Like anything I write, I always want to preface discourse: I want to make it clear that I am not even close to an expert, although I aspire to be, and these are merely considerations based on substantial observation.
There are a number of confounding variables that people (I had written 'often neglect' here, but that isn't accurate at all) never consider; at least, I almost never see anyone ever mention them. We ought to consider certain parenthetical characteristics of Personality: age, historical context, IQ, and degree of individuation. This is especially true when typing historical figures.
I want to get this out of the way, because it has been nagging me lately—perhaps hitting on some complex... I imagine it bothers me because I was contributing to this misinformation, in my earlier understanding of typology, when trying to explain in casual conversation the dynamics of MBTI. Please—for the love of Jung (hah!..)—stop trying to determine whether someone is more P or J –on an independent scale—when typing them. It is something that is implied once having sequenced their cognitive functions, but it does offer some more insight into the nuance of how that type is manifest in the person after type is established. P and J is more of an accessibility notation device. While for one it is used to signify rational and irrational functions (strong emphasis on the 'functions' part), it is easier for everyone—the whole collective of people using MBTI, from experts to your granny—to have a 4 letter type identifier rather than (Te)(Si)(Ne)(Fi) vs (Se)(Ti)(Fe)(Ni). Unfortunately, then, we trick ourselves into believing that an ESTJ and ESTP are somehow similar—I mean it has 3 of 4 of the same letters, right? Yet don't let me mislead you, one shouldn't try and type anyone based on any MBTI spectrum scoring, like F or T, but this is especially true of P and J.
We are so engrained by binaries and absolute dichotomies that we so easily forget the spectrum of possibilities in whatever it may be we are analyzing. We have to evaluate these characteristics on a spectrum because we all possess both ends, to begin with. Someone isn't E or I, one is more of one than the other, yet all the while some degree of both. The myriad means in which these dimensions can express themselves voids the possibility of speaking about them with any degree of precision. That is, while we are trying to type them. I am trying to emphasize the categorical and comparative errors people are making in neglecting this reality. It promotes conceptual ambiguity and conflation. I too often here, 'oh X can't be an introvert because they socialize so much...' It is important to note because that kind of error is invoked in the variable confounds I want to talk about.
While this is far too an extensive a subject to discuss here, individuation is what we are all motivated toward, which implies a compensatory balancing of personality characteristics. This is important to always be conscious of when trying to type people—I am thinking historical figures in particular—whose age and degree of individuation must be considered. I was recently reading people's argument as to whether Socrates was an INTP or ENTP; and let's ignore that most accounts that we have of Socrates are of Plato's fictionalizing. I would read assertions like: 'oh, he spent most of his time engaged in conversation in the marketplaces etc, therefore he must be an E.' Now, let me be clear, I am not trying to make an argument for otherwise, I am primarily trying to point out big flaws in those kinds of typological 'assertions'. You would hope for a person who seemed to possess as much wisdom as Socrates, being as old as he was in all our accounts of him, he probably would have come to a point of having a balanced E and I. Technically—and ideally, according to my perspective—we all ought to be slightly more extraverted in the later stages of our lives. If we are thoroughly individuated, then our manifest Self should be permanently engaged; we are fulfilled inwardly to the point of being able to fluidly move between the interior and exterior worlds; in a Buddhist sense, this is the point when we come to experience Oneness between our Self and the world. Now, I say slightly more extraverted because this balance allows for a degree of receptivity: we are able to engage with people readily with our 'complete' Self, so that openness is perceived (or manifested) as extraverted energy. I recommend everyone explore Jung's discourse on when the introvert becomes extraverted, and vice versa. That is, when one's orientation of attention and energy becomes inverted. I expect many people will be familiar with an introverted characteristic of prioritizing and only having real interest in 'meaningful' conversation—they only particularly enjoy conversation that pertains to their specific interests. Engagement in that interest via conversational interaction is a prime example of when the introvert becomes extraverted. You know that example of an introvert who is begrudgingly sitting at a party in the corner reading fantasy or fiction novels? Chances are if you go talk to them about Tolkien or Nietzsche, or whatever they may be reading, that they might become the most extraverted person in the room. Don't let your mind be blown too hard, but as I sit here home alone writing this all down I am in effect extraverting, as well. Similarly, a primarily extraverted athlete could be introverting while in 'the zone'. In either case, it is an interaction and synthesis of functions. Now, I wonder if Socrates—a man of wisdom and philosophic intrigue, in his late years of life, constantly engaged in conversation about his driving passion and interests—was either an E or an I? For the record, it should be clear that I am not suggesting that Socrates is an example of a thoroughly individuated being.
