INDEX
ABOUT
FAQ
GLOSSARY
MBTI TYPINGS
MBTI RELATIONS
DISCORD
PHOTOGRAPHY
GENERAL
DIFFERENCES
TYPING
FUNCTIONS
TABLES
LISTS
WORKS
VARIOUS
NAMES
MEMES
MORE
Types #11X ← ✸ → Types #13X
That was the conclusion of this meme. You can see several reasons there, but there are many more. This post centers on one that I think is extremely important, maybe the main one, and includes a list of common mistype tendencies, expanding on post #58 and post #59, which I recommend reading too, of course. Also these two: post #12c and post #20a.
WHY SO MANY MISTYPES?
Apart from the problems inherent in the systems themselves (both MBTI and Socionics, with their incorrect “functions”, their useless “tests”, etc), which are the topic of other posts, there’s the way people approach the whole issue, and how the types are seen globally.
Most people interested in typology (and many in psychology, too) want some kind of “proof” of their “special” condition, of their innate [intellectual, spiritual, artistic, mechanical] “gifts”, “powers” or “skills”, something that sets them apart and therefore implies they need special treatment, something that gives them some kind of “superior status” that others have to (somehow) acknowledge and obey, something that makes them “rare” (assuming that being less common gives them more value), or just something (a label, basically) to attach their own explanations (or excuses) for what they (or others) think/feel/want/do. In the end, it’s an externally-focused problem, based on shared false stereotypes and the imagined need to appear [and make others appear] in a certain way.
WHY SUCH RESISTANCE TO FIND YOUR TRUE TYPE?
Each type has a commonly shared image around it, a publicly constructed “idea” of what it means that doesn’t match what the letters and the real functions refer to in reality. That is: the image that almost everybody has of an INFJ doesn’t reflect anything about the people who are actually INFJ (Fi-Ni-Se-Te), and the same with the others. So there are two worlds: the false types and the real ones, and most people live in the former. If you are one of those and want to appear “clever” you can’t identify as “ESFP”, for example, because people think ESFPs are dumb, and nobody would take you seriously. If you want to appear as a “typology expert” you can’t admit you’re ISTJ because everybody knows only INJs know about psychology and “deep stuff”. That’s the big problem with typology out there: it’s not about the truth, it’s not even about whether those assumptions are based on facts or not, or to what degree, it’s just about playing a character in a game or a story. That’s why so many people don’t care what their real type is: they want to be X because what others think of X is what they want others to think of them.
But if you “want to be” then you don’t want to know. You just want to “feel” and/or “present” yourself as something, independently of what you really are. That is: you are focused on your persona, not on your true self. If you do that, you are not living authentically.
What if people knew that Jung was actually an INTJ (which is Ti-Ni-Se-Fe), or that Plato was ISTJ (Ti-Si-Ne-Fe)? What if they found out that someone like Jim Morrison was actually an ESTP (Se-Te-Fi-Ni) and not some “INF”? Well, they would probably learn a thing or two, right? But does that change what those people did, or who they were? No, it can’t. It just explains things better, because it’s the truth.
The question is: do you want to know? Do you really want to know who, or better still, how you are? Or do you prefer to keep playing a character?
Do you want to use the terms for what they mean, or do you want to keep misusing them and making it all more difficult and counterproductive for everybody? Because this is what happens with all language misuse: if there’s anything good that can be the result of it, if there’s any bit of help that can be derived from the types, like someone identifying his/her own way of thinking and understanding him/herself better, you are destroying it with your theatrical approach.
Are you afraid of what you might find? Why? Does your intelligence go down if you find out you are E/S instead of I/N? No, it doesn’t. Do you really think you are fooling anyone if you keep saying you are “X” type instead? Do your words or actions magically transform into something smart if you “identify as an INTJ”? Who leaves the worst impression: someone who dug deep and is honest about his/her type, or someone who is mistyped and everything [s]he does/says comes with the signature of a person who doesn’t know or want to admit his/her real type? Because if you worry about what others think, that would definitely be something to consider, right?
Don’t be afraid to know the truth about all this, to find out in what sense all those images that people have are incorrect. It’s hard, and it might be quite shocking, but you’ll rediscover lots of things, including what and who’s around you. You have to find out even if that means the whole MBTI/Socionics systems are wrong, or if it means that everything you wrote or said before was wrong. Admitting that might be precisely a sign of the value that you were looking for.
