Mistyped TypeCentral Members

[violet_crown]

No confusion. I'm flat-out stating that we don't understand the models that have been constructed to decipher human behavior, at least to the degree that we seek to apply them.

Lol. Speak for yourself, sweetheart.

Why I'm on a site like this is immaterial.

Oh no. It's actually perfectly relevant in the context of this discussion.

So it's less "insistence" and more "sort of, kind of implied, maybe."

For the record, (a) my point was that the judgments were incorrect and exaggerated; not that they were negative;

They were neither, actually.

and (b) my point also wasn't directed at you per se--because we've clearly got an impasse there--but as part of this overarching, ongoing discussion.

If that was your intention, start a thread. As it is all it looks like is that you got butt hurt about a throw away comment I made about feelers and in typical Fe-Ni fashion had to make it about the "greater good" to assume some bullshit moral high ground.

You just had to go and get your little barbs in, didn't you

That's what Te does, isn't it!? It just doesn't give a fuck, does it?

Well, let me tell you something. I'm going to get you back--in spades. You're not even going to see the social manipulation coming. You're going to wonder why everyone's turned against you, started e-talking about you behind your back all of a sudden. You Thinkers are so oblivious to that social game--it's like you have some sort of neural chip missing--so, guess what? It's going to be easy.

I'm sick of all of this hardassed, overly-critical, Thinking bullshit. It has to end right here and right now.

That's what you get for hurting my feelings. Don't fuck with me.

It's a shame. I think we actually could have had some fun if you weren't so revoltingly transparent.

 

[1487610420]

But what if I AM ESFP or ENTP? It could be true if I've been in a perpetual shadow!!

It all makes sense nao.

 

[miss fortune]

maybe I'm just stubborn, but nobody has explained why strict typological theory applies in a biblical strictness to the amazing variety of people that exists... there's too many questions to accept it as any real form of gospel to me

I think that there are definite flaws in using a self reporting test to judge things, I think that there's a problem with people on the internet deciding that they're definitely right in assessing someone who they only know through online interaction (we're speaking of an environment where all teenage girls are chris hanson, right? ) and there are still people who think that a test and some words from a stranger can define them with definitive proof... I don't get it... when did people become so trusting?

I don't get why we'd even think that it was possible for there to be 16 strictly defined types of people in a theoretical standpoint- there's over 7 billion people on the planet for goodness sake, that would mean that there should be approximately half a billion people who are just like me out there... the world should be a LOT more difficult to navigate than it really is

to say that a strict interpretation is bullshit isn't necessarily throwing everything into the wind in a free for all, it's just questioning the rectitude with which some people hold themselves on typing authority and the idea that "because they hold some different beliefs than I think that someone like that should they must be something different"... life experience and background play a big part in someone's belief systems as well, which is usually forgotten... both nature and nurture are explanatory forces, not just one or the other...

in other words, getting one's panties in a knot over someone not being what you expect when you only see one aspect of them is kind of pointless...

 

[The Great One]

Elfboy was reffering to me in the is the member above you accurately typed thread and Speed Gavroche was talking about my type in a 5w6 vs 5w4 ISTP/INTP thread about me and, in all honesty, I think they could be right.

After all, Elf and Speed are the renowned typing experts of the forum, so trust their judgment I will.

I agree with both of them.

 

[garbage]

If that was your intention, start a thread. As it is all it looks like is that you got butt hurt about a throw away comment I made about feelers and in typical Fe-Ni fashion had to make it about the "greater good" to assume some bullshit moral high ground.

I didn't claim any moral high ground. But now I am: I didn't dismiss your claims by insulting them or you.

If your criteria for me to prove to you that I'm not butthurt is for me to start a thread, then I'll just go ahead and suffer the terrible consequence of you thinking that I'm butthurt.

It's a shame. I think we actually could have had some fun if you weren't so revoltingly transparent.

Did you install a passive aggressive widget to the site without announcing it? Because I fail to see how this is a productive contribution towards creating peace throughout the galaxy.

Look, I'm fully capable of having a halfway serious conversation and a joking sidebar with someone else at the same time.

I was making fun of EJCC as a Te-dom, because she's a Te-dom. I was mocking being insulted at something she said to me as per the Fe stereotype. Because the two of us have a history of bantering back and forth like that quite a bit. And because we're talking about stereotypes.

Get it? Because EJCC was talking about combating stereotypes earlier??

Do I really have to explain this?

