INFJs mistyped as INTP, INTJ, ISTP

[nightstreaking]

The INTP section of that article described me almost perfectly. Uncanny! What's your type, nighty?

-Duxwing

Then you may be interested in reading this: http://www.scribd.com/doc/87644442/Please-Understand-Me-2#page=171

I'm an INTP (though often overwhelmed by Fe, so I seem maniacal and ditsy rather than calm).

 

[Duxwing]

Then you may be interested in reading this: http://www.scribd.com/doc/87644442/Please-Understand-Me-2#page=171

*cowers 'neath the shadow of the towering tome* Egads!

I'm an INTP (though often overwhelmed by Fe, so I seem maniacal and ditsy rather than calm).

Maniacal and ditsy, eh? That fits your username perfectly. . But perhaps you're an Pe-Dom, and the mania and ditziness are just products of your ever-bubbly and dominant Pe rather than an INTP's constant Fe grip?

-Duxwing

 

[Obsidian]

@BloodCountess88

INTP and ENFP are extremely different, in my opinion. You oughta be able to figure out which you are.

 

[Obsidian]

I didn't say majority of people and I don't think Pod'Lair has asserted that as well.

Then why did you argue against Architect, who said sensors were in the majority?

And what is this "entire populations online"...?

http://podlair.com/images/Typology Town.pdf

This link was ALREADY POSTED above. Try looking before you analyze.

 

[Lyra]

Well the Pod'Lair typed me Nyy'xai.

This is extremely interesting to me, it correlates ENFP. I mentioned in another thread that my husband is an ENFP, fits the personality type completely. One of his main complaints is that I am too isolated and "cold" emotionally.


I was diagnosed with a schizoid personality disorder after going through a long period of severe isolation that, well, had strong negative effects in my life. I went 3 months without speaking to my family and having any desire to do so. As I age, it gets more apparent, but overall I am able to function.

As I said before, I am very animated when I speak now in order to teach my children facial expressions, and on that I have a strong structured routine/schedule. I also use my hands, a lot, and often sign when I am speaking because I use sign language at home (my kids were non verbal for a very long time). Which apparently took as a strong sign of being ENFP.

However they basically said something about my voice. It was drone like and unenthusiastic. Which well, I am as enthusiastic as I am extroverted.

To be fair it would be useful for you to post the video to the thread if you want to conduct a public critique of a read. Self-assessment, along with misunderstanding of what cue-signifiers mean, is notoriously unreliable.

 

[Lyra]

Obsidian:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Words
I didn't say majority of people and I don't think Pod'Lair has asserted that as well.

Then why did you argue against Architect, who said sensors were in the majority?

You don't know basic maths, do you? There's no need for either of two groups which combine to make up 100% of the population to be a majority.

Your obsession seems to be clouding basic logical coherency

 

[Words]

Erhm, Keirsey's system is actually pretty great at describing temperament and identifying differences (speech, time orientation, etc.). The linked article employs a similar approach.

Out of all the popular typologists out there, I find Keirsey to be the most idiotic. I've read Please Understand Me and his other book and he changes his stance from treating temperament as natural to a product of environment. He doesn't even consider the overwhelming significance of cognitive functions. Basically, he takes MBTI, which is originally patterned from the functions, thinking it can be isolated from the functions.

Well the Pod'Lair typed me Nyy'xai.

This is extremely interesting to me, it correlates ENFP. I mentioned in another thread that my husband is an ENFP, fits the personality type completely. One of his main complaints is that I am too isolated and "cold" emotionally.


I was diagnosed with a schizoid personality disorder after going through a long period of severe isolation that, well, had strong negative effects in my life. I went 3 months without speaking to my family and having any desire to do so. As I age, it gets more apparent, but overall I am able to function.

As I said before, I am very animated when I speak now in order to teach my children facial expressions, and on that I have a strong structured routine/schedule. I also use my hands, a lot, and often sign when I am speaking because I use sign language at home (my kids were non verbal for a very long time). Which apparently took as a strong sign of being ENFP.

However they basically said something about my voice. It was drone like and unenthusiastic. Which well, I am as enthusiastic as I am extroverted.

Have you heard of loops? In the same way that INTPs and INFJs can enter TiSi and NiTi respectively, ENFPs enter NeTe. It doesn't explain the manifested introversion though. Maybe it's the non-visible nature of Ne. I don't know. But yeah, it lacks explanatory power.

