Any MBTI sites with subpar/misguided information out there?

[Usehername]

I'm writing a short paper on it for an online class I'm doing. I know I've found them in the past...

Basically, any site that's accessible to the public and sub-par in any informative way. :)

[Jack Flak]

Umm..."All of 'em, I think." I'm not really kidding around, either. It's all based on what someone perceives as true, and you know how perceptions go.

[sarah]

I'm writing a short paper on it for an online class I'm doing. I know I've found them in the past...

Basically, any site that's accessible to the public and sub-par in any informative way. :)


I nominate the completely idiotic SimilarMinds Personality Type Descriptions (http://similarminds.com/software.html) . I'm referring to the ridiculous MBTI type descriptions that hardly qualify even as "descriptions" since they are just lists of behavior traits that have absolutely nothing to do with patterns of type or temperament-related behavior. If you email the author to ask him how he composed these lists, he will just send you an insulting message talking in very vague terms about "research" he did, and if you ask him for specifics regarding his research methodology, you will simply get a hostile reply. From a practical viewpoint, it's completely useless -- just more type bigotry.

Sarah
ISFP

[Jack Flak]

Wow, the ISFP description there is horrible!

[sarah]

Wow, the ISFP description there is horrible!


Yeah, I know -- if that actually described me, I'd probably be feeling suicidal. :D The author apparently thinks all introverts are socially clueless dejected loners with no friends, and all extraverts are party-loving social sophisticates. The most positive one is the ENFJ list -- mostly compliments there. Honestly, how anyone can view those lists as being accurate descriptors of their friends and family, not to mention of practical use to anyone is beyond me.

Sarah

["?"]

Umm..."All of 'em, I think." I'm not really kidding around, either. It's all based on what someone perceives as true, and you know how perceptions go.I pretty much agree, but in all fairness there are sites that I do trust so could not put into the sub-par category starting with my favorites:
BEST FIT (http://www.bestfittype.com/)
DISCOVER YOUR TYPE (http://www.discoveryourpersonality.com/index.html)
LIFEXPLORE ( http://geocities.com/lifexplore/)

[sarah]

I pretty much agree, but in all fairness there are sites that I do trust so could not put into the sub-par category starting with my favorites:
BEST FIT (http://www.bestfittype.com/)
DISCOVER YOUR TYPE (http://www.discoveryourpersonality.com/index.html)
LIFEXPLORE ( http://geocities.com/lifexplore/)

I agree -- the Best-Fit Type : Exploring the Multiple Models of Personality Type (http://www.bestfittype.com) website has descriptions composed by type theorist Dr. Linda Berens, whose work has made a huge impact in the world of psychological type. Her research methods are unique (as far as I know) in that they involve having long conversations with multiple members of each of the 16 types whose type preferences have been verified by professionals who are anti-bias and who know what they're doing, and also using those people's own words in the descriptions. No wonder people like me who hate the romanticized or idealized (or insulting) type descriptions written by other type theorists rate them the best they've seen so far.

Sarah
ISFP

[Ilah]

Yeah, I know -- if that actually described me, I'd probably be feeling suicidal. :D The author apparently thinks all introverts are socially clueless dejected loners with no friends, and all extraverts are party-loving social sophisticates. The most positive one is the ENFJ list -- mostly compliments there. Honestly, how anyone can view those lists as being accurate descriptors of their friends and family, not to mention of practical use to anyone is beyond me.

Sarah

Just read my description on the site. I didn't realize what a pathetic, anti-social mess I was. It sounds more like the discritiption for a mental disorder.

[Jack Flak]

You should read Jung's Psych. Types descriptions. They're actually based on mental patients, I've read, and it's not surprising.

[evan]

Yeah, all of them pretty much suck.

[edcoaching]

I agree -- the Best-Fit Type : Exploring the Multiple Models of Personality Type (http://www.bestfittype.com) website has descriptions composed by type theorist Dr. Linda Berens, whose work has made a huge impact in the world of psychological type. Her research methods are unique (as far as I know) in that they involve having long conversations with multiple members of each of the 16 types whose type preferences have been verified by professionals who are anti-bias and who know what they're doing, and also using those people's own words in the descriptions. No wonder people like me who hate the romanticized or idealized (or insulting) type descriptions written by other type theorists rate them the best they've seen so far.

Sarah
ISFP
Actually a lot of the authors (but not a lot of the websites) use this technique. Anything by Lawrence, Hirsh, Kummerow, Quenk, Barger, Kirby, etc. not only did the interviews/gathered the facts, but sent the chapters or descriptions back out to people of that type to get unbiased wording.

