8 Most Common Reasons Why People Mistype
There are a number of reasons why people mistype. Personally, I’m not one to walk around accusing everyone of being mistyped, because that’s both rude and pointless. However, I believe having content on the subject is valuable. The inspiration for this particular article was from a question I received from a commenter. Recently, I’ve been focusing heavily on specific mistypes and dilemmas, but a general look at the 8 most common reasons why people mistype could be useful.
Mistyping often roots back to a misunderstanding of the theory, even if it’s only a slight misunderstanding. The cognitive functions are not only complicated and confusing, but a lot of people can’t seem to agree on how they’re defined. Most people are dancing around the same ideas, but unfortunately, perspectives vary. With that in mind, I’m not going to make “stereotypes and misinformation” one of my reasons in the article below. I want to be more specific than that, because a point that general will ultimately not be very helpful.
So, without further ado…
8 Most Common Reasons Why People Mistype
1. Incorrect assessment of strengths and weaknesses
Certain strengths and weaknesses are ascribed to each personality type, whether correctly or incorrectly. Some people use that as a starting point for finding the type most similar to them. However, sometimes it’s hard to gain an objective look at our own strengths and weaknesses. For instance, I’m an ISTP that was raised with NPs. I often felt structured in comparison to their… random chaos. These days, I spend most of my time with an ISTJ. I feel chaotic in comparison. During my time with the NPs, I considered being an ISTJ. Now, I laugh at the idea. Sometimes, how we judge ourselves is extremely relative, dependent on the people around us. Someone who is average at something can look bad at it next to the person who is great at it, or great next to the person who is bad at it. If you’ve only ever been around the same types of people, it might be hard to accurately judge yourself, especially if you’re overly reliant on relative comparisons. Whenever possible, it’s good to gather a variety of perspectives on your strengths and weaknesses, especially if you’re questioning your ability to assess yourself objectively.
2. Tertiary function awareness
As someone who prescribes to the four function model, I believe that we always use all four of our cognitive functions. However, how conscious we are of each of these functions can change overtime, as we develop our cognitive function stack. Children and teenagers often lean heavily on their top two; but at some point, usually in early adulthood, they become conscious of their tertiary function. This is a huge reason why people believe that personality type can change. I seriously thought I might be an INTP back when I got extremely conscious of my Ni. I really felt like I was an intuitive. This is likely an unpopular opinion, but I tend to think it can be easier to type a teenager, because they’re typically a more “stereotypical” version of their personality type, due to leaning so heavily on those top two functions. Overall, this is why it’s important to take into account your lifelong development. What was default for you? How did you learn to act overtime?
3. Inferior function awareness
This similar to the previous point, but obviously focused on the inferior function rather than the tertiary. I see a lot of people who are fixated on their inferior function, to the point that they think it might be higher in their function stack. For instance, I’ve seen IXTPs who consider being IXFJs because of their heightened focus on their Fe insecurities. I think the key here is figuring out what brings you stress. Sometimes people can fixate on that inferior function and use it really well, but only for a brief period of time. One’s inferior function often causes them stress, especially if they have to use it consistently, for a long period of time. It takes a lot of conscious effort to maintain, and can bring about stress and exhaustion, as a result. This should not be the case for a dominant or auxiliary function.
4. Seeing themselves in more than one type’s description
A lot of type descriptions describe behavioral tendencies or generic, positive attributes. It can admittedly be a challenge to write a personality type’s description without these things. However, the unfortunate side effect is that it can be easy to see yourself in multiple different personality types. This is especially the case when the descriptions focus too heavily on the best potential qualities for every type, rather than laying out a more realistic version or legitimate potential weaknesses. It’s usually pretty easy to relate to the positive stuff. Plus, a lot of attributes can apply to multiple types, given a healthy state.
Related article: Why Don’t I Fit My Personality Type Description?
5. Unhealthy state
Someone in an unhealthy state often mistypes. When I say unhealthy, I’m referring to an unhealthy emotional or mental state, which is having a clear, detrimental effect on the person’s life. Depression, extreme anxiety, physical illness, or a traumatic life event are examples of something that can cause an unhealthy mental state. Essentially, what happens is that someone who is unhealthy, from a personality standpoint, will start leaning on their cognitive functions abnormally, which will cause their personality to manifest abnormally. For instance, depressions frequently provokes people to type as feelers, or more specifically, INFPs. Of course, some “unhealthy states” can be much more mild. A lot of people actually begin the search for their personality type in an unhealthy state because they’ve reached a state of discontentment that is spurring them to ask questions like: “Who am I? What am I doing wrong? What will make me happy?”
Consider your life as a whole. How does your current state compare to other periods in your life? Your negative behavior can be a valid and useful data point, but your behavior during a more positive state usually better represents the way you are by default, not skewed by “crisis” mode.
