The Need for self-labeling

[Namesmith]

Am I unusual, as an INTP, in rejecting the idea of a neat label that says, "I am an INTP, and left-handed, and a Libra" etc, to classify myself? I know that most other people in the world need to define themselves pretty specifically. Self-understanding is a critical part of human development, but while I find these kind of tools useful, I try not to fall into the trap of identifying myself too closely with the the descriptors.

Some of the traits attributed to INTPs indicate a creating worldview; not necessarily in the traditional creative arts, but in "architect" modality of creating systems. Some (OK, a lot) of those systems are theoretical, and would have trouble existing in the real world. But the basic idea is that we design systems, so it seems to me that we, of all people, would be suspicious of pre-existing labels that would limit and blind us to the possibilities.

Yes, I realize that asking these questions on a forum devoted to one type of MBTI label is ironic (and funny). And I also realize that my basing all this on descriptors of that INTP category wouldn't seem to make sense. But I don't really have a means to ask the question without type-referential terms, and (even more ironically) while there are a lot of descriptor tags I can use for reference, the Meyer-Briggs has a lot of real information in it (as opposed to astrological signs).

So is it me only, or do other INTPs find themselves rejecting labels?

 

[Nocturne]

Hello fellow Libra! I find myself creating labels for myself and later finding that I am quite absurd to have the need to belong in a certain "category".

Here is my repetitive cycle of thought:
Hm. I am an INTP
(Later) Wait. I don't know whether I am really an INTP, in fact, some of the characteristic traits don't often fit mine!
(Later) Hm. Why do I even question that? Do I really need to belong in some sort of group/designation?
(Later) Harumph. .... .... I am so silly.
(Much Later... ....) *repeat*

I have no clue whether that assisted you any more than zilch.

 

[Hadoblado]

If I meet the description, I accept the label. Acceptance however, is limited to an accurate descriptive capacity. If/when I notice a discrepancy, I'll no longer consider myself an INTP. Labels for me are fundamentally instrumental, used only when they can enhance understanding rather than limit it.

 

[SLushhYYY]

Hello fellow Libra! I find myself creating labels for myself and later finding that I am quite absurd to have the need to belong in a certain "category".

Here is my repetitive cycle of thought:
Hm. I am an INTP
(Later) Wait. I don't know whether I am really an INTP, in fact, some of the characteristic traits don't often fit mine!
(Later) Hm. Why do I even question that? Do I really need to belong in some sort of group/designation?
(Later) Harumph. .... .... I am so silly.
(Much Later... ....) *repeat*

I have no clue whether that assisted you any more than zilch.

I literally just did what you described 10 minutes ago haha

I find self labeling interesting since I've always been a fan of trying to label other people for some reason. Using my own label as a backbone allows me to compare and contrast the personalities of others.

 

[Namesmith]

I agree that labels can be useful--I just don't understand why an otherwise intelligent person would then wish to limit himself to that spot, even at the risk of misunderstanding the self.

 

[shortbuss]

I think it's very INTP of you, ironically, to question the merits of the Myer's Briggs typology, or rather the extent to which we can hope to accurately fall neatly into what is essentially a human construct derived from somewhat subjective inferences.

The truth is that typology is not by any means something that should be considered an exact science, but instead an abstract concept model that measures where we fall on a scale of extremes.

I think typology is fun, and indeed provides some real insight into similarly minded individuals, but also falls short of describing the individual difference that exist even among same type individuals.

 

[Namesmith]

I think it's very INTP of you, ironically, to question the merits of the Myer's Briggs typology, or rather the extent to which we can hope to accurately fall neatly into what is essentially a human construct derived from somewhat subjective inferences.

Yes, it is very INTP of me, damn it. Typology is fun; calcification is not.

 

[emRec]

The identity pages seem to be nothing more than a list of descriptors that happen to be true for a moderate fraction of INTPs. Any could easily be made false by societal norms, will power, or life experiences.

I like the idea of the function types though. When I was younger, I didn't understand myself or my motivations. My world before college was inhabited by people with different motivations and world-views than mine. I adopted parts of the very common Si and Se dominant value systems. Even as I entered college, I still had these personally harmful values instilled in me. I would waste will power and self-control on values that I thought were universally important, but were not integral to a rationalist lifestyle.

MBTI lets us know which people we should and shouldn't emulate. For NTs, 95% of people are using skills we don't have to reach goals we don't want. As we accept our uncommon personalities, we can more easily communicate our motivations and goals. We can give more weight than most of society to creativity, ingenuity and competency. And we can take some away form spirituality, athleticism, aesthetics, and blind loyalty.