# Personality Type Least Likely To Dig Personality Typing



## Mystic Jenn (Oct 30, 2008)

So from what I have observed most people are curious about self-tests and stuff. But, I find some people could care less. And I've noticed that people who don't get the right assessment results lose interest quickly.

What do you think?


----------



## T-Guy (Nov 4, 2008)

Well certainly. If someone takes a test, answer the questions truthfully (or so you would think), and the result is bogus, then there's a good reason to believe that the whole system is false. About people not caring about this, personality types are just another subject that people find either interesting or uninteresting. And for some people it might be of use and it might not be of use. So...I think people who find this uninteresting and useless couldn't care less about personality typing.


----------



## cryptonia (Oct 17, 2008)

lol, so judging by the fact you used types to type people together by interest, I oughta go out on a limb and say you're not one of them?

I think it's kind of close to what T-guy said... although I would ammend it to say that the more common a type is, the less likely they are to care about it. Jung (I think it was him... may have been Keirsey) estimated that the INxx's were about 1% of the population each, ESxx's were about 13 each, and all the others were between 5-6. Now.. I mean, the core of the theory is the psychological functions and how the brain develops. By the time you get down to the internet descriptions that people read, it's other people just saying "hey... I think these functions would tend to lead to similar interests and abilities," and writing them down as a kind of summary. From here on I'm gonna be talking about the psychological functions when I talk about "type" as a noun.

So I think the less common the test tends to tell you that you are (whether the types are just illusions and really you're just classifying people with similar views on life together or if the types are actually true), the more accurately the descriptions are going to fit, because they're based off of a smaller sample size. Of course there's variability in any population, but there's a lot less variability given 100 people with similar base worldviews than there is given 1000 people with them.

Then there's the fact that, quite simply, society is built for certain kinds of people. More common kinds of people have more people around them who understand them easier, because they see roughly eye to eye (again, whether it's the type or just varying opinions _actually_ account for the difference is like asking whether the chicken or the egg came first... in both cases the people who test as a certain type see roughly eye to eye)... so the rarer ones are used to just being different and less understood.

Both of these things to point to "ESxx's care the least, INxx's care the most... mixed bag in between." I would tend to think that the ENxx's would care more than the ISxx's, just because intuition by typing is based on whether or not people like to look for connections and new applications and dreaming about things... so whether the type is based on worldview or the worldview is partially determined by type, they would be more drawn in by the new theory.


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

I have found very few S types who are interested in type theory. I guess this is probably because it deals with the intangible aspects of the self, and they are more likely to be focused on the external world. The SJs think it's a distraction from work, the SPs think it's a distraction from play, and one ESFP explained that he thought it was a horrible thing that denied the value of individuality. Since he was a very spontaneous person who valued being unpredictable, he felt that the test was too confining and was an attempt to put him into a little box. When the description turned out to be accurate, he said.... "Well, it's uncanny how well that describes me, but... it's still a load of bull!" One ISTJ refused to take it because it violated her sense of privacy and seemed like a "waste of her time." My ISFJ friend wouldn't take it because she felt that the very idea of having an individual personality went counter to her belief in the importance of dying to self, and was against her religion, violating her strong sense of duty. She had an idea that there was only one kind of personality that was acceptable: the personality that God wanted us all to be, which to her, seemed clearly ISFJ. Everyone who has ever refused to take the test for me was someone I have carefully observed or have tricked into answering the questions without using the test, and they all turned out to be S types. Not all S types dislike it, but they tend to take less interest in it than the N types.


----------



## Mystic Jenn (Oct 30, 2008)

T-Guy said:


> Well certainly. If someone takes a test, answer the questions truthfully (or so you would think), and the result is bogus, then there's a good reason to believe that the whole system is false. About people not caring about this, personality types are just another subject that people find either interesting or uninteresting. And for some people it might be of use and it might not be of use. So...I think people who find this uninteresting and useless couldn't care less about personality typing.


Good point. I gotta say you are really the only S I know that is into this. The S people I know seem to turn the noses up at it.


