All people type others. So, we can cut the holier-than-thou protestations about the limitations imposed on people’s natures by doing such a thing. Yes, it is limiting but limitation has its place. Just think if everything were infinite and eternal. How would you make it to the kitchen in the morning? If you considered every factor in a situation or person before you made a decision how would you ever get anything done?
So, there are cat and dog people. There are black and white people. There are shades of grey people. Can’t get out of categories. For anything that can possibly exist there is the other side of the coin.
As a matter of fact, the whole resistance to categorization of people is an introverted feeling thing. So, there is a category for people that don’t like to categorize other people.
But, I am talking in the terms of the Myers-Briggs system (really Jung’s system) and some might object that they don’t follow that system. So, poo-poo on you for doing so. However, these objectors still type others. And they have to do so in order to get along in this world as a subjective creature. Some people like to say they aren’t judgmental and they may condemn others for being so judgmental of others. However, that in itself is a judgment. They have judged another person as being judgmental. Can’t escape from making judgments. Unless, you want to blow your mind to smithereens or something.
Just think what would occur in the natural world should this activity of typing (sizing up) other creatures cease. The predators would no longer know who the prey are. The prey would no longer know who the predators are. Dogs and cats would be living together. Maybe they would even try to procreate.
Can we agree that giraffes and turtles exhibit some fundamental differences? What about lambs and lions?
So, I think it is obvious that typing is something that occurs naturally in animals, and especially, the human animal. I mean, how do you think we got so high up in the natural order of things? We made a lot of judgment calls, that’s how. We started categorizing the living shit out of creatures, things, and each other. Our ability to type is synonymous with our ability to survive and prosper.
I’m sure a lot of typing first arose out of lower-level needs such as finding shelter, food, and prospective mates to make beautiful babies with.
When those things began to run more smoothly and predictably we began to start asking deeper questions about the others of our own race. I’m sure a lot of this started with the man-woman dichotomy. You know, men are strong and proud and woman are nurturing and kind. Or whatever. Point is that man and woman are pretty opposite categories. The members of each tend to have a lot of opposite behaviors. And so began the typing of each other.
Maybe this is where the whole introversion-extraversion dichotomy came from, a very popular one that the average person unschooled in typology matters knows about. Introverts are shy and reserved and extraverts are outgoing and uninhibited. The introvert conserves the resources of self and the extravert expends them liberally. So, introversion and extraversion is a man-woman thing more or less. Men go out into the world. Women stay home and take care of the home and the baby. You know the dialectic.
Which Categories?
People tend to take note of these differences. That’s the point. So, the question might not be, “Why type people?” but how are you typing them. Which categories are you using to do this activity? Are these categories true or real measurements in some way? In other words, do these categories exist? I think that is the real point of contention between people that type and those that claim not to. Do these categories you are using amount to anything beyond a fiction?
For example, are the opposite categories of introversion and extraversion giving us any real information? Isn’t it true that most people are capable of doing either of these activities as the situation may call for? Even if the answer to this is yes (and it is) it still doesn’t take away that there has been recognized a mutually opposed set of categories called introversion and extraversion. So, though people may be capable of doing both, we are acknowledging that there is such a thing as introverted and extraverted behavior such that they seem to have all the hallmarks of relatively exclusive categories. Otherwise, we wouldn’t be able to remark at all that people are capable of doing anything except what they always do, which would always be the same for all members, and thus, there would be no need to remark on it at all – because we wouldn’t even see anything to remark on. As a matter of fact, the only way you can define any type of thing, behavior, or person at all is by having at least one other thing that is not like that thing that they are, such that the thing that they are falls into some kind of contrast with this other thing that they aren’t.
You see how fun this shit is?
Why do some things exist? Because other things don’t. If all things existed then we wouldn’t know what existence was. You see how that works?
So, Why Myers-Briggs Then?
So, of all the available categories to type things into why should we limit ourselves to the relatively few basic categories that the Myers-Briggs systems uses? At its most basic level, these mutually opposed categories are as follows:
- Introvert-Extravert
- Intuition-Sensation
- Thinking-Feeling
Huh, how do you like that? How elegant. How simple. There are three either/or categories which a person can be.
So, if you orient towards one end of one of these axes, the other end is necessarily excluded. Two sides of a coin can’t be up (or showing) at the same time. If heads is up, then, tails is down. And vice-versa. And you can get all complex about this shit but at a very basic level this is the truth. And that’s rather the point to the whole enterprise anyway – making things simple. Of course human nature is complex and multifaceted and all that stuff, but, that is exactly the reason that people take the time to evolve categories and systems to cut through all that noise to find the basic signal. And of course, there are people that are constituted that have no need to do such a thing at all and rather enjoy all the seemingly neverending arrays of human nature. To them, everyone is a once-off snowflake of a being, which nothing has ever been like before. But, these people have a type too that is accounted for in this system.
