Mistyped TypeCentral Members

[Il Morto Che Parla]

Oh goody, another NTP summing up my thoughts for me in a single sentance. Well done, sir.

It's what I do.

 

[garbage]

Good stuff, man.

this is all interesting and you guys know more than me, but it still seems like there is a twist of logic being applied here. I don't doubt yout superior knowledge of MBTI

I've gotta say that my knowledge of MBTI itself is less extensive than that of a lot of other members here--they're encyclopedias on the subject by comparison--but that I do trust that I know a thing or two about (mostly cognitive) models in general; how models are applied, compared, tested, and validated; etc. etc.

I doubt my superior knowledge of MBTI, so you don't have to

It seems to go that:

a.) We cannot agree on many things about MBTI, therefore the theory cannot be applied.
b.)If we all agree "for the sake of argument" that the theory is to be applied, then it still internally has space for wide interpretations.
c.)Therefore any interpretation is equally valid/invalid (in effect).
d.) So back to point A.

There is a subtle leap from b.) to c.), but it's a big one, and I am suspicious of it.

I would think that just because JCF has been applied in many different ways, does not mean there are no common understandings of it, nor that some are not much more widely accepted in the typology community than others.
[...]
but there is still enough of a continuity and common "thread" there in order to make the idea of a coherent hypothesis and debate conceivable.

"Baby getting thrown out with bathwater" comes to mind.

I have to say that there are very few absolutes. There's a degree to which MBTI is internally coherent, well-understood, valid, and/or applicable; there's a degree to which it's not. Acknowledging that there's a degree to which it's inaccurate doesn't invalidate the whole shebang; nor does claiming that it has a lil' bit of utility mean that we treat it as gospel.

On agreement: There's a set of near-universal 'tenets' that are understood about MBTI; many points that are widely accepted but under contention by some; and some that nobody has a damn clue about. Coherent hypotheses and debate are definitely conceivable; in fact, it allows us to clear up misconceptions and figure out which of the wide set of interpretations makes the most sense.

I definitely don't think that every interpretation is equally valid or invalid; some are more on target--and make more sense--than others. The more detailed ones tend to suffer under their own weight, for example.

 

[Coriolis]

It seems to go that:

a.) We cannot agree on many things about MBTI, therefore the theory cannot be applied.
b.)If we all agree "for the sake of argument" that the theory is to be applied, then it still internally has space for wide interpretations.
c.)Therefore any interpretation is equally valid/invalid (in effect).
d.) So back to point A.

There is a subtle leap from b.) to c.), but it's a big one, and I am suspicious of it.

Or am I wrong?

I would not make such a leap. I would say instead that:

a) We can agree on much but not everything about MBTI.
b) The extent of our agreement places limitations on how far we can apply the theory.
c) If we want to extend application past the boundary of agreement (assumes we know where that is), we must explain the interpretation we are using, and treat the extension as a test or hypothesis.
d) essentially a corollary to (c): others may postulate alternative ways to apply the theory, based upon other interpretations or extensions of the "established" theory.

I think what you're neglecting here is that in the case of the texts you just mentioned culture has a constraining effect on the range of acceptable or even possible interpretations. The benefit of that is that it allows us to have a common frame of reference when dealing with complex ideas, and perhaps the drawback is that we assume we have more in common than we actually do. As I mentioned in the post that you quoted, I think in the case of this forum there have grown to be norms for the interpretation of the theory. These norms are functional ones or we wouldn't have threads such as the one we're in now, and people would clarify their assumptions re: theory and interpretation more frequently.

So while, yeah, it may be a messy way to go about things, it seems to be working, so I don't have any issues with it. In general, at least I don't think that people drawing on different interpretations or theories detracts from our ability as a forum to have meaningful discussions about psychology. Feel free to correct me, though, if I'm missing your point here.

