#mistypes

[youknowwhoiamassbutt]

I was trying to write the word MacGuffin, and ended up writing MacFuggin, and so now's as good a time as any to start the list of my favorite typo'd names.

Magento = Magneto

Simcod = Simcoe

MacFuggin = MacGuffin

Please reblog with your own favorite name mistypes.

[mistype360]

enneagram/mbti typing for @bumblingbush

enneagram: 5w4 so/sp OR 7w8

imo you actually have a pretty strong case for being a 7 (although I can't type you as a 7 and a 5 simultaneously - even in the same tritype). I know that you yourself relate or type a lot more often as a 5 - so if anything you should trust yourself more than this typing. I just hope this gives some input rather than confusion.

consider if you actually relate to any enneagram 5 trait structures. I'll link one here if you want to check it out. many entp's or intp's will see themselves as being an enneagram 5, since it's associated with logic or ration, when being an enneagram 7 is still in the head tritype. (figuring out mistypes is in the name 😎)

for one, you often repeat that your desire is to live a life of happiness. you fear not having a fulfilling life, and ending up on the deathbed regretting what you had done. while you do express some 5 traits (wanting to be seen as capable, processing emotions alone), your 7 traits stand out much more.

even outside of the 7 archetype of wanting a fun life, you describe rationalizing your emotions, which is essentially the way a 7 deals with their internal process. when it comes to anger, you "question things more" and "try to come to a sort of conclusion." when you don't, it makes you further frustrated (7 working with 8). the 8 wing is even more present, with the questions about dealing with anger pretty outwardly and quickly.

honestly, I think this quote from yourself describes it pretty well

"I make sense of emotions when alone (why I feel this way, when did I start feeling this way, and that’s how I get to the root of them)"

alternatively, I can see where you might be a 5. however, if you are, then you must be a social 5, which could explain some of the mixed traits you have in your questionnaire (and some of your 7 traits).

I ended up settling on the social 5 subtype, as they somewhat also tend to rationalize emotions. the only real difference I see between a social 5 and yourself is that you don't seem to distance yourself as much from others. in the trait structure of social 5's, they have a sense of "restrained greed."

here's a description by beatrice chestnut I thought you should look at if you wanted to figure out a social 5 within yourself:

"If this is your subtype, you always try to be and look smart and knowledgeable, but that doesn’t bring you true wisdom or joy. Nor is it a humble way of life. You may treat some people differently from others, according to whether or not you view them as members of your “special group.” Notice if you tend to be warmer and more available to people who have the same level of interest and expertise in your preferred subject or cause—and colder and less attentive to people who don’t. You may prioritize causes and the search for knowledge and meaning above individuals out of an unconscious fear of meaninglessness, but this keeps you disconnected from people and unable to truly care about them. Your tendency to bypass emotional development in favor of purely intellectual engagement may mean you think you are more conscious than you actually are."

mbti: entp

finding yourself stuck in decision or analysis paralysis often is likely some extroverted function in your stack that you are avoiding, or not developing as much as your other functions. while many intp's experience analysis paralysis, what made me type you as an entp over an intp was mostly your intentions.

to me, this not as much "analysis paralysis" as it is considering all the outcomes. I think you also said it somewhere yourself in your post that you often find it hard to make decisions, as there are "many options to consider."

the idea that ne doms are crazy over change and are completely open to it is just another stereotype. you pretty much seem to have a healthy relationship with it. maybe you aren't as "impulsive" as many entp's would be, but you use your ne to a reasonable extent - which is really just your ti doing it's auxiliary job.

also, you are pretty open to changing your mind (again, to reasonable extent). it's both an intp and entp trait due to their ti, but from what you explain, it seems that you take information in before you let it affect your framework of thought.

you don't seem to approach situations directly with this framework (ti). instead, it seems that you are intially receptive (extroverted function), and then that filters into your structure of thought (introverted function) - rather than the other way around.

[ichosebotheveryday]

[samissobsessed]

"Quick breathe of fresh hair" HAIR WHAAA😭😭😭😭

Did anyone else get this too?

[forgottenbones]

Why does this nonsense phrase appear in so many old newspapers?

[azenta]

hi, if you accept typology qns, do you think so/sps tend to mistype as sx/so more often than others? how would you describe the difference b/n them?

Yes, I still take Typology questions.

For your first question, it depends on many things.

The reason why So/sps often mistype is often not related to being So/sp itself but rather because:

So/sp as an IV stacking is devalued and shit upon, especially on tumblr for some reason. It's devalued in a dehumanizing way, making it so hyper specific and negative that people have a hard time to relate to it. No one with a decently healthy ego will choose to identify to something derogatory, thus creating assured mistype at some point.

