How To Correctly Use Relative Typing

Any clue what I’m talking about? Yeah, I’m really not sure if it has an actual term associated with it, so I’m putting forward ‘relative typing’ as a candidate. Feel free to let me know if it’s already been labelled. But anywho, relative typing is when you define one person’s type based on their similarities or differences when compared to someone else. Let me give you a couple of examples.

Example #1: My friend, Bob, is an ISFJ. My brother is a lot like my friend. My brother must be an ISFJ!
Example #2: I relate a lot to this person… so he/she must be an -insertyourtypehere-

Unfortunately, this type of logic has bit me in the butt multiple times. Although, maybe that’s a bit dramatic to say. What I mean is that I’ve had to go back and retype multiple people before purely because of the chain reaction that spanned from one typing mistake. Bad idea. Very bad idea. While there are certainly benefits to being able to play the game of ‘relative typing’, it CANNOT be your primary course of evidence, and I’m going to show you why by explaining the major flaw in each of the above examples.

Example #1:

My friend, Bob, is an ISFJ. My brother seems a lot like my friend. My brother, Billy, must be an ISFJ!

Flaw #1:
The first potential flaw is going to seem redundant, considering what I said in the previous paragraph, but Bob might not actually be an ISFJ. People are frequently mistyped, for a couple of different reasons. Perhaps Bob didn’t have a clear understanding of MBTI theory, and, in error, decided he related most to ISFJ. Perhaps Bob really had no clue what he was, but he got typed as an ISFJ by someone else (who either didn’t know the theory well or didn’t know Bob well), and now Bob tells everyone that he is an ISFJ. Perhaps you don’t know Bob as well as you think you do, and you only ever see him in scenarios in which he appears to act like an ISFJ. Perhaps you don’t know MBTI theory as well as you think you do. Regardless, because there is no official, inerrant authority that can declare Bob’s type, Bob should not be used as a template for all ISFJs everywhere.

Flaw #2:
The second error here is that while maybe Bob is an ISFJ, perhaps all the similarities between Bob and Billy can be attributed to one specific function that they share. Perhaps Billy is actually an INFJ. Introverted traits can be hard to peg because they usually aren’t demonstrated in public as clearly as the extraverted ones are. So, while someone’s Fe may scream loud and clear, that sneaky dominant introverted function may be more obscure or masked. Of course, the reverse is also plausible. Two dominant Si users can appear very similar, especially in public when both are subdued and leaning primarily on their Si. Is Billy actually an ISTJ?

Example #2:

I relate a lot to this person… so he/she must be an -insertyourtypehere-

The Flaw: It’s easy to relate to people
Some of us struggle to relate to others, but usually, when you spend enough time with someone or read a really long ‘type me’ post, you can find something that you relate to, even if it’s minor. We’re all human, so to some degree, we all have similarities. It’s unavoidable. We all feel or have felt the same emotions. Two completely different types can have nearly identical hobbies or at least one similar hobby. Many people share similar fears, insecurities, desires, dreams, or etc.

Have you ever seen two people get together who were clearly a different type when apart, but together it was like they were the same person? Different people draw out different aspects of our personality. I’ve seen two Ne users get together and suddenly their Ne was running wild. This happens because one Ne user will draw out the Ne from another user. The same goes for all of the other functions. Te will draw out Te. Fe will draw out Fe. Etcetera. When two people with a function pair in common get together, it is incredibly common for them to appear very similar.

To be honest, I think noticing that you CAN’T relate to someone AT ALL says more then being able to relate to someone. Think about it. There are 16 total types. As an ISTP, I share at least one function pair with all but 4 of them, which means I can probably relate in some way to 12 of the 16 types. So, being able to determine that you can’t relate at all to someone, potentially narrows them down to 1 of 4 types, as opposed to the other 12 that they might be if you feel like you can relate to them in some way. (Although, remember that just because someone is among the 4 types you share no functions with, it doesn’t mean you won’t have anything in common… You’ll just think and approach life completely differently. And now we’ve looped back to the original point of this section: it’s easy to relate to people)

Bottom line: Relative Typing CANNOT be your main source of evidence for someone’s type. If it is, throw everything you’ve got completely out and take a fresh look at the person. Everyone must be analyzed on an individual basis using cognitive function theory. Figure out which functions they are using based on their behavior, habits, thoughts, conversations, and etcetera.

BUT! Relative Typing Can Be Used Correctly

Now that I’ve completely bashed relative typing, allow me to explain how it can be useful.

1. It can be a quick shortcut in determining someone’s type

I like to have a starting point when typing someone. 16 possibilities seems like a lot to me. Therefore, if I can identify that (in the case of Example #1), Billy is a lot like Bob, I’ll ask myself “Why?”. I’ll then start to look for Si or Fe. Usually, I can hone in on what the common link is, allowing me to rule out all types without that function. For instance, if I realize Billy’s similarities with Bob are all Fe based, I can safely rule out all but the SFJs and NFJs, and start focusing on finding Ni or Si evidence. However, just be careful not to tunnel vision in on a preconceived notion of someone’s type and force the fit. If the “quick shortcut” is not working, rewind and start from scratch with individual analysis.

2. It can allow you to pick up on the themes and symptoms of each function

I tend to use my gut when initially typing someone. The different functions have different feels, and I’d like to think that I’m getting relatively good at picking up on each one. If you start comparing people with other people keeping their types in mind, you can start to hone in on the overall feel or appearance of each function, which will make you not only better at typing people, but quicker. I use MBTI theory as a way to understand and navigate people, and being able to type someone in the moment based on a hunch or feeling has proven to be useful time and time again.