Is it a personal offense for someone to question your type?

[Cellmold]

I'd be very indifferent and unoffended these days.

I probably would have reacted in either a defensive/attack or passive aggressive manner in earlier discoveries of type systems.
Now I'm very unconcerned, with occasional lapses (which are really just attempts to garner other's opinions on myself because of an insecurity I'm in the process of weaning myself off).

In many cases it can be a fun opportunity, if you can find out what a type means to an individuals perception, you can take advantage of flowing unburdened with that constraint, whereas they will be trying to fit the goal posts in a rigid and abstracted manner.

And you can become underestimated, which can be a huge advantage in life for various reasons. But that might be because my strengths lie in what is unseen or hidden, things people are avoiding or not noticing (within reason though :I'm only one person and not above average).

 

[The Cat]

"Out of curiosity Jack, why do you type as..."
"I noticed you're typing as XXXX, I have some questions, and I'd enjoy discussing it would you mind?"
"Sharp tie, Jack, looking good, now about your typing, I have some questions..."

"There's no way you're XXXX, I just can't see it."
"I hear what you're saying about why you claim that type, but I'm going to dismiss your time and research in favor of my own vastly superior...ness."
"Stirrup pants are not an abomination before gods and man...and I think your typing is shit."

 

[Coriolis]

Typing could be just another way to say "You suck at [insert by choice]". From what I read here, people who were avoiding confrontation found themselves in a confrontation with others. That's a therapeutic strategy for victims of emotional abuse. Isn't it strange when someone gets caught up in a discussion with the people they oppose, not the ones they agree with? I'm yet to hear about people learning life lessons from the security of their comfort zone.

If the highlighted means people who have different opinions, that's fine. It it means people who are going to be rude and obnoxious in how the present those opinions, not fine. That is just so much noise that threatens to drown out the signal.

See also Jack's examples above.

 

[Jaguar]

someone hiding their malicious intents behind nice words?

Nasty critter.

 

[Coriolis]

I already read his tutorial but imo things aren't so black and white. Someone's typing could be perceived as rude if they try to express unflattering but honest opinion about the person, even if they mean no harm with it, or simply the person perceives it as an insult. There sure are people with a very good sense of someone's weak spots who might present their opinion in an eloquent and seemingly thoughtful way only to confuse and hurt the person in question. Now, what in your opinion is more cruel - someone being harsh but honest, or someone hiding their malicious intents behind nice words?

The rest of what I said is quite straightforward - one doesn't find themselves in their comfort zone.

I look for that middle ground between nice words and harsh, which is basically focusing on the facts.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

"There's no way you're XXXX, I just can't see it."
"I hear what you're saying about why you claim that type, but I'm going to dismiss your time and research in favor of my own vastly superior...ness."
"Stirrup pants are not an abomination before gods and man...and I think your typing is shit."

The problem with these examples (except for the first one) is that they're stated in a way (I assume) is meant to bring levity, but (for example) people who dismiss the time and research of others in favor of their perceived superiority of their own opinion rarely directly say so; rather, their posts are problematic because it's the implicit message behind their words. Their words may actually contain a great deal of schmoozing/decorum to veil the forcefulness and/or maybe even feign humility (e.g. "you know you're one of my favorite people, but..", "I love Te (or Fe, or Ne) types a lot, and...", "I know you're not Ti because you're really good at ____ and we Ti types aren't", etc). The underlying issue though is a strong need for others to inculcate one's own notions about type (and/or about someone else's specific type, or about type differences, or any piece of 'information' about type) as gospel truth, and getting this affirmation by a forcefulness of willpower rather than the more respectful approach of mutual discernment.

