# People who just don't fit the MBTI schema



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

I'm convinced that the 16 MBTI archetypes aren't nearly as universal as eager new converts make the types seem. There are many people, myself included, who don't fit any one of the 16 stereotypes. There's also debate about JCF and MBTI not linking up...how do you feel about that? Does everyone fit into one of sixteen categories? This isn't me being a special little snowflake either. I just don't feel MBTI/JCF is part of this reality, or an inborn part of the human psyche.


----------



## muffleupagus (May 14, 2013)

I've doubted the 16 types for a long time. Pretty sure some people are way outside of this system. 

I, for instance, seem to utilize completely different cognitive functions depending on what part of my energy cycle I'm under. 

If I'm in the crashing phase, I'll be completely Ni, Fi. If I'm maniacal, I'll be more Ne, Fe. I don't seem to be a regular bipolar, either. I have cycles, within cycles, within cycles, long, medium, and very short durations. It seems a different brainwave pattern is being initiated for each new cycle, and so the use of different brain regions depending on the stiumuli, ie. different cognitive functions. 

I'm thinking that the more "disorders" someone is prone to be labeled with, the more variability, and perhaps overall potential the individual caries. What a strange society that might seek to find a disorder, in mere variation, and a higher potential of being.


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

quantriqueptidez said:


> I've doubted the 16 types for a long time. Pretty sure some people are way outside of this system.
> 
> I, for instance, seem to utilize completely different cognitive functions depending on what part of my energy cycle I'm under.
> 
> ...


It's disconcerting, but undoubtedly true, that one can toggle through types like that. Also, I find the fact that the MBTI community can't agree on a definition of Ni unsettling.


----------



## Denbox (Jun 11, 2013)

It is true that MBTI is a theory, but the reason people are here is because they believe it.
It is important to remember that the personality types do not define you. They define an average. No one is going to be exactly what a type says they are. People like to try, and use their type as something to blame for weaknesses and insecurities. I'm sure everyone does to some degree. 
To specifically answer your question, no one can be sure if MBTI is or is not correct. That being said, we can be sure that it really helps people learn about themselves and others.


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

Denbox said:


> It is true that MBTI is a theory, but the reason people are here is because they believe it.
> It is important to remember that the personality types do not define you. They define an average. No one is going to be exactly what a type says they are. People like to try, and use their type as something to blame for weaknesses and insecurities. I'm sure everyone does to some degree.
> To specifically answer your question, no one can be sure if MBTI is or is not correct. That being said, we can be sure that it really helps people learn about themselves and others.


I just never felt, as some people have, that one type at all encapsulated my cognitive tendencies. I never had that epiphany of that's me or I'm such an INFP. Clearly, the system is imperfect. I identify enough with Socionics LII or Enneagram 5w4 to say I share something with other LII or 5w4. MBTI never gave me that. One glaring problem with MBTI is the lack of common function definitions across MBTI authorities.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

unctuousbutler said:


> One glaring problem with MBTI is the lack of common function definitions across MBTI authorities.


Which authorities are you referring to? I thought there was only one.


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

PaladinX said:


> Which authorities are you referring to? I thought there was only one.


I meant for that term to be somewhat ironical but PersonalityJunkie, CelebrityTypes, etc. claim an authoritative voice. There's also a conflict between Myers, Briggs and Jung himself.

Just one example of the dissonance is that everybody seems to interpret Ni differently. With the enneagram, for instance, everyone basically agrees about the basic fear/desire for each type.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

How does Myers interpret Ni? She focuses on dichotomies, not functions. I've only read one little blurb in Gifts Differing about the functions.

