Myers-Briggs, redux

[yovargas]

It tells me that I'm not going to be succesful in getting you to like this stuff.

Still interesting to me, though. If the ESFJ feels best to you, then it's most likely the correct one. It's not too far off (at the very least, I knew I had the F) but it's so rare to find an S around here that I forget they're around.

I remember us having an exchange in Symp in the infamous smoking thread which seemed to leave us both frustrated. You may not buy it, but if I had known you were an ESFJ (and if you understood what me being an INTJ implied), I think that exchange would have been much more meaningful for both of us. We were talking past each other because our types are exact opposites.

[truehobbit]

Thanks for replying, yov!

Hmmh, I'm not so sure where best to look, but I found this site: http://www.personalitypathways.com/type_inventory.html
which I thought was ok - unfortunately, it only describes 8 of the 16 types in detail.
None of the description fit completely, I thought, so I would say I'm probably around 75% I and P - but for the two in the middle I was very torn which fitted best, that's why I hoped the detailed description would help, but this doesn't differentiate between N and S, and of the two types left in the description I'd say I'm 60% IN(or S)FP and 40% IN(orS)TP.

So, I guess I should find a free online test now.

[yovargas]

hobby, the descriptions on this site are really good.

http://www.personalitypage.com/high-level.html

Are you confident about that P? I woulda pegged you as J for sure. If you are P, INTP would be the only thing that fits my experience (admittedly little) with you.

[truehobbit]

Thanks, yov - will look at that page!

I'm not really certain about any of my choices there - there were only four aspects for P/J, and while I strongly disagreed with the first for P, all the other three seemed a bit more like me than those listed for J.

In the meantime I took another test - it was called Jung Typology test ( http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes2.asp ), so probably not the same, though it used the same letters, and got:

Your Type is
INFJ
Introverted Intuitive Feeling Judging
Strength of the preferences %
44 12 50 33


Qualitative analysis of your type formula

You are:
moderately expressed introvert

slightly expressed intuitive personality

moderately expressed feeling personality

moderately expressed judging personality

It certainly confirms my insecurity in picking any of them, if I'm just so slightly/moderately on any of these sides.

[Alatar]

But surely we shouldn't need to know each others "types" to have a meaningful debate? I certainly never felt that we were unable to communicate. Sometimes people are frustrated with a discussion, not because of the lack of understanding, but the lack of agreement!

I'm not saying that the MBTI is baseless, merely that it is so general as to be practically useless, and that people's apparent willingness to base every decision and comment on this arbitrary collection of letters astounds me. I accept that people are of different race and colour, but do not treat them differently. Yet the aim of this seems to be to segregate people not by colour or race, but by their tendencies in thought and deed. It is segregation nonetheless, and no better or worse than racism. If you treat people differently because of their "label" why not make it a yellow star or a pink triangle?

[yovargas]

So you're saying that you behave and interact with all people exactly the same? You mean that no matter the personality, temperment, and sensibilities of a person, your behavior remains exactly the same? I sincerely doubt that's true.

For example, some people tend to be much more emotionally sensitive than others, and we will often be a bit more careful with those people to avoid unintentionally hurting them. Where others (like me, for example) rarely take things personally and as such you or others may be inclined to tell me things you might not tell a more sensitive person. This is just one example of the sorts of differences that we all have that make us interact - even if only subconsciously - different with people based on their particular characteristics. That's not segragation - that's accepting the person for what they are.

[Alatar]

But what's wrong with defining these things based on "the person" not "the label". Of course I treat some people with kid gloves where others get the cold slap, but that's based on my experience of them as people, not on their supposed adherence to a "type". I know you don't see the difference, but to me that difference is huge. Instead of saying, "Well, Alatar_the_Tenderhearted is insecure so I'll take it easy on him" you choose to define him by his label. You see no problem with grouping individuals. To me, grouping individuals is an oxymoron. They cannot be grouped, because they are individuals.

