# The Ability To Accurately Type Others



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

Whether we are able to read others and accurately determine their type remains an ongoing discussion. A recent thread asked if we can guess someone’s type using cognitive functions. My answer to this as well is, we can guess at anything. But guessing is far from claiming the ability to accurately type another person. 

*Reading Type Codes:*

This is generally how most people admit they type others. It may be possible to recognize the codes E/I, S/N, T/F and J/P in someone’s behavior. But these are traits we’re recognizing and not actually how the person may be. We play roles and determining whether you are observing a role being played can only be done in knowing a person intimately. A person who appears to be, or self-discloses they like to:

Share personal information easily, prefer to be in the company of others, considers themselves outgoing, with an interest in the abstract and "what can be", idealistic, look beyond the surface, use personal feelings in making decisions, will hide the truth so the other person won't be hurt, consider themselves gentle with people, adapts to situations, and gathers more information before deciding and appears carefree. 

We will take all this into consideration and clearly label this person ENFP. But how much of this is really the person and not and adaptation to the observed's environment? The person may truly believe they’re this way as well, but have they determined whether this type of behavior was bestowed upon them by family, friends, work, etc (a product of the collective unconscious)? The MBTI claims the T/F dichotomy is separated 50/50 with males preferring thinking and females feeling. No, western culture dictates certain stereotypical behavior of men and women, which result in people choosing the preference associated with their gender.

Forced choices are just that. We choose one or the other. But in actuality, we are all somewhere in the middle being capable of extraverting and introverting, sensing and intuiting, thinking and feeling.

*Reading Cognitive Functions:* 

Emphatically “NO”. Since most of us are still learning how cognitive functions work, how they can appear similar to one another and more importantly how they work in subordinate places other than the dominant function, this tells me that any attempts to determine another’s type is futile and simply someone having delusions of grandeur. 

This topic was even discussed by Jung himself. His conclusions were quite obvious: 



> In the extraverted attitude the inferior functions always reveal a highly subjective determination with pronounced egocentricity and personal bias, thus demonstrating their close connection with the unconscious. Through their agency the unconscious is continually coming to light. On no account should we imagine that the unconscious lies permanently buried under so many overlying strata that it can only be uncovered, so to speak, by a laborious process of excavation. On the contrary, there is a constant influx of the unconscious into the conscious psychological process; *at times this reaches such a pitch that the observer can decide only with difficulty which character-traits are to be ascribed to the conscious, and which to the unconscious personality.*


This should be clear that whether we are able to determine the exact cognitive function being used, attempting to determine it’s placement (dominant/auxiliary, etc.) may be nearly impossible.

Jung goes on to say:


> This difficulty occurs mainly with persons whose habit of expression errs rather on the side of profuseness. Naturally it depends very largely also upon the attitude of the observer, whether he lays hold of the conscious or the unconscious character of a personality. Speaking generally a judging observer will tend to seize the conscious character, while a perceptive observer will be influenced more by the unconscious character, since judgement is chiefly interested in the conscious motivation of the psychic process, while perception tends to register the mere happening.


In other words and as I have argued when these sort of topics come up, our subjective perceptions skew how we see others. Claiming someone is introverted or extraverted is in the eye-of-the-beholder and the observer is basing their assessment of another on either stereotypical behavior and traits of how they believe an introvert or extravert acts (which is generally the case) or gauging it any attitude or function on what introvert/extravert, sensing/intuiting, or thinking feeling means to them. 

Back to Jung:


> But in so far as we apply perception and judgment in equal measure, it may easily happen that a personality appears to us as both introverted and extraverted, so that we cannot at once decide to which attitude the superior function belongs. In such cases only a thorough analysis of the function qualities can help us to a sound opinion. During the analysis we must observe which [p. 428] function is placed under the control and motivation of consciousness, and which functions have an accidental and spontaneous character. The former is always more highly differentiated than the latter, which also possess many infantile and primitive qualities. Occasionally the former function gives the impression of normality, while the latter have something abnormal or pathological about them.