The mutual discernment approach doesn't mean the person giving the feedback must bend to match the person in question if the person in question doesn't agree - it just means that the person giving feedback must be okay with an "agree to disagree" conclusion. There's nothing wrong (imo) with putting an opinion 'out there' - even if it lacks the decorum of the "good idea" examples above (e.g "I'd enjoy discussing it") - so long as there's no attachment for the recipient of that feedback (or others, for that matter) to agree. Wherever someone giving feedback needs for external reality to reflect back that their opinion is correct though (where there's an attachment to getting positive affirmation), therein lies the inappropriate forcefulness of the "bad idea" approach.

tl;dr: I think it's a "bad idea" approach if there's any attachment to getting one's theory positively affirmed, without an openness to others disagreeing. And the amount of friendly decorum used doesn't effectively determine the good approach from the bad, because it's relatively easy and common for people to veil a bad approach with friendly decorum.

 

[Coriolis]

The problem with these examples (except for the first one) is that they're stated in a way (I assume) is meant to bring levity, but (for example) people who dismiss the time and research of others in favor of their perceived superiority of their own opinion rarely directly say so; rather, their posts are problematic because it's the implicit message behind their words. Their words may actually contain a great deal of schmoozing/decorum to veil the forcefulness and/or maybe even feign humility (e.g. "you know you're one of my favorite people, but..", "I love Te (or Fe, or Ne) types a lot, and...", "I know you're not Ti because you're really good at ____ and we Ti types aren't", etc). The underlying issue though is a strong need for others to inculcate one's own notions about type (and/or about someone else's specific type, or about type differences, or any piece of 'information' about type) as gospel truth, and getting this affirmation by a forcefulness of willpower rather than the more respectful approach of mutual discernment.

See, this is just all so much window dressing as I see it. I ignore it to focus on the specifics of what they have to say, whether about type or anything else. Same if they have littered their post with insults instead of schmoozing. Just noise of a different frequency.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

My point was that I don't think it (whether or not it's a personal offense to question someone's type) is about adding nicey-nice decorum or even humor - notwithstanding the fact that these tools can be remarkably effective with some people, to either pad the impact or help a person take their 'type' less seriously (regardless of how useless it may come across to some as merely window dressing - there are others who actually need it). So I do see the point in Jack's post. I'm just saying I think the issue is more fundamental than that.

I think it's okay to put forth ideas/observations so long as it's done with enough detachment that the other person has enough room to disagree and ultimately identify with whatever feels right to them in the end, without being hassled for it. When a person gets relentless in any way and/or clearly 'needs' the other person to cede, that's when it's a problem.

Now, what in your opinion is more cruel - someone being harsh but honest, or someone hiding their malicious intents behind nice words?

Pretty much this, except I wouldn't even say it's malicious in most cases. I'm more inclined to say it's on a spectrum from mildly thoughtless (regardless of what the person is telling themselves about why they're being relentless) to full on parasitic (treating other people in the surrounding external environment like objects that exist to reflect back a convenient or flattering image).

I can think of at least one person (in the years I've been here) who systematically hit red on the parasite-o-meter but who also consistently flew under the radar of 'official' consequences because she padded her type 'advice' with so much syrupy nicey-nice decorum. IMO, it was offensive - and it would have fallen under the "good idea" parameters in Jack's post. (eta: It's worth mentioning that she didn't fall under the radar of natural consequences of being that way though, and it had a significantly bad effect on *a lot* of people, as that type of behavior will always tend to in the end).

 

[The Cat]

