About Typing Yourself and Others

[JasonM]

Have you ever noticed that some people simply cannot type themselves? Have you ever noticed that when typing others, everyone seems to have a different answer?

When you're typing yourself, and you cannot decide whether, for example, you're a "T" or an "F," simply call yourself an INXJ. Some people assume that there is an absolute answer to their type. The problem is that personality typing simply isn't precise enough to give decisive answers when one's preferences are close; it isn't like we're dealing with hard science here. Therefore, accept the limitations of the system, and put an X in the slot about which you can't decide.

Now, with respect to typing others, my feeling is that there is no right answer. For one thing, when typing someone else, it's hard to see the whole picture, so we look for individual instances to prove our point. The problem is that someone might act one way in one situation and another way in a different situation. People often look at the different situations and then come to different conclusions. Another problem is that people might use different theories when deciding about another's type. For example, some people might base it on whether someone meets the basic preferences that the MBTI measures - I, J, P, etc. Others might base it on Jungian preferences (e.g. "introverted intuition"). Finally, some might base it on one of the various type descriptions that are out there. Each aspect of the Myers-Briggs system is different, and these different aspects tend to give different results.

The best way to accurately type another person is to have them sit down and take the MBTI. And even then, it's not always accurate. My point here is to type others with a grain of salt. If you enjoy speculating about another's type, then, by all means, speculate. However, don't think that you or anyone else has the decisive answer.

That's just my opinion. I'd be interested to hear what others might have to say.

[Phrixos]

I have taken the test many times and have usually always gotten INTJ, but i have gotten INTP as well.

I find that some of the traits from both apply to me but INTJ is much more on the mark.

[JasonM]

Phrixos,

You would be a good example of someone who can type themselves. I'm talking more about people who take the tests and get different results all the time and/or for whom more than one description fits them well. When this is the case, there's no shame in saying that you're in between.

[BallentineChen]

The test only tests for correlations with the underlying processes themselves anyway (like phenotype and genotype), not the processes themselves. Besides that, it's also difficult for people with less self-awareness and whether to respond by how we behave in practice and what we think. For example, someone who makes an attempt to compensate for their perceived weaknesses can have results that belie their outward behavior if they test based on how they think.

[Vicimdhar]

Letting someone take the MBTI-instrument is probably the least reliable measure of all. SP's in particular are notorious for having difficulty typing themselves.

I don't have any formal training or lots of experience, but I usually try to type people using the following methods.:


Display of cognitive processes
E.g.: Fe is about connecting with people on a personal level, self-disclosing, etc. Ne by firing of lots of ideas, quick association, etc. Si by people who often recall things/events with detail and precision and can compare it with a current situation. Etc. Often looking at writing style works for this as well.

Temperament
Language use, group or goal-oriented, core values, skill set, etc. E.g. SP's can be recognized by their immediate desire for action and like to adapt on-the-go (tactical skill set). SJ's by default place trust in authority and established things.

Reaction to cognitive processes
How people respond when someone uses a certain cognitive process on them. ESTJ's for example, do not understand Ni at all. If you 'express' it (by 'forecasting' or by 'reframing' for example), they respond that you can't know that for sure or that it's not the way it is. In contrast, ENTJ's tend to be more accepting of this.

Whole type
Using parts of the 'stereotypes' of a type. ENTP's, for example, like to and are quick at playing around with language (metaphors, puns, etc.) and use people as an audience for their ideas. ESTJ's often tell stories about people who behave abnormally or about abnormal situations. ENFP's appear very dramatic and extravert, but still spend quite a lot of time alone. INTJ's are obsessively private, are quick to accept ideas which diverge somewhat from their own, but have difficulty with quickly understanding an idea which is entirely different than their own. Etc.

When all those aspects align, you've got a far more reliable typing than the test result. Even if the person disagrees with my typing, I'd still trust my own over that of the other person (unless that person seems to have very good arguments). Often people can't identify their own type or temperament because they don't know what they do instinctively over what they do consciously (unknown to self in the Johari window).

So, I do think it is possible to type other people with a strong degree of certainty. Of course, it only works if you have sufficient information about the person.

[JasonM]

Vicimdhar,

The problem is that your typing method will be different from someone else's and, therefore, will lead to different results. Haven't you noticed? Whenever someone states the type of a celebrity, etc., there is always disagreement. Who is right? Everyone has different theories about what the types are like. There is no right answer. That's why I say that taking a test is the most accurate way of typing. The MBTI has been constructed to be quite reliable. Of course, it isn't always accurate, but it has a much wider scope than looking at a few examples from someone's personal life and drawing conclusions based on that. However, in the end, you have to realize that typing isn't a hard science, and if people can't agree on the type of someone, then you have to accept that you probably cannot type them.

[Vicimdhar]

JasonM,

That everyone has different theories about something doesn't mean they are all equally valid. Why shouldn't there be a right answer? The theory underlying MBTI is that of preference in Jungian cognitive processes. All methods of typing are attempts to determine this in someone. If many of the methods of typing fail, this doesn't mean that the preference in processes isn't real.

The test might have been constructed for reliability, but it isn't reliable at all (they claim 70%). Even in official MBTI assessments, the test result is hardly taken into account. Better than the test is performing a one-to-one interview with the person so you can observe the responses and respond on them. Because this takes place only in one setting, it's even better if you can observe the person for a longer time as well.

I'm not sure if typing is really that 'soft' of a science. Even though there's no formal proof, it seems to provide a lot of good results. The only problem is that there are no widely-used reliable methods to type someone. So yes, currently there isn't a hard, formal way to reliably type someone. However, I don't think this is a problem which can never be overcome.

[Motor Jax]

i watch and listen to people, and the topics and troubles they discuss

and the ways they handle those situations

[JasonM]

JasonM,

That everyone has different theories about something doesn't mean they are all equally valid. Why shouldn't there be a right answer? The theory underlying MBTI is that of preference in Jungian cognitive processes. All methods of typing are attempts to determine this in someone. If many of the methods of typing fail, this doesn't mean that the preference in processes isn't real.

The test might have been constructed for reliability, but it isn't reliable at all (they claim 70%). Even in official MBTI assessments, the test result is hardly taken into account. Better than the test is performing a one-to-one interview with the person so you can observe the responses and respond on them. Because this takes place only in one setting, it's even better if you can observe the person for a longer time as well.

I'm not sure if typing is really that 'soft' of a science. Even though there's no formal proof, it seems to provide a lot of good results. The only problem is that there are no widely-used reliable methods to type someone. So yes, currently there isn't a hard, formal way to reliably type someone. However, I don't think this is a problem which can never be overcome.

I think the problem is that there are many different theories with respect to type, and these theories are, in reality, completely different systems. For example, typing someone based on Jungian functions (e.g., "introverted sensation") is very different from typing someone based on Keirsey temperaments. The people who use these different approaches are usually going to come up with different results. Now, you're right, some approaches are better than others. The problem is that there needs to be some sort of scientific study to be done that determines what system is most reliable at determining a person's personality. We could take the system that has the highest reliability as being the most valid. Nonetheless, if the theories used different nomenclature and didn't claim to be equivalent, then we could just call them different systems, and not have to worry about which one is best.