MBTI Perceptions/Truths

Limit said:
Really? I find that the internet is full of people you would never had thought they were... ESPECIALLY the women.

My jaw drops EVERY TIME and sometimes I just wish for a plain Jane.
Click to expand...

True but I don't know all of those folks are intentionally being that way. Its hard to be yourself full when you can't share everything you are with someone online. Or even in person if their not close to you. So its debatable.





Eh, I don’t know of a single type I don’t like. There are PEOPLE in those types that I don’t like, and there may be SEVERAL people I dislike that type themselves as a certain type, AND I may even have preferences for certain cognitive styles; HOWEVER, I would not have any prejudice towards any type.

It’s like saying you met a group of 5 black guys that stole your bike. Do you hate all black people now? Do you have a preference against black people now? Maybe you do. I wouldn’t. There are good and shitty people regardless of race, type, sex, creed, group, etc.

I generally find Si types to be those who have hunch impressions based on types XD lol

I’m half joking ;)
Click to expand...
Nice limit , don't call me a racist please even as a joke. I'm not and if you new more about me you wouldn't need to play that card.

I can have strong dislike of a type and / or a person and still deal with them and do so nicely and with respect. I just don't enjoy their company and of course anyone in such a group can break the mold. In other words I can tolerant people or things I don't like if need be.

Further I get my frustrations out about that group. Here for example I'm more tolerant of them when I meet them or speak to them.

I'm all for folks getting along. But I'm not for burying ones feelings so deep they can't be dealt with. I may not like conflict but its better to deal with it than bury it.

In short I'm tired of people asking others to not feel anything negative about another type or person. It simple not possible. And to me this thread is an insult to what I consider a generally intelligent member base. And undermines feelings of those who fall under its statements.
 
Last edited:
Limit said:
The reason we choose to differentiate between MBTI and JCF is because MBTI is a shallow indicator of behavioral preferences that can change at any moment or any time.

Kiersey explanation of Myers Briggs:

He states that Myers was a Layman (verbatim from his book), and goes further to clarify what MBTI was supposed to mean (his interpretation of her work)

Introversion = Reserved
Extraverted = Expressive
Sensing = Observant
Intuition = Introspective
Thinking = Tough-Minded
Feeling = Friendly
Judging = Scheduling
Perceiving = Probing
Click to expand...

Firstly, I must make a correction to something I said earlier when I referred to my MBTI as intj. In fact that was my Keirsey result. I've tried to read up on MBTI but I think much of what is written doesn't quite make sense. I have read Keirsey Please Understand Me and didn't interpret his writing in the way summarized here. I am not saying the interpretation of Keirsey is wrong but it is so terse that I am left with questions.

This is how I interpreted Keirsey.

Introversion: A preference for the company of a few people at a time. It is not shyness.
Extroversion: A preference for the company of many people at a time.
This does not mean an introvert could not enjoy a large group event or that an extrovert could not enjoy hanging out with one person. Neither of these things have anything to do with a person being a good speaker.

Sensing: A preference for considering things/issues from a concrete point of view -- typified by an interest who, where, how, what, when.
Intuition: A preference for considering things/issues from a theoretical point of view showing more concern with ideas, fantasy and the non-tangible.
It does not mean that sensors cannot comprehend ideas and it does not mean intuitives are unrealistic, impractical people.

Thinking:A preference for making decisions based on rational thought. Thinkers have feelings but they tend to give more weight to logic than feeling when coming to a conclusion.
Feeling: A preference for making decisions based on feeling. Feelers do think logically but rely on their feelings more when forming a conclusion. Feelers are not irrational.
Both types are capable of coming to both logical and illogical conclusions. Neither is not necessarily less or more friendly.

This one is fuzzier in my mind.

Judging: A preference for structure which may exhibited for a concern for orderliness, timeliness and so on.
Perceiving: A preference for less structure. Which may be exhibited for a greater tolerance for the lack of orderliness or timeliness. May have a greater tolerance of spontaneity.

If a person reads Please Understand Me and goes directly to their personality profile after the test, I think you are very vulnerable to falling for the stereotype and not understand the objective is to get at how you think. Therefore, when I say I fit the profile perfectly I do not mean I am the incarnation of intj. I simply mean yes the way intjs think is the way I think. I think his chapters on how the different temperaments manifest in childhood and at the workplace do a great deal to clarify it. There seems to be a bias against the SPs and SJs in Keirsey. Perhaps, this is because his ideas are based on his observations and he is biased by his own temperament. Personally, I've found him useful in understanding others around me but not at all useful in coping with them. I like that he discourages the idea that we should try to change others into ourselves but in practice it is quite difficult. It is a great strain putting yourself in someone else's shoes constantly and the truth is you can only try to simulate their thinking.

