Best Book On Typology

[21%]

I didn't vote because I've only read Gifts Differing. It's a nice, simple little book that exudes care, for some reason. I just felt like it was written with a lot of love

 

[dimane]

The stufff in darios new book actually supports lenore thomsons book for the most part
And it does seem like Ti and Se are the same function

 

[Esoteric Wench]

Thanks for posting this thread, [MENTION=8936]highlander[/MENTION]!

I voted for Jung. But I must admit his book is very dense and at times hard to follow. (At least for me it was.) However, I've never read the Lenore Thompson book and this thread has spurred me on to actually ordering it.

I think the low-level of response is due to the fact that most of the people on this forum haven't read any of these books. Nonetheless, for the ones who have, they'll find this very interesting.

 

[Esoteric Wench]

Here's a question?

What's your least favorite of the above typology books, and why?

Keirsey bugs the crap out of me. And, his conclusions on type compatibility (e.g., that the ideal match for an ENFP is an ISTJ) are laughable to me.

 

[highlander]

My current top 6 are probably:

Gifts Differing - Briggs Meyers
Personality Type - An Owners Manual - Thompson
Building Blocks of Personality Type - Haas and Hunziker
Functions of Type - Hartzler
Beside Ourselves - Quenk
Principles of Typology - Solitary Walker

I'm not sure what my list would be now but I'd have to knock Solitary Walker's book off. Certainly there are some good ones on Enneagram. I'll start another thread on that.

 

[highlander]

Here's a question?

What's your least favorite of the above typology books, and why?

Keirsey bugs the crap out of me. And, his conclusions on type compatibility (e.g., that the ideal match for an ENFP is an ISTJ) are laughable to me.

My least favorite is Jung. Way too much meandering verbosity. Also Type and Time Management just didn't seem very accurate to me.

Some gems I would add to a the MBTI list that are very good.
- Lectures on Jung's Typology (very good info on the Feeling functions)
- Intimacy and Type - Jones and Sherman
- Functions of Type - Hartzler (excellent and concise book about the functions)

 

[Mia.]

I voted "other"

I really liked Survival Games Personalities Play.

It's full of an assortment of statistics and case studies from actual MBTI practitioners.

This book is about the dark side of personality temperament and the games the types will play when under emotional and mental stress.
There are no fluffy bunny INFPs , care giving ESFJs Or logical ISTP/INTPs in this book.. No Sir.

This book has taught me more about MBTI types than all other resources combined.

This was a phenomenal book. Definitely breaks the type book mold and full of information not covered by other books. Completely worth a read.

Another under-rated book worthy of a dust off is Dichotomies of the Mind by Lowen. Not everything in it is accurate, but there are some gems to be mined, and the model is elegant.

 

[miss fortune]

life itself and all of the people that exist in it? why read lots and lots of literature on the fact when you can grasp the outline and flesh it out with theories derived from meeting and observing plenty of real people, as opposed to theoretical people?

isn't a theory stronger when it's a working and living thing instead of something cold and dead on the page?

 

[garbage]

life itself and all of the people that exist in it? why read lots and lots of literature on the fact when you can grasp the outline and flesh it out with theories derived from meeting and observing plenty of real people, as opposed to theoretical people?

isn't a theory stronger when it's a working and living thing instead of something cold and dead on the page?

Yup. My approach has been to use the bones of theory fleshed out by real life. Kick back with a book or two, then go out and 'play' with other people to further develop my mental models of them. And so on. (I make it seem 'drier' than it actually plays out.)

Then again, my Ne strives for a holistic approach from a variety of sources. Because theory explains everything.

Regarding books, I think Lenore muddies the waters but has bits and pieces worth considering. Long and short, give me the ones that focus on personal development, such as 8 Keys to Self Leadership. Then again, I'm also a fan of the book that 'started it all'--Psychological Types.

The beginning chapters of Character and Neurosis are among the absolute best when it comes to what typology should be looking at and what it is all about.

 

[miss fortune]

real life observations and interactions mean so much more than written words on a page as far as learning and creation of things go! seeing how people think and cope in real life situations shows exactly how ambiguous things are as opposed to being clean cut like in books and makes you have to think and observe harder in order to figure things out... while books might make things simpler in a black and white manner, the sheer variety of people and experiences that you can study in real life make things significantly more applicable...

understand the basics and then use your brain... reading books to understand things clearly will just lead you down the rabbit hole of literature and still will not clarify things

 

[garbage]

understand the basics and then use your brain... reading books to understand things clearly will just lead you down the rabbit hole of literature and still will not clarify things

I mean, otherwise, it's

Theoretically, things should be like _____. Therefore, things are like ____.​

Books, logic, framing our knowledge, and passing it on is really useful.. but we can't pass all of it on. Sometimes, we can only use our knowledge to guide other people to discover for themselves.