[yovargas]

This reminds me of The_Mary's objection to labels in the misconception thread, an objection which I think is pretty misguided. The type isn't a "label", it's a description. If saying, "Anthy is a sensitive person" (which she is) is a perfectly legitimate way of describing Anthy, why isn't saying "Anthy is an NF" (which she is) also legitimate? Is NF somehow any more a "label" then calling someone sensitive? I don't think so, it's just a much more thorough description then the simplistic "sensitive" label. Anybody can be sensitive, but knowing their type will help you understand what they're sensitive about and why they're sensitive about such things. Those are things that are difficult to discover and understand, particularly in people very different from ourselves, but the types shine a light on them making them much clearer and easier to grasp. It's not about grouping and labelling each other, it's about understanding each other better. That is definately not a bad thing.

[Frelga]

I remember us having an exchange in Symp in the infamous smoking thread which seemed to leave us both frustrated. You may not buy it, but if I had known you were an ESFJ (and if you understood what me being an INTJ implied), I think that exchange would have been much more meaningful for both of us. We were talking past each other because our types are exact opposites.

I remember that thread! But yov, wasn't it pretty obvious that you were talking past each other without knowing your types?

The types can be useful as one observes a person and tries to find handles to simplify communication.

Let's say a new employee comes in. I observe that he is trying to stay out of company-wide events, like potlucks. It's a pretty good call that he's an I. I may notice that he always makes reasoned, logical arguments, so now I know how to appeal to him. After a few weeks, I will have a good idea of what works best with that person, and I can adjust my approach accordingly. I don't need to know his type to do that, but I could use the type as a mental shorthand.

Now, would it be helpful to me if I hired him knowing he was an INTJ, or whatever, before I actually met him? I think not. It may have made the shortcut shorter, but there would be a danger that from then on I became blind to the real person. I've seen people who take their types seriously make statements like, "as an ESFJ, she should react as X, so how strange is it that she did R". The type overshadows the real, complicated person.

And FTR, I got excellent results with horoscopes.

[Túrin Turambar]

If saying, "Anthy is a sensitive person" (which she is) is a perfectly legitimate way of describing Anthy, why isn't saying "Anthy is an NF" (which she is) also legitimate? Is NF somehow any more a "label" then calling someone sensitive?

That is a fairly decisive point IMHO.

[Alatar]

If I felt that you were only dealing with descriptions this conversation wouldn't be taking place. The problem I have with the MTBI is that it's not used to describe people, it's used to classify and categorise them. Or at least that is certainly the impression I get from the threads here and on B77 where it is discussed.

[yovargas]

I remember that thread! But yov, wasn't it pretty obvious that you were talking past each other without knowing your types?

Yes, but it doesn't explain why. The most common problem I've seen is Ns and Ss talking past each other, where the N is thinking to themselves "goodness, they're being so stupid!" and the S is thinking...whatever it is Ss think. What looks like stupidity to an N is very often simply a different perspective and approach to problem-solving.

[yovargas]

If I felt that you were only dealing with descriptions this conversation wouldn't be taking place. The problem I have with the MTBI is that it's not used to describe people, it's used to classify and categorise them. Or at least that is certainly the impression I get from the threads here and on B77 where it is discussed.

What's the difference between describing someone as sensitive and categorizing them as sensitive?

[Frelga]

Not a lot of difference, yov, in an arms-distance relationship, but in close relationship one needs to pay attention to finer nuances.

If you describe Frelga as sensitive, you might be right in most kinds of weather. If you categorize Frelga as sensitive, and assume that because Frelga is a certain type she is always sensitive... well, you would still be safe, but a person standing too close to Frelga might sustain permanent damage when she runs out of sensitive and goes ballistic.


And if you think you can predict it by type alone... I'll disagree with you.

[truehobbit]

What's the difference between describing someone as sensitive and categorizing them as sensitive?

