I posit this: if you go deep enough into MBTI, it will hurt you.
The reason is simple: if you face some bad result in life, you are better off believing that you did a mistake, and that you should change yourself, rather than believing it was because of inherent character trait of yours – especially if your only proof of this trait's existence comes from some dopey theory made by Jung.
Most of the personal traits I am proud of, and the best things I have done, came from modelling people wildly different than me. Outgoing people, people with a practical mindset and people with self-discipline. These people are the antitheses to the typical INTP-profile. There have been times when I did things in light of "being an INTP". What usually resulted was stagnation, laziness and deterioration of my social skills.
Sure, it feels nice the first time one takes the test and reads the profile. But one should ask oneself what the utility is of buying into the idea that it should ultimately dictate your evolution as a person as well. To me, the most vile activity is to take pride in possessing all the quirks of one's MBTI profile.
Some people are looking to model life as one big MBTI-world. Especially career choices. I view that as an attempt at an easy way out – to find some little comfortable hole to die in. It is starting with the question: how can I make my life the easiest? Instead of: how can I make my life the most interesting.
No.. ultimately I'll let my sense of aesthetics dictate my life choices. I'll fit my temperament to my aspirations, not the other way around.
I do feel the same way and that ultimately success comes from consistent failure instead of guidelining and blindly following a theoretical system that spectulates genetical expression made by an INTJ who cheated on his wife, yes the ideal matches aren't very ideal at all, they tell more about your weaknesses than your "needs".
Most of the personal traits I am proud of, and the best things I have done, came from modelling people wildly different than me. Outgoing people, people with a practical mindset and people with self-discipline. These people are the antitheses to the typical INTP-profile. There have been times when I did things in light of "being an INTP". What usually resulted was stagnation, laziness and deterioration of my social skills.
As an example: one of the most unexpected things during my marriage to an ISFJ, I learned firsthand about the power of perseverance in accomplishing a goal. My natural response is to high-concept it, to not exert energy until I come up a winning strategy, and then implement it. For the few things I attempted, I was generally successful... but there were so FEW things I attempted (because I couldn't find the perfect strategy or "the context/situation wasn't right") that I rarely accomplished much in the big scheme of things.
Meanwhile, I watch this person who just has a goal in mind, and attacks the wall over and over and over again without much finesse... and.... lo and behold... while there are some failures there, there are also some unexpected successes. Either the obstacles fell over, or eroded somehow, or somehow a connection was made with someone else during the pursuit of the goal that allowed it to be circumvented. I remember feeling dumbstruck seeing that in action. Strategically, they wasted a lot of energy and it wasn't elegant; but... it was more successful than what I was doing.
Anyway, my assessment of the MBTI is that it's useful to give yourself a general framework of understanding yourself and others, but then you discard it and move ahead. It's like the ladder you use to climb towards enlightenment that you leave behind as you move up towards success since it got you to a new level, and staying there means you won't climb any higher.
I think systematic error should be separated from problems of the item thing model idea. mbti is just model or tactic or scheme. It's like defining music by genera it's just tool to aid in communication.
For example I was at the bar with friends and I was describing a different friend and I said he was esfj and the person I was talking to said. "O so he is a paramedic" and I said yes well he went to school for that. The fact that he could make that prediction is remarkable!
I agree with what your saying but it's a people problem that should be talked of seperate from errors of the model.
You could use the model to help you just as much as hurt you. It's like a hammer you can hit you finger or hit the nail.
The reason is simple: if you face some bad result in life, you are better off believing that you did a mistake, and that you should change yourself, rather than believing it was because of inherent character trait of yours – especially if your only proof of this trait's existence comes from some dopey theory made by Jung.
This is utter non-sense. I feel only cowards feel the need to control their "destiny". It is the weak minded who need to feel like they have control over things when in reality, no one really has any more control over what they will do that a plant reaching for sunlight.
As for getting hurt by the MBTI, I have a resonating experience. It's just for a little too long that I attributed my fear of people to introversion. The being different to intuition. The inability to manage my time to my lack of judging. The time I took in self-denial, (making my faults righteous because of a personality type), I could have gotten to the real cause and done something about it .
The time I took in self-denial, (making my faults righteous because of a personality type), I could have gotten to the real cause and done something about it .