*My Friend Is An.....*

These sort of threads are rampant on the forums, as are can you help me type myself. The latter is so prevalent that a sub-forum has been created. When someone claims their friend, family member, co-worker is a certain type, why isn't the first question how do you know? What is obvious and clearly indicated by Jung is our perceptions of others is skewed and based on just that our subjective perceptions, not actuality. This makes typing others dangerous and at best an irrelevant discussion if the person being discussed is not the type being claimed.


----------



## friction (Apr 29, 2011)

These reasons are exactly why I have trouble typing myself.

I'm usually playing a role so it feels like my reactions and behaviours are consciously decided. I feel I need to 'catch myself' being natural (or acting without conscious control). But how to disassociate yourself from yourself and still be natural? Seeing oneself with objectivity is hard, if not impossible, because this kind of perception is subjective by nature.

Sorry this is me-centric; I had to express it.


----------



## Spades (Aug 31, 2011)

Yes. It's amazing how quickly people type others, especially people they recently met, based on their public persona. Worse, they begin to assume their behaviour directly stems from their type and disregard any possible external influences.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Jung himself observed patients for long periods of time before assigning them a type, and frankly, it's the only real way to determine someone else's functions is to know them in a deep way (like a real friend, family member) or to talk to them soooo often (like on a daily basis over a year or so). Why? Because while some functions stick out like a sore thumb (most often judging functions for some reason, but also sometimes a certain person is just OBVIOUSLY an Si dom, et al) to determine an entire type is a more subtle process. 

I will say someone pegged me within a few months as an Fi/Te type quite correctly within a matter of months of knowing me pretty casually, but he wasn't correct about my exact type...I realized he was possibly projecting his own perceiving functions onto me when he also suggested I might be a 7w6 (just like him!) instead of a 4w3 or a 6w7. No one in their right mind who REALLY knew me would mistake me for a 7, though I do have a 7 wing, I'm just not that much of a rock star, sorry to disappoint. I could also easily see the difference between myself and 7s on-line, anyhow, because of how they described their reactions to things. 

Um yeah...but some people are very obviously Fi or Te or Fe or Ti, I think judging functions can be simple to determine in certain individuals, but you can't just type most people by knowing them casually. If Jung didn't do it that way, it's a pretty safe bet that you shouldn't either. 

It can take people a while to even confirm their own type, but often that has to do with lack of knowledge, and they become more accurate as they learn more about function theory (as I did).


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

highlandstorm said:


> These reasons are exactly why I have trouble typing myself.
> 
> I'm usually playing a role so it feels like my reactions and behaviours are consciously decided. I feel I need to 'catch myself' being natural (or acting without conscious control). But how to disassociate yourself from yourself and still be natural? Seeing oneself with objectivity is hard, if not impossible, because this kind of perception is subjective by nature.
> 
> Sorry this is me-centric; I had to express it.


Yes, but those conscious decisions you make actually determine your functions! That's why knowing people in a deep way or watching them over a period of time is best, because functions are like your reasoning, your motives, what you value...

A lot of people can't type themselves simply because they don't understand personality theory, point blank. That was surely my problem in the beginning.

Sometimes I think you can type people who you've observed a lot, though, as I said, even if you don't know them well, if you watch the same person over time their motives and value points begin to become clearer.


----------



## SilentScream (Mar 31, 2011)

I dunno .. I've been fairly accurate in my assessments so far. I had my father pegged as an ESTJ, mother an INFJ and brother an INTJ before they tested and confirmed. The only person I've had trouble with is my sister. I also had an ENFJ friend pegged as one and her testing and own admissions confirmed it afterwards. 

For me, I think it's a combination of knowledge of the functions and descriptions and having an ability to separate that information from Enneagram descriptions. I learn and learn and then apply. I have a keen memory of theoretical knowledge and descriptions and then translate that into people's behaviours. 

Also, I'm a very keen listener and observer of human behaviour - closely monitoring action and intent behind those actions. 

The only person I've had trouble with is my Sister - who I had pegged as an ESTJ --- but living with her is revealing that she might be an Ni user like myself - though it seems her Ni may not be as developed as mine, my mothers or my brothers. 

