How to Type Someone: Part I: Research and Humility
This is the first in a three part series on my tips and insights into how to type people. The second part will be out soon. The ESFP video will be out this coming ...
Thanks for sharing, Michael. I have a deeper appreciation to cognitive
science and to understand myself and others more through Jungian typology,
thanks to you. My communication style has dynamically changed to better
suit someone else's preference in a given situation, which is very helpful
in strengthening my understanding of other's in a work environment and also
my personal relationships. Your videos have been the most helpful in
learning about all of this and I hope you continue to make more!
I'm curious about two things now, and I'm not quite sure where I can post
it where it's relevant to the video topic -- but I think posting it here
under this video is related enough.
1) For typing myself and others, it seems as if you are recommending to
understand the function axes and then take an educated guess at what
someone's type is, knowing full well the humility and error in assumptions
that are made. Is this the appropriate method you're recommending? What
about the online tests that are abundant everywhere? I'm not confident
that we can really evaluate what someone's type is based on 40-60 questions
from some random online MBTI test. To make matters worse, the questions
that are asked on some of these websites seem very...primitive compared to
the underlying theories of Jung and company. Perhaps it's just a start to
type someone before moving into the axes...
2) If someone is in the Fe/Ti Se/Ni axis, does that mean they can't really
cross to the other functional axes (e.g., cross to Fi/Te and Si/Ne axis)?
What happens then? For someone that shows say...Si, Fe, Ti, Ne in order
of preference, does that mean they'll likely not be able to show signs of
Ni or Se, simply because it's on a completely different function axis that
they don't have a preference towards? What it someone is borderlined?
Meaning, if someone takes the aforementioned random MBTI online test and
the result was about 50% split across the functions (found to be somewhere
in the middle)...what then? If this topic is expansive enough, can you
make a video on this? I'd be very interested in hearing your thoughts and
would greatly appreciate it.
+Dararith Long 1. The best way is to go through the functions - or, rather, they should have the final word. Things like the tests are useful as waypoints for the initial search, but ultimately measure different things than the functional approach does and so don't always match the functional analysis - I test as INTP and ISTP often, for example, but interaction with actual Ti-doms makes it abundantly clear that my mind works differently. Linda Berens' Interaction Styles model ( //www.bestfittype.com/Models/InteractionStyles.cfm ) can be good at narrowing down the search - again, it's not absolute, but it's a pointer towards a likely direction.I've done a longer dissection about the difference between tests and functions over at Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/mbti/comments/3kg45z/itj_why_does_my_profile_keep_changing/cuxc6en2. We're more or less stuck with our function stack, and though we can usually learn to understand where others are coming from, those inherent differences in what we pay attention to and value tend to can and do lead to intractable, persistent schisms and tensions between people - see Pierce's INFJ vs. INTJ video, for example. Those kinds of tensions are real and quite unavoidable.If what you mean by showing signs is producing the kinds of effects the functions usually lead their users to, then yes to a point - we can learn to do things we're not naturally inclined to, whether it's condensed, holistic takes on a subject, quick wit, meticulous attention to detail to get things done just so, physicality, amiable atmosphere, etc.For the test question, see the Reddit post I linked above. It deals with exactly this matter.
Sorry if you've answered this question elsewhere, (im positive its been
asked)
but what type do you think you are?
or how do you think your personal functions stack?
+Michael Pierce It was completely clear to me that you are an INFJ :D I am an ENFP and I have an older INFJ brother. I love him deeply. I admire your work :)
+Becca Perez Yeah, but I don't mind -- I identify most with the INFJ personality, including the Ni, Fe, Ti, Se stack. I don't know if that's surprising to you, though I know a number of people have been surprised by it because of my presentation style.
I just watched your video and what you said about intuition opened my mind
to the possibilities, so to speak. I am typed as INFJ (I've done all i can
to verify such a claim) and I have some trouble typing people because all
the ways other people try to teach me don't work except for your videos.
Point being, the way you describe intuition as a hindrance rather than a
tool has messed up my connection and reliance with it. Is this really all
that it is when it come to typology?
+MySpringSparrow Well, I wouldn't call it a hindrance, though I did make it sound that way. My purpose was to show that one shouldn't just stop at an intuitive hunch, but do more research in conjunction with the intuitive function. I think it can definitely point one in the right direction. The main thing I wanted to get across was not at all that people should stop using intuition, but rather just that people do their research and really look closely at a person before being satisfied.
(NOT exactly related to MBTI) I think You mentioned before that you were
into Kierkegaard and I saw a link to your Playlist about him and how
rationality gives meaning to one's life. I want to know if you have a
specific book recommendation about Kierkegaard's theories that you find
interesting.
+ian buenaventura Well, the best recommendation I could make is in another playlist on my channel page called "The Giants of Philosophy". In there is an audiobook on Soren Kierkegaard, which I think is an excellent introduction to his philosophy. The other source would simply be Kierkegaard himself; there's a great compilation done by Howard and Edna Hong called "The Essential Kierkegaard". But I would recommend listening to the audiobook first to see what you think of him.