# A Stupid Trend



## Convex (Jan 5, 2015)

I see this time and time again with these threads and the steps follow:

1. Create a thread with a predetermined type set in your head.
2. Get upset over someone's verdict.
3. Awkwardly try to defend yourself.

This is why typing threads rarely work. You cannot get upset because you find out you are not the type you like.

This seems to stem from their introduction to MBTI. From my experience, people who are interested in MBTI, most likely got introduced from a silly personality test they took. They then have doubts, and even despite them, they will try their best to conform to that specific type, and follow silly descriptions/stereotypes. 

The point is, you should create a thread with an open mind, and remember that these users are basing their verdict on _your_ answers. I congratulate those who do because you are one step closer to finding your _real_ type. 

Stop conforming, open your mind, and for fucks sake, be honest.


----------



## LordDarthMoominKirby (Nov 2, 2013)

OK, so
1: I pretty much agree with you. A lot of "type me" threads I've seen underestimate the intelligence of the reader by blatantly referencing functions (e.g. "I guess that's just what my intuition tells me")

2: I don't really understand why you put this thread out. I mean, it could be a noteworthy comment on someone else's typology thread that conforms to the same structure that you describe, but it doesn't make a great deal of sense as a thread in itself.

3: I also don't get why you posted this on the "what's my personality type?" forum. If anything, it should really go on the "Myers-Briggs" forum.

4: Cool profile pic

5: I absolutely agree with your second paragraph when you talk about people trying to blend in with their apparent type. It's lazy, desperate and shows a painful lack of self-understanding.


----------



## Convex (Jan 5, 2015)

LordDarthMoominKirby said:


> 2: I don't really understand why you put this thread out. I mean, it could be a noteworthy comment on someone else's typology thread that conforms to the same structure that you describe, but it doesn't make a great deal of sense as a thread in itself.


It's more appropriate as a thread rather than a comment, simply because it not only applies to that specific person's typology thread, but to this section as a whole.



LordDarthMoominKirby said:


> 3: I also don't get why you posted this on the "what's my personality type?" forum. If anything, it should really go on the "Myers-Briggs" forum.


It's applicable in both forums, in my opinion it's more appropriate here since this is the section I'm criticizing.



LordDarthMoominKirby said:


> 4: Cool profile pic


Thanks.


----------



## LordDarthMoominKirby (Nov 2, 2013)

Oh, and the person/people I refer to in Number 5 are the typists you're describing, not you. I read it back and realized it could sound like I was applying it to you. :ninja:


----------



## Convex (Jan 5, 2015)

LordDarthMoominKirby said:


> Oh, and the person/people I refer to in Number 5 are the typists you're describing, not you. I read it back and realized it could sound like I was applying it to you. :ninja:


No worries, I understood. Thanks for your opinions.


----------



## Convex (Jan 5, 2015)

I would argue that this is still relevant - and always will be.


----------



## Baerlieber (May 18, 2015)

I'm confused about why this matters. If people want to think they're a type and that helps them grow as a person, how is that harming other people? Built into the stated MBTI ethics is an understanding that people get to decide what their own type is and that other people's opinions ultimately do not matter. Have you read the ethics part of the MBTI texts? Isn't it a bit narcissistic to think that your idea of what somebody else is, is more important than what they think they are? The fact that this gets under your skin so much seems to be more about your own hangups than anyone else's. Perhaps you should spend more time ignoring these people and focusing on yourself.


----------



## piano (May 21, 2015)

excuse you i am anything but awkward when i defend myself


----------



## Convex (Jan 5, 2015)

Baerlieber said:


> I'm confused about why this matters. If people want to think they're a type and that helps them grow as a person, how is that harming other people? Built into the stated MBTI ethics is an understanding that people get to decide what their own type is and that other people's opinions ultimately do not matter. Have you read the ethics part of the MBTI texts? Isn't it a bit narcissistic to think that your idea of what somebody else is, is more important than what they think they are? The fact that this gets under your skin so much seems to be more about your own hangups than anyone else's. Perhaps you should spend more time ignoring these people and focusing on yourself.