So forget about the game and the story. Forget about the character. Your true self is waiting.
SOME VERY COMMON MISTYPES
The following list is organized in this way: first the mistype as a quote (“X”), what the subject thinks [s]he/someone is, or a common mistype of a famous person/character. Then some key description elements [that might have led to that mistype], then the arrow (→), and then the real type.
“ENTJ”
Doer ET Typologist with NiSe+FiTe → ESTP
“ESFJ”
Painstaking Obsessive ESF Control-Freak → ESFP
Domestic Handy Easy-Going SF with SiNe → ISFP
“ESFP”
Popular Dramatic Trendy/Fashionable ESF with NiSe → ESFJ
“ENTP”
Conceptually Experimental ENP with SiNe+TiFe → ENFP
Friendly ENP Comic Actor with SiNe+TiFe → ENFP
Funny/Random Skillful ETP Object-Sculptor → ESTP
Proper Politically-Minded Intellectual with SiNe+TiFe → ISTJ
“ENFP”
[Funny] Confident Trendy EF Actress → ESFJ
“Introvert”
Someone who wants to be with others and feels really bad alone → Extravert
Someone who repeatedly identifies as “introvert” in public → Extravert
“ISFJ”
Quiet/Serious SJ Organizational/Mechanical Supervisor → ESTJ
“ISTP”
Quiet+Technical ST with Se2-Ni3 → ESTJ
Famous Style-Conscious Cool STP Athlete with NiSe → ESTP
Joking/Mocking STP “Bad Boy” → ESTP
Demanding Peculiar/Eccentric TP Innovator → ENTP
“ISFP”
[Expressive] [Artistic] SF with Se2-Ni3 → ESFJ
[Famous] Innovative+Cool Friendly FP Musician → ENFP
Elegant Delicate IF with FiTe+NiSe → INFJ
Combative SP Actor/Musician/Athlete with FiTe+NiSe → ESTP
“INTJ”
Technology Producer+Thinker with NiSe+FiTe → ESTJ
Psychology+Mythology NT with FiTe → ENTJ
World-Domination NTJ with FiTe → ENTJ
Foul-mouthed Typology Thinker with NiSe+FiTe → ESTP
Left-Leaning Social [Revolutionary] Intuitive Writer → ENFP
Spartan Technical/Practical [Cool] IT Loner → ISTP
“INFJ”
[New-Age] [Positivity] FJ with NiSe+TiFe → ESFJ
Public+Expansive NFJ [Cult] Leader → ENFJ
Funny Addicted/Troubled [Artistic] Outsider with NiSe → ESTP
Kind Relaxed [“Spiritual”] NF with Fe2-Ti3 → ENFP
Conceptual IJ with TiFe who dislikes Jung → ISTJ
“INTP”
Serious+Dutiful Sarcastic Computer Technician Thinker → ESTJ
[Lazy] [Random] NP with TiFe+SiNe → ENFP
Videogame-Addicted Procrastinator with TiFe+SiNe → ENFP
Funny TiFe+SiNe person who’s interested in literally everything → ENFP
Social Quirky TiFe+SiNe person who likes most things → ENFP
Computer-Addicted Neo-like person with TiFe+SiNe → ENFP
Absent-Minded Genius Scientist/Speaker with TiFe+SiNe → ENFP
Conceptual IT Bookworm Scientist/Writer with TiFe+SiNe → ISTJ
“INFP”
Friendly Self-Loving Positivity Feeler → ESFJ
Intense/Dramatic/Grandiose [Tormented] NF Writer/Artist with Ne2-Si3 → ENFJ
Left-Leaning Social [Revolutionary] NFP Writer/Reporter → ENFP
Friendly [Cheerful/Optimistic] [Lazy] Absent-Minded NFP → ENFP
Horror/Social-Allegory Introverted Writer who loves history → ISTJ
Cottage Garden Fairy-Tale Detailed IF Writer/Cook/Artisan → ISFJ
Cozy Foodie/Gourmet/Cook Introvert with FiTe+SiNe → ISF
Depressed/Suicidal/Tortured Perceiving Musician/Artist → SP
Anonymous said: How do you define depth for each type/function? In your opinion which type would be the deepest and at what?