"Jackson Pollock had this exhibition about 1935, can’t remember the date fully, but he had this big white canvas, right? And this was the whole bit, this was the main exhibit, he just got a big bucket of black paint, threw it at the canvas, smeared it around and then put in two little splashes of red paint. That was it. Then he fucked off. So they do this exhibition, there was an art critic there...
...So they asked this art critic... They go, “What do you think of this piece?” And he goes, “Hmm, hmm. Interesting. I believe that this is a self-portrait of Jackson.” ... "Well, I believe the blank canvas initially represented the Earth, pre-humanity, vast, pure, clean, loads of potential, but the black paint itself, that represents humanity. Random, chaotic, often overlapping, no start or end in sight, just constantly moving, no idea where it’s gonna go and no idea whenever it’s gonna stop. All we can tell is that it’s constantly repeating its history and often over-riding it. And we can deduce that one day it will eventually consume all of the Earth. But the two red dots, these are Jackson. Small, insignificant, yet, they stand out against the rest of humanity."
Twenty minutes later, Jackson Pollock, the fucking artist, turns up. “Mr. Pollack, thank you so much for this wonderful, wonderful exhibit. Just a quick question in regards to the main piece. Can we just ask you, what do the two red dots represent?” And Jackson Pollock on record said… “What? Ha! Huh. I must have splashed it when I was painting that one.” Just because you can find meaning in the art, doesn’t necessarily mean that was the meaning the artist necessarily intended to be there..." -Daniel Sloss, Jigsaw.

 

[Starry]

I appreciate Z Buck's comments and would like to add as another facet of what she's touching on that appears to be being missed (I actually can't tell) are just how many incidents are occurring these days where members are being attacked for what qualifies as "appropriate typings". Typings that are delivered in an appropriate way at an appropriate time. For example, in the individual's Type Me thread <- This is the true topic here. The OP did not ask "Is it a personal offense when a person types you all shitty like?" or "Is it a personal offense when someone types you in the middle of a discussion on abortion?" no. "Is it a personal offense to have someone type you?"...period.

I'm having a difficult time deciding how to say what I'm trying to say...and I'm well aware of the fact I'm not the member to say it even if I could as I basically just got busted for losing it and offending every single ENFP on the planet accurately typed or not (some people offend individuals: I offend entire types). <-But that busting originated with me having provided the "wrong answer" in a type me thread. I'm not sure if it is enough to say "type nice at a nice time" and all will be well. Because that was not my experience at all. When people feel insulted and there's resentment there...that's not a good thing. So I thought I'd try to provide some information in this regard.

I think it is important for each person to discover what typology means to them. But in general...according to the theories themselves...these were not created for people to hang their identity hat on. These are extraordinarily superficial measures... even the enneagram which I acknowledge is a little different but I saw someone claim that it constitutes the person's "entire psychological make-up" or something like that and that is just not true. Not according to Starry "not true"...I'm talking "not according to the enneagram itself not true". Everyone is bigger and more extraordinary than the enneagram...and the enneagram knows it.

Which leads me to what I see more and more as the greatest complaint (insult)...this sort of "how dare you...you don't know me." Again, I'm not concerning myself with...should we be allowed to type or should we not be allowed to type...I'm just tossing out some thoughts meant to address the insult aspect alone. Because the way I see it is if we were officially dealing in identities and souls here...oh hell yah it would be offensive for someone to question that. But that's not what typology is. Typology is the opposite. The entire point of typology is that you don't know the person.

I mean, has anyone been professionally typed and gone through the MBTI interview process? I've been through it twice and neither the male or female that did mine knew shit about me. Or if you consider the tests...those questions? typology was designed for the purpose of being able to know people you don't know. Using it as a tool for self-discovery...that came way later. Typology was designed in order to know and understand people you don't have time to get to know and understand. Some of the earliest applications for MBTI were like putting together balanced military troops. And to this day MBTI is primarily used in business/marketing...hiring that's a big one...jury selection... <--And because it has widespread use in business...many business folks...especially in sales... they actually want people who don't know them to share their impressions of them. <-I don't know if I said that right but that doesn't make it any less true ha.

Anyway...none of what I just wrote has anything to do with typing. I just wanted to consider the insult of it alone...especially the identity aspect as a part of me worries sometimes that doing that may do more harm than good to the person.

 

[Lady Lazarus]

“Passive victims” ha. I understand what you are saying but 9s are remarkable to me in the way they will never give up they are so strong (I understand that it doesn’t feel or doesn’t always feel that way but it doesn’t make it any less true and it is another reason why you see such a range of behavior. 9s are far more likely to end up rebelling against their core fears by facing them head on. Not all but many of them will do this.)

