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

[yeghor]

I added it as an edit to my previous post, but because it also answers this one, here:

Also, you did assign that value judgement, even if you did not use the words 'above' or 'better':

Assumptions and sloppy thinking always find a way to snake themselves out.
You somehow assumed that Intuitives would be intrinsically challenged somehow. That is something you would have to prove and clear out on your own, since you were the one who made the claim.

Whatever it is you are claiming is true or false for intuitives was on the basis of this baseline of 'normal' that you claim. It is on you to describe that and explain how it is a problem or even an indicator of type, or if it is somehow intrinsic to any type at all.

You are constructing straw-mans.

"If something conforms to a general pattern, standard, or average, we describe it as normal, but of course that standard can change over time. What's normal today may be "abnormal" in the future.

The word normal comes from a Latin word normalis, which described something made with a carpenter's square. Something built this way would be normed to have angles that were perfectly aligned and fit a general pattern. This meaning eventually gave us the broader sense of fitting a pattern, standard, or average. Doctors like you to be a normal weight for your height, so you may need to grow taller to make your doctor happy."

normal - Dictionary Definition : Vocabulary.com

 

[Coriolis]

When someone is mistyped but is not aware of it and presents their true type's behaviour as normal for their alleged type, that creates a dissonance in that someone who is actually their alleged type looks as if they were not that type.

It also spreads misinformation about their alleged type and is a disservice to people who are actually their alleged type.

This may be correct in theory, but who is to say what someone's "true type" is? Certainly not some random person on the internet who barely knows them. It is one thing to observe that someone's behavior, comments, or stated intentions are uncommon for one type or more consistent with another; and quite another thing to insist they are mistyped. Make your observations and leave them there, for everyone else to consider in drawing their own conclusions.

Edit: Sometimes people mistakenly attach a higher value to being high in intuition cause it is rare and being rare has an intrinsic value right? Yet the real reason that intuitives are rare is because it is a deviation from the normal, and a consequence of some kind of defect in development. It comes with a price.

The more intuitive you are, the weirder you become in contrast to "normal/average" and the more you stand apart from the normal/average. That means you end up being alone in crowds. You cannot be popular and well-integrated in normal society and also high in intuition at the same time. This is especially true if you are a dominant intuitive.

Yes, N types are less common than S types. Redheads are much less common than blonds or brunets. That doesn't make them deviant and certainly not defective. In a standard distribution, the majority of people won't be represented by the average value. That is almost implicit in the notion of an average: it somehow represents a spectrum of diversity. Words like "defect" and "weird" come with value judgments that are entirely misplaced, both in the realm of hair color and of personality types.

There's nothing about elitism in my post. I am saying that the loneliness is not a deliberate attempt by dominant intuitives to see themselves "above" the crowd. It is a reality that casts them "outside" the demeanor of average/normal people. Average does not insinuate inferiority. Average defines what is considered "normal" and what is more prevalent in a group of things. An average/normal apple is red and spherical. A purple apple is a deviation from the average, it does not mean because purple apple is very rare, it is automatically "better" then the average apple.

There is no mention of "above" or "better" in my post. You seeing it that way is coming from an inferiority complex getting triggered in you and projected on to me. It has nothing to do with me. You need to sort it out internally.

I do hope you are not suggesting that only intuitives experience loneliness, or that it is inevitable that they will. Extraverted intuitives in particular seem to have no trouble engaging socially.

No, you didn't say "above" or "better", but you implied pretty strongly: "worse". As I wrote above, departures from the average are not deviant or defective. The average men's shoe size in the US is 10.5, but that doesn't make someone wearing size 9 or size 12 abnormal. As for projection, I would say pot/kettle, but I am seeing it only on your side. Look to your own thoughts before telling others their own need sorting.

 

[Earl Grey]

You are constructing straw-mans.

"If something conforms to a general pattern, standard, or average, we describe it as normal, but of course that standard can change over time. What's normal today may be "abnormal" in the future.

The word normal comes from a Latin word normalis, which described something made with a carpenter's square. Something built this way would be normed to have angles that were perfectly aligned and fit a general pattern. This meaning eventually gave us the broader sense of fitting a pattern, standard, or average. Doctors like you to be a normal weight for your height, so you may need to grow taller to make your doctor happy."

normal - Dictionary Definition : Vocabulary.com

Look at my edit. You are calling your own claim a straw-man, since I am only responding to what you had indeed claimed.

 

[Stigmata]

Yes. Out of all the possible cruelty in the world that one could imagine, questioning my type would be the wound that cuts the deepest.

