#incorrect mbti | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

contentgreenearth · 1 year

Text

JUNGIAN TYPOLOGY POST #17: PULLING TYPINGS OFF THE INTERNET-THEY DON'T PROPERLY REPRESENT JUNG'S FUNCTIONS

Hello, everyone, I pulled a bunch of typings people did in a Jung MBTI group out of the group, and I'm actually going to talk about how these typings do not correctly represent Jung's functions, although that's what the people in this group *claim* to be using.

First , we will start with a typing somebody submitted to the group last Tuesday:

So, I know this one guy from school, and I've known him for a bit. Over time I've unconsciously paid attention to his personality, (like everyone does) and I want to try typing him so here goes: Part 1

1. His demeanor can change quite a bit: one on hand, he can be very funny, extroverted, and the "life of the party." However, he's also seen to be quiet, contemplative, timid, and kind of unaware (which makes him seem stupid) but he's not. He just looks like that because (his words here): he's just thinking about something. What he thinks about, I have no idea 😕 He doesn't say.

(1.1) (Not as important, but many people have said that he looks either: sad, angry, or scared) when asked about this, he says that he's not, and honestly doesn't pay attention to something like that

2. When talking to him, he has a nice demeanor, (is never rude from what I've seen) though sometimes he does talk with apathy or seems confused. Like he's piecing the puzzle together in his head in real time. He'll say something like, "Wait, but this doesn't..." or "I thought that..." When angry, he usually talks in a biting, sharp, subtly angry tone. I think he does this because he might accidentally snap and get very loud 😬 . Which is weird, because everyone thinks he sounds angry (but he isn't actually angry at all, he's just pointing out something, or arguing his point)

(2.1) Also, he has a hard time to understand subtle hints at times, or when people are joking. It's not serious at all, like it doesn't hinder him at all, but it is something interesting I've found out about him

(2.2) He does get VERY expressive at times, mainly when it's something he dislikes or something that doesn't make sense to him. He'll say it's stupid, and why do people do it like that, when they could do it like *that* (which is something he suggested) and how his idea is better. He usually gets very expressive about stuff that makes stuff "harder" or "complicated" and wants to make it more convenient

(2.3) Sometimes, he'll point out how something will look like something else, and they're surprisingly accurate. Like **surprisingly** accurate. Like how did you think of that? Other times I don't get it, and others don't. He tries explaining it, but it doesn't work 😢 boohoo.

3. As for whether he's more T or F. I'm not sure. On the surface, he seems more T than F, definitely. He's the type of guy to focus on a single question for an ungodly amount of time, only skipping to the next question when staying on the question isn't going anywhere. He's been called blunt by others before, which he can be, but from what I see, I think he just doesn't care. Like he'll try to work with someone, and he definitely can, he doesn't have any problem with anyone, but he does get pretty exhausted when he is dealing with feelings. When it comes to dealing with emotional situations, he is very tense, like he freezes up. After practice I overheard one of the coaches talking with another coach? official? idk?

saying "he wants to learn everything immediately." that might be an indicator of being a dominant melancholic. Like he wants to be perfect. Or maybe that's dominant choleric, like the drive or determination to achieve.

(3.1) Why I think he might be an F: he does quietly look around for whether it is ok to do something, and doesn't seem blunt when talking others and doesn't like seeing others down, (yet I do remember him saying that he isn't as blunt because he doesn't want to deal with arguments about it, and would rather have it over with than to deal with the emotional outburst)

4. I think he's more P than J, but idk. He does his work on his own, and will do what he needs to without supervision. But he can be pretty spontaneous. Some examples are opening a car door while the car is on the road, driving, and another car is coming in our direction. All because someone said that someone has to get out the car (it was pretty packed tbf)

His demeanor can change quite a bit: one on hand, he can be very funny, extroverted, and the "life of the party." However, he's also seen to be quiet, contemplative, timid, and kind of unaware (which makes him seem stupid) but he's not. He just looks like that because (his words here): he's just thinking about something. What he thinks about, I have no idea 😕 He doesn't say.

