An intp with heart and vice versa would most probably never type or be typed an intp or infp cause he doesnt fit the square
I wonder why people are so anxious to fit into someone else's box?/no innuendo plz
It's the thing I find most trying about these theories. Why do people think there's something wrong / abnormal
with them /their understanding, instead of something wrong with a general theory of type that fails to accommodate their idiosyncrasies? It must be, at best incomplete, at worst, utter nonsense. Why isn't this much obvious?
Actually, I don't have to ask why. I know why.
It's because within the typology community, ambiguities are considered unsatisfactory or inferior in some way. A type with an X somewhere in their 4-letter code is considered incomplete - an indication that the person doesn't know themselves well enough or isn't "differentiated" enough. Maybe they are going through some kind of life-stage crisis?
This is a gross disservice to the process of self-discovery. Yet this explanation is rife in the literature.
For example, this is Lenore Thompson:
Personality type: an owner's manual said:
Types whose E/I and P/J scores are both very close may be
-feeling pressure to conform to someone else's image of them
-in a new job/school/marriage
-recently retired or divorced, or attempting to redefine an accustomed identity;
So....pretty much anyone then?
Myers says:
Gifts Differing said:
...in the least developed adults, the processes remain childish, so that nothing can be maturely perceived or maturely judged.
While this is probably true, it's actually an argument against her typology. She seems to be contradicting her own treatise that every individual has "gifts" and that every individual can consequently be assigned a type.
So, X can mean you're good at too many things or good at nothing at all. So far, so helpful ...
You have to ask yourself why typologists make their test/theory failure
your fault. Why they try to undermine you by implying you're just immature, confused or too easily influenced. (When in fact, it is the most immature, one-dimensional, easily-led people who are the easiest to "type".)
They have to, because otherwise the house of cards falls apart. If most people are not in fact, clearly and consistently defined "types", then maybe typology is bullshit on a par with astrology? And that's not going to sell books to insecure self-helpers.
What I would say to you is stop sweating whether you're an "INTP with heart" or an "INFP with head". Neither of those categories are comprehensive enough to encompass the complexity that is you.
Embrace your X, and be done with it.
Another way of looking at it, if you endorse the mapping to the "Agreeableness" dimension provided by FFM, is that you fall somewhere in the middle: i.e. you are neither a doormat nor a complete prick. That's a pretty healthy place to be.
zelo1954 said:
I am, after all, the same person, no matter what label I place upon myself.
Precisely.