What's the point in personality theory and stereotypes?

[scorpiomover]

I tend to find that MBTI and Jungian typology are treated as if they refer to causes of common stereotypes. Like I see people say that because someone works out regularly, that they must be a Sensor. Or that if they aren't misanthrope shut-ins, that they must be an extrovert. Or that if they like science, then they must be an NT. Or that Sensors just do as they are told, and are pretty stupid.

I'm pretty confused here. If personality type is just about basic common stereotypes, then it's not really much use to me. I already know about people who like science, and people who don't.Their personalities and characteristics stand out a mile in every direction. Same for emotional/rational, confident/non-confident, and social/anti-social characteristics. It's like saying "oooh, look. That person has black skin. They probably don't burn in the sun."

Moreover, none of that seems to help me very much in understanding them, or in communicating with them. I've worked with people who are identical according to the stereotypes, but who clearly think, talk and understand things, completely differently. It's like 2 completely different alien races who have the same stereotypical behaviours, but who speak entirely different languages.

So, is personality just down to stereotypes? Are all people who stay in a lot and go on the internet, like science, and pretty unemotional, and who are a little lacking in confidence, basically the same? Because they sure seem to talk differently. Also, doesn't that make typology rather trite and un-useful? What's the point in learning something that everyone knows already?

On the other hand, if there is a difference between people of the same stereotypical behaviours, that tells me how they think, understand and communicate, that could help me in volumes to get on much better with other people and to get things done much more efficiently.

But if that's what personality typing is all about, then I feel like I'm not able to discuss it with people online, because far too many posters revert to judging their type and others' types by the stereotypes.

So, what's it all about? And if it isn't about stereotypes, what can we do to ensure that we don't end up shoe-horning MBTI and Jungian typology into stereotypes that confuse and muddle the type out of any possible use that we might gain from personality typing?

 

[own8ge]

Interesting video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXi_ldNRNtM

 

[Red myst]

I don't think Jung's work was ever intended to be synthesized the way it has been. I think it was his methodology he developed in order to analyze his clients. People came to him because they were seeking help. In order to help, he needed to understand how they perceived the word and how they went about making their way in the world. I think he meant for it to be use as a one on one one basis to get to know someone over an extended period of time. I only find it useful as a tool during self reflection and when sorting out interactions with the people I only know the most intimately.
Along with the same gripes mentioned in the OP about MBTI, I would also like to add that it seems a lot of people seem to want to use personality type to excuse or justify their behavior or attitude. This is I think is just as equally detrimental to serious discussion of type and function as stereotyping.
Oh, and by the way, I do find it tempting and have played with stereotyping. And sometimes it seems unavoidable when discussing things sometimes.

 

[scenefinale]

I tend to find that MBTI and Jungian typology are treated as if they refer to causes of common stereotypes. Like I see people say that because someone works out regularly, that they must be a Sensor. Or that if they aren't misanthrope shut-ins, that they must be an extrovert. Or that if they like science, then they must be an NT. Or that Sensors just do as they are told, and are pretty stupid.

I'm pretty confused here. If personality type is just about basic common stereotypes, then it's not really much use to me. I already know about people who like science, and people who don't.Their personalities and characteristics stand out a mile in every direction. Same for emotional/rational, confident/non-confident, and social/anti-social characteristics. It's like saying "oooh, look. That person has black skin. They probably don't burn in the sun."

Moreover, none of that seems to help me very much in understanding them, or in communicating with them. I've worked with people who are identical according to the stereotypes, but who clearly think, talk and understand things, completely differently. It's like 2 completely different alien races who have the same stereotypical behaviours, but who speak entirely different languages.

So, is personality just down to stereotypes? Are all people who stay in a lot and go on the internet, like science, and pretty unemotional, and who are a little lacking in confidence, basically the same? Because they sure seem to talk differently. Also, doesn't that make typology rather trite and un-useful? What's the point in learning something that everyone knows already?

On the other hand, if there is a difference between people of the same stereotypical behaviours, that tells me how they think, understand and communicate, that could help me in volumes to get on much better with other people and to get things done much more efficiently.

But if that's what personality typing is all about, then I feel like I'm not able to discuss it with people online, because far too many posters revert to judging their type and others' types by the stereotypes.

So, what's it all about? And if it isn't about stereotypes, what can we do to ensure that we don't end up shoe-horning MBTI and Jungian typology into stereotypes that confuse and muddle the type out of any possible use that we might gain from personality typing?

As I see it, It's about patterns in behavior. If you're to analyze/learn anything, you start by identifying patterns and giving them names/relatable descriptions. Most people talk about symptomatic things which tend to be associated, however.

 

[QuickTwist]

@own8ge, that was great. Can we have another?

