I STILL don't understand MBTI.

[Athenian200]

Okay, I've found that I have a real problem when it comes to interpreting MBTI types in terms of applying them to people. There are really only two ways I've found I can do it.

1. Stick rigidly to the wording of a particular set of official definitions and refuse to go outside them in determining what makes a person a particular type.

2. Rely on my subjective impression of how other people seem to determine type.

Now, I know that if I do the first one, I'm being extremely imperceptive and closed-minded, and applying a vague ruleset in a personal way that will likely be disagreed with by a lot of people as my failing to see the "essence" of the type.

If I do the second, I find myself accepting rather biased, irrational ideas that often don't make sense, and which are tacitly accepted but openly disavowed.

The funny thing is, I understand the theoretical structure and have no problems when it comes to interpreting the functions of type relative to each other as functions and perspectives. I'm good at that. But when it comes to application of the functions and types to a person, my ignorance and prejudice is obvious and downright embarrassing.

From what I usually see on typing threads, it seems like most people rely on either affirming that test results make sense, affirming what the person thinks they are, or trying to question things based on irrational personal standards. Rarely, you'll see someone trying to measure things against the official definitions in the way that they personally think fits, but this is usually criticized.

So, now I've got a question... is there something going on underneath all of this that I'm too stupid to see, or are we actually typing people in ways that don't really make any sense?

The thing is, I like using MBTI, but I still don't understand how to apply it fairly or in a way that makes sense. So, my thought is that I should limit myself to talking about the function's theoretical natures, and avoid applying them to people or their behavior at all.

I'm coming to the conclusion that I haven't figured it out after 3 years. Obviously I'm too stupid to understand or use this system. Yet my curiosity and tendency to try and interpret patterns in terms of MBTI makes me want to keep using it.

What does all of this mean?

 

[Sentura]

What does all of this mean?

nothing.

no, sorry. what i meant to say is that MBTI was designed for application, and may thus have misalignments in its theory. i take every type with a grain of salt, and i think people that are following MBTI by the book are completely missing the point of its potential.

 

[Athenian200]

nothing.

no, sorry. what i meant to say is that MBTI was designed for application, and may thus have misalignments in its theory. i take every type with a grain of salt, and i think people that are following MBTI by the book are completely missing the point of its potential.

I don't see that at all. I don't see how it applies in application. It doesn't seem applicable at all. I actually see the theory as being consistent internally as a set of functions and perspectives, but the application as making no sense and being subjective.

How can I be missing the "point of it's potential" if my main problem is that I can't see how to use it? I see the potential, I just don't see how it can be used reasonably right now.

Sigh. I guess I just don't get it, and can't get it.

 

[Quinlan]

or are we actually typing people in ways that don't really make any sense?

Bingo. MBTI type is supposed to be decided by personal exploration/validation, it makes no sense to be able to type people you hardly know accurately as you're dealing with underlying processes, things that are easily hidden from outsiders, external behaviour is influenced by many factors that lie well outside of MBTI type, it can be hard enough for someone to unravel their own external social conditioning/influences to figure what their "true" type is, let alone someone else trying to do it for you.

I'm coming to the conclusion that I haven't figured it out after 3 years. Obviously I'm too stupid to understand or use this system.

You're not too stupid, you're actually intelligent enough to realise your limitations and the limitations of the system.

 

[Quinlan]

nothing.

no, sorry. what i meant to say is that MBTI was designed for application, and may thus have misalignments in its theory. i take every type with a grain of salt, and i think people that are following MBTI by the book are completely missing the point of its potential.

Application to the self, not the the other.

As far as I know it was designed to help people personally with career choices, it wasn't designed for other people to pigeonhole you into whatever box they decide.

 

[entropie]

Nvm I was never god with sect talk myself

 

[Athenian200]

Bingo. MBTI type is supposed to be decided by personal exploration/validation, it makes no sense to be able to type people you hardly know accurately as you're dealing with underlying processes, things that are easily hidden from outsiders, external behaviour is influenced by many factors that lie well outside of MBTI type, it can be hard enough for someone to unravel their own external social conditioning/influences to figure what their "true" type is, let alone someone else trying to do it for you.

Right. The thing is, how can we know what "true" type is? Isn't it possible that it's just... confirmation bias that makes it seem like there's such a thing as "true" type? I mean, forgive me for saying it, but personal exploration and validation of self hardly seems like a systematic, objective, measurable process that can be considered truly valid in terms of categorizing people. You can't measure personality like you can measure skill/aptitude.

The most positive thing about the system itself, is that it gives people an opportunity to reincorporate/rediscover parts of themselves that their environment and upbringing might have repressed. Do you suppose... that's really all MBTI is supposed to be? It's not supposed to be an accurate or meaningful way of describing people's personalities (though that's what it purports to be on some level), but rather a starting point for personal development?

You're not too stupid, you're actually intelligent enough to realise your limitations and the limitations of the system.

Thanks. It's just hard not to feel stupid when so many other people seem to have it figured out.

 

[Sentura]

I don't see that at all. I don't see how it applies in application. It doesn't seem applicable at all. I actually see the theory as being consistent internally as a set of functions and perspectives, but the application as making no sense and being subjective.

How can I be missing the "point of it's potential" if my main problem is that I can't see how to use it? I see the potential, I just don't see how it can be used reasonably right now.

Sigh. I guess I just don't get it, and can't get it.

a) i wasn't referring to you. i was referring to people who go by it as the bible.
b) it was made as an application for businesses to use. it was build on a foundation of finance and not on research (even though it does contain research - you get the semantic)

 

[Jaguar]

It's for people who have no natural insight into other human beings.
It's also for people who don't know what to do with toilet paper.