Quite the opposite: drawing on different interpretations is beneficial in helping me see the theory in different ways, and go beyond the limitations of whatever interpretation I may be most familiar with. In short, it helps me learn. My point was just that it helps to avoid misunderstandings if we clarify our assumptions and definitions/sources at the outset. This is because a common frame of reference benefits us only to the extent that it really is common and we stay within it. When we go beyond that without realizing or clarifying, confusion can ensue.

 

[Kalach]

I don't suppose anyone would care to make clear the distinction between collections of ideas that have existed for other people and collections of ideas that you're attached to and willing to develop?

(And also state how it applies to all this anguished theory denial.)

 

[greenfairy]

I've decided to change my type to XNtp. And if anyone has a problem with it, they can kiss my sparkly fairy butt.

However, I apologize in advance for being the cause of mental pain due to cognitive dissonance. Unfortunately (for you), avoiding it in myself is more important.

 

[Elfboy]

[MENTION=8936]highlander[/MENTION]
I see you as an 8w9 for some reason. I'm curious as to why you believe you are a 6
[MENTION=10496]skylights[/MENTION]
you strike me as 2w3 fixed rather than 3w4 fixed and possibly So/Sx. Sx/So's tend to be more dramatic and less subtle; So/Sx has a warmer, more subdued energy. I can't say for certain though, as ENFP 6>9>2 is already a pretty docile type with a more mellow, yin energy.
[MENTION=7991]chana[/MENTION]
6w5 Sp/Sx or Sx/Sp you see too detached, cunning, cold and blunt and not insecure enough about your self worth (an ironic choice of words given the type I'm proposing) to be an image type.
[MENTION=13550]Jaqcues Le Paul[/MENTION]
- not an ENTJ. you lack the thorough, conscientious, excessively quantifiable nature of a Te dom. ENFP works much better in my opinion (with the possibility of INTJ or ENTP)
- Sp/Sx as opposed to Sx/Sp. you're more detached and self absorbed rather than impulsive, excessive, addictive and thrill seeking the way an Sx dom is.
- since you're undecided on your wing, it's clearly 7w6 in my opinion. you're more cerebral and calculated and seem to have a stronger connection to the head center; 7w8 by contrast is less aware of consequences, more in the moment and more action oriented (even prone to workaholism)
- not sure if you're interested in tritype, but you seem like a 7w6>3w4>9w8

 

[RaptorWizard]

Elfboy, I seriously considered what you and Speed Gavroche said about INTP 5w6 even though it didn't go into my typing box - and perhaps I considered it too much; or too little.

Also [MENTION=15773]greenfairy[/MENTION], the reason people blow up when you consider INTP is because you seem to be much more of an idiosyncratic dreamer (INFP trait) than a detached thinker (INTP trait).

 

[greenfairy]

Also [MENTION=15773]greenfairy[/MENTION], the reason people blow up when you consider INTP is because you seem to be much more of an idiosyncratic dreamer (INFP trait) than a detached thinker (INTP trait).

Yes, I realize this. But appearances are deceiving. People just don't understand how I think and the perspective I'm coming from. Which is what I've been trying to communicate; but it's like trying to describe to a fish what the top of a tree looks like.

 

[WALMART]

Yes, I realize this. But appearances are deceiving. People just don't understand how I think and the perspective I'm coming from. Which is what I've been trying to communicate; but it's like trying to describe to a fish what the top of a tree looks like.

Plenty of riverbanks have been flooded extensively.

 

[Il Morto Che Parla]

Yes, I realize this. But appearances are deceiving. People just don't understand how I think and the perspective I'm coming from. Which is what I've been trying to communicate; but it's like trying to describe to a fish what the top of a tree looks like.

Why wouldn't you just point them to a description of Ti is that's what you identify with?

Jung did the work so that you don't have to!

 

[Jaguar]

Yes, I realize this. But appearances are deceiving. People just don't understand how I think and the perspective I'm coming from. Which is what I've been trying to communicate; but it's like trying to describe to a fish what the top of a tree looks like.