You likely right about the ISFP suggestion. I only remember thinking of you as Fe but could see myself saying that. I hate that I’m on my phone right now... but whatever you said I wasn’t insinuating that.

Yeah, I am not an insecure teenage girl anymore (but apparently I was expected to stay that way by certain people?? Despite the fact that not even my insecure teenage girl behavior indicated that I wouldn't cut off my own arm with a dull knife if it somehow meant overcoming my own percieved weakness aka insecurity therefore predicted the new relation I hold to my fundamentally unchanged components as an adult [because they obviously can't be created or destroyed, duh. There is no actual way to become someone else in terms of quantitative identity at least despite how the qualitative relation or layout might change. Therefore I think its obvious that I am numerically identical to myself.]...) so I do realize that I am strong at this point. Even though that took a lot of work and I can only accept it as something that requires upkeep since I think the worst thing in the world is to inhabit one's ideal. Then what do you chase?

And I want to say that I can't understand why people cling so unwaveringly to ISFP 9 for me when I have never seen an ISFP 9 so ridiculously dramatic and emotive as I am. They are all so lackadaisical and like The Dude that I am often tempted to check their pulse in order to see whether or not they are still alive or just sleeping with their eyes open again.

That said, having now been around a few INFP 4's, I don't understand how I could possibly have thought that was me. I mean, I am not as disturbingly normal as an ISTJ 1w9 sp/so but I am not the necessary level of weird to be INFP 4 (and I don't mean they're weird in a bad way, because that would be weird). Strangely these new anime avatar people still think that's my type in the present so I'm currently convinced time is cyclical for me like in A Canticle For Lebowitz.

Regardless of whatever disagreements I hold with you and whatever we have said about each other I am not unreasonable enough to resent you for doing something like typing me. It was hard to have my identity attachment/justifications for how messed up I am, taken away as a teenager, yes. But it wasn't that hard and I do not have an aversion to pain. I am me, afterall.

I don't think you do things like play typology police at all from what I have seen. And while I don't recall in detail how I reacted to your ISFP 9 suggestion, I do apologize if it was hurtful. I have almost always been in many ways the antithesis of e9 so it was hard to understand my e-type at first most of all. But I did try and eventually, after approaching it from the perspective of Holy Love among other things, it all started to fall into place. Even though once someone outright laughed at me when I told them I was a "peacemaker".

But as Platos' Socrates says in the republic, "...injustice creates divisions and hatred and fighting, and justice imparts harmony...". Peace without justice is no peace at all. And perhaps I am not the most accurate judge, perhaps I can be misguided and ask too much of people, but I will always move in the direction of what I believe to be just.

 

[Starry]

Yeah, I am not an insecure teenage girl anymore (but apparently I was expected to stay that way by certain people?? Despite the fact that not even my insecure teenage girl behavior indicated that I wouldn't cut off my own arm with a dull knife if it somehow meant overcoming my own percieved weakness aka insecurity therefore predicted the new relation I hold to my fundamentally unchanged components as an adult [because they obviously can't be created or destroyed, duh. There is no actual way to become someone else in terms of quantitative identity at least despite how the qualitative relation or layout might change. Therefore I think its obvious that I am numerically identical to myself.]...) so I do realize that I am strong at this point. Even though that took a lot of work and I can only accept it as something that requires upkeep since I think the worst thing in the world is to inhabit one's ideal. Then what do you chase?

And I want to say that I can't understand why people cling so unwaveringly to ISFP 9 for me when I have never seen an ISFP 9 so ridiculously dramatic and emotive as I am. They are all so lackadaisical and like The Dude that I am often tempted to check their pulse in order to see whether or not they are still alive or just sleeping with their eyes open again.

