Ginny
Shrrg
- MBTI
- INFJ IEI
- Enneagram
- 1w2 sx/sp
It was indeed a mistake I made when I was a rookie. Now I'm hopefully merely rusty in academic speech. I am however less invested in arguing or being right. I know less than I know to not know, if that makes sense, and open to discussing within different terms, so long as the terms are made clear.My personal pet peeve is mostly when people take one of the functions-based systems and adhere to the rules too blindly -- after all, there are lots of competing theories for a reason. At the least, one has to justify why one takes the interpretation one does with a lot of seriousness or simply refrain from making too strong a claim.
This includes when newcomers are told (somewhat snobbily by the somewhat more initiated) of course the auxiliary is in the opposite attitude to the dominant, you're making a rookie mistake!
While that may be the theory one adheres to, it's a matter of raging discussion and ought to be presented as such.
That I favour a specific MBTI-model is deviating from the topic at hand, but I felt it contextually relevant to illustrate my own position so whatever information is deemed worthy of consuming can be taken from it.
I feel you are inclusive of the different models at hand, without bias (or with very little) towards either, whereas my quest is to find an inclusive model for all the models. It's probably an extension of the E1, trying to find "the one right answer" when there are already several answers, all correct in their own right. It's most likely a fruitless endeavour, but it's on my mind whenever I am confronted with it.
I might have overstated my dislike for the dichotomies-model in both MBTI (and the Big 5 for that matter) for the sake of brevity. In certain situations I just don't find it as helpful, and it's an expression of my frustration at the limitations presented. I am sorry for hitting a sensitive spot.
I do think we are deviating quite a bit from the topic at hand, which I tried to get at by reintroducing a connection to Enneagram.
Does the prior analysis indicate that there is a mistype somewhere due to statistical likelihood of type occurrence? Like I said before, I'm not quite ready to rule anything out.