 

[Red Herring]

 

[EJCC]

You just had to go and get your little barbs in, didn't you

That's what Te does, isn't it!? It just doesn't give a fuck, does it?

Well, let me tell you something. I'm going to get you back--in spades. You're not even going to see the social manipulation coming. You're going to wonder why everyone's turned against you, started e-talking about you behind your back all of a sudden. You Thinkers are so oblivious to that social game--it's like you have some sort of neural chip missing--so, guess what? It's going to be easy.

I'm sick of all of this hardassed, overly-critical, Thinking bullshit. It has to end right here and right now.

That's what you get for hurting my feelings. Don't fuck with me.

"You can't play on my feelings. I don't have any."

Since you just performed a biting parody of how Fi dom/aux tend to see Fe, you obviously must be one of them (the Fi users that is). I say ISFP. Case closed.

That's right!
/discussion




Edit: Great post, [MENTION=1180]whatever[/MENTION] -- as always! I totally agree. If the MBTI was perfect, then MAYBE it would make sense to follow it like gospel, but it's not, so it doesn't.

And it's not like any theory is perfect anyway, when you think about it.

 

[greenfairy]

Getting mad at someone online is so pointless. And yet I am one of the people most guilty of it. I suppose it's a cycle many of us have to go through before we become wise and mature and break it. And also, typology is one of the most pointless things to be mad about.

Egos are so fragile and dangerous. I seek to transcend mine.

 

[Coriolis]

Getting mad at someone online is so pointless. And yet I am one of the people most guilty of it. I suppose it's a cycle many of us have to go through before we become wise and mature and break it. And also, typology is one of the most pointless things to be mad about.

I can think of sillier things to get mad about, but as you say, it is pointless in any case. Typology makes for interesting and productive discussions IF people enter those discussions with the goal of understanding, not judging or one-upsmanship. The confusion is due in part to the fact that there are multiple theories of JCF/MBTI-based typing. None describe anyone completely, and the differences among them are not always well-understood. Each is useful as far as it goes, but its limitations are often ignored in the interests of wanting to find an identity, or a simple answer. The latter doesn't exist, and the former must be found outside typing systems, though they can provide useful clues.

 

[Glycerine]

It's the downside of getting so deep into it. It's almost as if once the "identity" is found people end up internalizing it and see anything related to it as validation/personal attack. I admit that I was guilty of that too though. Ironically, once I figured out my best fit type/enneagram combo, I stopped caring so much about it.

 

[garbage]

Damn. I hate it when members I like are mad at each other.

Can't we all just get along?

I'd say "cut your Fe harmony and rainbows bullshit" but, since I'm a phobic six, I'm terribly afraid of the fallback.

I can think of sillier things to get mad about, but as you say, it is pointless in any case. Typology makes for interesting and productive discussions IF people enter those discussions with the goal of understanding, not judging or one-upsmanship. The confusion is due in part to the fact that there are multiple theories of JCF/MBTI-based typing. None describe anyone completely, and the differences among them are not always well-understood. Each is useful as far as it goes, but its limitations are often ignored in the interests of wanting to find an identity, or a simple answer. The latter doesn't exist, and the former must be found outside typing systems, though they can provide useful clues.

This.

Since you just performed a biting parody of how Fi dom/aux tend to see Fe, you obviously must be one of them (the Fi users that is). I say ISFP. Case closed.

I see why you say ISFP, too--it's obvious that I'm in a dom-tert loop (Fi/Ni), wherein I'm speaking from the Fi perspective but also channeling some (immature tert) Ni-level paranoia.

Good call. I think you've convinced me of ISFP. I'm glad that we have this "Mistyped TypoC Members" thread to dispel misconceptions in our individual types.

This image is broke

--

Fine, fine. I'll stop the sarcastic banter, as fun as it is.

 

[violet_crown]

The confusion is due in part to the fact that there are multiple theories of JCF/MBTI-based typing. None describe anyone completely, and the differences among them are not always well-understood. Each is useful as far as it goes, but its limitations are often ignored in the interests of wanting to find an identity, or a simple answer. The latter doesn't exist, and the former must be found outside typing systems, though they can provide useful clues.

Well stated.

[MENTION=5578]bologna[/MENTION], is this what you've been getting at in our discussion?