 

[RadicalDreamer31]

What's the point in personality theory and stereotypes?

Because you so desperately want to prove that you are on the right of the curve.

 

[Hadoblado]

The stereotypes seem real, but only in an un-proven statistical sense. It makes sense that feelers rationals go into fields and lifestyles that both require and reward their preferred functions, but that doesn't mean that's the way it happens every time. Far too many SFs make the mistake of assuming type and stereotype synonymous, when in reality the effects are likely rather weak if existent at all.

 

[Trebuchet]

You've been on this forum for quite a while, Scorpiomover. Did something happen to make you wonder if MBTI is worthwhile, or did you just get tired of the same old threads and misconceptions?

It's like saying "oooh, look. That person has black skin. They probably don't burn in the sun."

Yeah, that is actually a mistake. Any skin can burn. Sunscreen and hats are really important for everyone.

So, is personality just down to stereotypes?

God, I hope not! Because the stereotype people have of me isn't very flattering, or accurate. That would be totally depressing.

Because they sure seem to talk differently. Also, doesn't that make typology rather trite and un-useful? What's the point in learning something that everyone knows already?

Agreed: stereotypes that everyone knows (and don't hold up under the faintest scrutiny) are trite and un-useful. Therefore, there must be another point. For me, it is getting along with people and being myself. Knowing that someone is ESFJ, for example, lets me be more patient with them, and present myself in a way that makes more sense to them. Knowing I am INTP means that I can ignore the people who stereotype me, because I know what an INTP is really like from the inside and they obviously don't. Many of the stereotypes are just bad conclusions resulting from the No True Scotsman fallacy and laziness.

So, what's it all about? And if it isn't about stereotypes, what can we do to ensure that we don't end up shoe-horning MBTI and Jungian typology into stereotypes that confuse and muddle the type out of any possible use that we might gain from personality typing?

We can't ensure that people don't pigeonhole, shoe-horn, or stereotype others. That is what people do, especially on the Internet. (And not any one personality type, either. We all do this.)

But we can use MBTI for our own personal happiness, find a few people who are interested in a real discussion, and pretty much ignore the rest.

MBTI is useful to me when it describes needs and motivations, not behaviors or outcomes. INTPs need downtime - it doesn't mean we are always bad at social interaction. ISFJs need appreciation - it doesn't make them doormats. ESTPs need excitement - it doesn't make them unreliable. How we manage our needs and what we do when they are met differs for everyone.

But really, you know all this. What is your need, and is this thread meeting it?

 

[redbaron]

MBTI is useful to me when it describes needs and motivations, not behaviors or outcomes. INTPs need downtime - it doesn't mean we are always bad at social interaction. ISFJs need appreciation - it doesn't make them doormats. ESTPs need excitement - it doesn't make them unreliable. How we manage our needs and what we do when they are met differs for everyone.

I think this adequately captures the point of personality theories in general. It always strikes me as misguided when people say, "this type behaves like this and that one doesn't". Using MBTI in such a way renders it closer to being a means for people to validate their own ideas about people, rather than to actually understand people.

Behaviours and outcomes are the least relevant factor in determining type, yet unfortunately they tend to be the very first thing many people look at because it's the most apparent.

For someone who sees things from this point of view, there's not much point to personality theories in regards to the way they're utilised and treated in the overwhelming majority of places.

 

[Reluctantly]

MBTI is useful to me when it describes needs and motivations, not behaviors or outcomes. INTPs need downtime - it doesn't mean we are always bad at social interaction. ISFJs need appreciation - it doesn't make them doormats. ESTPs need excitement - it doesn't make them unreliable. How we manage our needs and what we do when they are met differs for everyone.

Hey, wait, can you do all the types? I've never thought about it like this and am curious what you'd say for all of them.

 

[Just Me]

The behavior angle is interesting because, as others have noted, it's often the first thing you see in yourself when reading descriptions of the various types. As for me, it caused some confusion as to my type because I know other introverts, particularly an ISTJ coworker, who shared many of the same stereotypical INTP behaviors. So, while I saw myself in those examples, I also saw general introverted traits also. What solidified things for me was looking into the functions and recognizing them as ways I perceive/process information. I could also see where some similar behaviors would follow from different functions in some other personality types. Generally, the stereotypical behaviors are the easiest and quickest way to categorize even though they aren't particularly accurate.

 

[scorpiomover]

Are they particularly well read? No. Do they endeavor to become enlightened learned people? No, in their eyes they already are, being able to preach science and bash religion is enough to them, that's where their world ends. It's all they think about.

So, if people who always follow what they are taught, are explicitly told to become well-read, and are explicitly told to NOT preach science, and explicitly told to NOT bash religion, then they will NOT follow what they are taught, and do the opposite anyway?