Even the mere thought of internet strangers challenging my pseudo-scientific typology typing is enough to invoke a panic attack that would make post-war PTSD flashbacks feel like a child's nightmare of the boogie man underneath their bed.

In fact, next time someone questions my type, I'm straight up calling the police.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Yes. Out of all the possible cruelty in the world that one could imagine, questioning my type would be the wound that cuts the deepest.

Even the mere thought of internet strangers challenging my pseudo-scientific typology typing is enough to invoke a panic attack that would make post-war PTSD flashbacks feel like a child's nightmare of the boogie man underneath their bed.

In fact, next time someone questions my type, I'm straight up calling the police.

Spoken like a typical ESFJ.

 

[Coriolis]

How would you define normal in a group of things?

"Normal" means conforming to a norm or standard. It thus implies a value judgment rather than a simple observation. If you are thinking in terms of statistics, a "normal distribution" is a probability distribution that is symmetric about some mean or average value. As I explained before, much of the distribution will not be average, but may be completely "normal" in the sense that it falls within standards for the group or situation.

So, are redheads normal? How about men who wear size 9? The answer will apply also to intuitives.

In fact, next time someone questions my type, I'm straight up calling the police.

But you ARE the police - here at least.

 

[Stigmata]

Spoken like a typical ESFJ.

Call an ambulance!!

BUT NOT FOR ME!!

.

 

[yeghor]

This may be correct in theory, but who is to say what someone's "true type" is? Certainly not some random person on the internet who barely knows them. It is one thing to observe that someone's behavior, comments, or stated intentions are uncommon for one type or more consistent with another; and quite another thing to insist they are mistyped. Make your observations and leave them there, for everyone else to consider in drawing their own conclusions.

If not here on typology forum then where? It would turn this forum into a social club where everyone keeps pampering each other.

Yes, N types are less common than S types. Redheads are much less common than blonds or brunets. That doesn't make them deviant and certainly not defective. In a standard distribution, the majority of people won't be represented by the average value. That is almost implicit in the notion of an average: it somehow represents a spectrum of diversity. Words like "defect" and "weird" come with value judgments that are entirely misplaced, both in the realm of hair color and of personality types.

Consider dominant intuitives more like Albinos, that would be a better analogy, in terms of frequency of occurence. Redhead and blonde and brunette are still within the norm. It is all about frequency of occurence.

I do hope you are not suggesting that only intuitives experience loneliness, or that it is inevitable that they will. Extraverted intuitives in particular seem to have no trouble engaging socially.

No, you didn't say "above" or "better", but you implied pretty strongly: "worse". As I wrote above, departures from the average are not deviant or defective. The average men's shoe size in the US is 10.5, but that doesn't make someone wearing size 9 or size 12 abnormal. As for projection, I would say pot/kettle, but I am seeing it only on your side. Look to your own thoughts before telling others their own need sorting.

Again, it is about frequency. A dominant intuitive, because they occur less frequently in a given group, will have less chance of bumping into fellow dominant intuitives whom he can communicate more efficiently then the more frequently occuring types. It is about "clicking" with other people. Given dominant intuitives are like 5% in a given group, they have less chance of bumping into each other in a significantly large sample.

Again for shoe size and standard distribution, consider the average/norm as 1 or 2 standard deviation from the average. Anything outside that range are outliers. In that analogy intuitives would be like the readings at bottom 5% shoe size, like 6 for a men, which would definitely look abnormal on a men. The extreme ends of the normal distribution are "weird" and a "deviation" from the "norm" (95%) or would look like that to those closer to the average point.

Again I emphasize that I did not make any value comparison between types, it is all about frequency of occurence and distance to the average point of the distribution curve but you keep reading it like that. You should identify why that is internally.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Call an ambulance!!

BUT NOT FOR ME!!

.

What bill dies in that movie?

 

[yeghor]

Look at my edit. You are calling your own claim a straw-man, since I am only responding to what you had indeed claimed.

You need to show the courtesy to explain your reasoning rather then instructing me to do things.

 

[Earl Grey]

You need to show the courtesy to explain your reasoning

I did.

rather then instructing me to do things.

Would you prefer to get doubleposted at?? That's the alternative.

 

[Coriolis]

If not here on typology forum then where? It would turn this forum into a social club where everyone keeps pampering each other.

Observing that this is a typology forum means only that discussion of type is on topic and a likely interest of participants. It does not give you carte blanche to insist that your interpretation of someone's type is correct. There is a happy medium between doing this and what you seem to dismiss as "social pampering". That is to make observations, back them up with evidence, and accept that people might draw different conclusions, especially if you are taking about someone about whom they have far greater knowledge - e.g. themselves.