So, assuming these three either/or categories are valid, still, why should we classify people into them? Well, I think this question is less important than the preceding two questions, but, nonetheless, yeah, so what, so, there are people that are introverts and people that are extraverts. There are people that are intuitors and people that are sensors. So what?
And right there, we know we are talking to a person that has some kind of preference for sensation. And it is true for them. Of what use is all this theoretical malarkey? How does this help me in my aims and objectives in life? But, assuming that it was agreed in the foregoing that the categories were valid ones and accounted for all possible orientations and preferences that a person could have, we could answer that sensation types, by natural inclination, tend not to be interested in theories unless they have some kind of material benefit.
An intuitive would likely answer that the reason they do it is just for the sheer fun of it, as a pure speculative and abstract enterprise just to see if it can be done.
So, the answer to the question of “why type people?” would be answered differently depending on what type you are.
Ha-ha, there is no way out. You’re going into a box whether you like it or not.
So, what do you think?
Do you think that typing is an inescapable activity that one can’t help but do in order to live as a being on this earth or do you think there is a way to live without typing others? Is it more a matter of how we type others, what categories we use and whether those categories are valid? Is Myers-Briggs the only system that is valid? Is Myers-Briggs the best system? Do you care if you use a system that is not scientifically valid?
Also, I would appreciate donations if you have found this article to be a value to you and you would like to see further (and quicker) installments of articles on this theme in the future. I would like to keep information free on this site for all to view. So, consider donating if you want everyone to have access to this information. Hey, who knows, you might be making the world a better place.
Hey Blake,
I wanted to thank you because ever since you helped me narrow down what I might be it has helped me to become a more productive person. Now I know what my strengths are and I can play off of those. Knowing my weaknesses is helpful to because I can improve that ( like not taking criticism personally and making a ten year plan so I don’t do a lot of impulsive crap and screw up my life)
Also other things you have told me have helped me become more assertive and less apologetic about getting what I want instead of just going with the flow and giving into people.
And I used to think I was just the most horrible person because of all my… Like:::: desires and stuff but you made me feel more accepting of myself ( although I still don’t think I should do all that stuff I want to do…
The only thing is.. I think you are wrong. people can change and grow. People can learn new skills. Yes, we all have certain personalities and behaviors that we prefer, but people evolve with age. I’ve seen it 🙂
My parents started out as wet behind the ear kids growing up in the warzone known as Brooklyn, and now we live in a ritzy suburb and they’ve owned two different types of businesses in their lifetime and my mom is not even 50.
I’d say one of the main points of Myers Briggs typology is not only that it is fun and interesting, but knowledge is power. And with it we can grow.
Tiffany, where in this article did I say people can’t change and grow? Jesus.
Oh sorry >_< embarrassed…
Tiffy’s comment echoes a common fear – that typing people suggests fixity. People hate the idea that we can’t change or grow, that we are choiceless robots.
As for the limitation suggested by typing, I reckon we are ultimately pure consciousness plus an infinite (in number, not size) bundle of potentials. Inevitably, only some of those potentials can be expressed at one time, so limitation is inevitable. So yes, you are basically right.
But the potentials we express are exactly that – potentials made manifest. They are not our identity. They are not who we are. And that’s another thing people resist – the idea that you know Who I Am, just by applying your labels.
Martin–
That’s so true (thumbs up)
(I approve this message)
If this were fb I would probably like that ^_^
–Lol but thank you for posting Blake. I really love reading about your views on the world 🙂 I value your authentic and caring nature. There’s really no traits that I regard more highly than when someone is true to themselves yet they consider others too.
no, I don’t think so. it’s like saying that just because man doesn’t have wings, he can’t fly. man can fly, but in a different way than birds or bumble bees. but this doesn’t change the fact of his biologically fixed limitations on the ability to fly.
same with mbti types. they start with the idea that people have different cognitive setups. just as they have different IQs. both of these factors are quite fixed: once you pass puberty, they basically define your way & scope of thinking, hence way of behaving, hence who you are.
if you have an IQ of 90, it’s very unlikely, to the level of impossibility, that you’ll ever be a physics professor at the Ivy League. if you’re an woman ENTJ, it’s highly unlikely that you’ll be a popular “queen of the hearts” of the kind of Lady Diana. but you can still be Margaret Thatcher 🙂 and if you have an IQ of 90, you can still have a hugely successful & fulfilling life.
furthermore, it only defines the limits and scope of who you are. but within these limits, there’s still a whole world of options.
or not. let’s be honest. many people, the vast majority of the world’s population, arguably, doesn’t have many options in life. they’re scope of choice and social improvement will be limited, and very far away from the role models set by western standard of success, defined by professional achievement & social relevance. but does this mean that their life is fixed? I wouldn’t say so. within the objective limits (both internal – biological, cognitive, spiritual etc – and external), there is always possibility for growth, both purely personal and interpersonal.
