i am so certain this idea has been done to death but

[implied]

as;dflkj

[implied]

as;dflkj

[Creepy-]

dffs

[implied]

as;dflkj

[Angel von Himmel]

People who have been physically, mentally, emotionally abused or were paired up consistenly with bad type combinations when they were growing up can believe that they are types that they are not.

Basically what I am saying is that if a person loses faith in their 1st function, they will attempt to subconsciously replace that with another function, usually their 5th and/or 6th function.

[implied]

as;dflkj

[Angel von Himmel]

that makes a hell of a lot of sense.

Basically relationships where people can not help but to naturally smack at each other's PoLR functions; like Supervision and Conflict. Both of those relationships can knock down a person's 1st function and they can start manifesting odd subconscious behaviours typical of other types.

An example of this is when an ENTp thinks that he or she is xNFj ... it is caused from having a long-term relationships with bad type combinations.

[Cone]

To tell the truth, I'm not sure this idea has ever been discussed. I'm glad you brought it up though. I'm planning to write an article about this topic of discussion.

The problem with personality tests is not limited to those people with bad backgrounds and screwed-up heads. Rather, it is a fairly common occurrence that has contributions from both the tests and the people taking those tests.

In taking a test, we often find certain question that we just can't answer. These questions are usually so ambiguous that we often are stuck with either saying we relate with both answers or neither of them. We often find questions where the answer "depends" on what situation we are in. In answering a question that deals with how sociable we are, one might argue that around strangers he's shy, but when he's around friends, he's quite outgoing and willing to take greater social risks than if he was alone. Then there are those questions that can be interpreted millions of ways. To a question concerning willpower, a dominant, aggressive man would answer that he has much willpower compared to others. However, so would a 120 lb. geek who is very backward answer positive to this question, because at least he can control his impulses. And then there is always the argument of whether the theory is even correct...

The people who take these tests are often quite limited in self-awareness. Thus, they will answer questions according to what they only think they are. For instance, people are often more consistent in their behavior than what they think they are. From a study performed by Bem and Allen (1974), it was found that in polling individuals and the people who know those individuals about those individuals, the individuals and the people who know them were more in agreement when the individual typed himself as being consistent in his behavior than when the individual typed himself in being more variable. From this argument, one sees that the individual himself knows less about him than the people that know him!

Anyway, these are just a few points that I had off the top of my head. There are many more issues to be discussed, but I will leave it at this.

[implied]

as;dflkj

[schrödinger's cat]

Are ISFJs harder to type?

I agree with Cone, the questionnaires are too vague sometimes. It took me ages to type my Mum, even though I know her very well. The trouble with ISFJs is they are rigid, disciplined etc., but they also focus on people and people's needs, so they'll try to decide what's appropriate in a given situation for a certain type of person. (They're not just disciplined, fullstop, end of story, always, everywhere.) That characteristic makes my Mum less typically Judging than other types. She'll try to make allowances, find the appropriate social behaviour etc. Other Judgers are likely to think in dualistic terms, in rigid categories (right/wrong, good/bad etc), and she's more likely to say "on the other hand...", "but we mustn't forget that this person has had a hard life" etc. The thing is, it's not a lack of J that makes her say this, but her first two functions. They also make her gregarious, and she can be quite light-hearted, playful and even silly.

I actually liked this test that tested for the function-attitudes (someone opened a thread about it these days).