 

[miss fortune]

I mean, otherwise, it's

Theoretically, things should be like _____. Therefore, things are like ____.​

meaning that it's completely non-applicable, and therefore moot?

 

[Ginkgo]

I wonder if SolitaryWalker voted for his own book.

 

[dimane]

Here's a question?

What's your least favorite of the above typology books, and why?

Keirsey bugs the crap out of me. And, his conclusions on type compatibility (e.g., that the ideal match for an ENFP is an ISTJ) are laughable to me.

INTJ and ENFP not ISTJ

 

[Such Irony]

I don't really have one favorite typology book. I suppose it would be Lenore Thomson's book. I really liked her explanations for the different cognitive functions. Jung's Psychological Types is good too but the writing can be too academic and dry and further removed from reality. I have mixed feelings about Kiersey. His was the first book I've read. I find his temperament stuff interesting but some of his type descriptions come across as chariactures (sp?) more than a description of an actual person. The SP descriptions seem the worst in that regard. For example, do all ISTPs look and act like bad ass motorcycle-riding rebels mechanics? Type Talk seems overly simplistic and I don't think it talks about functions but there's alot of humor and anedotes in there and it is an entertaining read. It's a good book for someone who needs to learn about type but doesn't want to spend much time doing so.

I haven't read the others yet. Are there some other good typology books that I've overlooked?

 

[INTP]

Psychological types is something that everyone should read if they are seriously interested on typology. It can be tought read, but thats just because it grasps the complexity of typology better than other books. I got the lenores book, but found it too simplistic and it had some pretty stupid false things in it also(but those were mainly some small nuances, which however can lead to big misunderstandings), it had some good stuff too, but didnt really offer much for me since i had read jungs book and stuff from the internets before it. Actually i read like 2/3 of the book and skimmed the rest, i rather spend my time reading something else.

 

[highlander]

life itself and all of the people that exist in it? why read lots and lots of literature on the fact when you can grasp the outline and flesh it out with theories derived from meeting and observing plenty of real people, as opposed to theoretical people?

isn't a theory stronger when it's a working and living thing instead of something cold and dead on the page?

real life observations and interactions mean so much more than written words on a page as far as learning and creation of things go! seeing how people think and cope in real life situations shows exactly how ambiguous things are as opposed to being clean cut like in books and makes you have to think and observe harder in order to figure things out... while books might make things simpler in a black and white manner, the sheer variety of people and experiences that you can study in real life make things significantly more applicable...

understand the basics and then use your brain... reading books to understand things clearly will just lead you down the rabbit hole of literature and still will not clarify things

Well, with respect to the basics - think about it. As an Se dom, your response is not altogether surprising. People are different and learn in different ways. People are also interested in different things and that's fine.

I have read a ton of books on this stuff over the years. I can assure you I'm not hold up in my basement theorizing about it but it is an interesting hobby with practical application. We all have different ways of approaching the world. If I want to learn about something - how to do it - I generally read about it online and then when I want to get a more in-depth understanding, I often reach for a book. I have always done this sort of thing. It doesn't make it black and white. I like to understand things in depth and some of that comes from foundational learning which includes reading. Insight comes from depth and breadth of understanding. I guess I could learn completely through trial and error but that seems a bit inefficient.

The important thing to realize is that neither approach is wrong.

 

[KDude]

I think I've read most of these, except Nardi's book. I'd recommend Thomson's the most. It's not only informative, but I think she takes the most accessible approach. It's kind of entertaining. Some people have made her out to be overly-mystical or something, but I see little of that (in the book at least). For an INJ, she's pretty tame.

 

[dimane]

I agree lenores take on type is the best
Can't see why some people dislike her

 

[TenebrousReflection]

It is hard for me to choose just one favorite...

Personality Type: An Owners Manual
As a comprehensive overview, I think this would be my preference.

Was that really me? (the revised version of Beside Ourselves)
I often feel under stress and "not myself" so I related to a lot of the descriptions of types under stress.

Building Blocks of Personality
I liked the focus on cognative functions and the section on communication between different types

I just got the new Nardi book and Gifts DIffering (I never read it before, but I'm looking for a good intro book to give to others, so I want to see if it fits that role), but have not read either of them yet.