Then why did you argue against Architect, who said sensors were in the majority?

Because his estimation of N population is lower than mine. Podlair's statement seems to be 50/50. I think it's more like 40% iNtuitives and Architect probably believes it to be less. What is your estimation? What percentage of the population?

http://podlair.com/images/Typology Town.pdf

This link was ALREADY POSTED above. Try looking before you analyze.

and this is suppose to be "entire populations online"? This will be my 3rd time repeating this. MBTI is an iNtuitive thing. People who are willing enough to spend their time making youtube videos about MBTI have to have great interest in it, which means that it makes sense for them to be iNtuitives. 100%...? I don't know...but it still makes sense in theory.

 

[Montresor]

and this is suppose to be "entire populations online"? This will be my 3rd time repeating this. MBTI is an iNtuitive thing. People who are willing enough to spend their time making youtube videos about MBTI have to have great interest in it, which means that it makes sense for them to be iNtuitives. 100%...? I don't know...but it still makes sense in theory.

NO. IT DOESN'T.

It doesn't "make sense" in "theory" that YouTube/MBTI enthusiasts are intuitives. No matter how you slice it.

Sorry but A does not lead to B in this case.

In fact, I believe the opposite would be more likely to hold true. But I won't argue too much about it because, guess what, IT DOESN'T make sense.

 

[Obsidian]

It doesn't make sense for 100% of any large group to be intuitives. And that is especially the case when some of them specifically typed themselves as sensors. If anything, given the bad rap that sensors often receive, I would expect some sensors to mistype themselves as intuitives.

Because his estimation of N population is lower than mine. Podlair's statement seems to be 50/50. I think it's more like 40% iNtuitives and Architect probably believes it to be less. What is your estimation? What percentage of the population?

40% seems alright to me. I don't really know. I just have always heard that the majority of people test as sensors, and that seems like it is probably correct.

 

[Impact Calculus]

It doesn't make sense for 100% of any large group to be intuitives.

We are not claiming that typology town is 100% interpretive. Among the footage that we happened to come across on youtube, they were all interpretives. It certainly wouldn't make sense for everybody to be interpretive, but the ones that we came across were. If you're asking if this is statistically significant, then I would agree. But there is no inherent connection between our list happening to demonstrate that typology town has an extremely large number of interpretives, and us just deciding to assort people as said mojos.

 

[Duxwing]

You don't know basic maths, do you? There's no need for either of two groups which combine to make up 100% of the population to be a majority.

Your obsession seems to be clouding basic logical coherency

Unless some people use neither S nor N, or use them precisely equally, then the number of Sensors (people who use S functions more than they use N functions) and the number of iNtuitives (people who use N functions more than they use S functions) must equal the total population because, by the definition of the test, some people will use S more than N, and and others N more than S.

-Duxwing

 

[Brontosaurie]

Duxwing: you just stated that the population equals the population. why?

 

[wonkavision]

Well the Pod'Lair typed me Nyy'xai.

This is extremely interesting to me, it correlates ENFP. I mentioned in another thread that my husband is an ENFP, fits the personality type completely. One of his main complaints is that I am too isolated and "cold" emotionally.


I was diagnosed with a schizoid personality disorder after going through a long period of severe isolation that, well, had strong negative effects in my life. I went 3 months without speaking to my family and having any desire to do so. As I age, it gets more apparent, but overall I am able to function.

As I said before, I am very animated when I speak now in order to teach my children facial expressions, and on that I have a strong structured routine/schedule. I also use my hands, a lot, and often sign when I am speaking because I use sign language at home (my kids were non verbal for a very long time). Which apparently took as a strong sign of being ENFP.

However they basically said something about my voice. It was drone like and unenthusiastic. Which well, I am as enthusiastic as I am extroverted.

oh, so you don't think it was accurate, then?

would you mind posting the video?

 

[Lyra]

Unless some people use neither S nor N, or use them precisely equally, then the number of Sensors (people who use S functions more than they use N functions) and the number of iNtuitives (people who use N functions more than they use S functions) must equal the total population because, by the definition of the test, some people will use S more than N, and and others N more than S.

-Duxwing

Uh... right? All of which was obviously taken for granted in what I was saying. Your point?

