Limitations of type

[David Nelson]

Just some thoughts I’ve been having about types in general which might be of interest.

It’s clear that each type has some disadvantages and some advantages. A theoretically optimally ‘balanced’ person might have all 8 functions in equal strength and position. A real generalist one might say. While this obvs isn’t possible, I don’t think this would even be desirable. This is because such a person would have no ‘special’ abilities due to function stack hierarchy.

One might then assume all types have special abilities unique to their own, and this is probably true to varying degrees.

But my thought is that no type actually has a perfect stack for ANY particular task, because all tasks done perfectly require more than is available to any one type. The lack of ‘balance’ in all types leaves weaknesses even in tasks which seem ideal for that type. I believe great things are only achieved either by working with other types to fill in your gaps, or by carefully working round your own weaknesses. This is one key area where understanding type can be invaluable. In practice this has probably happened to people with no understanding of type, in organisations or partnerships, simply because things just ‘work’ for them.

 

[Matty]

Each type seems to have it's own "flavour" of ideals or goals. Some inherently require other people not only to attain their version of contentment, but also to maintain the basics of life, whereas some types definitely seem to be truly self sufficient.

For example, types whose ideal is social enjoyment and creativity can't really be happy alone, nor are they adept at basic life skills. Support for the arts keeps these turbulent individuals housed and fed.

Independent types, like INTJs (my type) are happiest when things are efficient, productive, and morally uncompromised. A Spartan cabin with an ingenious array of practical solutions to basic needs like water, food, and sanitation is where I could happily spend evenings contemplating things in peaceful solitude.

 

[Wyote]

I don't like the negative framing of this being "limitations" as I think we're all capable of going outside those.
But I do agree that collaboration in some sense is essential for individual and humanitarian benefit/health etc.
We all have different skills and frames of mind, not utilizing that in some capacity is going to lead down frustrating paths.

 

[Roses In The Vineyard]

It is safe to say there is so much wasted potential out there in society either because individuals didn't fit the overall meta so to speak and sometimes even whole demographics are at a disadvantage as a result myself included. One of the biggest failure points is just how poor public education often is with few exceptions then there is the ever present issue of how well different types mesh leaving some at a very real disadvantage especially if one is seen as not measuring up to some standard or ideal. As for efficiency I would rank current society as being very low coupled with very poor social mobility as lets face it even whole generations of people have been left holding the bag that future generations will not be able to resolve. When it comes to the established model of cognitive functions regarding balance there to is issues as sub types or sub demographics are ignored while ignoring deeper aspects that would shine a great deal more light as to what is really there in the first place.

 

[philostam]

The less I think about type, the more I achieve in real life.

It was useful to learn about my type. It gave me self understanding, which lead to self confidence. But there is diminishing marginal utility of each extra hour spent exploring a type. I don't know what the ultimate goal is. For me, 50 hours spend on typology is enough.

I think it's a mistake to "fall in love" your type. Guess what, some of the INxx types were geniuses and had amazing lives, but I believe it had less to do with their type, and more to do with their general intelligence, education, charisma, work ethic, mentality etc.

I don't even bother to type people I work with now. I do categorize based on some criteria (introverted/extroverted, people focused/things focused etc.) but I don't need to know their type.

 

[David Nelson]

The less I think about type, the more I achieve in real life.

It was useful to learn about my type. It gave me self understanding, which lead to self confidence. But there is diminishing marginal utility of each extra hour spent exploring a type. I don't know what the ultimate goal is. For me, 50 hours spend on typology is enough.

I think it's a mistake to "fall in love" your type. Guess what, some of the INxx types were geniuses and had amazing lives, but I believe it had less to do with their type, and more to do with their general intelligence, education, charisma, work ethic, mentality etc.

I don't even bother to type people I work with now. I do categorize based on some criteria (introverted/extroverted, people focused/things focused etc.) but I don't need to know their type.

Maybe this is a good and healthy counter to the INFJ tendency to overthink and analyse, although personally if find it interesting. But what we like isn’t always the best thing for us, so thanks for this reminder.

 

[John K]

Just some thoughts I’ve been having about types in general which might be of interest.

It’s clear that each type has some disadvantages and some advantages. A theoretically optimally ‘balanced’ person might have all 8 functions in equal strength and position. A real generalist one might say. While this obvs isn’t possible, I don’t think this would even be desirable. This is because such a person would have no ‘special’ abilities due to function stack hierarchy.

One might then assume all types have special abilities unique to their own, and this is probably true to varying degrees.

But my thought is that no type actually has a perfect stack for ANY particular task, because all tasks done perfectly require more than is available to any one type. The lack of ‘balance’ in all types leaves weaknesses even in tasks which seem ideal for that type. I believe great things are only achieved either by working with other types to fill in your gaps, or by carefully working round your own weaknesses. This is one key area where understanding type can be invaluable. In practice this has probably happened to people with no understanding of type, in organisations or partnerships, simply because things just ‘work’ for them.

A very interesting observation. It's as though people are not meant to be complete in themselves, but to only function well in groups of people who exploit each other's strengths and compensate for each other's weaknesses. When I say 'meant' I mean it in a metaphorical way, but it comes over in quite a few different perspectives on humanity. One is evolution of course that led us to collaborate as a group creature - a pack animal. There are religious perspectives too, such as St Paul in Corinthians talking about the differing gifts that people bring, and likening each person's contribution to the way our bodies are made up of different limbs and organs.

It's very rewarding to work in well-functioning teams with people of differing type strengths, and see how the whole team is greater than the sum of its parts. Each has to respect the contribution of the others for this to work OK of course.