F or T? Wrong. It seems like this is the most contentious and difficult for many people to handle. For one, people make the same mistake of one or the other, which leaves them oblivious to how different a 55% T person is from a 90% T person. I imagine people will adopt more nuanced notation to better express the weight of dimensions and their priority. In example, I might say that Socrates was I/E-N-T/f-P/J. Again, this is a really poor means of approaching the problem, because it neglects all the more pertinent questions: what kind of thinking are they using; what combination of functions is synthesizing their functions; and, what sequencing order can that imply. Or, even—aghast—are they T at all?! Remember what P and J mean, actually? F and Ts are rational (judging) functions. Don't quote me on this, because this is my interpretation—without extensive research on what Jung meant, although I typically have a strong alignment of ideas with his. By all means, someone correct me if I am mistaken. S and N are irrational functions because they deal with how we process and prioritize information. Obviously, we need to process information before we can start to think about it rationally. Imagine you are in the kitchen and you've left the stove on but forgot, you happen to reach that direction and immediately pull your hand back because you think 'oh, that is hot, don't touch that.' Wrong. Evolutionarily developed neurons in your spinal chord processed the information of heat and made you recoil before it ever came close to your cognition. While this is an example of instinct, our actual cognitive functions operate analogously. While we can modify schema of how we process information in the future, we aren't consciously manipulating present information as it comes in; the information needs to be there (in the brain) for us to think about it consciously to begin with! We can, however, employ reason to analyze our thoughts and feelings, hence they are rational. Wait, feelings can be rational? Quick, whats the Vulcan word for blasphemy? Wait, do Vulcan's even have a concept of blasphemy?
I think delineation of conceptual misnomers ought to be step 1 in dealing with Typology. Just like how introvert doesn't mean shy and socially inept, feeling does not mean driven by emotion: it means more driven by values, compared to logic. Everyone is driven by some degree of values and logic: everyone is some degree of T and F. Just because someone is analytical doesn't mean they are in fact T. The irony is it seems like—or maybe just my observation—that it is T oriented people that make this mistake most often. If they were actually as analytical as they believe themselves to be, they ought to realize this mistake! I am probably touching a nerve, though, given we are on the internet—a concentration of would be psychologically underdeveloped fragile egos; I wonder how many obstinate self-proclaimed typologists are younger T oriented American males... Quick, I need a statistician! Give me 20CCs of hard data, and a harsh dose of reality! I jest only. Anyway, people also neglect the two worlds we all live in: the internal and external; and we can extravert in both directions. Let's look at Socrates, again. He will process information via Ne, and then reason with Ti, regardless if he is EN or INTP. Most of the time we only ever imply externally received information, but we all have a whole other architecture and landscape of an internal world—both in consciousness and unconsciousness. So the possibility of processing information for Socrates potentially looks like this: External world –information→ ~ Ti ~ â†information-- Internal world. Obviously, we are ignoring the other functions for simplicity's sake. Also, I don't mean to say everyone gathers information purely from their extraverted functions. Consider Dorothy from the Wizard of Oz; typical consensus says she is an ESFJ. Though, if we interpret the movie independently, we might say that her trip to Oz is actually just a journey in her imagination and dreams. The extraversion we perceive might just be a view of an introvert engaging with her own internal world and characters representative of her own psyche; she was E only within her I.
Ok. Moving along to the points. The other person I was reading discussion of type on recently was Jung himself. Can you see where I am going here? At one point in his life, Jung mentioned that he believed himself to be an ISTP or near. Much later on his life, in respect to what type he thought he was, he was quoted as saying:
"Well, you see, the type is nothing static, it changes with the course of life. But I most certainly was characterized by thinking, I always thought, from early childhood on, and I had a great deal of intuition, too. And, I had a definite difficulty with feeling. And my relationship to reality was not particularly brilliant. I was often at variance with the reality of things. Now that gives you all the necessary data for the diagnosis."
