I STILL don't understand MBTI.

[SillySapienne]

Regarding the cult-ish comment.

When people seem hellbent on stuffing everyone they know into one of the 16 archetypes, I think they are maintaining irrationally staunch beliefs towards this particular system.

This is incredibly far from being a hard science.

It is fluid and fun.

I don't think it should be taken too seriously.

 

[Jaguar]

When people seem hellbent on stuffing everyone they know into one of the 16 archetypes, I think they are maintaining irrationally staunch beliefs towards this particular system.

+1000

 

[poppy]

I think your perspective on it is built on the idea that "stuffing people into 1 of 16 archetypes" is a confining thing that limits the expression of the individual. I think the opposite is true, the more people we add to the types, the more variety and dimension their definitions gain, the system improves and it's utility increases (and this utility is to allow us to better understand ourselves and others, which facilitates individuality).

I think the point when it becomes confining is when people take the stereotypes (all x must do y, if you do z then you are not type x) seriously. It is possible to take the system seriously (and indeed if one does, one should recognize that it can be improved, as all systems can) without belittling the importance of the individual.

 

[SillySapienne]

I think your perspective on it is built on the idea that "stuffing people into 1 of 16 archetypes" is a confining thing that limits the expression of the individual. I think the opposite is true, the more people we add to the types, the more variety and dimension their definitions gain, the system improves and it's utility increases (and this utility is to allow us to better understand ourselves and others, which facilitates individuality).

I think the point when it becomes confining is when people take the stereotypes (all x must do y, if you do z then you are not type x) seriously. It is possible to take the system seriously (and indeed if one does, one should recognize that it can be improved, as all systems can) without belittling the importance of the individual.

Interesting, still, only 16 archetypes for billions of highly intricate, and unique biological systems each within themselves, i.e. human beings to reflect/categorize as, seems far too narrow to me.

 

[poppy]

Interesting, still, only 16 archetypes for billions of highly intricate, and unique biological systems each within themselves, i.e. human beings to reflect/categorize as, seems far too narrow to me.

Fair enough, I could see how, conceptually, it would look quite daunting. But as humans we throw people into categories all the time. Think of male vs female... We throw everyone we see into one of those two categories every day (don't tell me you don't recognize gender ), but I suppose it "feels" different to do so because it's based on an objective standard (though these labels, too, carry stereotypes and effect how we treat the people we apply them to).

Anyway I'm just musing.

 

[Poki]

It's for people who have no natural insight into other human beings.
It's also for people who don't know what to do with toilet paper.

Are you talking about the ones who insist on folding triangles and stuff and then get mad when the triangle dissappears from the end?

I can apply it pretty good I think, but I also think people have the theory confused so

 

[Jaguar]

Are you talking about the ones who insist on folding triangles and stuff and then get mad when the triangle dissappears from the end?

I can apply it pretty good I think, but I also think people have the theory confused so

A shrink would find those anal-rententive triangle folders, "interesting." haha.
I'm not someone eager to apply seriously flawed theories to anyone, or anything.

Hey, glad to see you chose an avatar.

 

[Kalach]

Regarding the cult-ish comment.

When people seem hellbent on stuffing everyone they know into one of the 16 archetypes, I think they are maintaining irrationally staunch beliefs towards this particular system.

This is incredibly far from being a hard science.

It is fluid and fun.

I don't think it should be taken too seriously.

And you're not bothered that that's an archetypal ENFP thing to say?

 

[SillySapienne]

And you're not bothered that that's an archetypal ENFP thing to say?

Not in the least.

 

[Poki]

A shrink would find those anal-rententive triangle folders, "interesting." haha.
I'm not someone eager to apply seriously flawed theories to anyone, or anything.

Hey, glad to see you chose an avatar.

If you can find the flaws its not really to bad. It is challenging because things dont always line up as expected, nor do people type correctly or type others correctly. I try to find a consistency within types. Nothing is ever set in stone for me.

 

[Eilonwy]

Athenian200, I don't know if this is relevant to what you're asking...I picture temperament typing as a Bell Curve (as opposed to boxes). I think extreme preferences (at the ends of the curve) are pretty obvious, but a lot of people are going to be somewhere in the middle and hard to pin down. To me it's mostly just a tool to give me insight into my own behaviors.