That said, having now been around a few INFP 4's, I don't understand how I could possibly have thought that was me. I mean, I am not as disturbingly normal as an ISTJ 1w9 sp/so but I am not the necessary level of weird to be INFP 4 (and I don't mean they're weird in a bad way, because that would be weird). Strangely these new anime avatar people still think that's my type in the present so I'm currently convinced time is cyclical for me like in A Canticle For Lebowitz.

Regardless of whatever disagreements I hold with you and whatever we have said about each other I am not unreasonable enough to resent you for doing something like typing me. It was hard to have my identity attachment/justifications for how messed up I am, taken away as a teenager, yes. But it wasn't that hard and I do not have an aversion to pain. I am me, afterall.

I don't think you do things like play typology police at all from what I have seen. And while I don't recall in detail how I reacted to your ISFP 9 suggestion, I do apologize if it was hurtful. I have almost always been in many ways the antithesis of e9 so it was hard to understand my e-type at first most of all. But I did try and eventually, after approaching it from the perspective of Holy Love among other things, it all started to fall into place. Even though once someone outright laughed at me when I told them I was a "peacemaker".

But as Platos' Socrates says in the republic, "...injustice creates divisions and hatred and fighting, and justice imparts harmony...". Peace without justice is no peace at all. And perhaps I am not the most accurate judge, perhaps I can be misguided and ask too much of people, but I will always move in the direction of what I believe to be just.

I totally messed up my response to you because I involuntarily flipped into "Help people understand e9 - eff-u Riso and Hudson" mode at the mere sight of the phrase "passive victims". I swear it's like I'm under hypnosis or something in this regard these descriptions frustrate me so much. I had intended to rep you but concluded that you would probably get why I involuntarily said what I did. haha. I was speaking outwardly...to some invisible audience not you...I know I'm not telling you anything that you don't already know when I say that 9s are not weak. They are so strong they fear hurting others with their own strength.

People imagine you are Fi because no one in the universe appears capable of understanding Fe (I'm honestly surprised people primarily type you as 9 tbh...precisely because of the whole *positive outlook means positive attitude passive victim* thing.) And holy shit don't get me started on Sensor... <-nothing makes me crazier.

So yah...I had wanted to find out if you were talking about me...but my primary reason for quoting you is because I know you fully get it. You understand the *insult*. And so I appreciate your messages very much.

 

[Virtual ghost]

More of a nuisance actually. Especially since English isn't my first language and therefore there is a certain gap between what I think and type.


(but people don't really question my type that much)

 

[Z Buck McFate]

I appreciate Z Buck's comments and would like to add as another facet of what she's touching on that appears to be being missed (I actually can't tell) are just how many incidents are occurring these days where members are being attacked for what qualifies as "appropriate typings". Typings that are delivered in an appropriate way at an appropriate time. For example, in the individual's Type Me thread <- This is the true topic here.

Yeah, admittedly, I don't often read a thread specifically created for typing someone (or even the "type the person above" kinds). The longer I'm here, the more those kinds of threads affirm that typology is about 15% gold/85% bullshit. I generally only open the personal threads of that nature when someone lists a type under their name that doesn't match what I think I know about the type system in question. In the posts I've left in this thread I was speaking more to the kind of stuff that bleeds over into other threads.

The OP did not ask "Is it a personal offense when a person types you all shitty like?"

"For there is nothing either shitty or not shitty, but thinking makes it so." - Shakespeare. Hamlet said it to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern in that scene where he explained typology to them.

If someone does either start a type-me thread or participate in the "type the member above you" thread - and gets offended or prickly by type suggestions - then I'd find that a bit curious, but I'd personally just make a mental note to probably not ever poke that nerve on that person again. Also, this is where the "not saying it with expected nicey-nice decorum" (and everyone kinda has their own criteria of how information should be padded, even if that criteria is "no padding at all") can maybe be a problem (though I'm guessing this isn't what you're talking about). I typically err on the side of not adding padding. I could, if my life depended on it, figure out what kind of padding a person specifically needs and use a customized variety of it - but it's exhausting and typically only put that kind of effort in directions that feel worthwhile. So I wouldn't be surprised if my approach more often than not resembles the "all shitty like" end of the spectrum. But I mean, if someone gets offended because I've put forth an opinion that was solicited - I tend to think that's on them, and (again) I make a mental note to probably not ever poke that nerve on that person again.

