Assorted Waffling about Typology


Enneagram:
I use the clinical enneagram (Naranjo) moreso than Ichazo. Protoanalysis and Trifix are interesting, but I don't care for the spiritual & religious side of Enneagram at all, really.

I've read most of several type-specific books (namely e2, e5, e6, and e9), but I'm trying to re/read all of them in full lately. I've read a lot of Naranjo's other works as well, but I admit that I sometimes skim because he has a tendency to waffle on about irrelevant information (some of his students do, too).

I dislike RHETI's interpretation of enneatypes and think they're too "commercialized." I find their e2 and e9 to be especially egregious. I generally avoid them as a source for Enneagram.

Wings (which are a RHETI concept) aren't totally useless, I guess, but I find them mostly irrelevant so I don't use them.

Socionics:
I mostly just use Augusta & certain other interpretations of her as a source. I don't really care to conform to any schools with 100% accuracy since I have issues with all of them, but I'd most closely align with SSS/SCS. I think socionics suffers a bit from theory/terminology bloat and it's useful to trim the fat where needed when using it, at least in my opinion.

ITR is garbage for the most part and I don't take it very seriously. I think there's merit when it comes to certain types having communication issues based on their specific blocks/placements, but to go to the extent of "you will never be a complete person unless you're dualized" is ridiculous & remarkably out of touch with the reality of human relationships. Please remember before taking Augusta's ITR seriously that she was Fi PoLR, lol

Jung's Psychological Types:
I think Jung's' PTs are one of the most solid typological systems, but also one I'm not as confident with. The basic dichotomies and many concepts are rather simple to use and understand, but Jung's writing style is very impenetrable to me & I admit that I've not read too much of his direct writing (I've read more from von Franz and Van der Hoop). It's very hard for my ADHD brain to read, so please don't take me as too much of an authority on Jung whatsoever lmao...

Four-Letter, MBTI, etc:
I do not use "cognitive function stacks" a la the MBTI nor do I find them particularly useful basically at all. I've read most of Gifts Differing, and I think actual MBTI is just... whatever. I have a lot of issues with how poorly defined a lot of its concepts are, my biggest issues being with the J/P switch and Myers opinion that introverts interact with the world with their "extraverted auxiliary" but it's whatever.

However, I loathe popular MBTI culture (and all the new pop-psych "theory" people have invented for the system) and I find its existence & prevalence to be absolutely noxious, so I just don't use MBTI at all. I use letter dichotomy since it actually gives me useful information about a person/character. I know more about you if I know that you are extraverted, sensoric, ethical, and irrational, rather than "I have tertiary Te, I'm in an Fe grip, I'm in a Fi-Si loop: which means absolutely nothing & tells me jack shit lol

J/P switch is MBTI's greatest sin and I do not acknowledge it despite its persistence in typological spaces... If one leads with feeling or thinking, they are rational, so xxxJ. If one leads with sensing or intuition, they are irrational, so xxxP. Simple as. All of my four-letter types use this method.

Tritype:
Fauvre is a weird woman but i like tritypes. idk. I use them differently than she does though lol.

Big 5:
This is the most objectively useful system as well as probably the easiest one to use. Big 5 is based.

Temperaments:
Some consider it archaic and not always terribly elucidating, but I like history & I think it's nice to preserve what is possibly the most ancient system of personality type...

Psychosophy:
I've read most of Syntax of Love. Psychosophy is interesting but not a system I take very seriously since it lacks nuance in a lot of ways. I've found a lot of people to just be typeless in this system if you aren't flexible with how you use it. Afanasyev was also kind of insane and certainly excessively dramatic in the way he described many psychotypes and placements, so taking his system too seriously is very inadvisable imo...

Correlations:
Correlations exist between systems, there is such a thing as an "impossible combination" between two systems (for example, imo, intuitive e8), but I find correlations mostly useless for discussing type. Using them as a primary approach to typology is lazy and rather braindead. It's also less fun that way, I don't see the point.

If you have a good understanding of the systems, then whatever combination you arrive at while typing separately in each will therefore be possible.

Personality Database:
PDB is a dying platform slowly eroding to social media-ification & alienation of actual typology enthusiasts, so who gives a shit about taking it seriously, but here are some thoughts anyway.

Never trust consensuses on PDB. They're usually wrong. Remember that a consensus is just an amalgam of dozens of different people's votes, and these people overwhelmingly have no idea what they're voting for because they source from random blogs and YouTubers rather than read source material. Think & research for yourself if you wish to type a person or character.

Never trust “model PDB” either. Never follow popular opinion on the boards. Most people on there just follow each other's opinions and the validation of more "popular" users without actually reading or thinking for themselves, so they form this weird bastardized Ouroboros that insists on its own correctness despite being fully divorced from actual typology, existing purely as a creature of the boards.

Most importantly, remember that the majority of PDB users are people younger than 18, with no sense of identity, who are overly obsessed with anime & most of them can barely understand what they're reading/saying anyway, for several reasons.

< go back