The level of analysis on this quote I saw in the discussion—save a few sound minds—was appalling. “It changes with the course of life.†While I won't refute that personality does change over the course of one's life, I believe it is more accurate to say that our perception and understanding of our personality increases throughout life. I can't find it exactly, perhaps someone else can offer as resource, a quote of Jung's (paraphrased): 'we never truly speak of the psyche, because we find that it is actually the psyche speaking about itself'. People fail to realize, when are taking a test and typing ourselves, we aren't testing our personality type as much as we are testing our perception of our personality type. This means, the more we absolve confounding variables and factors, the more we have greater perception of our 'actual' personality type. He always 'thought' or perceived himself to be “most certainly characterized by thinking.†At no point does that imply that he is T, it simply means that he perceived, or even highly valued his thinking characteristic. What was Jung's historical context: a male growing up at the turn of the 20th century in primarily scientific oriented field of study. Of course he is going to feel characterized by thinking—it was culturally held in high esteem, and, looking at 19th century psychiatry as a prime example, feeling was particularly devalued. He “had a definite difficulty with feeling.†This, again, does not imply that he is T and has trouble with F—that isn't what those mean! Nor is that how we can analyze that statement. I could say 'I have a definite difficulty with money.' That could mean: I don't have enough, I don't use it efficiently, or that I have so much that I then have to worry about the difficulty of managing it all. “I was often at variance with the reality of things.†I find this especially telling. I read this as both: who he was at the time was at variance with the rest of (his) world (science, male), and what he thought of himself at the time is at variance with what his now better defined actual personality. It is strongly—and I say strongly because it is that which is supported by legitimate thought and argument—believed that Jung was INFJ—(Ni)(Fe)(Ti)(Se). “My relationship to reality was not particularly brilliant.†I find this to be telling of underdeveloped extra/introverted functional balance. There is a reason the types are ordered the way they are, such as I, e, I, e functions: this ordering is needed for a healthy engagement with the world, otherwise one becomes too heavily I or E. Such is a phenomenon of Dominant-tertiary loops, which an unbelievable important phenomenon of typology to understand in correlation to mental health, but that's another discussion. This is what Jung was suggesting was the case for him: that his two dominant functions were Ni-Ti, because of unhealthy underdeveloped Fe. There is an interesting correlative to dominant-tertiary loops: one's type shares a strong similarity to the type with all opposite dimensions save the first. An INFJ (Ni)(Fe)(Ti)(Se) with too heavily dominating introverted functions will look a lot like (Ti)(Se)(Ni)(Fe)—an ISTP—with the same problem. Aha! Honestly, I suspect this was part of the cause of his neuroses and depression after his separation with Freud. Speaking of Freud... it occurs to me that Jung's Fe may have been traumatized, for one by culture, but also having been bullied when he was younger. Perhaps, these factors were hard to reconcile for himself.
The last confound I wanted to talk about is IQ. Many people already fail to recognize the nuances within the spectrum of personality dimensions, so they are likely to especially overlook how each type can manifest so differently between people who share the same type. I think Jung is a prime example of someone who exhibited extraordinary intelligence, as is manifest in his collective works and thought, and of how that can create so much potential for every different type. This is extremely important to consider when trying to type someone. It also better informs us for the previously established typing. Einstein was a genius, and quite clearly and INTP, but I will just about guarantee you that his level of intelligence and his Ne is what kept him up all night. While that is not any surprising information, these subtle details help create the bigger picture of someone's personality.
Part of the purpose of typology, I believe, was to create an even playing field by establishing an understanding of differentiation. Despite that Western society, and to be frank male culture (no that doesn't imply all males), value (ironically) T (and specifically Te) more, doesn't mean those characteristics are inherently 'better'. Typology isn't about creating a hierarchy of types, nor is it a means of prejudice. If you are using it this way consciously or not, you probably are as smart as you think you are. People tend to think that N is highly correlative to intelligence, while so conveniently dismissing and overlooking various possible forms of intelligence; this is placing a higher value on intellectualization. I would love for someone to argue away the kind of 'physical' intelligence (or whatever you want to call it) of an ESTP martial arts master with lightning fast reflexes, movement and precision. I, for one, will be happy to admit that this person possesses a capacity and potential for that kind of intelligence to a degree far greater than mine. Yet I also know that I have my own strengths given my own type. I question how well we can actually balance N and S; we can't exactly change how we process information. We can train it, and focus it, but changing the type seems more problematic. I think that current testing doesn't measure the different forms of N and S particularly well, or at all, so hopefully that changes in the future...
Typology is primarily for self-awareness, so that we may all become individuated according to our own potential paths. The most important beginning to learning typology is better understanding your own. Better reflect on yourself, to get out of your own ego, before you try to start typing the rest of the world with any degree of accuracy. Rest assured, this is advice I am telling myself, as well. By all means, I am not suggesting to not contemplate people's types, but simply remind yourself: you aren't an expert, and don't pretend otherwise.
