How Mistypes Have Warped The Descriptions Of Each iNtuitive MBTI Type

[BlueScreen]

IME it has to fit significantly better than all the other possibilities. I found that, for me, the best match stood out like the proverbial sore thumb.

I fit very well with ENFP, but there will be many people who will not fit well in the MBTI system. MBTI is essentially dividing the human race arbitrarily into 16 categories by asking them questions about themselves and grouping those with similar answers. 16 is a high enough number that there is a reasonable amount of similarity between those in the same category. However, you cannot expect a person in any category to have to have any particular trait. They just have to have more traits that fit with that category than any other.

So on the original post, are people actually mistyped in the sense that they don't have more traits that fit with their chosen category than any other? Or are they perceived to be mistyped because they have different traits in that category than other people who you think are in that category?

(P.S. I know this is a typology website, but I think people read too much into MBTI, cognitive functions, etc. It can be fun, but it's good to remember that in terms of treating it as a science, you may as well study astrology. I actually think astrology has more merit because at least it encourages people to learn about the stars.)

 

[Lord Lavender]

Apart from MBTI there is also enneagram type, big five, sonconics, 4 temperaments e.t.c along with personal and cultural experiences meaning that two people will in probability never have the same exact type. A ISTJ 1w9 phlegmatic for instance will look different from a ISTJ 5w6 melancholic for instance event though using just MBTI they are the same exact type and person. Overall MBTI is a useful tool to categorize people but it should never be used as a standalone tool as someone who sees only 16 diffrent types of people is a very narrowminded person who will fall into many pitfalls treating people as such.

 

[Smilephantomhive]

I think IXTP descriptions overemphasize Pe, so that can lead to ENTP thinking they are INTP. Just an observation I've made.

 

[Psyclepath]

A lot of Fe dom/aux also misidentify as ExFP, because Fe descriptions are so dreadful at actually explaining anything. Hell, even the ESFP description in that article sounds like it's describing an Fe-user of some kind. An ESFP would not seek the direction of others with regards to Feeling information; they would keep it quite closed and express it through Te instead.

Also, ESTPs are much more likely to mistype as ENTJs than ENTPs are, at least provided they typed via descriptions and not a test. The ENTJ stereotype is more Se than anything else.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Also, ESTPs are much more likely to mistype as ENTJs than ENTPs are, at least provided they typed via descriptions and not a test. The ENTJ stereotype is more Se than anything else.

Somewhat true, but ExTPs have exactly the same Ti/Fe dynamic in them and often they are e7.


In my opinion ENTJ profiles often match ESTPs or ESTJs much better, in typical ENTJ profiles there is almost no aux Ni and all the stuff that links them to the other NTs.
Also some of the profiles may actually fit very ambitious Fe doms more than a thinking dominant person. (money, image etc.)

 

[Psyclepath]

Somewhat true, but ExTPs have exactly the same Ti/Fe dynamic in them and often they are e7.


In my opinion ENTJ profiles often match ESTPs or ESTJs much better, in typical ENTJ profiles there is almost no aux Ni and all the stuff that links them to the other NTs.
Also some of the profiles may actually fit very ambitious Fe doms more than a thinking dominant person. (money, image etc.)

Ambition isn't linked to MBTI or Jung in any way. It's a problem you're right to bring up.

 

[highlander]

How Mistypes Have Warped The Descriptions Of Each iNtuitive MBTI Type

Pretty good insights on how descriptions get botched and confused because types get botched and confused. (I'm sure the problem's cyclical.) And it's not all "Lots of S's are mistyped as N's; they fuck up our descriptions just as S's are prone to fuck up everything" either, which is refreshing.

My biggest takeaway was that say, an ENxP may mistype as an INxP if they're not typically extroverted because of the influence of ES descriptions.

Thoughts? Is it bullshit or spot-on? Have you ever mistyped yourself as per these lists and for the reasons given?

I have no respect for anything written by Heidi Priebe since I contacted her to promote this and then she published this without even referencing what I sent her.

