# Do you care if someone is a mistype?



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

I don't care. The information on type is so egregiously presented on the internet by-and-large, as well as the tests for the most part, that it's totally understandable (I mistyped three times (INTP, INFJ, and ENTJ) before settling with my "true" type). Almost everything about type is presented as exactly what this stuff truly doesn't entail in the scheme of personality (a lot of the internet info almost leaves the realm of personality altogether and goes far beyond it in scope to truly irrelevant degrees for no reason) - it's paints a very backward picture of this stuff anyhow, regardless of the technicalities and disregards the fact that no one is going to have the same conceptions of this stuff as the authors, let alone, other people coming into this stuff. It's strange how ignored Jung gets as the original source of this stuff in typology in academia (discounting Myers and Briggs, who had no psychology background at all, and this really, really, I just couldn't emphasize it enough, really, wasn't where they were intending to go with this stuff - they were trying to create a practical tool from it for a very dry and practical purpose, not a breeding ground of theoretical speculation and potential which they happen to prevail over as psychology cult legends today).


----------



## AimfortheBrain (Nov 2, 2010)

I tend to assume everyone is mistyped. I'm not really sure why, but I like keeping myself skeptical.


----------



## firedell (Aug 5, 2009)

Only when they use their "type" as an excuse to act a certain way.


----------



## Vivid Melody (Apr 25, 2011)

Absolutely. It interferes with my way of living 

The only way in which I would care is I would like for everyone to be well acquainted with themselves so they can be happy, grow and learn to love themselves and therefore love others. But this is also assuming I know the person better than they know themselves (if I suspect mistype) which is a pretty lofty position to hold. 

Honestly though, everyone makes missteps in life. Nobody is all knowing so why let it bother me? I make missteps every day. There are more important things to care about.


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

Vivid Melody said:


> Absolutely. It interferes with my way of living
> 
> The only way in which I would care is I would like for everyone to be well acquainted with themselves so they can be happy, grow and learn to love themselves and therefore love others. But this is also assuming I know the person better than they know themselves (if I suspect mistype) which is a pretty lofty position to hold.
> 
> Honestly though, everyone makes missteps in life. Nobody is all knowing so why let it bother me? I make missteps every day. There are more important things to care about.


EDIT: Nevermind. My browser decided to fart and display only part of your text.


----------



## Ayia (Feb 27, 2012)

yes!

the loving of unicorns does not an INFP make

*gonna shut up now*


----------



## NeedsNewNameNow (Dec 1, 2009)

Tortured said:


> And if you do, then why.


well, yeah because they can muddy others understanding of the system with what they say.
There are some horribly mistyped youtube vids too that come to mind.

obviously mistypes are bound to happen, the system has gray areas
But sometimes the mistype is obvious to everyone but the person.


----------



## Ellis Bell (Mar 16, 2012)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> I don't care. The information on type is so egregiously presented on the internet by-and-large, as well as the tests for the most part, that it's totally understandable (I mistyped three times (INTP, INFJ, and ENTJ) before settling with my "true" type). Almost everything about type is presented as exactly what this stuff truly doesn't entail in the scheme of personality (a lot of the internet info almost leaves the realm of personality altogether and goes far beyond it in scope to truly irrelevant degrees for no reason) - it's paints a very backward picture of this stuff anyhow, regardless of the technicalities and disregards the fact that no one is going to have the same conceptions of this stuff as the authors, let alone, other people coming into this stuff. It's strange how ignored Jung gets as the original source of this stuff in typology in academia (discounting Myers and Briggs, who had no psychology background at all, and this really, really, I just couldn't emphasize it enough, really, wasn't where they were intending to go with this stuff - they were trying to create a practical tool from it for a very dry and practical purpose, not a breeding ground of theoretical speculation and potential which they happen to prevail over as psychology cult legends today).


Most of those "type descriptions" on the internet are rehashings of the same info, though. They're also pretty watered down, written for a mass audience, and don't really get at the heart of Myers and Briggs or Jung's theory (that's why I like coming on here, I like having a deeper understanding of typology by listening to the opinions of other people. It's amazing, though, how we've taken something that should in essence be simple and turned it into this huge, abstract, conceptual theory. Trust the intuitives to do that!). While interesting to look at and think "hey! That's me!" while reading those profiles, they really don't even begin to scratch the surface of MBTI theory and typology.


----------



## Life.Is.A.Game (Nov 5, 2010)

AimfortheBrain said:


> I tend to assume everyone is mistyped. I'm not really sure why, but I like keeping myself skeptical.


lol me too. mostly because I was mistyped like 6 times so far...at least. And I'm never 100 percent sure of my type so how can I trust others they know what type they are? Better to assume they might be the wrong type then to take information from them and use it in the real world. I rather just use what I read on wikipedia. It's actually easier to understand too...people seem to complicate things.


----------



## SenhorFrio (Apr 29, 2010)

I'm terrible at typing, but if it is an obvious mistype and they are saying "as a XXXX I" or what have you alot then i guess it would bother me. But most of the time i wouldn't really care that much.


----------



## Aussie (Jun 25, 2012)

Unfortunately, mistypes are terribly common. There is a vast range of "personalities" representing any MBTI personality as it is. When a mistype swoops in, it only adds to misconceptions. 

The importance of typing yourself correctly ranges from intrapersonal and interpersonal resolution and awareness to interaction with the world at large. 

I have read of many people who discovered they were mistyped and found profound relief -even happiness- when their true type was known and applied. 

Ultimately, before applying anything to your self-identity, it should be analyzed and researched for merit.


----------



## PlacentaCake (Jun 14, 2012)

No, it is none of my business. Furthermore, it bothers me that people tend to focus so much on how people are mistyped that there seems to be this constant eye of scrutiny. It affects each thread and creates unnecessary drama at times. I bet some people feel scared to post because of interactions they have witnessed. Each type, with age will change because of the tertiary and inferior functions, as many people know. Also, everyone has a different background and has been raised in a different family. Some people may be cookie cutter types, but most won't. I always thought it would be cool to learn MORE about each type through talking to each other and respecting each other, not just going off what we already know.