Put your hand up if you knew I would ask this at the end! What type am I? I believe there is enough information in there to type me. (despite what I just said
)
There are a number of confounding variables that people (I had written 'often neglect' here, but that isn't accurate at all) never consider; at least, I almost never see anyone ever mention them. We ought to consider certain parenthetical characteristics of Personality: age, historical context, IQ, and degree of individuation. This is especially true when typing historical figures.
I want to get this out of the way, because it has been nagging me lately—perhaps hitting on some complex... I imagine it bothers me because I was contributing to this misinformation, in my earlier understanding of typology, when trying to explain in casual conversation the dynamics of MBTI. Please—for the love of Jung (hah!..)—stop trying to determine whether someone is more P or J –on an independent scale—when typing them. It is something that is implied once having sequenced their cognitive functions, but it does offer some more insight into the nuance of how that type is manifest in the person after type is established. P and J is more of an accessibility notation device. While for one it is used to signify rational and irrational functions (strong emphasis on the 'functions' part), it is easier for everyone—the whole collective of people using MBTI, from experts to your granny—to have a 4 letter type identifier rather than (Te)(Si)(Ne)(Fi) vs (Se)(Ti)(Fe)(Ni). Unfortunately, then, we trick ourselves into believing that an ESTJ and ESTP are somehow similar—I mean it has 3 of 4 of the same letters, right? Yet don't let me mislead you, one shouldn't try and type anyone based on any MBTI spectrum scoring, like F or T, but this is especially true of P and J.
We are so engrained by binaries and absolute dichotomies that we so easily forget the spectrum of possibilities in whatever it may be we are analyzing. We have to evaluate these characteristics on a spectrum because we all possess both ends, to begin with. Someone isn't E or I, one is more of one than the other, yet all the while some degree of both. The myriad means in which these dimensions can express themselves voids the possibility of speaking about them with any degree of precision. That is, while we are trying to type them. I am trying to emphasize the categorical and comparative errors people are making in neglecting this reality. It promotes conceptual ambiguity and conflation. I too often here, 'oh X can't be an introvert because they socialize so much...' It is important to note because that kind of error is invoked in the variable confounds I want to talk about.
While this is far too an extensive a subject to discuss here, individuation is what we are all motivated toward, which implies a compensatory balancing of personality characteristics. This is important to always be conscious of when trying to type people—I am thinking historical figures in particular—whose age and degree of individuation must be considered. I was recently reading people's argument as to whether Socrates was an INTP or ENTP; and let's ignore that most accounts that we have of Socrates are of Plato's fictionalizing. I would read assertions like: 'oh, he spent most of his time engaged in conversation in the marketplaces etc, therefore he must be an E.' Now, let me be clear, I am not trying to make an argument for otherwise, I am primarily trying to point out big flaws in those kinds of typological 'assertions'. You would hope for a person who seemed to possess as much wisdom as Socrates, being as old as he was in all our accounts of him, he probably would have come to a point of having a balanced E and I. Technically—and ideally, according to my perspective—we all ought to be slightly more extraverted in the later stages of our lives. If we are thoroughly individuated, then our manifest Self should be permanently engaged; we are fulfilled inwardly to the point of being able to fluidly move between the interior and exterior worlds; in a Buddhist sense, this is the point when we come to experience Oneness between our Self and the world. Now, I say slightly more extraverted because this balance allows for a degree of receptivity: we are able to engage with people readily with our 'complete' Self, so that openness is perceived (or manifested) as extraverted energy. I recommend everyone explore Jung's discourse on when the introvert becomes extraverted, and vice versa. That is, when one's orientation of attention and energy becomes inverted. I expect many people will be familiar with an introverted characteristic of prioritizing and only having real interest in 'meaningful' conversation—they only particularly enjoy conversation that pertains to their specific interests. Engagement in that interest via conversational interaction is a prime example of when the introvert becomes extraverted. You know that example of an introvert who is begrudgingly sitting at a party in the corner reading fantasy or fiction novels? Chances are if you go talk to them about Tolkien or Nietzsche, or whatever they may be reading, that they might become the most extraverted person in the room. Don't let your mind be blown too hard, but as I sit here home alone writing this all down I am in effect extraverting, as well. Similarly, a primarily extraverted athlete could be introverting while in 'the zone'. In either case, it is an interaction and synthesis of functions. Now, I wonder if Socrates—a man of wisdom and philosophic intrigue, in his late years of life, constantly engaged in conversation about his driving passion and interests—was either an E or an I? For the record, it should be clear that I am not suggesting that Socrates is an example of a thoroughly individuated being.