I'm just reticent to put things in terms of whether or not someone 'should' be offended by an opinion they clearly solicited - if they are, and they get offended by opinions they've solicited, then they probably already have enough problems in life. No one wants to be that prickly or difficult to navigate around. We all do the best we can with what we know. Pointing out they "shouldn't" be prickly often just compounds prickliness.

I think it is important for each person to discover what typology means to them. But in general...according to the theories themselves...these were not created for people to hang their identity hat on. These are extraordinarily superficial measures... even the enneagram which I acknowledge is a little different but I saw someone claim that it constitutes the person's "entire psychological make-up" or something like that and that is just not true. Not according to Starry "not true"...I'm talking "not according to the enneagram itself not true". Everyone is bigger and more extraordinary than the enneagram...and the enneagram knows it.

I agree, but I also know that people who are hanging their identity hat on it the most will be the ones least capable of hearing feedback that runs contrary to their identity. Explaining this to someone who is doing it is like throwing gasoline on a fire because if someone is putting that many eggs in their "this is my identity" basket, it's just human nature to try to bite your fucking hand off if you're reaching into that basket. Even if we're correct, we have to let people identify as the 'wrong' type ('wrong' according to our own understanding of typology) because it might be something they need - not to mention, there's always the possibility that our understanding isn't immaculate. This isn't about giving people the room to figure out what typology means to them personally - this is about giving them the room to identify as a type that may seem utterly mind-bogglingly obviously wrong to us.

eta: And to add, I can understand getting annoyed by seeing too much of it. The whole reason I liked this forum above and beyond the INFJ forum or per c is because the INFJs here weren't just getting together to affirm identity. There's a quote I love by Ram Dass: "In most of our human relationships, we spend much of our time reassuring one another that our costumes of identity are on straight." The environment in other type forums (IMO) was so thick in people reassuring each other that their costumes of identity were on straight that it was stifling, but there were a lot of INFJs here who were capable of connecting on a more authentic level. (The fact that many left the forum in the Great INFJ Exodus brought on by Fe vs. Fi bullshit notwithstanding - my point here is that I can understand getting less out of an environment where it feels like there's too much typing for identity going on, but it's still not something that can be fixed by pointing it out). (Or something). /eta

Which leads me to what I see more and more as the greatest complaint (insult)...this sort of "how dare you...you don't know me." Again, I'm not concerning myself with...should we be allowed to type or should we not be allowed to type...I'm just tossing out some thoughts meant to address the insult aspect alone. Because the way I see it is if we were officially dealing in identities and souls here...oh hell yah it would be offensive for someone to question that. But that's not what typology is. Typology is the opposite. The entire point of typology is that you don't know the person.

I mean, has anyone been professionally typed and gone through the MBTI interview process? I've been through it twice and neither the male or female that did mine knew shit about me. Or if you consider the tests...those questions? typology was designed for the purpose of being able to know people you don't know. Using it as a tool for self-discovery...that came way later. Typology was designed in order to know and understand people you don't have time to get to know and understand. Some of the earliest applications for MBTI were like putting together balanced military troops. And to this day MBTI is primarily used in business/marketing...hiring that's a big one...jury selection... <--And because it has widespread use in business...many business folks...especially in sales... they actually want people who don't know them to share their impressions of them. <-I don't know if I said that right but that doesn't make it any less true ha.

