Any MBTI sites with subpar/misguided information out there?

[sarah]

Originally Posted by Jack Flak

TypeLogic Home Page

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]

Originally Posted by sarah

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]

Originally Posted by Usehername

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

[Jack Flak]

Originally Posted by sarah

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]

Originally Posted by sarah

I nominate the completely idiotic SimilarMinds Personality Type Descriptions .

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 ₪₪₪ is pretty far-fetched too

[Nocapszy]

Originally Posted by 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.

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."