That said .. I don't usually walk around randomly typing people --- Only one person have I typed after speaking to her for a few minutes as an INFJ [but I have a special ability to pick up INFJ's since I was myself raised by an INFJ]. 

However, I do need to spend months getting to know someone before I decide to type them. And I confirm after testing and getting people to read through various descriptions and answering a whole bunch of questions.


----------



## Paradigm (Feb 16, 2010)

I started to realize that typing by functions wasn't working about a day before you posted this. :laughing:

The problem is, I'm not sure how else to help type. The dichotomies are too over-simplified, because many who seem one or the other aren't at all (I always get told I'm xxFP, for example). Pointing people toward information is obviously a good idea, though that involves actually having a database set up and there isn't one that I know of. Leading questions help, but confusion and self-reporting can cloud things, too.

What method would you suggest?


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

Thanks for the responses so far. It's not my intent to persuade anyone they can't type others, since we will believe what we want to believe. My reasons for adamantly denying others can be typed is that most people do this by assigning simple dichotomies to get a type. That may get you a basic reading of a person's type, but dichotomies are not action oriented, instead they are neutral until paired with E/I. Thinking as Jung says is not merely rumination. When paired with a particular attitude, Ti and Te become completely different. But to an onlooker, all they may see is that I am a “thinker”. In fact like many I have asked someone to take a test for me. The results were ESTJ and most people who have known me at work for years would consider me an extraverted type. 

This becomes equally hard when attempting to place cognitive functions in the proper place, within ourselves. How many times have we claimed our type changed? It’s because we just don’t appreciate the fluidity of how cognitive functions work and instead we use the principles of MBTI with Jung’s cognitive functions. The functions are not either/or, they’re in addition to. I am always flabbergasted by intuiting types who claim no use of sensing, or thinking types saying they do not use feeling. Yes you do. 

I wrote a blog on the use of dichotomies over a year ago, that can be found *here*. Using type codes to determine ones type creates a forced dichotomy. Attempting to determine the most differentiated is not that easy in particularly since many cognitive functions can appear as look-alikes as shown *here*. I was part of a discussion last week where the OP had a conundrum of which cognitive function he was using while teaching math. *Teddy* truly thought specific cognitive functions were at work when wondering how to take short cuts to solve difficult math problems for his students. This was for good reasons he believed this. But actually the natural processing of his type make-up was at work. We struggle with knowing that I don’t just I-S-T-P, I Ti-Se-Ni-Fe-Te-Si-Ne and Fi as circumstances arise. Thanks again and keep the posts coming.


----------



## Spades (Aug 31, 2011)

Functianalyst said:


> Thanks for the responses so far. It's not my intent to persuade anyone they can't type others, since we will believe what we want to believe. My reasons for adamantly denying others can be typed is that most people do this by assigning simple dichotomies to get a type. That may get you a basic reading of a person's type, but dichotomies are not action oriented, instead they are neutral until paired with E/I. Thinking as Jung says is not merely rumination. When paired with a particular attitude, Ti and Te become completely different. But to an onlooker, all they may see is that I am a “thinker”. In fact like many I have asked someone to take a test for me. The results were ESTJ and most people who have known me at work for years would consider me an extraverted type.


Definitely a good point. An example of this is when I was typing a friend a long time ago, still using dichotomies. Her consideration for the people around her made me think she was a Feeler. I told her about MBTI and she insisted she was a Thinker. Later, she took the cognitive functions test and came out ENTP. It made sense because I was seeing the more extroverted Fe while the Ti is what was actually predominant.


----------



## madhatter (May 30, 2010)

Yes, when I "type" people, I usually do it for my own benefit. I sense functions at work in people, but I have a really hard time ordering them. For example, when I first got into typing, I of course wanted to know my family's type. I thought my mom was ENFJ. I saw the Ni, I saw the Fe, both very strong. But, it turns out she was INFJ. She appeared extraverted to me, for various reasons: 1) I was confused about the nature of the E/I attitudes; 2) her behavior in groups, very chatty and friendly; 3) since we're family, we are very open and comfortable around each other. Even with a family member, I had the ordering wrong.