I said:

There's no need for either of two groups which combine to make up 100% of the population to be a majority.

I.e. No need for either literals or interpretives to be a majority, mathematically speaking. I.e. THEY COULD BOTH BE 50%

50+50=100. 100=Total Population.

INTPf basic logic fail trainwreck continues

 

[BloodCountess88]

@BloodCountess88

INTP and ENFP are extremely different, in my opinion. You oughta be able to figure out which you are.

I agree. My family/only friend is really into MBTI. My friend was extremely puzzled, she often tested INTJ however after doing the in depth testing she came out as an ISFJ which was her correct typing. ENFP doesn't really fit my lifestyle preference which is very isolated. And my husband tested ENFP (fits him), he's very much different than me. His emotional involvement when telling a story makes my kids with autism cry, they like monotone voices and very calm detached people.

To be fair it would be useful for you to post the video to the thread if you want to conduct a public critique of a read. Self-assessment, along with misunderstanding of what cue-signifiers mean, is notoriously unreliable.

oh, so you don't think it was accurate, then?

would you mind posting the video?

I deleted the video. I'm not very comfortable with posting it of me talking since I am addressing specific personal issues (I had really nothing else to talk about it) and well, the fact that I don't have any videos on my youtube channels because I am uncomfortable with that. I didn't think it was very accurate after the input of people who actually know me, which wouldn't be "self assessment". These are people IRL. I think that while self assessment is flawed (that's the reason why I submitted my video in the first place) I don't really think that watching someone's mannerisms (dancing eyes, hand gesturing, tone of voice) is really enough to "type" someone. Which such criteria individuals with autism would be mistyped, as they often don't have many facial expressions and have a move in an animated manner (due to lack of gross motor control). So I mean, my stance in this matter (as cowardly as it might appear) is really that both systems are susceptible to mistyping. I'm glad Pod'Lair took the time to analyze me, it was very interesting. Specially the part about my drone like voice and dancing eyes, which I've been researching.

I think that might have a lot to do with the fact that English is my 4th language, and I lack fluency (the drone like voice) or just that I am not a very enthusiastic person. Either way, this was really interesting.

I might also say that the e-mail I got sent said ENFP was some kind of equivalent, not the actual translation. I found that their reading was very different that the ENFP personality description.

 

[Lyra]

I don't really think that watching someone's mannerisms (dancing eyes, hand gesturing, tone of voice) is really enough to "type" someone. Which such criteria individuals with autism would be mistyped, as they often don't have many facial expressions and have a move in an animated manner (due to lack of gross motor control).

That point about autism is actually very interesting, and I want to look into it now that you've raised it. That said IME Visual Reading is more than sufficient when you learn to read the macro patterns which are mirrored and enacted through micro scales. Essentially, the cognitive configuration phenomenon animates our entire being and tempo and way of moving and expressing, and an adequate understanding of it very much lends itself to, and is refined by, honing on signals on the level of visual reading.

IME the only 'typology' or similar with any real explanatory power has been visual reading. That said I still think that a much more conservative approach to how much of a person configuration 'explains' is needed. I think that it is one operant and pivotal factor, but not necessarily one in terms of which others, or even identity, need to be framed.

For example, is somebody with both many/most characteristic 'Nyy'xai' energy patterns and also 'autistic' patterns a 'Nyy'xai with autism'? I'm not so sure. And I've found individual character and physiology and myriad other factors to be as vital to explaining and predicting behaviour as config.

What recognising config does do is give you a very good and accurate framework within/against which to place observations. It sets a basic standard of an incredibly coherent and useful pattern in motion which the rest of your thinking then kind of needs to measure up to-- if you're thinking right. It's basics-- basics that everybody's been missing. But... I'm not sure I've seen any linking up of those basics with a wider vision of the fullness of humanity and its many variations and patternings and fullness. IMO Pod'Lair's model acknowledges this variance at least in principle, which is a great start perhaps, but I haven't seen that filled out, and I'm also not sure I'd want to see it 'filled out' as some kind of after-thought to config. I'd want to see factors balanced and related with more nuance and complexity and less identity-based pre-determination of outcome. The five gears system is great in many ways, and the 5th ('how does this person hit me? etc.) gear kind of allows for this (the 4th as well-- 'riffs'/'playing-style'-- perhaps), but it pre-determines through the very fact of being called the '5 gears of Mojo Reading'. I..e What's your Mojo.

