Type Descriptions and You

[Dreamer]

We all know the inconveniences of type descriptions seen online. Most of us hardly relate to them. There is an obvious practicality the few 16 type descriptions DO serve (we can't have hundreds of descriptions floating around, just so you can find one that sounds like you can we?) and they are not meant to be scripture anyhow, human personality is much too complex for us to even fathom, let alone one or two systems of personality typing. So I am asking, why do you or other people find disgust, or have unfavorable views of the personality type descriptions? And furthermore, what do those descriptions DO to our subculture of Typology enthusiasts and how we see one another?

Is it possible, those that find the descriptions most wrong, most appalling, are those that have turned to personality type to solve whatever identity issues they may have? They have turned to Typology as a way to figure out the world around them, and thus, need more defining answers? Is it possible, that those same people, when meeting others of a similar type as themselves, that just so happen to appear as that type to a T (relating so heavily to a type description) that that somehow makes them "fake"? With any categorical system, there will always be those points in the data collection that fall far from the point of reference, and some that fall closer or even directly on that point of reference. Why must those that happen to fall within a close proximity of a type description have some "issue" or type bias? Could it be possible, they are just in fact, SO much this type or that, and that's that?

There are many questions asked here, but feel free to take this any direction you wish. This will no doubt be a VERY broad discussion, but I am looking for the psychology behind personality type descriptions, and one way to find that out, is to ask broad questions and see how or where people take it.

 

[skimpit]

. . . far from the point of reference, and some that fall closer or even directly on that point of reference. Why must those that happen to fall within a close proximity of a type description have some "issue" or type bias? Could it be possible, they are just in fact, SO much this type or that, and that's that?

I'm not sure what you mean here. Could you be clearer?

When thinking about type, I always refer to WikiHow. Now, this might seem a little odd, but when you think about it, it makes a lot of sense. WikiHow teaches you basic psychology, watch -

- Don't pressure or force someone into being friends with you.

What is your reaction to this statement? In truth, what do you say to it? If it's poshposh, I don't ever force anyone into being friends with me!! Then, what that says about you is you're in denial. And you're probably a Thinker.

- A church, Mosque, temple or other house of worship is a great place to start since you have at least have a religious faith in common. However, if you do enter a religious building, remember to be respectful in the house of their God.

If you think about this and go, why do I have to respect what they like?? Then you're probably a feeler. And also rude, too.

They have turned to Typology as a way to figure out the world around them, and thus, need more defining answers? Is it possible, that those same people, when meeting others of a similar type as themselves,. . .

This is what I'm trying to get at. The same principle applies to a WikiHow article. If you're looking up something like that, it says what kind of person you are. MBTI tends to be the thing that will bring people together, but also could very likely tear them to shreds. For instance, the Tumblr MBTI community which is full of teenagers. A lot of these teenagers without a doubt have mild anxiety issues, whether it's just simple insecurities or an actual disorder. MBTI is comforting in a way a lot of other things are not. It is consistent. The type descriptions never change, because they're almost like a diagnosis. But they're so vague that they can be interpreted a million times over, so discussion never ceases.

- Most conversations will be a dead-end of sorts, when you may never talk to that person again, or you just remain acquaintances—but once in a while you'll actually make a friend.

This teaches you about life, how fleeting it is. Even if you think abstractly and dream about the future often, none of that can explain why a person stops talking to you. Why you don't have any friends. Why, whenever the clock strikes four you suddenly don't feel like talking like the other hours before. Why you cry randomly, without reason - why you feel left out.

I find if you ask a question that seems controversial (and in the bad context), it means you are. If a question sounds like something an annoying high school girl would ask, do you even associate that question with yourself? Are you the annoying high school girl who won't stop talking? Then perhaps you need to reflect on things, right?

why do you or other people find disgust, or have unfavorable

That assumes we are disgusted by it. When I first read type descriptions, I wasn't disgusted. I was just interested. Simple, really. I didn't think much of them, and actually thought they took themselves too seriously.

. . .obvious practicality the few 16 type descriptions DO serve (we can't have hundreds of descriptions floating around, just so you can find one that sounds like you can we?) and they are not meant to be scripture anyhow. . .

We do have hundreds, though. Each type description is a little different, even from official sites. In my opinion, there should be some type of scripture because as they are now, types are too easily interpreted as other things. No one, regardless of intelligence, can easily figure out what they're supposed to be reading. It's too steeped in allegory and psychological nonsense for the average person to grasp. So some kind of be-all-and-end-all descriptions would be nice.

And one more thing, to fathom means to "think" which doesn't necessarily mean understanding. You are fathoming right now on this type forum when you ask about personality. To fathom means 'to wonder; conceptualize' not 'completely know/realize'.

 

[Lord Lavender]

As i discussed with our sadly banned friend Peter Pan (I wish they didn't ban him as i found him funny and interesting) we wisely figured out that MBTI traits dont always link to JCF. For instance I am according to the MBTI an XNFP even though under JCF i am a ENTP. I test as F due to a high Fe while for instance a ISTP with high Ni will test as a INTx type. JFC is far deeper and goes into how you process and use information while MBTI itself is based on shallow traits. N tests for imagination but any type can have a good imagination in different ways for instance.

What they ought to do on tests is to determine witch function axes you lie on and then go on from there. For instance you show clear Si/Ne and Fi/Te which would mean you are ether XNFP or XSTJ. It should then test your strength in each function. Say you show balanced Si/Ne which narrows it down to INFP/ESTJ. You then show strong Te and weak Fi which means ESTJ.