So people who follow what they are taught, do NOT follow what they are taught, and people who do NOT follow what they are taught, are really people who follow what they are taught?

Which is it? Do people who follow what they are taught, follow what they are taught or not?

Hmmm...,I guess that as I asked you to answer my question, if followed what you were asked, and answered the question, then you did NOT follow what you were asked, and did NOT answer the question, and if you did NOT follow what you were asked, and did NOT answer the question, then you DID follow what you were asked, and DID answer the question.

So then, you did NOT answer the question, and you DID answer the question, with the exact same answer, without ever veering off the topic.

Hmmmm...which is it? Did you answer the question, or did you not answer the question?

If these people become numerous and start getting active irl it wont be pretty.

SJs are the largest group in analysis of MBTI frequencies. In this[/quote] set of stats alone, ISFJs, ISTJs, ESFJs, and ESTJs have the highest frequencies of any type, in that order. Their collected frequency is 37%-53% of the population, attributed to just one quarter of all the types.

Ss normally seriously outnumber the Ns by at least 3 to 1. Js are normally at least as numerous as Ps. They are always going to be one of the most numerous groups, and normally are the most numerous group.

Any country with a majority of people who value science and who reject religion, would have a majority of SJs who value science and who reject religion. I believe that Sweden is normally held up as an example of a strongly atheist country.

 

[QuickTwist]

Hey Scorpio, I just noticed your sig. I guess that solves where I saw it -which I could not remember at the time. I just knew it made sense. V(^_^)

Really though, it is a good topic to talk about. Stereotypes run rampant throughout societies both present and past. But I think there is a difference between stereotypes and psychological categories. The predominant difference being the way people think and it is judged solely on that; it has nothing to do with race, economic background or culture. Surely there all all kinds of thinkers in all these categories. Arguing this is like arguing that the sky is orange. I don't doubt that the MBTI is a soft science, but it is something that has proven its merit to invest in for many, many people. If it was just some hairbrained idea then it would never get off the ground. But because it is based on observation and analysis it more than carries its weight. Same can be said for other ways to categorize peoples minds like the DISC, Big 5, and Enneagram. It primary means is to give people an awareness of themselves and the people around them so they can gauge both who and what they are. Heck you could even say that it breaks down the ideology of stereotypes because it allows you to get an idea of who the person is, the real person is. Great minds have seem that there is a difference in one person to the other and what makes them tick. With self-discovery and awareness in mind these methods do create and end that is quite humble in its approach yet powerful enough to gain insight into at least all the minds who chose to give it a chance.

 

[Perfectly Normal Beast]

If it was just some hairbrained idea then it would never get off the ground.

er actually it seems to me that that happens frequently.

#humanity

 

[QuickTwist]

Bad example.

 

[Just Me]

Arguing this is like arguing that the sky is orange.

Sunrise...

 

[QuickTwist]

Technically you're wrong but whatever.

 

[OmoInisa]

Hey Scorpio, I just noticed your sig. I guess that solves where I saw it -which I could not remember at the time. I just knew it made sense. V(^_^)

Really though, it is a good topic to talk about. Stereotypes run rampant throughout societies both present and past. But I think there is a difference between stereotypes and psychological categories. The predominant difference being the way people think and it is judged solely on that; it has nothing to do with race, economic background or culture. Surely there all all kinds of thinkers in all these categories. Arguing this is like arguing that the sky is orange. I don't doubt that the MBTI is a soft science, but it is something that has proven its merit to invest in for many, many people. If it was just some hairbrained idea then it would never get off the ground. But because it is based on observation and analysis it more than carries its weight. Same can be said for other ways to categorize peoples minds like the DISC, Big 5, and Enneagram. It primary means is to give people an awareness of themselves and the people around them so they can gauge both who and what they are. Heck you could even say that it breaks down the ideology of stereotypes because it allows you to get an idea of who the person is, the real person is. Great minds have seem that there is a difference in one person to the other and what makes them tick. With self-discovery and awareness in mind these methods do create and end that is quite humble in its approach yet powerful enough to gain insight into at least all the minds who chose to give it a chance.

Indeed.... Indeed.

 

[cheese]

I think you're bumping up against the wall separating MBTI from cognitive function theory. MBTI and their dichotomies (like P/J) are much more reliant on observable behaviour and thus more prone to stereotypes. CF focuses on the internal math (the myriad relationships and resultant cognitive forces/tension between functions) producing the behaviour, and is more useful for understanding. I ran into this wall a little while back and thought much the same - what's the point of having a bunch of different labels for a bunch of stereotypes we already know in popular culture? Especially if the labels and the ideas behind them don't seem to have a solid grip on *why* these people are the way they are/do what they do.

