How do people (mis)type you?

[Ren]

It really doesn't matter what others think about my own type. They'll never know what is going on inside my mind and the weight of the internal struggles. Types are an approximation of our personalities, not absolute certainties. I cannot stand the stereotypes that typology makes people prone to. We are more than what these theories offer. Many people are too complicated and ever-evolving and there are too many exceptions to the rules. Many of us could very well fit into more than one type. It depends on the perspective we are currently viewing ourselves and other people.

Your post makes me think of a thought experiment. Imagine Person A saying his type is X. Now all of Person A's friends and acquaintances disagree that he is Type X. There is uninanimous 'external' disagreement about Person A being Type X. The majority say that he is Type Y, a few that he might be Type Z.

But Person A is adamant that he is Type X, and says "you don't know what is going on inside my mind".

Who would you be inclined to believe?

 

[Lurk]

Are the people that have tried/suggested typing you really that close-minded?

Usually, no, it's more a case of an understandable read based on the behavior I exhibit. My behavior rarely reflects who I really am; I display heavy Ne and Fe socially. I try to please and entertain others in the hope that they will not notice how grim and critical I am. I'm almost always analyzing, which leads to me picking apart and fixing errors. This is not kind behavior. Some INTPs aren't as reluctant to share what they think, but I hate that INTP trait.

The vast majority of people who have mistyped me eventually went "oh no actually that makes sense, INFJ suits you" and in the process we had interesting discussions about how function use manifests in reality (including the limitations you mention in your post). I've also never felt like my logical walk-throughs were stripped of value by my T friends.

I don't go into it and explain.

You haven't, but you are unusually articulate and educated. You aren't an easy target. Also, you are assertive.

I'm seen many Fs outright ridiculed for even attempting to reason with INTPs. This was a constant at INTP Central.

 

[Lurk]

Your post makes me think of a thought experiment. Imagine Person A saying his type is X. Now all of Person A's friends and acquaintances disagree that he is Type X. There is uninanimous 'external' disagreement about Person A being Type X. The majority say that he is Type Y, a few that he might be Type Z.

This isn't the occasional dissent! I meant from time-to-time, with most people in agreement.

I would say that Person A is a sensor, or at least has very poor insight; that, or A perceives the types(s) his friends suggest as inferior. I know of quite a few ISTPs who cling to the "N" because being labeled a sensor is basically an insult on NT threads.

But Person A is adamant that he is Type X, and says "you don't know what is going on inside my mind".

Who would you be inclined to believe?

Everyone in his life (the people who disagree, lol). I think he doesn't understand himself, or he is lying.

**I'm also assuming no applicable mental disorders

 

[John K]

It's taken me over 20 years to type myself accurately - how on earth could I hope to type anyone else!

I shall set my duvet cover on anyone who tries to type me - it swallowed two pillowcases last Friday then tried to bite me when I had to get them out.

I think I have finally uncovered the true difference between inferior Se and inferior Si. I know exactly how to fit my duvet into its cover, I just really can't be arsed to do it. Chores are a chore.

Indicators are optional on any car, in my experience.

I know how duvets work too. Does this mean I have inferior Si now?

Oh the theory’s straightforward enough. It’s their malevolent personality that screws me up.

 

[Lurk]

Your post makes me think of a thought experiment.

@ThomasJ79

I'm sorry, I screwed up. I thought this was addressed to me. Shit. :hiding:

 

[John K]

Usually, no, it's more a case of an understandable read based on the behavior I exhibit. My behavior rarely reflects who I really am; I display heavy Ne and Fe socially. I try to please and entertain others in the hope that they will not notice how grim and critical I am. I'm almost always analyzing, which leads to me

I think this is pretty typical of introverts - we just don't show our strongest functions in public, but keep them private and secret. Most people will see only our secondaries, or other extraverted functions. Only the people closest to me would see beyond that - at least if I have anything to do with it. It's only in exceptional circumstances (such as on a site like this) that I would actually try and make my dominant function visible, and even then it makes me feel vulnerable.

 

[jkxx]

Quite... Usually people see Se and it's not pretty so a bunch of derision gets leveled my way. It is kind of hard to explain N to a user who has no concept of what that is.