I understand what you mean though. Personally, I defer to Jung first for authoritative matters, then look at the deviations everyone else has made. (although if we are literally talking about the authority on MBTI, then that would be Myers - in which case I would look at Gifts Differing and the MBTI manual for reference)


----------



## phoenixpinion (Dec 27, 2012)

unctuousbutler said:


> I'm convinced that the 16 MBTI archetypes aren't nearly as universal as eager new converts make the types seem. There are many people, myself included, who don't fit any one of the 16 stereotypes. There's also debate about JCF and MBTI not linking up...how do you feel about that? Does everyone fit into one of sixteen categories? This isn't me being a special little snowflake either. I just don't feel MBTI/JCF is part of this reality, or an inborn part of the human psyche.


The human psyche is like a pie. MBTI sliced it up into 16 pieces, but theoretically you can slice the pie up into an infinite amount of pieces. However, I also believe our personalities are way more flexible than the MBTI portrays. I believe it is possible to slightly shift type according to circumstance and as you age (prepares to meet mbti fundamentalists for battle). If you're one of these "shifters", then ofcourse it would seem unnatural to put yourself into a stereotype.


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

phoenixpinion said:


> The human psyche is like a pie. MBTI sliced it up into 16 pieces, but theoretically you can slice the pie up into an infinite amount of pieces.


I'm arguing some of the constituent pieces (types) have no resemblance to the pie (psyche). It's like having one cherry slice in an apple pie. I don't think the MBTI archetypes really exist in the human psyche.


----------



## Jennywocky (Aug 7, 2009)

I think there are people who do fit into the boxes (the 'typical' INFJ ,the 'typical' ESFP, etc.) But if your function mix isn't according to the theoretical ideal, then you're rather hosed. Note that each box has four corners and a border, and you could technically be along the edge or in the corner of the box and thus not look as much like someone in the middle, or on the opposite side of the box. There's a range within type.

Also, people's function orders and best functions don't always match theory.... especially depending on life experience and environmental factors. We're not confined by theory. We do what we have to do to survive. Sometimes those things we develop aren't healthy, sometimes they are. But the point is that there is a huge potential for variety with each individual.


----------



## aimless (Jul 18, 2013)

Mbti doesn't make any any sense at all and has no scientific basis,it runs contrary to proven knowledge of developmental psychology and psychiatry. It completely ignores the multitude of elements that lie on the basis of the behavior it describes and miscredits it to cognitive functions,it ignores the mental conditions that make up one's mental landscape and pattern of behavior,the way this has been clustered in modern psychiatry and it's changeability in nature.

Forer effect and the likelyhood of xy becoming true after a completed set of criteria already accepted by the examinee and natural bias towards ...,the other types being an even worse fit. 

many factors on a psychological level that contribute to people accepting mbti,people love tests in general and like to fit it ''somewhere''.. 

What information do we really derive from it? All my sides need to thrive and come to expression (but fuck Fe)

Also completely false dichotomies. I cannot even answer true or false to most Qs. Depends 50 percent of the time. (and 40 percent both apply)


This is not the kinda stuff I wanna go into online...just wanna get my 15 posts..

Many mental states that are in essence normal yet speak of certain marked tendencies and are subject to change and liable to outside influences of whatever nature



And then there's upbringing,patterns of behavior,self image,so many things..

I def don't fit in one bit. eNP,but how many times did i look like an ''ISFP'' irl..countless


----------



## Doc Dangerstein (Mar 8, 2013)

If it's an argument from authority you crave, look no further then the Meyers-Briggs institution. They own all the copyrights and reserve the right to define their intellectual propriety as they please. That said; I refuse to give a private institution the pleasure of telling me who I am. If you DO choose to identify with any of the sixteen types; understand that they are a sketch at best.

Personalities and personality differences do exist. We have made distinctions between the temperaments since Aristotle. If you study his Nicomachean Ethics; he defines temperance as a balance and continues to elaborate that this balance is different for different people and situations. Jung was smart to understand that people are different and pursue this idea and base his practice accordingly. He proceeded to define cognitive functions as units of measurement much like the natural philosophers have defined units of measurement that will eventually become the metric system.