I’d go even further: maybe we can’t really be happy, we can’t achieve a fulfilling life, if we’re unaware not only of the limits of our efforts. not only of the limits (because not everyone can or should live at the limits of one’s possibility, let alone push them further), but also of those levels of balance which are most congenial to one’s predispositions.
a successful pursuit of happiness is, after all, a pursuit of one’s destiny
I’m not exactly sure who was I arguing with here 🙂
nevermind, I just wandered away: I wanted to say that mbti is not exactly about labels & personality types, but it’s about how cognitive function (which we can recognize through experience & observation – that is, “phenomenologically”) determine who we are.
and they do, big time. I think that’s liberating. we’re always bombarded by the imperative, “be genuine” (and for types like mine … this imperative doesn’t make much sense: I never understood what that’s suppose to mean … it’s a very Fi thing, I guess): but at the same time, we experience those aspects of ourself which we hate, want to overcome. the question is: which part of me is fixed, and therefore the basis of who I am, and which one is accidental. and of the accidental, which one can really be changed and which one I have to cope with.
mbti helps us big time in understanding ourselves, understanding the limits of our potentials but also, and this is even more important, channelling our potentials
so far, it’s the best model I’ve come across. even though it’s only 4 months I’ve been studying it, it does tell me so much about myself and also of others. maybe it’s not science – it’s better than science.
Hey Luka! =) I agree with you on a very fundamental level.. but here is some food for thought
I’ve been through a lot of stuff in my life. People who know me and know what I’ve been through are like… It’s amazing that you can still smile and that your this happy person with everything that you’ve been through and people respect me in this regard…
The thing is when I was very young I recognized this fundamental truth in my pursuit for life
Happiness is NOT a destination. It is a choice.
It’s good to have goals in life, and I have a lot myself… but although one day we wish to have a wonderful husband/wife, and go to an awesome school and have a great job
we can choose to be happy NOW.
I don’t really care to argue about stuff. I used to a lot when I was a kid and I loved being right. But then I realized it didn’t matter… at the end of the day it really doesn’t. You have your views and I have my own and they differ significantly.
With human potential, I believe the sky is the limit, no matter what Myers- Briggs told me
My mom came here at 12 years old as a political refugee and now she owns a small corporation (it is just starting so she only has contracts in Texas, Nevada and they are spreading to California) I know small and corporation is an oxymoron, but I don’t consider it big by any means. But she takes care of us…
By anyone’s standards my mother, who did not even know the language, probably shouldn’t own a company and have gone up in classes the way she did. She started out in what people consider the ‘ghetto’.
Yet, she is savvy, intelligent, a hard worker. More importantly she had God.
After seeing my mom, no one can tell me people have biological limits, people can’t change, people can’t obtain their dreams. I will forever go about life knowing that I can obtain all my personal dreams, because of the example my parents set for me.
Luka said, “I think that’s liberating. we’re always bombarded by the imperative, “be genuine” (and for types like mine … this imperative doesn’t make much sense: I never understood what that’s suppose to mean … it’s a very Fi thing, I guess): but at the same time, we experience those aspects of ourself which we hate, want to overcome. the question is: which part of me is fixed, and therefore the basis of who I am, and which one is accidental. and of the accidental, which one can really be changed and which one I have to cope with.
mbti helps us big time in understanding ourselves, understanding the limits of our potentials but also, and this is even more important, channelling our potentials”
–I totally get this. When we are children PBS is all like, ” Just be yourself!”
and we go about our teenage years like… ” Who is this elusive ‘self’?”
Argh, I’m sorry Luka, I get a bit carried away at times >_<
I really like where you said, "a successful pursuit of happiness is after all a pursuit of ones destiny,"
That really hits home with me because I'm really trying to find myself and trying to pursue what's truly going to make me happy instead of always just listening to what everyone else says to do…
I agree with you about how it is better than science. I really appreciate this theory for what it is. Like you say, it helps us to know ourselves and others better and reach our potentials.
I don't think all the proponents for this system believe that it is stagnant. Many of them believe people can change or grow.
Whether you do it for fun, for knowledge, or for growth it's whatever floats your boat. I personally use it for growth since I've lived in a bubble most of my life 🙂 but lately I've just had this insatiable urge to pop it…
And experience the world ^_^
I would say that your mom was destined to get great breakthroughs (which is not strange, given the great daughter she seemed to have raised). seriously, not everyone is able to do this. I thin many people get miserable because, in some success-driven societies, they’re expected to raise to the sky etc. for the vast majority of people the limit’s far beyond the sky. and that’s perfectly ok. happiness is not only professional achievement. raising a family is tough enough.
and I’m not being condescending, on the contrary: I see how this obsession with unlimited success is hurting too many people.
maybe it’s a more European perspective – the U. S.was based on this idea of opportunity, success, challenges, & achievement, the frontier & all that, and I think European societies are more rooted in a more traditional ideal of the Good life.
I agree Luka :)!! You said, “happiness is not professional achievement”
I don’t think happiness is found in material possessions either. The people I love make me happy 🙂 and so does God.