Another example came when typing my brother. When I had him take the test, he tested as ISTJ...twice. And I knew he was not ISTJ at all. I did see Te in him, but my brother is definitely Intuitive. But INTJ just did not fit him either. It didn't feel right, and he didn't really relate to it. So, I had him take timeless' cognitive function test, and his top three scores were F! (ENfJ, INFJ, INFP) I had him read some information about INFP, and he confirmed that that was him. I was dumb-founded: I could have sworn he was a T! But that was the point. When he tested as ISTJ, he was testing how he thought he should act and conforming to his surroundings: my dad and I are ST, my sister is ISTJ, his best friend is ESTJ (unconfirmed, typed by my observation), our brother-in-law is ESFP with a strong Te. I saw the Te there, I saw the N. I thought he could be INFP before I had him test again; I sensed a lot of Fi in him too, but put it down to it being tertiary as an INTJ. So, I disregarded it as a possibility, because I thought for certain he was T. Now that I think about it in hindsight, there's no way he's dom- or aux-Te. Again, I could not reason out the order, even with my brother, whom I've known for 20+ years and whom I've grown up with, haha. 

So while I still type people for fun, I no way believe in the accuracy of my observations. I just use it to help me smooth my way through social interactions.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

Spades said:


> Definitely a good point. An example of this is when I was typing a friend a long time ago, still using dichotomies. Her consideration for the people around her made me think she was a Feeler. I told her about MBTI and she insisted she was a Thinker. Later, she took the cognitive functions test and came out ENTP. It made sense because I was seeing the more extroverted Fe while the Ti is what was actually predominant.


Thanks for the example Spades, because to add more confusion to what you saw in your friend could just as well been a mistyping of Ne-Fe.


> Ne and Fe often focus on people and their interactions. With Ne, it is the meanings and inferences that come to mind relative to people and their interactions. With Fe, it is the actions that keep people connected or disconnected that matter.


. It could also been a mistyping of her preferred style of interacting which many may mistaken for someone using Fe. So in truth taking others into consideration may most likely been her dominant cognitive function in action unless you were aware of her motivation.


madhatter said:


> Yes, when I "type" people, I usually do it for my own benefit. I sense functions at work in people, but I have a really hard time ordering them. For example, when I first got into typing, I of course wanted to know my family's type. I thought my mom was ENFJ. I saw the Ni, I saw the Fe, both very strong. But, it turns out she was INFJ. She appeared extraverted to me, for various reasons: 1) I was confused about the nature of the E/I attitudes; 2) her behavior in groups, very chatty and friendly; 3) since we're family, we are very open and comfortable around each other. Even with a family member, I had the ordering wrong.
> 
> Another example came when typing my brother. When I had him take the test, he tested as ISTJ...twice. And I knew he was not ISTJ at all. I did see Te in him, but my brother is definitely Intuitive. But INTJ just did not fit him either. It didn't feel right, and he didn't really relate to it. So, I had him take timeless' cognitive function test, and his top three scores were F! (ENfJ, INFJ, INFP) I had him read some information about INFP, and he confirmed that that was him. I was dumb-founded: I could have sworn he was a T! But that was the point. When he tested as ISTJ, he was testing how he thought he should act and conforming to his surroundings: my dad and I are ST, my sister is ISTJ, his best friend is ESTJ (unconfirmed, typed by my observation), our brother-in-law is ESFP with a strong Te. I saw the Te there, I saw the N. I thought he could be INFP before I had him test again; I sensed a lot of Fi in him too, but put it down to it being tertiary as an INTJ. So, I disregarded it as a possibility, because I thought for certain he was T. Now that I think about it in hindsight, there's no way he's dom- or aux-Te. Again, I could not reason out the order, even with my brother, whom I've known for 20+ years and whom I've grown up with, haha.
> 
> So while I still type people for fun, I no way believe in the accuracy of my observations. I just use it to help me smooth my way through social interactions.