*whoosh*



i cant play the piano said:


> excuse you i am anything but awkward when i defend myself


I'm sure.


----------



## Enistery (Feb 13, 2015)

Guilty.

It took me a long time to admit I wasn't an INTP after I looked more and more into the functions....and now it seems I may not be an INTJ, so I'm probably going to go down the same road again.


----------



## Convex (Jan 5, 2015)

Kaizuka said:


> Guilty.
> 
> It took me a long time to admit I wasn't an INTP after I looked more and more into the functions....and now it seems I may not be an INTJ, so I'm probably going to go down the same road again.


MBTI is most effective when you know your true type.


----------



## NurseCat (Jan 20, 2015)

I agree smokin' skelly, if I thought I was any type I could probably get someone on here to assign me it with careful wording and enough badgering.


----------



## Convex (Jan 5, 2015)

I Hate Therapists said:


> I agree smokin' skelly, if I thought I was any type I could probably get someone on here to assign me it with careful wording and enough badgering.


I don't understand why certain users think that having a different type limits you in any way.


----------



## NurseCat (Jan 20, 2015)

Convex said:


> I don't understand why certain users think that having a different type limits you in any way.


People like to have something define them and MBTI is a way of doing that. They read about certain types and assign the bad traits to people they don't like, so they don't want to be that type. There are so many INFJs and INTJs on here because both types are uncommon and have savory descriptions, while ISFJs, ESTJs, etc. are stereotyped negatively.


----------



## UraniaIsis (Nov 26, 2014)

I agree with this A LOT. When I first started to read up on MBTI, I began doing some of the same things that @Convex is describing. I had to "train" myself to not depend on tests and and generic personality descriptions, but to learn the cognitive functions themselves. Understand how they determined my four letter label. Paying attention to how people spoke to me, of me, behaved towards me and my consciousness of my actions, thoughts, and feelings in return helped me break that nasty pattern. All of my tests use to result in INTJ, but with some serious reflection I realized that I was just an INFJ tapping into Ti under very psychologically and emotionally stressful circumstances. My attempted applications of Te+Fi were always mediocre at best anyways. 

Sometimes, I still desire to be a evil, black, female unicorn. :crazy:


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Convex said:


> I see this time and time again with these threads and the steps follow:
> 
> 1. Create a thread with a predetermined type set in your head.
> 2. Get upset over someone's verdict.
> ...


All I can say is, this is normal. It takes time to discover yourself and you have to start from somewhere. Of course I don't know how many people get stuck at the start of that, never moving ahead.


----------



## Convex (Jan 5, 2015)

myst91 said:


> All I can say is, this is normal. It takes time to discover yourself and you have to start from somewhere. Of course I don't know how many people get stuck at the start of that, never moving ahead.


I made this thread a while ago, and I now believe I discovered the true essence of this problem. It's about not accepting, and not owning yourself. Theories, along many others, people will often excuse their responsibilities, their actions, to these theories. I've even seen some needing these theories to give them confidence in real life!

This summation of descriptors of ourselves, only devalue our true essence. IQ, age, height, weight. You don't need to prove why these descriptors are holding you down! Become master over yourself, master of your own good qualities… acquire power over your aye and no and learn to hold and withhold them in accordance with your higher aim.

I even see this exact accordance happening now with people crying "sensor bias"! It is only to devalue what you devalue yourself! I devalue being a sensor, therefore I will explain why sensors are no better or worse than intuitives, something that even I don't believe, which being the sole reason of creating this claim! Black lives matter! Feminism! Behind every philosophy, there is a philosopher; you should know that many claims are hidden, as if they are pertaining to the claim, but are really only pertaining to their own psyche, and you should criticize it as such!


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Convex said:


> I made this thread a while ago, and I now believe I discovered the true essence of this problem. It's about not accepting, and not owning yourself.


Yes, the self-discovery process may have to include resolving that issue too. But I don't think that the phenomenon of people having trouble with accepting a different type always stems from this issue. I know in my case specifically it was a lack of knowing myself and trying to start from some grounding, checking things out accordingly, making adjustments later when I was not able to do so right away due to lack of real understanding etc., and this seems to be true for quite a lot of people, but you can't force or speed up some things happening inside the mind.