This is a good point and I think something similar whenever I read the "you don't know me" responses. I can recognize certain things in other INFJs that leads me to believe they're INFJs - like the way we tend to balk at certain kinds of stimuli where it completely passes under the radar of other types, or the way information can 'unzip' in a completely bizarre way for INFJs when they 'hear' a whole mountain in reaction to a molehill (and they don't seem to realize how much their own mind 'added' to what they think they heard - I mean, a lot of types do this, but I'm talking about a very specific kind of unzipping that would take a long-ass time to explain and I'm not willing right now). I can remember a new member started a thread (years ago) and I'd made a comment about how it was the INFJiest op I'd ever read - and it totally was. I knew nothing about this person, it was maybe the 5th post of his I'd ever noticed, and yet it smacked so hard of INFJ thinking that it was practically a caricature. This isn't to say I'd bet one million bajillion dollars that he was an INFJ - it's just to say that this kind of thing can come across is writing. To some extent.

 

[Starry]

This is a good point and I think something similar whenever I read the "you don't know me" responses. I can recognize certain things in other INFJs that leads me to believe they're INFJs - like the way we tend to balk at certain kinds of stimuli where it completely passes under the radar of other types, or the way information can 'unzip' in a completely bizarre way for INFJs when they 'hear' a whole mountain in reaction to a molehill (and they don't seem to realize how much their own mind 'added' to what they think they heard - I mean, a lot of types do this, but I'm talking about a very specific kind of unzipping that would take a long-ass time to explain and I'm not willing right now). I can remember a new member started a thread (years ago) and I'd made a comment about how it was the INFJiest op I'd ever read - and it totally was. I knew nothing about this person, it was maybe the 5th post of his I'd ever noticed, and yet it smacked so hard of INFJ thinking that it was practically a caricature. This isn't to say I'd bet one million bajillion dollars that he was an INFJ - it's just to say that this kind of thing can come across is writing. To some extent.

I've got to come back and comment more on your post because it brought up a lot but I had to say now that I often recognize NFPs once they've arrived at these very specific places where our logic jumps the tracks.


Also...I see a huge correlation with "you don't know me" and Fe...which I love because it immediately blows the whole "Fi/individual Fe/herd" thing to all hell. I mean, I hate that no one really appears to notice this...and that you can't talk about it if it might hurt someone's feelings. BUT I would sound the alarm again and again if I could when I see this. Fe gets hardcore man about protecting the individuals right to have complete control over their own definitions, etc.

 

[rav3n]

Type me threads are pretty useless since people only want to be typed as the types they want to be and if you provide a different type, shit hits the fan, lol.

 

[Starry]

Type me threads are pretty useless since people only want to be typed as the types they want to be and if you provide a different type, shit hits the fan, lol.

No truer words...

 

[Starry]

I agree, but I also know that people who are hanging their identity hat on it the most will be the ones least capable of hearing feedback that runs contrary to their identity. Explaining this to someone who is doing it is like throwing gasoline on a fire because if someone is putting that many eggs in their "this is my identity" basket, it's just human nature to try to bite your fucking hand off if you're reaching into that basket. Even if we're correct, we have to let people identify as the 'wrong' type ('wrong' according to our own understanding of typology) because it might be something they need - not to mention, there's always the possibility that our understanding isn't immaculate. This isn't about giving people the room to figure out what typology means to them personally - this is about giving them the room to identify as a type that may seem utterly mind-bogglingly obviously wrong to us.

eta: And to add, I can understand getting annoyed by seeing too much of it. The whole reason I liked this forum above and beyond the INFJ forum or per c is because the INFJs here weren't just getting together to affirm identity. There's a quote I love by Ram Dass: "In most of our human relationships, we spend much of our time reassuring one another that our costumes of identity are on straight." The environment in other type forums (IMO) was so thick in people reassuring each other that their costumes of identity were on straight that it was stifling, but there were a lot of INFJs here who were capable of connecting on a more authentic level. (The fact that many left the forum in the Great INFJ Exodus brought on by Fe vs. Fi bullshit notwithstanding - my point here is that I can understand getting less out of an environment where it feels like there's too much typing for identity going on, but it's still not something that can be fixed by pointing it out). (Or something). /eta

^^this is beautifully written and represents my primary stance on the issue. The way I have always operated in spite of having recently been assigned the opposite reputation of *type police* (haha like I have the attention span to police anything...actually...I'm now going to look at this as a compliment!) I have wondered since then where the line should be drawn though...or if you imagine none should ever be drawn at all. I've also wondered if different types have it different and subsequently are unable to understand each others positions on this. I mean, we've experienced a great Exodus of ENFPs as well.

