Typological prejudices

Lark

Lark

Rothchildian Agent
MBTI
ENTJ
Enneagram
9
It has kind of been dealt with in humour before, in the not your typical personality types thread and threads like it, but I wanted to create a thread to discuss how prejudice operates in typology.

I have seen it function when it comes to typing people in the first place, people have clear dividing lines between what they imagine are the "good types" and "bad types", often politics and other sorts of divisions enter into this, if someone exhibits political or other opinions they dont like they associate them with types they do not like either and it is a two way street with the prejudice of each reinforcing the prejudice on each.

What do you think?
 
Something present in almost all types, even here. (Talk about ENTPs or GOD FUCKING FORBID ESTJs and..oooh boy.)
Even I have it (against SJs)

It's a form of prejudice, that's for sure. I think it was based on lack of knowledge, or instead, a falsified idea that knowing a type and the descriptions (Or even say, knowing Jungian Cognitive Functions and how they work) means you know EVERYTHING THERE IS about the person.

I just made that mistake. Please don't.
 
Yes, although there are type prejudices, and there have been many threads on this, the idea that people with a particular type have common traits or show trends in behavior are not false. The issue is more the absolute generalizations which seek to impose biased, judgmental, stereotypical labels to each type without recognizing variations in one type. I think it's common for us to assume or draw conclusions about people based on the feeling that a MBTI description provides a detailed portrait which is complete and would account for all aspects of a person. But we also fit ourselves to stereotypes. There's an element of self fulfilling prophecy where it's easy for us to embrace the type traits as facts about ourselves and then live it out as if it's a global truth which explains everything about us, or we see the type descriptions as laws which govern almost all aspects of our behavior. It makes life easier than considering the complexity of who we are. There's also that aspect of expecting someone to live out their type or explain their actions or behavior entirely through type and disregard any quality or trait that doesn't fit or only notice those aspects which fit our understanding of their type (confirmation bias). The fact that our world values thinking over feeling (in MBTI terms) often leads to people viewing "feelers" in less positive terms, assuming less reasoned, fair, or rational. Same with "thinkers" who are perceived as smarter, more intelligent, and objective. Also, the high valuing of "Ni" in the MBTI community often privileges the positioning of any type with Ni as being somewhat superior to those who don't have it, as being to able to see the truth of things more quickly and easily compared to types who value Ne. This favors the idea that only some people can see the truth immediately while others are doomed to figure out the truth the hard way. As long as we understand type differences in terms of rank/hierarchy and superiority, then yeah, type prejudices are bound to continue.
 
pics said:
Yes, although there are type prejudices, and there have been many threads on this, the idea that people with a particular type have common traits or show trends in behavior are not false. The issue is more the absolute generalizations which seek to impose biased, judgmental, stereotypical labels to each type without recognizing variations in one type. I think it's common for us to assume or draw conclusions about people based on the feeling that a MBTI description provides a detailed portrait which is complete and would account for all aspects of a person. But we also fit ourselves to stereotypes. There's an element of self fulfilling prophecy where it's easy for us to embrace the type traits as facts about ourselves and then live it out as if it's a global truth which explains everything about us, or we see the type descriptions as laws which govern almost all aspects of our behavior. It makes life easier than considering the complexity of who we are. There's also that aspect of expecting someone to live out their type or explain their actions or behavior entirely through type and disregard any quality or trait that doesn't fit or only notice those aspects which fit our understanding of their type (confirmation bias). The fact that our world values thinking over feeling (in MBTI terms) often leads to people viewing "feelers" in less positive terms, assuming less reasoned, fair, or rational. Same with "thinkers" who are perceived as smarter, more intelligent, and objective. Also, the high valuing of "Ni" in the MBTI community often privileges the positioning of any type with Ni as being somewhat superior to those who don't have it, as being to able to see the truth of things more quickly and easily compared to types who value Ne. This favors the idea that only some people can see the truth immediately while others are doomed to figure out the truth the hard way. As long as we understand type differences in terms of rank/hierarchy and superiority, then yeah, type prejudices are bound to continue.
Click to expand...

I agree with that, also most people dont have knowledge of what the originators considered superior or inferior, for instance Jung's own consideration that S was superior to N per se and that Sherlock Holmes is often mistaken as a NT user rather than an SJ because of prejudice surrounding those combinations, although I've maybe mentioned that all already.

I also wonder about the labelling theory and stereotyping when it comes to Jung and the Archetypes and also the relationship of the archetypical theory of the unconscious and psyche and MBTI or at the very least Jung's own typology.

There are other varieties of this kind of thinking too, the schema theory in cognitive behavioural therapy, which the more I learn about the less I like for its apparent lack of all depth what so ever and heavy borrowing from the programming model of human life and thinking/reasoning, it is highly plausible and its easy to find examples of people who fit the frames it provides but a few swallows do not make for spring time either.
 
pics said:
Yes, although there are type prejudices, and there have been many threads on this, the idea that people with a particular type have common traits or show trends in behavior are not false. The issue is more the absolute generalizations which seek to impose biased, judgmental, stereotypical labels to each type without recognizing variations in one type. I think it's common for us to assume or draw conclusions about people based on the feeling that a MBTI description provides a detailed portrait which is complete and would account for all aspects of a person. But we also fit ourselves to stereotypes. There's an element of self fulfilling prophecy where it's easy for us to embrace the type traits as facts about ourselves and then live it out as if it's a global truth which explains everything about us, or we see the type descriptions as laws which govern almost all aspects of our behavior. It makes life easier than considering the complexity of who we are. There's also that aspect of expecting someone to live out their type or explain their actions or behavior entirely through type and disregard any quality or trait that doesn't fit or only notice those aspects which fit our understanding of their type (confirmation bias). The fact that our world values thinking over feeling (in MBTI terms) often leads to people viewing "feelers" in less positive terms, assuming less reasoned, fair, or rational. Same with "thinkers" who are perceived as smarter, more intelligent, and objective. Also, the high valuing of "Ni" in the MBTI community often privileges the positioning of any type with Ni as being somewhat superior to those who don't have it, as being to able to see the truth of things more quickly and easily compared to types who value Ne. This favors the idea that only some people can see the truth immediately while others are doomed to figure out the truth the hard way. As long as we understand type differences in terms of rank/hierarchy and superiority, then yeah, type prejudices are bound to continue.
Click to expand...

I basically agree with this (and would love to note that surely the Ne based community had its own biases).

Thus, a necessary step to think that we're all in a life-long search for truth...while navigating ourselves through the world.
And that's talking about types; not individuals.
 
People are often introduced to typology without much information. The truth is as obvious as it is, is that one is not better but have a different way of processing things and are inclined to different things than the other. The types have a dominant function as well as an inferior function while another person may have the opposite, it is just a different way of viewing the same thing~ still the same.

So I have been discriminated against, a couple of times, more than three times because of my MBTI, and once on my enneagram..

one, because Hitler was an INFJ.
second, because Hitler had a trifix of 641.:m179:

haha, please, don't runaway.. He's obviously an unhealthy one:m106:
:m026:

although if there needs to be something to hold the superior position and inferior position (roughly, but I still don't like this idea.) I would judge it by how developed or healthy their own primary functions are, not what types of functions they have. But of course this should't be, there are still problems.. one can be environmental influence.

But what I believe is that everyone should be granted with equal protection service and treatment of respect. And this is just by the fact that we are human and that we have human dignity. That we're all welcomed in this earth under the same state in that we have somewhat no control of the circumstances that we'll be under.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top