To those who whine about four letters in your profile, consider using the following: STFU.

 

[Cellmold]

Yes, I realize this. But appearances are deceiving.

Very true, for example most of the people I know in real life, outside of my close family, believe me to be laid back and calm.

 

[greenfairy]

Why wouldn't you just point them to a description of Ti is that's what you identify with?

Jung did the work so that you don't have to!

I have, to no avail.

To those who whine about four letters in your profile, consider using the following: STFU.

And this was my type for awhile.

 

[miss fortune]

trying to describe to a fish what the top of a tree looks like.

but that's simple... you just take them some broccoli!

*still pretends to be a world consuming giant at dinnertime*

 

[skylights]

[MENTION=10496]skylights[/MENTION]you strike me as 2w3 fixed rather than 3w4 fixed and possibly So/Sx. Sx/So's tend to be more dramatic and less subtle; So/Sx has a warmer, more subdued energy. I can't say for certain though, as ENFP 6>9>2 is already a pretty docile type with a more mellow, yin energy.

Oh damn, do I still have 3w4 down? You're absolutely right that I'm more 2-and-3 than 3-and-4. I think for a long time 6's need for approval plus reactivity plus Fi made me think I was 4 somewhere, but the more I read about 4s, the more I understand that there is no 4 in me. I don't know if I'm a 2 primary over 3... I suppose it's possible, but I associate very much with 3's image issues, needing to be the best, needing to present a "pretty face" to the world, needing to be worthy of love. What would indicate 2w3 over 3w2? I definitely seek status "markers" like a 3, but I also am guilty of trying to get everyone to like me.

As for instinct, I understand where you're coming from - I definitely am not as polarizing as some Sx's - but I am so very Sx-dom it is not funny (I mean it's really not, I've been suffering the pains of Sx-dominance all my life). The interesting thing is, I probably associate with Sx dominance more than any other personality trait I have ever discovered. It accurately describes SO much about me. You know your thread about the "two types of Sx doms"? It just manifests like the immersion type instead of the edgy type. I've been really interested in the instinct variants lately and I'm trying to find more information about Sx manifestation. I am very averse to abruptness in almost all situations, and I don't know if that's a facet of 6+9 or an aftereffect of So-secondary or just a personal quirk, but I think that takes a lot of the "edge" out of my Sx dominance. That, and being surrounded by Fe ALL THE TIME!

 

[BlackCat]

Starting to wonder if I could possibly be an ESFP... hmm. Might be that Se is just a pretty big, raging force, and I feel like my Te isn't too shabby anymore. But then that leaves Ni... which I don't think is inferior.

 

[greenfairy]

but that's simple... you just take them some broccoli!

*still pretends to be a world consuming giant at dinnertime*

Yes, but then they tell you it's just broccoli and you're overgeneralizing. Broccoli and coral reefs can't possibly be representative of other things. Like this is just a shape.

And this is just a lovely pattern.


All those Tibetan monks just don't know what they are talking about.

 

[miss fortune]

Yes, but then they tell you it's just broccoli and you're overgeneralizing. Broccoli and coral reefs can't possibly be representative of other things. Like this is just a shape.
View attachment 8933
And this is just a lovely pattern.
View attachment 8934

All those Tibetan monks just don't know what they are talking about.

That's when you glare at them and tell them that they obviously don't WANT to learn what tree tops look like if they're going to get caught up in the petty details, and then you grab them up, fillet them, coat them with cornmeal and fry them

 

[greenfairy]

That's when you glare at them and tell them that they obviously don't WANT to learn what tree tops look like if they're going to get caught up in the petty details, and then you grab them up, fillet them, coat them with cornmeal and fry them

LOL. Now I have to think about how to figuratively do this...

 

[miss fortune]

LOL. Now I have to think about how to figuratively do this...

build mental voodoo dolls and then set them on fire... I find doing so to be amazingly cheering