A meter does not exist in itself; but something can be a meter long or have travelled a distance that is measured in meters. Cognitive functions serve this purpose; except psychic phenomena isn't as easily quantized as time or physical space. If anything personality theories are a great way to learn about people different then yourself, much like yourself and maybe step outside and see people who they are and not what you wish them to be.


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

The Experiment said:


> If it's an argument from authority you crave, look no further then the Meyers-Briggs institution. They own all the copyrights and reserve the right to define their intellectual propriety as they please. That said; I refuse to give a private institution the pleasure of telling me who I am. If you DO choose to identify with any of the sixteen types; understand that they are a sketch at best.
> 
> Personalities and personality differences do exist. We have made distinctions between the temperaments since Aristotle. If you study his *Nicomachean Ethics*; he defines temperance as a balance and continues to elaborate that this balance is different for different people and situations. Jung was smart to understand that people are different and pursue this idea and base his practice accordingly. He proceeded to define cognitive functions as units of measurement much like the natural philosophers have defined units of measurement that will eventually become the metric system.
> 
> A meter does not exist in itself; but something can be a meter long or have travelled a distance that is measured in meters. Cognitive functions serve this purpose; except psychic phenomena isn't as easily quantized as time or physical space. If anything personality theories are a great way to learn about people different then yourself, much like yourself and maybe step outside and see people who they are and not what you wish them to be.


Ironically, I have. :tongue:


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

@_unctuousbutler_ I find a similar problem. I can narrow down my socionics type to two possibilities, both of which are reasonably connected. Enneagram... so E6 it hurts. Finding my MBTI type, on the other hand, has been a real bitch and incredibly frustrating. I find that my Fi base in socionics actually has manifestations in both MBTI Fi and Fe that apply, making that difficult to differentiate.

Edit: I also think that socionics does a better job of differentiating Fi than MBTI/JCF. That I, someone who has a strong idea of how it should be and will push for that ideal, would get lumped in with people who are very "whatever works for each individual" really makes no sense to me.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

Viewed very rigidly, no, people won't fit, but it's not exactly sensible to be rigid given we see authorities on the field themselves interpreting things in different ways. 

There are some proponents of dichotomies over functions. I'm personally not so statistics-oriented (apparently lots of statistics favor the dichotomies approach), but as time goes by, I have to say using all the information one has to determine one's relation to those dichotomies, and then making an effort to determine two functions (N, S, F, T --- no e's and i's) which one relates to most already gives you a pretty solid picture of type. 
Even someone who does believe in the rigid models should find doing this an enlightening exercise en route to deciding what rigid model, if any, to adopt.

It's theoretically possible to be so balanced that the issue of type does not even arise. Invariably though, I find imbalances are more common than uncommon, so types tend to be produced.


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

Kanerou said:


> @_unctuousbutler_ I find a similar problem. I can narrow down my socionics type to two possibilities, both of which are reasonably connected. Enneagram... so E6 it hurts. Finding my MBTI type, on the other hand, has been a real bitch and incredibly frustrating. I find that my Fi base in socionics actually has manifestations in both MBTI Fi and Fe that apply, making that difficult to differentiate.
> 
> Edit: I also think that socionics does a better job of differentiating Fi than MBTI/JCF. That I, someone who has a strong idea of how it should be and will push for that ideal, would get lumped in with people who are very "whatever works for each individual" really makes no sense to me.


Yeah the Socionics functions feel cleaner and more discrete to me. Finding out about LII proved almost too easy. From the start I related to the Alpha quadra, then I looked at the functions and identified strongly with Ti and Ne. There's a page on Wikisocion about words each dom uses...I easily used Ti and Ne words most. Which is a long way of saying...fuck you MBTI.


----------



## Aquarian (Jun 17, 2012)

I'm capable of understanding that the cognitive functions for INFJ fit me and the cognitive functions for INFP fit my mate and at the same time, there are people who don't fit MBTI and/or the cognitive functions.

The problem IMO comes when people universalize and make it all or nothing - meaning looking at it with the question: is this valid/invalid for everyone. I think it can certainly be useful for some people and not useful for others and that both can be true at the same time.