IMO @Auburn etc. fail completely in this regard, not even integrating an avenue for expansion in the way other models do, and completely succumbing to naive causally attributive and mechanistic thinking that would shame anybody versed in basic philosophical problems and cognitive biases.

 

[Montresor]

What if there is an odd number of people in the world? WHAT THEN?

 

[wonkavision]

That point about autism is actually very interesting, and I want to look into it now that you've raised it. That said IME Visual Reading is more than sufficient when you learn to read the macro patterns which are mirrored and enacted through micro scales. Essentially, the cognitive configuration phenomenon animates our entire being and tempo and way of moving and expressing, and an adequate understanding of it very much lends itself to, and is refined by, honing on signals on the level of visual reading.

IME the only 'typology' or similar with any real explanatory power has been visual reading. That said I still think that a much more conservative approach to how much of a person configuration 'explains' is needed. I think that it is one operant and pivotal factor, but not necessarily one in terms of which others, or even identity, need to be framed.

For example, is somebody with both many/most characteristic 'Nyy'xai' energy patterns and also 'autistic' patterns a 'Nyy'xai with autism'? I'm not so sure. And I've found individual character and physiology and myriad other factors to be as vital to explaining and predicting behaviour as config.

What recognising config does do is give you a very good and accurate framework within/against which to place observations. It sets a basic standard of an incredibly coherent and useful pattern in motion which the rest of your thinking then kind of needs to measure up to-- if you're thinking right. It's basics-- basics that everybody's been missing. But... I'm not sure I've seen any linking up of those basics with a wider vision of the fullness of humanity and its many variations and patternings and fullness. IMO Pod'Lair's model acknowledges this variance at least in principle, which is a great start perhaps, but I haven't seen that filled out, and I'm also not sure I'd want to see it 'filled out' as some kind of after-thought to config. I'd want to see factors balanced and related with more nuance and complexity and less identity-based pre-determination of outcome. The five gears system is great in many ways, and the 5th ('how does this person hit me? etc.) gear kind of allows for this (the 4th as well-- 'riffs'/'playing-style'-- perhaps), but it pre-determines through the very fact of being called the '5 gears of Mojo Reading'. I..e What's your Mojo.

IMO @Auburn etc. fail completely in this regard, not even integrating an avenue for expansion in the way other models do, and completely succumbing to naive causally attributive and mechanistic thinking that would shame anybody versed in basic philosophical problems and cognitive biases.

Excellent post. thank you for this.

 

[Reluctantly]

What if there is an odd number of people in the world? WHAT THEN?

The pod people will murder the fifth and correct God's error.

That point about autism is actually very interesting, and I want to look into it now that you've raised it. That said IME Visual Reading is more than sufficient when you learn to read the macro patterns which are mirrored and enacted through micro scales. Essentially, the cognitive configuration phenomenon animates our entire being and tempo and way of moving and expressing, and an adequate understanding of it very much lends itself to, and is refined by, honing on signals on the level of visual reading.

As from what I gathered on typology boards, autistic people aren't people, so typology doesn't apply because they have no type or something.
MYSTERY SOLVED.

 

[BloodCountess88]

Excellent post. thank you for this.

Yes, thank you

IME the only 'typology' or similar with any real explanatory power has been visual reading. That said I still think that a much more conservative approach to how much of a person configuration 'explains' is needed. I think that it is one operant and pivotal factor, but not necessarily one in terms of which others, or even identity, need to be framed.

For example, is somebody with both many/most characteristic 'Nyy'xai' energy patterns and also 'autistic' patterns a 'Nyy'xai with autism'? I'm not so sure. And I've found individual character and physiology and myriad other factors to be as vital to explaining and predicting behaviour as config.

I find this too. Specially when the autism is so tightly laced with behavioral patterns independent from cognition.