And I don’t really agree that if smart kids are given the opportunity that it would be impossible for them to reach that level of success. (I’m not saying everyone has to own companies to be successful though) My dream is to help underprivileged children and families, particularly the poor and homeless.
Oh and thank you 🙂 I think really highly of you! You are a really smart kid. And quite kind too.
I just don’t link happiness with success. I don’t think most Europeans would. and I think that’s more in line with the nature of human beings: we do have limits, and I’m not sure everyone’s supposed to live at the outer edges of those limits or constantly try to push them further. the vast majority of people don’t live like this: the question is only, whether it makes sense to have a culture that stresses this ideal
Yes, I know what you mean. I link happiness with failure myself. Nothing like a spectacular failure to get the happiness receptors a-flowing.
America is definitely a crazy and sick place. But, also, one of the coolest and most indispensable places on earth. Especially, America in its inceptional days. America is supposed to be about freedom. Top keyword for America. But, earlier Americans weren’t such dumbfucks. Or if they were, they were innovative dumbfucks. Each generation of Americans keeps getting more coddled, spoiled, insular, and narcissistic. The reason for this is because they didn’t have to do anything to inherit the fruits of what made America great.
What made America great?
Freedoms of an unparalleled order in the scope of recorded history. The geographical position of America in the world. Plentiful natural resources.
America was founded as a Declaration of Independence from privileged and monarchical rule. This country was basically founded on the words, “Fuck you” to the king of England. How awesome is that Americans? The birth of this country was founded on rebellion against tyranny. And tobacco.
And Puritans. And Tom Sawyer. And yee-haw.
Actually, if you want my opinion, I think America is the ENTP nation. So, how you like those apples Luka?
What made America great was irreverence and invention. Experimenting. Doing things on the fly.
What has it turned into? Te id. Maybe that is your answer to how the ENTP Te id manifests. Look at American foreign policy, attacking other countries under a great guise of benevolence and freedom-spreading of democracy and principles and all that hoo-ha. America justifies it by saying it is really for the best of all. To spread this freedom and equality to the four corners of the globe. We making the world a better place. Bombs away.
Better do what I say.
Lol… ^_^ you guys are funny/insightful. I enjoy reading your posts
Hey Luka, it is hard for me to relate since I’ve only ever lived here and truly experienced this culture.
My favorite culture is actually the Asian culture because they put others first, they stress kindness and politeness and they are quite open and friendly, but in a very polite way.
What ideal does your country stress? I’m interested in knowing more about other cultures. ( I don’t really like most American standards either)
comes across more as an ESTP nation to me 🙂
but seriously now, I think it’s more simple: the US understands itself as a project. it’s a country founded by people who wanted to prosper & do great things by free association. this is a strong narrative and influences social values
this discussion reminded me of David Brooks’ distinction between “resume virtues” & “eulogy virtues”. checking out the exact reference, I came across this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgweDDT6Bx0
a question for Blake (the guru): this dichotomy between Adam I & Adam II – that’s a very Fi-Te dynamic, isn’t it? I’m not saying it doesn’t apply to all people (there is indeed a universal message there), but the way he puts it, it seems to me Fi-Te types feel this divide in a more acute way.
or not. what do you guys think?
Sorry Luka, I don’t have time to watch a 48 minute video to answer this question. But, I checked out a briefer explanation of Adam I and Adam II and yes, it does seem that it is basically the Te-Fi dichotomy. Adam I is the “worldly, ambitious, and external side of our nature” and Adam II is the side of us that follows love, honor, internal values, inner consistency, and forgiveness. Yep, that’s the Te-Fi dichotomy. Te is the most ambitious and success-oriented function (not Se) and Fi being the opposite to it, is the least like this. However, being two sides of the same coin, Fi redirects this extreme ambition and need of outward honor and status into the realm of intimate relationships. Fi types are the ones that will die for love. They will sacrifice for the beloved. They are very ambitious and successful here. It is just that this realm is often hidden and between a few intimates. And Fi could care less if the world-at-large recognizes it or not. Fi actually prefers to remain hidden. Or rather it just makes the assumption that it will be unable to communicate itself in any kind of universal objective terms and so is rather like a “mute on fire”.
you should watch it the entp way: watch three 1.5 min clips & make a grand theory about it 😀
sry, i should have pointed out the part where he lays it out (min 6 – 8:30 is basically it)
but you figured it out by yourself it seems 🙂
obviously, it’s a struggle everyone faces to an extent or another, but I sense it describes the real internal drama only for the types on a Fi-Te axis, while it’s less acute (or somewhat different in its nature) for the Ti-Fe types
(the notion itself of course comes from Luther & his distinction between the internal & external man, although I suspect he meant something slightly different). btw, how do you type Luther?
p. s. don’t feel stressed by my constant questions, it’s just food for thought / discussion – answer only if you want … don’t feel the need to cater for my curiosity 🙂
No, Myers Briggs is NOT the best system. period. It is a good generic starting point, however the true depth and understanding comes when one looks into ‘Socionics.’