On the other end, Sx/so are pointlessly glorified, or at least, presented in a humane way through being shown as perfectly imperfect. And since it's a contraflow instinct with Soc, and low Sp, actual So/sp can find bits of themselves in this stacking.

Also, typology attracts mostly "reviser" type (high Pe and Ji), which are type focused on constantly revising their understanding of concepts. And since IVs are not solidly defined, as in there isn't an objective methodology to quantify and qualify them definitively, it leads to constant arbitrary interpretation and even more space to doubt and revise said concept. This thus leads to more mistyping or constant doubting of their type anyway.

So, this is why people that are So/sp might mistype more often, since it would be almost masochistic to type as one depending the type of people they surround themselves with and the beliefs around the said stack.

As for what would distinguish those two stackings, there are some major differences between them, but at least two come to my mind. The main one is their blind spot. One cares more about complicity/commitment (Soc) and intimacy (Sp) at the cost of complimentarity (opposites that attract) (Sx), and the other value more said complimentarity (Sx) and complicity (Soc) at the cost of intimacy (Sp). This means that So/sp are overall safer in their approach as they value relationships that promise a sort of engagement through common ground (shared interests/values) and that requires intimacy to catter to the relationship. Therefore, they tend to avoid or simply not choose first handedly relationship with a high charge of opposition as they instinctively view it as harder and riskier to gain the kind of relationship they are wired to desire.

While Sx/so are more typical social butterflies that like to have impactful connection as they choose lots of complementary elements (oppositing traits) that they also manage by finding some common and shared values, interests, passions, etc. Intimacy becomes viewed as impairing to their goal as it requires time and investment to create, when what they instinctively crave is rather an impact, as opposition require a force to converge those opposite forces, which is found through some degree shared values. They don't want to take time to merge the opposition, they want already established common grounds that recall how to merge back as one.

Also, the second difference lies in the secondsry instinct. This instinct serves as a sort of playground, a place to test the water, as its goal is to feed the primary IV.

Therefore, it's where So/sp tend to voluntarily take people apart from the social playground and take the time to create a safe space to either reaffirm their mutual engagement to each other or test if they are on the same page. So, this is why they can often adopt the behavior to come suddenly into one's DM and start chatting and getting to know someone after repetitively encountering them on shared groups, projects, ateform etc. (*Tho, get that this isn't an So/sp exclusive behavior. Remember the motivation behind is what tells which IVs are into motion.)

For Sx/so it's where they rather use their shared interests or values to cultivate the relationship and maintain it alive. It's where they see if there is place for amiability or only destruction will occur by their complementary traits (which become said opposition instead). This often create the behavior to seek places where people share some of their interests or to do or talk (A LOT) about mutual interests so they see how much they share or not things in common with the people around. It then allows them to compete and seek people with complementary perspective to theirs. (*Again, get that this isn't an Sx/so exclusive behavior. Remember the motivation behind is what tells which IVs are into motion.)

So, So/sp might seek more instinctively to have individual moments, while Sx/so seek instinctively to remain with the many, both as a mean to "test the waters". So/sp's goal by doing so is to strengthen their shared values and so, lead to have more occasion to engage in shared activities. Sx/so's goal is to be able to create complimentarity from their opposing traits by using their common values as a merging point.

I hope it could answer your question. There are some other aspects that distinguish both of those IVs, but those are the biggest differences. If you have any other questions, don't hesitate to ask x)

[contentgreenearth]

ANNOUNCEMENT: WHY I NO LONGER USE, AND WILL NEVER AGAIN USE, MBTI LETTER CLUSTER BEHAVIORS IN MY TYPINGS

Another thing that I noticed a lot of Jungian typologists using, that really screws up typings big time, are the MBTI letter cluster behaviors.

These are behaviors that are assigned to various MBTI letters clustered together. The idea to do this arose from Briggs and Myers, as they assign behaviors to ST, SF, NT and NF.

As I mentioned in the book review of Gifts Differing, the way that Briggs and Myers assigned behaviors to the letter clusters was by combining the total of all 4 types that had the same middle letters into one tally, not mentioning, for example, that the SFs who made up 61% of sales professionals, 44% of nurses and 42% of educators were almost entirely ESFJs 😯.