I think it is obvious when someone isn't being real with themselves, but who am I to call them out! Gossip and negative opinions of others are bound l happen, but do they really need to be publicly aired? People should be treated with respect. It doesn't seem to encourage growth, learning, or self-discovery to put someone under scrutiny and challenge their own self-perception.


----------



## Aussie (Jun 25, 2012)

christicake said:


> No, it is none of my business. Furthermore, it bothers me that people tend to focus so much on how people are mistyped that there seems to be this constant eye of scrutiny. It affects each thread and creates unnecessary drama at times. I bet some people feel scared to post because of interactions they have witnessed. Each type, with age will change because of the tertiary and inferior functions, as many people know. Also, everyone has a different background and has been raised in a different family. Some people may be cookie cutter types, but most won't. I always thought it would be cool to learn MORE about each type through talking to each other and respecting each other, not just going off what we already know.
> 
> I think it is obvious when someone isn't being real with themselves, but who am I to call them out! Gossip and negative opinions of others are bound l happen, but do they really need to be publicly aired? People should be treated with respect. It doesn't seem to encourage growth, learning, or self-discovery to put someone under scrutiny and challenge their own self-perception.


I agree with you that scrutiny should not have any involvement when it comes to mistyping- that person needs to recognize it for themself.

It's not that it is necessary for me to know what you are or who you are. 

Rather, the benefits of typing are simply lost when someone is mistyped- most of all for the mistyped person.


----------



## dejavu (Jun 23, 2010)

atypeofuser said:


> No, but what bugs me is when people try to kind of act like the "poster type" of whatever type they assign to themselves. That is lame and inaccurate, more than the mistype itself.


I'm pretty much in agreement with atypeofuser's statement.

If I suspect a mistype, I'm unlikely to tell the person unless they're asking for that kind of input. I usually go, "Ha! Thought so!" when I eventually see them switch to the type I thought they were, though.


----------



## Helios (May 30, 2012)

No, not at all. 

To each, their own.


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

Honestly, I think there are so many different "takes" on what MBTI even consists of, that the word "mistype" doesn't mean much anymore. It's so easy for people to fit one type by generic type description, then feel they are totally different by cognitive function. Then, there are the whole Jungian cognitive function and even socionics messes too. Sometimes I feel like an international broker or something on here, translating people between different systems, with them getting ticked off because their personal interest is at stake (well, sort of at least). 

I used to (and still sometimes do) get quite annoyed at mistypes, but it's also not really fair for one person to choose the way someone else should use a type system. Sure, they may be using it "incorrectly" to my standards (which seem obvious to me), but perhaps what you all want out of typing is different from what I want out of it. Sometimes the truth isn't comfortable, and what you really want out of type is comfort, not rightness.

What _really_ needs to happen is an easy-to-understand way of separating the systems in a clear way, that's easy to understand. THEN, once people understand the differences, they can find ways to tie them together and customize.


----------



## Aussie (Jun 25, 2012)

LXPilot said:


> Honestly, I think there are so many different "takes" on what MBTI even consists of, that the word "mistype" doesn't mean much anymore. It's so easy for people to fit one type by generic type description, then feel they are totally different by cognitive function. Then, there are the whole Jungian cognitive function and even socionics messes too. Sometimes I feel like an international broker or something on here, translating people between different systems, with them getting ticked off because their personal interest is at stake (well, sort of at least).
> 
> I used to (and still sometimes do) get quite annoyed at mistypes, but it's also not really fair for one person to choose the way someone else should use a type system. Sure, they may be using it "incorrectly" to my standards (which seem obvious to me), but perhaps what you all want out of typing is different from what I want out of it. Sometimes the truth isn't comfortable, and what you really want out of type is comfort, not rightness.
> 
> What _really_ needs to happen is an easy-to-understand way of separating the systems in a clear way, that's easy to understand. THEN, once people understand the differences, they can find ways to tie them together and customize.


I agree with you, entirely. 

I am truly curious, and perhaps wishful: Are you working to develop a system like this? Or rather, in your words, have you synthesized a way to separate the systems, for starters? No pressure; These things take time and collaboration. INTJs are simply known for seeing these kinds of things through. 

It's frustrating to see such an enthralling science being thrown around and misused. With perfection, I believe it can be beneficial for society as a whole.


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

Aussie said:


> I agree with you, entirely.
> 
> Are you working to develop a system like this? Or rather, in your words, have you synthesized a way to separate these systems?
> 
> No pressure.


Not yet, at least systematically. I made a video for our forum that walks through some of the various systems, but what's challenging is to determine whether or not to describe them in a "common language," and if so, how. 

I think a lot of times, things are okay because the matching of linguistics of the systems, both within and across, with those of the people that study them is what builds and maintains the diversity of preferences between models. People like what they read when it fits cleanly into their thinking style, and they often gravitate towards a one or a couple that do that. 

But when people venture into less-familiar ones and apply them in strange ways, things become messy - it's just difficult to deal with the "language barrier." My sense is that you'd have to rely on the fundamentals of each theory, and I'm not quite good enough yet to flesh those out clearly. Nobody's yet thought of a way to reconcile the linguistic differences of the various systems in a way that is easy to understand and keeps the systems distinct from each other, yet is not oversimplified either. 

Sounds like an Ti and Ne job


----------



## Aussie (Jun 25, 2012)

LXPilot said:


> I made a video for our forum that walks through some of the various systems, but what's challenging is to determine whether or not to describe them in a "common language," and if so, how.


I don't mean to trouble you, but do you have a link for this video? 

*EDIT: *Found it on your page (Newbie "Duh"). I'll let you know what I think.




LXPilot said:


> Sounds like an Ti and Ne job


Thank you, I'll do my best to harness it. 

I think a little Ti/Ne and Ni/Te teamwork wouldn't hurt, though .


----------



## Raichu (Aug 24, 2012)

I mostly just get annoyed when someone's mistyped as MY type. If it's any other type then I don't care, but if they're posing as an ISTP (and let's face it, who wouldn't wanna be one?) that's when I get all "No, you are not an ISTP, GTFO." Not that I'd ever say that to someone-- I do have SOME basic manners-- but I think it. Especially with ISTP's, I feel like a lot of people just like to think it of themselves because we have a reputation for being super badass. I think of motorcycles as a sort of ISTP trademark.  For the record, though, I don't even have a motorcycle. I'm just saying that it's the stereotype.