As to her article, I can point to a false statement in her first sentence, "The MBTI is an incredibly unreliable assessment tool. As far as Jungian personality types go, it’s much safer to determine one’s type using cognitive functions."

The official MBTI instrument is the most accurate instrument I know of - and I say that having spent some fair amount of time evaluating existing tests that evaluate type based on cognitive function and creating the test on the site here.

Anyway, I wonder where she copied the content from in her article. I doubt she came up with any of that herself.

 

[Coriolis]

I fit very well with ENFP, but there will be many people who will not fit well in the MBTI system. MBTI is essentially dividing the human race arbitrarily into 16 categories by asking them questions about themselves and grouping those with similar answers. 16 is a high enough number that there is a reasonable amount of similarity between those in the same category. However, you cannot expect a person in any category to have to have any particular trait. They just have to have more traits that fit with that category than any other.

So on the original post, are people actually mistyped in the sense that they don't have more traits that fit with their chosen category than any other? Or are they perceived to be mistyped because they have different traits in that category than other people who you think are in that category?

(P.S. I know this is a typology website, but I think people read too much into MBTI, cognitive functions, etc. It can be fun, but it's good to remember that in terms of treating it as a science, you may as well study astrology. I actually think astrology has more merit because at least it encourages people to learn about the stars.)

While it is certainly true that some people read too much into typology systems, type divisions are far from arbitrary. Moreover, the system does not so much identify traits as ways of handling information and making decisions. All of this is internal, of course, which means we cannot measure it directly. Those questions on the type tests often ask about behaviors and traits because those are much easier to see. The links between the two are far from perfect, though, which leads to much of the imprecision in typing.

As for your question, there are many reasons for mistyping. Two that are quite common are: (1) answering the questions according to a specific "persona" one adopts for utility, say how one behaves at work, or in a family of dissimilar people who expect you to act like them; and (2) answering the way you wish you were, rather than how you actually are. Yes, there will be a great deal of variation among people who share a given type. This will be most evident in their observable (external) behavior. Any type can behave in any way. It is in why and how they do things that their type becomes more evident. People also have the ability to override their innate preferences, say to do well in a job. If we encounter them in that context, we may very well mistype them. Despite the variations, though, there is enough commonality to discern distinct types, especially when we can witness someone acting on their real preferences.

 

[erg]

MBTI asseses how a person "appears" based on their behavior, and boxes people in 16 categories. It attempts to provide some explanation for why this is in the form of "cognitive functions", but ultimately fails. In MBTI, there is no correlation between descriptions, supposed functional preferences, and test results, and people attempting to find it will just be running in circles. Everything is botched up. This is why everyone should get into socionics and abandon MBTI. At least this is the conclusion I arrived after looking at MBTI in depth years ago.

 

[527468]

MBTI asseses how a person "appears" based on their behavior, and boxes people in 16 categories. It attempts to provide some explanation for why this is in the form of "cognitive functions", but ultimately fails. In MBTI, there is no correlation between descriptions, supposed functional preferences, and test results, and people attempting to find it will just be running in circles. Everything is botched up. This is why everyone should get into socionics and abandon MBTI. At least this is the conclusion I arrived after looking at MBTI in depth years ago.

(When I read this I immediately thought, is this a NiTe/TeNi? Something about your communication style, perhaps that sense of overall summation of the issue (Ni) via iconoclastic criticism of the norm, and straightforward explanation of the logic, smoothly implementing it into given scenario (Te). I know that doesn't make sense based on one sentence.)

Although I think ultimately, with making commended use of cognitive functions, one shouldn't get wrapped too much into the details of what they specifically do, but understand their fundamental purpose or program. They're each very wide and inclusive spheres of thought, as there are only 8. That's what I mean by approaching function theory in general: to be attuned to your deepest nature and what JCF you really are, instead of attempting to fit pegs of already predetermined descriptions into who you are. It's kind of in this explanation.