People who work with the Strong Type Indicator (a system that combines the MBTI and the Holland Career Inventory) says that SFs are going to score highest in the S (Social) career cluster, which is where nurses, teachers and sales professionals are all located. Well, from my own personal experience, and seeing what people who are typed correctly get for Holland Career Inventory results, I can tell you that yes, ESFJs do, in fact score highest in S. However, ISFJs tend to score higher in the C (conventional) career cluster, with positions like secretary, accountant, etc., than they do in the S career cluster. ESFPs and ISFPs on the other hand, often score low, or even *lowest* in the S(social) career cluster, because as S1s, they are more interested in physical work than mental work, so they tend to prefer the active career clusters of R (realistic) examples: skilled trades, culinary, transportation; A (artistic) self explanatory; and C (conventional) over the more passive career clusters of I (investigative) examples: scientist, doctor; E (enterprising) examples: management, marketing and S (social).

So anyway some people say that it was Briggs and Myers who also associated behaviors with the other letter clusters as well, doing like they did before, lumping all 4 types with the same series of letters together, even though the behavior associated came overwhelmingly from only 1 of the 4 types. And some say that Harold Grant did this. But whether Briggs and Myers did it, or Grant did it, it makes no difference. It was done. And it created one of the most inaccurate typing systems out there today, Type Dynamics.

In Type Dynamics, Grant takes 8 of these letter clusters, and calls them "functions". He calls the following letter cluster behaviors these "functions". He calls SP "Se", he calls SJ "Si", he calls NP "Ne", he calls NJ "Ni", he calls TJ "Te", he calls TP "Ti", he calls FJ "Fe", and he calls FP "Fi".

Disclaimer: a lot of people get confused by Grant's functions, because they think that they are the same as the functions Jung talks about in Psychological Types. To clear this up, they are *not* the same. I can write another blog post about that on a later date, but for now, know they are *not* the same.

Anyway, the point of this is, there's lots of MBTI purists and Jungian typologists out there who believe it's okay to use the MBTI letter cluster behaviors in typings, as long as you don't call them "functions". However, I've seen it leading to typings of all practical people as TPs, all compassionate people as SFs, all people who like to solve and create "brain teasers" as NPs, etc. I'd hate to say it, but that's causing a lot of mistypes, folks.

I quit using the letter cluster behaviors in typings about 6 months ago, because I realized that *the letter cluster behaviors are essentially the same thing as the Grant stack*. You will see I used them as confirmations in some of my early typings, such as the one I did on LiJo. But I have since ceased.

So yeah, I'd hate to tell those above mentioned MBTI purists and Jungian typologists, but if you're using the MBTI letter cluster behaviors in typings, you're using the very same Grant stack that you're speaking out against. You're just calling it by a different name. The MBTI letter cluster behaviors are the "functions" of the Grant stack, and the fact that you're not calling them "functions" like Grant did, doesn't change that. And gee, you see how accurate *NOT* Grant's Type Dynamics typing system is. So why are you using it in your typings, under a different name? Good question. Food for thought 🤔

Anyway, in summary, that's why I quit using the MBTI letter cluster behaviors in typings, and will never use them in typings ever again.

Off the soapbox. Rant over. Now back to our regularly scheduled program 😆😂🤣 Sorry, I just had to throw that last sentence in there 😅

[funkymbtifiction]

So, a while back someone asked me if Beatrice Chestnut’s sp2 isn’t actually 2, what is it? And I theorized about 9, but now I think this description is specifically 6w7 flavored. Let’s unpack it.

Beatrice Chestnut’s Description:

This “cute” Two expresses pride and a need for protection through youthful ways of gaining attention and affection. The unconscious strategy the Self-Preservation Two employs is to “seduce” like a child in the presence of grown-ups. This represents both an unconscious need to be taken care of and a sense that children are naturally loveable, inherently deserving of affection, and usually more readily liked than adults. This Two has a childlike quality in presentation and emotional expression-no matter how old they are, this Two looks youthful or young. The Self-Preservation Two unconsciously aims to attract love and attention through being cute and expressing a childlike sense of need. [...]  This Two “remains little” as a way of evoking care from others without having to ask for it, just as children shouldn’t have to ask for love and care or aren’t mature enough to articulate this kind of request directly.

Since this person is seeking a protector / adult to lead and take care of them, it’s already more 6 than 2. 2 is an ego type, supported by either a 1 wing (I must help and serve) or a 3 wing (I must help and be the best); and self-pres is focused on the nature of being useful within a self-pres sense -- attending to the immediate physical, etc., needs of those around them (eg, the aggressive ‘care-taking’ of sp2s like Molly Weasley).

This presentation is a way of inviting people to like them and take care of them, just as a child’s “cuteness” inspires people to love them. This is their way of expressing the idea that, deep down, they want to be loved not for being pleasing or giving to others, or because of qualifications, performance, or achievements, but just because of who they are; they want to be loved for just existing.