 

[ThomasJ79]

Your post makes me think of a thought experiment. Imagine Person A saying his type is X. Now all of Person A's friends and acquaintances disagree that he is Type X. There is uninanimous 'external' disagreement about Person A being Type X. The majority say that he is Type Y, a few that he might be Type Z.

But Person A is adamant that he is Type X, and says "you don't know what is going on inside my mind".

Who would you be inclined to believe?

Well, cognitive functions are in one's mind and cannot be seen, so the subjective component is very large here. I cannot answer because types are too vaguely defined and dependent on context to be meaningful in a strictly logical way, and they can't be measured empirically, but I would use the discrepancy to start a conversation. One would have to ask if the internal and external viewpoints are compatible. Types evolve over time and each type is a very broad category that overlaps with other types. Such is the nature of the beast.



What if you substituted type for gender? Person A thinks and feels like a female. The majority think the person is a Male, but A is adamant. Who is to say in this case that A is wrong? I think in this case it depends on how we are defining and using male and female. There are internal and external components.

Now if this is a horribly complex issue, just think of all the wonderfully complex topological issues.

 

[John K]

Well, cognitive functions are in one's mind and cannot be seen, so the subjective component is very large here. I cannot answer because types are too vaguely defined and dependent on context to be meaningful in a strictly logical way, and they can't be measured empirically, but I would use the discrepancy to start a conversation. One would have to ask if the internal and external viewpoints are compatible. Types evolve over time and each type is a very broad category that overlaps with other types. Such is the nature of the beast.



What if you substituted type for gender? Person A thinks and feels like a female. The majority think the person is a Male, but A is adamant. Who is to say in this case that A is wrong? I think in this case it depends on how we are defining and using male and female. There are internal and external components.

Now if this is a horribly complex issue, just think of all the wonderfully complex topological issues.

There is a lot in what you say in the context of informal typing, in the wild.

I was on a management training course once though with about 25 people and we were given our types after assessment - done by a trained assessor, but only by questionnaire. What was remarkable was when we were then split up into groups based on typing and given a task. First putting similar types together, then mixing opposites. That’s all it took to convince me that there is a real set of personality differentiators behind it. Not only how the teams got on with each other, but how they tackled the task, and how they presented their results back afterwards.

 

[Miswired7]

Yes, that's great! The idea of "Ti peacocking" hits the mark for me too! When I was young, I didn't get affirmation from people my own age, but I was clever and found I could get lots of lovely affirmation from adults by being clever, so that was what defined my teens and young adulthood. Like you I really enjoy the intellectual side of things: I could keep up with (and win quite a few) INTP-type pissing contests as @Reason With Logic Filling expressed it so eloquently in another thread a few days ago - but actually a lot of these can be more like intellectual pillow fights, which are great fun. I always had problems with real conflict though, and avoided it if I could, or felt guilty for ages after if I caused it. I only realise all this with hindsight though.

I suspect one of the biggest risks for an Ni-dom is if their extraverted function is underdeveloped, and their Ni is not in good control. You can spin off into unreality like that very badly and end up making bad career choices, picking the wrong life partner, getting caught up in damaging belief systems, etc. Ni is insidious in the way it provides a feeling of certainty - but it needs to be fed with and tested against reality, at least for the big issues in life like these. The old scientific paradigm of hypothesis <-> test is not at all a bad fit. I wonder if an INTJ type person could easily be recognised if they have this sort of problem, except by an expert.

I can relate to this. I grew up extremely isolated from peers. Not by choice, but because I had a parent with mental health issues who would not allow me to have meaningful contact with other kids. No school, no friends. Sometimes I saw no one but my parents for weeks or months at a time. When I finally escaped that (late teens), my social skills were underdeveloped, but I got a lot of positive feedback for being clever. I was pretty emotional, but after a disastrous entanglement with a narcissistic ex husband, I vowed never again to let my emotions control me. I tried hard to develop the Ti, and it is still a comfortable place to be. But if I do not go out and socialize and use my Fe side, I can become extremely withdrawn and unbalanced. It can be very hard to break out of that cycle, even though it is so rewarding when I do.
I believe that my unhealthy parent is an INTJ with poor use of his auxiliary function. He tries to make big things happen, but he is so far out of touch with reality that it borders on psychosis.