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

I don't think S types require a theory of personality as much as the N types. They can deal with individuals by observing physical clues. They don't have to project themselves into another's position using a process of imagining what it would be like to see from another perspective, because they notice the way someone's body shifts when that person is uncomfortable. They figure out patterns of behavior for the individuals and don't need to fit those tendencies into a theoretical framework to make sense of them. It doesn't matter what it means, as long as it is clearly observable. The effect is the same. It means that they may never understand us on a deeper level, but then again, my ESFP friend was very good at understanding people. He could state things about my friends that I wouldn't have noticed. "[Person A] isn't as smart as he thinks he is, [person B] isn't as mature as he thinks he is, and you talk about things as if they were how they should be instead of how they actually are." He was right about everyone, and I was surprised.


----------



## Mystic Jenn (Oct 30, 2008)

I'm pretty good at reading body language.


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

I'm not. I don't look at people because I always feel like I'm invading them when I do.


----------



## addle1618 (Oct 31, 2008)

I read body language alot and it can be quite annoying when you know the psychology of it.


----------



## T-Guy (Nov 4, 2008)

Mystic Jenn said:


> Good point. I gotta say you are really the only S I know that is into this. The S people I know seem to turn the noses up at it.


Yeah, I tend to analyze people, and I find MBTI useful in organizing my analysis.


----------



## Mystic Jenn (Oct 30, 2008)

T-Guy said:


> Yeah, I tend to analyze people, and I find MBTI useful in organizing my analysis.


Being the "Mover and Shaker" of the types, I can see where this would help you. Especially in business.


----------



## Mystic Jenn (Oct 30, 2008)

AddleHeart said:


> I read body language alot and it can be quite annoying when you know the psychology of it.


I pretty much intuitively knew what was up, but I recently began reading articles and books on it. It really just gave a name to what I already knew. It is fascinating.


----------



## NephilimAzrael (Oct 26, 2008)

ESFP - had to use sound persuasion to get them to even stay seated long enough to test. Even worse trying to verify with additional testing.


----------



## addle1618 (Oct 31, 2008)

Mystic Jenn said:


> I pretty much intuitively knew what was up, but I recently began reading articles and books on it. It really just gave a name to what I already knew. It is fascinating.


yep, but I feel everyone has thier own body languarge it is just about reading the atmosphere i guess.


----------



## lunniey (Oct 19, 2008)

maybe ISTP because i know two person who is ISTP that doesn't like this kind of stuff..
well i think it's true,there is lots of 'S' type who doesn't like personality typing matter..
you can also see the S personality type forum it's almost empty  there's only few S people there


----------



## fishalee (May 27, 2009)

snail said:


> I don't think S types require a theory of personality as much as the N types. They can deal with individuals by observing physical clues. They don't have to project themselves into another's position using a process of imagining what it would be like to see from another perspective, because they notice the way someone's body shifts when that person is uncomfortable. They figure out patterns of behavior for the individuals and don't need to fit those tendencies into a theoretical framework to make sense of them. It doesn't matter what it means, as long as it is clearly observable. The effect is the same. It means that they may never understand us on a deeper level, but then again, my ESFP friend was very good at understanding people. He could state things about my friends that I wouldn't have noticed. "[Person A] isn't as smart as he thinks he is, [person B] isn't as mature as he thinks he is, and you talk about things as if they were how they should be instead of how they actually are." He was right about everyone, and I was surprised.


excellent point--i would do anything to be both an N and an S! i want to develop my S. 
i have noticed the same thing--people who i wouldn't really go to to 'discuss' something because they would be bored/uninterested-and then they make the most interesting observations about people that might take me a much greater time to realize... but they get it so quickly and i cant figure out how they do it! and S's dont seem to want to share how they do this. so frustrating. but i have experienced exactly what you just said about those short observations that S's make that turn out to be so accurate-when at first, they seemed almost sassy, arrogant,or just the product of some defense mechanism...


----------



## pianopraze (Jun 29, 2009)

Mystic Jenn said:


> I'm pretty good at reading body language.


Not hard to read the body language of your avatar!