Another great example Mad. This is a prime example of Jung's caution for us to be aware of the "Collective Unconscious". This is where we type ourselves and others based on social expectations of how we should behave in particular circumstances. As a male, I would think your brother was attempting to fit in. This is the reason professionals warn not to take assessments while at work because the influence of the culture is so prevalent. It's also why I have continued to argue there is no type rarity since many mistype as SJ in the western culture.


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

Well, I typically just test the judging waters in regards to people. Testing how personal they take statements / remarks I make to find buttons that I can push providing an expected result.

As an ISTP with inferior Fe it's typically easy to drive Fe users up the wall, Te, I, too, find rather easy to discover.

When typing I primarily try to stick to the first two functions, though. Tertiary and Inferior just strike me as gimmicky to figure out and rather moot, as far as working with people is concerned in a casual environment.

Biggest issues will be introverts as Madhatter has already pointed out, especially introverted perceivers. I'd be completely clueless how to ever determine that a person was Si / Ni dominant - I'd probably by default always type them as extroverted based on their first extroverted function.

Lots of blah, at the end of the day however, I don't think you could ever read people with pinpoint accuracy, far from even. Some things are just fairly easy to pick up on and give, for me at least, a close enough approximation as to may lays underneath.


----------



## friction (Apr 29, 2011)

fourtines said:


> Yes, but those conscious decisions you make actually determine your functions! That's why knowing people in a deep way or watching them over a period of time is best, because functions are like your reasoning, your motives, what you value...


Right, but I often aim to come across a certain way to a certain person in a certain scenario, so it feels as if I am _being something_ in a certain interaction, but it isn't necessarily the way I usually am, or the way I prefer to be.

I find myself thinking 'be nice', 'be rational', 'show your emotion' - it's like I'm giving myself instructions to be a certain way. It makes me think 'why do I have to tell myself to _be_ something - aren't I that naturally?'



> A lot of people can't type themselves simply because they don't understand personality theory, point blank. That was surely my problem in the beginning.
> 
> Sometimes I think you can type people who you've observed a lot, though, as I said, even if you don't know them well, if you watch the same person over time their motives and value points begin to become clearer.


I just find it hard to generalize about my behaviour. I find my behaviour and thought processes too varied and diverse for me to find an underlying pattern to it. I actually find it easier to identify what functions I'm probably not using much (identifying weak skills), than what I am. Like looking at how I struggle to identify patterns in my own behaviour suggests to me that intuition is probably not my dominant function (and looking at how I'm tying 1 event to 1 idea suggests I'm using some version of Sensing).

In a sense, it's almost easier to rely on people's observations of me because although I might feel like I'm very complex, I might actually only be doing the same thing in different ways.

Of course, it is possible that I just think of myself as more complex than I really am (think along the lines of the outgroup homogeneity effect, while in this case I am the only person in my ingroup), and/or that identifying through weaknesses could be some self-esteem issue.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

I will admit here though that I do tend to type writers a lot, or people who do non-fiction kind of performance work, because you can learn a lot about a writer between reading their work AND reading/watching their biographies, if it's someone you've studied pretty extensively. I always used to think that reading a book was almost like being inside another person's head. How exciting!


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

highlandstorm said:


> Right, but I often aim to come across a certain way to a certain person in a certain scenario, so it feels as if I am _being something_ in a certain interaction, but it isn't necessarily the way I usually am, or the way I prefer to be.
> 
> I find myself thinking 'be nice', 'be rational', 'show your emotion' - it's like I'm giving myself instructions to be a certain way. It makes me think 'why do I have to tell myself to _be_ something - aren't I that naturally?'
> 
> ...


Well it took me a while - it does take a great deal of self-examination, to note moments when you're "performing" (and WHY YOU DO SO, like what is your motive for acting any way other than natural? that can be a big hint, say, if you have Fe or Te or Se, etc.) Do you do it for practical reasons, like to achieve some Te ends or to get people to leave you alone? Or because you believe in social harmony and congruent in-group values above all else, like a healthy Fe type? Or because you're trying to make an "impact" (physical and/or emotional) and put on a "show" like Se is wont to do? 

It took me nearly two years to settle on what I consider to be my real type, and I learned a lot in the process. I knew for certain I was xxFP for a long time, but the other two letters were trickier for me. 

