I STILL don't understand MBTI.

[Athenian200]

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.

I would make friends. Then we would spend time talking, doing things we enjoyed, introducing each other to each other's friends, all associating more with the ones we liked, then just keeping up the cycle. We'd stay in touch, meet occasionally, etc, but you wouldn't be thought any less of if you forgot once in a while. Everyone would know each other and be comfortable. There wouldn't be many expectations, or a lot of pressure to be perfect. We'd be interested in helping or comforting each other if anyone needed it.

This is clearly a fantasy, though. I (and most other people) are far too self-conscious for it to ever be like this, and (possibly in part because of that), I find myself drained around other people.

Now, how would I prefer to act alone? I suppose I'd like to do mostly what I do now, but with more freedom. Be able to get any book I'm interested in, purchase and donate to things online freely, study various topics, come up with ideas about them, and analyze various things.

 

[Quinlan]

This is clearly a fantasy, though. I (and most other people) are far too self-conscious for it to ever be like this, and (possibly in part because of that), I find myself drained around other people.

Interesting, because we have to try and sift through nature and nuture, had your every natural inclination been encouraged from childhood perhaps you wouldn't feel so self concious and you may have developed as more extraverted?

I interpret MBTI as; how would you prefer to act? and how would you prefer to be treated? Not how do you act and how are you treated. If I really want to get to know someone I'm not interested in what career that person happens to have, if I want insight, I want to know what career they would prefer to have, what are their dreams? To me that is the really interesting stuff, the important stuff.

If someone acts J because the world reacts well to that but they don't feel fulfilled/self-actualised acting that way, then I'm more interested in what would really make them fulfilled, not how they actually act due to circumstance.

Yet again I'm not sure I have any point to this.

 

[Frank]

It is apparent what they are trying to get at with the theory but I doubt that they hit a bullseye by any stretch of the imagination. The theory's only true value is what you can personally do with it.

 

[FemMecha]

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

This is what I like most about you. You take the time to think about these things and actually question them. I go back and forth with it. Sometimes it seems compelling and other times it makes almost no sense to me either. I wonder if there is somehow more to it than I've encountered.

The primary criticism of MBTI as a system is its limitations for measurement. It lacks "validity" because of this. I think you are troubled by the limitation of the system itself. It helps me to think of it as a system of approximation. There are no hard edges. It constructs a few poles of cognitive processing that seem fundamental to how people might think. It is a more compelling system than any others I have encountered.

I see it primarily as a placeholder until something more scientific and measurable comes along. The study of cognitive processing should be aligned with neurology and the use of brain imagining. There should be some way of relating a theory of how the brain functions to the actual hardware in our heads. As far as I know MBTI does not attempt this.

The biggest problem I see with MBTI is that people appear quite driven to give it hard boundaries and that is not compatible with the theory as a system. People either use the textbook descriptions which are just written by a person, albeit one who has studied the theory more than the average person. More often people think of their ESFJ mother, ESTP employer, INTP roommate, or INFJ ex and then extrapolate those specifics to apply to the entire category. Sometime it might be interesting to catalog all the stereotypes presented on these forums just to enjoy the inherent ironies that result in every category.

 

[Athenian200]

This is what I like most about you. You take the time to think about these things and actually question them. I go back and forth with it. Sometimes it seems compelling and other times it makes almost no sense to me either. I wonder if there is somehow more to it than I've encountered.

I'm always questioning myself. That's one reason it can be hard for me to move forward in life. I'm almost as bad as an INTP (though that's another stereotype).

The only way I can make sense of it is to assume that it means whatever you think it means, and use it primarily as a way of trying to guess why someone isn't understanding your perspective or vice-versa.

Temperament (at least NT, NF, SJ, SP) is one concept I wish I'd never been introduced to, honestly. It makes even less sense than the system itself, but people use it more widely, and it infringes on your mind unwillingly. Go figure.

The primary criticism of MBTI as a system is its limitations for measurement. It lacks "validity" because of this. I think you are troubled by the limitation of the system itself. It helps me to think of it as a system of approximation. There are no hard edges. It constructs a few poles of cognitive processing that seem fundamental to how people might think. It is a more compelling system than any others I have encountered.

I see it primarily as a placeholder until something more scientific and measurable comes along. The study of cognitive processing should be aligned with neurology and the use of brain imagining. There should be some way of relating a theory of how the brain functions to the actual hardware in our heads. As far as I know MBTI does not attempt this.

I suppose that's what bothers me, though. I guess I don't know how to accept an approximation properly, because it's so vague that it's not describing anything, yet people will tell you "that trait has nothing to do with being X," which is technically true because the theory is too vague to make such an assertion, but they can't suggest what trait does. And if no traits are allowed to suggest anything, then how can we seriously discuss or question someone's type? All we can do (unless there's a method I've been missing) is agree with whatever they feel they are, and maybe throw the most currently agreed upon stereotypes in forum culture around as a half-joking way of questioning it.