Great thread! Is there a breakdown on here of percentages of people by type that are using this forum? That would be interesting to see and might give a clue as to which types are actively studying it on here at least. :happy:


----------



## thehigher (Apr 20, 2009)

NephilimAzrael said:


> ESFP - had to use sound persuasion to get them to even stay seated long enough to test. Even worse trying to verify with additional testing.


Ya this is true. My mom is an ESFP and I would have to tie her to my chair in order to get her into this. I am surprised the the ESTJ and ESTPs are getting into it. Many of my friends are these types and I could not picture them gaining any interest in these sort of discussions. Kudos to you estjs and estps.


----------



## monique (Mar 3, 2009)

For the last few months I've been asking work colleagues to take one of the online tests. Ok it's not the official one but I think it's pretty good for what it is. More recently I put the link to the test up on our works intranet. Altogether I've only had 115 responses so far and if you want to know a type who doesnt dig taking personality tests then its' M.A.L.E. But as for types who seem to dig it or at least express interest when I send them their profile quite a few have been ESFJ. In fact one ESFJ sent me a message to tell me that she knew 2 men in her office had done the test ages ago but refused to email me. "I know they're ISFJ just send me the link to their profiles and I'll pass it on". A male ESFJ ordered his work team to take it! ESFPs have gone "Ooh that is soooo me". One INFP commented that she wasn't surprised that there weren't many of her type in the world. An ENTJ when I said I'd be sending him a profile told me he he didn't need anything to tell him how weird he knew he already was. It's mostlythe Es who have tried it out on their families; or at least it's the Es who've told me that's what they've done. I got my mother to take it but she practically uuhmed and aahed through the entire choices. And to my surprise she came out INFP but with the I/E 50/50. I do know from the things she tells me that she was a highly imaginative and introverted child.


----------



## εmptε (Nov 20, 2008)

*ESFJ most likely. Don't see many of them running around *


----------



## Five (Mar 27, 2011)

Spades said:


> I wonder what type(s) are most likely to enjoy personality typing. INTP is my guess.


Agreed. Ti loves analysing. Ne = models.

But I also enjoy it massively (INTJ), as long as I continue to see its utility (and I do). Hence I use it mostly in a day to day fashion in the real world. Sizing people up, predicting outcomes etc


----------



## Cassieopeia (Jan 9, 2012)

I love this stuff, and I'm an ESFJ. Maybe I'm just a rare one.

Also, half the time I'd rather be sitting at home reading and learning by myself than out at parties. My E isn't too strong. That might have a little to do with it.


----------



## Cassieopeia (Jan 9, 2012)

I mean, I am extroverted, but I'm one of the quieter extroverts, and I do need alone time sometimes. And lately my alone time has been spent here or reading more about psychology on other sites. I'm actually really improving myself and my realtionships with people by learning about myself and others through the MBTI. I don't see how any type could dislike it to be honest. But I know they do. My INTJ friend laughs at me when I talk about this stuff because it's not "real science", haha.


----------



## Micro Raptor (Feb 1, 2012)

It probably depends more on the individual and their interests necessarily than type (at least to an extent), but I would guess SFP types would be least interested in it.

One reason is because there seems to be a disproportionately large amount of NTs in mbti forums, which seems to be an indication that NTs enjoy analyzing mbti more than SFs. FJ types that use Fe more than Fi might be more interested in mbti because they are concerned with how they relate to people. Se would be less interested in acquiring knowledge of information than Si and more concerned with what's going on around them.

Also, from experience, I knew an ISFP guy who I told about mbti once and he seemed very uninterested. Of course that is only one example of one individual, but I would be willing to bet than NTs are more interested in it in general than SFs because of the abundance of NTs that populate most mbti forums and also from personal experience with other people. I know a few people who also claim to type as NT who knew about too and were more interested in it than most SF types I knew.

I think mbti is interesting to analyze, but I don't mention it to most people often in rl because too much stereotyping is not always a good thing. I analyze it mostly to cure boredom, but I try not to take it too seriously if I can because everyone is different, even if they have the same mbti type. I made the mistake of mentioning mbti to someone once who does not understand that concept. I don't think it's a good thing to use for a casual conversational topic with most people.