Again, I'm not aware of how many people do actually get into true and (brutally) honest self-discovery and how many just do what you describe. 




> This summation of descriptors of ourselves, only devalue our true essence. IQ, age, height, weight. You don't need to prove why these descriptors are holding you down! Become master over yourself, master of your own good qualities… acquire power over your aye and no and learn to hold and withhold them in accordance with your higher aim.


How do you do these things?




> I even see this exact accordance happening now with people crying "sensor bias"! It is only to devalue what you devalue yourself! I devalue being a sensor, therefore I will explain why sensors are no better or worse than intuitives, something that even I don't believe, which being the sole reason of creating this claim! Black lives matter! Feminism! Behind every philosophy, there is a philosopher; you should know that many claims are hidden, as if they are pertaining to the claim, but are really only pertaining to their own psyche, and you should criticize it as such!


I like your last sentences here.


----------



## VinnieBob (Mar 24, 2014)

many years ago i was reading c.g. jung and came across his thinking introverted type
it described my entire existence
it wasn't until several years later i found the myers/briggs book and took the test
which paints a much prettier picture of the types
honestly tho if more peeps read jung's description of the introverted thinking types they would not be jumping on the NT band wagon


----------



## Twichl (May 21, 2015)

Vinniebob said:


> many years ago i was reading c.g. jung and came across his thinking introverted type
> it described my entire existence
> it wasn't until several years later i found the myers/briggs book and took the test
> which paints a much prettier picture of the types
> honestly tho if more peeps read jung's description of the introverted thinking types they would not be jumping on the NT band wagon


I really need to look into C. Jungs stuff more deeply. Maybe then I could actually land a type a little more confidently. Using various function tests have been little to no use. So far I seem to land firmly into the grey area- somewhat near INTP.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Vinniebob said:


> many years ago i was reading c.g. jung and came across his thinking introverted type
> it described my entire existence
> it wasn't until several years later i found the myers/briggs book and took the test
> which paints a much prettier picture of the types
> honestly tho if more peeps read jung's description of the introverted thinking types they would not be jumping on the NT band wagon


Lol same for his Ni description. 

I don't quite see what's so cool in NT descriptions tho'.

The standard MBTI descriptions emphasize positive qualities for all types, not just the NT ones.


----------



## Convex (Jan 5, 2015)

myst91 said:


> How do you do these things?


These values are not objective, because we ourselves are the creators, of its own significance, of even the most purest form of itself. We tend to justify ourselves by positing truths as being true by reference to something outside of themselves that is eternal and unchanging, a "God". While this may have been a boon to earlier cultures, we are not perpetual. The Greeks were once polytheists who constructed thus at the temple of Eleusis as a part of their method for talking about what was true. Today, dogmatists of the _perceived_ objective: the religionist and the advocate for scientism. They have much in common; something has gone wrong, we veered our own course. Both of them speak about truth ("God") in a dogmatic way, where it's one thing, and it's a very, very sober thing ("God", "Nature"), and it's out there, and it's eternal, and it's unchanging, and the goal is to discover it. But this sort of "God talk" has been run into the ground and no longer works for the subjects who are trying to live under it (it crushes subjectivity in a deranged attempt at pure objectivity). For various reasons, "God talk", nowadays, leads to things like moral priggery, resentment, nihilism; "God talk" has lost its edge. "God talk" is now little more than a desperate reaction to the fact that "God talk" no longer works. So, ergo Nietzsche: God is dead. We've lost the ability to appeal to the authority of transcendent sources. No one buys it anymore. And the huge problem is: that authority is all we've ever known as truth! But, at this moment of utter dissolution, where a whole culture is collapsing into nihilism because its "God talk" isn't working anymore, we also get the privilege of being able to hear the world's unutterable secret (if we listen), which is that _we_ were the creators of this culture that is collapsing, it was us all along, it wasn't some transcendent God. We made our own values, a discovery that is worthy of worship because it is a savior to us. And now that we know that we are the creators (which we only saw by first being destroyed), the death of God can be seen as an opportunity to create new, living "Gods", culture, ourselves, ergo Heidegger: our authentic selves. Nothingness should only corner us into authenticity, because of the anxiety of it, and into the calm comes our inauthenticity. We can't just do it like the Greeks did, that option is no longer available to us. They were innocent. They casually brought upon a whole pantheon of Gods. But we've created a lot since then: our creations have accumulated. And it is off the ground of what's already been created that creation takes place. If your psychological influence was boozing and carousing with women instead of reading Aristotle to you, then that's the created space that you will be creating from. If he was James Mill pounding Greek into your little two year old James Stuart Mill's head, then that's the created space that you will be creating from. What this means, irrelevantly is that: firstly historical and psychological influence is more than we can imagine, as behind every philosophy, there is a philosopher; and relevantly: the new is never clean. People _will_ misunderstand this as silly relevantism or a romanticism of absolute free will, but these people will be the dogmatists!

