Are Stereotypes Always Bad?

In the MBTI community, I see the word “stereotype” thrown around constantly, often with a negative connotation. Even here, at Practical Typing, we’ve focused quite a bit on the negative consequences of the various stereotypes that come with every personality type, cognitive function, etc. However, are stereotypes always bad? After seeing the way the word is being used in the typology community, I feel compelled to delve deeper into stereotypes: what they are, what people think they are, if stereotypes are always bad, and if they have any legitimate applications in personality theory.

What People Think Stereotypes Are

I was inspired to write this article due to a specific way that I noticed people using the word “stereotype.” Namely, whenever they didn’t relate to a characteristic that is often associated with a particular type, they’d just wave it away as a stereotype. For instance, an ISTP who doesn’t relate to being apathetic or struggling to express empathy might try to invalidate those traits by calling them stereotypes. Of course, you might look at those and say, “well, they are stereotypes!” But that’s irrelevant to the point I’m trying to make here. The point I’m trying to make is that people seem to define “stereotypes” as false behavioral tendencies or character traits associated with a specific personality type.

What Are Stereotypes, Really?

“In social psychology, a stereotype is a fixed, over-generalized belief about a particular group or class of people.”

I found the above definition in an article that I read called Stereotypes In Psychology: Definition & Examples. Essentially, in personality theory, a stereotype would be a commonly-recognized belief about a specific personality type or personality type group. These stereotypes are often rooted in some degree of observation concerning a type’s traits, behaviors, etc. because that’s how the stereotype “belief” formed to begin with. The result is that individual differences are overlooked in favor of the stereotype. Stereotypes are often formed out of convenience, to allow for quick pattern recognition. For instance, it’d be like observing a few INTPs who happen to enjoy programming and then forming a belief that all INTPs will enjoy programming.

Stereotypes Can Be Positive or Negative

Obviously, describing all sensors as dumb and shallow is a negative stereotype. This “negative” context seems to be how most people use the word “stereotype”. However, there can be both positive and negative stereotypes. For instance, labelling all INTJs as masterminds would be an example of a positive stereotype, because it’s presuming that all INTJs have the positive traits associated with masterminds, like high intelligence and the ability to form complex plans. Likewise, assuming all feelers are dumb would be a negative stereotype, while assuming all feelers are empathetic would be a positive stereotype. Of course, with that all being said, while the INTJ mastermind stereotype provides a positive outlook on INTJs, it simultaneously might put an inordinate amount of pressure on INTJs to meet the expectation of the stereotype, which would make it a positive stereotype with a potentially negative effect.

So, Are Stereotypes Always Invalid?

Whenever someone inserts the word “stereotype” into a conversation, they act as if they’ve made a decisive and final judgment on the validity of a specific type-trait association. For instance, someone says “I’m not an adrenaline junkie like ESFPs are supposed to be, so I must not be one.” And then the amateur typologist jumps in with, “No, that’s just a stereotype.” However, should that always be the case? Are stereotypes always invalid? Here are my thoughts on the matter.

1. Stereotypes that can be logically traced back to a core characteristic have validity

Not all stereotypes are invalid. The key to stereotypes is paying attention to any logical threads that tie them to a core type characteristic. At a certain point, I’d even cease to refer to certain “stereotypes” as stereotypes, if they have a close enough tie to core cognitive function behavior. After all, it wouldn’t be a stereotype to say that police officers wear uniforms. Sure, there are a few exceptions to that, but overall, it’s simply a fact. Obviously, personality theory is a bit more wishy washy, but there are core characteristics that should remain fairly constant amongst those of specific personality types. An individual who deviates too far from these core characteristics will be legitimately subject to mistype suspicions. After all, many people identify with the type they WANT to be, and then try to rationalize away anything that doesn’t fit. “Everyone’s different. I’m just a unique or healthy version of my personality type.” You shouldn’t so readily wave away everything you disagree with simply because you’re determined to be a specific personality type. Trace the logic. Find out why.

I’ll provide an example. Above I mentioned an ISTP struggling to express empathy. I wouldn’t label that a stereotype, as much as I would call it an inferior Fe tendency. (Fe is the inferior function for INTPs and ISTPs). Not every ISTP has to relate to it, because types can manifest slightly differently and people are allowed to develop out of their negative tendencies. However, this is usually a struggle for inferior feelers, since they’re not naturally attuned to the emotions of a situation.

2. Stereotypes concerning general character traits are problematic at best

For instance, labelling all thinkers as mean and all feelers as nice creates pretty serious misconceptions. Feelers can be jerks, and thinkers can be nice. Sure, thinkers can seem mean when they’re too disconnected from their feeling functions, but sometimes the thinker is acting that way with the best of intentions. Sometimes the thinker is trying to be nice, and doesn’t realize how they’re coming off. Another good examples is the association of laziness with perceivers. There is a general tendency for perceivers to deal with things as they come, being better at responding in real time rather than planning in advance. Taken to an unhealthy degree, that behavior can be used as an excuse for laziness, but laziness is not inherently a perceiver trait. Any personality type can be lazy, and plenty of perceivers are diligent, hard workers. Character traits such as that are learned.

3. Stereotypes concerning archetypes can be misleading

An example of this would be assuming that all villains are INTJs, or thinkers in general. It’s just a small step further from assuming all thinkers are mean. However, in doing this, assumptions have been made about which personality types are inherently more moral, and that’s an incorrect view of personality theory. MBTI types do not define goodness and morality.

4. Stereotypes that are too extreme can be valid, but will apply to far fewer people

An extreme stereotype would be something like “ESXPs are adrenaline junkies” or “INTPs are robots”. Sure, both stereotypes have a small logical thread linking them back to core cognitive function behavior. After all, INTPs are inferior feelers, but they’re certainly not devoid of feelings. Similarly, Se as a function does seek stimulation, but are all ESPs adrenaline junkies? No. It’s possible that the vast majority of adrenaline junkies are Se users, but that’s not the same thing as saying that most Se users are adrenaline junkies. Someone might have recognized this trend in their personal life, but that doesn’t mean their sample size was large enough to make it universally valid, or significant enough to use as an absolute data point. Someone’s personal experience doesn’t always reflect global, or larger scale trends.

5. Stereotypes regarding things that MBTI does not actually define are tenuous at best

People like to try to apply MBTI to every aspect of their life, such as careers and relationship compatibility. This makes stereotypes like the “ISTP mechanic” prevalent. Of course, there’s logic behind why an ISTP might thrive as a mechanic, but there’s logic behind why other personality types might thrive as a mechanic. It’s possible that some of the career associations are derived from accurate global trends (although I naturally distrust any type-related statistics). However, as mentioned earlier, personal experience doesn’t always reflect global trends. Someone can live in a pocket of the world that doesn’t reflect the “norm”. Unfortunately, once these types of stereotypes start getting approached like core characteristics, it leads to lazy mistyping.

In Conclusion…

Some stereotypes are more valid than others, but the more valid they get, the less I actually want to label them as a stereotype. At a certain point, they’re simply defining core characteristics. It’s important to recognize the difference, and pay attention to the logic associated with each cognitive function. Someone can be a very stereotypical version of a personality type, making them an extremely easy to identify. However, someone can fit some of the stereotypes for a type that they are not, just like they can fit none of the stereotypes for the type that they are. Their style of reasoning is what actually matters.