[pinkrasputin]

I think that MBTI may be giving some people the benefit of the doubt when they shouldn't be. Okay, so here is how I came up with this idea:

While running (I get most of my ideas while I run) I came up with a funny joke about how the "No Trolling Rule" was discriminatory towards certain types. Like ENTPs, and what not. Hahahaha! Yes, I was laughing while running. :laughing:

But then I thought "Naw, it's good that we have some sort of standard for behavior and we really don't need to condone inappropriate behavior". But in so many ways we do.

Are we too forgiving of a certain type if we know it's weaknesses or tendencies? In this way, shouldn't we look at being a mature human being, rather than their type? Since when is it okay to put up with tantrums or pouting? I don't care what the type is. When is it okay to be passive aggressive just because a type is known for being that way? Since when is it okay for a person to lack empathy or detached from their own emotions? This is hardly healthy. Since when is it okay to put up with arrogance, condescending overtones and projection? Regardless of type, these are not healthy human behaviors. Shouldn't all of us know of our weakness and try to work on them?

Has MBTI caused us to be too forgiving? Communication and understanding is one thing, but have we now become enablers for negative behaviors in another?

 

[Psilocin]

I can't think you enough for that post.

I think it should also be mentioned that those "generally mopey" types should really pay attention for their moods. Yes, their type may be the "Reason" for such moods- But the moods can also be that of psychological disorder and could need srs treatment.

I think it would be best for people to give the most attention to themselves, not their type.

 

[pinkrasputin]

I think it would be best for people to give the most attention to themselves, not their type.

Omg, I can't agree with you enough.

Thank you and you're welcome. :wink:

 

[Dallas]

I do think that MBTI in some ways has caused us to be too forgiving. Understanding ourselves better should make it so that we can handle these sort of problems as opposed to just rationalizing their existence.

 

[InvisibleJim]

You clearly haven't read anything about the Ni tendancy to find any changes to the external environment as a danger to their inner psyche and therefore you have failed at convincing an Ni user that you aren't simply taking a bash at ones dislike of the outer world.

I note that you made the classic error of assuming that there is only one healthy state and we should all aspire to it. Yes, lets just issue Fluoxetine to every forum member just incase they don't meet your happy quotient.

To remove any doubt: Not the way you put it, I don't care if you want me to smile I'm still going to call you belligerent, unrealistic and tell you to mind your own business; I am content with my non fluctuating emotions and I don't care if others aren't and wish to see peaks and troughs from me. My emotions are internal and I prefer this. If you do not want to talk to a certain type because you don't like their attitude then don't. I don't think members of those types will be overly upset by this and will be quite happy to respect your wishes.

 

[pinkrasputin]

You clearly haven't read anything about the Ni tendancy to find any changes to the external environment as a danger to their inner psyche and therefore you have failed at convincing an Ni user that you aren't simply taking a bash at ones dislike of the outer world.

I note that you made the classic error of assuming that there is only one healthy state and we should all aspire to it. Yes, lets just issue Fluoxetine to every forum member just incase they don't meet your happy quotient.

To remove any doubt: Not the way you put it, I don't care if you want me to smile I'm still going to call you belligerent, unrealistic and tell you to mind your own business; I am content with my non fluctuating emotions and I don't care if others aren't and wish to see peaks and troughs from me. My emotions are internal and I prefer this. If you do not want to talk to a certain type because you don't like their attitude then don't. I don't think members of those types will be overly upset by this and will be quite happy to respect your wishes.

Jim, you just took on a very defensive tenor. If there was something I said that you took personally, that is more about you than it is about me.

Other than directly joking with ENTPs, in no way was I attacking a certain type. I love every certain "type". You will not get me to hate a certain "group" of people no matter how hard you try. This is because I look at individuals.

I note that you made the classic error of assuming that there is only one healthy state and we should all aspire to it.

Jim, this is more about responsibility. And yes, I do believe in a consensus of responsibility.