6. Confusing extraversion and introversion
People frequently misunderstand extraversion and introversion in typology, and assume they refer to one’s level of social adeptness. That is incorrect. Cognitive extraversion (or introversion) is different from social extraversion (or introversion). We’ve written multiple articles on this subject, and I will provide a link below. In short, a cognitive extravert is someone who focuses on the objective world, but not necessarily people. A cognitive extravert can be socially introverted. The key to determining your type is to determine which cognitive function is running your life, not whether people energize you.
Related article: Extraversion in Typology
7. Intuitive bias
This a fairly well known phenomenon in the type community. Basically, most content creators and authors in the realm of personality theory tend to identify as intuitive. As a result, the description of sensors can be lacking, even to the point of not being relatable. For instance, they’re often described in too extreme of a way (i.e.: ESXPs are always daredevils, or ISXJs never try anything new). In addition, intuition, abstraction, innovation, creativity, and etcetera frequently get attributed solely to the intuitive types. As a result, many people either relate better to the intuitive descriptions or end up subconsciously biased toward typing as one.
Related article: Intuitive Bias: Here’s What You Need to Know
8. Thinker bias
Lastly, we have the thinker bias. Basically, the way thinkers frequently get described gets confused with innate intelligence, so being a “thinker” has become synonymous with being smart. Of course, this isn’t true. There are dumb thinkers. In the reverse, feelers get more feeling-based descriptors associated with them, so being a feeler becomes synonymous with being emotional. As a result, intelligent or analytical feelers often mistype as thinkers. This can either be due to not relating to feeler descriptions, or simply not wanting to be typed as a feeler (because that will label them as illogical, overly emotional and dramatic in the type community.)
In conclusion…
I hope you found this to be informative. I’m sure there are a multitude of reason why people mistype, but these 8 seem to be the most prevalent reasons, in my experience. In my opinion, most other reasons usually root back to one of these somehow. Feel free to share your thoughts in the comments or let me know if I’ve missed anything!
Hi there, reader! If you enjoyed that article, leave us a quick comment to encourage us to keep writing. In addition, if you've found our content helpful in some way, please consider Buying Us A Coffee to support our efforts and help keep this website running. Thank you!
Hi Mara, thanks for another insightful analysis about types!
Here are my thoughts:
Note 1: English is not my native language, so some word usage may be awkward or incorrect. I try to convey my ideas as accurately as possible, however.
Note 2: These ideas may look random and lack some consistency. I wrote them down as they came to my mind. I hope they are not confusing.
Note 3: I formatted the comments in Word, but the formatting may not show here.
========
1. Regarding types and descriptions: Types do not define people. It is people that define, explain, and evaluate the types. Types basically provide a description of the general traits of certain groups of the general population, which can be seen as abstractions of different individual personalities. It is thus natural for one to not fit in the stereotypical description of a type and at the same time, match the descriptions of multiple types. Using only general features to define individuals is perhaps one of the most common mistakes people make in self-typing.
2. About the bias: I agree that bias widely exists in personality typing. Most notably, there is the iNtuitive bias and the Thinking bias as you pointed out. Generally speaking, the NTs are seen as the “elite” types at the top of the hierarchy, whereas the SJs are oftentimes placed at the bottom. Within the N-group, a hierarchy also seems to exist, with INTJ at the top and INFP at the bottom. Such a hierarchical structure can be found in many other aspects of the society, e.g., bureaucracy, schools, businesses, etc., and can be seen as reflecting the natural preference toward a differential treatment of things and people. Biases against sensing types, in my view, largely come from the lack of knowledge of those types. People of these types tend to focus more on managing the practical reality and taking action rather than discussing personalities online. Their notable lack of presence means that they lack representatives of their types. Another reason is perhaps due to the general unwillingness to identify with a sensing type, e.g., it is uncool to be an ISTJ. On the positive side, many people have shared their experiences interacting with these types (assuming that the types are correct). The other day I was at the ISFJ subreddit and read about comments appreciating what ISFJs had done for them. The biases toward sensing types can be hopefully reduced by 1) participation of more sensing types in the typology community, 2) sharing of positive experiences, and 3) revising the descriptions, among others.
3. Why does mistyping persist? Simply speaking, the truth is that the typology industry is driven by commercial gains, thus, knowledge and truth become secondary. Many, if not most, typology practitioners have typed themselves wrong. For evidence, watch their YouTube videos. Some of them cannot even tell the difference between a Pe-lead and a Ji-lead. They themselves would pretend to be the Ni-doms without knowing what Ni actually is and how it works (it cannot be faked.). To some, a wrong but more ‘elite’ type serves as a label of validation and somehow satisfies their inflated/injured ego.
4. Many people also mistype themselves as INTPs (another top-ranking ‘elite’ type) but hardly display traces of Ti-style thinking. If they know how focused, sharp, and deep Ti tends to be, they will probably stop labeling themselves as INTPs. In my case, I stopped seeing myself as a Ti-dom after discovering how intense Ti-thinking is. It is about constantly building different internal theoretical models. In contrast, I prefer variety over singularity and general knowledge over expertise and I tend to be more scattered than focused.