Even if some people keep asking for something different, there’s no further description of “function depth” than the kind I’ve been posting since I started the blog. My first post talks about that (point 2.2), then you have post #17.2, #31, post #39 and of course post #87. Some lists try to specify a little: list 12, list 13, list 15 and list 19. That’s what you have to work with. That’s where/how each function can be the deepest.
Each type’s proper depth is simply that they would be the best at their dominant function, of course, combined with their auxiliary. The best description is in the focus/ability column in post post #84 (it comes from the Court Cards II tables).
ESTJ (Te-Se-Ni-Fi) would be the “deepest” at architectural design and construction, for example, and other big+practical things. That’s one of the few clear examples that can be made, though, mostly because some functions are harder to recognize than others (Te and Se are the easiest). Also, the spheres of activity that are commonly known don’t reflect everything that the functions can offer, so it’s very limiting if you try to match or understand them that way.
There’s an interesting topic here, in the fact that some functions are easier to observe, compare and check than others (basically Te/Se > Fe/Ne > Ti/Si > Fi/Ni). For the general public it’s much more difficult to distinguish the “good” from the “bad” when the issue concerns introversion than extraversion. Anybody can see that there’s a problem if the car doesn’t move, or if the door is stuck, but how are they going to recognize a fake or faulty introverted element? A consequence of this is the proliferation of people who present themselves as “experts” in psychological and spiritual topics. It’s way easier to go around telling everybody that you know about MBTI, for example, than trying to pass as a master architect. And I think it’s also the reason that leads many people to just condemn or disregard introversion altogether, even if it’s just to save themselves the effort of telling the good/right from the bad/wrong.
First of all, note that this is only a general approach to one specific aspect or angle of analysis regarding X3. As always with the functions, there are many more links and things to discover and explain (I’ve already done this for example in posts post #35 and post #87). Also remember that descriptions here are not about isolated components, so try not to take them too out of context because the effect is not independent at all, it must be interpreted inside the dominant dimension of each type: X1(···)X4.
Ok. Now, with the word “naivety” I’m not trying to say that it’s a good thing. It’s naivety in a sense that’s very close to self-ignorance, of course. We are talking about the unconscious here. You can think of it also as unconscious credulity or ingenuousness (sometimes a sort of functional “belief in ghosts”). This influence is even harder to notice and avoid (or control) than X2→G2, which is already very difficult and energy-consuming.
The idea here is that most people have a hard time telling X3 from G3. With X2→G2 the main problem was a mostly conscious attempt at an impossible transference (from proper to ghost), which devalues X2 in the process, but now it’s G3 that we often mistake for X3 (from ghost to proper), as if they were identical, and this is mostly unconscious, so our real standpoint remains undiscovered. Apart from not being able to see the difference, extraverts might take something that’s actually internal for them (X3) as external (G3), and introverts can mistake something that they need to acknowledge as external (X3) for something internal (G3).
As usual, this is just an “average” situation, of course: some people might be still having real problems with X2/G2, and others might be already past X3/G3 (although this is less common). It’s a kind of middle point to use as reference. One of the keys here is that those two problems actually go hand in hand, so in reality knowing and looking at your X3/G3 can be really helpful for your X2/G2.
X3 is a kind of weak spot that the person can, through effort, turn into something that can be seen as a work of art. Most people, if they know themselves well enough, try to protect, control, specify, itemize, distil, detail and/or delineate very carefully what goes in and comes out of there. It’s much more difficult to do than X2, and it has the characteristics of the [semi]unconscious, so this preoccupation might sometimes appear to others as obsessive or perfectionistic in some sense.
This interrelation is part of why I say that X3→X2 is the “internal engine” of each type, and why more self-awareness leads to wanting a refined or perfected smooth running of the mechanism. If people don’t do that filtering or screening, if they let anything and everything enter their X3, then the result is almost always harmful: the engine gets overworked, overheated, etc, and starts malfunctioning.
In fact, some people like to check, keep, follow and/or make some kind of map, diagram, recipe, manual or blueprint of their X3 in order to have a stable guide or reference. I think this is quite common, and you can see it for example in the way many ISTJs (Ne3) love planning, history and stories, how lots of ENFPs (Ti3) love everything that works as a catalog of identities (like superheroes and typologies), etc.