Edit: Of course it's different if someone really studies Myers-Briggs and thinks really hard about it, and just accidentially comes to the wrong conclusion. Then it's fine. I just hate when people are like "Durrr yeah I love to party I'm totally an ESFP." -__-;


----------



## SilentScream (Mar 31, 2011)

I've read the entire thread - and there isn't a single post here that I've wanted to respond to primarily because of the constant use of words like "others", "some", "few" etc - which have created a question amongst probably many: "I wonder who these people are?" 

Not that I want them to be pointed out - nor do I care who these "others" are, because all it does is continue to support the basic human flaw of "us vs them" mentality -- And of course, "those" individuals have a right to their privacy, but is it really privacy if someone out there being talked about in this thread is reading this thread and how they might be reacting to what's being said. 

Talking about general issues around politics, sports, public figures etc is very different from talking about individuals not used to being talked about in the public domain. 

Many people themselves here have at least at one point been through some form strenuous type dilemmas themselves and have sought public as well as private help of other members in order to get to their core. 

I am not implying that no one has any kind of superior leg to stand on with regards to self-typing. Perhaps some do, and perhaps some on feel they do. 

I made a related thread to this thread which didn't get as much of a response as I was hoping - which clearly indicated to me that people with psychological disorders have issues talking about their type and disorder in the same place - as no significant work has been done in that particular area in many of the theories talked about. A few disorders have been idly mentioned here and there but no real work / research has gone into proving those as any more than conjecture. 

Another thing I've noticed in this thread is the assumption that the theories themselves are perfect, but that people are the ones who are at fault for not being able to apply it to themselves. 

Now ... here's the dilemma ... Some people are coming from a position of intellectual authority over the subject itself and perhaps have had either an easier time applying it to themselves, as well as to others. But the problem here is that not everyone has the same level of intellect, learning capacity, financial resources or even the motivation to continue to dive deeper and deeper into very complex systems and complex theories. 

At the same time, I could not but help draw parallels between religious scholars trying to prove their tenets and in a sense putting down "others" who don't either believe in the tenets as fervently or haven't read the "revered texts" as diligently - or haven't interpreted them the say way. 

Yes, this is a typology forum, and typology is considered scientific by many - but then there are those who don't consider this scientific. Another point I want to raise is that these are theories, and by definitions theories are not law - and therefore need not be spoken of as laws. 

It is definitely worth mentioning that typology doesn't cover *everything* -------- The assumption or desire that it is creates a quicksand where all those people who are self-typed, or even professionally typed *have* to accept those theories whole and soul but not doubt the very authenticity of the theories themselves. 

I ask, why not? Why not question the theories themselves when one is typing oneself? Why not continue to expand on the complexity of the human mind with additional models outside of MBTI and Enneagrams? Why not re-interpret them in a new way that perhaps some of the greater minds may not have considered. Why is it not possible that someone may have a dominant Extroverted intuitive function and an auxiliary Extroverted Thinking function? Is it a hard and fast rule to simply accept and assimilate and regurgitate as authentic information. Of course, the theorists of the schools of thought themselves will continue to justify their models and find more and more ways to continue to prove them --- but here is a question about Enneagrams .. what if .. the most underlying assumption of the Enneagram, that each one of us has a unique/singular Passion, or Holy Idea is itself false? Or just myth .. what then? 

Of course, these are just theories and I'm basically doing a lot of mental vomit that may or may not make sense to a lot of people. 

So if there are people who want to, or feel capable enough to create theories that may or may not make sense to *everyone* then that doesn't necessarily mean that the individuals doing so are not well-versed in the systems ... but perhaps interpreting them as they see fit for themselves. 

Also, to assume that a system is perfect leads to the assumption that if an individual is not being able to type themselves, then their knowledge of the theory is imperfect .. why not come at this from a standpoint that *both* are imperfect and therefore the results of typing will also be imperfect. Perhaps the individual is just seeing connections that are vastly different from the majority, or even the original theorists themselves. Do we really all simply have to resort to accepting Typology theories as unquestionable dogma? 

Yes, the theories have been broadened by various theorists to try to continue to perfect the theories and accounting for the deeper complexity of human imperfection, but much of the work is continued progression based on individual results. Who's to say that much of what is happening on this forum [with regards to people pulling faksies on others] isn't happening with the theorists themselves --- who then continue to grow and expand theories through increased validation as opposed to critical scrutinu.

I'm just going to make 1 more point. 

People aren't always aware, or diagnosed of their own psychological disorders that definitely contribute to their forum interactions. There are certain disorders that greatly influence a person's state of being, expression and interactions with others and they may not even know it themselves. This community is extremely West heavy where the underlying assumption is that people have received decent medical attention - but I raised this point in the ADHD thread that parts of the world are in the dark when it comes to psychological disorders - and therefore perhaps in the dark about themselves. Why do I bring up this point? Give people the benefit of the doubt. 

Finally, a couple more questions that I think should be a must to ask oneself when typing is:


"Why am I typing myself? What is my goal or objective from all of this?" 

And that is the end of my discussion in this thread. 

I would like this to continue ... but peaceably if possible. Thanks all for sharing. 

I may not be able to withstand scrutiny of my ideas ---- therefore it is humbly requested that my entire post be accepted as a huge mental vomit. There may be some good or bad ideas in there - but it was a long ramble.


----------



## Sina (Oct 27, 2010)

That was a good ramble @_Jawz_.

The following is meant to be a commentary on your post, not a "scrutiny"*.

a)* The use of "few" and "some" is absolutely imperative when addressing Mistypes (and this is a very personal subject, it isn't comparable to a discussion of sports etc. which as the thread creator you're aware) People perceived as being mistyped are here on the forum reading. The two ways to respect the privacy, as far threads go, is to not create a thread on such a sensitive and personal subject lol or to start a thread on the broad topic of mistyping and explicitly advise members to stick to mistyping as a process and not refer to "people who are mistyped".