2s give to get, which means if they want to be taken care of, they take care of others; part of the super-ego of 2 is the assumption that they ‘should’ be a selfless giver, so they aggressively... give. (An sp2 I know is forever buying things for people, but does not want anyone to buy anything for her -- it’s part of her super-ego pride in that she wants to be The Giver, and in that way, to be Essential and have the Upper Hand in the relationship.) Being cute and innocent and even a little childish seems like a 7 wing strategy, combined with a phobic 6 desire to have someone look after you (again, sort of a Marilyn Monroe-esque 6ish playfulness).

Self-Preservation Twos need to feel unique and special-they have a compulsion about being the “cute” girl or boy who is liked by everybody. They charm or “give themselves” to others to remain the favorite. They excel at being the teacher’s pet.

The “every girl next door” is a 6 trait; I am normal, cute, and harmless, so you won’t attack me. They abide by the rules and are givers, but without expecting much in return other than affection and to be unharmed.

It’s less easy to see pride in this type. The Self-Preservation Two is the countertype of the Twos; it’s a Two that doesn’t look like a Two. While the energetic direction of the flow of the Two personality (with its focus on seduction) is up and out toward others, the self-preservation instinct this Two has causes them to express more ambivalence about relationships. This Two moves toward others, but also has a “counter-move” away from others out of a need for self-protection. This Two is tender and sweet, but more guarded than the other Twos. As might be expected from a more childlike character, the Self-Preservation Two is more fearful, less trusting, and more ambivalent about connections with others. Although these Twos may not be aware of how fearful they are-all Twos repress feelings-they may have a more pronounced need than other Twos to protect themselves in the presence of others, which might be perceived by some as an invisible “wall.” The ambivalence about connection experienced by this type takes the form of mixed or conflicting feelings about establishing close connections with others, especially important or intimate others

That’s because they are not a 2, but a 6. Pride is not driving them. They are ambivilant about relationships because of the 6 ego structure -- to move toward and then become fearful and pull away. 2s don’t typically do this, since they really do want immediate connection and to be needed. But a 6 will push-pull, yes and no and maybe, I rethought things, etc., and be guarded out of a need to protect themselves against potential pain. Self-protecting and putting up a wall is 6ish, along with the ambivalence about connecting to people or not -- 2s pursue that connection and aren’t afraid of making it (unless they sense direct rejection is in the cards). It seems like an instance of #Nota2..

Like other Twos, Self-Preservation Twos focus on meeting others’ needs as a way of gaining love, but they also feel a strong opposing pull to hide or withdraw in light of the threat of disapproval and rejection inherent in interacting with others. On the one hand, people and relationships feel compelling and important, but on the other hand, being close to people seems fraught with danger because it includes the possibilities of losing oneself or being judged, taken advantage of, humiliated, or rejected.

This could just as easily be 6, again, using fear to govern decisions.

Here is the real kicker, though:

Self-Preservation Twos can be self-indulgent and hedonistic. They are drawn to cultivate a sense of “euphoria” through parties, shopping, drinking or indulging in food and fun-anything to distract themselves from having to contact themselves. They are sensation-seeking, and they look for pleasurable experiences to distract themselves from feelings of self-abandonment and inner deprivation.

THIS IS A 7 WING. THIS IS SELF-PRESERVATION 7 INFLUENCES. It’s not to say that 2s won’t pamper themselves, but being hedonistic, self-indulgent, and using these things to distract them from self-awareness is pure 7.

She also mentions idealizing people within relationships and projecting their power onto them, which... idealization can be 7 re-framing, and projecting authority onto others is 6. Being unable to locate your own power is also 6 -- a 2 knows their power lies in being essential to someone else.

The Self-Preservation Two can look like a Self-Preservation Six in that they are fearful and ambivalent about relationships, but in the Six the emphasis is on a more generalized fear, while this Two’s fear mainly manifests in relationships.

Nah, this is a self-pres 6 description.

Beatrice herself self-types as this brand of 2, which if she pulled a lot of this description from her own experiences means she’s an sp/so 6w7. It might also explain why she could find no instances of ever using her line to 8, and is skeptical of the existence of wings, because she’s looking for ones that don’t exist. She says she has sensed her 1 and 3 wing in the past, but mostly focuses on being a 2 -- well, a 6 is a lot like a 1 (a fellow superego type, and there’s a lot of crossover between moral emphasis and both types), and obviously has a line to 3, so it’s natural she would see both.

So there’s your hot, controversial take for the day -- Beatrice Chestnut is a mistyped 6w7. ;)