 

[Ren]

This isn't the occasional dissent! I meant from time-to-time, with most people in agreement.

I would say that Person A is a sensor, or at least has very poor insight; that, or A perceives the types(s) his friends suggest as inferior. I know of quite a few ISTPs who cling to the "N" because being labeled a sensor is basically an insult on NT threads.

Everyone in his life (the people who disagree, lol). I think he doesn't understand himself, or he is lying.

I think I'm on the same page as you here - not about Person A being a sensor, but certainly having poor insight. I think it is the others that are right. But what is interesting about this is that it means that there is a point (undefined but undeniable) beyond which "being sure of one's type despite the opinions of others" is no longer the more likely right opinion. I'm not saying this case exists necessarily, but it shows that in absolute terms, pure self-analysis is not sufficient .

Well, cognitive functions are in one's mind and cannot be seen, so the subjective component is very large here. I cannot answer because types are too vaguely defined and dependent on context to be meaningful in a strictly logical way, and they can't be measured empirically, but I would use the discrepancy to start a conversation. One would have to ask if the internal and external viewpoints are compatible. Types evolve over time and each type is a very broad category that overlaps with other types. Such is the nature of the beast.

What if you substituted type for gender? Person A thinks and feels like a female. The majority think the person is a Male, but A is adamant. Who is to say in this case that A is wrong? I think in this case it depends on how we are defining and using male and female. There are internal and external components.

Now if this is a horribly complex issue, just think of all the wonderfully complex topological issues.

I think the gender analogy you use here is only valid if you consider types to be fluid in the same way that gender is fluid. For example, I do think gender is a fluid concept, but I don't think cognitive functions are quite as fluid. I don't think Ni is socially constructed in the same way that (to me at least) gender is. If Donald Trump suddenly affirmed that he had very strong Ni, and believed himself to be an INFJ, I should believe him to be insane.

That being said, if your premise is that types are just as fluid as gender, you're right about the analogy. I just don't think this is an obviously true premise. And if you speak of the cognitive functions as being "in the mind", you are in a sense implying that they aren't socially constructed.

 

[ThomasJ79]

I think I'm on the same page as you here - not about Person A being a sensor, but certainly having poor insight. I think it is the others that are right. But what is interesting about this is that it means that there is a point (undefined but undeniable) beyond which "being sure of one's type despite the opinions of others" is no longer the more likely right opinion. I'm not saying this case exists necessarily, but it shows that in absolute terms, pure self-analysis is not sufficient .



I think the gender analogy you use here is only valid if you consider types to be fluid in the same way that gender is fluid. For example, I do think gender is a fluid concept, but I don't think cognitive functions are quite as fluid. I don't think Ni is socially constructed in the same way that (to me at least) gender is. If Donald Trump suddenly affirmed that he had very strong Ni, and believed himself to be an INFJ, I should believe him to be insane.

That being said, if your premise is that types are just as fluid as gender, you're right about the analogy. I just don't think this is an obviously true premise. And if you speak of the cognitive functions as being "in the mind", you are in a sense implying that they aren't socially constructed.

The limits of the analogy....but, what I mean by "in the mind" is that our thoughts aren't readily available to others(us introverts are notorious for keeping much of our thoughts to ourselves, especially introverted, deep thinkers). Now someone like Donald Trumps does nothing but constantly speak his mind like a genuine extrovert, giving us clear evidence of his E, hence ruling out half of the available options. I don't see evidence of strong intuition, but I may change my mind if he ever produces any sign of original thought.

Now we can use DT as a comparison to demonstrate what weak intuition would look like, or strong sensing. It serves as a good comparison. However, it is not as clear as someone who has borderline preferences and cognitive preferences. What to do if someone prefers Ti and Te nearly equally, for example. Or equally valued T and F.