What I am not clear about is how he differs from Jung and I would appreciate a brief explanation from anyone willing. Correction of what I wrote above is welcome.
 
[MENTION=630]Blind Bandit[/MENTION], I'm sorry you're upset with what I wrote on your board (that you ended up deleting), because I can't see in any way, shape, or form where you're coming from right now. My first sentence said this wasn't an attack on A-N-Y-O-N-E. No one. It's an observation that I see many people choose or act a way contrary to how they act in real life, and why should they? Why should anyone?

It was a simple question. If you saw more in it than was there, then I'm truly sorry.
 
[MENTION=3710]AlienSpectator[/MENTION]

I think you need to keep in mind that I stated these are Keirsey’s Interpretations of Myer’s system. Not Keirsey’s system.

I have both Please Understand Me and Please Understand Me 2. You can find what I’m referencing on page 13 or 14 of that book.

This brings me to another point:

MBTI = It’s own system based off of Jung
Keirsey’s = Keirsey’s System based off of Jung and MBTI

MBTI != Keirsey

JCF != Keirsey != MBTI

Theoretically, you could come up with a type for each of the systems.

You could be an INTP in MBTI but actually an ISTP in the Jungian System. :D

Alsoooo

MBTI != MBTI2 !=MBTI3

I don’t really have that much information on MBTI3, but it seems like they are progressing more towards original Jungian concepts and further away from the original Myers crap.
 
arbygil said:
@Blind Bandit, I'm sorry you're upset with what I wrote on your board (that you ended up deleting), because I can't see in any way, shape, or form where you're coming from right now. My first sentence said this wasn't an attack on A-N-Y-O-N-E. No one. It's an observation that I see many people choose or act a way contrary to how they act in real life, and why should they? Why should anyone?

It was a simple question. If you saw more in it than was there, then I'm truly sorry.
Click to expand...

Arby, I deleted the message because I didn't want to argue with you about it. As I didn't think I would gain anything by arguing with you. I wasn't mad at you but what you where implying.

I understand your need to keep the peace but your also at the same time pushing the idea that people aren't being true to themselves and later that by feeling strongly in negative way about another type their wrong.


As for your question I don't have problem with it. But at the same time I can't help but feel your talking down to those who have real problems.

I've dealt with people who truly are what I would consider trolls and hide themselves and use their masks to hurt others. If you meant people who are out to cause drama and just mess with people then yes we agree. And these people stuck and get no sympathy from me.

Otherwise I find it harder to agree with you. For example many people as your pointed out push an idea of what they want to be or who they think they should be And do so, but they may not mean to hurt others. They may hurt others in the process or they may not. But I feel for these folks as they can't or don't know how to be who they are. I'm not happy about it but I can at least understand a little.

About the type wars issues I also as I said have a problem with the idea of lets all be happy and get along with each other regardless of the conflict that is causing problems.

So in other words I guess I don't see the point expect as to tell people to be truth to themselves and point that people should be nice no matter what.
 
AlienSpectator said:
Ok. Thanks for the clarification because I just wasn't clear on that.



Yes, I understand that. How does Keirsey differ from Jung? My layman impression is that Jung's approach is more theoretical while Keirsey's more clinical but I'd like finer details than that. You see if the differences were clearer it would improve communication.
Click to expand...

I think you would be a great asset to the INFJ community or ANY community if you purchase and finish the book I recommended to you and/or read the link(s) I’ve given you on the topic.

I don’t necessarily subscribe to Keirsey’s ideas; however, I have read them to ensure that I am knowledgeable on the system.

It’s in the same idea that I read the Bible and the Qur’an (and hopefully other religious texts.) Not because I believe in either, but so that I know when someone’s full of crap (also because I’m interested and they are both beautiful texts in their own right). :D
 
Blind Bandit said:
Arby, I deleted the message because I didn't want to argue with you about it. As I didn't think I would gain anything by arguing with you. I wasn't mad at you but what you where implying.