If you’re Extraverted Thinker you will naturally gravitate toward Myers Briggs, however, if you have Introverted Thinking, Socionics is unparalleled in it’s disection of each type and understanding it’s core nature. They mention new concepts such as ‘the type hidden agenda’ duality and relationships, quadras, and so on.
I’ve heard about it, but isn’t it essentially just a modification of the mbti? just a branch of mbti, with bits of mysticism added? 😉 that’s ok, but I’m just saying: when I say mbti, I don’t go into these sectarian divisions, I include socionics into it
but it would be great to hear more about it. hopoefully Blake will write a text on Socionics sometime in the future
I wouldn’t really consider Socionics a different system. It is still Jung’s system but taken in a different direction. The basic categories are still the same. There are the four basic functions of intuition, thinking, feeling, and sensation and the two general-attitudes of introversion and extraversion.
That being said, Socionics does introduce many more categories to relate the functions and types to each other in different ways. As Petar said, there are quadras in which the 16 types are broken down into four categories of groupings based on the Reinen dichotomies I believe. Yes, Socionics is much more categorical and theoretical and so yes, introverted thinking in basis.
I have gotten a considerable amount of insights from the way Socionics further categorizes the extant categories of the MB/Jung system. For example, the distinction between Accepting and Producing functions has been extremely helpful to me in understanding the difference between the way the dominant and auxiliary functions work, for example.
Socionics also accounts for all the cognitive functions in a type.
So, yes, it is much more interesting in many ways as an expansion of Jung’s system than the Myers-Briggs slant. And if I wasn’t trying to reach the American market, I probaly would make a direct appeal to the Socionics system. However, some people seem to have gotten it into their head that Myers-Briggs and Socionics are two radically different beasts. This is true only on a superficial level. They are talking about the same thing – Jung’s system of psychological typing. They are using the same basic categories so I can’t regard the systems as being discrete from each other. However, I might agree that Socionics has a better/superior take on Jung’s work. But, really, all this shit is the same stuff. Same basic categories. I think if you are studying Jung’s psychological types it would behoove a person to study both Myers-Briggs take on it and the Socionics take on it. And don’t forget Kiersey either. All the same system.
A different typing system might be something like the Big Five personality traits. The five categories into which people are grouped into this system are openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism. So, as you can see those are completely different categories than MB/Socionics/Jung, with the exception of the extraversion category.
So, that is what I mean when I talk about a alternate system of personality typing than the Jungian system. Both Myers-Briggs and Socionics are the Jungian system.
I’ve checked out a Socionics page & it really looks interesting. any suggestions what would be a good first (online, possibly) source to get into the basics?
I know you are talking to Petar but I don’t know if he is going to answer. Meanwhile, I know a lot about Socionics myself and I would say the best resource to introduce and get a comprehensive Wikipedian view where you can also drill down as necessary is wikisocion.org. From here you can get all the information you need on the subject. It is the best Socionics source on the web that I am aware of. If you have never checked out Socionics I highly recommend it. I think it would particularly appeal to an ENTP like yourself.
agreed, Petar, I’ve now checked out Socionics and seems really good! however, as I’ve said, my comment was aimed at the mbti/Socionics as a whole.
after having had a look, I find a typical pattern: mbti, as more American, focuses on the ego, almost completely neglecting the unconscious. it’s a typology of possibility, actualization, and growth. Socionics, so it seems, is more rooted in the classical psychoanalytic tradition, which has a much more pessimistic view on man: it has a stronger emphasis on the subconscious, and the destructive potentials of the psyche.
at least that’s my impression
hey Blake: I remember that you once wrote: “INFJs in their highest manifestations will resemble ENTPs and vice-versa”. what do you think of this paradoxitype ‘theory’?
http://www.alittlebitofpersonality.com/2013/07/paradoxitype-flip-side-of-personality.html
I don’t agree with it. The method this site is using is to take a type-code and flip every letter except the S/N preference. Plus, I don’t know if the site is talking about the same thing I do when I say that thing about “highest manifestations”. I think the term the site uses is “deep down” inside. That is more of an id function thing as far as I understand the phrase “deep down”. Remember the cellar/basement analogy?
The way I determine the highest manifestation of a type is by flipping the general-attitude (extraversion or introversion) of the dominant and switching the auxiliary and tertiary functions. For each Myers-Briggs type that will give you the type they are in their highest manifestation. At least, in my opinion. This formula also represents the most ideal type of relationships that can be formed between types. Again, in my opinion, all other things being equal.