Consider dominant intuitives more like Albinos, that would be a better analogy, in terms of frequency of occurence. Redhead and blonde and brunette are still within the norm. It is all about frequency of occurence.

Again, it is about frequency. A dominant intuitive, because they occur less frequently in a given group, will have less chance of bumping into fellow dominant intuitives whom he can communicate more efficiently then the more frequently occuring types. It is about "clicking" with other people. Given dominant intuitives are like 5% in a given group, they have less chance of bumping into each other in a significantly large sample.

Again for shoe size and standard distribution, consider the average/norm as 1 or 2 standard deviation from the average. Anything outside that range are outliers. In that analogy intuitives would be like the readings at bottom 5% shoe size, like 6 for a men, which would definitely look abnormal on a men. The extreme ends of the normal distribution are "weird" and a "deviation" from the "norm" (95%) or would look like that to those closer to the average point.

Again I emphasize that I did not make any value comparison between types, it is all about frequency of occurence and distance to the average point of the distribution curve but you keep reading it like that. You should identify why that is internally.

Your statistics are off, so the analogy fails, nevermind that it would be inappropriate to attach value judgments to being albino. Most people interpret "defective" and "weird" to be negative, which would be a value judgment from your earlier post. In the real world, being far from the average is a problem only if it makes things difficult somehow. Oftentimes that difficulty arises not from anything intrinsic in yourself, but rather in how people around you react. There is nothing inherently wrong with a size 6 foot. In the days of custom footwear, it might even have been cheaper to get shoes as less material was required. Difficulty today comes only from the the fact that mass market shoe manufacturers don't earn enough money off selling these sizes to make very many of them. By this measure, intuitives have no trouble at all and are thus well within normal limits, as medical folk often say.

Both [MENTION=35920]Earl Grey[/MENTION] and I have explained our reasoning. To your credit, you have explained yours as well. It just doesn't hold water. The only "instructing" going on was in your earlier statement "You seeing it that way is coming from an inferiority complex getting triggered in you and projected on to me. It has nothing to do with me. You need to sort it out internally." That was both instruction, assumption, and possibly projection of your own. I see you do not limit yourself to doing this in the realm of typology, but it is neither helpful nor welcome in most contexts.

 

[yeghor]

Observing that this is a typology forum means only that discussion of type is on topic and a likely interest of participants. It does not give you carte blanche to insist that your interpretation of someone's type is correct. There is a happy medium between doing this and what you seem to dismiss as "social pampering". That is to make observations, back them up with evidence, and accept that people might draw different conclusions, especially if you are taking about someone about whom they have far greater knowledge - e.g. themselves.


Your statistics are off, so the analogy fails, nevermind that it would be inappropriate to attach value judgments to being albino. Most people interpret "defective" and "weird" to be negative, which would be a value judgment from your earlier post. In the real world, being far from the average is a problem only if it makes things difficult somehow. Oftentimes that difficulty arises not from anything intrinsic in yourself, but rather in how people around you react. There is nothing inherently wrong with a size 6 foot. In the days of custom footwear, it might even have been cheaper to get shoes as less material was required. Difficulty today comes only from the the fact that mass market shoe manufacturers don't earn enough money off selling these sizes to make very many of them. By this measure, intuitives have no trouble at all and are thus well within normal limits, as medical folk often say.

Both [MENTION=35920]Earl Grey[/MENTION] and I have explained our reasoning. To your credit, you have explained yours as well. It just doesn't hold water. The only "instructing" going on was in your earlier statement "You seeing it that way is coming from an inferiority complex getting triggered in you and projected on to me. It has nothing to do with me. You need to sort it out internally." That was both instruction, assumption, and possibly projection of your own. I see you do not limit yourself to doing this in the realm of typology, but it is neither helpful nor welcome in most contexts.

I do not agree with you either.

 

[Luminous]

Let's socially pamper the intuitives!

BAN ALL THE SENSORS!

/sarcasm (in case you didn't realize)

 

[Merced]

"I don't think your typing is right because I think your definitions of the functions/dichotomies/types are incorrect." A-Okay, 100% fine and always welcome.

"I don't think your typing is right because I think you are attributing things to incorrect sources (ex: I think trait so-and-so is because of Fe as opposed e6 tendencies.)" Sure, I can see that. Point that out, let's start a dialogue.

"I don't think your typing is right because I think you are biased on your own actions/behaviors." A little out of pocket, but if stated tactfully, I don't see a problem with this line of thinking.