 

[Aquarelle]

I can think of sillier things to get mad about, but as you say, it is pointless in any case. Typology makes for interesting and productive discussions IF people enter those discussions with the goal of understanding, not judging or one-upsmanship. The confusion is due in part to the fact that there are multiple theories of JCF/MBTI-based typing. None describe anyone completely, and the differences among them are not always well-understood. Each is useful as far as it goes, but its limitations are often ignored in the interests of wanting to find an identity, or a simple answer. The latter doesn't exist, and the former must be found outside typing systems, though they can provide useful clues.

I think this is very true and often overlooked.

 

[Il Morto Che Parla]

One person asked to be typed and then people typed him according to their understanding of MBTI/function theory. Nobody claimed to have the absolute truth. Nobody insulted or disrespected him.

Just because there are multiple interpretations of a theory doesn't mean someone cannot believe in one of them, and act on that basis. So long as they don't falsely claim it is hard proven science, what's the issue?

If the person was to get upset about it then would he ask to be typed?

I read the last few pages and don't understand why this turned into a big issue.

 

[SilkRoad]

It's a thread called "Mistyped TypeCentral Members." I think, like...everything is going to become a big issue!

 

[Il Morto Che Parla]

It's a thread called "Mistyped TypeCentral Members." I think, like...everything is going to become a big issue!

My Ti-Fe "principles" demand that I speak up for those who I feel have been wrongly vilified.

People will think I am trolling, but genuinely, I thought [MENTION=7254]Wind-Up Rex[/MENTION] did nothing wrong at all, she just answered the guy's question in a civil way, in line with a common interpetation of MBTI theory, WHICH IS WHAT THIS FORUM IS DEVOTED TO.

People can disagree with Typology, but this would seem a bizarre thread to assume such a premise.

 

[Coriolis]

Just because there are multiple interpretations of a theory doesn't mean someone cannot believe in one of them, and act on that basis. So long as they don't falsely claim it is hard proven science, what's the issue?

The issue is that if one person is commenting from the perspective of one theory or interpretation, and the other person's understanding is based on a different interpretation, misunderstanding can result when the comments to not make plain which theory they are using, and which assumptions are being made. Yes, one need not become testy in sorting it out, but it can take a few posts to clarify what each person means by what they are saying.

I agree, I do not see insult or disrespect in the responses in this exchange. I have learned, however, that insult is often in the eye of the beholder, and not everyone can disagree without being disagreeable.

 

[violet_crown]

The issue is that if one person is commenting from the perspective of one theory or interpretation, and the other person's understanding is based on a different interpretation, misunderstanding can result when the comments to not make plain which theory they are using, and which assumptions are being made. Yes, one need not become testy in sorting it out, but it can take a few posts to clarify what each person means by what they are saying.

I think that the issue of different theories only cropped up in the side discussion I had with Bologna. Neither Lark nor Aquarelle ever said anything to make me think they disputed the validity of JCF, only that they weren't familiar with it.

I tried to be clear as possible in explaining both my understanding of Si, as well as how I felt it was applicable to what I'd observed of Lark's behavior. If you had been in my position, what would you have done to be more transparent?

 

[Aquarelle]

I think that the issue of different theories only cropped up in the side discussion I had with Bologna. Neither Lark nor Aquarelle ever said anything to make me think they disputed the validity of JCF, only that they weren't familiar with it.

Well, I actually said I don't subscribe to it, or at least that I prefer the strict MBTI interpretation. I am familiar with JCF. I think the fact that we were coming from different schools of thought contributed to the fact that you thought I was oversimplifying (which I was) and being condescending toward Sensors (which I certainly was not). I suppose that was an error/oversight on my part-- when you start talking about Se and Si, it's fairly obvious that you are talking JCF, but perhaps if you had known that I don't talk about Se and Si, you may not have thought I was oversimplifying quite so much. But like I said before, I thought the interaction was civil enough.

 

[violet_crown]

Well, I actually said I don't subscribe to it, or at least that I prefer the strict MBTI interpretation. I am familiar with JCF.

I'm not entirely sure what this means. Perhaps I'm mistaken but aren't MBTI types just particular configurations of the functions? If one comprises the other how can they be said to be distinct schools of thought? Hearing someone say this is like being told that someone loves to read, but is kind of skeptical of the whole alphabet "thing".

Just to be clear on how I think about this: I'm most familiar with functions as interpreted and understood by Myers-Briggs. That's what I understand to be the standard model, and it's the one I use when typing others. And generally speaking, anyone on this site using any other model usually states as much because it's atypical to do so. Otherwise we'd all run around saying, "Well based on xyz interpretation, I believe this person is an XXXX." So, I'm not exactly sure what you and some of the others in this thread are on about.