0.7 A look beyond the 16 personality types: why they aren’t  (Page 22/2)

To every person there are going to be basic psychological traits that would say to compose the majority of who that person is, and these traits could be called the fundamentals of their psyche. At first glance it might seem like just a standard personality analysis would show what the fundamentals of their psyche are, but a deeper look into their mind is needed. There are only a few personality types, yet two people with the same personality type could be completely different. Therefore there needs to be more to analyze about someone other than what their personality type is. There needs to be more tests or questions available to lay people that they can use to analyze themselves in a way in which they can understand.

The 16 personality types don’t address deeper questions people should asking about themselves that would truly separate out each individual, not just 16 different types. For instance the statement from the descriptions of the personality types “interested in how and why things work” could be made more elaborate. Interested in how and why what things work? That could be broken down into interested in how: politics, mechanics, psychology, cognitive science, math, English, history, foreign language, the sciences, any subject, any aspect of psychology, or any aspects of any of those subjects.

The statement “can be depended on to follow through” is included in a description of the personality types as well. But to follow through in what instances? In social ones? In a work environment? For personal goal setting?

The descriptions of the personality types are broad and could be misinterpreted and people could classify themselves as things that they aren’t if they don’t look closely enough. For instance, saying “detached and analytical” could be interpreted to mean “logical in all cases, cold and cruel”. In reality that person might be slightly detached or slightly analytical, the two don’t necessarily go together. And it could mean detached and analytical in only some instances or in some subject matters. Someone can be analytical in one subject area but not in another. Or only analytical when it comes to academics, versus social situations. A psychologist might be analytical when it comes to emotional things, but not analytical with say, science.

“Does not like conflict” could mean personal conflict, group conflict, or wars and even political movements, like say the conflict between being communist or being for democracy.

“Risk takers who live for the moment” could only be applied in certain situations. In fact, the questions “when does this apply exactly?” and “how does this go into effect” could be applied when analyzing everything said about the personality types.

“Loyal and faithful” – someone may only be loyal and faithful to their friends, and put down their enemies - does “loyal and faithful” mean weak?

“Uncomplicated in their desires” – Does this mean that the person doesn’t like doing things as much since they have simpler desires? Or does it mean that they are simpler people? That when they want to do something, they aren’t picky? What instances does this apply, someone might be picky in some instances, but not in others. If someone is uncomplicated in their desires, does this imply that they are simpler at analyzing things since they might not see as many details, like how they wouldn’t see details in what it is that they want? Does it imply a lower emotional intelligence since someone with a high emotional intelligence would probably be more specific about what it is that they want, since they know more about what it is that they want. Or does it mean that they want to live a simpler lifestyle?