"I don't think your typing is right because I think you are not actually the way you say you are." Here's where you start needing evidence because just stating this and walking away is a cunt move.

"I don't think your typing is right and my typing for you is the only valid one." Gets you one free virtual knuckle sandwich. Piss off.

 

[prplchknz]

it's not unless after you tell them no they're wrong they keep insisting that's you're type. like bitch, i know me better than you know me sit down and shut the fuck up

 

[Saturnal Snowqueen]

I find it offensive only if someone insists they know better than the person whose type they are discussing. It is fine to present your own analysis and to disagree with someone's self-typing, but this is one of those cases where people just need to agree to disagree. Unless we know a member exceedingly well, our typing is based on just a small part of who they are as a person. This is why I put a premium on the observations that someone uses to justify a typing rather than on the end result type itself. I can fold those observations in with those of other people to help me get a more complete picture, including seeing into whatever blind spots I have.

Yeah, although you could argue that maybe they do know you better in a way, that you might be denying a certain part of self and they can read through that. I feel like sometimes people think the typist is acting like that when they just want to give them a really thorough explanation, and given the amount of vulnerability typing truly involves I can get why they think that. That makes things problematic on both ends-the person being typed being close minded to new typings and seeking typings as validation and the typist assuming that anyone else's typings of people are thoughtless. I like that you take information in from all angles and then use that to paint the picture-even if we don't agree with that person's analysis, there's got to be a reason behind why they made it in the first place. Even though they might not know why a person presents a certain way, there's got to be a why we got to dig in to. They also might be closer to them and have a better grasp on why they do the things they do, and know that they present differently on forum versus different parts of the internet or real life.

This was brought up in another thread, but it seems like enneagram is the system tend to be more offended by typing wise than MBTI. And I get that, I get why people not being able to grasp your motivations in life would be a little offensive given that it's such an integral part of someone and a deeper part of them rather than how they process information. But some are offended by MBTI-there's that N/S thingy but also I can see people being offended if people don't notice a function in them when they consider it an integral part of their identity. Like me, even though I'm definitely an introvert my Ne is more important to me than my Fi-seeing things in a different light, entertaining all the different possibilities, and breaking down routines is something that's a huge part of my personality and that I enjoy flaunting and bringing to the table.

 

[Coriolis]

Yeah, although you could argue that maybe they do know you better in a way, that you might be denying a certain part of self and they can read through that. I feel like sometimes people think the typist is acting like that when they just want to give them a really thorough explanation, and given the amount of vulnerability typing truly involves I can get why they think that. That makes things problematic on both ends-the person being typed being close minded to new typings and seeking typings as validation and the typist assuming that anyone else's typings of people are thoughtless. I like that you take information in from all angles and then use that to paint the picture-even if we don't agree with that person's analysis, there's got to be a reason behind why they made it in the first place. Even though they might not know why a person presents a certain way, there's got to be a why we got to dig in to. They also might be closer to them and have a better grasp on why they do the things they do, and know that they present differently on forum versus different parts of the internet or real life.

The highlighted is much more likely to come from someone who knows you well, especially in RL, rather than some person on the internet who knows only what you show in your posts on a single forum. While it is quite possible they may have something of value to say, that is more likely to come in the form of those observations, that you can then integrate with what you know of yourself and what you are told by others. I don't take issue with people disagreeing with someone's stated type, especially when they support their conclusion with evidence. It is when they insist they have to be right despite seeing only a small slice of who that person is, that it becomes a problem.

 

[Luminous]

"I don't think your typing is right because I think your definitions of the functions/dichotomies/types are incorrect." A-Okay, 100% fine and always welcome.

"I don't think your typing is right because I think you are attributing things to incorrect sources (ex: I think trait so-and-so is because of Fe as opposed e6 tendencies.)" Sure, I can see that. Point that out, let's start a dialogue.

"I don't think your typing is right because I think you are biased on your own actions/behaviors." A little out of pocket, but if stated tactfully, I don't see a problem with this line of thinking.

"I don't think your typing is right because I think you are not actually the way you say you are." Here's where you start needing evidence because just stating this and walking away is a cunt move.

"I don't think your typing is right and my typing for you is the only valid one." Gets you one free virtual knuckle sandwich. Piss off.

There's also
"I don't think your typing is right because you're [insert insult or covert insult], so you're x type [clearly baiting and trying to stir drama]." Also deserves knuckle sandwich and a piss off.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

It is most annoying when someone repeatedly insists I am a certain type but refuse to say why they think so.