I do think there are fluid personality types(perceiving dominants) and preferences aren't always clear, and they can change throughout one's life. Preferences and strength of preferences are two different things, although they usually correlate. Cognitive functions are one perspective, dichotomies another, the big five another. They help us approach ourselves in different ways. I like typology when it is flexible and open to interpretation. I find it more accurate and useful that way.

 

[Ren]

I do think there are fluid personality types(perceiving dominants) and preferences aren't always clear, and they can change throughout one's life. Preferences and strength of preferences are two different things, although they usually correlate. Cognitive functions are one perspective, dichotomies another, the big five another. They help us approach ourselves in different ways. I like typology when it is flexible and open to interpretation. I find it more accurate and useful that way.

I think we essentially agree that types have a certain fluidity about them. Maybe we don't quite agree about the exact extent to which they are fluid, though I do see your point. I could see fluidity between E/I types with very similar functions stacks, like ENTP/INTP and ENFJ/INFJ. And sometimes it is indeed difficult to tell, supposing an INFJ has very strong Fe or an ENFJ has very strong Ni.

Where I see a limit to the fluidity of types is in the dominant function, really. Outside of questions of proficiency of use and the like, the dominant function seems in some ways like our most fundamental "seeing" of the world. Like it's a function that seems more than just available for the taking, rather it conditions the taking itself. Maybe this is an erroneous view though; it might be just as possible to shift in dominant function in the course of life, rather than just "appearing" more extroverted or introverted.

 

[Miswired7]

The dreaded Ni-Ti loop. This totally resonnates with me too. It can be scary using Fe to get that outer world feedback, I'd much rather rely on Ti and feel clever, but Ti turns critical pretty easily for me and when I shut off Fe, I feel so detached from others I can't stand it, and it's only recently that I recognized this and am actively working on Fe, even forming boundaries so I can explore this without feeling so vulnerable.

This is me to a "T", and I could not have said it more eloquently. However, I am learning that vulnerability is an important part of healthy Fe. If we cannot be vulnerable, we will never feel true empathy. That is why Fe is so scary and why we try so hard to shut it down.

 

[Ren]

This is me to a "T", and I could not have said it more eloquently. However, I am learning that vulnerability is an important part of healthy Fe. If we cannot be vulnerable, we will never feel true empathy. That is why Fe is so scary and why we try so hard to shut it down.

I definitely relate to that...

 

[Reverist]

This is me to a "T", and I could not have said it more eloquently. However, I am learning that vulnerability is an important part of healthy Fe. If we cannot be vulnerable, we will never feel true empathy. That is why Fe is so scary and why we try so hard to shut it down.

I agree. I'm also seeing how I need that vulnerability in order to know where my boundaries really are...or could be.

I guess my goal is to build healthy boundaries, and not barriers. Like you say, it's scary and not easy.

 

[John K]

This is me to a "T", and I could not have said it more eloquently. However, I am learning that vulnerability is an important part of healthy Fe. If we cannot be vulnerable, we will never feel true empathy. That is why Fe is so scary and why we try so hard to shut it down.

This is so right. One of the reasons I joined the forum was to explore Fe in a more conscious way. It's not easy - looking at my posts I can see several decades of public confidence from my time as a manager in the way I express myself, but this is the opposite of what I actually feel.

I do think there are fluid personality types(perceiving dominants) and preferences aren't always clear, and they can change throughout one's life. Preferences and strength of preferences are two different things, although they usually correlate. Cognitive functions are one perspective, dichotomies another, the big five another. They help us approach ourselves in different ways. I like typology when it is flexible and open to interpretation. I find it more accurate and useful that way.

I do have a lot of sympathy with the idea of flexibility in typing. I think it is important though to be clear what we mean by that - whether we are talking about how accurately we are typed, or whether our actual preferences can change. I'm 100% certain that we need to avoid being dogmatic with the first of these and a lot of the reasons why are well expressed in this thread. There must be loads of people who get interested, but have no secure type preference they feel is just right for them. I've been like that for 20 years, until I settled on INFJ in the last few weeks.