The G3→X3 effects are very different from one type to another, and inside the same type they vary a lot from person to person. In some cases the potentially negative consequences fall mostly on the side of the subject, and other times on his/her environment. Knowing about typology and the correct functions of each type and each person is obviously a first step in the direction of being aware of and solving these issues.
EXAMPLE MANIFESTATIONS
I’ll try to write some examples of what this means for each “age group” and each pair of Tangents inside them. It’s going to be just an approximation, and I’ll try not to repeat things so you can take bits and see how they’d manifest in different types. What follows applies in general, but of course more to some individuals than others, and it’s described at an intermediate stage, which some people might overcome in some degree. Remember everything I’ve said before, and note that the word “history” below includes ideas of game, options, power, luck and success (all Ne-related).
✸ The Elders (EJs) reinterpret unconsciously an external frame of reality as a transcendental element, and almost as if it was their property or responsibility, mostly because it actually depends on their unconscious feeling or thinking (X4). This can make them grand, but also very oppressive and/or dangerous.
ESJs (gNe3→Ni3) see history (gNe3) as “god’s will” or the only real meaning (Ni3), that’s why many want to be famous, rich, powerful, lucky, etc. Many have absolutely no shame demanding everything and anything they want, declaring themselves the best, etc. Those that overcome this realize that the real meaning is not in how things are going. (See also the last paragraph in post #115).
ENJs (gSe3→Si3) take reality (gSe3) as mythological or a dream (Si3), that’s partly why many of them are quite dangerous (and perhaps a bit… crazy). This is the Don Quixote effect, of course. ENJs are the kind of person that’s very prone to having nightmares after watching a horror movie, for example.
✸ The Adults (IJ) reinterpret unconsciously a ghostly internal element as inextricably represented or embodied in external reality, and almost as if it was outside their reach, because it actually depends on an external judgment (their Fe4 or Te4). That’s why many of them seem to “submit to” or even be overwhelmed by external circumstances.
ISJs (gNi3→Ne3) take “the power above” (gNi3) as history (Ne3). That is: they [want to] see the will of god[s] in what happens, in how things [might] progress or unfold, their own luck, etc, and that gets mixed and conditioned by an external judgment (Fe4 or Te4) that they often don’t want to touch, so it makes them what I call “resigned” [to “fate”] (or somewhat “pessimistic”). They can apply extreme patience and care to plans, plots, routines and other processes.
INJs (gSi3→Se3) take mythology and/or dreams (gSi3) as reality (Se3). This is of course what happens to people like Freud (INFJ) or Jung (INTJ), for example. They can treat physical presences with extreme skill, thoughtfulness and detail. This can be a work of art, clothes, etc. Part of the effect rests on the fact that their “model”, their internal vision or sensation, is really close to the actual thing.
✸ For the Teenagers (EPs) this unconscious transfer makes them active and engaging, often giving them skills to navigate situations and/or relationships rather effectively or cunningly. It can also make them overvalue themselves and undervalue others.
ETPs (gFe3→Fi3) feel/charge themselves (Fi3) with what others express as good/bad (gFe3), so they might get addicted to emotional interaction, both positive and negative. This of course can make them exaggerate and escalate expressions of love and hate (fights, etc). They might not recognize their own responsibility, and/or believe they are more “in tune” with others than they actually are. They can also feel morally superior, even bragging about it.
EFPs (gTe3→Ti3) absorb/think (Ti3) what they read/hear (gTe3), so they might get really argumentative, complicating discussions or any kind of textual work. Some of them get to the point of taking reality as language. EFPs might also believe themselves more factual than they actually are, that just being exposed to a topic makes them experts on it, or that they are the only ones that understand something (especially themselves).
✸ The Children’s (IP) naivety is the one that’s closest to innocence: it makes them unable to hide or fake an important judging aspect (which in turn makes them extremely careful about it), and also tends to make them undervalue themselves and overvalue other people in some sense.
ITPs (gFi3→Fe3) assume that their evaluations (gFi3) are obvious to others (Fe3), and when they manifest them they can’t really hide their ghostly likes/dislikes, that’s why they don’t tend to be expressive. They also tend to think that others care as much as they do, so in that sense they can fit very well as members of a group or team, and when they start recognizing their X3 they really show appreciation for shared values.