I see … in some cases (like INFJ vs ENTP & INTJ vs ENFP) you get the same result (maybe those are the only cases, actually :)) anyway, ‘your way’ makes more sense, cause it’s clear where the complementarity works out, while this paradoxitype hypothesis is quite arbitrary (but nevertheless, it seems to make sense it some cases)
1) Typing is an escapable activity. Most of people whom I tried to open eyes at wonderful world of MB just don’t care and still exist as beings)))
2) We just type how brain works. Two people see confetti on the street. One person sees New Year’s celebration, even hear songs and laugh, then sees how confetti looses its color and becomes trash. In one moment. Another person sees rounded colored pieces of paper, knows exact distant to them etc.
I like the confetti analogy that’s interesting. And then you see confetti through a child’s eyes and… *mind blown*
Everything for them is wonderous 🙂
3) MB is like a map for me. But I know that real landscape can differ. We can use also satellite and aero graphic shots, google maps, hear observers’ describing and even crazy guide’s advices, why not?
4) For me MB works, so now it’s the best.
5) No.
‘It’s just how our brain works’ is pretty accurate
At the most basic level our brain seeks connections and categories for our sensory experiences. Once we’ve categorized something (which seems to be our most basic inclination)
from there our experience with that external stimulus (and our view) can become more well rounded, informed and educated and our narrow opinion will broaden.
That is…assuming that the person experiences such growth.
Like when I was little my view of boys was hyper, sexual, weird. Now I think they are particularly nice, rambunctious, attention seeking, smart, and the list goes on 🙂 but I have a more informed, educated and well rounded view.
I don’t think our initial judgements are always so gracious as they are simplified explanations of the world, which is more a human nature thing and ‘how our brain works’
Hey Blake, I was wondering if you could write something on ISFP. My husband is an ISFP and he can be impossible to live with. He gets angry over little things and can become very rude to people. He also can fall into a need for black and white thinking and sometimes can be very fearful of any kind of change. I would love some insight on how the INFP functions work in relation to each other. Is this just the nature of Fi.
“They have judged another person as being judgmental.” – Blake
“There are only two things in this world I hate – people that are intolerant of other people’s cultures and the Dutch.” – Austin Powers’ Fasha
Hello everyone, my name is E**** I am a supposed INTJ. (Class responds: “Hi E****.”)
I’m rather new to this site, and I have a difficult time understanding all of “this”. Typing makes me angry sometimes. Maybe the other times it helps me understand some things about myself? But mostly, it makes me angry. Typing is why I think we’re doomed as a species. We type things, label things, name things initially because we don’t know what that thing is. And then, once we have named that “thing” we’re done with it. “Oh I know all about that thing, I read about it once.” What is that thing in the water? Whoa kinda looks funny. All it does is swim around. I will name it a fish. What is that? A fish. Ohhh. Fin. (Ha.) That’s it. The story is over. What is that person? An INFJ. Ohhhh. Steer clear! Someone once asked me what my type was early on in a friendship. WTF?! So according to a test someone (some person – some human) orchestrated, this person has already decided what kind of person I am going to be. Why bother then? Why talk to me? Why get to know me, if you already do? Because you want to see my tits – that’s why. If I am indeed an INTJ all I freaking want it to connect with someone. That is not how you’re going to do it. Maybe if we put down our f***ing phones and start talking to people, we may learn something more. In a sense we may be bored with ourselves. We already know every “type” of person. Show me something new. Maybe we’re too smart. The increase of technology in our lives has sucked the natural enjoyments right from our hands. Do we even know what natural means anymore? Speaking of hands – what can you do with them other than type? Hm not much huh? When you sit in a classroom or at your desk – do you wonder where the f**k you are? Who are these people and why do I associate with them. I don’t really know them, yet I’ve already labeled them. It’s like we all know each other and we all know something is wrong, but we don’t care enough to change it. We just don’t care. We want to blend then die. We slowly kill that voice in our head that says “help me!”
“Just think what would occur in the natural world should this activity of typing (sizing up) other creatures cease. The predators would no longer know who the prey are. The prey would no longer know who the predators are. Dogs and cats would be living together. Maybe they would even try to procreate.” – Blake
Mm. You like those boxes don’t you? People are safer when they know where their place is. We cannot be compared to the animal world that closely (unless we’re f***ing or killing). But I understand the point you are trying to make here. Blake please understand that all of this wasn’t directed towards you only. (Please read that again.) I’m not quite sure what this was. But it needed to come out of me. And, this seemed like the appropriate place to do so. And I will conclude this with the same message I conveyed at the beginning: We are all hypocrites.
P.S. I like like cats.
“Typing is why I think we’re doomed as a species.”
Maybe, but, the propensity still exists. And believe it or not, much of this propensity to type things lies in the function preferences or antipathies of any given type. The way I see it, this mostly comes down to the manner in which the introverted judging functions are situated position-wise within a given type’s psychic economy. So, Ti is the most pro-typing function, especially in its Gemini guise and Fi is the most anti-typing, or what is more, Fi as a function finds it hard to believe that any such thing is possible. Each entity makes up an unrepeatable and objectively unknowable class of one. And this is where the concept of “the sacred” and “the soul” come from.