What recognising config does do is give you a very good and accurate framework within/against which to place observations. It sets a basic standard of an incredibly coherent and useful pattern in motion which the rest of your thinking then kind of needs to measure up to-- if you're thinking right. It's basics-- basics that everybody's been missing. But... I'm not sure I've seen any linking up of those basics with a wider vision of the fullness of humanity and its many variations and patternings and fullness. IMO Pod'Lair's model acknowledges this variance at least in principle, which is a great start perhaps, but I haven't seen that filled out, and I'm also not sure I'd want to see it 'filled out' as some kind of after-thought to config. I'd want to see factors balanced and related with more nuance and complexity and less identity-based pre-determination of outcome. The five gears system is great in many ways, and the 5th ('how does this person hit me? etc.) gear kind of allows for this (the 4th as well-- 'riffs'/'playing-style'-- perhaps), but it pre-determines through the very fact of being called the '5 gears of Mojo Reading'. I..e What's your Mojo.

And I agree to a certain extent. I'm honestly not fully convinced on the 5th gear, it's too susceptible to society's preset impressions. It's culturally wide, too many variables. To me there should be a system that accounts nature vs nurture and I don't thing either MBTI and Mojos account for such.

In a way, I think both MBTI and Pod'lair assessment broaden your perspective.


Reluctantly, then I guess Albert Einstein is a non person who couldn't be successfully typed. He would have autism with today's diagnostic standards. So I highly doubt you can't "type" a person with autism. By such standards someone suffering from clinical depression wouldn't pass the typing criteria. There is a personality in spite of such conditions.

 

[scorpiomover]

For some reason I think an inordinate amount of people are mistyped as INTP and INTJ.

Regular online forum posters want to be INTx. They tend to believe that they are smarter than everyone else, more rational than everyone else (NT), and they are on the internet, rather than socialising IRL, because they are introverted.

The reality is somewhat different. Jung wrote this before the internet. In his day, the only option for an extrovert, was to hang out with others IRL. Today, if people want to hang out with others, they go on the internet.

Second, Keirsey originally classified NT as Rationals, because when they start talking about ideas, they start justifying them rationally. But now that everyone has been taught tons of science all the way through school, everyone tries to justify what they say with rational arguments.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Regular online forum posters want to be INTx. They tend to believe that they are smarter than everyone else, more rational than everyone else (NT), and they are on the internet, rather than socialising IRL, because they are introverted.

The reality is somewhat different. Jung wrote this before the internet. In his day, the only option for an extrovert, was to hang out with others IRL. Today, if people want to hang out with others, they go on the internet.

Second, Keirsey originally classified NT as Rationals, because when they start talking about ideas, they start justifying them rationally. But now that everyone has been taught tons of science all the way through school, everyone tries to justify what they say with rational arguments.

interesting perspective, good points.

 

[Words]

It doesn't make sense for 100% of any large group to be intuitives.

Perhaps type could have a much more deterministic influence than how you currently perceive it, especially when we're talking about very focused groups and again especially when we're talking about an MBTI-focused group. From my experience, honest interest in MBTI has always been definitive of intuitive preferences. Functions are overwhelmingly philosophical and abstract in nature. We're not just talking about any group like actors and martial arts, we're talking about MBTI. It's a category that warrants uniqueness.

And that is especially the case when some of them specifically typed themselves as sensors. If anything, given the bad rap that sensors often receive, I would expect some sensors to mistype themselves as intuitives.

This is a good point. Podlair tries to explain it with things like "mental locking" and "fetishing" but it is a bit of a stretch...unless you check out mojoreading whereby certain patterns might uncover to you. If not, then by all rationality, you may consider Podlair as full of shit.

40% seems alright to me. I don't really know. I just have always heard that the majority of people test as sensors, and that seems like it is probably correct.

Why does it "seem like it is probably correct"? I mean we're not in disagreement about population statistics...but I really think people should look more into these things.

 

[Obsidian]

Yeah, in Pod'Lair everyone is either an intuitive, or else an intuitive who is fetishizing a sensor. And all the self-described sensors are INFJs. I don't think I ever heard what mental locking was.

Why does it "seem like it is probably correct"?

Because it's on Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers-Briggs_Type_Indicator#Type_dynamics_and_development

Also, it is in between the extreme estimate of 50% intuitives, versus the extreme estimate of 20% intuitives.

 

[Montresor]

I tink it two bell curve make venn diagram.

 

[Montresor]

The pod people will murder the fifth and correct God's error.
MYSTERY SOLVED.

Or it means Lyra is right only half the time.

 

[scorpiomover]

Or it means Lyra is right only half the time.

Hey, in pschology, 50% is better than the best, CBT, which only rates 30%. And personality typing is part of psychology. So Lyra must be right.

Along with the anti-Lyra.