 

[erg]

(When I read this I immediately thought, is this a NiTe/TeNi? Something about your communication style, perhaps a sense of discernment via iconoclastic criticism of the norm (Ni) and straightforward explanation of the logic, smoothly implementing it into given scenario (Te). I know that doesn't make sense based on one sentence.)

Although I think ultimately, with utilizing cognitive functions, one shouldn't get wrapped too much into the details of what they specifically do, but understand their fundamental purpose or program. They're each very wide and inclusive spheres of thought, as there are only 8. That's what I mean by approaching function theory in general: to be attuned to your deepest nature and what JCF you really are, instead of attempting to fit pegs of already predetermined descriptions into who you are. It's kind of in this explanation.

I've seen you at the16types. Why did you go back to MBTI?

 

[FemMecha]

How Mistypes Have Warped The Descriptions Of Each iNtuitive MBTI Type

Pretty good insights on how descriptions get botched and confused because types get botched and confused. (I'm sure the problem's cyclical.) And it's not all "Lots of S's are mistyped as N's; they fuck up our descriptions just as S's are prone to fuck up everything" either, which is refreshing.

My biggest takeaway was that say, an ENxP may mistype as an INxP if they're not typically extroverted because of the influence of ES descriptions.

Thoughts? Is it bullshit or spot-on? Have you ever mistyped yourself as per these lists and for the reasons given?

Some of my favorite people are either ESFP or ENFP, and I notice the main difference has to do with the content, but I could see the issue of introversion/extroversion also coming into play, although I've known some high energy ENFPs.

If you've ever watch "Friends", then I think Joey as an ESFP and Phoebe as an ENFP provides a good comparison. For Phoebe, a stray cat is her grandmother, but for Joey, he's about the sandwiches and fun.

I have an ESFP friend who is high energy, very extroverted, and gives people the most beautiful, specific compliments. She once complimented me on the specific shade of my skin tone. The ENFP people I've known are the most vividly imaginative I've ever met. I'd say the ENFP can take your imagination on rainbow rollercoaster of never before explored or combined ideas.

 

[OrangeAppled]

I disagree with the article's assertion that many IxFPs mistype as INFJ. I also don't see INFJs described as idealistic dreamers all that much, as that usually is given to INFPs (who get shortchanged in the description of our intellectual inclinations ). I do think that some positive traits that are ascribed to INFJs apply equally well if not more to INFPs, and I think this makes INFPs sound like "lesser INFJs" to people. Rather than being the result of mistyping, I think it is more likely the cause of it. What I think causes it is simply lack of real world exposure to INFJs, given they are not common or easy to access beyond their Fe exterior, and so people's imaginations end up formulating some idealized INFx hybrid.

After a decade of hanging around typology forums online, I would say the most common mistypes for INFJ are ENFJ and ISFJ. As an INFP, there is far too much Si and Fe in most INFJ forums for me to stomach. I have trouble imagining an INFP seeing themselves in that kind of atmosphere...

This is BS too:

In reality, the INFJ is much more giving than they are emotional.

Won't even detail on how incredibly selfish some INFJs can be, while simultaneously seeing themselves as "giving" because their ego won't allow self-scrutiny that uncovers deep character flaws...

Emotionality is not all about a Feeling preference, given that Feeling is rational. I'd argue that sensing and extroversion are big components of emotionality, making ESFx followed by SFs as the most typically "emotional" types. The ENFx types come across as most emotional to me of the NFs.

This article also fails to note that INFJs are frequently enneagram 4, and that will give their personality a similar flavor to many IxFPs who also are 4s, but it will make them a bit different from the INFJs who aren't 4s. INFJs may also be 9s, another common type for IxFPs. Both 4s and 9s are described as idealistic dreamers too...

In person, it has been striking to me how much less intellectually inclined INFJs are than INFPs (note - that does not mean less intelligent), and how it is harder to tell them apart from ISFJs than INFPs, unless they are e4s. They do seem more pragmatic and discerning in long-term planning, as well as more interested in "community", and that part of the article is probably the most informative for discerning between INFPs and INFJs.