F or T? Wrong. It seems like this is the most contentious and difficult for many people to handle. For one, people make the same mistake of one or the other, which leaves them oblivious to how different a 55% T person is from a 90% T person. I imagine people will adopt more nuanced notation to better express the weight of dimensions and their priority. In example, I might say that Socrates was I/E-N-T/f-P/J. Again, this is a really poor means of approaching the problem, because it neglects all the more pertinent questions: what kind of thinking are they using; what combination of functions is synthesizing their functions; and, what sequencing order can that imply. Or, even—aghast—are they T at all?! Remember what P and J mean, actually? F and Ts are rational (judging) functions. Don't quote me on this, because this is my interpretation—without extensive research on what Jung meant, although I typically have a strong alignment of ideas with his. By all means, someone correct me if I am mistaken. S and N are irrational functions because they deal with how we process and prioritize information. Obviously, we need to process information before we can start to think about it rationally. Imagine you are in the kitchen and you've left the stove on but forgot, you happen to reach that direction and immediately pull your hand back because you think 'oh, that is hot, don't touch that.' Wrong. Evolutionarily developed neurons in your spinal chord processed the information of heat and made you recoil before it ever came close to your cognition. While this is an example of instinct, our actual cognitive functions operate analogously. While we can modify schema of how we process information in the future, we aren't consciously manipulating present information as it comes in; the information needs to be there (in the brain) for us to think about it consciously to begin with! We can, however, employ reason to analyze our thoughts and feelings, hence they are rational. Wait, feelings can be rational? Quick, whats the Vulcan word for blasphemy? Wait, do Vulcan's even have a concept of blasphemy?
I think delineation of conceptual misnomers ought to be step 1 in dealing with Typology. Just like how introvert doesn't mean shy and socially inept, feeling does not mean driven by emotion: it means more driven by values, compared to logic. Everyone is driven by some degree of values and logic: everyone is some degree of T and F. Just because someone is analytical doesn't mean they are in fact T. The irony is it seems like—or maybe just my observation—that it is T oriented people that make this mistake most often. If they were actually as analytical as they believe themselves to be, they ought to realize this mistake! I am probably touching a nerve, though, given we are on the internet—a concentration of would be psychologically underdeveloped fragile egos; I wonder how many obstinate self-proclaimed typologists are younger T oriented American males... Quick, I need a statistician! Give me 20CCs of hard data, and a harsh dose of reality! I jest only. Anyway, people also neglect the two worlds we all live in: the internal and external; and we can extravert in both directions. Let's look at Socrates, again. He will process information via Ne, and then reason with Ti, regardless if he is EN or INTP. Most of the time we only ever imply externally received information, but we all have a whole other architecture and landscape of an internal world—both in consciousness and unconsciousness. So the possibility of processing information for Socrates potentially looks like this: External world –information→ ~ Ti ~ â†information-- Internal world. Obviously, we are ignoring the other functions for simplicity's sake. Also, I don't mean to say everyone gathers information purely from their extraverted functions. Consider Dorothy from the Wizard of Oz; typical consensus says she is an ESFJ. Though, if we interpret the movie independently, we might say that her trip to Oz is actually just a journey in her imagination and dreams. The extraversion we perceive might just be a view of an introvert engaging with her own internal world and characters representative of her own psyche; she was E only within her I.
Ok. Moving along to the points. The other person I was reading discussion of type on recently was Jung himself. Can you see where I am going here? At one point in his life, Jung mentioned that he believed himself to be an ISTP or near. Much later on his life, in respect to what type he thought he was, he was quoted as saying:
"Well, you see, the type is nothing static, it changes with the course of life. But I most certainly was characterized by thinking, I always thought, from early childhood on, and I had a great deal of intuition, too. And, I had a definite difficulty with feeling. And my relationship to reality was not particularly brilliant. I was often at variance with the reality of things. Now that gives you all the necessary data for the diagnosis."