I think the difference is not so much in the conclusion itself that you draw on a person, but in the feeling it creates about this person whether you do one or the other.
Not sure if I can explain this. It's certainly true that in both cases you make a mental note of Anthy's character that might help you next time in how you approach her, so it seems to be the same thing.
But the first lets Anthy be Anthy, just with the addition that she's sensitive.
If you put her in a group, it's like saying, you are not Anthy anymore, but one of those people who are sensitive.
It'll be as if in the future, rather than talking to Anthy, who is a million other things plus sensitive, all of which make her herself, you'll be talking to her the way you talk to those in the sensitive category.
You might still make the right choice of words in avoiding to hurt her feelings, because you know how to handle sensitive, but you've also saved yourself the trouble of trying to communicate with the living Anthy.

(Note, I don't mean to say that this is what you really do, that's something I don't know - it's just what seems to me to be happening when I think of putting people in categories! )

Edit: Frelga put it much more concisely!

[yovargas]

Hmm, I see what you're saying and I'm quite familiar with what you're talking about. A lot of my Manwë experience comes to mind. For example, in Manwë's evolution debate thread, hal came in numerous times trying to make certain arguments but a lot of posters didn't really address him or his arguments as an individual, instead treating him like Christian Poster #256.

Thing is, you can do that with any info about a person. Whether or not you do it is up to the person and if someone is doing it, it's the person's fault not the info's fault. I shouldn't be afraid to "label" someone a Christian because a lot of people tend to generically lump people of that religion into one group. (Or as Wolfgang said on b77, blacks are Christians, Christians are Republicans, Republicans are warmongers, therefore blacks are warmongers ). Avoiding some info about a person because you might misuse that info seems silly to me.

[Frelga]

Whether or not you do it is up to the person and if someone is doing it, it's the person's fault not the info's fault.

Agreed.

I shouldn't be afraid to "label" someone a Christian because a lot of people tend to generically lump people of that religion into one group. (Or as Wolfgang said on b77, blacks are Christians, Christians are Republicans, Republicans are warmongers, therefore blacks are warmongers ). Avoiding some info about a person because you might misuse that info seems silly to me.

Right. If you say "so-and-so" is a Christian, you are supplying a bit of personal information, but it really tells you very little about the person. If you take the next step and say "and that means that if I slap him he'll turn another cheek", you better be close to a good emergency room. Generic you, of course.

The difference is that one's religion is an objective piece of information. A personality type is a shorthand description of a person compressed to four letters. So relying on them too much could become a bit of circular reasoning - you deduce someone to be an INTJ, and then make deductions about that person based on their type.

To clarify, I don't think the typing is completely inaccurate and useless, just that one needs to be careful when relying on it. As both you and Alatar pointed out.

[Túrin Turambar]

No-one suggests that it holds totally true in all cases. If I describe Anthy as sensitive, or categorise Anthy as a sensitive person, all I am saying in either case is that Anthy, in general, is sensitive. Describing something is putting it into a category (saying that an apple is red adds the apple to the group of objects that includes red apples), but we generally understand that people are complex and that descriptions and categories only hold generally.

The MBTI only describes a person's base personality, independant of the effect on them that their experiences and upbringing have had. It is still a powerful tool, but not totally decisive.

Finally, I wonder whether some criticism of the MBTI comes from people who just don't want it to be, regardless of the evidence.

[Alatar]

Both are true

If, as you believe, its a powerful tool but not totally decisive, it should certainly not be used. A powerful tool that is flawed is dangerous.

However, I don't think it's as powerful as you believe.

Just because a box of apples are all red does not mean they taste the same. Some will be bigger or smaller, Some will be rotten to the core. Some may not even be red apples, but green apples painted red. As a description it's ultimately flawed. You may feel you have narrowed something down or described it, but only in such a superficial sense that it is pointless.

I'm not explaining myself very clearly here. What I genuinely believe is that people use the MBTI to try to categorise people into "types" and then to use their knowledge of that "type" to decide how to deal with that person. This is as fundamentally flawed as assuming all red apples will taste the same, be the same size and have no worms in them. It's so superficial as to be generic and useless, yet people believe in it and base their judgements of people on it. Thats the real problem.

[Frelga]

Alatar, I think I'll change my rank to "A green apple painted red". With your permission, of course. I don't know if anybody will appreciate the profundity.