IFPs (gTi3→Te3) assume that others know what they are thinking (that’s one of the reasons for their shyness), and when they talk they can’t really help but say (Te3) what they think (gTi3), that’s why they are usually quiet (this applies to actions as well). They tend to assume that others understand concepts better than they actually do, and/or just as the IFP does. Sometimes they might not recognize they are actually being more factual than they think.
sk8723 said: Are insecurities more associated with introverted or extroverted types? I know insecurities stem from someone trying to hide something they’re ashamed of and be someone they’re not, which can be thought of as an intangible ideal (I) but it can also be thought of as trying to prove themselves (EP)
In a very general sense you could say introverts seem more insecure because their conscious confidence doesn’t stand on the external world, they are retiring instead of enterprising, etc. But I don’t think you can determine whether Es or Is are more prone to insecurity.
Any type can be insecure about something, and there are multiple variations and reasons for that. Wishes and fears, the [unconscious] expectations of/for oneself and others, the images that we create (good and bad, past, present and future) of ourselves and other people instead of looking at (and working with) what is just there… All that puts a model in the mind (perhaps a goal, a memory or standard), that doesn’t correspond with reality, and the difference makes people insecure. There’s also a lot that’s related to each type’s inferior function.
The particular case that you mention, being “ashamed” and trying to appear as something else, can be related to simply being too young, or to the TiFe dimension: the person gets what’s valued in the environment through Fe, but there’s a conflict because his/her identity (Ti) acts as counterbalance and [s]he still doesn’t know how to integrate both. This is a broad summary of what happens between the conscious and unconscious functions, of course. The social-personal friction characterizes EFs and ITs most of all. They usually think/talk about those topics.
You are quite right with those ideas, but I’d say the ideal that might come from introversion is more like a “never enough” or perfectionist thing, not the kind of problem that’s directly or commonly associated to shame. And with EPs in this case we’d need to differentiate, because ETPs (Fi+Te) are not the sort of people that tends to feel it, either. They can, but it would probably arise as some kind of impertinent obstacle, in relation to people-oriented behaviors in which they are clumsy. EFPs, on the other hand, have the pull to prove themselves in addition to Ti+Fe, so this is a running theme in their lives (but not necessarily a problem, of course).
Anonymous said: could the way a person be raised affect their level of ambition more than their mbti type?
I don’t know how you’d determine that, but the real concern there is different: it’s why do you want to know, and what would you do with the potential result. I think many people like that sort of “studies” because they believe they know what “good” is, and they want to play god Frankenstein.
So, yeah. Let’s… let’s just assume we aren’t talking about engineering people.
There’s another important factor to take into account: what you mean by “ambition”, because it’s just not the same for every type. That is: the most “ambitious” ESFP that you can find doesn’t want the same thing[s] as the most “ambitious” ENTP, for example. And for some types (especially the phlegmatics) the term barely works, or it simply doesn’t.
Upbringing and circumstances have a great effect, of course, but the idea would be to mix the different kinds and degrees of “default ambition” of the types with those different environments. That way you get a more realistic variety of combinations (even if all this topic is actually very general). For example: parents who promote economic achievement won’t have the same effect on an ENTJ as on an ISFP, obviously. Now imagine those same parents are hippies instead. That’s how you get an approximate answer: in both cases one child is going to be very “ambitious” in his/her own type way, the ENTJ would be “ambitious” in a general sense either way, and the ISFP won’t.
Anonymous said: What do you think about Supine temperament? Noam Chomsky is Phlegmatic-Choleric, and Nietzsche, Langan is Supine-Choleric i guess, isn’t it?
indoctusinscius said: Hey, INTP should be Supine-Choleric?
Anonymous said: Noam Chomsky isn’t Si-Ti? He have different perspectives then others INTP. If im wrong - so probably i am - please tell me, how?
Anonymous said: can you explain why chomsky shouldn’t be istp?
Anonymous said: Can you explain ESFP side of INTP and ESFJ side of INTJ; Umberto Eco, Noam Chomsky etc.