For starters...i think I used to make genuine effort to overcome laziness and procrastination, but now it feels like mbti feeds my self indulgence. it serves as a convenient excuse not to change
For me, typology in general has been a huge help when entering situations that require me to meet new people. In travel/work/'business' I think any advantage you can get in terms of knowing an unfamiliar person with is a good thing. Usually I can type someone fairly quickly if they're expressing themselves enough and then I have a good idea of how to steer the conversation with my responses.
But I agree that once you know on the surface about a person's tendencies, it takes more to better understand them. Also I agree, MBTI should probably be discarded for the most part once you learn your type. Exploring your interests and finding ways to give to other people (giving time) is a much better way to figure yourself out and grow in a 'positive' sense.
The reason is simple: if you face some bad result in life, you are better off believing that you did a mistake, and that you should change yourself, rather than believing it was because of inherent character trait of yours – especially if your only proof of this trait's existence comes from some dopey theory made by Jung.
I generally agree with you ... during my marriage to an ISFJ, I learned firsthand about the power of perseverance in accomplishing a goal. My natural response is to high-concept it, to not exert energy until I come up a winning strategy, and then implement it ... Anyway, my assessment of the MBTI is that it's useful to give yourself a general framework of understanding yourself and others, but then you discard it and move ahead.
Good example. Not just knowing but deeply studying MBTI - the reading materials, taking examples from personal, public and anecdotal real life and reasoning through how A (Type) leads to B (Behavior) is the key to 'right living'. Knowing I'm an INTP, seeing all the examples from my life of the high-concept approach (I like that term) I know that it's a weakness of mine. I call it the Greek Tragedy problem; your strength becomes your weakness.
Sensing dominants have it in that they (especially if extroverted) never plumb their stack. Their unconscious intuition is down there, fundamentally telling them 'crazy things' and that the world isn't as it appears. If left unchecked they become conspiracy theorists or religious or join political parties.
Intuitives do it by being the "liberal loser". They sit around, think, talk and never getting off their lazy asses, instead spending their time hypothesizing on internet forums, doomed to live a life of little consequence.
Intuitives do it by being the "liberal loser". They sit around, think, talk and never getting off their lazy asses, instead spending their time hypothesizing on internet forums, doomed to live a life of little consequence.
I always took MBTI as a journey through the psyche. You start at one point and make your way to the other. Your primary functions are your home base where you equip up, assess strategies, and prepare to go on an expedition. Once you fell ready you must go on a journey.
Also, I feel like OP is seeing a case of the horrible admixture known as static mindset mixed with MBTI. Weaknesses are justified away instead of being seen as learning and growth experiences. Personally, It just looks like another face of a static mindset and the attempt to achieve a growth mindset.
Our powers of rationalization versus deep discernment coupled with accountability is the culprit. A person who has exhibited many instances of lazy behavior without knowing they are an INTP/MBTI will have rationalized their laziness in another fashion. In fact, I can use even scientifically rigorous theory to rationalize my behavior ie, "I'm just following evolutionary dictates by spreading my seed." I'm unwilling to hold myself accountable for the responsibility of parenthood.
Our powers of rationalization versus deep discernment coupled with accountability is the culprit. A person who has exhibited many instances of lazy behavior without knowing they are an INTP/MBTI will have rationalized their laziness in another fashion. In fact, I can use even scientifically rigorous theory to rationalize my behavior ie, "I'm just following evolutionary dictates by spreading my seed." I'm unwilling to hold myself accountable for the responsibility of parenthood.
Almost everything is harmful when taken to an extreme.
Too little food leads to anorexia, which can lead to the heart having too little energy to keep pumping, which can lead to heart attacks and death. Too much food leads to obesity, which can lead to the heart working too hard to keep working at such a pressure, which can lead to heart attacks and death.
The reason is simple: if you face some bad result in life, you are better off believing that you did a mistake, and that you should change yourself, rather than believing it was because of inherent character trait of yours – especially if your only proof of this trait's existence comes from some dopey theory made by Jung.
Almost everything is harmful when taken to an extreme.
It's important to be adaptable. But it's even more important to be consistent. One can easily become so convinced that it's one's own fault, that one keeps changing oneself because of a single bad result. Then what one did yesterday, that was based on the way one did things yesterday, is often contradicted by what one did today that was based on the way one does things now. Then what one gains by one, one loses by the other, and all of one's time and effort is wasted. One also then becomes quite erratic in one's behaviour, and appears inconsistent, unreliable and irrational, and then no-one trusts anything one says or does. So by all means, be adaptable. But before one goes changing oneself, it's important to stop, take a pause, and evaluate what would be the best way to change things to improve one's results in the future.
