Personality Cafe banner

1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,472 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I watched this video years ago, and just watched it again to post in a separate thread, but I think it deserves a thread of its own. Particularly, because of Dr Mike's comments on trying to self-type based on the cognitive functions. What do you think? Helpful? Unhelpful? Relatable?

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,670 Posts
I thought using the functions was one of the best ways to get the accurate one
Unfortunately he is just talking about not being honest with yourself. Well of course you would get it wrong.
I think it would help if he continued on what he says about it being too abstract.
Clearly ni is very abstract? I think many people I know (sensing type) think they use ni all the time.

I thought it also helps to compare yourself to others who clearly use certain functions. And you can see whether you really do it or not

Now if you are honest with yourself, the second thought is more helpful. On the common behaviours of the type... I think I didn't get the idea til reading about infj and other types over and over. And then you see the differences.

He mentions for a second about the mbti system being not all that great,
Could help if there was more info on that out there.
I think one could easily liken it to an ambivert. Someone who does not totally fit extrovert or introvert.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
583 Posts
I saw a couple of videos of him, and I almost disagreed with everything he said. I wouldn't trust him to be honest. Of course someone might mistype himself because of some biases, still I think that's the best way to find your type, unless you trust someone around you who is really expert about MBTI and has good "psychological" skills.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,472 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
I saw a couple of videos of him, and I almost disagreed with everything he said. I wouldn't trust him to be honest. Of course someone might mistype himself because of some biases, still I think that's the best way to find your type, unless you trust someone around you who is really expert about MBTI and has good "psychological" skills.
I got into 'Dr Mike' when I was dating an ENFP, and I found his videos very helpful, certainly about ENFPs but also generally about MBTI and the cognitive functions (which I didn't understand before).

What other videos have you watched of his? He has some very interesting interview videos with other 'types', and especially INFJs (as he has a soft spot for INFJs).

He's an MBTI qualified practitioner, so I don't think he would stray too far from the theory, so I'm surprised that you 'almost disagreed with everything he said'. In this video I was most interested in his thoughts on using cognitive functions to self-type, because I think it takes a while to understand the cognitive functions, and I think it's easy to argue everything one way or the other. Whereas the descriptions of each type may be stereotypical but they at least give a starting point which is relatively concrete and relatable to people of that type. I think it would be a strange thing for a person to be of one type, but for their behaviour to completely manifest itself as appearing like another. I know I know INFJ chameleon and all that, but still, there should be something relatable about your own type description, even if it is not completely spot on.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
583 Posts
I got into 'Dr Mike' when I was dating an ENFP, and I found his videos very helpful, certainly about ENFPs but also generally about MBTI and the cognitive functions (which I didn't understand before).

What other videos have you watched of his? He has some very interesting interview videos with other 'types', and especially INFJs (as he has a soft spot for INFJs).

He's an MBTI qualified practitioner, so I don't think he would stray too far from the theory, so I'm surprised that you 'almost disagreed with everything he said'. In this video I was most interested in his thoughts on using cognitive functions to self-type, because I think it takes a while to understand the cognitive functions, and I think it's easy to argue everything one way or the other. Whereas the descriptions of each type may be stereotypical but they at least give a starting point which is relatively concrete and relatable to people of that type. I think it would be a strange thing for a person to be of one type, but for their behaviour to completely manifest itself as appearing like another. I know I know INFJ chameleon and all that, but still, there should be something relatable about your own type description, even if it is not completely spot on.
I found some interviews to be interesting as well :) I just didn't like the way he explained types: for example he said that Fe users aren't sensitive because they SPEAK through feeling, while Fi users LISTEN through feeling which means they are actually sensitive (in accordance with this principle INTJs and ENTJs aren't logical because they just speak through logic as their intellective function is extraverted...xd). I didn't mean to be rude towards the post, I am just disappointed when people who should be expert in what they are speaking about make some ridicolous semplifications. Anyway, to answer your question, I think what you wrote is the best way find out your own type and it does make it even more enjoyable and enlightening in my opinion :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,751 Posts
Arguably, cognitive functions will be more useful in self-typing than in typing someone else. The cognitive functions describe the inner wiring of your mind. Thanks to meta cognition, this is something you can observe and quantify in yourself.

When it comes to identifying cognition in others, you’d need to be able to ask descriptive and specific questions, and the person would need to be able to answer with specific, descriptive, and honest answers. There’s A LOT more room for something to get lost in translation.