When it comes to the possibility of our actual intrinsic type preferences changing during our lives - well that's another matter. I think if CG Jung's type theory is correct, and it does seem to be a reasonable (but fairly coarse grained) way of classifying us into types, then the way our dominant and secondary preferences are developed is perhaps a bit like the way our sight develops at a much earlier age - with visual stimulus actually determining brain structure. If that's the case then the way our brains develop in childhood is determined by which functions we start to prefer and it becomes hard wired into us. We can use the other preferences, but more clumsily, and some (our inferiors) very clumsily. I'm right handed, and when I was in my teens I taught myself to take notes in class with my left hand (it was a boring non-essential subject). I ended up being able to write fairly legibly with my left hand, but it was a great strain and left me exhausted after an hour - I can write with my right hand indefinitely with no conscious effort whatsoever. I think use of our non-preferred functions is always going to be a bit like that.

Don't get me wrong - I'm sure that it is quite legitimate to challenge Jung's typology, but it would be far more realistic to reject the whole thing than successfully cherry pick bits of it while rejecting the rest. What I do think could be abstracted from the underlying theory is the terminology of the functions, which gives a far greater precision than everyday language in describing the mental processes that are within its scope.

 

[ThomasJ79]

I think we essentially agree that types have a certain fluidity about them. Maybe we don't quite agree about the exact extent to which they are fluid, though I do see your point. I could see fluidity between E/I types with very similar functions stacks, like ENTP/INTP and ENFJ/INFJ. And sometimes it is indeed difficult to tell, supposing an INFJ has very strong Fe or an ENFJ has very strong Ni.

Where I see a limit to the fluidity of types is in the dominant function, really. Outside of questions of proficiency of use and the like, the dominant function seems in some ways like our most fundamental "seeing" of the world. Like it's a function that seems more than just available for the taking, rather it conditions the taking itself. Maybe this is an erroneous view though; it might be just as possible to shift in dominant function in the course of life, rather than just "appearing" more extroverted or introverted.

I do think there is something to the dominant function, at least for many people. This alone may capture the essence of a person's perspective and general tendencies throughout their life. I find it very difficult to explain what I mean, but let's take Ni, for example(since most people here relate to this). I think it is a representation of a whole cluster of traits, thought patterns, interests, etc. It is a very broad category. I don't see any point really in adding any additional functions unless they are actually applicable, but that is my own opinion (I see where things aren't clear in numerous cases, and of course, I have to get to the bottom of it ). An intuitive dominant does imply that a person is overall, weaker in thinking and feeling, and weakest in sensing. Now this says nothing about Ni(NiTe or NiFe) or Ne(NeTi or NeFi). I think an intuitive dominant person can fluctuate, within reason, between Ni and Ne. Let me explain further: Ni, in part of its representation, is a combination of strong introversion and intuition, not a distinct computer program that processes information in uniquely, although it can be used as an analogy to one. If you are very introverted and intuitive first, you are Ni. If you are very extroverted and intuitive, you are Ne. For those in between, some Ne/Ni combination. You can this with any of the functions really. The most introverted are really going to rather strong in the introverted functions, so to speak. I do not think that if one is Ni, then either Te or Fe automatically follows. This just seems too simplistic based on my observation of people and one of the reasons typology can seem so black and white and dogmatic. I also don't see a convincing argument for why this must be so. You can be Ti second, or Fi, or Si, etc. It depends on the cognitive development, the genetic predispositions, and environmental factors. People that are rather ambiverted have the greatest spread of type variability,imo.

Anywho, this is the perspective I am coming from, and I'm far from finished developing my own ideas, but hopefully it was somewhat understandable.

 

[John K]

I think an intuitive dominant person can fluctuate, within reason, between Ni and Ne.

It's interesting you should say that. Have you seen the posts from about page 9 or 10 of this thread where people posted the results of an online typing site that @Ren suggested. Quite a few INFJs are showing high Ne as well as Ni.

 

[Miswired7]

This is so right. One of the reasons I joined the forum was to explore Fe in a more conscious way. It's not easy - looking at my posts I can see several decades of public confidence from my time as a manager in the way I express myself, but this is the opposite of what I actually feel.

I am also a manager, and am responsible for around 35 employees. I do not believe this would be possible if I did not have reasonably good use of Fe. Like you, I want to explore it in a more conscious way. So good to converse with others who understand!