Like if image/identity types tend to exaggerate the stereotypes...is it say...possible that a mistyped ENFP is more likely to trouble/cause more damage to an accurately typed ENFP than mistyped INFJ will for an accurately typed INFJ? (hopefully that makes sense). idk. Basically it is a question of how damaging the stereotypes are to the type maybe. Like, if there was a member constantly talking about how psychic they are and how they are just under Jesus...directly above Mother Teressa (I don't know what I'm saying but hopefully you get it...actually now that I think of it...this is how SilkRoad got the whole "I love doorslaming" haha..)...like how damaging is that overall? ENFP females being the sexiest women alive and wanting it every-way-since-Sunday 24/7 is a stereotype that really leaves me biting my nails...which I finally said something about in this new environment and earned myself a prude reputation with that one...which won't be as easy to make cool in my mind but I do prefer it to willing sex slave. Happy all the time...goofy all the time...these also concern me some.

I've also seen relationship advice from mistypes that causes me to be like omfg if that person actually makes use of that advice the relationship will be worse...but what can you do? And again I'm not talking about "according to me"...I'm talking about..."according to any basic ENFP description".

It sounds like from what you said though that there's nothing that can be done or should be done.

 

[Peter Deadpan]

I'd be okay with people typing me differently if they said something like "your core insecurity appears to be guilt in that you <insert well-thought-out reasoning with compassionately worded examples>" instead of "yer energy feels heady and u make jokes a lot and yer obvi social instinct cuz u don't live under a bridge teeheehee".

 

[cascadeco]

I've also seen relationship advice from mistypes that causes me to be like omfg if that person actually makes use of that advice the relationship will be worse...but what can you do? And again I'm not talking about "according to me"...I'm talking about..."according to any basic ENFP description".

Yeah... this is a big reason why I've stopped posting in 'Hey xxxx's, how do you deal with this / why do you do this?' types of threads... because I can't legitimately speak on behalf of a type anymore. I mean, don't get me wrong, I can legitimately speak for myself and feel I know myself pretty well, and I think I have a pretty good comprehension of all of the functions and theory, but I've also received many different typings from many people who also have a good grasp of the theory, such that I don't actually feel any confidence whatsoever that I actually AM a specific type. haha. And... it actually doesn't bother me.

Also, I've seen it where someone takes cognitive theory/mbti so seriously that they are actually the ones who are pigeonholing the person (their S.O. or friend or whomever they're having an issue with) they're trying to 'fix' things with in such a way that it makes me cringe. This s.o. is becoming a set of 8 functions unbeknownst to them, and very often might be assigned a type (unbeknownst to them) and treated as said type even if ... gasp... what if they aren't actually that type ? They buy into the theory so much that they're basically viewing their s.o. or whomever as a black and white box to flip the Ne switch on because that might help this or to not do this because then their inferior whatever will explode... I mean it's crazy. But that's just me. haha.

Edit: Though to your point re mbti used by the masses being designed for not knowing a person well -- ie we naturally group/type people anyway, and it can often be easy to superficially lump people into a specific group. Which is why... yah superficially in a corporate setting, years ago I was in the INxJ category, nowadays I don't know. Superficially could still be either INxJ or else any IxxP flavor (except istp) depending on the setting and what people are seeing. (I'm not trying to be obtuse here;I'm just not extremely anything other than introverted)