INTJ’s have Ti Gemini as a implied astrological 12th house function, which is all about being “doomed” or “undone” in the nature of whatever function partakes of the nature of this implied position.
I have noticed that INTJs tend to deprecate closed systems and categorical assertions as a matter of instinct. And it isn’t because they lack experience with them, but, rather they know this all too well. INTJs often come undone in the manner of Ti via its Geminian version. They feel “doomed” or heavily oppressed by too much of this particular function predominating.
Anyway, here I am making more judgments. But, let me also state, that I know exactly what you are talking about in the general nature of your comment. And I am very glad that you spoke up about it.
While I don’t think the propensity to type dooms us outright as a species, too much of it gets in the way of true and original perception. As a matter of fact, that is true with all the judging functions by definition, and especially when they are situated as primary ego orientations.
And your fish analogy is very apt. Once we have a name for some entity, we know longer have to look at it, and this is literally prejudice (prejudgment). It is a way of dispensing with further perception, which, I agree, has caused A LOT of problems in the world and for our species.
“Someone once asked me what my type was early on in a friendship. WTF?! So according to a test someone (some person – some human) orchestrated, this person has already decided what kind of person I am going to be. Why bother then? Why talk to me? Why get to know me, if you already do?”
Exactly. I couldn’t agree with you more. Really. Which is part of the reason I don’t tell people my type 🙂
And I see a lot of this mentality that you are speaking of in the type community and that is part of the reason I write about types anew. To challenge the dogmas that are building up around these types. And also to make fun of them.
I don’t agree that typing is “bad” by its very nature. It is more a tool that exists in the human arsenal, and to greater or lesser extents in any given person, so, let’s examine what we are doing. And of course, make fun of it. Because, there is some funny shit going on in this community. O, and peoples take themselves and their labels so seriously. Well, it looks really ridiculous to an outsider.
“Maybe if we put down our f***ing phones and start talking to people, we may learn something more.”
Absolutely.
“In a sense we may be bored with ourselves.”
Absolutely. And much of the way this system is used by its adherents is a form of entertainment. It’s kind of like playing Dungeons and Dragons or some other role playing game. Except, ostensibly, these are “real” characters and designations. The danger is of dogma and no longer looking at what a type may still be. For example, I think there is considerably more to INFJs than is commonly known about, but, as soon as I start to voice my views, I run into opposition from people that have so identified with the former accepted label and definition of what an INFJ is, they essentially don’t want any new perceptions or speculations about this type. It is “finished”. They just want to hear further reiterations and reaffirmations of what has come before. Like a dictionary definition. INFJs in particular, as a temperament, have this particular Ti bias in a unique way. No other type reacts so vehemently against a destabilizing of a definition as they do. Why? Because of a unique psychological need of the INFJ type for an ultimate and static definition of this thing called “self”.
“Who are these people and why do I associate with them. I don’t really know them, yet I’ve already labeled them. It’s like we all know each other and we all know something is wrong, but we don’t care enough to change it. We just don’t care. We want to blend then die. We slowly kill that voice in our head that says ‘help me!’ ”
I appreciate your perspective here. Thanks for sharing that.
“Mm. You like those boxes don’t you?”
Of course. Otherwise, I doubt I would be engaged in this sort of enterprise. However, I do realize the limitations of it and the misuse of it. I also realize the humor in it. Saving grace?
“Blake please understand that all of this wasn’t directed towards you only.”
I do. And even so, I do not take it personally. I’m very glad that you made this comment. You have pointed out some very relevant things. I want nothing else but to encourage discussion of these matters. This article was written with a view towards questioning and examining the validity of typing in general, the possible reasons that humans naturally type, the “natural rightness” (or not) of the Myers-Briggs categories, and so on.
“I’m not quite sure what this was. But it needed to come out of me. And, this seemed like the appropriate place to do so.”
I’m glad that it came out of you. Thank you.
“P.S. I like like cats.”
O, you like cats, but do you like them CATegorically?
I’m struggling to understand some things. But a struggle means I’m trying right? This Ti thing you speak of…first I did a Google search and it resulted a rapper…so…yea. This is a MB thing yes? Are there some books you recommend in particular that could help me understand all of the underlying characteristics/functions of people and their types (Myers-Briggs/Jungian Phycology 101)?
I do enjoy how you poke fun with the psyche of people and their types. Gosh there are so many questions in life, right? Why? Why is #1. Maybe I just get frustrated because we think we know the answer – when it’s really just the first step the problem. Hm. This will make me look at things differently. Anyways, there does seem to be a lot of offense taken on this site. Relax people. I see it as a healthy challenge. Get over yourself. Stop talking and just listen. And, top hat Blake, keep challenging them – because they need it! I’m glad you see the humor in it too. We need to be able to laugh at ourselves. Maybe I can compare it to meditation? You are outside of yourself seeing the things that come to your mind, the things that you feel, you are an objective viewer of one’s self. Sometimes that’s fucked up. Sometimes you just have to laugh. But it’s all honesty.