[substitute]

Umm..."All of 'em, I think." I'm not really kidding around, either. It's all based on what someone perceives as true, and you know how perceptions go.

Yes. Most of them I come across are written from a very biased point of view, mostly you can tell the author was an NT with a grudge against SJ's and F's, in that order. The profiles of the N types are like eulogies, whilst the SJ's are made to sound like mindless cattle or startled bunnies. No wonder not many Sensors seem to take to the system or end up here, proportionally.

I've been thinking for a while that a really comprehensive website with indepth profiles for all of the types - as indepth as the INTP one that's found on INTPc - is really needed. I keep thinking of writing it myself, but it'd be a big job to do on my own. Would be good to have indepth descriptions of the individual functions. You can probably get all of these things from books or whatever, but you have to pay. I'd love to create a central, reliable and unbiased, free source for all of this.

But this one's pretty awful. See what I mean about unflattering for SJ's? And what's with the confident pegging of people's views on tattoos and stuff there??? LOL
ISFJ - Jung Type Descriptions (http://similarminds.com/jung/isfj.html)

[sarah]

Actually a lot of the authors (but not a lot of the websites) use this technique. Anything by Lawrence, Hirsh, Kummerow, Quenk, Barger, Kirby, etc. not only did the interviews/gathered the facts, but sent the chapters or descriptions back out to people of that type to get unbiased wording.


Sensing does not equal thinking only of mundane and trivial things. Well, it doesn't. The general stupidity of type descriptions IN BOOKS written by NTs and NFs about SJs and SPs ticks me off. I figure these authors probably have convinced themselves that anyone who is reasonably intelligent and interested (however mildly) in something that can be described as "abstract" must therfore prefer iNtuition. As a result, I think their books are pretty worthless.

Naomi Quenk isn't so terrible (albeit she thinks all introverts are shy loners), but most type authors, including the ones you mention, only take undeveloped examples of the SJ and SP types. You know what I mean -- they only notice and interview people who only use their preferred cognitive processes and never develop any of the supporting ones.

The difference between these people and Linda Berens/Dario Nardi is that Berens and Nardi actually used these interviewed people's own language in the decriptions -- they didn't filter it with their own editorial comments or color the wording with an INFP or INTP flavor first, and they were very careful not to make value judgments about what was being said, so as to make other types' descriptions sound worse than their own.

I waffled for years regarding my type preferences, precisely because of poorly written descriptions by authors who publish books on type. It finally took a qualified type practitioner to help me find my best type fit. And because of my experiences and what I notice others going through, I suspect many people who say they prefer iNtuition really do not, and it's the fault of bad descriptions in books, not just websites written by amateurs.

Sorry, but I feel extremely strongly about this.

Sarah
ISFP

[sarah]

Yes. Most of them I come across are written from a very biased point of view, mostly you can tell the author was an NT with a grudge against SJ's and F's, in that order. The profiles of the N types are like eulogies, whilst the SJ's are made to sound like mindless cattle or startled bunnies. No wonder not many Sensors seem to take to the system or end up here, proportionally.

I've been thinking for a while that a really comprehensive website with indepth profiles for all of the types - as indepth as the INTP one that's found on INTPc - is really needed. I keep thinking of writing it myself, but it'd be a big job to do on my own. Would be good to have indepth descriptions of the individual functions. You can probably get all of these things from books or whatever, but you have to pay. I'd love to create a central, reliable and unbiased, free source for all of this.

But this one's pretty awful. See what I mean about unflattering for SJ's? And what's with the confident pegging of people's views on tattoos and stuff there??? LOL
ISFJ - Jung Type Descriptions (http://similarminds.com/jung/isfj.html)


That's why Similarminds gets my vote for the Worst Type Webiste Ever. And like you I can't understand why the guy puts his own obsessions in there -- as if the rest of us really care about his generalizations about tattoos? If that kind of fluff is believed to be type-related, then why stop there? Why not analyze a whole host of other pointless things, like, which types might be more prone to buying red cars, or wearing chartreuse, or refusing to dye their hair once it goes gray.

I've actually thought of creating a website for ISFPs written by us and for us because most of what's written about our type is UTTER CRAP. But then, doing that would take a heck of a lot of time away from fun stuff I would rather do in my spare time, so I haven't bothered. Still, it annoys me that 98% of people who say they prefer iNtuition do not understand what it's like to prefer Sensing but still be able to use your tertiary or inferior intuition. I don't know why that is, but most "N" people really seem to be sold on the idea that they are the lucky few who have a whole brain and SJs and SPs only have half a brain. :P

Sarah
ISFP

[563 740]

Whatever site "Joe Butts" (hehehehehe) writes for also seemed pretty decent; he breaks down the functions in order of preference & whatnot.