 

[ThoughtProcess]

I agree with InvisibleJim. Being healthy for one's type is far more important than faking another personality type.

I am who I am and that's all that I am. If you don't like it you're more than welcome to shove off because I'm sure as hell not changing for anyone other than myself. (note: I'm using "you" in the general sense, not directed at you.)

 

[InvisibleJim]

Jim, this is more about responsibility. And yes, I do believe in a consensus of responsibility.

Your basic premise is that as an extrovert when you approach someone that they should be happy with the attention. Collective happiness being required and when they are not happy it is their fault they do not interact with you in a way you like, lowering your imagine of collective happiness.

The answer is: find people to interact with who are happy to smile all the time regardless of you overriding their personal boundaries offering no resistance as you do so: i.e. someone entirely compliant or who themselves has less/no personal boundaries. One shouldn't be going telling others to change their views and interactions because your preference for how their views and interactions should be are different: as I say, belligerence won't get you anywhere with the naturally defensive.

 

[pinkrasputin]

Your basic premise is that as an extrovert when you approach someone that they should be happy with the attention.

Jim, do you mind staying within the topic? And please stop the projection. I could care less if someone is happy with my attention when I approach. Who are you talking about? <<<<< rhetorical

If you do not agree with MBTI making us enablers, you may state so and the reasons why. There is no reason to make a personal attack. I will not condone this on my thread. Thoughtprocess didn't agree and simply stated his reasons why. Learn from his example.

 

[Dallas]

Refining my standpoint:

I note that you made the classic error of assuming that there is only one healthy state and we should all aspire to it. Yes, lets just issue Fluoxetine to every forum member just incase they don't meet your happy quotient.

Hyperbole aside, I agree with Jim in the statement that we don't all have to be the same way to be healthy. Some people like to be with people, some people need time alone. I don't believe that everyone moving to a said cognitive position (Most brought up is XXXX) is a good thing, and defeats the reason we have typology in the first place.

Jim, this is more about responsibility. And yes, I do believe in a consensus of responsibility.

Could there be responsibility in understanding differences in others?

I agree with InvisibleJim. Being healthy for one's type is far more important than faking another personality type.

I am who I am and that's all that I am. If you don't like it you're more than welcome to shove off because I'm sure as hell not changing for anyone other than myself. (note: I'm using "you" in the general sense, not directed at you.)

I agree with this as well, and do not believe that you should change yourself just because someone else wants you to change.

I suppose what I meant when I originally agreed with the statement was in reference to those who don't believe they can be a certain way or do a certain thing because MBTI tells them that they are the way they are and they can't change that. (Ex. I'm inferior Fe, so therefore I can't have feelings, so it's okay for me to be inconsiderate to others because I can't change the way I am.)

 

[InvisibleJim]

Jim, do you mind staying within the topic? And please stop the projection. I could care less if someone is happy with my attention when I approach. Who are you talking about? <<<<< rhetorical

If you do not agree with MBTI making us enablers, you may state so and the reasons why. There is no reason to make a personal attack. I will not condone this on my thread. Thoughtprocess didn't agree and simply stated his reasons why. Learn from his example.

There was no derailment and everything was on topic. My opinions were shared and I don't need to share the reasons because these are my preferences, my choices, likes and dislikes. Do I like red or blue more, or oh hum circles or squares? One is allowed to express an opinion and I don't see why you would seek to censor it because it is not an opinion you particularly like.

As you say, you 'could' (I assume you mean couldn't) care less if someone is happy with your attention on the forum; therefore why are you complaining that 'Since when is it okay for a person to lack empathy or detached from their own emotions?'. Your opinion is internally inconsistent, I think you need to determine what your own preference is and make decisions based upon that.

 

[pinkrasputin]

Refining my standpoint:



Could there be responsibility in understanding differences in others?

Yes, and that was my starting point. As I believe that MBTI can be used as a effective tool for self awareness, communication, and understanding another's differences.