The level of analysis on this quote I saw in the discussion—save a few sound minds—was appalling. “It changes with the course of life.†While I won't refute that personality does change over the course of one's life, I believe it is more accurate to say that our perception and understanding of our personality increases throughout life. I can't find it exactly, perhaps someone else can offer as resource, a quote of Jung's (paraphrased): 'we never truly speak of the psyche, because we find that it is actually the psyche speaking about itself'. People fail to realize, when are taking a test and typing ourselves, we aren't testing our personality type as much as we are testing our perception of our personality type. This means, the more we absolve confounding variables and factors, the more we have greater perception of our 'actual' personality type. He always 'thought' or perceived himself to be “most certainly characterized by thinking.†At no point does that imply that he is T, it simply means that he perceived, or even highly valued his thinking characteristic. What was Jung's historical context: a male growing up at the turn of the 20th century in primarily scientific oriented field of study. Of course he is going to feel characterized by thinking—it was culturally held in high esteem, and, looking at 19th century psychiatry as a prime example, feeling was particularly devalued. He “had a definite difficulty with feeling.†This, again, does not imply that he is T and has trouble with F—that isn't what those mean! Nor is that how we can analyze that statement. I could say 'I have a definite difficulty with money.' That could mean: I don't have enough, I don't use it efficiently, or that I have so much that I then have to worry about the difficulty of managing it all. “I was often at variance with the reality of things.†I find this especially telling. I read this as both: who he was at the time was at variance with the rest of (his) world (science, male), and what he thought of himself at the time is at variance with what his now better defined actual personality. It is strongly—and I say strongly because it is that which is supported by legitimate thought and argument—believed that Jung was INFJ—(Ni)(Fe)(Ti)(Se). “My relationship to reality was not particularly brilliant.†I find this to be telling of underdeveloped extra/introverted functional balance. There is a reason the types are ordered the way they are, such as I, e, I, e functions: this ordering is needed for a healthy engagement with the world, otherwise one becomes too heavily I or E. Such is a phenomenon of Dominant-tertiary loops, which an unbelievable important phenomenon of typology to understand in correlation to mental health, but that's another discussion. This is what Jung was suggesting was the case for him: that his two dominant functions were Ni-Ti, because of unhealthy underdeveloped Fe. There is an interesting correlative to dominant-tertiary loops: one's type shares a strong similarity to the type with all opposite dimensions save the first. An INFJ (Ni)(Fe)(Ti)(Se) with too heavily dominating introverted functions will look a lot like (Ti)(Se)(Ni)(Fe)—an ISTP—with the same problem. Aha! Honestly, I suspect this was part of the cause of his neuroses and depression after his separation with Freud. Speaking of Freud... it occurs to me that Jung's Fe may have been traumatized, for one by culture, but also having been bullied when he was younger. Perhaps, these factors were hard to reconcile for himself.
The last confound I wanted to talk about is IQ. Many people already fail to recognize the nuances within the spectrum of personality dimensions, so they are likely to especially overlook how each type can manifest so differently between people who share the same type. I think Jung is a prime example of someone who exhibited extraordinary intelligence, as is manifest in his collective works and thought, and of how that can create so much potential for every different type. This is extremely important to consider when trying to type someone. It also better informs us for the previously established typing. Einstein was a genius, and quite clearly and INTP, but I will just about guarantee you that his level of intelligence and his Ne is what kept him up all night. While that is not any surprising information, these subtle details help create the bigger picture of someone's personality.
Part of the purpose of typology, I believe, was to create an even playing field by establishing an understanding of differentiation. Despite that Western society, and to be frank male culture (no that doesn't imply all males), value (ironically) T (and specifically Te) more, doesn't mean those characteristics are inherently 'better'. Typology isn't about creating a hierarchy of types, nor is it a means of prejudice. If you are using it this way consciously or not, you probably are as smart as you think you are. People tend to think that N is highly correlative to intelligence, while so conveniently dismissing and overlooking various possible forms of intelligence; this is placing a higher value on intellectualization. I would love for someone to argue away the kind of 'physical' intelligence (or whatever you want to call it) of an ESTP martial arts master with lightning fast reflexes, movement and precision. I, for one, will be happy to admit that this person possesses a capacity and potential for that kind of intelligence to a degree far greater than mine. Yet I also know that I have my own strengths given my own type. I question how well we can actually balance N and S; we can't exactly change how we process information. We can train it, and focus it, but changing the type seems more problematic. I think that current testing doesn't measure the different forms of N and S particularly well, or at all, so hopefully that changes in the future...
Typology is primarily for self-awareness, so that we may all become individuated according to our own potential paths. The most important beginning to learning typology is better understanding your own. Better reflect on yourself, to get out of your own ego, before you try to start typing the rest of the world with any degree of accuracy. Rest assured, this is advice I am telling myself, as well. By all means, I am not suggesting to not contemplate people's types, but simply remind yourself: you aren't an expert, and don't pretend otherwise.
Put your hand up if you knew I would ask this at the end! What type am I? I believe there is enough information in there to type me. (despite what I just said
)