1&2. I don’t make that kind of distinction. The four classic temperaments fit the types perfectly, not only because they cover all 16 with their combinations, but also because they work really well as pairs of opposites that point at something that’s actually there, at a deeper psychological level. I don’t see how “supine” can be the opposite of choleric. To me it’s obvious that the line goes from phlegmatic to choleric, from understanding to achieving, from pondering to demanding, from calm to action, etc. That “fifth temperament” just doesn’t make sense to me.
3&4. I don’t know how you came up with that idea. I mean, isn’t it clear that Chomsky is a very good example of intuitive person? I could understand if you had doubts about J/P or T/F, but not S/N. He’s totally about conceptual discovery (not application), there’s no sanguine component in him, and things like this sound really Ni (the unknown): “He divides scientific questions into problems, which are at least potentially answerable, and mysteries, which are not”. Some totally-not-ISTP things: repeatedly described as “distracted”, “doesn’t know where his briefcase is”, and “is so often preoccupied that he has to be reminded to take care of himself” (eating, etc). That’s just classic NP.
As always, if you pay close attention to people and understand what the letters mean, you can answer the question for yourself: Rebel > Artisan, Imagination > Interaction, Questioning > Useful, Challenge > Experience, Achievement > Impact, Relations > Forms, etc. Other related posts: post #55 and post #69.
5. There is no “other type inside the type”. An ESFP is an ESFP, no matter if [s]he’s sleeping, shopping, cooking, singing, screaming, or climbing up the walls. You have to be very careful with that line of thinking because you can end up seeing every type in every person, and distorting (even more) what the codes mean. What you can have sometimes is people who identify more with their unconscious, but that’s a different thing (and neither Eco nor Chomsky fit there). I talked about this in several posts (you have an INTP example here, and there’s also Freud). Very often when someone tries to act like their Mirror type the result is rather disastrous. It can be simply awkward or inadequate, but you have to understand the types really well to discern this kind of thing, so I wouldn’t recommend an uncertain indication like this for the most common situation, that is: when almost everybody is mistyped.
Anonymous said: What do you think of religion? Do you think there a god or spirit? What is different from it and introversion as timeless & universal? Pattern between types & religiosity?
This is a very complex topic. I’ll write some general ideas.
1. Currently the word “religion” has a pejorative charge that puts it next to superstition, fanatism, and basically insanity.
In that context, many people think they are “religion-free” (or “objective”, “scientific” or whatever) because they don’t follow any self-proclaimed religion, but they aren’t. The negative meaning of religion starts the moment a person stops questioning things, especially in order to avoid being expelled from a group (family, friends, society as a whole, etc). And most people have absolutely no idea how many things they are taking for granted every day, how many things they can’t even imagine having doubts about or criticizing, how much they believe. So people have no idea how fanatically religious they actually are.
In fact, that’s something that I see everywhere, all the time. And it’s a bit pathetic. Supposed “free thinkers” with mountains of prejudices, hidden agendas and/or a striking inability to recognize the actual degree of differences between people’s minds (they take for granted that everybody is like them). Comically self-contradictory mantras (= prayers) like “trust the science” (science is literally the opposite of trust) (and by the way: you don’t “learn” science, you do it) (science is not knowledge). Groups of people accusing individuals of being “conspiracy theorists” (= heretics, or heathens, with “conspiracy theory” being a pejorative replacement for heresy or “unauthorized thinking”), which basically proves their point. Etc, etc.
So I don’t make a distinction between “established” religions and other things which make people act fanatically, without checking things for themselves, etc (and by the way: repeating what others have said doesn’t count as checking things for yourself) (that’s belief, again). Sometimes they are not concepts (like all those -isms, or the false eiei/ieie order), but physical things, like certain individuals, or drugs. If you think about it, it’s all the same: people want to “believe” in something so badly that they are willing to harm themselves (and others) for it. So in the end the problem is not the thing in itself, but the imagined need. Addiction is not in the object, but in the subject.
The way I see it, the good side of the word religion as a shared element is more about something that comes out of individual differences, a posteriori, something that’s not agreed or imposed, but found or discovered, without the planning, intention or intervention of anyone. It’s something that appears rather mysteriously when people interact, something greater than the sum of them.
And as a personal thing, the true meaning of the word religion, the good one, is closer to “go through again”, read again, think again, etc, with the idea of an improved understanding that changes (transforms) the person. So, as usual, it’s literally the opposite of what people think: the more you’re open to finding out you were wrong, the more religious you are. (This openness, the true intelligence, is symbolized by The Fool in the tarot).