Sometimes, one comes to the conclusion that one already has the better method, and one should treat the bad result as just a statistical result, that is bound to happen sometime.
Sometimes, one comes to the conclusion that one should change oneself, but that it is more beneficial to change a different thing than the problem facing one.
E.G. if one has written a program but clients had a problem using the system, often, it's because the clients were not using the system correctly. If one adjusts the system to counter for alternative methods of using the system, then one has to change the system every time that someone uses the system in an unexpected way, and that could be thousands of ways. Each time one changes the code, the new code needs to be debugged for errors. Knock-on effects often result. So to make sure that the system still works, one has to re-check the entire system from scratch, which can take a lot of time. In addition, every time one finds a bug and fixes it, there can be new knock-on effects. So every time one fixes a bug that was found during system testing, the system has to be re-checked from scratch. This then puts the system back weeks, for every time that a client does something that they weren't supposed to. So every few weeks, the client's system is unusable for weeks. The client can't work if the system is unusable. They could lose thousands of dollars during that time. The client would often rather be told to do things the way the system was designed to in the first place, because then the client won't have to lose thousands of dollars. It's also going to save one's bosses hundreds of weeks of losses in wages and lost profits. It's also better for the programmer, because by keeping on changing his code, his code keeps having bugs, and keeps getting a reputation of never having ever finished anything, and never having made anything reliable. So it's better for everyone.
Sometimes, one comes to the conclusion that the most optimal solution is for other people to change, such as a boss that is being completely unrealistic about deadlines. It costs him even more than it costs you.
Imitating others is more characteristic of SPs and NJs. This has advantages and disadvantages. Simple mimicry is extremely quick and thus extremely efficient, and thus provides almost immediate gains. The disadvantages are that mimicry can only mimic the principle well, in the same circumstances that it was observed. Any deviation from the original context, and the principle will evolve and transform to work differently, even in the opposite way sometimes. So the farther current contexts are from the original observed context, the more likely that it will produce a greater negative cost. If applied too widely, then the Normal distribution is most likely, and one gets a cancellation of most of one's gains. If one seeks to gain a lot, then one can only apply it in the original context, and nowhere else, limiting one's gains to only the number of times the original observed context occurs in one's lifetime.
Ne can mimic also. But usually, Ne is more context-less. Rather than considering how to be like another person, INTPs consider the principle in general. Once they have understood how it works in general, they then apply it everywhere. This has advantages and disadvantages. Understanding a principle that others take for granted, takes a lot of time, effort and experimentation. The advantage is that because the principle is thoroughly understood in a context-less way, it is understood with all the caveats that define how the principle needs to be transformed in each situation. So after the time taken to thoroughly understand the principle, which can take months, the principle can then be applied successfull in every situation, producing gains of thousands to millions of times in one's lifetime, each at least as much of a gain as the gain in the original situation.
1) Outgoing: INTPs are Ps. We can stay in. But when others want us to go out, we can also go out with the.
Practical: We're T-doms, like ENTJs, who are also T-doms. It's been remarked before that the dichotomies empirically correlate to independent dimensions, because the functions of N, S, T and F are independent of their i/e attitude. So being a T-dom, tends to mean that one uses the same reasoning as any other T-dom. INTPs and ENTJs think alike. Practicality and logic are two sides of the same coin. Once an INTP realises this, it's not long before the subconscious starts applying it in all situations, and suddenly, those who are extremely practical see that the INTP is also developing practicality at an extremely fast rate.
Self-discipline: INTPs like to focus on their ideas, for days, weeks, even months, with zero let-up. They'll happily program all night and all day, if something interests them. They also tend to be interested in things that most people do not consider entertaining. So entertainment doesn't seem to be their thing. Rather, the ideas that they tend to be interested in, are those things that could really open things up and change the entire world for the better. It's so automatic in them to prefer to focus on such tasks, that it doesn't even occur to them that they might be interested in more than merely enjoyment. It's only as they get older, and they have enough experiences and knowledge of others' experiences to compare their experiences to others, that they realise just how differently their brains automatically prioritise their interests, even without thinking. Committing oneself to tasks that will better humanity, for every free minute of the day, for days, weeks, even months, with no let-up, is pretty damn disciplined if you ask me. The self-discipline of an INTP was always there, which is why INTPs seem to be so lacking in response to motivations that require it. It just had to be activated. INTP discipline is automatically activated by their subconscious Si & Fe, but only based on their understanding of why it is necessary and how to use it. Once they have understood the how, what and why of self-discipline in a context-less way, it becomes automatic in their lives in general. But, unlike INTJs, it is the subconscious that drives it. So they still appear consciously laid-back, while subconsciously being highly self-motivated.