The biggest problem I see with MBTI is that people appear quite driven to give it hard boundaries and that is not compatible with the theory as a system. People either use the textbook descriptions which are just written by a person, albeit one who has studied the theory more than the average person. More often people think of their ESFJ mother, ESTP employer, INTP roommate, or INFJ ex and then extrapolate those specifics to apply to the entire category. Sometime it might be interesting to catalog all the stereotypes presented on these forums just to enjoy the inherent ironies that result in every category.

Oh, yes, that would be quite funny. The hyper-religious SFJ, the selfish/hedonistic STP, the libertarian NTJ, etc. I know they're irrational, but I'm sure they're in the collective mindset here, somehow.

 

[Jeffster]

Temperament (at least NT, NF, SJ, SP) is one concept I wish I'd never been introduced to, honestly. It makes even less sense than the system itself, but people use it more widely, and it infringes on your mind unwillingly. Go figure.

Nah. It actually makes the MOST sense, because it's something you can actually observe, rather than pure speculation about what might possibly be occurring inside someone's brain.

 

[wolfy]

Of all the theories, temperament seems to be the most useful. Like Jeffster said, because it's linked to observable behaviour.

 

[ColonelGadaafi]

Functions are the only usefull and applicable thing in the hole model. And that is a uniform concept that is hard to apply to personalities, but usefull when it comes to internal processes and information perception.

The rest is just variety, within variety, with variety, simming in the never endless pool of obscure arbitrary diasporas.

 

[raz]

I would make friends. Then we would spend time talking, doing things we enjoyed, introducing each other to each other's friends, all associating more with the ones we liked, then just keeping up the cycle. We'd stay in touch, meet occasionally, etc, but you wouldn't be thought any less of if you forgot once in a while. Everyone would know each other and be comfortable. There wouldn't be many expectations, or a lot of pressure to be perfect. We'd be interested in helping or comforting each other if anyone needed it.

This is clearly a fantasy, though. I (and most other people) are far too self-conscious for it to ever be like this, and (possibly in part because of that), I find myself drained around other people.

Now, how would I prefer to act alone? I suppose I'd like to do mostly what I do now, but with more freedom. Be able to get any book I'm interested in, purchase and donate to things online freely, study various topics, come up with ideas about them, and analyze various things.

When I think about what I'd want if I had my way...

I'd want a business-oriented job that was stable and reliable. I'd want it to require an executive style outlook. At work, seeing the same people every day wouldn't bother me as long as they were respectful and low key. I'd want one close guy friend and a girlfriend/wife that I shared a very intimate connection with that was also low key. I'd likely spend a lot of time contributing to work and making sure that my girlfriend feels appreciated. My spare time would likely be consumed with a computer building hobby, working out and playing computer games.

Heh. Is that ISTJ enough? Right now, my introversion is semi on the backburner. I've spent the last few years trying to teach myself how to create an extraverted identity. Basically, I've got to get out of my shell before I can be comfortable going into my shell periodically.

 

[Athenian200]

Nah. It actually makes the MOST sense, because it's something you can actually observe, rather than pure speculation about what might possibly be occurring inside someone's brain.

Of all the theories, temperament seems to be the most useful. Like Jeffster said, because it's linked to observable behaviour.

If you think temperament is observable... I don't understand that.

I can't tell just by looking at someone's behavior whether they're SJ, SP, NT, or NF. What on earth are you talking about?

People believe in that stuff so strongly. Keirsey was very persuasive, apparently.

 

[wolfy]

If you think temperament is observable... I don't understand that.

I can't tell just by looking at someone's behavior whether they're SJ, SP, NT, or NF. What on earth are you talking about?

People believe in that stuff so strongly. Keirsey was very persuasive, apparently.

Not looking at others behaviour. Looking at my own behaviour.

 

[Athenian200]

Not looking at others behaviour. Looking at my own behaviour.

Oh.

I guess I'm just really bad with subjective things and approximations, because I can see so many perspectives from which any type behaving in any manner could make sense, that I don't get that "feel" for which one is right. I have too many perspectives to be comfortable claiming there's a right one.

For instance... I'm positive I'm not an SP (which is the only red flag that comes up in my mind), but without the test I couldn't tell you which of the other three I am.

I relate to SJs because I fear disorder, defer to authority in most cases, dislike unnecessary change, and like rules to be predictable. I relate to NFs because I'm curious about the meaning of things, discovering my identity, and care about people to some extent, and I relate to NTs because I'm something of an intellectual. If I'd never taken the test or been typed by anyone else, I'd have no idea what type I was other than I and J.

For me, it's always been easiest to observe EP, EJ, IP, and IJ in myself (and others), if anything.