It's important to use words like "few" and "some" to emphasize that the vast majority of people, mistypes included are here for sincere self-discovery, and out of respect for them and their journeys, it's vital to not speak of mistypes in broad sweeping terms so as to make it sound like they're all somehow at fault. Such blanket assertions can not only be disrespectful but hurt people at a personal level, especially when they're aware that their type is likely not correct and maybe needs more work. 

As for othering, I see no "othering" of mistypes on this thread. In fact, it has gone on very peacefully for a thread of this nature. And, again personally, I couldn't possibly "other" mistypes when I have been one myself at one point. Fwiw, some of my closest friends here have struggled with their types. "Mistypes" are not "others". There is no "Us" vs. "Them" dynamic as far as I am concerned. In fact, I absolutely abhor the demarcation of such divisive boundaries, clearly including any permutation of the "us" vs "them" dynamic, even if it's just a forum that's being discussed. It's among the reasons why I have objected to using the terms "bully", "witch hunter" etc. in *blanket terms* for (non abusive) people helping with typing who may have accidentally crossed an invisible personal boundary and would be more than willing to step back, accommodate the person's feelings/emotional state and even apologize. Favouring rhetoric over objective commentary is irresponsible, defamatory and irrational. False accusations, especially when they're put on repeat and paraded around on multiple threads, can be very detrimental to people's forum experience, whether they are helping with typing or being typed. Such foolishness needs to be done away with. It's the same reason why I object to lumping all mistyped people in the obnoxious/ignorant or what have you category. Hence, the need to use words such as "some" or "few". Hasty generalizations about groups of people are what causes rifts to widen. 


*b)* You're right that these theories are flawed. And, they're not "scientifically validated". @_JungyesMBTIno_ has addressed the shortcomings of typology in a previous post so I won't regurgitate them. But, most certainly, all such theories must be critically evaluated and for those interested, additional models should be sought by all means. I am not too familiar with JCF, but I am familiar with the Enneagram. I don't ever approach it as "Dogma". In fact, I have been highly critical of some 'experts'. Hell, I am critical of Naranjo's writings and even disagree on a point or two. 

And, I think, everyone should be aware that these theories are merely tools (flawed, widely open to interpretation especially the Enneagram, do not imply universal validity etc.). They exist for your use. Take what helps and ignore the rest. Lastly, "imperfect" information is a problem as far as mistyping goes. The word "imperfect" is a problem in itself. There is no such thing as perfectly sound theoretical information, as far as these typology systems go. But, what one can do, if possible, is to learn to the difference between a credible source and a highly suspect source. It's also important (and luckily not very difficult in the case of the Enneagram at least) to grasp the underlying principle of a theory. In this example, the E is focused on motivations and fears so a person looking to type themselves will eventually realize that focusing on behavioural traits that overlap between multiple types is not the way to go. 

On a related note, I can understand the limitations placed by time, finances, limited access to good information. But, merely lacking drive (not including extenuating circumstances) and not making the effort to even read information presented and/or defensively clinging to a set of misleading information and going so far as to disrespect people who try to help, when asked, is just immature behaviour. If it's the root of someone's mistyping, they need to learn critical thinking skills as well as some common courtesy. Unfortunately, not everyone who mistypes is a mature and level-headed individual on a sincere personal journey.

I will again emphasize that just a "few" fall in this category. For these few, butting heads with people and going on pretentious typing persona crusades is a petty ego fix (most people who do this tend to be teens lol). Fwiw, they will get out of the process what they put in. If, in the process, they are violating forum rules or even general unwritten rules of civil conduct, then yes they will have to deal with the consequences of their misbehaviour either via administrative action or through people setting their foot down and refusing to take more disrespect. 


*c) *Any discussion on Psychological Disorders and Type is tricky. While discussion could be useful, people need to be aware at, all times, that a typology system should not be used to explain psychopathology. In the Enneagram context, people are strongly advised to not even attempt self typing under duress/depression etc. It's difficult enough to type when neurotypical. Typing oneself, when disordered thinking can cloud self-perception to a significant degree, can be futile, and at times, do more harm than good. Still such a discussion could be very useful for people dealing with mental illness while trying to pursue emotional and psychological growth.


----------



## SilentScream (Mar 31, 2011)

@Boss --- I just want to scrutinize this point here:



> c) Any discussion on Psychological Disorders and Type is tricky. While discussion could be useful, people need to be aware at, all times, that a typology system should not be used to explain psychopathology. In the Enneagram context, people are strongly advised to not even attempt self typing under duress/depression etc. It's difficult enough to type when neurotypical. Typing oneself, when disordered thinking can cloud self-perception to a significant degree, can be futile, and at times, do more harm than good. Still such a discussion could be very useful for people dealing with mental illness while trying to pursue emotional and psychological growth.


Again. Some scrutiny of the above points. 

1. If someone is depressed [clinically so], not everyone has the capability/insight or self-awareness to determine for themselves whether they are clinically depressed, or just under stress. 

2. If Enneagram discourages people from typing themselves during times of stress/distress, then that should be highlighted categorically. 

I would like to conjecture that people who are already not under-going any kind of stress/emotional upheaval won't even need to turn to these theories - of course I don't have any data to back this up - but it seems like a reasonable conjecture. 

Most of these theories do however, _rely_ on people who are looking for some sort of self-help .. and people look for help when they are undergoing emotional distress of some kind or the other. The interesting thing about Enneagrams is that they become really preachy and specific about a lot of things such as relating disorders to type as well as giving major instructions for self-healing, spiritual growth .. It is undeniable that like all systems [even Jung], there are _implied_ promises of well-being and perfect living through self-discovery. These kinds of promises of an "easy-fix" are, in my personal opinion _misleading_. 

I agree that people shouldn't ideally type themselves while under-stress, clinically depressed or having major psychological disorders --- but that will never stop people from trying to get at that easy fix for their problems because of the underlying promises of healing and growth promised in all theories. Maybe the promises are fake? Maybe they are real? And that relies on belief more than scientific proof. 

Good discussion


----------



## Aussie (Jun 25, 2012)

@Jawz,

Is your theory coming from the stance(s) that:

A) Certain personality types are more 'symptomatic' of psychological disorders,
B) Certain personality types are more prone to psychological disorders, or
C) Anyone that even thinks to look into their personality type, other than for basic reasons (such as career outlook, etc), most likely has a psychological disorder?