2. It doesn’t matter what I think. All those “deep discussions” are just an ego trip and a waste of time (or worse). The very fact that people have different psychological types reinforces the other fact that all those “experiences” and perspectives are personal, and people call “god” to whatever they like/want. Trying to frame things inside a “purely objective” approach misses the point entirely. As if somehow you could [dis]prove something without the intervention of a subject, or even as if you could “convince” someone of anything (you can’t, they do it if they want).
With these topics, as I’ve said before, however much you explain yourself, those who can’t get it won’t get it, and those who can (= those who share your type, although perhaps not all of them) don’t really need you to tell them.
3. It makes sense that introversion would be the common aspect in what most people associate with the idea of god, like you said. For some it might be mainly a reference to Ni, for others Si, Fi, Ti, or a combination of those. But I don’t know all the interpretations that people make/have, obviously, so maybe some see “god” in extraversion, or in E+I. This is a continuous part of the global investigation, of course, but I think the potential correlation is more about the unconscious than introversion. In fact, when Jung talks about religion I think he’s often referring to the relationship between the inferior and its ghost: X4↔G4.
4. I talked about spirituality in this post. The concepts are close. We already know that religiosity is not a function, and the types that seem to like various forms of organized religion are first the SJs (= external melancholics), then it’s probably the SPs, then the NJs, and finally the NPs. Still, there’s a big cultural factor in all this (different social environments), and what acts as religion can take many forms apart from the organized ones. As a very general idea, you could say that Ss might be a bit more likely to be religious than Ns, because many basic aspects of religion are related to the unconscious, and intuition is the function that’s closer to the idea of “power” (including a “higher” one), but of course there are religious Ns. Then I think religious Ts tend to be more focused on the morality aspect (because of their unconscious Feeling), and Fs on something related to some kind of “universal law”, more “textual” or “intellectual” in a sense (because of their unconscious Thinking).
Someone asked about the current trend of “women > men”. There’s a general overvaluation of Feeling (especially EF, that is: conscious Fe), and a devaluation of Thinking (especially Te). Secondarily, there’s also a general N>S (especially Ne>Se), but this is less pronounced. Everything feels like some kind of theatre where expression and representation are the only realities. There’s no place for essential things like personal preference, personal responsibility and, you know, facts.
I guess the reasons are varied. One could be that modern machines and technologies like the internet are doing the thinking for many people now, and also much of the physical work. There’s perhaps a false sense that machines make themselves, so all T-things appear not only impersonal but even somehow “in-human”. It makes it seem like T should serve F. Politics being what it is (basically Fe), loves the idea and promotes it. And money does the same. (None out of a real concern for anybody, of course, but for politics/money itself, for power).
The thing is: when you interact with someone you are interacting with a person, not with a group (you can’t interact with a group). And even if there’s value in the information that you get from your experience with people of some specific large set, you know you have to be open to surprises (for better or worse) and learning, because you don’t know the entire population. This doesn’t mean that you “have to” interact with anyone, of course. The truth is that anybody can do wrong, and just because you can assign lots of categories to someone doesn’t mean that criticizing or not choosing him/her as a partner is an attack on those, a prejudice, a “bias”, a “-phobia” or some “-ism”. What’s being criticized is the action or behavior, not the person or group. If the only value is non-discrimination then anything goes, so everything is meaningless. Only the most ruthless and amoral want to live in that world hell.
Anyway, you just have to remember that not everybody approves of the kind of unjust relationship that you mention (not even all TiFe-people). There’s a recognition of T, and a desire for T-F balance (not superiority) to be found, too. Many women have principles of their own, values that don’t come directly from fashion or society, even if superficially (or at first) they seem to go along with that. So I’d suggest looking somewhere else, and trying to see behind the public curtain[s]. It might seem otherwise because only a certain style of discourse is being promoted, as if it was the only reality, but there are all kinds of people out there (at least 16, right?).
Anonymous said: can you describe the efjs magnetism like the ifj post?