For instance, a highly visual thought process is difficult to describe. A person may be able to relate some of the sensations but not all of them. Lost descriptiveness. Some answers may get censored because they are embarrassing or not considered socially acceptable. Lost honesty. A person may have taken ten steps to reach a conclusion, but they choose to describe the five most pertinent steps. Lost specificity. With any of these cases, it would appear that you’re getting a complete answer from the person, certainly enough to analyze. But you’d really have an incomplete picture to work from.

There’s also space for bias and pre-conceptions to color the way you interpret someone else’s answers.

If you use a behavioral model to type someone else, you’re simply identifying the emergent and trying to extrapolate from that. Like the proverbial black box, you see what goes in, you see what comes out, but you know nothing of what happens inside the box.

When you’re self-typing, there is no black box. You see the input and output, but you also see the processes going on inside the box. The root and the emergent. This should be optimal for identifying your own cognitive pathways.

On a side note, if you’re going to be dishonest with yourself, it’s going to ruin self-typing results, regardless of whether it is based on dichotomy or functions.
 

·
Registered
INTP 9w1-5w4-2w3 sp/so
Joined
·
2,602 Posts
I think one sign is if your behavior doesn't line up with the functions of what you typed as but more along the lines of a different type. If someone is mistyped, they obviously will not pick up on this. Other MBTI buffs will pick up on it from the get-go but mystypes will continue to live in denical. It is good for people to be open-minded but when it comes to yourself, this is no easy task. Functions can be helpful but if misuesed, it can be the opposite. It can be a long process for people to get out of denial and admit that they are mistyped. It may also be hurtful for people to hear that they've gotten who they are wrong.

I am reluctant to directly tell people when I think that they are mistyped for this reason. There can be a variety of different behaviors that can overlap with types which makes it more difficult. Functions can be complicated to understand and people who are just getting into MBTI may not get them off the bat. Also, if someone gives you a second opinion on you being mistyped, this can be helpful as well. I myself question my type quite a bit. The thought of myself being completely mistyped scares me quite a bit. Someone's self image can be different than reality or how others see them. While it is true to an extent that no one knows them better than themselves, typing isn't easy business. It can be difficult to hear that you have your own type wrong. It's very easy for someone to project a type onto themselves especially when they wan to be that type. Getting defensive is often because when getting very obsessed with MBTI people often connect their type with part of their identity. This self identity can be way off if some is projecting who they want to be onto their type. I think the aspect about not actually being that type but defending it can vary. Sometimes, they may be the wrong type but that may not always be the case. It is because they've connected this as a part of who they are. The people knowing that they're in denial on a subconscious level can be a very valid point. How we see ourselves is different than how others see us so that is something to take into account as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,454 Posts
I watched this video years ago as well. I consider it valuable advice. I think he makes a good point about it being too easy for people to justify a type solely through the functions while completely avoiding/dismissing any and all descriptions (even the good ones) of what a type often looks like. I don't think that makes much sense. And he's right - it is very abstract and hard for a lot of people to grasp/apply. I've seen Ne+Ti mistaken for Ni, Ni+Fe mistaken for Fi or someone might simply be off on the order of their preferred functions. Certain types look alike on the surface. It creates a lot of confusion when not looked at in a more holistic way since the functions work in conjunction with one another anyway + we all utilize all of the cognitive functions to some degree. In addition, not everyone leads with Ni and is going to be comfortable going super abstract anyway.

That being said, I don't think understanding how the functions work is worthless either. They can be a useful tool when explained properly or in the right context.

I also don't think people always mistype due to shame (though sure, that can happen). I think that would be a more common occurrence in the heart types though (2's, 3's and 4's) since heart types revolve around shame or just connecting type too much to their personal identity. Some people mistype because they're genuinely just baffled by the system. An honest mistake. It's not necessarily because they don't know themselves well/in denial though of course that happens too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Songs unsung

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,118 Posts
I think he's right in most respects, except for his conclusion. The cognitive function model is a tool, and it's a useful one. Like Powerpoint for example. Sure, you can take a bunch of pictures, put them in a powerpoint presentation and claim you've made a movie, but that doesn't make it true. It also doesn't mean that powerpoint is a useless tool.

So yes, the cognitive functions model can be abused to mistype yourself or others, but it's not worthless. It's a great way to understand how all of the theory holds together. It's not the only way though.
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top