I can understand where you are coming from on either point, however A and C both concern me. I do agree that many people are looking for some sort of self-help by looking into their personality type, but there are many reasons why the association wouldn't or shouldn't be made with psychological disorders (however interesting it may be). Some reasons are: there are many forms of 'self-help,' a psychological disorder does not need to be present for someone to seek self-help, and there are many other reasons why it is intriguing beyond self-help. In any case, this is not a stamp that a lot of people want to have placed. Even if your theory is correct, people avoid counseling and therapists because of this very stigma. All of these reasons can be tied into why this discussion is probably avoided by many, or even taken offensively. 

I originally looked into personalities simply as an intriguing topic. It is a complex 'science' that has yet to be perfected, however it is still applicable. Anything with complexity has always captured my attention, and I will not rest until I have reached a full understanding. It may be the same for others, as well.

Also, for those who simply want to help or better understand others, this can be seen as a great way to do just that.

On a personal level, discovering my personality type (imperfect as they may be) gave me a foundation. Sometimes who you are can seem so "up in the air," and INTP gave me something to tie it down to. In fact, I spents months of researching before I was assured of my type and it's meaning before it seemed appropriate to apply it to myself, my relationships, and this forum . With that sort of self-discovery out of the way, I can move on to other things in life.. such as discussing the theory at large. With understanding comes acceptance, knowledge, and even wisdom. 

My point is that MBTI, Archetypes, and Enneograms of the like can be used as 'tools'- psychological disorders are not implicit in that. Using tools is human nature.

If this post comes off as defensive, I assure you it is not meant that way. Just discussing .


----------



## Sina (Oct 27, 2010)

double post


----------



## Sina (Oct 27, 2010)

@_Jawz_

Before addressing your points, I'll enumerate three main ways in which Enneagram theory can be misused in relation to psychopathology:

a) Matching symptoms of mental illness with lower health levels, in order to arrive at type. 
eg. I am Type X, because I exhibit Y set of symptoms described by Level 9 of Type X. 

The health levels are neither a self-typing tool nor a diagnostic tool (if used in reverse).

b) Using disordered thinking or assumptions of such to arrive at a type.
e.g. I have sadistic and/or narcissistic tendencies. Could I be a 7 or 8?
I am depressed. Could I be a 4?

c)Using the Enneagram as a replacement or substitute for counseling/professional assistance. One could use personal growth strategies from those suggested for several types, if applicable. But, anyone who has had a clinical diagnosis or is awaiting one (and has serious symptoms) should remain aware of the limitations of the system. 
____________________________________________________________________


*1*. I am referring to individuals who have been clinically diagnosed as suffering from mental illness, be it Depression, PTSD, Bipolar etc.

As for people who are stressed out and not clinically depressed (and difficulties relating to evaluating ones mental health in the absence of professional evaluation are..well regrettable), they're free to go ahead and type themselves as long as the process (it can be disconcerting and arduous) is not stressing them out further. Forum typings can be stressful, at times. It's why the revised questionnaire explicitly asks if the typee is ill and/or going through other pressing life circumstances. Typers will not only keep that info. in mind while evaluating responses but also be more cautious in their approach. 


I don't suggest that people wait to get to a point where they're so content and healthy that they're practically shitting rainbows lol. But, definitely, undertaking self-typing, especially to the point of obsession, when one is ill and/or going through extenuating circumstances can cause more stress and lead to mistypings (again, I mentioned the problem with disordered thinking and how it clouds self-perception, and I will add that under stress, it can be especially difficult to pinpoint ones core motivations and fears). 

*2*. Highlighted categorically? where? I have seen a reference to this in a book I read, though I don't recall the author (it was a credible theorist). You won't find that explicitly stated in most descriptions. It is also a rational deduction based on the very obvious challenges that face a mentally ill person, especially if they're severely depressed/suicidal etc., in being able to evaluate themselves objectively when disordered thinking can really skew self-perception. 

Self-typing when mentally ill or under extenuating circumstances is not the same as seeking the counsel of an MD/Phd who happens to be an Enneagram practitioner with extensive experience. I am aware that some physicians and therapists combine a medical model with a psychospiritual one such as the Enneagram, in taking a more integrative approach to treatment. Attempting self-typing, when mentally ill, with the assistance of a trained professional is very different from driving oneself to exhaustion and desperation while trying to find a core type, especially online amidst a bunch of strangers who (mostly) unintentionally may invalidated a person or make them feel even more alienated/depressed. This is not to imply that all mentally ill people have equally difficult experiences, but mental illness or even addiction does pose as an obstacle in the path to accurate self typing for most people. 

*3*. The assumption that most people turning to typology may be undergoing stress etc. is not exactly unsound. It's possible that some do, in fact, approach such theories during trying times. It's also the case that many encounter these theories, more like stumble upon them when not even looking for specific help. The theory seems to be serving people falling in both categories. Though, I do suggest that people don't view such theories as a "quick fix". 

In fact, the Enneagram can be quite dark and disturbing because it focuses on neuroses, fears, cognitive distortions etc. so much. It's hardly the model theoretical framework for a person looking for a "quick fix" or promises of eternal bliss lol. The path from ego consciousness to being at one with what is one's true or Essential nature is described as a challenging one. There are no promises of healing and growth in an unrealistic packaging as far as the E goes, certainly not from merely reading the theories. Any healing and/or growth will take place from significant individual effort. As I said earlier, you get out of the process..what you put into it. 

I don't see implied promises there. I just see a set of guidelines, suggestions, self-help practices that would only work if I were to put in the "work". Well-being, ultimately, is reached with one's own efforts. Loose analogy: It's kind of like reaching Nirvana or Moksha doesn't come from searching the Gita or the Dhammapada or another text for guidelines. As you know, it takes conscious effort. Self-realization takes a lot of personal effort, and from what I have gathered from Enneagram study, this particular aspect of attaining higher consciousness is not underemphasized in favour of faith.