 

[wolfy]

Oh.

I guess I'm just really bad with subjective things and approximations, because I can see so many perspectives from which any type behaving in any manner could make sense, that I don't get that "feel" for which one is right. I have too many perspectives to be comfortable claiming there's a right one.

For instance... I'm positive I'm not an SP (which is the only red flag that comes up in my mind), but without the test I couldn't tell you which of the other three I am.

I relate to SJs because I fear disorder, defer to authority in most cases, dislike unnecessary change, and like rules to be predictable. I relate to NFs because I'm curious about the meaning of things, discovering my identity, and care about people to some extent, and I relate to NTs because I'm something of an intellectual. If I'd never taken the test or been typed by anyone else, I'd have no idea what type I was other than I and J.

For me, it's always been easiest to observe EP, EJ, IP, and IJ in myself (and others), if anything.

I think that everybody, depending on their unique personality and objectives will have a system or combination of systems that best works for them.

 

[Snow Turtle]

Technically SP and SJ should be reasonably OKish to observe or get a feel for. There's always a flavour to Si and Se.

Next would be EJ, EP followed by IJ for obvious reasons. IP might be a little more difficult as it could be seen as EP in some moments, or be flowing with IJ like behaviour.

Then what remains is NT and NF which to be honest at this point I'm working on specifics four letters and stereotypes. Because there's no common function like thing.
I'd break up it up into NTJ vs NTP and NFP vs NFJ while treating the I/E axis independantly.

It helps that being an Fe user I'd be able to recgonise Fe within others. So that removes ENFJ and INFJ from the picture leaving NFP which for me is categorised by seemingly feelerish people but in the form of Fi.

Leaving NTJs and NTPs which are generally so different that it's relatively OK to seperate them. Using the self as a comparison tool is useful, assuming you aren't completely off with your type.
______________________________________________

The above didn't work for me when figuring out my ESFP friend, which to be honest I'm still not 100% sure of. Her christian background sort of threw me off due to her desire for organisation and structure, leading to a EFJ however her behaviour and control didn't seem to match all the time. Then there's the addition problem of her sense of style, and my mistake of usually associating quirkiness with intuition leading me to think she might have been an ENFP but over time I got a better feel and replaced it with what was more likely to be Si or Se. Ah screw it, I don't know what type she is... xP

I don't really bother typing people unless I'm really close to them and want to know them, spending my stalker points on them.

Edit: Hmm... If I were going to type her. An individual...

Se ~ Si with a hefty dosage of Ne.
Fe that may be induced by Fi due to christian upbringing.
Ni, Ti and Te aren't really so much.

Yes, I've functionlised her personality. *cough* >______>'
Fe Si Ne Ti would indicate ESFJ
Se Fi would indicate ESFP

I'm just going to go with ESFx because I really can't tell anymore. Which goes to show, upbringing can really skew type results.

 

[Athenian200]

I think that everybody, depending on their unique personality and objectives will have a system or combination of systems that best works for them.

Ah, yes. I agree completely.

Sometimes it's just that I don't see why NT, NF, SJ, and SP make so much intuitive sense to people.

NT and NF make the most sense for the T and F dominant members (and are further biased towards Ti and Fi respectively). For the N-dominant ones, it's often far less applicable altogether. For Sensors, the descriptions seem more applicable to Extraverts than Introverts.

I have noticed that it seems to make more sense for IPs in general. Maybe it's because dominant Ti or Fi makes these traits easier to spot...

 

[Athenian200]

Technically SP and SJ should be reasonably OKish to observe or get a feel for. There's always a flavour to Si and Se.

Oh, yeah. That's true. I can always tell J from P.

Next would be EJ, EP followed by IJ for obvious reasons. IP might be a little more difficult as it could be seen as EP in some moments, or be flowing with IJ like behaviour.

Then what remains is NT and NF which to be honest at this point I'm working on specifics four letters and stereotypes. Because there's no common function like thing.
I'd break up it up into NTJ vs NTP and NFP vs NFJ while treating the I/E axis independantly.

It helps that being an Fe user I'd be able to recgonise Fe within others. So that removes ENFJ and INFJ from the picture leaving NFP which for me is categorised by seemingly feelerish people but in the form of Fi.

Leaving NTJs and NTPs which are generally so different that it's relatively OK to seperate them. Using the self as a comparison tool is useful, assuming you aren't completely off with your type.

I actually agree with what you said. You seem to see the "bookends" too. NTP, NTJ, NFJ, and NFP are very different. I never really got why they did J/P for Sensors, but not for Ns. J/P doesn't really seem any less obvious in us to me. I used to wonder if it seemed less obvious in us to SJs, but apparently not.