What it is to be a creator is that you always create from within a limit of what has already been created, so this means that what we create matters because it becomes the ground of a culture, it becomes a "God". Which means that the problem with the dogmatists is that they try to be creators without admitting that they are the ones doing the creating -- they try to pretend that creation is a thing without limits, that it comes from nowhere, that they are nothing like their negative and aversive psychological influence. But that kind of "God talk" of "coming from nowhere", being "pure", being "objective", only works when it's true. The Greeks sneezed human history into existence -- they created robust self-consciousness out of nothing ("spirit posits itself" as Hegel would say). God was truly a brilliant idea back then and it came "naturally", it came out of nothing, it was pure. But what developed out of those first formulations of truth has grown stale through the ages. The God of us now has become stale. And this staleness tells us the nature of being a creator, the truth about truth -- it's a historical thing, it comes out of limits, it can die, it can grow stale, you take off from the created space that you inherited (for the Greeks, since they were first, it was nature itself that they came out of). And now we know that the only God is that there is no God ("the death of metaphysics is quite metaphysical", to quote Adorno) and that's the most you can say. That's the truth of the creators, the truth of what we've created so far, the ideal that we should be positing in its most general form, historical freedom, freedom that must come out of the full situation of where you are and nowhere else, so freedom that is only innocent once.

To quote what Nietzsche says of the Sun: "Great star! What would your happiness be, if you had not for those for whom you shine!", it's him trying to state the grand upside of God being dead and us now being creators. Our relation to the Gods we create no longer has to be alienated. If we respect the history from which we come, if we realize that the relation between the truth is tied to "whom it shines for", then we can create Gods that are truly our own. If we admit that we created the Gods and that they have grown stale, then we can create Gods that are appropriate for our situation, i.e. modern Gods, i.e. Gods that know they're created Gods (i.e. good culture, i.e. a good self, i.e. a true self-consciousness that has interpreted his history with others well and so is not just a resentful, inverted, regressive repeat and deepening of a bad history, as Burke would say: "Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.” And if we do that, if we make God dialectical, it will be a God that now shines down on us as _true_ objectivity, not a perceived one, one that is not anything objective but psychologically; truly pulling us towards a future that can be said to be ours. The model for this kind of non-dogmatic relationship to a created truth is love, as such: "Beyond good and evil is love." We have to transcend the clumsy historical attempts at dogmatically raping the object of our affection with our notions of pure objectivity (good over here, evil over there, never the twain shall meet or change). And when you get past seeing value as transcendent, as an objective matter of good and evil, then you can see it as subjective, and your objectivity can be a seduction of the object of your affection in a game of mutuality between self and other, between subject and other subject. Getting our God/self to be dialectically sensitive to the full range of "whom it shines for" - the object, the other - is how you become a good creator rather than a dogmatist. That's how you "become who you are", to have a future that is sensitive to your past, to a good future, tp meaning and purpose, to a God that is dialectical and "shines for you", "you" being the value/goal that best suits your context, of God, of the Overman who is not here yet, of The Future, of your children, the ones you will pass the baton to, The Light by which you create The Light.