I understand your need to keep the peace but your also at the same time pushing the idea that people aren't being true to themselves and later that by feeling strongly in negative way about another type their wrong.


As for your question I don't have problem with it. But at the same time I can't help but feel your talking down to those who have real problems.

I've dealt with people who truly are what I would consider trolls and hide themselves and use their masks to hurt others. If you meant people who are out to cause drama and just mess with people then yes we agree. And these people stuck and get no sympathy from me.

Otherwise I find it harder to agree with you. For example many people as your pointed out push an idea of what they want to be or who they think they should be And do so, but they may not mean to hurt others. They may hurt others in the process or they may not. But I feel for these folks as they can't or don't know how to be who they are. I'm not happy about it but I can at least understand a little.

About the type wars issues I also as I said have a problem with the idea of lets all be happy and get along with each other regardless of the conflict that is causing problems.

So in other words I guess I don't see the point expect as to tell people to be truth to themselves and point that people should be nice no matter what.
Click to expand...

I could not disagree with this more. This is not what arbygil is saying at all. Not even in the slighest. Your putting words into her mouth, and limit's mouth as well by making all of these assumtions that there is some kind of intention behind this to make an "excuse" for bad beahavior.

What she is saying, is that one should listen to what others have to say about their type, and take to heart. That's how you learn. Typing isn't an individual process. From what I have seen, you have to learn a lot from others as well to figure out who you are. That's the nature of the human condition. Further, one should never use typing as an excuse to dislike someone. Further, she is not implying that you should be nice to someone no matter what. If you disagree with something, then you can disagree. However, don't base it off assumptions on someone elses personality type. That is a form of prejustice because you are not taking the time to get to know the individual.

All this is, is a path to self discovery. Treat others the way you and they want to be treated, and never use personality as some sort of an excuse or cop out.
 
IndigoSensor said:
I could not disagree with this more. This is not what arbygil is saying at all. Not even in the slighest. Your putting words into her mouth, and limit's mouth as well by making all of these assumtions that there is some kind of intention behind this to make an "excuse" for bad beahavior.

What she is saying, is that one should listen to what others have to say about their type, and take to heart. That's how you learn. Typing isn't an individual process. From what I have seen, you have to learn a lot from others as well to figure out who you are. That's the nature of the human condition. Further, one should never use typing as an excuse to dislike someone. Further, she is not implying that you should be nice to someone no matter what. If you disagree with something, then you can disagree. However, don't base it off assumptions on someone elses personality type. That is a form of prejustice because you are not taking the time to get to know the individual.

All this is, is a path to self discovery. Treat others the way you and they want to be treated, and never use personality as some sort of an excuse or cop out.
Click to expand...

With all do respect indy how often do we agree? Sometimes its often and other times its not. And weather you or anyone else disagrees with me if fine. but I really don't care. I feel what I said is valid.

As for typing and the for all the rest I agree to an extent. But I also find others typing is not always as good as we could hope.
 
Blind Bandit said:
With all do respect indy how often do we agree? Sometimes its often and other times its not. And weather you or anyone else disagrees with me if fine. but I really don't care. I feel what I said is valid.

As for typing and the for all the rest I agree to an extent. But I also find others typing is not always as good as we could hope.
Click to expand...

With all do respect BB, I do agree that you
 
Arsal said:
Type is not based on perception, it's based on core motivations which inherit the perceptions. A person can be INFJ and appear just about any other type, to himself and to others, but what grounds him as an INFJ is his cognitive function hierarchy, which function is most stimulating/natural to use, etc. This is difficult to lie about to anyone. Although there's the case when sometimes a person correctly identifies their source of stimulation, but the mistype comes from a poor understanding of cognitive functions (e.g. someone identifying their source of stimulation as "Ni" when it is actually "Si".)

I do not know others' perception of me. I'm sure some people would type me as ISTP, some INFP, some INTJ, but this does not change my core motivations, i.e., even though I exhibit ISTP behavior at times, I am not stimulated by Ti or Se, I am drained by both functions. On the other hand, my "perception" of myself tells me I'm INFP, because I often exhibit behavior that is similar to other INFPs or INTPs, but the main source of stimulation for me is Ni and secondarily, Fe, and this is how I know I am INFJ*.


*This is a perception in itself, of course, and can be deceived, but there's enough evidence in my behavior (both "real" and "fake") to claim this is true for myself and others who are familiar with MBTI.