There have been times when I did things in light of "being an INTP". What usually resulted was stagnation, laziness and deterioration of my social skills.
Utilising one's strengths, increases the gain from one's strengths, without need of developing new skills, which takes a lot of time, and without mistakes, as the strengths that one uses all the time, are the ones that one has the most experience in. One can also avoid having to overcome one's weaknesses, simply by planning out one's life in a slightly different way so those problems are not a problem. E.G. an impractical INTP could work on becoming practical, so that after years of practice, he can do the regular jobs that others do at $40,000 a year. But he'll probably never be as good as those who do it naturally, and get better each year with experience. Or, he could go into motherboard design, and earn over $100,000 a year, doing things that he enjoys, and not having to work hard at all. Because people with the kinds of extreme dedication to accuracy and mental effort as extremely rare in real life, such people are highly sought after. Bosses will go out of their way to keep such people. Google changing their entire corporate structure to make it a place where geeks can do whatever they like, is only a tiny example of how far people are willing to go for such people. So they can easily be guaranteed job security for life, on a very high salary. Women love intelligent guys, and guys who have a high salary. But they prefer job security most of all, because it guarantees their financial security, and thus that the mortgage and bills are paid, and they never have to worry about becoming poor. Having to look after a man, is what they expect they'll have to do, even for practical guys. So it's a huge gain for women, for very little cost. Having all those qualities, makes one seem like one of the most eligible bachelors on the planet, especially in today's world where job security is rare.
However, not all INTPs actually bother to make the effort to utilise their strengths and adapt their life so they don't have to address their weaknesses. A lot simply say "Oh, well. I might as well accept myself as incompetent". Then they give up trying anything. It's a cop out, because they never tried to do anything in light of being an INTP at all. All they did was to conclude that INTJs were superior and INTPs inferior and give INTJs everything that was already offered to INTPs on a plate.
Sure, it feels nice the first time one takes the test and reads the profile. But one should ask oneself what the utility is of buying into the idea that it should ultimately dictate your evolution as a person as well. To me, the most vile activity is to take pride in possessing all the quirks of one's MBTI profile.
Some people are looking to model life as one big MBTI-world. Especially career choices. I view that as an attempt at an easy way out – to find some little comfortable hole to die in. It is starting with the question: how can I make my life the easiest? Instead of: how can I make my life the most interesting.
INTJs normally tailor their temperament to their aspirations. When they learn the value of being sociable, they learn to be sociable when needed. But it's "when needed". Their conscious evaluates when and how to be social. So how successful their socialising makes them, depends on how much they understand of human socio-dynamics, and how much of their conscious effort they put into social evaluations, which cuts into the time they can spend thinking about the problems they enjoy and are naturally good at.
As INTPs learn a deeper understanding of reality, they usually automatically adapt their core selves to match their new understanding of reality. When they learn why being sociable is valued by humanity, their subconscious Fe automatically adapts them to become appropriately sociable in all situations. They are friendly to those who are outgoing, amiable to those who want a bit of distance, and civil to those who are gruff. Thus, they rarely make the faux pas of upsetting a violent person by being too sociable or not enough. They don't need to evaluate situations consciously to know when and how to be sociable. They can think about complex problems and still be well-liked by all, simply by letting their subconscious Fe do the work for them, which it does all the time automatically.
There have been times when I did things in light of "being an INTP". What usually resulted was stagnation, laziness and deterioration of my social skills.
My take: if you decide to give control of your entire life over to an external force (in this case, a tool), then yes, it will control you, and can hurt you. The idea is to recognize the tool as just that, rather than a box in which you squeeze yourself. (Besides, INTPs aren't veey good at being controlled or bossed around anyway. XD)
This site uses cookies to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies. We have no personalisation nor analytics --- especially no Google.
XD)