EFJs are the protagonists, the icons and the “stars”. With them it’s not so much a close-range thing, they might even seem rather awkward when in a one-on-one situation (especially if it’s unexpected or too casual). It’s the public spheres, the group meetings and gatherings that make them glow and rise. It’s the shared atmosphere, the idea of the collective itself and its potential, what the participants have in common, what the EFJ proposes and/or means for them, or simply the attention that they might get. So with EFJs the situation is closer to admiration, reverence, etc. And more than magnetic they are charismatic.
Not everybody falls under their spell, of course. Besides physical aspects, the effect is greater the more someone focuses on external validation, sharing and belonging, or the more someone believes in what the EFJ says or represents. As I wrote here, leadership is something that the followers place on the person (not the other way around) because they want to be directed.
This could be a sort of broad summary of the difference:
EFJs are magnetic because you might think they do/stand for what you want.
IFJs are magnetic because you might think they want what you do/stand for.
Anonymous said: Can’t your ‘archetypes’ be confusing and mix up realities. Could you make a disclaimer theyre not literal or needed, other ideas/labels work. Lots of young people on Tumblr have identity crises. You can’t say “this is what you are” AND “don’t identify with it.” It could clarify things if anything.
At first I really thought this message was meant for some other blog.
- It’s not “my archetypes”. The archetypes exist independently of what anyone thinks or wants to focus on. They are just true, so if you’re going to talk about them and the related concepts it’s better to understand things well (really well).
- Anything that groups people in categories is bound to be general, so it can’t be “literal” in the sense of specific, if that’s what you mean. The types have an enormous variety inside themselves, we are not sentencing anyone to anything here. And I don’t see how the question of “need” is relevant when we’re talking about something that’s true. I mean, the types are a sort of psychological blood groups, so I’d say they are quite important. Some might ignore the topic entirely, ok, but for those who know their true type (with its actual functions) it can be extremely helpful for self-knowledge and understanding their relations with others.
- Other classifications or designations might work if they are true (and people don’t identify with them). If they are true, they are not incompatible with what I’m trying to describe here. But if they aren’t (like the zodiac signs, Socionics and the rest of pseudo-jungian four-letter/“function” systems, or the “INFJ” that includes people like Frank James, or the “INFP” that includes John Lennon, etc, etc), then they are only making things worse.
- I talked about identity crises here. I know about the problem, absolutely, and it’s precisely the types that can help explain many cases.
Behind some of them there’s an aversion that some people have to anything that points to a fixed [definition of their] identity or [type of] mind. The problem for many (especially EFs, with unconscious Ti) is that, being unable to leave it like that, they keep turning things around and distorting them and ultimately trying to conclude that any classification isn’t/can’t be real. They want to keep “the mystery” of “who they are”, and/or being able to “be whatever they want”. That’s not even an identity crisis, but more like a permanent state of fluctuating identity, which doesn’t mean that they are not a definite type, or that types don’t exist.
(Oh, and I don’t really write for Tumblr or anyone in particular, I don’t have a “target audience”).
- Knowing what you are and identifying with it are two different things. There’s no contradiction there. In fact, knowing that you are an {X} and at the same time not identifying with {X} is precisely part of the trick in this context.
There are several kinds of identification. Sometimes it means partial identification, when it implies the exclusion of parts of the self. That’s a very important topic, of course. But other times it’s basically in the opposite direction, a kind of imaginary “extension” of what someone really is. Both variants can be mixed in the same person, in different degrees.
When I talk about identification with a type I mean the selection and construction of an identity or character (self-concept) around a particular code (and/or its [“]functions[”]), the a priori ideas that come attached to it, the images, the suppositions, the assumptions, the extrapolations, something about how “it should be”, how the person would appear to others, how they should react, how the person should react in return, etc. I talked about this in this post (which is basically an alternative response to your question). That’s the problem. All those things keep people from learning more about themselves and others, from understanding the types as a whole, from actually analyzing what the type components mean, from discovering their true uniqueness, etc.
Knowing what you are is simply that: you actually forget about it and do your thing, whatever, and then, maybe, sometimes (depending on your interest in self-knowledge), you stop and think if your type could have anything to do with the way your mind works, with your problems, your interactions with others, etc. That’s what this is about. Types are real, and you have a type. Only one. And it’s not a costume. You can’t choose it, and you can’t change it. Also, your type is not a flag. It’s not a banner, a “cause” or a “movement”.
Types #11X ← ✸ → Types #13X