# Don't allow others to take away pieces of who you are.



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

I have watched it for years - people trying to cram things that don't fit into a certain type (perhaps because it fits the best out of all of the types that don't _quite_ fit, or perhaps because its an appealing type). I have also watched others tell them that they are confused or lying about what they "are" in the type-me games. 

I have seen lots of people get defensive and hurt, and I have seen others really become ego-invested in slicing off the wings and tentacles of others, so they can be proud that they forced them into a certain box. Its a petty victory on teh internetz. 

Typology is in fact very limited -- at best its incomplete theories that only describe a part of who you "are." 

People are trying to understand themselves, looking for identity, and wanting to improve what they "are" sometimes with such a desperation to it that they're willing to allow these certain mistakes in typology to occur. The mistake in the first place is taking it too seriously. I have watched people -become- their type, abandoning a lot of the qualities that don't seem to "fit" the type. Many of them fear having the type-vultures question their type, so they tighten up an image, and for others its not that deliberate -- they just begin to focus too much on this stuff, that they lose sight of who they were before.

Yes, you are all contradictions because you are human. Embrace that.

And don't let anyone try to take away who you are with their convoluted rationalizations. You could ask all the most prominent outspoken typers what you "are" and you will see differences of opinion. And many of the more outspoken ones have a very limited understanding of something thats only interpretation and theory to begin with. Other times, you see a hive-mind mentality form in little pockets of people who have an agreement on their own interpretations of the interpretations of typology. I have watched some of them huddle together, supporting each others mistypings, and trying to pass off their interpretations as fact to newcomers. 

So take typology with a grain of salt. I have seen it hinder development when taken too seriously. It can't prescribe what career you should go after, or what sort of person you should date. You can only determine the important things based on _who you honestly are as a whole._


----------



## bella123 (Aug 12, 2012)

A very wise post indeed!


----------



## SpaceCadette (Apr 29, 2010)

100% agree with everything said.


----------



## Spades (Aug 31, 2011)

Worth a bump.


----------



## petitpèlerin (Apr 23, 2012)

You're right. Typing people is fun, like a solving a puzzle, and it feels good to help people understand themselves. But behind the usernames and avatars are people, not puzzles, and when they come here asking for help typing themselves, revealing their innermost workings, they're vulnerable. They're seeking answers to questions about their identity. Identity is an extremely personal and important thing. We have a responsibility to be very careful with what we say here. I'll be thinking some more about this. Maybe we should have some real guidelines here: maybe at least some kind of sticky thread just to orient new users and remind them that none of us here (that I know of) are professionals, that MBTI is one personality typing system of many and none of them are the be-all and end-all of human personality or identity, that who we are as people is much deeper than our personality type or psychology in general, that it all does need to be taken with a shaker of salt, that kind of thing. Just so it's there, to remind us all. Maybe this thread could be stickied? That was beautifully written and exactly right, Promethea.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

Plus, even when solving: to get truly closer to a solution, we must be aware of what we're unsure of. Easy conclusions don't follow when a) people are revealing information selectively, b) we don't see them all day, so their unconscious thought processes (which could be hard to spot even then) aren't visible, c) ask them another day, they may say it differently.


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

I think this was an awesome post. It's nothing more than a skeleton of positive and negative tendencies. And even then not all of the framework will fit every person. Even WITH the framework, I still find myself struggling to understand or be understood. *lightbulb* shit, that's a trait of my type, feeling the need to be understood aH! fml


----------



## StElmosDream (May 26, 2012)

Questions arise about archetypes, desired personas and whose projection someone fits all too often; not to forget the problem with asking someone whom they are or how they feel throughout a day or week - inconsistencies at best, smoke and mirrors at worse when jigsaws aren't always made to be solved!


----------



## Tater Tot (May 28, 2012)

dang. Shakespeare ain't got nothin on you gurl


----------



## Helios (May 30, 2012)

Well when I type people here, I always come in with the mentality that I might be 100% wrong about them. I've usually made it a point to say that people ultimately have to look into it for themselves because _I don't really know them like they know themselves._ So of course, *everything* given to the people in this forum should be taken with a grain of salt. Don't just take my word for it. Go out and see for yourself. You'll be surprised what you learn in the process.


