Profiles tend to be written in general enough language that any given piece is sometimes accurate, sometimes inaccurate, sometimes more accurate than I'd like to admit, and sometimes less accurate than I would like it to be. Sometimes, what the profiles describe are too foreign to be either accurate or inaccurate (like discussing the type of music a lead weight might prefer -- or what kind of parent I would be).
Also, I'm not sure why you're asking, but if people think their type profiles are untrue stereotypes, they're unlikely to be on an MBTI-related group. Everybody here probably sees at least some modicum of truth in some aspect of the MBTI.
Also, I'm not sure why you're asking, but if people think their type profiles are untrue stereotypes, they're unlikely to be on an MBTI-related group. Everybody here probably sees at least some modicum of truth in some aspect of the MBTI.
How did you interpret my question? This answer seems to indicate that you didn't understand what I was asking.
And how do you interpret these answers?
Basically the fact that I am nice to everyone and care way too much what others think of me
my one big complaint about type profiles is that most of them try to focus on core traits across the lifespan,
I'm a big soft-hearted softie
I care quite a bit about connecting with people.
I'm definitely more into the humanities than the sciences.
I've been testing INT- lately, but I am very adaptable in social situations and in many cases actually enjoy socializing.
Since you asked, it seems somewhat schizophrenic to me. The first part seems to ask people to pick out incongruent details. The second part seems to ask about evaluating the profile as a whole. The "in other words" seemed to conflate the two.
> And how do you interpret these answers?
I interpreted them as reacting to the first question rather than the second.
schiz·o·phren·ic (skĭt'sə-frěn'ĭk) adj. [...] 2. Of, relating to, or characterized by the coexistence of disparate or antagonistic elements.
To me, the first question asked about picking apart the details, and the second question asked about evaluating the profile as a whole. Having pieces of the profile be wrong doesn't make the overall profile untrue. I think part of the reason that stereotypes are so enduring is that there is some truth to them overall even if details are wrong.
> This answer seems to indicate that you didn't understand what I was asking.
As you see from responses, people can assume stereotypes from details when reading personality type profiles (like thinking preferences can lead others to believe that the said individual has little heart) . There are varying interpretations from authors, so it's natural that not every type-specific profile will fit an individual to a T. I'm asking to further understand other types. Most responses given are the type of answers I'm looking for. Except yours. You wrote a general explanation about the accuracies and inaccuracies of profiles and how they apply to people. That first paragraph applies to everyone of every type so I don't see how that can deepen my knowledge of other types. Also, if you visit any personality type message board and ask what's inaccurate about a type description, more than one person is likely to answer. With some people, it may be a detail or it may be the gist of the whole (answers on this thread have indicated both
( ... )
Ah, thank you for the clarification. You're right that this is probably where the problem lies. I tend to see Types as stereotypes, and that's how I misinterpreted your question.
Also, I'm not sure why you're asking, but if people think their type profiles are untrue stereotypes, they're unlikely to be on an MBTI-related group. Everybody here probably sees at least some modicum of truth in some aspect of the MBTI.
Reply
How did you interpret my question? This answer seems to indicate that you didn't understand what I was asking.
And how do you interpret these answers?
Basically the fact that I am nice to everyone and care way too much what others think of me
my one big complaint about type profiles is that most of them try to focus on core traits across the lifespan,
I'm a big soft-hearted softie
I care quite a bit about connecting with people.
I'm definitely more into the humanities than the sciences.
I've been testing INT- lately, but I am very adaptable in social situations and in many cases actually enjoy socializing.
Reply
Since you asked, it seems somewhat schizophrenic to me. The first part seems to ask people to pick out incongruent details. The second part seems to ask about evaluating the profile as a whole. The "in other words" seemed to conflate the two.
> And how do you interpret these answers?
I interpreted them as reacting to the first question rather than the second.
Reply
Reply
[...]
2. Of, relating to, or characterized by the coexistence of disparate or antagonistic elements.
To me, the first question asked about picking apart the details, and the second question asked about evaluating the profile as a whole. Having pieces of the profile be wrong doesn't make the overall profile untrue. I think part of the reason that stereotypes are so enduring is that there is some truth to them overall even if details are wrong.
> This answer seems to indicate that you didn't understand what I was asking.
So, what were you asking?
Reply
Reply
Ah, thank you for the clarification. You're right that this is probably where the problem lies. I tend to see Types as stereotypes, and that's how I misinterpreted your question.
Reply
Leave a comment