----------



## SilentScream (Mar 31, 2011)

@_Boss_. I respond in-depth later. 
@_Aussie_ - None of A, B or C are beliefs or opinions that I hold. Not sure how you saw that coming across from my posts. Could you please tell me what created that impression so I can clarify?

What I did say is that Enneagram theories have been expanded to include Psychological disorders -- and that I don't necessarily agree, or disagree with that -- I just don't think that enough research has been done to come to conclusions about specific Disorders being related to specific Types.

Edit: Don't worry - I don't think you're being defencive or whatever -- and I hope you don't think I'm being reactive. I think this has also been a very good study [at least for me] on "perceptions" and interaction styles outside of the actual content around mistyping.


----------



## Aussie (Jun 25, 2012)

Jawz said:


> I made a related thread to this thread which didn't get as much of a response as I was hoping - which clearly indicated to me that people with psychological disorders have issues talking about their type and disorder in the same place - as no significant work has been done in that particular area in many of the theories talked about. A few disorders have been idly mentioned here and there but no real work / research has gone into proving those as any more than conjecture.





Jawz said:


> People aren't always aware, or diagnosed of their own psychological disorders that definitely contribute to their forum interactions. There are certain disorders that greatly influence a person's state of being, expression and interactions with others and they may not even know it themselves. This community is extremely West heavy where the underlying assumption is that people have received decent medical attention - but I raised this point in the ADHD thread that parts of the world are in the dark when it comes to psychological disorders - and therefore perhaps in the dark about themselves.


Honestly, it was a combination of the above that gave me the background linking typing and psychological disorders. I was thinking about reasons why you would have started the forum you mentioned and what the context would have been while I was reading your posts.

So, when I read this statement:



Jawz said:


> I would like to conjecture that people who are already not under-going any kind of stress/emotional upheaval won't even need to turn to these theories - of course I don't have any data to back this up - but it seems like a reasonable conjecture.


It was not difficult to make the 'jump' in thought and perception.

With your last response, however, I was able to reread those statements in a new light. 

I did not think you were being reactive; Rather, I appreciate your effort not to be. I just threw that in there to make sure you didn't think that of me .


----------



## SilentScream (Mar 31, 2011)

Aussie said:


> Honestly, it was a combination of the above that gave me the background linking typing and psychological disorders. I was thinking about reasons why you would have started the forum you mentioned and what the context would have been while I was reading your posts.
> 
> I did not think you were being reactive; Rather, I appreciate your effort not to be. I just threw that in there to make sure you didn't think that of me .


Aah ... My intentions for creating the thread about "Psychological Disorders and Typing Dilemmas" was to try to determine how many people had faced typing difficulties because of known psychological disorders. 

What I conjectured [possibly wrongly] was that perhaps people aren't willing to share details of both simultaneously because of quips about sharing one or the other .. After all, not everyone likes talking about their type difficulties, or disorders publicly. 

At the same time, I kept in mind that perhaps there isn't that big of a sample of people who have psychological disorders and faced type dilemmas at the same time. Any of the three are possible. Here's what I conjectured:

1. People may have a psychological condition and faced difficulties self typing, but they don't want to reveal that they had a particular disorder [specifically the one I mentioned: bipolar]
2. People may be willing to discuss their psychological disorder, but not difficulties with typing for whatever reason
3. There aren't that many people _here _who've had typing difficulties and psychological disorders. 
4. People with psychological disorders don't have difficulty in determining their type

The ones who reported in did mention some difficulty - but level of difficulty is subjective and up to my own perception. 

I linked the two here to try to conjecture that perhaps individuals themselves may not be revealing everything about themselves that would lead to more judgement. Since there are no established links between disorders and types, people may be over-looking the possible connection that their behaviour or self-reporting may be _coloured_ by their disorder. 

At the same time, perhaps a lack of awareness of the possibility of having a pre-existing disorder that may be unintentionally altering their behaviour/interaction/self-reporting/recollection of important details and that may all also be contributing to their typing difficulties - as well as perceptions of others of them. 

However, since I didn't find a large enough sample to make that kind of determination, all I'm left with is unanswered questions and mere conjecture. Therefore, in the end, I can't help but conclude that outside of conjecture, there's very little substantial basis to the idea that psychological disorders may make typing difficult, or easy ... but it just makes logical sense to me that disorders might contribute to them. It's as likely as it is unlikely .. So hard to decide which direction I should really deviate towards.

It's just that at times, there's way too much going on in my head at a given point to fully articulate and express in great detail. I miss out certain key points when I express myself 

Edit: I think this forum has made huge progress in including questions around psychological disorders in facilitating with the typing process. Previously, there was very little awareness, but I'm beginning to see that people are starting to take that into consideration more and more and that's a huge step in the right direction.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Interesting discussion. Just chiming in to say that while I may be in the small minority, for me finding my type was not a happenstance due to external stress factors but because I simply like knowing more about myself and understand myself better :tongue: Enneagram and the MBTI are frameworks that are easy to work with in that regard.

I think there are many reasons why people stumble upon the MBTI/enneagram. Maybe a lot of people do because they are going through a crisis and they think identifying the inferior can help me to deal with it better, but at least based on what I have seen in the typing forum, a lot of people who ask to be typed are people who do not currently experience many external stress factors.


----------



## heavydirtysoul (Jan 13, 2012)

Sometimes I think that I mistyped myself: in last two months I became extremely quiet, reserved, judging, wary, selfless, private, unassuming... total opposite of who I used to be or how I remember myself. *Cray cray*


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

reckless summer nights said:


> Sometimes I think that I mistyped myself: in last two months I became extremely quiet, reserved, judging, wary, selfless, private, unassuming... total opposite of who I used to be or how I remember myself. *Cray cray*


This is persona, not type.