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 25, 2012)

All I can say is: Yes.

Type me threads can be great learning experiences, offer good insight, but definitely take it all with a grain of salt. Don't feel pressured by them; not worth it.

Is this stickied yet?


----------



## nakkinaama (Jun 20, 2012)

Yuppers.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

I see typing people being like a tour guide into their own minds. I can give them tools and directions about how to navigate their inner mapping but I can't provide an answer for them. I can merely point them towards an answer. 

If a person feels that I typed them wrong they are ALWAYS welcome to make another thread and we try again. I see the MBTI as a one-size-fits-all kind of thing. People are not their types. Types fits people.


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

LeaT said:


> People are not their types. Types fits people.


 exactly. 

And I don't think any type is going to be a custom fit. I think that people are always more simple that most assume, and a person is always more complicated ... therefore, the more you understand yourself, the more you understand people. Having strong enough intuition to accurately type people can be a wonderful thing. But intuition is not insight. Insight can only come from the individual. So when your "typed" ... you add your insight to create that "custom fit" ... what do you guys think of that analogy? does it work? Or do I still have some MBTI schooling to endure


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Ningsta Kitty said:


> exactly.
> 
> And I don't think any type is going to be a custom fit. I think that people are always more simple that most assume, and a person is always more complicated ... therefore, the more you understand yourself, the more you understand people. Having strong enough intuition to accurately type people can be a wonderful thing. But intuition is not insight. Insight can only come from the individual. So when your "typed" ... you add your insight to create that "custom fit" ... what do you guys think of that analogy? does it work? Or do I still have some MBTI schooling to endure


My rationale is as follows:
I present the data I've gathered and argue my understanding of it (people are always again free to disagree or say that I misunderstood or am wrong). If they feel I am on spot, we stick with that type. Otherwise we move on and try to find out a better solution. 

Unless the person is very easy to type (doesn't happen that often), I always seek confirmation from the person in question. Do you agree with me? Do you think this is logical and does it describe your behavior and the way you think well? I strive for mental clarity I suppose. Usually, those that are the hardest to type are those that are the most unsure and confused about themselves and who they are. I see it as my job to dispel that confusion so people can finally indeed achieve sufficient clarity and personal insight as to why they are that they can decide it on their own.

Until then, everything I say are mere suggestions and never facts, unless I feel that the person is in complete denial of who they are (the facts I see do not fit the model they present me). Then I will again point out this inconsistency.


----------



## Helios (May 30, 2012)

Ningsta Kitty said:


> exactly.
> 
> And I don't think any type is going to be a custom fit. I think that people are always more simple that most assume, and a person is always more complicated ... therefore, the more you understand yourself, the more you understand people. Having strong enough intuition to accurately type people can be a wonderful thing. But intuition is not insight. Insight can only come from the individual. So when your "typed" ... you add your insight to create that "custom fit" ... what do you guys think of that analogy? does it work? Or do I still have some MBTI schooling to endure


Well no. Type shouldn't define every aspect of who a person is, but sadly people let labels define them all the time. It's just how you think. Not who you are, since one's identity goes much further than that. As far as insight goes, I think insight is an intuitive quality. What you probably mean is confirmation or discovery of type by the individual themselves through deep introspection. You have to look _inward_ and reflect to figure out your type. 

I would not call MBTI or even enneagram and socionics custom fits to a person, but merely facets of the individual. There are so many more things about people than that, and we don't get to see much of it.


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

FacelessBeauty said:


> Well no. Type shouldn't define every aspect of who a person is, that is not where I was going with that at all!
> 
> but sadly people let labels define them all the time. It's just how you think. Not who you are, since one's identity goes much further than that. As far as insight goes, I think insight is an intuitive quality. The capacity to gain an accurate and deep intuitive understanding of yourself is insight. It is an intuitive quality but can only be obtained by the actual individual being typed. There will always be facts of you that only you know about and so your insight is important in the overall consideration of what someone else might type you as. I suppose that is what I mean. I see insight weighing more within the domain of conscious reasoning and intuition to be more instinctive feeling and awareness. This site also may be of some interest to you (or at least I think it's interesting).
> Intuition Incubation Insight
> ...