Complexes, fear of being excluded from the group, insecurity, etc.

Something that might be marginally related to this:

Source (It's Socionics, but it's pretty close, if not exactly it.)
Click to expand...

That's very, very on point, and I like this. This is more about what I wanted to explore. Not the idea that some people are "faking" it and are being false. More of, if we see ourselves as one type, but someone/a group calls us another type, have we considered the possibility?

I actually like [MENTION=3156]saru[/MENTION]'s reasoning of who he is. He took the time to do it, anyway. Whether or not I agree with him is immaterial; he chose to rationalize and reason it out - he didn't take a test and assume, "yep! That's me!" He took the time to think about it and process it.

I think it's wise to use more than one avenue to discover our "type" whatever it is. It took me years of searching to come upon my type, and I'm at a place where I'm comfortable of discussing different aspects. But I never rely on one source, and my thought when writing this OP was, what methods do we use to come up with type? And can someone else know us better than we know ourselves? MBTI gurus do this all the time; they use behavior to show type, because behavior supposedly indicates MBTI. BUT, I also think the Jungian method is more true, in that your brain automatically goes through preferences on its own, without our interference. But I don't think it's possible for us as human beings to watch our brain go through it's processes (not without a machine).

So in short, this was never a discussion about who's type is better, or if there is a better type, or if people are dumb/not dumb for typing themselves, etc. It was all about how we consider and divine our type - and if we let others type us, or if we know ourselves enough to type ourselves.
 
arbygil said:
But here's my dilemma; would you consider MBTI to be based on your perceptions on who you are, or would you consider MBTI the classification of how others perceive you?
Click to expand...

arbygil said:
Is MBTI your perception of yourself, or is MBTI the perception of others who know you?
Click to expand...

My answer: both.

I had two thoughts regarding this question.

1) Cognitive functions are introverted and extroverted. So my sense is that the introverted functions would be best known and understood by the person as there would be only limited information about this function to the outside world. Extroverted functions have to do with engagement with the outer world and so others may have much more insight into this portion of the functions. (type guru's correct my understanding as necessary)

2) In general, I am very loathe to type anyone. I often have instincts or note something and if the opportunity comes up I might share my perspective for their consideration, but I think ultimate decisions about type are best left to the individual. That doesn't mean that I don't think an individual can mistype themselves, but rather that it is a process the individual needs to own. I don't think it does any good to force a perception of type on to someone else both because that outside perspective is limited and could be lacking vital information needed for accuracy, but also because if a person doesn't see it for themselves they don't really own it.

I think about the Johari and Nohari windows. I know certain things about myself that no one else really knows. I'm just more intimate with my own experience than anyone else is. However there are some things that other people see in me that I'm blind to. I try to be open when someone shares their perspective with me because it is an opportunity to incorporate more into what I know about myself. I also try to be sensitive about intruding on others self-perceptions. I am honest with myself about the limits of what I have to offer another. I do not know those intimate places that only they know. What I can share is what I see, my perceptions, and perhaps in that offer them something they didn't see about themselves before. I also allow that conclusions that would seem to make sense based on what I see, no longer make sense when combined with what the other person knows about themselves.

In the end, I very much respect this as an individual process. I also respect the insights that others can contribute to the process, but I see them as best contained to insights offered for consideration.
 
tovlo said:
My answer: both.

I had two thoughts regarding this question.

1) Cognitive functions are introverted and extroverted. So my sense is that the introverted functions would be best known and understood by the person as there would be only limited information about this function to the outside world. Extroverted functions have to do with engagement with the outer world and so others may have much more insight into this portion of the functions. (type guru's correct my understanding as necessary)

2) In general, I am very loathe to type anyone. I often have instincts or note something and if the opportunity comes up I might share my perspective for their consideration, but I think ultimate decisions about type are best left to the individual. That doesn't mean that I don't think an individual can mistype themselves, but rather that it is a process the individual needs to own. I don't think it does any good to force a perception of type on to someone else both because that outside perspective is limited and could be lacking vital information needed for accuracy, but also because if a person doesn't see it for themselves they don't really own it.