I also think ENFJs mistype as ENFP more than the other way around. I am starting to think that ENFPs are just the catch-all type for any ExFx who sees themselves as a bit quirky...

And while there certainly are mistyped ENFPs among the INFP crowd, I don't think they are as common as mistyped ISFPs (a totally understandable mistype, given negative bias towards sensing types).

And neither of those are as, er, contaminating to the understanding of the type as the Si mistypes. I hear so many comments about INFPs that are describing Si, or people even referring to tertiary Si in INFPs as if it is our primary characteristic. I agree that INFPs are more contemplative and restrained than ENFPs in general, but we still will exhibit a Ne preference over a Si preference.

 

[BlueScreen]

While it is certainly true that some people read too much into typology systems, type divisions are far from arbitrary. Moreover, the system does not so much identify traits as ways of handling information and making decisions. All of this is internal, of course, which means we cannot measure it directly. Those questions on the type tests often ask about behaviors and traits because those are much easier to see. The links between the two are far from perfect, though, which leads to much of the imprecision in typing.

As for your question, there are many reasons for mistyping. Two that are quite common are: (1) answering the questions according to a specific "persona" one adopts for utility, say how one behaves at work, or in a family of dissimilar people who expect you to act like them; and (2) answering the way you wish you were, rather than how you actually are. Yes, there will be a great deal of variation among people who share a given type. This will be most evident in their observable (external) behavior. Any type can behave in any way. It is in why and how they do things that their type becomes more evident. People also have the ability to override their innate preferences, say to do well in a job. If we encounter them in that context, we may very well mistype them. Despite the variations, though, there is enough commonality to discern distinct types, especially when we can witness someone acting on their real preferences.

Type divisions are essentially arbitrary. They are based on a system, but the system has no basis in reality. People don't have 8 cognitive functions and there aren't 16 types of personality. To think so defies logic. How many neurons are there in the brain? How well can they readjust to do different things? How many people are there on Earth?

The worst part is when people use it in reverse as a predictor of others. Did we all fail statistics and logic or something?

 

[erg]

Type divisions are essentially arbitrary. They are based on a system, but the system has no basis in reality. People don't have 8 cognitive functions and there aren't 16 types of personality. To think so defies logic. How many neurons are there in the brain? How well can they readjust to do different things? How many people are there on Earth?

The worst part is when people use it in reverse as a predictor of others. Did we all fail statistics and logic or something?

I disagree. I think Jung really hit the nail on the head when he came up with the 8 functions. These 8 functions represent the totality of reality. Everything that can be perceived, or not.

 

[Coriolis]

Type divisions are essentially arbitrary. They are based on a system, but the system has no basis in reality. People don't have 8 cognitive functions and there aren't 16 types of personality. To think so defies logic. How many neurons are there in the brain? How well can they readjust to do different things? How many people are there on Earth?

The worst part is when people use it in reverse as a predictor of others. Did we all fail statistics and logic or something?

Type divisions are no more arbitrary than shoe sizes, and actually much less so. Our feet are the size they are, all a bit different. The days of custom-made shoes are over, though, and shoe manufacturers have settled on a range of specific sizes to facilitate mass production. Each of us can usually find a size that approximates our feet well enough to be a comfortable fit.

Same with types. We all take in information, make decisions, evaluate things, and observe the world around us. Jung and later Myers and Briggs came up with a system for binning the different ways people do these things. No type is an exact fit, but most of us will find one that is a much better approximation than the others.

Moreover, we are starting to see correlation between the preferences used in these typing systems and physiology. Introversion and extraversion, for instance, has been mapped to specific parts of the brain and how they function. There is a similar if (so far) less well established connection between brain functioning and traits corresponding to the Big Five "conscientiousness" preference. If T/F differences prove related to sex hormones, that would be yet another link, and more may be found.

That being said, typing systems are best used for understanding, not prediction. One must use the right tool for the job, and understand its limitations.