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

Aquarian said:


> I'm capable of understanding that the cognitive functions for INFJ fit me and the cognitive functions for INFP fit my mate and at the same time, there are people who don't fit MBTI and/or the cognitive functions.
> 
> *The problem IMO comes when people universalize and make it all or nothing - meaning looking at it with the question: is this valid/invalid for everyone.* I think it can certainly be useful for some people and not useful for others and that both can be true at the same time.


That's totally it. I have this absurdly zealous urge towards absolute truth, which causes that all or nothing response. For such an imperfect taxonomy (MBTI), I need to dial things back to really benefit.


----------



## Teybo (Sep 25, 2012)

You might be interested to learn about preference multidimensionality, a revision of Myers-Briggs theory that allows for more accurate predictions and descriptions of people. In addition to allowing a wider range of types, preference multidimensionality can model and predict outcomes based on an interaction of inborn preferences and situational demands


----------



## ANAXEL (Feb 16, 2017)

Lemmy said:


> That's what I use MBTI for, to understand others better and to communicate with them better- understand their thinking etc. Of course* some people I met don't want to be typed because its bull to them* but, oh well. I only want to type people to understand their points of view etc, as I said before, not to put them in some box for the sake of it.


Exactly. Of course, the misuse of the theory is what most likely scares people away (that, and they may relate it to the Buzzfeed/Pinterest/Tumblr 10-question personality quizzes that tell you what character from what movie you are most like).
I have also seen how people are after they get into it.
I have changed A LOT after I learned about it.
I now think there should be 32 types. 16 types that are unaware of the personality types, and 16 that know what type they are and are currently working on self-development. It makes a HUGE difference.


----------



## Mez (May 3, 2017)

I think this is quite subjective to personal experience. There are some people who have very stereotypical development, and as result can fit themselves into one of the 16 types rather easily. And once they succeed doing so, they are convinced that the system works. But then there are people who had atypical development, and as result they find it extremely difficult to find their own type, and are thus convinced that the MBTI system is broken.

I disagree that the true "type" is the one we default to under stressful situations. Because, again, I for example have displayed very different behavioral patterns under stress, which is why people keep calling me "unpredictable" and "impossible to read", and thus "impossible to outmanevour". I can shift from timid to courageous, from passive to active, from detail-oriented to big picture, from people-oriented to self-absorbed, from filthy to elegant, and vice-versa, even under life-threatening situations. It's just way too fluid for some people, and I can completely attest to the fact that I had a very unusual childhood and upbringing that might have caused me to be this way.

I can also attest to the fact that I have met people who are very easy to type just by interacting with them for several weeks.

Regardless of the reasons why some people just can't fit one single type in MBTI, I'm sure that even the most hardcore MBTI loyalists here would agree that you cannot squeeze human nature into 16 shelves. A living organism is primarily chaotic, random, is able to morph and mutate. That's what differentiates it from a machine. And that's what makes its nature far more complex than an array of 1 and 0 digits.

Socionics accomodates far more data and theory into its system, and I personally found the Socionics theory to be more helpful in identifying type due to its depth. But even in Socionics I found that even though things make far more sense there, some key aspects in regard to my behavior remain very obscure and varied.

Ultimately, you should be able to identify several types for yourself in MBTI and Socionics that closely resemble you (maybe 2, 3, even 4), and maybe it would be useful to seek the golden mean between those types, rather than to force-squish yourself just into a single shelf. Both MBTI and Socionics are not perfect, for the most part they are impersonal generalizations based on statistics. You won't find anything in them that is personalized specifically for you, only a set of general trends to keep in mind.


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

Lemmy said:


> Oh, what type would you reckon George Michael.. was?


ENTP, national socialist, visual temperament, hands-on learner

Information describing the traits:
http://personalitycafe.com/myers-br...-enhance-character-description-profiling.html


----------