----------



## heavydirtysoul (Jan 13, 2012)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> This is persona, not type.


I know, I know.  But you can't call a stereotypical ESFP quiet and reserved, right? Something just doesn't feel well.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

I know this may not be taken lightly, but is it just me, or do I find the idea of the existence of *MBTI's* types creepy (on another website, someone aptly put it as "a demented version of Carl Jung's ideas")? It's like the two ladies were observing some people who may for any reason totally unrelated to anything they would know, had certain personas, and then, decided to distort and publish their personas in horoscopic form with some Jungian strategizing behind their presentations, mixed in with a bunch of Forer statements and the like, and thus, history says the rest. I mean, truly, I actually feel sorry for the people who might've been observed by these two and in a sense "used" to represent the rest of the human race (to the meager extent that the type descriptions manage to capture real people anyway) - how paranoing to see what should be perfectly innocuous aspects of yourself in a horoscope representing you like something less than a whole human (and less than individual for that matter). It's one of those aspects of MBTI that almost completely pushes me away from it altogether - ugghh (sort of the parts where type dynamics come up as well - this is the only "unflattering" part of MBTI where they tell you that you suddenly have problems (or are restricted from accessing) because you're "not as well developed" in a certain area as another type should be (yeah right)). I mean, sure, I can see their intent and purpose with this stuff (they weren't half bad with the cognitive functions from what I've seen from legitimate MBTI sources, although I'm not sure how much of that was even their original work and how much is modern interpretation from others associated with the MBTI), but bringing behavior into it is where this stuff just gets creepy (obviously, this allows it to sell internationally, of course, and gives people the chance to be the good little actors/actresses they are). It's either this, or they turn people into living cognitive functions that seem to fill specific sociocultural niches and pop culture stereotypes (sounds like they took Jung too seriously here).


----------



## Kito (Jan 6, 2012)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> I know this may not be taken lightly, but is it just me, or do I find the idea of the existence of *MBTI's* types creepy (on another website, someone aptly put it as "a demented version of Carl Jung's ideas")? It's like the two ladies were observing some people who may for any reason totally unrelated to anything they would know, had certain personas, and then, decided to distort and publish their personas in horoscopic form with some Jungian strategizing behind their presentations, mixed in with a bunch of Forer statements and the like, and thus, history says the rest. I mean, truly, I actually feel sorry for the people who might've been observed by these two and in a sense "used" to represent the rest of the human race (to the meager extent that the type descriptions manage to capture real people anyway) - how paranoing to see what should be perfectly innocuous aspects of yourself in a horoscope representing you like something less than a whole human (and less than individual for that matter). It's one of those aspects of MBTI that almost completely pushes me away from it altogether - ugghh (sort of the parts where type dynamics come up as well - this is the only "unflattering" part of MBTI where they tell you that you suddenly have problems (or are restricted from accessing) because you're "not as well developed" in a certain area as another type should be (yeah right)). I mean, sure, I can see their intent and purpose with this stuff (they weren't half bad with the cognitive functions from what I've seen from legitimate MBTI sources, although I'm not sure how much of that was even their original work and how much is modern interpretation from others associated with the MBTI), but bringing behavior into it is where this stuff just gets creepy (obviously, this allows it to sell internationally, of course, and gives people the chance to be the good little actors/actresses they are). It's either this, or they turn people into living cognitive functions that seem to fill specific sociocultural niches and pop culture stereotypes (sounds like they took Jung too seriously here).


It's pretty frustrating. There'd be way less stereotypes flying around if everyone got straight down to Jung. MBTI messes up people's understanding of the system, and they eventually realise half of it is bullshit and they actually need to look at the functions. It feels like deception.

It'd make much more sense to scrap MBTI typings on here and instead use basic Jung typings, in my opinion. But it's hardly worth it now everyone's so engrossed into the MBTI dichotomies.


----------



## Celebok (Jun 21, 2012)

reckless summer nights said:


> I know, I know.  But you can't call a stereotypical ESFP quiet and reserved, right? Something just doesn't feel well.


So the question is, which is the persona and which is your natural psychological preference? What factors may have motivated you to act one way or the other?


----------



## heavydirtysoul (Jan 13, 2012)

Celebok said:


> So the question is, which is the persona and which is your natural psychological preference? What factors may have motivated you to act one way or the other?


Some problems. I guess I am angry at myself, because I used to be too naive and open-hearted - now I have to punish myself with tons of hard work, sleepless nights and saying critical things about myself.


----------



## SilentScream (Mar 31, 2011)

@JungyesMBTIno - I'm sure you've read enough material now to determine exactly where MBTI fails completely. IMO, self-psychological analysis using MBTI alone is just shaving off a little of the ice from the tip of the ice-berg. 

Oh .. and I just want to add that I want to get Personalitypage.com taken down .... That's the ultimate cause of the most mistypes on Internet Forums.


----------



## Ellis Bell (Mar 16, 2012)

Jawz said:


> @_JungyesMBTIno_ - I'm sure you've read enough material now to determine exactly where MBTI fails completely. IMO, self-psychological analysis using MBTI alone is just shaving off a little of the ice from the tip of the ice-berg.
> 
> Oh .. and I just want to add that I want to get Personalitypage.com taken down .... That's the ultimate cause of the most mistypes on Internet Forums.


Second the motion... and it's one of the first sites that comes up when you Google MBTI, so that doesn't help much, either.


----------



## SilentScream (Mar 31, 2011)

kasthu said:


> Second the motion... and it's one of the first sites that comes up when you Google MBTI, so that doesn't help much, either.


Heh .. it is the number 1 result for all 16 descriptions .. and they are the worst. MBTI doesnt completely fail but that site is largely responsible for making it appear even worse than it is. 

There are some really good descriptions out there ... but sad to see the worst at the top. 

Honestly, I recommend anyone whose used *just* that site for their self-typing to read more.


----------



## Celebok (Jun 21, 2012)

reckless summer nights said:


> Some problems. I guess I am angry at myself, because I used to be too naive and open-hearted - now I have to punish myself with tons of hard work, sleepless nights and saying critical things about myself.


Well then, I guess it sounds like you at least know where your change in behavior is coming from, as unfortunate as it may be. Apparently for whatever reason, some people couldn't accept your natural preferences, so they somehow convinced you that you need to be something else. So you're currently operating under a persona to please those people, or because they are the ones who hold the keys to your ultimate goals. Either way, I hope it's only a temporary situation.


----------



## Ellis Bell (Mar 16, 2012)

Jawz said:


> Heh .. it is the number 1 result for all 16 descriptions .. and they are the worst. MBTI doesnt completely fail but that site is largely responsible for making it appear even worse than it is.
> 
> There are some really good descriptions out there ... but sad to see the worst at the top.
> 
> Honestly, I recommend anyone whose used *just* that site for their self-typing to read more.