I know now that I'm Se rather than Ne.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

I think the biggest problem I see as I have casually taken up an interest in typing people (to sharpen my skills in trying to discern how the functions work in the real world more than anything) is misinformation. I'm not convinced being able to nail down all four letters of the type code is as important (or important at all) as at least having some basic understanding of your functional preferences. The difference between ENFJ and INFJ is not terribly significant overall. But people should not be going about, making decision about who they are or what kind of career or partner they should have based on a lot of the stuff they read online. it bothers me to see someone who is unflinching in their belief they are INxP or some other nonsense. 

The type code is just a (not terribly accurate) shorthand for figuring out the ways that your cognition might work. So many people obsess over whether they are an INFP or ENFP and in the grand scheme of life it makes little difference. (I would argue maybe INFJ vs INFP is a more profound difference but most people do not possess the depth of knowledge of what that difference means to even appreciate it). I've learned a lot of people just want a basic framework that gives them a sense of validation and mitigates the attitude of "i'm so unique I must be crazy." Maybe its a byproduct of our culture that places such a premium on the idea of individualism without taking enough time to examine the contexts that have to exist to allow individualism to thrive and still maintain society.

It's my hope that people take this stuff and begin down a road of self-examination and awareness. But I do think it is important to set people off on the right path. At least in MBTI and JCF the basics of cognitive functions are important. It makes a huge difference whether you are Fi or Fe (maybe not as dramatically in practical life, but certainly as a platform for understanding a way that you might judge the world around you). Just as a concept, the idea of external value versus internal values is an important and profound one that challenges our normal perceptions about how people operate in the world. Part of the problem with MBTI is the oversimplification and misinformation creates an atmosphere more of confusion than anything else.

The type me subforum is crazy. It's like the wild wild west of information. I was clicking through and I cannot tell you how many threads ended with "you must be xxxx because my little 14 year old brother is that same type and he talks just like you." It's so anecdotal and irrelevant that it negates the entire process. Furthermore you can tell the real type experts have pretty much given up. So consequently some poor sap spends their formative years believing in something that has no grounding in any theory whatsoever and to me there is nothing worse than leading someone down a path of misinformation that makes them believe something about themselves that isn't true. It's worse than having no knowledge of this stuff. 

And dont get me started on the way the questions are written. That's a whole another thread. But this is unfortunately the world in which we live and I'm not sure that trying to help people with bad information does any greater good. If I type someone I'm never 100% sure because the system is so inherently flawed and there is always more to be learned and new insights to be gathered, but I think we should definitely have some theoretical backing or explanation for why we tell someone they are xxxx. If it were me I'd much rather someone who had an idea of what they were talking about to get it wrong (giving me a basis from which to further examine the issue of my own volition) than someone who gets it wrong relying on some fortune cookie stereotype they once heard from someone who didn't know what they were talking about either. And if the person who gets typed wants to go on believing they are 'feeler' or 'thinker' well thats on them.


----------



## Worriedfunction (Jun 2, 2011)

fourtines said:


> A lot of people can't type themselves simply because they don't understand personality theory, point blank. That was surely my problem in the beginning.


I have to say: THIS A GORILLAGILLION TIMES THIS!!!

Im still struggling with it now and im not entirely sure my understanding will ever improve, I keep getting annoyed at these abbreviations for functions like 'Te or Ti or Ni or Se' I know there is a sticky that explains it all but it goes over my head when im reading it.

Then ill forget what they mean and the whole thing starts again. :laughing:


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

Emanuel Mayer said:


> often. Its "easy", to say "I" or "E", but the other is hard and only available (?) via long communication the only thing I was right (okay, I read about MBTI the day before yesterday the 1st time^^) was a colleague: ENF (P?J?) -> ENFP


And you know what you are observing is actually the true person and not a role how? You can never be sure you are typing a person correctly because we all play roles, even on an unconscious level. It would entail knowing the person on an intimate level. 