[Jack Flak]

Whatever site "Joe Butts" (hehehehehe) writes for also seemed pretty decent; he breaks down the functions in order of preference & whatnot.
TypeLogic Home Page (http://www.typelogic.com)

Yes, it's been one of the simplest and best since '97 when I started reading about the business.

[sciski]

I don't know why that is, but most "N" people really seem to be sold on the idea that they are the lucky few who have a whole brain and SJs and SPs only have half a brain. :P


You don't know why that is because you only have half a brain. :D

But I think it's really because some Ns keep running into Ss who don't seem to want to engage their Tertiary or Inferior N... and any unbalanced person is kinda annoying and in a way, really only using half their brain. I'm sure Ss who run into Ns that don't want to engage their Tertiary or Inferior S would also think that the N was not completely mentally there... But Ss have an advantage here in that they are the majority, so don't tend to be surrounded by unbalanced Ns who force them into certain ways of thinking.

[sarah]

..But I think it's really because some Ns keep running into Ss who don't seem to want to engage their Tertiary or Inferior N... and any unbalanced person is kinda annoying and in a way, really only using half their brain. I'm sure Ss who run into Ns that don't want to engage their Tertiary or Inferior S would also think that the N was not completely mentally there... But Ss have an advantage here in that they are the majority, so don't tend to be surrounded by unbalanced Ns who force them into certain ways of thinking.


Yeah, I agree with you there. :hug: Regardless of your type, if you're completely unaware of how your non-preferences might be negatively affecting others, then you're going to leave a trail of annoyed people in your wake. At least being aware of it helps somewhat.

Perhaps the descriptions that are the most annoying are the ones that stick to describing just those SJs and SPs who have been exposed to a limited variety of life situations.

Sarah
ISFP

[mlittrell]

most of em are crap

[Anja]

I always have this creeping suspicion that some of those sites are originated by people who have been dissatisfied with the mental health services they've received!

[sarah]

TypeLogic Home Page (http://www.typelogic.com)

Yes, it's been one of the simplest and best since '97 when I started reading about the business.


Typelogic? That site is so full of contextual examples of behavior. If someone who cares about precision and accuracy wants to write descriptions of each type, then they need to fit everyone of that type, not just a few romantic examples that are dreamed up as being "typical." Don't you think so?

Looking at the ISFP description, very few people who aren't "wandering star" neo-hippies are going to relate to a portrait that paints all ISFPs as being that way. If people dismiss descriptions because the details don't fit (as people who prefer Sensing generally do), then they not only can't really benefit much from type theory, but they end up confusing other people by talking about their mistyped preferences.

No offense, seeing as how you like that site, but nobody I know who prefers Sensing fits the descriptions on that website. It's Just Not Helpful.

Sarah
ISFP

[Usehername]

Typelogic? That site is so full of contextual examples of behavior. If someone who cares about precision and accuracy wants to write descriptions of each type, then they need to fit everyone of that type, not just a few romantic examples that are dreamed up as being "typical." Don't you think so?

Looking at the ISFP description, very few people who aren't "wandering star" neo-hippies are going to relate to a portrait that paints all ISFPs as being that way. If people dismiss descriptions because the details don't fit (as people who prefer Sensing generally do), then they not only can't really benefit much from type theory, but they end up confusing other people by talking about their mistyped preferences.

No offense, seeing as how you like that site, but nobody I know who prefers Sensing fits the descriptions on that website. It's Just Not Helpful.

Sarah
ISFP

I read the typelogic description when we did a "Knowing Yourself" week in Africa; I immediately identified with it incredibly deeply.

After I started researching when I got home, I grew to see it as sketchy--I'm always nervous someone will google this when I talk about my type as an INTJ and think things about me that aren't true. And I too am wary to send any xSxx type to read those descriptions--they really suck. Have you read the ISTJ version?! Gah.

[sarah]

I read the typelogic description when we did a "Knowing Yourself" week in Africa; I immediately identified with it incredibly deeply.

After I started researching when I got home, I grew to see it as sketchy--I'm always nervous someone will google this when I talk about my type as an INTJ and think things about me that aren't true. And I too am wary to send any xSxx type to read those descriptions--they really suck. Have you read the ISTJ version?! Gah.


Yes, I had the same reaction to reading about my type -- on one level, it felt really good to know that my preferences aren't inherently bad. On another level, it's scary to think that some people get their ideas about what it's like to be your type from descriptions that are imprecise and full of extreme generalizations. Thanks for sharing your reaction. That makes me feel a little better about my own reaction. :)

I'd like to assume that the reason the _S_ descriptions are really lacking and misleading is because the author has a limited imagination. Reading over the _N_ descriptions, I can well see how they have appeal for people, but even if you LOVED your type description, I think you'd have to be a pretty one-dimensional person to identify with just those behaviors, and not see yourself as being more well-rounded than that.