Those profiles use such broad strokes to describe the types that they don't take into account individuals. I'm reading a book right now by an author who's a fan of Jung and I'm considering reading his works... from the horse's mouth and all that.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> It's like the two ladies were observing some people who may for any reason totally unrelated to anything they would know, had certain personas, and then, decided to distort and publish their personas in horoscopic form with some Jungian strategizing behind their presentations, mixed in with a bunch of Forer statements and the like, and thus, history says the rest. ... I mean, sure, I can see their intent and purpose with this stuff ... but *bringing behavior into it is where this stuff just gets creepy* (obviously, this allows it to sell internationally, of course, and gives people the chance to be the good little actors/actresses they are).


As usual, JungyesMBTIno, your spectacularly ill-informed post bears little resemblance to the underlying facts.

Myers' descriptions of the dichotomies and the types include a mix of internal and external (behavioral) elements — _just like Jung's descriptions of introverts, extraverts and the eight function-types_. You want _behavior_ — not to mention what somebody inclined to cherry-pick and caricature the source might call cartoonish stereotypes? Here's Jung, describing extraverts in a 1936 article added to the _Collected Works_ edition of Psychological Types:



Jung said:


> Extraversion is characterized by interest in the external object, responsiveness, and a ready acceptance of external happenings, a desire to influence and be influenced by events, a need to join in and get "with it," the capacity to endure bustle and noise of every kind, and actually find them enjoyable, constant attention to the surrounding world, the cultivation of friends and acquaintances, none too carefully selected, and finally by the great importance attached to the figure one cuts, and hence by a strong tendency to make a show of oneself. Accordingly, the extravert's philosophy of life and his ethics are as a rule of a highly collective nature with a strong streak of altruism, and his conscience is in large measure dependent on public opinion. Moral misgivings arise mainly when "other people know." His religious convictions are determined, so to speak, by majority vote.
> 
> The actual subject, the extravert as a subjective entity, is, so far as possible, shrouded in darkness. ... The disinclination to submit his own motives to critical examination is very pronounced. He has no secrets he has not long since shared with others. Should something unmentionable nevertheless befall him, he prefers to forget it. Anything that might tarnish the parade of optimism and positivism is avoided. Whatever he thinks, intends, and does is displayed with conviction and warmth.


And here's some of what he had to say about introverts (from the same 1936 article):



Jung said:


> [The introvert] holds aloof from external happenings, does not join in, has a distinct dislike of society as soon as he finds himself among too many people. In a large gathering he feels lonely and lost. ... He is not in the least "with it," and has no love of enthusiastic get-togethers. He is not a good mixer. What he does, he does in his own way, barricading himself against influences from outside. He is apt to appear awkward, often seeming inhibited, and it frequently happens that, by a certain brusqueness of manner, or by his glum unapproachability, or some kind of malapropism, he causes unwitting offence to people. His better qualities he keeps to himself, and generally does everything he can to dissemble them. He is easily mistrustful, self-willed, often suffers from inferiority feelings and for this reason is also envious. His apprehensiveness of the object is not due to fear, but to the fact that it seems to him negative, demanding, overpowering or even menacing. He therefore suspects all kinds of bad motives, has an everlasting fear of making a fool of himself, is usually very touchy and surrounds himself with a barbed wire entanglement so dense and impenetrable that finally he himself would rather do anything than sit behind it. ...
> 
> For him self-communings are a pleasure. His own world is a safe harbour, a carefully tended and walled-in garden, closed to the public and hidden from prying eyes. His own company is the best. He feels at home in his world, where the only changes are made by himself. His best work is done with his own resources, on his own initiative, and in his own way. ...
> 
> His relations with other people become warm only when safety is guaranteed, and when he can lay aside his defensive distrust. All too often he cannot, and consequently the number of friends and acquaintances is very restricted.


Dang! It's too bad Jung's not around anymore, eh? You could sit the man down and explain how "creepy" it was for him to include all that "behavior" in his type descriptions.

There are plenty of actual differences between Jung and Briggs/Myers, many of them corrections and improvements that those "two ladies" you refer to made to Jung's original ideas. But the purported differences you've pointed to, both in the post I quoted and in post after post after uninformed post at this forum, demonstrate precious little familiarity with Jung or Myers or respectable MBTI sources.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

@reckful

Well, I come from the psychological school of thought on behavior that it is *learned* (every psychology teacher/prof. I've talked to subscribes to this - I've never heard anything rationally to the contrary), not a result of innate tendencies (in other words, it wouldn't result from *reacting to* innate (out of your mental control anyway) conditions of your personality like being an introvert (subjective dominant person), not you managing your persona from ideas you have about yourself and how you should come across to the outside world, which is in the realm of behavior). Behavior is behind persona management and persona management is a separate concept first IDENTIFIED BY JUNG (he said this is 100% not what type is). People react *from* their cognition, not *to* their cognition (e.g. to form behavior around it).


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> @reckful
> 
> Well, I come from the psychological school of thought on behavior that it is *learned* (every psychology teacher/prof. I've talked to subscribes to this - I've never heard anything rationally to the contrary), not a result of innate tendencies (in other words, it wouldn't result from *reacting to* innate (out of your mental control anyway) conditions of your personality like being an introvert (subjective dominant person), not you managing your persona from ideas you have about yourself and how you should come across to the outside world, which is in the realm of behavior). Behavior is behind persona management and persona management is a separate concept first IDENTIFIED BY JUNG (he said this is 100% not what type is). People react *from* their cognition, not *to* their cognition (e.g. to form behavior around it).


And so those Jung portraits of extraverts and introverts that I quoted characterize them largely in terms of behavior because Jung thought extraversion and introversion had nothing to do with behavior? I see...

My point, as you know, was not that Jung viewed the essence of personality in terms of behavior. He didn't, and neither did Myers. What I took issue with was your characterization of Briggs and Myers as "creepy" because their type descriptions, _like Jung's_, included a fair amount of typical behavior in the mix, and your misinformed implication that their descriptions were substantially different from Jung's in that regard.


----------