----------



## EmpireConquered (Feb 14, 2012)

ESFP ... maybe?


----------



## Kito (Jan 6, 2012)

Of all the forums on here, ESFP and ESTJ seem to be the quietest. As somebody on the first page said, I think they see it as a distraction from work/play and something irrelevant to their lives.

It's funny how N types are a minority in the real world, but there's a great abundance of them here. I like MBTI because I like how much I can relate my type to myself, and other types to my friends. I think it's a Fi thing. My ISFJ mother also loves psychology and has looked into MBTI before, but we both have a pretty small preference for Sensing.


----------



## Worriedfunction (Jun 2, 2011)

I suppose it would depend upon how the theory is explained to them. I usually wouldn't approach someone on the subject unless they had asked me about what I was reading and the book was about this theory, or else I really thought I knew the person well enough to believe that they would be receptive of it.

It really is about how it is put forward. When explaining to others I never even bother with the types, in fact I hardly mention them at all. I actually start by giving a brief history of the theory and how it is based upon Jung's work and then move onto each Function and it's general outline before breaking them up into the introverted and extroverted dichotomies of each one.

While I am doing this I will also be constantly reminding people not to stereotype, that the traits that these preferences lead you towards are not set in stone and that anyone can in fact break the mold and do something they otherwise might not be inclined to do.

Then I might move onto the types themselves and explain how it all fits together and how the letters work when it comes to working out the functional order. So I would finally get to the real meat of the theory which is the 4 functions a person uses the most, namely the Dominant, the Auxiliary, the Tertiary and the Inferior, which we all know and love.

The idea here for me is to present enough information for an Intuitive to get flashes of understanding from, with appropriate metaphors,(although they may make their own anyhow), and at the same time; go into enough detail that a sensor can build a complete picture of the theory from these details.

In this way I intend to appeal to both Sensors and Intuitives alike. The biggest failing of any teacher is to believe that the people he or she is teaching are like them and that they should be learning to be small versions of themselves.

Obviously im no teacher, at least from the standpoint of official education, but any person who wishes to inform or educate, no matter how formally or informally, or personal or impersonal and regardless of subject matter, is in essence...a teacher.

In any case, noone likes to look at it as a series of boxes, if you present the 16 types to them right away, a lot of people will dislike how it seems to surpress their individuality, which of course it doesn't at all, especially since two people with the same type and therefore functions, could also be completely different in just as many ways as they are similar.

But people can be tempted to merely go off the type descriptions that are found on the internet and even certain books, (although id say the ones in the books ive read have been far better than those on the internet), they forget the reasons behind some of those descriptions and they then take them too literally and start being critical of themselves or the theory.

In the end; they are inclinations and preferences. There are no certainties.


----------



## Owfin (Oct 15, 2011)

Type WHATEVER.


----------



## livlaughluv8 (Mar 13, 2012)

Definitely not infjs. lol we are so rare but I see so many on the mbti forums. I feel like many estps really don't have a big interest in it at all. The ones I Know usually have a interest in it for a few days and then they have absolutely no interest in it.


----------



## Doom (Oct 25, 2010)

I've noticed with INTPs they're either extremely skeptical about it (at first) or extremely fascinated with it.

In general I'd say IN types for the most part but for different reasons though EN types have a mild interest too. With me as an INFJ I think its because it kind of puts my understanding of people and their personalities together where as with INFP it gives them a better understanding of themselves. Maybe it's a Ni/Ne thing.


----------



## MilkyWay132 (Jul 15, 2010)

I myself really like the MBTI. My mom, an ISFJ, isn't really into it, but she was surprised by how accurately the description described her and liked it.


----------



## Stan the Woz (Apr 10, 2012)

I agree with a lot of what's been said already. S types, especially SPs (SJs are going to be more likely to be comfortable with their type, I'd say, they might have a clearer internal picture of themselves or feel more solidly that they are one way due to the resoluteness of Si's confidence in impressions) are going to probably be less interested in personality theory. SJ types may find it inoffensive but not particularly revolutionary (I'd imagine a lot of them already know some of the things their type might tell them), while I think SPs might get a little offended at being "put into a personality box", as it were - being confined to a certain pattern of behavior when they (believe) they have so much possibility and variety of character. This is all conjecture, though; I definitely haven't gone out and surveyed people to find out which type is least likely to jibe with the theory.