I think about the Johari and Nohari windows. I know certain things about myself that no one else really knows. I'm just more intimate with my own experience than anyone else is. However there are some things that other people see in me that I'm blind to. I try to be open when someone shares their perspective with me because it is an opportunity to incorporate more into what I know about myself. I also try to be sensitive about intruding on others self-perceptions. I am honest with myself about the limits of what I have to offer another. I do not know those intimate places that only they know. What I can share is what I see, my perceptions, and perhaps in that offer them something they didn't see about themselves before. I also allow that conclusions that would seem to make sense based on what I see, no longer make sense when combined with what the other person knows about themselves.

In the end, I very much respect this as an individual process. I also respect the insights that others can contribute to the process, but I see them as best contained to insights offered for consideration.
Click to expand...


Well said and I really must agree.
 
I'm more outgoing and opinionated online.. if you could call it outgoing... And yeah, it is easier to be more communicative here where I don't really care if I am judged because there are very little real world repercussions.
I speak my mind more readily online because this is a discussion forum.. I don't think everywhere I go people want to hear my opinion or criticism... I'm really not interested in engaging in those interactions with others in my day to day life. I'd much rather blend into the background and get along.. (barring something horrific is happening).

it's not always appropriate so I hold back openly debating or disagreeing with someone in person... whereas here that post button is an invitation for me to unleash my mental spew!

I had confused mbti as how others see me... But I have begun to think differently about it now..based on evaluating my own inner motivations.
There are different roles we play in different environments... which can be confusing if you are trying to determine who you are based on these adaptations.
Not everyone gets to see the inner person... and it's not so easy to tap into that once you become consumed with the other masks one wears.

I don't think anyone.. in my daily life or here on this forum is ever going to know me better than I can.
There are some things that are just untranslatable.

 
Last edited:
tovlo said:
My answer: both.

I had two thoughts regarding this question.

1) Cognitive functions are introverted and extroverted. So my sense is that the introverted functions would be best known and understood by the person as there would be only limited information about this function to the outside world. Extroverted functions have to do with engagement with the outer world and so others may have much more insight into this portion of the functions. (type guru's correct my understanding as necessary)

2) In general, I am very loathe to type anyone. I often have instincts or note something and if the opportunity comes up I might share my perspective for their consideration, but I think ultimate decisions about type are best left to the individual. That doesn't mean that I don't think an individual can mistype themselves, but rather that it is a process the individual needs to own. I don't think it does any good to force a perception of type on to someone else both because that outside perspective is limited and could be lacking vital information needed for accuracy, but also because if a person doesn't see it for themselves they don't really own it.

I think about the Johari and Nohari windows. I know certain things about myself that no one else really knows. I'm just more intimate with my own experience than anyone else is. However there are some things that other people see in me that I'm blind to. I try to be open when someone shares their perspective with me because it is an opportunity to incorporate more into what I know about myself. I also try to be sensitive about intruding on others self-perceptions. I am honest with myself about the limits of what I have to offer another. I do not know those intimate places that only they know. What I can share is what I see, my perceptions, and perhaps in that offer them something they didn't see about themselves before. I also allow that conclusions that would seem to make sense based on what I see, no longer make sense when combined with what the other person knows about themselves.

In the end, I very much respect this as an individual process. I also respect the insights that others can contribute to the process, but I see them as best contained to insights offered for consideration.
Click to expand...

And that is exactly what I meant - thank you for taking it that direction, [MENTION=7]tovlo[/MENTION] (and sorry. Unfortunately it didn't come across this way apparently, but this is the direction I was headed). In the end it has to be a process, but it has to be a process we struggle with - we never know one another until we're tested, and the Johari/Nohari window can help us too (thanks for bringing that up as well, [MENTION=7]tovlo[/MENTION]).

It takes time to know ourselves, and sometimes others can help us perceive the truth - especially if they are seeing things about us that we may be missing. We can't take on face value that X is right and Y is right; it takes time. But others can help us divine who we are, and we can also struggle to understand this as well.

But I don't believe just accepting one test or accepting one opinion out of many will get that "aha" moment we need to be who we are.

Anyway. Obviously things were taken out of context. I'm stepping out for a while, and letting others converse.
 
tovlo said:
My answer: both.

I had two thoughts regarding this question.

1) Cognitive functions are introverted and extroverted. So my sense is that the introverted functions would be best known and understood by the person as there would be only limited information about this function to the outside world. Extroverted functions have to do with engagement with the outer world and so others may have much more insight into this portion of the functions. (type guru's correct my understanding as necessary)
Click to expand...

Introverted functions are harder. I think it really gets the hardest when it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top