 

[Coriolis]

We all know the inconveniences of type descriptions seen online. Most of us hardly relate to them. There is an obvious practicality the few 16 type descriptions DO serve (we can't have hundreds of descriptions floating around, just so you can find one that sounds like you can we?) and they are not meant to be scripture anyhow, human personality is much too complex for us to even fathom, let alone one or two systems of personality typing. So I am asking, why do you or other people find disgust, or have unfavorable views of the personality type descriptions? And furthermore, what do those descriptions DO to our subculture of Typology enthusiasts and how we see one another?

I don't have unfavorable views of the type descriptions in general. There are a few which are two-dimensional, or overlook type weaknesses, but for the most part, they do their job. Because of the variation in both quality and perspective, it is important to read several of them when trying to determine your best-fit type. And it is a best fit, not an exact fit, for the reasons you mention. As long as we keep this in mind, then there shouldn't be a problem. We can find the one that is the best fit, just as we can go into a shoe store and find a pair of shoes that is a workable fit, even though the shoes are mass-produced in standard sizes.

Is it possible, those that find the descriptions most wrong, most appalling, are those that have turned to personality type to solve whatever identity issues they may have? They have turned to Typology as a way to figure out the world around them, and thus, need more defining answers? Is it possible, that those same people, when meeting others of a similar type as themselves, that just so happen to appear as that type to a T (relating so heavily to a type description) that that somehow makes them "fake"? With any categorical system, there will always be those points in the data collection that fall far from the point of reference, and some that fall closer or even directly on that point of reference. Why must those that happen to fall within a close proximity of a type description have some "issue" or type bias? Could it be possible, they are just in fact, SO much this type or that, and that's that?

Types represent a continuum, or more correctly, each of the 4 dichotomies lies on a continuum. Not everyone with "I" in their type will be equally introverted, or everyone with "F" have an equally strong feeling preference. Moreover, since all we can directly observe about people is their external behavior - what they do and say - some type descriptions over-rely on this to illustrate the type. The better descriptions will provide more insight into the internal thought processes that are not observable from the outside, and which are much better indicators of type, if you can get an idea of what they are for a person (such as yourself). Behavior-based descriptions often don't match up to what we see because really, any type can exhibit a given behavior. It is why and how they are behaving that way that will show their true type preferences.

 

[Dreamer]

I don't have unfavorable views of the type descriptions in general. There are a few which are two-dimensional, or overlook type weaknesses, but for the most part, they do their job. Because of the variation in both quality and perspective, it is important to read several of them when trying to determine your best-fit type. And it is a best fit, not an exact fit, for the reasons you mention. As long as we keep this in mind, then there shouldn't be a problem. We can find the one that is the best fit, just as we can go into a shoe store and find a pair of shoes that is a workable fit, even though the shoes are mass-produced in standard sizes.

Types represent a continuum, or more correctly, each of the 4 dichotomies lies on a continuum. Not everyone with "I" in their type will be equally introverted, or everyone with "F" have an equally strong feeling preference. Moreover, since all we can directly observe about people is their external behavior - what they do and say - some type descriptions over-rely on this to illustrate the type. The better descriptions will provide more insight into the internal thought processes that are not observable from the outside, and which are much better indicators of type, if you can get an idea of what they are for a person (such as yourself). Behavior-based descriptions often don't match up to what we see because really, any type can exhibit a given behavior. It is why and how they are behaving that way that will show their true type preferences.

Personally, the descriptions don't bother me enough for me to rant about them, but some of them do irritate me. To me, ENFP descriptions paint the type as offering no intellectual value to society and are just free-spirited fluffs. Do I think this is true? Absolutely not. And I do know that my interpretation of these type descriptions stems directly from a deep held desire of mine to be recognized for my intellect so any view that paints ENFPs other than someone capable of abstract thought and a deep knowledge is deemed unattractive. The reason why they don't offend or trouble me more though, is because I've had trouble attaching labels to myself to begin with for years, and well, I just don't care to anyways. I hate the idea of conforming to some societal definition of this or that. If I do, it's as though my breadth and depth as a human being is capped at this superficial level of understanding. They do provide a shorthand way into understanding different types of people and there is certainly a usefulness to it all so I also accept them for what they are, and their practical application to a wide variety of people.

Similar to how you describe personality types, I actually tend to visualize types and functions in that very manner. In general, I tend to understand concepts through charts and graphs in my mind, seeing things with much grey area and non substantial, defined regions of identity. Everything I know and understand are on this continuum in flux and tension. Understanding personality type and the functions are no different. Throw in the right mixture of motivation, Enneagram, type, what have you, you will see this behavior demonstrated. Throw in a different blend of spices and you can still get the same resultant behavior. However, see that same behavior displayed by different personality types and now that same behavior starts to get identified as completely irrelevant things and are now strictly associated with those types, as so it would seem.

My point being I suppose, is that I personally try to understand where someone is coming from, what their motivations are, what their history is, before assigning this type or that function to that person. What the type descriptions say have little weight for me since I go about my own methods of figuring someone out. So, (fingers crossed) I hope to see other people's points of view as to why they have unfavorable views of their type's descriptions, or maybe they don't! I am interested in all sides of the story.

 

[Yama]

I've never thought of personality systems as anything more than a hobby and have never tried to use them to solve my problem, enhance my life, find a job etc. ISFJ descriptions are just bad.