Type and Vocation

[LinguiniPig]

You just been exposed to MBTI in school or on the job from your teacher, guidance counselor, or Human Resources department. You take the test, and they suggest a job based on the results. How do respond if you want to work in something else but your test results show aptitude in a field.

Luckily no MBTI test has types named after, "The Janitor", "The Rent-A-Cop", "The Garbage Man". Most are positively presented with the intent to help others.

Kiersey has several types named after vocations.

I just tested as an idealist teacher, I'll become a teacher! I'm a rational field marshal I'll be a project manager or systems engineer! I'm a supervisor, ready to serve as a public administrator! I'm an artisan crafter, working as a highly skilled tradesman, a pilot, athlete, surgeon, etc.

This is great but for those that study typology, presumably because this initial spark leads to digesting more knowledge on the topic, how does this work in reverse?

Susans a teacher, she's ENFj. Sam's always building models and wants to be an architect-- possibly an INTp. Adam is always lively in front of the camera and wants to be a host, actor, waiter-- he's obviously ESFp.

Really it's hard to untangle which direction people are going with their type "logic", but these conclusions are reasonable if not a bit cursory.

My question is what happens when someone awkwardly finds themselves typed as an NT type but they want to do sports. Or vice versa, an Fp type would like to work in math/science. How does that individual:

1) Account for the logical incoherence and seek some integrity with actual reality and the typing framework.

and

2) Account for cognitive dissonance and how they feel about the difference.

I think many people not into typology just think to themselves, "this is HR bs", but it's probably more complex for someone interested in typology and psychology.

One argument is to say nothing is done for accounting as this situation would be impossible as the tests or opinions of others are infalliable and you would never have one test contrary to what they should be doing vocationally unless they are mentally unhealthy or deluded.

This of course would imply a very strict mapping between types and vocations. Although I've heard several times people one here argue that not all ___ professions have to be ____ type.

I think this is about as extreme as the other absolute which is the entire framework of typology is without any use or validity because it doesn't strictly map vocation to type.

I personally there is probably a reasonable balance, I've considered that the reason for this is type maps to a set of potential skills loosely speaking versus a single well developed skill a person has trained or developed.

Also I say loosely because no system is perfect, but that doesn't make it useless. A wheel isn't perfectly circular but that doesn't mean it can't get you from a to b on a car.

I like typology, but I dislike certain aspects taken to absolutes.

What are your thoughts.

[Myst]

One more thing I'd add - in many professions you can approach the field with different types's different potential skillsets (as you put it very well). Also, regardless of type, you can develop a specific skillset for a specific restricted area that the tasks for the job would amount to. If the tasks aren't complex, then that's a no-brainer anyway, though some people would take more time with learning them than others, partially related to the potential skillset of the type and partially to other things (general intelligence, skillset unrelated to types, idiosyncracies beyond type, etc). If it's a more complex job, then as far as it relates to required skillsets related to type, learning can be done in a roundabout way through the strong functions while utilizing other ones too or directly through the strong functions if that approach can also fit for the job.

So it's far from a rigid mapping from type to job, this theory is intentionally way too general to expect that from it. A representative of a type can take up quite some kinds of jobs. Of course, with some jobs, it would still remain the impossible task of fitting a round peg into a square hole.

[Tonatiuh]

My question is what happens when someone awkwardly finds themselves typed as an NT type but they want to do sports.

It's but a matter of force of will. I doubt there was another of my specific type in my platoon. I think they were all extraverted sensors.

[LinguiniPig]

One more thing I'd add - in many professions you can approach the field with different types's different potential skillsets (as you put it very well). Also, regardless of type, you can develop a specific skillset for a specific restricted area that the tasks for the job would amount to. If the tasks aren't complex, then that's a no-brainer anyway, though some people would take more time with learning them than others, partially related to the potential skillset of the type and partially to other things (general intelligence, skillset unrelated to types, idiosyncracies beyond type, etc). If it's a more complex job, then as far as it relates to required skillsets related to type, learning can be done in a roundabout way through the strong functions while utilizing other ones too or directly through the strong functions if that approach can also fit for the job.

So it's far from a rigid mapping from type to job, this theory is intentionally way too general to expect that from it. A representative of a type can take up quite some kinds of jobs. Of course, with some jobs, it would still remain the impossible task of fitting a round peg into a square hole.

Yes I totally agree with you. I think type is generally about a set of potentials, but outside of that every individual is unique. I think it's unhealthy to take type as something like a strict prescription for life choices or a station/career. Things like that seem like some bf skinner dystopia. Of course I'm not being alarmist half of the fun of typology is the satirical aspects like it were out of some bf skinner utopia. He actually wrote some book about a utopia were everyone had roles and were conditioning was a major theme.

[LinguiniPig]

Oh btw https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walden_Two