I could get somewhat of a typing from this, but not a complete one. If I had been doing this typing, I would have asked the person who submitted it a few key things:

1. Why did the person do xyz? Motives are very important pieces of knowledge to do a correct typing.

2. Was this person in a traumatic/abusive situation at home? This is an important question to ask in most typology groups, because they usually use some mood-based typology in their typing process. I don't, so I normally don't ask people that, but this group does, so if I were using their typing methods, this *is* something I would ask. Traumatic and abusive situations in the home definitely affect people's demeanor

3. Does he prefer xyz over abc? If his situation were different, would he still prefer xyz over abc? As I've mentioned several times in this blog, knowing a person's priorities of the 4 different foci essentially hands you the hierarchy of their conscious functions on a silver platter. Knowing a person's first and second priority in the foci can immediately tell you what the person's dominant and auxiliary functions are. With the information provided here, all I could really determine for sure is that this person is a sensor. The fact that it was mentioned that this person gets along well with others made me think the person is also a feeler. There was a remark that mentioned this guy preferred interacting with nature over interacting with people. That suggests S1, F2; or S1, T2. In these examples, the person preferred feeling and thinking about equally. So, without any further information, my tentative type for this person would be xSFP (preferring F>T) or Sx (instead of Se or Si, because we don't have enough information to know the attitude of the conscious). Here, however, were the responses of this group that *claims * to use Jung's functions. After each, I'll tell you what's wrong abou what they say. And I'm not necessarily saying these people mistyped him. They might have the right type, and just got lucky. More information being provided could back up their type claims, but with only the information provided, their typings were questionable at best, and here's why:

first impression off the bat is ISTP<:catthunk:1016670968770461706>

This is questionable at best, because as I just stated above, there was not enough information provided to definitely type this person as an ISTP. The only definitive things at all in the description above are S1 and an undifferentiated aux

"(2.2) He does get VERY expressive at times, mainly when it's something he dislikes or something that doesn't make sense to him. He'll say it's stupid, and why do people do it like that, when they could do it like that (which is something he suggested) and how his idea is better. He usually gets very expressive about stuff that makes stuff "harder" or "complicated" and wants to make it more convenient"

this strikes me as ISTP's pragmatism, and exhibits a melancholic correction of processes (ST)the external sanguine plus the Fe3 could be the culprit of his expressivity

To the person above, I would hate to say it, but first of all , if you read Jung, you would definitely know unconscious Fe is not about positive expressivity. Jung, in fact, defines unconscious Fe here:

Second that Kiersey Temperament +Berens Communication Style = Greek Temperament is nothing but ****, and any good typist knows that

"His demeanor can change quite a bit: one on hand, he can be very funny, extroverted, and the "life of the party." However, he's also seen to be quiet, contemplative, timid, and kind of unaware (which makes him seem stupid) but he's not. He just looks like that because (his words here): he's just thinking about something. What he thinks about, I have no idea 😕 He doesn't say."

that first part, like I said before, would be related to /sanguine and Fe3. that other part can sound like either phlegmatic or melancholic, but im def leaning towards melancholic

also the not expressing what hes thinking strikes me as identity without expression lol

Once again, Fe3 has nothing to do with positive expression. Jung says in many places that x3 is thae auxiliary of x4. What does that imply? That the unconscious functions have at best , neutral, and at worst, negative, connotations with them. Alternating between funny, extroverted and life of the party; and quiet, contemplative and timid; would be because of a *conscious* feeling function, not an unconscious one. Notice how after reading the exact same paragraph, I determined this person to have *conscious* feeling.

Also , this particular group associates Ti with self identity 🤔 Jung's definition of Ti has nothing to do with self identity, and if you actually read Psychological Types, you find if there *is* a function that has anything to do with self identity, it's *Fi*, not Ti.

same with this. I think I knew a different IS(T)P who just seemed completely immune to his environment. Would hang out in winter weather with like just a sweater and seem totally normal. It was almost surreal at times

Then there's this person, talking about an "SP" trait as if it's exclusive to ISTPs, and thankfully, someone else in the group was at least able to see this error and correct the person:

perhaps this is an Si1 thing, cus I kinda relate to this as well

Now that I read it, they aren't fully correct. To the person directly above, that's S1, not Si1.

And after I remembered that if Jung has a function that that anything to do with self-identity, it is Fi; I think I'm wrong. There was enough information provided to type this person. He's not an ISTP, by the way. His SOJT type is Se (preferring F>T), and his closest MBTI would be ESFP. Sorry, you guys. 🤣😂😆 I'm going to post this in my server . If anyone reads this here, or in my server, and sees any other misrepresentations of Jung, other than the ones I've already pointed out, please point them out , and let's discuss. I'd like my readers to learn Jung well enough to recognize typology errors like these, and I'd like to get better at recognizing them too 👍🤞✌️

#typology #mbti #incorrect mbti #mistypes #mbti vs sojt #JungMBTI vs Jung

3 notes · View notes