----------



## topix (Apr 11, 2012)

fishalee said:


> excellent point--i would do anything to be both an N and an S! i want to develop my S.
> i have noticed the same thing--people who i wouldn't really go to to 'discuss' something because they would be bored/uninterested-and then they make the most interesting observations about people that might take me a much greater time to realize... but they get it so quickly and i cant figure out how they do it! and S's dont seem to want to share how they do this. so frustrating. but i have experienced exactly what you just said about those short observations that S's make that turn out to be so accurate-when at first, they seemed almost sassy, arrogant,or just the product of some defense mechanism...


I don't know. I'm a slight- to mild-leaning N on most MB tests, and I seem to be a good judge of character. It's an uneasy feeling when I suspect the worst about someone, while knowing that history has tended to show my suspicions about people to be true.


----------



## Jxuptosae (Apr 11, 2012)

I generally fancy myself an INTJ or INTP. It's a rough topic for me depending on the day. Psychology and sociology are subjects I have a love and hate relationship with. The importance on intangible and information that is extremely difficult to quantify originally led me to believe it was all rubbish. However, even so my interest in understanding how other people worked was too overwhelming, and the more I researched the more it made sense. In an endless search for a way to truly understand the world, and the people around me in a sense that was greater than angles, forces, and laws it did bring some measure of light. Now, it is still a lot of perception, and I'm working on accepting it all for what it is. The difficulty is that I not only know I will never embrace it entirely, I will also never be able to scoff again. Such a complicated mess it all becomes.


----------



## DJArendee (Nov 27, 2009)

NF's. they all wanna be special or some shit.


----------



## Fridays (Jul 12, 2012)




----------



## Fridays (Jul 12, 2012)

I am ESFP and I LOVE THIS SHIT!!!


----------



## KateMarie999 (Dec 20, 2011)

The ESTJ I know treated me to a lecture about how labeling people is wrong and how I should focus on more... concrete theories? I stopped paying attention. So I'd say ESTJ.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

The untypable type.


----------



## hahalol (Aug 16, 2012)

hornet said:


> The untypable type.


Touche. Also ESXXs, from personal experience.


----------



## MyNameIsTooLon (Apr 28, 2012)

Extroverted sensors. That's also why they're so rare on here.


----------



## His Name Is John (Aug 27, 2012)

I know two ESFJ's who initially didn't like the MB. One claimed that 'they weren't any type' and the other 'that they don't like putting people in boxes'. I've never met anyone else who has a problem with it.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

I think this is more related to enneagram than MBTI, personally.


----------



## zethry (Nov 15, 2011)

I'm an ENFP (and a 4w5). I'm conflicted on the subject. :3 I like to say This Is Me, but at the same time, I don't want to be put in a box, or have a label or stereotype applied to me. I like reading about my type and having it feel RIGHT and be able to think "that is so me." Or have a description resunate within me. And then I don't like it because I want to be unique and don't want people to assume things about me based upon my type. 
I love personailty quizzes and finding out more about myself though.


----------



## via (Aug 30, 2012)

My ESFP sister took the test, read a little of her bio, and slowly closed the laptop saying "I hate this. It knows too much about me."


----------



## musicman75 (Jan 12, 2013)

:happy:


T-Guy said:


> Yeah, I tend to analyze people, and I find MBTI useful in organizing my analysis.


----------



## Ozman2988 (Nov 16, 2012)

Im an ENFP type 2w3 and I love MBTI and I think its a wonderful tool to understand people. Its just my open minded nature. I actually helped type my friend and he is an ENTP. He actually is really into this and thinks it is a great tool as well. Its not about changing someone. I think some people get the idea that it is how they are supposed to act. Quite the contrary, its about understanding yourself so you can understand others better too. My sister is an ESFJ and she was pretty amazed how it described her. Although I don't think she gives a shit about it. Same with my brother. He is an S type as well, and he has told me its a load of shit to him. haha. I was always the different one in the family anyways.