It is a twist on Kant's Copernican turn ("the subject now is the authority in truthmaking and THAT is how we get objectivity!"), it is where Nietzsche and him are placed at a fork. It can be said to actually see his version of the thing in itself, the Light, which is our murky, strange, not-ever-fully-knowable creator self that pushes towards a goal that is not yet here, that is forever other, but which can push towards that goal authentically/dialectically if it just admits that the other is other, that you come from a history, that truth is a woman who needs seducing -- not clumsy transcendental unity of appercepting.


----------



## RaisinKG (Jan 2, 2016)

My two cents on this; I agree with OP. Tbh, while I find myself guilty of this in the past, this is a trend I've been seeing in at least some of the threads I've been seeing, and some of them are a bit obvious, to quote from a previous post by LordDarthMoominKirby

"I guess that's just what my intuition tells me"

Also, I like your profile picture. The composition is appealing and the expression on the dude's face is priceless.



> I would argue that this is still relevant - and always will be.


After one year, yeah it seems to be.


----------



## Kimchi (Jul 22, 2016)

One must embrace it's own weaknesses and strenghts. Admitting some of your behaviours might be embarassing but it really helps out finding your true MBTI. I actually didn't follow this trend. I love all the replies to my threads and always listen to them. But for a lot of time I lied to myself. When you lose your "no, I can't be like that, I'm too cool!" mindset you'll find your true type.
Today, for the first time, I'm feeling confident about my time. I actually know my true type and have no doubts anymore. Things are starting to make sense finally.

Sorry, I know this was a little bit OT, but I feel it could help others too. And it could be also used by people who are following this stupid trend.


----------



## CrystallineSheep (Jul 8, 2012)

I think lots of people fancy themselves as an Intuitive. I have met and known people of various personality types and I can say from experience that I have met very unremarkable NFs and NTs. Some of them not particularly intelligent or even interesting. On the contrary, I have known really talented and brilliant SJs and SPs. For example, ISTJs are stereotyped for being 'boring' but honestly some of the most amazing people I know are ISTJs. I feel like labels like 'The Artist' or 'The Performer' or 'The Guardian' really impose a lot of stereotypes onto the personality types. I think people can end up taking the labels too literally.


----------



## Convex (Jan 5, 2015)

Dothraki said:


> Today, for the first time, I'm feeling confident about my time. I actually know my true type and have no doubts anymore. Things are starting to make sense finally.


This won't last for long.


----------



## Kimchi (Jul 22, 2016)

Convex said:


> This won't last for long.


Lol, you're probably right, but I never felt like this when talking about MBTI. I usually would change my mind every hour... but today a lot of hours have passed without changing my mind!


----------



## Convex (Jan 5, 2015)

Dothraki said:


> Lol, you're probably right, but I never felt like this when talking about MBTI. I usually would change my mind every hour... but today a lot of hours have passed without changing my mind!


What is certainty? I see this mindset, this trait that seeps on every letter of each word.. that rejects truth in itself, what is _certain_ here: certainty of something rather than nothing, is the furthest away from the Sun's shine, its truth, rather _our_ truth.


----------



## sometimes (Dec 26, 2013)

Yeah I guess people can on here can be like that. But I thought it was usually more that they just don't understand the theory yet/understand cognitive functions so it can just take more convincing and research for them to change their mind about a type they originally identified as. Sometimes it could just be more that they don't understand the reasoning yet for being a different types than they thought so they are just unsure and end up looking like they are too attached to being one type but maybe it's just because they see not much reason to think otherwise. I thought that's more what it is in most threads I see. And in most cases I'm not sure how you'd tell the difference. It's difficult to be truly honest even if you're trying to be as well. As in you don't know yourself enough to answer properly. At least that's what I'm like.


----------



## meaningless (Jul 9, 2016)

From what I've seen, there's a huge iNtuitive bias in the MBTI community. When people fill out questionnaires and ask well informed people to type them, and get a sensor type, they lose their shit. They try to derail responses and try to convince them that they're intuitives. The people here, not gonna lie, worship iNtuitives, specifically INxx's so much, and shit on sensors.

A lot of INxx's here are mistyped. Hell, I might even be mistyped too. This N bias has got to stop.


----------