Last but not least, I enjoyed reading your article! Thanks for taking the time to read such a wordy comment.
Hey!
1. I agree with this. From my perspective, cognitive functions are more like a reasoning style or lenses for information. The traits and descriptions that people like to assign to each of the types are potential results of that reasoning style. Sometimes they’re dead on, and other times way off base, due to a variety of possible external factors.
2. Definitely. I think there are way more sensors in the community than people realize due to the hierarchy of types that you mentioned. I like how you called it out as a hierarchy, actually. Extremely apt way to put it.
3. To be honest, I’m not sure if people are mistyping on purpose, but I could see why some might be. There would be a potential advantage, for sure. But, I think, overall, most people are probably mistyping out of ignorance or subconscious bias. They subconsciously want to type as, for instance, an “INTJ” so they find a way to make it fit. Their typology logic then ends up all skewed as a result, because they’re using their personal (mis)type as the core pillar of their theory knowledge.
Thanks for the comment! I enjoyed reading your thoughts. 🙂
Do you guys think that constantly doubting your type means something? I don’t know; I’ve been doubting my type for a long time, but I’ve read that how Ti and Fi dominants can always be on type-me threads and things such as that. So I’m not sure; I think I’m ISFP, but I also care deeply how others see me, I can be extroverted, and over share at times, but I’m private with most people and I can be stoic; it all just depends on who I am with.
Well, I wouldn’t bank a type theory on what self-doubt might mean, but… I’ve generally noticed that those with a high identity function tend to doubt a lot, in addition to high Ne users specifically. However, with that being said, someone who doesn’t fit the classic stereotypical mold of their type will tend to doubt, regardless of their type, until they finally get a really solid grasp of the system. For instance, EXTJs are highly misunderstood, so the more laid back ones that aren’t screaming angry, intense, and domineering all the time will usually fail to type correctly and end up doubting a lot because they’re always landing on the wrong type.
The fact that you think you are a sensor, means that you probably are one, since intuitives don’t often misidentify themselves as sensors. (Also not something to bank a type theory on, though.) Oversharing occasionally and being extraverted occasionally doesn’t mean much. Different people often bring out different sides of people. A relaxed introvert can be very talkative and socially extraverted. Fi dominants can care about how people see them, but they should not be very adaptable in spite of that, from an identity standpoint. In other words, caring about what others think of them should not cause them to drastically change or adapt who they are. It may cause them to lean into and enhance certain core values that they already possess because that’s how they want to be seen.
Yeah I think stereotypes can cause me to think I’m a different type, like some people attribute to caring about what others think is Fe, which isn’t true. I feel like I act like the non stereotypical ISFP because I can be loud and outgoing, but I can also be quiet and reserved, depending on who I am with. But my personality is usually constant.
What about doubting your type because you just can’t “connect” with yourself? I doubt my typology a lot (I’m dead set on 3w4, dk about subtype, low feeling functions and Te dom (ENTJ)) because I have trouble with Ti, Te and Se. As an ENTJ I’m supposed to relate more to Ni, but my NiSe is so balanced that I’ve considered being a Se dom (it’s strange because I’m only 15). I have strong Te, Ti, Ni and Se, moderate Ne and Si and low Fi and Fe. I considered Fi dom but that’s out of the question (Fi judgement causes me irrational stress and I can’t just process a Fi judgement, a debate is very likely to start if you talk to me using Fi, every Fi use in my life feels forced (it isn’t natural), etc). Now I’m confident of my MBTI type (but it’s guaranteed that if people start typing me as stupid combos like, for example, ESFJ 2w1, I’ll likely believe them. That’s how every typology crisis except my first one started).
Now that I think about it, my mistypes are due to:
-consensus (pointing to low sense of self)
-overthinking
-tertiary function awareness (I’m honestly being aware of my Se just right now, I only know it isn’t my dom or aux because Se is a function I learned to use, what has always come more naturally to me is Ni need for meaning and future-oriented self (and being unable to use Se, I’ve only recently learned to use it a bit. Also, Ni is in general what I notice is more consistent in my thought process) and my Te result-oriented self, logical mind and cause-and-effect mentality
-function developement. If we look at how I’ve developed INTJ would fit more, but then what do I do with my Se?
It seems unlikely that you’re mistyping due to tertiary function awareness at only 15, but I suppose it’s not impossible. Unfortunately, I can’t offer any insight on your Se dilemma, due to the lack of concrete examples on your Se usage, and even Ni usage. A lot of people like to generally state that they’re “good” at a function, but without more information than that, I have no way of knowing if we’re even defining said function in the same way. With that being said, Se and Te seem to get confused for each other quite often. Driven or motivated Se users, or SPs, often like to bring about “physical” change (which will make them look results-oriented), while Te dominants, or EXTJs, can actually be quite impulsive, since they’re often quick to respond to the external world (as extraverts).