwing a tantrum isn't an example?

Oh I forgot to answer this.
I'm just gonna paste the web definition for "reaction formation defense mechanism", because I think it paints it well:

"Reaction formation is a kind of psychological defense mechanism in which a person perceives their true feelings or desires to be socially or, in some cases, legally unacceptable, and so they attempt to convince themselves or others that the opposite is true--often in a very exaggerated performance."

Being disciplined, it may not be an "exaggerated performance", but it often does feel like a high and mighty raising of the nose, kind of an "I'm not going to lower myself to your level of standards because I'm better than that".
 

Cellmold

Wake, See, Sing, Dance
Joined
Mar 23, 2012
Messages
6,266
Oh I forgot to answer this.
I'm just gonna paste the web definition for "reaction formation defense mechanism", because I think it paints it well:

"Reaction formation is a kind of psychological defense mechanism in which a person perceives their true feelings or desires to be socially or, in some cases, legally unacceptable, and so they attempt to convince themselves or others that the opposite is true--often in a very exaggerated performance."

Being disciplined, it may not be an "exaggerated performance", but it often does feel like a high and mighty raising of the nose, kind of an "I'm not going to lower myself to your level of standards because I'm better than that".

Yeah, this has always been a general issue with people in general, both in myself and others.

The idea of warring against our primal urges and worst excesses, yet trying not to assume a superiority over others. It's not an easy one to answer, but the closest I can understand is that we are all these things at once (behaviourally) to a greater or lesser degree.
We're both pieces of shit and yet more than that. Which is why the snobs who look down on others without understanding the nature of circumstance can be as wrong as those who see every interaction as a test to measure how 'true' someone is by levels of crudeness.

The problem is that we are really making up our social rules as we go along, adapting them to context and individuals involved. The more complicated 'over-time' effect is that it breeds this concept of abstracted social norms which are to be judged on a black and white basis of either/or and applied in a way that makes it look as if they work, but really it's just that they are broad enough to cover the bases and fool people into thinking they are the standard in all situations. Now I'm broadly polite to people I don't know, I understand the reasoning behind not assuming too much (although assuming nothing is dangerous) until I know more about the person.

However, I'm also stuck in the same trap of these seemingly contradictory states. I am both able to write long-winded and pompous posts about some subject or other in a vague attempt to a make a half-intelligent commentary on something I've been thinking about and at the same time I can talk about my own farts and fingering grannies at the local bingo hall.

The point is that I see these states as part of an ongoing, moving flux of behaviour, defined not by either/or or denial of my emotions, but by different emotions based on context and individuals involved and my relationship to them. Which isn't to say I would automatically side with the majority in a situation; I hate formal occasions and dress, for example, and I find a lot of dinner manners to be arbitrary (I'm going to put my elbows on the table whether you like it or not!).

I guess it's really just the inadequacy of our evolution to comprehend how to hold paradoxical states in the minds-eye, without turning to explanations of contradiction because it's easier and more convenient.
 
Top