Speaking of which, I find it odd that I've run into people who get very defensive about the _S_ descriptions. They'll try to shoot down anybody who questions the accuracy of these descriptions by claiming they "know people like that," and that anyone who doesn't identify with them must then not prefer Sensing. I've never understood why this is. I mean, I know I have a peference for Sensing. It's pretty obvious. And yet I know I don't fit any of those type decriptions that rely on stereotypes or flowery prose to tell me what it hypothetically should be like to be me. I use intuition to support my preference. That's pretty obvious too. Not many descriptions even acknowledge the role that tertiary or inferior iNtuition plays in the psychological makeup of _S_s.
I try not to think about it, but sometimes when I'm reminded that these stereotypes exist it feels like a slap in the face.

It seems to me that type descriptions like Typelogic's are "shorthand" -- a way of categorizing extreme examples of contextual behavior and labelling it proof psychological preferences, so that those who enjoy doing so can memorize it and then go on to "instant type" everyone they meet. I hope that's of some use to them, but I'm guessing the people who do that aren't all that interested in putting type theory to practical use. Maybe I'm not very enamored with this because everyone I'm related to, work with and socialize seems to me to be pretty complex, regardless of whether they prefer iNtuition or Sensing.

Sarah
ISFP

[wolfy]

Descriptions wise,
Excellent
Best Fit and the other Berens/Nardi sites.
Good
Personality Page, I like the personal growth pages.
Bad
All the rest are crap. Especially similarminds.

As far as general MBTI information goes I don't know what is bad. They all seem the same.
I like the wikipidea MBTI page as an intro.

[Quinlan]

I have to agree with everything Sarah has said so far, poor type descriptions made me write off being ISFP almost immediately.

. I use intuition to support my preference. That's pretty obvious too. Not many descriptions even acknowledge the role that tertiary or inferior iNtuition plays in the psychological makeup of _S_s.


This is true, we are more comfortable using Ni than a lot of other types, I personally believe that's where a lot of our creativity comes from.

[Edahn]

MBTI, Enneagram, and other personality matrices - MBTI Central (http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/mbti-enneagram-other-personality-matrices/)

[Jack Flak]

Typelogic? ...No offense, seeing as how you like that site, but nobody I know who prefers Sensing fits the descriptions on that website. It's Just Not Helpful.
A great deal of understanding descriptions, I think, has to do with the author's type. Joe Butt is INTP, so his descriptions make a lot of sense to me. Not to mention I fall on the behavior side of type study.

[bluemonday]

I nominate the completely idiotic SimilarMinds Personality Type Descriptions (http://similarminds.com/software.html) .

Sarah
ISFP
hahaha!
that's so funny:
INTP:
"does not think they are weird but others do....does not like happy people, appreciates strangeness....more likely to support marijuana legalization"

who are these "others" that think I'm weird? I demand to know!
How does one "appreciate strangeness" exactly? I missed the 101 on that.

₪₪₪ Socionics - The New Psychology ₪₪₪ (http://socionics.com) is pretty far-fetched too

[Nocapszy]

Umm..."All of 'em, I think." I'm not really kidding around, either. It's all based on what someone perceives as true, and you know how perceptions go.

Seriously, Userhername, you could just give the URLs to all of Jack Flak's posts and that'd be plenty.

[Jack Flak]

Would be a "long post."

[sarah]

A great deal of understanding descriptions, I think, has to do with the author's type. Joe Butt is INTP, so his descriptions make a lot of sense to me. Not to mention I fall on the behavior side of type study.

Ah, that explains it. To know what it's like from the other side, try to imagine what it would be like if all type theorists preferred Sensing, and most of the people who wrote books on type and composed websites were all ISFPs. Yo'ud be forced to learn about what it's supposedly like being an INTP from the viewpoint of a bunch of ISFPs. Scary, huh? :D

Speaking of which, it's no wonder the INTPs like Keirsey more than I do -- he's an INTP too, so naturally he's going to be more accurate when describing his own preferences. At least Linda Berens (INTP also) takes a lot of care to avoid the trap of coloring the descriptions with her preferences.

Sarah
ISFP

[Jack Flak]

It's only fair, though. INTPs have horrible social skills, so we need all the understanding we can get from books. :o

[htb]

MBTI, Enneagram, and other personality matrices - MBTI Central (http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/mbti-enneagram-other-personality-matrices/)See, there's this site MBTI Central, and -- hey! Ouch! Leggo!