 

[Quinlan]

Right. The thing is, how can we know what "true" type is?

Well I suppose we can assume that there is a state of being that is most comfortable/natural even if the preference is only slight. The question with mbti is not "what am I like?" but "how do I prefer to be?". I prefer to be ISFP, it is the closest description out of the 16 that matches my natural way of being but there are many many circumstances where I cannot act "ISFP" some external influences will pull you away from your type and you will resent that and some will pull you towards your type and that will be a relief.

Isn't it possible that it's just... confirmation bias that makes it seem like there's such a thing as "true" type? I mean, forgive me for saying it, but personal exploration and validation of self hardly seems like a systematic, objective, measurable process that can be considered truly valid in terms of categorizing people. You can't measure personality like you can measure skill/aptitude.

I don't think the system was ever intended to meet those standards.

The most positive thing about the system itself, is that it gives people an opportunity to reincorporate/rediscover parts of themselves that their environment and upbringing might have repressed. Do you suppose... that's really all MBTI is supposed to be? It's not supposed to be an accurate or meaningful way of describing people's personalities (though that's what it purports to be on some level), but rather a starting point for personal development?

Yes absolutely, though if someone else feels certain that they prefer to be a certain type, you can then you can make some assumptions about how they might best like to be treated/interacted with. I would say MBTI has very little to do with external behaviour, which is all what most of us have to go by when typing others.

Thanks. It's just hard not to feel stupid when so many other people seem to have it figured out.

I wouldn't be so sure that they have.

 

[Wade Wilson]

Uh... honestly to me it just seems like what you'd find in place of horoscopes in the American Journal of Psychology...

Fun concept and all (and may give me something to think about from time to time), but not something I live my life by.

 

[ladyinspring]

I typed something but then I eated it.

 

[garbage]

Everyone's beaten "MBTI is useless" to death. Let's try something different.

MBTI is more useful when you first get to understanding it.. you just don't think about it as much once you understand the fundamental concept: that people think about and perceive the world in different ways. That's the entire point of the system, and that's what's hammered home when MBTI exams are given around corporate offices.

To one who's first starting out with it, they may think about their interactions with others a bit differently..

"This person might appreciate more direct and impersonal communication than I'm used to giving. I'd better cut the crap and get to the point."
"This person may get offended if I'm late for an appointment with him. I'd better make a pointed effort to arrive on time."
"This person seems to be detail-oriented and analytical, so I should ensure that my presentation is well thought-out."
"This person doesn't mean to offend me.. he just perceives the world in a different way."

Soon, MBTI and a general understanding of the differences in other people gets so much rolled up into your subconscious that you don't even think about it anymore in your day-to-day interactions with people.

 

[Phantonym]

MBTI is more useful when you first get to understanding it.. you just don't think about it as much once you understand the fundamental concept: that people think about and perceive the world in different ways.

Soon, MBTI and a general understanding of the differences in other people gets so much rolled up into your subconscious that you don't even think about it anymore in your day-to-day interactions with people.

I was thinking like that even before I discovered MBTI. I guess I'm now doing it the other way round. MBTI gives an extra layer of understanding about people and why they do the things they do.

 

[nozflubber]

Right. The thing is, how can we know what "true" type is?

That's your problem right there imo - you think there's a way this is going to be verified, like...... physically? It seems like you've unified MBTI archtypes with Type Physicalism - Type physicalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is not what was intended. The types you've been introduced to are for your intuitve benefit, there's no real "links" in the world we can trace to determine one's "true type". MBTI is a pair of goggles you put over your eyes - a buildable set of Schemas for you to help digest the world. That's it, no truth, no grand revelations...... just another crazy human perception.

Asking what a persons "true type" is is like asking what "true Orange" looks like - its just a bad question that leads nowhere

 

[Athenian200]

That's your problem right there imo - you think there's a way this is going to be verified, like...... physically? It seems like you've unified MBTI archtypes with Type Physicalism - Type physicalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is not what was intended. The types you've been introduced to are for your intuitve benefit, there's no real "links" in the world we can trace to determine one's "true type". MBTI is a pair of goggles you put over your eyes - a buildable set of Schemas for you to help digest the world. That's it, no truth, no grand revelations...... just another crazy human perception.

Asking what a persons "true type" is is like asking what "true Orange" looks like - its just a bad question that leads nowhere

Actually, I didn't unify it with that. The other person I was talking to insisted that there was such a thing as "true" type, so I asked how you could know what that was. To me, it just seems like type is a set of perspectives that you can't really be certain of how much they relate to you.

 

[yenom]

MBTI help you discover your strengyths and aptitudes. Other than that I see no use.

 

[nozflubber]

To me, it just seems like type is a set of perspectives that you can't really be certain of how much they relate to you.

And that's on point. What's the problem?

 

[Athenian200]

And that's on point. What's the problem?

Well, someone told me I was making wrong assumptions about types, and I couldn't understand what the right assumptions were.

 

[Quinlan]

Just to clarify when I refer to "true type", I'm referring to how you would prefer to be when not being influenced by external factors, of course external factors probably always have some influence but we can usually get a good idea of how we might like to be if there were no such thing as societal pressure/expectations etc. It is an assumption that we have an innate preference, but that we do seems to make sense to me. In an ideal world, how would you act? What would you do? I know as a guy I act a heck of a lot more "T" in day to day interactions than I would if I was stuck on a deserted island.