----------



## pizzapie (Oct 23, 2012)

via said:


> My ESFP sister took the test, read a little of her bio, and slowly closed the laptop saying "I hate this. It knows too much about me."


My ESFP sister did almost the same thing  She read a little bit of it, got bored and then asked how it knew all that about her.


----------



## userslon (Jan 29, 2013)

cryptonia said:


> lol, so judging by the fact you used types to type people together by interest, I oughta go out on a limb and say you're not one of them?
> 
> I think it's kind of close to what T-guy said... although I would ammend it to say that the more common a type is, the less likely they are to care about it. Jung (I think it was him... may have been Keirsey) estimated that the INxx's were about 1% of the population each, ESxx's were about 13 each, and all the others were between 5-6. Now.. I mean, the core of the theory is the psychological functions and how the brain develops. By the time you get down to the internet descriptions that people read, it's other people just saying "hey... I think these functions would tend to lead to similar interests and abilities," and writing them down as a kind of summary. From here on I'm gonna be talking about the psychological functions when I talk about "type" as a noun.
> 
> ...



shut up


----------



## Larac (Aug 6, 2013)

I think ESPs and SJs..also, NTPs and INs would be the interested ones.


----------



## rocknroll_lover (Jun 28, 2013)

Definitely ESFP. I read a poll on a MBTI site asking which type vistors were to the site and ESFP was the lowest of all types- INTJ, INTP and INFP were highest, not surprisingly. So ESFPS are probably not interesting in typing as much as the other types. They also seem to not be on this site very much, either. I have no idea how this would even begin to hold their interest, being deeply introspective and requiring a lot of self-evaluation.


----------



## Kabosu (Mar 31, 2012)

If I'm to go by this forum, I'd say ESTJ. You get some, but it's just a few regular posters.


----------



## cudibloop (Oct 11, 2012)

I can't participate in any of my routine coke-fueled Sensor orgies without thinking about Myers Briggs and Jungian psychology.


----------



## VioletIris (Jan 15, 2010)

I'll nominate ESTP - my husband - he has always just shook his head at my various personality interests (sites, books, etc.) over the years. In general, the ESxx types.


----------



## Ligerman30 (Oct 23, 2013)

I'd probably say ESTJ


----------



## LordDarthMoominKirby (Nov 2, 2013)

From experience, ENFJ. I gave my ENFJ friend the test, and she thought it was all a bunch of rubbish.


----------



## Van Meter (Sep 28, 2012)

Sjs are the most disinterested from what I have gathered, and the ones I know are usually uniquely interested in what I have to say, but not with mbti. Sps seem to be a little more interested, but not to the point where you can be thorough. I'm a really good communicator too, in person. (I don't know about now, because anonymity and I've had a couple drinks)


----------



## zenithx (Jun 12, 2014)

ESFP for sure. They would either not even understand the test questions, or dismiss you when you suggest them to take it.

other ESxx types as well, maybe?


----------



## Kyro (May 26, 2014)

Mutatio NOmenis:105987 said:


> The internet is no place for a sensor. Besides, INP's have like 50-60% of forum accounts.



Yep. Me and my INFP friend are more obsessed with the internet than my other friends.

S types do seem least likely to be interested in MBTI, from what you people had said on this thread. I would say the friend of mine who's the least interested in MBTI is the ENFP. I don't have any S type friends. F types that I know don't show as much interest into MBTI. My INTJ friend and I show the most interest. My ENTJ & ENTP friends being in the middle.


----------



## Drezden (Jul 30, 2014)

I realized something aswell, SF types are the most prone to mistype themself. 3/4 of the SF, i know, in my family failed to type themself, a lot of E thinks they are I and a lot of J thinks about themself as P, and vice versa.

i'm not sure why.

And a lot of SJ don't give any credits to the MBTI, because, after have read their profiles, they think "Ok, but everyone is like that, it is just general bullshits."


----------