But now has it gone to an extreme where people are no longer taking responsibility for themselves to be effective in this world and effective communicators? Is it in someways over working others to a codependent degree to try understand another? Are we in this way "building monsters" by not putting a foot down to certain types of behaviors?

Are we over looking a person's depression or someone who really needs help because we are just blaming their behaviors on "Type". I worry that in some ways, it's easy for us to stay passive and continue enabling.


I believe there can be a responsibility to one's self to be capable human being who can communicate with one another. I'm not so sure that extreme belief in MBTI isn't killing what it at first sought after to create.


Enabling to the extreme: Holocaust. Every man can't always live for himself as he is still in this world amongst others. Yes, I do believe there can be a consensus in responsibility.

I think self acceptance is wonderful. I live by self acceptance. But that doesn't mean I avoid mirrors that show me what I objectively look like. If I were to do that, I would fail at continuing growth.

 

[lirulin]

Never had a problem with being forgiving...:crazy:

Is anyone really that into mbti that they forgive any unkindness just because it is a stereotype? I've found people mostly make these excuses for themselves. I find most people need that extra push to be understanding of others' differences - going overboard doesn't seem a viable risk. Never witnessed it, without a healthy dose of passive-aggressiveness thrown in the mixture. And a lot of behaviour that another type or person may dislike needs to be understood as a lack of malice, as a need to think out loud, as a need to have space from people, as a particular sense of humour, as too self-referential to be an attack, as a venting outlet that does not reflect their usual behaviour or level of judgement...

Obviously it would be bad to go overboard, but I think it highly unlikely, indeed hardly possible, and understanding is a very very valid goal. I can't say that I feel comfortable with the idea of not trying to understand others' perspectives as much as possible. What you then do with that understanding is up to you. Knowledge shouldn't ever be limited.

 

[StephAnne04]

Are you suggesting that people who don't want to talk their feelings with other people are depressed?

 

[pinkrasputin]

Are you suggesting that people who don't want to talk their feelings with other people are depressed?

Um. No. Where in the world did you see that suggested, Steph?

 

[jbking]

Another take...

Are we too forgiving of a certain type if we know it's weaknesses or tendencies? In this way, shouldn't we look at being a mature human being, rather than their type? Since when is it okay to put up with tantrums or pouting? I don't care what the type is. When is it okay to be passive aggressive just because a type is known for being that way? Since when is it okay for a person to lack empathy or detached from their own emotions? This is hardly healthy. Since when is it okay to put up with arrogance, condescending overtones and projection? Regardless of type, these are not healthy human behaviors. Shouldn't all of us know of our weakness and try to work on them?

Has MBTI caused us to be too forgiving? Communication and understanding is one thing, but have we now become enablers for negative behaviors in another?

Some people may be extremely forgiving and others less forgiving though. Is that wrong in and of itself? The variety of people is an important part of our existence in my mind and I'd rather see us focus on our strengths and how we can use these to have a productive, lawful, and prosperous society, where those are subject to some interpretation of course. We each have a responsibility for our reactions and being mature enough to know that if someone seems to be pushing our buttons that we have coping mechanisms to avoid getting into a flame war or some other waste of time and resources.

What is supposed to enforce that we all get towards maturity? For example, if someone rarely uses their emotions and generally seems quite detached from them, what is supposed to be the crime in that? Invading on someone else's freedoms is my point to counter this in a sense. Yes there can be a dark side to having MBTI information but it can also be very helpful and useful.

As for an article about weaknesses, I submit Exhibit A:
Managing Your Weaknesses

I don't believe MBTI has caused us to be too forgiving. Instead it has brought about a great deal of understanding and where we can choose to show compassion to each other or we can choose to work to destroy each other. It is a choice we all make everyday.