I like all animals – actually, you might say I like animals more than humans. I’m the weirdo that brakes for birds and causes other accidents..oopsies. Actually, I break for toads too!
I don’t see it as a box, more like lines connecting tips (tops) of a mountain, connecting lines around and through a field to get a sense of the structure etc. It’s one way to analyse things out of many.
Fi doesn’t like to type? I am an exception to that:) Infp here. I spend a great deal of time trying to type others. Almost I can’t stop! And I think typing makes sense if not misused.
So I take it you are Fe:)
Well, type away! Don’t let your temperament stop you. Hey, isn’t that typing right there? You have typed yourself into not typing.
With my assistance of course 🙂
“They will sacrifice for the beloved. ” Referring to Fi.
Is this so? I have no idea how this works in practice even as an infp. Infps do things that are not in their own interest if it is in the interest of others? I don’t understand.
What in the good name of lordfuck are you talking about? Where are you pulling that quotation from?
Because we all do it all the time anyways….
@Lunar (get the joke?),
I gave Obama so much thought I am exhausted.
I think he might be entp or istp (he does flash a lot of really large smiles though and he projects warmth)
Everyone thinks Ti/Fe axis. Check.
There is an interview where he SNAPS HIS FINGERS at Michelle (during a finish the sentence game). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdCmyHN-WXA
He shows a certain thrust I just cannot see in an isfj.
In joint interviews with Michelle he tends to high energy and kind of for the ride. He’s fun. Michelle sometimes answers for him I noticed. He seems to be a P type.
Then his famous address to David Petraeus
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIUej6VJzII
…he sounds like Jon Stewart in his “rational thinking” empathy. Just an aura. And it’s conceptual. As he says, strategy rather than tactics. To me it’s T and N, Ti and Ne or Ti and Ni.
He also has an emotional intensity here a certain aura that I view as lower Fe not auxiliary. Tertiary or inferior. Look at his eyes. They are pretty intense. I see LEAKING OUT, like he is secretly wondering ?am I coming on too strong but I can barely stop keeping on going.? He looks over at someone who is monitoring with noticable worry. Fe worry? Si worry? Not sure what’s going on.
Okay…so as a female and Obama a male…I am attracted to Se and Ne, and Obama has one of those because he is kinda cute. I swear.
I tend to mix up Ne and Se for whatever reason. I remember thinking Colbert’s Ne is Se etc. A math friend of mine is Ne and I thought she was Se. So I can’t tell if it’s Ne or Se.
Ne dominant eyes sometimes seem to be searching intensely beneath what you are saying and to me that sometimes looks like Se (with Ni behind) in its visual aspect. Bizarrely it’s what trips me up the most. They’re both kind of seductive.
Check this out https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9uDUnywMu0
Obama is oogling Hillary Clinton pretty intensely around 5:50 or so, he just lingers. That is not Si perception. I personally can’t tell what that is but he does this A LOT, it’s very characteristic of him and I bet most of anyone who read this far can tell if it’s Ne or Se. I can’t.
So….Ti is really strong and there is Ne or Se.
Istp is the one that resembles isfj the most as “archetype”. But I simply can’t tell cuz the presidency is just a role. Istp would fit the “lone/separate agent” aspect that he is criticized for but entp trying to work the system as best as possible also explains the criticism and the isfj look. Entps have Fe and Si.
An interesting take on objects in his pocket….. which looks like he views them almost as imbued with meaning. Talismanish. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4Rj3JDJc48 I believe that shows lower Fe, and possibly Si or lower Ni.
This is a guy who really relishes holding his wife’s hand in public, like he really doesn’t appear to mind. There is a certain pride there. That is also something noteworthy. But I am not sure what it means actually.
Obama conveys a certain kind of tenacity/conscientiousness. I agree with Rita that there is almost an Ni-like determination there. To me, whatever that is, it just feels much more forceful than isfj. More visionary. Yet, at the same time, we see that Obama is seen less as a visionary than a trouble shooter. So to me, that spells istp or encumbered entp trying to work the system.
As for all the blah blah that he does…. well entp would require no explanation. They can sure blab.
Istp… well Ti is right there with Si as a function that causes droning in the voice. Ti is the function that if you watch sometimes the students in the audience get a look of hate like PLEASE JUST SHUT UP ALREADY. Droning could also be an entp who cannot stray from a prepared speech (boring and not their natural mode).
Obama has that characteristically tight-lipped smile when he gets off planes or crosses the white house lawn. He seems pretty “introverted” whatever type. But courteous.
About growing up without a father he said:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-26379534
“And I was angry about it, even though I didn’t necessarily realise it at the time.” To me that might point to Fe somewhere lower down. It is a matter of fact statement about just feeling angry. Uncomplicated.
Reading “The Obamas”. It says that Barack had to learn to phone home regularly while traveling, because he didn’t know that he had to phone if there is nothing to say. Sounds like lower Fe to me.