 I know nothing of enneagram or socionics. I am a highly intuitive person who has just started to dabble in MBTI. I am not threatening the position to analyze anyone. It's not on the future agenda for me. 
I appreciate you and everyone for helping me understand it. 

Making friendly acquaintances is as they say, "the gravy on top" 

Question: Why am I so quirky about having my posts look symmetrical or aesthetically pleasing?:tongue:


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

LeaT said:


> My rationale is as follows:
> I present the data I've gathered and argue my understanding of it (people are always again free to disagree or say that I misunderstood or am wrong). If they feel I am on spot, we stick with that type. Otherwise we move on and try to find out a better solution.
> 
> Unless the person is very easy to type (doesn't happen that often), I always seek confirmation from the person in question. Do you agree with me? Do you think this is logical and does it describe your behavior and the way you think well? I strive for mental clarity I suppose. Usually, those that are the hardest to type are those that are the most unsure and confused about themselves and who they are. I see it as my job to dispel that confusion so people can finally indeed achieve sufficient clarity and personal insight as to why they are that they can decide it on their own.
> ...


 I fear you misperceived the intent of my post. And that's okay. 

I'm sorry to say that I have not seen any of your posts. It sounds like you are doing a lovely job


----------



## pandamiga (Aug 11, 2012)

> I can give them tools and directions about how to navigate their inner mapping but I can't provide an answer for them. I can merely point them towards an answer.


hhhmmm... I could be wrong, but I want to throw in my "insight".

I understand what you are saying, but still, I feel like when you point to something, you are pointing to something very definite. You can point at a "rock". I put quotations around rock because it's just a label like MBTI/Socionics/JCF/Enneagram/whatever. Anyway, when you point at an object, then you can clearly see that object and acknowledge it for what it is no matter what you call it; it has inherent properties. Now what those properties actually mean is up for interpretation. More specifically, the interpretation is reliant upon how it interacts with the outside world since that is where it is most consistent even if the percentage of consistency is ...say 88%. That's why it's important to have discussions because two people can point to one thing, but both of those people need to understand the consistencies of that object so they can analyze it further and further. For me, I always ask: "What is the cause of my 'inherent' properties?"

To put it simply, we are molecules.

...Sorry if this was useless to you.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

I'd like to add that a lot of times when a person new to mbti comes to the forum, and they are being 'typed' -- I have seen people argue with them about themselves, and that new person does not yet have the vocabulary or knowledge of the functions enough to say -why- they disagree. So, in the typing-battle, they have someone running all over them, _seemingly_ knowing what they're talking about just by using mbti terms. A member came to me the other day frustrated by this. 

And a lot of times whats being shoved down their throats isn't even accurate -- but like I said, they are brand new to this and aren't armed for that type of debate.

Other naive people might just buy a rationalization that sounds like it makes sense, even if it doesn't quite fit. 

When I type someone, I make suggestions - I don't wrestle them over it.



pandamiga said:


> hhhmmm... I could be wrong, but I want to throw in my "insight".
> 
> I understand what you are saying, but still, I feel like when you point to something, you are pointing to something very definite. You can point at a "rock". I put quotations around rock because it's just a label like MBTI/Socionics/JCF/Enneagram/whatever. Anyway, when you point at an object, then you can clearly see that object and acknowledge it for what it is no matter what you call it; it has inherent properties. Now what those properties actually mean is up for interpretation. More specifically, the interpretation is reliant upon how it interacts with the outside world since that is where it is most consistent even if the percentage of consistency is ...say 88%. That's why it's important to have discussions because two people can point to one thing, but both of those people need to understand the consistencies of that object so they can analyze it further and further. For me, I always ask: "What is the cause of my 'inherent' properties?"
> 
> ...


I'm not quite sure I follow every word of this, however, I will agree that many different self-proclaimed knowledgeable typers are going to look at the same information on a person and come up with different _interpretations_ of what that type 'is.' That is why I don't appreciate what I call 'battle-typing' - because that attitude carries with it the message that other interpretations are wrong.


----------

