# Approaching typing as a diagnosis



## mrhcmll (Nov 22, 2013)

I was watching a video by Michael Pierce on youtube and he related typing to determining a psychological diagnosis. It's a profound analogy.

I often go into periods of long rumination and confusion trying to determine my type. I ultimately end up feeling so frustrated and aggravated by the lack of objectivity within typology. In hindsight, it was stupid to demand objectivity from a system and concept inherently subjective. I can pick apart my behavior and my perception (and that of others), can even adjust my perception to whatever type I want to have. I will never find that 100%, concrete proof that will prove that x or y is my type.

As is with diagnosing someone, no description of an illness (or in this case type) will perfectly fit a person to a tee. What I can do, however, is make myself familiar with the defining symptoms (in this case functions and the synthesis of these). From there I can determine which type best fits me (i.e. make a diagnosis). Personality is inherently a subjective experience, similar to a mental disorder (for the most part anyway). People experience different symptoms of depression, anxiety, etc. A diagnosis is made when a person's case fits enough symptoms of the syndrome. Maybe typing should be approached the same way.

Seeing type as a diagnosis, then, could allow typology to be seen for its utility, a convenient system to understand those who are different from us, and how they may perceive and interact with the world, instead of a label. Just like mental disorders, we, of course, are not limited to this "diagnosis" or "type".

To echo what he said, sometimes you just have to pick your type and stick with it. (IMO with a good enough basis though)

Posting because I thought it would help anyone else who felt the same way I did.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

You have ran into a normal problem of this typology. The thing is that many people are somewhere in he middle of scales and their personality is mostly balanced. What makes a type is a typical observed cognition being somewhat unbalanced. Everyone uses all functions and tries to do so appropriately, the requirements for most people is to remain balanced. It's normal and common to be "typeless", Even those cognitive preferences for most people are quite weak.

You shouldn't also forget that typology like this one more like psychological toy rather than real tool. There's really no reason to beat yourself up over it, it's not that good. There are better ones. It's generally just better to study psychology if you want to learn about yourself.


----------

