[MilkyWay132]

I think it is. Honestly, not all ESFP's are going to be party animals and not all ISFJ's are going to be martyrs. This is not to say that the descriptions are completely useless---it just means that you should pay attention to the functions when typing someone as well. What is your opinion on this?

 

[simulatedworld]

Yes, it's very inaccurate in most cases. Sometimes it happens to strike gold, but that's purely by chance.

Most type descriptions are very poorly written, by people who don't really understand why each type does what it does, and have instead compiled lengthy lists of what they've seen people they know of that type do, and then erroneously assumed that must be what everyone of that type does.

If you want to have any idea at all what type actually means, fuck profiles and study functions.

 

[WildWinds]

I would have to agree.

You will definitely get a lot further by looking at functions. The profiles are over simplified to the point that they often provide information that isn't quite true. The tests are just as bad IMO. The way they word questions can sometimes be a bit ambiguous and it could skew your results.

Its way better just to study the functions themselves and determine type that way.

 

[teddy564339]

I agree with the principle here, but I also think it's a lot harder to do practically. Maybe it's just me, but I have a hard time determining which function is the dominant one for someone I know without asking them direct questions about their behavior and how they think. This is especially true if you're looking at the auxiliary one. It's much quicker and easier to look at a list of common behaviors of a particular type and see how those match up


So for me at least, it becomes a choice between accuracy and efficiency. If you're really serious about getting someone's type right, then yes, you should look at the functions. But if you're just trying to type a bunch of people you know for fun, I think it's ok to kick around profile descriptions to get a guess. You just have to keep in mind that you could easily be wrong.

 

[vel]

I always try to reference websites that go over functions. I think if people read this information for themselves it will increase awareness about MBTI. Too many people just type themselves with four letters and don't go further than that - and then we all get to read more of "i don't think i am a J because my room is messy".

 

[Psilo]

At risk of being redundant, yes it is very inaccurate. The descriptions and profiles are, at best, a theoretical concept of how functions interact and would express themselves as behavior. At worst, it's wild stereotyping written by someone with little grasp of how the system works.

Don't be fooled by tests, either. The questions posed are usually out of context, vague, and behavior based. Use tests likes dowsing rod to find a good place to start digging.

 

[xezene]

Sure, descriptions can be inaccurate. But that's what MBTI is. That's all it is. A broad generalization, or description, of you. Take that away (which is tenuous at best anyway) and MBTI is worthless. Which, lol, it may be anyway. :crazy:

 

[Vaka]

Sure, descriptions can be inaccurate. But that's what MBTI is. That's all it is. A broad generalization, or description, of you. Take that away (which is tenuous at best anyway) and MBTI is worthless. Which, lol, it may be anyway. :crazy:

Yeah, that's why I prefer combining it with cognitive functions. Because studying the cognitive functions opens you up to how different types think/work rather than just how they stereotypically act.
And the descriptions are inaccurate. They almost make it seem as if every person of the same type will behave the same. And that's totally not true...

 

[MilkyWay132]

I always try to reference websites that go over functions. I think if people read this information for themselves it will increase awareness about MBTI. Too many people just type themselves with four letters and don't go further than that - and then we all get to read more of "i don't think i am a J because my room is messy".

I agree. Regarding the last thing you said, I have to admit that I am an INFP and I both procastinate and have a messy room. However, that's not exactly why I'm an INFP rather than an INFJ. I think I am an INFP because I use more Fi and Ne than Ni and Fe. I'm also an INFP because I prefer to keep my options open open when making decisions. Also, planning isn't my thing. I'm more of a spur-of-the-moment type of person once you get to know me. Those are the things that I think people should pay attention to---not laziness, like you said. :tongue:

 

[MilkyWay132]

I agree with the principle here, but I also think it's a lot harder to do practically. Maybe it's just me, but I have a hard time determining which function is the dominant one for someone I know without asking them direct questions about their behavior and how they think. This is especially true if you're looking at the auxiliary one. It's much quicker and easier to look at a list of common behaviors of a particular type and see how those match up


So for me at least, it becomes a choice between accuracy and efficiency. If you're really serious about getting someone's type right, then yes, you should look at the functions. But if you're just trying to type a bunch of people you know for fun, I think it's ok to kick around profile descriptions to get a guess. You just have to keep in mind that you could easily be wrong.

Well, if it helps, taking cognitive functions tests helps determine a person's dominant function. If you have trouble figuring out someone's type and would like to find out what their dominant function is, you can have them take this: Understanding the Eight Jungian Cognitive Processes / Eight Functions Attitudes Not only does it inform of a person's use of each function, but it also has descriptions for each of them. roud: