Type Magnified

Exploring the intricate layers of MBTI

Fake Stamp

Is MBTI Fake if “Experts” Continue to Mistype People?

Posted by:

|

On:

|

As a Meyers Briggs Personality Type Indicator (MBTI) content creator, I recognize the irony of calling it fake or writing about the difficulty of finding genuine MBTI insights. Who am I to claim authority on what’s “real” or “correct”? How can I be sure I even understand cognitive functions accurately? There’s always the possibility that I’m wrong, while those I think are mistaken are actually right. I think it’s foolish to be so confident saying that I’m the most trusted source out there because I know that’s not true. There are people out there tremendously better at typing than I am. 

An advantage of being a YouTube creator is connecting with other content creators worldwide and engaging with viewers. Over time, I’ve met several people who were typed by “Official MBTI Practitioners” but were clearly mistyped. I know this sounds bold and sounds like I’m critiquing my own community, but let me explain my reasoning because I believe that growth comes from understanding. The community will continue to improve if we’re able to eliminate certain aspects of criticism that continue to tarnish our validity.  

MBTI and its related systems are rooted in Jungian cognitive function theory, meaning that typing should be consistent across frameworks. For instance, an INTJ (LII) in Socionics is colloquially equivalent to an INTP in MBTI, reflecting the same cognitive functions. If someone claims to be an INTJ in Socionics, I would expect them to show INTP functions— Introverted Thinking (Ti), Extroverted Intuition (Ne), Introverted Sensing (Si), and Extroverted Feeling (Fe). However, I often encounter discrepancies, such as function placements that don’t align.

(For clarity and consistency, the rest of the post will be using the MBTI typing system instead of Socionics.) 

For example, I once met an INTP who had been typed as an INFP. I understand where the confusion might have arisen; both types share auxiliary Ne and tertiary Si, creating similarities. I personally believe that INTPs and INFPs are more similar than they are different. But the real issue is when I encounter major mismatches, like ISTPs being typed as INTJs or INTPs as ENTJs—types that either don’t share the same functions in the top four of their function stack or have them in a completely different order. This is a genuine problem because it leads to invalidation of cognitive function theory because the person typing should technically be an “Expert” but they’re wrong. To be human is to make mistakes, but that doesn’t protect us from criticism or critique from a job done incorrectly. MBTI already has a negative reputation in the western world and typing someone incorrectly compounds the negative reputation. 

American psychiatrist John Beebe suggests that each type can resemble another type under certain conditions—a concept I’ll delve into in a future post. In essence, we might display opposite functions instead of our dominant ones in specific situations. I don’t subscribe to this theory myself, but a skilled practitioner should be able to sift through these nuances. If an “official” title fails to equip someone with the ability to recognize the discrepancies, then how valid is that title?

As an INTJ, I often rely on Extroverted Sensing (Se) to support Extroverted Thinking (Te) in data gathering, though it’s ultimately Introverted Intuition (Ni) that handles the heavy lifting. My approach is to use Ni to search for truth objectively. If I sense a person might be a certain type but a “certified” practitioner disagrees, I’m open to adjusting my perspective. I’m more than happy to be proven wrong. I actually prefer being proven wrong than sticking to an unfounded assumption. My focus is on actively listening to what’s said, digging into the motivations behind it, rather than forcing traits to match a predetermined type. In layman’s terms, I don’t care about the “What”, I care about the “Why”.

For instance, if someone claims to value logic over emotions, the conclusion shouldn’t be that they are a Thinking type. Maybe being logical is their aspiration or this person is the most logical in a group of Feelers. Or their logic might be driven by emotional impulses. Similarly, caution should be applies if someone expresses a desire to understand their feelings—it doesn’t necessarily make them a Feeler. There are many reasons why a person would say that such as a recent loss of someone dear to them or newfound independence if they spent their entire lives coddled by their community. We need to explore the “why” before drawing conclusions.

This depth is essential before attempting to type someone. It’s why I’m hesitant to type celebrities until I feel there’s enough information on their motivations. Anyone can say anything on the surface, but deeper examination often reveals discrepancies between statements and true motivations. Emotions, after all, drive everyone, regardless of type. Thinkers, it drives us as well.

Another issue in typology communities is the reluctance to correct people who are convinced they belong to a certain type. I understand the reasoning—it allows people to reach conclusions independently, reducing friction. However, if someone seeks typing guidance, they should ideally leave with clarity, rather than misplaced certainty. Imagine buying a Honda Accord but receiving a Dodge Caravan manual—the mismatch would only lead to more confusion. While errors are inevitable in typing, I personally believe that it is the most ethical path to at least tell the person what your conclusions are of their type prior to ending the conversation even if it leads to friction. If we don’t, what makes us any different from talking to a fortune teller or any different from Astrology if we care more about how people feel than to lead them towards a path towards improvement? 

Finally, I believe certification is an arbitrary title. It takes a substantial amount of time to truly understand cognitive functions and even longer to set aside one’s biases when typing others. Self-guided certifications or short courses may not fully prepare someone for real expertise, just as a college degree doesn’t eliminate the learning curve in a new profession. 

In the end, I think effective typing requires an awareness of one’s biases, a recognition of the limits of one’s understanding, and a commitment to listening. Without these, we risk perpetuating mediocrity and bias in the typology community.

Enjoy the content? Consider signing up for the newsletter to get notified each time a new post has been added. 

Posted by

in

×