An Outlook On Typology

I’d like to share an outlook with everyone. I have no clue how many other people approach typology this way, but I feel like it would do a lot by way of seeing past stereotypes and bias. While I certainly can’t dismiss stereotypes as completely false and the general type descriptions do have value, they have inadvertently managed to narrow people’s perspectives on typology. People read those and start to see everyone of a specific type in that very specific way, and suddenly can no longer spot the deviations. I mean, we all say that everyone is unique, and we all know that everyone is unique, but I think practically speaking, we forget that this means we won’t always fit the personality “box” perfectly. Although, I have to clarify that statement by saying that the boxes exist for a reason. I’ve seen people too eager to throw out all type definitions for the sake of rationalizing someone to be a certain type, and that wreaks of bias or a flawed outlook on self. While no one will fit a personality type completely (because we are all unique), they will ultimately fit one of the personality types primarily. You can’t be a blend of all of them. Sorry. That would make the system pointless, and in that case, I’d have to shut this blog down. Something that is too broad can ultimately serve no practical value because the system will cease to be applicable in any useful way. But I digress.

Here is the way Ryan and I consciously approach typology: Everyone is capable of anything.

Everyone is capable of anything

Before you read too far into this “motto”, let me clarify. I’m not saying that certain types will not have certain natural strengths. That would be illogical. We all know that Ne users are great brainstormers and idea generators. Ni users are certainly capable of producing ideas, but they will never do it in the same broad way that an Ne user will. Similarly, it will never be as natural for an Ne user to hone in one single idea as it will for an Ni user. Can they each work toward the other? Sure. But that doesn’t change their natural strengths, or the fact that it will take more effort to do what they are not naturally prone to doing.

I mean this statement on a broader scope. We have this tendency to mistakenly associate specific actions or life choices with type, which is the major cause of mistyping. Certain actions have been mistakenly stereotyped as being the realm of only certain personality types. Sure, tendencies exist, but they are not rules. Cognitive functions do not determine skills. (Click the link to read that article.) However, this is just a minor example of what I mean. Let me give you a few broader examples.

1. Villains. The stereotypical villain is the INTJ. But even when the villain is not assumed to be INTJ, the majority of the time people assume that a villain will be one of the eight Thinking types. Whether this is the result of archetypical creations or just a shallow understanding of theory, I think some people have accidentally and subconsciously narrowed their perspective to only consider the Thinking types. Of course, this is just one example of where I sometimes see this happening.

2. Careers. Certain career fields have been primarily attributed to certain types. Supposedly, ISTPs are the mechanics, and we’ve been stereotyped into that role, but it’s not always true. Any personality is capable of following any career path. The question is going to be WHY and HOW they approach that career field. What would make each type choose to be a plumber? Is it a family business? Are all of their friends following that path? Were they going for a practical skill? Did they have a genuine interest in the mechanics of the skill set? Did they not have the money or means to pursue a higher education? Etcetera. Motivations are far more important than the action or choice itself. Stereotypes make assumptions on WHAT you’re doing, but good typology is based on WHY or HOW you’re doing something. I used the example of a plumber here, but you can substitute that for any career field out there.

3. Murder. This kind of plays off of the villain paragraph, but let’s think about the act of murder for a second. Any type can be capable of murder. Once again, it’s going to be a matter of WHY they’re doing it, and HOW they’re doing it. What’s their methodology? Analyze that if you want clues into their type. The mere ability to be cold hearted or cruel does not specifically point to one personality type over another. We can all get there, but how did it happen? Once again, you can insert any action into this paragraph, and run through all the same questions.

Try approaching things from the opposite direction. What would each type look like as a villain? How would they use their cognitive functions for evil? What would provoke each type to break the rules? What would provoke each type to turn on their social group? How would each type look in an intellectual setting? How would each type look in a religious setting? How could each type be hypocritical? Why would each type choose a specific career field? Etcetera. Remove the stereotypical characterizations or boundaries, because those are how we narrow our focus, and even at times, limit our own capability, which was not the point of personality theory. Don’t try to fit the box. The cognitive functions are about just that: cognition. It’s not a matter of what someone is doing, but WHY or HOW they’re doing it. This system defines how someone reasons, not every little thing that they’ll do. There can be a million different reasons to take a single action. Why would each type take that action? In my mind, that’s the real question to be asking when analyzing a personality type.