Be Wary of Type Descriptions

Type descriptions really trip people up. Seriously. People go off and take some personality test, grab their given result, and start reading type descriptions. They then base the accuracy of their result off of what they find. Unfortunately, this is not always an accurate way to determine things and I’m going to list off some reasons why. This probably won’t be long, since there isn’t a whole lot to say on this subject, but it’s worth giving specific attention to, rather than the random side mentions that Ryan and I make here and there throughout our articles.

DISCLAIMER:

I’m not trying to insult any other site out there… That’s never my intention. Type descriptions are not always inaccurate. Some happen to be accurate, and some are actually done right. My goal here is just to present a more well-rounded perspective on the subject.

THE ISSUES

1. People are extremely complex

We all know this. Yet, we subconsciously expect to read a perfectly accurate description of ourselves among only 16 options. Some people may find this, but many others will likely not. The more specific the description, the more likely it is to be unrelatable. The more generalized the description, the more relatable it’ll be to everyone, even those outside the target type. Many descriptions struggle to find that perfect balance, and oftentimes, it can seem like a losing battle for the writer anyway. After all, will it be easy to relate to your type’s description if it can only be so specific? However, to make it too general can be misleading. Do you see the dilemma?

2. Type descriptions tend to focus on the wrong thing

As we’ve said many times, the 16 personalities are rooted in the cognitive functions, which is concerned with how someone thinks. Many type descriptions tend to hone in on the results of a thought process rather than thought process itself. A major reason for this could be because it’s much more complicated to explain thought processes. Additionally, it takes a lot more effort on the part of the reader to figure themselves out based on that approach to a type description. Many typology enthusiasts are not actually looking to dig down deep in regards to their type, and they just want to read an idealistic, feel-good description of who they want or believe themselves to be. It’s easy for writers to fall into the trap of giving people what they want, versus maintaining accuracy.

3. Type descriptions only represent one facet of a personality type

So, since many type descriptions are focusing on actions rather than thought processes, what ends up happening is that they tend to describe a specific version of the personality type in question. It tends to be the most common version, or the version most desired. As a result, the type description isn’t necessarily inaccurate… it’s just only accurate to a small subset of people with that type. Now, that doesn’t mean it should be on the writer to present all versions or that a personality system needs to have a million sub-types to account for all the variants. Quite frankly, that would be impossible. Once again, people are complex. However, ultimately, I view the solution to be to try to focus on what one’s personality type defines, versus teaching people a bunch of anecdotal evidence for the various personality types.

To give you an example, the INFP description tends to describe a highly idealized, emotional, and naive variant of the INFP. I’ve spoken to many INFPs who do NOT relate to this. They may have related to it at one time, but for instance, maturity has a major effect on people. It can, for instance, make someone cynical, even the INFP. In addition, a healthy feeler won’t be carried away by their emotions constantly. They’ll be balanced and logical.

Another pretty blatant example would the Te dominants, or the EXTJs. They tend to be given the reputation of being eager leaders and bosses, but that’s not always the case. Some are simply acting that way out of necessity. They’re also given the reputation of being uncaring or harsh, but some EXTJs do find themselves in the role of a caretaker.

4. Type descriptions tend to be fraught with stereotypes.

This point is a natural extension of the last one, but worth calling out, since stereotypes are a pet peeve of mine. Type descriptions tend to focus on the most stereotypical version of a type. Of course, stereotypes came about for a reason… Like I said in the previous point, someone out there will relate to the stereotypes. However, some types become so known for their stereotypes, that people end up completely ignorant to what that type truly looks like. As a result, many people mistype because they fit the stereotype for the wrong type better than the stereotype for their true type. As an ISTP, I should be a mechanic. I am not a mechanic. I believe some descriptions also describe us as dare devils… I’m not that either, but I am Ti-Se.

So, if you can’t rely on type descriptions, how do you determine your personality type?

Well, as mentioned earlier, it’s about thought processes. If you’re truly interested in this theory, you need to do a deep dive into the cognitive functions. You need to learn the driving force behind each one that is provoking those aforementioned stereotypical behaviors. Typology is about the “why” not the “what”. Remember, upbringing and personal experiences play a huge role in how each type manifests. Once you can learn how each function reasons, you can learn to rationalize potential behaviors given a variety of different circumstances.

In conclusion…

If you’ve found value in type descriptions, great! You’re the version of that type that the description was written for. However, I still recommend checking your conclusion against the cognitive functions. On other hand, if you’re struggling to fit yourself into a type description, then you were my intended target for this article. Study the functions.

I hope someone out there finds this article useful!