But even if you truly know the person, you must get passed your own biases and subjective perceptions as indicated in *this thread*. You have to be able to move beyond your own subjective perceptions (negates any introverting type being successful) and see the person for who they truly are. The extraverting functions also have problems since some tend to gauge by social values, gender biases or just have too many predetermined judgments (Fe and Te), or may take such flights of fantasy to confuse what could be with what is (Ne). This seems to leave only one function-attitude that may come remotely close to being used to take in what is truly observed in an unrestricted and unbiased manner (Se). Most of the ESP types I know are realistic in saying, they can’t type others.


----------



## Neon Knight (Aug 11, 2010)

LiquidLight said:


> I've learned a lot of people just want a basic framework that gives them a sense of validation and mitigates the attitude of "i'm so unique I must be crazy."


Nailed it for me + I would like to use it as a way to better figure out how to effectively communicate with others who are much unlike myself.



LiquidLight said:


> The type me subforum is crazy. It's like the wild wild west of information. I was clicking through and I cannot tell you how many threads ended with "you must be xxxx because my little 14 year old brother is that same type and he talks just like you." It's so anecdotal and irrelevant that it negates the entire process. Furthermore you can tell the real type experts have pretty much given up. So consequently some poor sap spends their formative years believing in something that has no grounding in any theory whatsoever and to me there is nothing worse than leading someone down a path of misinformation that makes them believe something about themselves that isn't true. It's worse than having no knowledge of this stuff.


I hoped that much of that is said in there isn't taken to seriously, as no one really knows each other. I use it as a learning tool, say to learn different functions I can't even conceive of how they work. I think I should add another disclaimer to my sig saying something like "Everything I say is an opinion regardless of how it sounds, unless I specify otherwise." XD


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

> If I type someone I'm never 100% sure because the system is so inherently flawed and there is always more to be learned and new insights to be gathered, but I think we should definitely have some theoretical backing or explanation for why we tell someone they are xxxx. If it were me I'd much rather someone who had an idea of what they were talking about to get it wrong (giving me a basis from which to further examine the issue of my own volition) than someone who gets it wrong relying on some fortune cookie stereotype they once heard from someone who didn't know what they were talking about either.


This is 100% my view as well! Beautifully put. I've been giving up on wasting my time trying to convince those who adhere to silly stereotypes and don't take the actual theory seriously, since they aren't doing any service to the self-discovery process at all - they tend to want to turn this stuff into some sort of intellectual competition or treat it trivially (in other words, boost their overly large egos), without regard for anyone else (it makes me absolutely furious, because I spent *f**king* years trying to figure this stuff out for reasons of self-discovery and intellectual curiosity, and when these people disregard that there are people who actually believe in this stuff and take it seriously (as in, take it seriously enough to respect typological principles), it's like a huge, painful slap in the face to those who really want to expand their minds out there - some people might really need this stuff for various reasons *for all we know*, but of course, this "intellectual" possibility doesn't occur to those in some stupid competition to get an ego boost). These people are often the same people that deny that things like mental illness exists, even though there is an obvious amount of evidence to the contrary, just because you can't "see it" or whatever (or it's politically correct or whatever garbage to believe that it doesn't). People forget (or like to pretend, I don't know) that this stuff is somehow separate from the realm of psychology, when in fact, it is only the MBTI crap that separates it pretty badly, even though personality is inevitably obviously in the realm of psychology no matter what (I think the average 10 year old would be able to figure this out). Come on, people! This isn't "Persona Roleplaying Cafe," it's "Personality Cafe." The mission statement of this site is pretty obvious and straightforward also.

Also, I really have to question the intellect (IQs) of those who buy into the stereotypes. I'm sorry, but that really gives me no other choice. I understand that there is plenty of bad information out there, but up to a certain point, this shouldn't be that difficult to overcome intellectually (if it's causing emotional problems, and thus you can't let go of the stereotypes, I can understand this, and you have my empathy - this stuff can actually have hypnotic influences, if it's info from the fortune-cookie fortune style type descriptions). How is that any different than buying into stereotypes about, say, cheerleaders, or different races, etc. It's no less serious anyhow, since this stuff is actually used by companies, universities, etc. in the real world for big purposes (sometimes, even discriminatory policies, from what I've heard).


----------