The above didn't work for me when figuring out my ESFP friend, which to be honest I'm still not 100% sure of. Her christian background sort of threw me off due to her desire for organisation and structure, leading to a EFJ however her behaviour and control didn't seem to match all the time. Then there's the addition problem of her sense of style, and my mistake of usually associating quirkiness with intuition leading me to think she might have been an ENFP but over time I got a better feel and replaced it with what was more likely to be Si or Se. Ah screw it, I don't know what type she is... xP

I don't really bother typing people unless I'm really close to them and want to know them, spending my stalker points on them.

If I want to type someone else, I usually just have them take the test, and go with whatever it gives me (because I'd never be able to figure it out otherwise). The way you do it sounds really difficult.

 

[Costrin]

I don't particularly like Keirsey's theory. I would probably make the temperaments SP, SJ, NP, NJ. But yeah, whatever.

 

[Eric B]

Keirsey's temperaments were basically Kretschmer's character styles, and traced, probably through Kant, to the ancient temperaments. Since classic temperament had a different matrix framework, it would not map symmetrically to the MBTI dichotomies (classic temperament was about delay and sustain, not perception).

Then, you have Interaction Styles, which also parallel the ancient temperaments, and are EJ, IJ, EP and IP on the N side, and ET, IT, EF, IF on the S side.

 

[Jeffster]

If you think temperament is observable... I don't understand that.

I can't tell just by looking at someone's behavior whether they're SJ, SP, NT, or NF. What on earth are you talking about?

People believe in that stuff so strongly. Keirsey was very persuasive, apparently.

Have you read Keirsey's work? Because if you have, I dunno how you could ask me that question. He breaks down quite simply and very detailed what behavior makes up each temperament. You could say that you don't have any use for his groupings, but you can't say he doesn't make a solid case for the evidence of the observable behavior patterns.

Now, obviously, we are not all robots programmed to fit one of these four profiles, or even one of 16. Obviously not every ounce of temperament description is going to apply literally to every person who fits that primary group. But the tendencies and behaviors are most definitely observable with minimal effort.

I don't particularly like Keirsey's theory. I would probably make the temperaments SP, SJ, NP, NJ. But yeah, whatever.

That's another quite valid grouping. It depends on what you are grouping by. That one obviously makes sense from a "function pair" standpoint, since the types in each group would all have a common function in the pair that makes up their individual type. Keirsey's assertion is that an INTJ has more observably in common with an INTP than an INFJ, and an ENFP has more in common with an INFP than an ENTP, just to name a few. I don't feel like I have gathered enough personal evidence to agree or disagree with that assertion based on my own observations, but I would point out that Keirsey has about six decades of dedicated people-watching more than I do, so I'm inclined to defer to his experience, despite remaining skeptical as I am about any system of grouping people into categories.

 

[Athenian200]

Have you read Keirsey's work? Because if you have, I dunno how you could ask me that question. He breaks down quite simply and very detailed what behavior makes up each temperament. You could say that you don't have any use for his groupings, but you can't say he doesn't make a solid case for the evidence of the observable behavior patterns.

Now, obviously, we are not all robots programmed to fit one of these four profiles, or even one of 16. Obviously not every ounce of temperament description is going to apply literally to every person who fits that primary group. But the tendencies and behaviors are most definitely observable with minimal effort.

I have read it. It was the first book on it I ever read, and I've been over it several times. But I don't get it, and can't see those traits in people. I also think the stereotypes are ridiculously exaggerated in it.

Maybe it's because my Se sucks, and I'm not good at observing behavior in terms of patterns. Who knows?

The thing is, I guess I haven't had my experience match up well with that. I've noticed, for instance, that I tend to (somewhat superficially) resemble and relate to xNTPs and xNFJs more, and xNFPs and xNTJs resemble and relate to each other more. I'm seeing it break down along N+Ti/Fe and N+Fi/Te lines (and sometimes along NJ and NP lines). I don't see the big theoretical gap supposedly formed right between NT and NF. It really only forms when NTs are deliberately trying to act apathetic, insensitive, and super-intellectual as something of a joke, and then it's very superficial and doesn't last. If it forms at all, it's between INTP, ENTJ, INFP and ENFJ, the T/F dominant ones who would have had a conflict anyway.

That's another quite valid grouping. It depends on what you are grouping by. That one obviously makes sense from a "function pair" standpoint, since the types in each group would all have a common function in the pair that makes up their individual type. Keirsey's assertion is that an INTJ has more observably in common with an INTP than an INFJ, and an ENFP has more in common with an INFP than an ENTP, just to name a few. I don't feel like I have gathered enough personal evidence to agree or disagree with that assertion based on my own observations, but I would point out that Keirsey has about six decades of dedicated people-watching more than I do, so I'm inclined to defer to his experience, despite remaining skeptical as I am about any system of grouping people into categories.

I'm beginning to think that his system might just work better for Sensors, honestly.