 

[pinkrasputin]

Some people may be extremely forgiving and others less forgiving though. Is that wrong in and of itself? The variety of people is an important part of our existence in my mind and I'd rather see us focus on our strengths and how we can use these to have a productive, lawful, and prosperous society, where those are subject to some interpretation of course. We each have a responsibility for our reactions and being mature enough to know that if someone seems to be pushing our buttons that we have coping mechanisms to avoid getting into a flame war or some other waste of time and resources.

What is supposed to enforce that we all get towards maturity? For example, if someone rarely uses their emotions and generally seems quite detached from them, what is supposed to be the crime in that? Invading on someone else's freedoms is my point to counter this in a sense. Yes there can be a dark side to having MBTI information but it can also be very helpful and useful.

As for an article about weaknesses, I submit Exhibit A:
Managing Your Weaknesses

I don't believe MBTI has caused us to be too forgiving. Instead it has brought about a great deal of understanding and where we can choose to show compassion to each other or we can choose to work to destroy each other. It is a choice we all make everyday.

Thank you JB. Is there a way to access that article without having to subscribe?

 

[jbking]

Drat....

Sometimes I'll get the I need a subscription message and sometimes not. I don't think I have a subscription to GMJ though I have bought a couple of books based on their research, "Strength Finders 2.0" and "Strengths-Based Leadership." Here is the main point I wanted to take from the article that does have a few other items within it:

A highly organized and time-efficient person would be likely to have significant talents in the areas of Discipline and Focus. But let's say you don't. You lack Discipline or Focus, but instead, you have many talents as an Achiever. You want to accomplish things. You may even be driven to make a mental or physical note of the things that you plan to accomplish, then go back to check those things off when you have accomplished them.

For example, I work with a manager who is driven by talents in his Achiever theme. Now, he knows he needs to interact with his people every day, but he isn't naturally inclined to go out and meet people, greet them, and be friendly with them. So he puts this task on his list of things to do every day. Four times a day, he goes out to the coffee pot that's across the hall from his office and talks to colleagues on the way. Yes, he makes sure he does this four times daily. This strategy works for him because he's an Achiever and because he's put it on his list of things to do.

So if you're not naturally organized, but you're driven to achieve, you could make up for your lack of organization by drawing on complementary talents. This is very powerful, because the flip side of that is conventional wisdom, which would send you to a time-management seminar to learn organizational skills.

There are other articles from the GMJ about weaknesses though I suppose it is worth noting that they do have a set of books and tools around Strengths, so in a way this may be seen as slightly biased. Marcus Buckingham used to work for Gallup and has similar material out on the subject. Good Managers Focus on Employees' Strengths, Not Weaknesses is an article from Wharton so, I think it shouldn't be blocked by anything, but here's the key point I want to highlight:

It may sound elementary, but a quick glance around the business world indicates that many companies have yet to grasp this simple concept of putting people's strengths to use, Buckingham said. That's because the business world -- and the world at large -- is obsessed with weaknesses and finding ways to fix them. Buckingham cited a recent poll that asked workers whether they felt they could achieve more success through improving on their weaknesses or building on their strengths. Fifty-nine percent picked the former.

"A great manager sees the folly in this," said Buckingham, who has interviewed some of the business world's most successful leaders for his books. "A great manager knows he or she will get the most return on investment by working on strengths." Buckingham has seen this management style work. He just doesn't see it often enough, and he believes too many workers spend too much of their time doing things they don't like to do or simply aren't good at doing.

I'm not taking issue about knowing one's weakness but I do take issue about trying to work on it directly when there may be other ways that would work much better.

 

[Dallas]

I can't see myself in this mirror. Does that mean I'm a vampire? AHHH! I don't want to be glitter boy!

*Somehow going to save this post and try to make it useful*

I'm not sure if the holocaust and monster metaphors are entirely needed. I don't see any problem in attempting to understand each other, that's good, but I'm not sure how much I agree with the rest of it, yet.

 

[Slider]

Yes. When I'm bad, I automatically blame you.