I came to the conclusion that (internet) MBTI is basically a separate cataloguing system to CF theory, which has a lot more explanatory power about the inner workings of people. (Continuing down the typology path into this area is worthwhile if you're looking for interesting ideas regarding people's cognitive drives - though you're familiar with the territory already iirc.) You could be 2 different types under the somewhat more primitive (internet) MBTI and CF theory.

In terms of making sure typology discussion stays useful - which I think was your main gripe - I suppose the biggest help would be having everyone justify each behavioural stereotype (like "he works out regularly, must be a Sensor") they bring up/show how they derive from those particular functions. Better yet, show why they're far less likely to derive from the functions the person in question supposedly doesn't possess. MBTI and CF are related, but MBTI as it's generally practised online is pretty much useless beyond a little bit of people-boxing fun.

 

[HsinHsin]

Stereotype seems to be what one uses to make things fit to a system. And a system like MBTI is like an interpretation of a individual, but it is only an interpretation.

Someone I know once said that psychological terms such as INTP, is "pigeonhole thinking".
What makes he say that?
If a test determines one's type, what if the test is not accurate? Then the result will not be accurate.
First, someone invented this system, and thinks this system tells truth about an individual. And since the truth is told by/from the system, there could be an error in the result if there is an error in the system. Therefore the truth is not itself but an image; the test result is not the whole truth but the representation of the truth.
But if this system does not represent the truth, so does the other science. Because science is presentations of objectivity by experiments/tests, except for MBTI, a human being can lie, or just be ignorant about herself, thus the test result might not be accurate. But suppose a person did not lie when she took the test, and her result works for her, would this still be pigeonhole thinking? Yes it would, because there might still be an un-awared error in the system even if the result is effective.
What is justification for telling the truth about an individual?

 

[QuickTwist]

@Cheese, You make a good point and I don't want out outright disagree with you, however, What you are saying and what I am saying is much akin to the difference between Buddha and Gandhi. Let me explain. What I am saying has much more to do with what is going on inside while what you are saying is based much more on the external. So while it may appear at first glance that we are talking about different things, we really are not; it just happens that it is a different way of looking at it.

 

[TheManBeyond]

I think you're bumping up against the wall separating MBTI from cognitive function theory. MBTI and their dichotomies (like P/J) are much more reliant on observable behaviour and thus more prone to stereotypes. CF focuses on the internal math (the myriad relationships and resultant cognitive forces/tension between functions) producing the behaviour, and is more useful for understanding. I ran into this wall a little while back and thought much the same - what's the point of having a bunch of different labels for a bunch of stereotypes we already know in popular culture? Especially if the labels and the ideas behind them don't seem to have a solid grip on *why* these people are the way they are/do what they do.

I came to the conclusion that (internet) MBTI is basically a separate cataloguing system to CF theory, which has a lot more explanatory power about the inner workings of people. (Continuing down the typology path into this area is worthwhile if you're looking for interesting ideas regarding people's cognitive drives - though you're familiar with the territory already iirc.) You could be 2 different types under the somewhat more primitive (internet) MBTI and CF theory.

In terms of making sure typology discussion stays useful - which I think was your main gripe - I suppose the biggest help would be having everyone justify each behavioural stereotype (like "he works out regularly, must be a Sensor") they bring up/show how they derive from those particular functions. Better yet, show why they're far less likely to derive from the functions the person in question supposedly doesn't possess. MBTI and CF are related, but MBTI as it's generally practised online is pretty much useless beyond a little bit of people-boxing fun.

?¿?¿ I might not have understood you well. A good MBTI understanding needs a good comprehension of the cogitive functions, if both happens for people or not doesn't matter.
Stereotypes have to exist cuz if not the act of making 16 types is pretty much absurd, obviously this doesn't means you have to use them as the coffins to put the corpses cuz they are not dead yet. IMO going really deep on cog functions can be sometimes a pain in the ass as it seems to be no end and thus no agreement. The easiest way is to keep it simple and kinda superficial, use colgate.

 

[Trebuchet]

Hey, wait, can you do all the types? I've never thought about it like this and am curious what you'd say for all of them.

You know, I was really flattered to be asked, since I am rarely asked for my take on personality types. And I tried, I really did. But I couldn't do it.

I don't have any trouble with one thing each type tends to need, but I don't really know what all the stereotypes are. And of course each type has more than one need. I mentioned downtime for INTPs, but we definitely have other needs, and how we prioritize them will change from person to person and from day to day.

So in the end, I decided people are just too complicated for me to summarize easily. Sorry. But I gleefully invite others to do so if they feel like it.