Just read an interesting article...

[madhatter]

Stumbled upon an interesting article, entitled "Refining the Language of Type Descriptions", which touches on a topic that has bothered me for a long time, namely ISTP type descriptions.  I think this guy hits the nail on the head, and his solution simplistic but effective.  It just takes a little careful rewording.  He even uses ISTP as an example for once, and he doesn't use the tiresome "hates theory" and "grease monkey" stereotypes. Amazing.  You can read it here.  It's not too long, only about 6 pages.

[Duck_of_Death]

Awesome. Do you have any more from that particular Journal? I'm interested in the other types as well.

[madhatter]

Yes, I found his PDF/handout for the Descriptions of the 16 personality types: here.

I really liked his point how each types value certain things that define each type, but that doesn't mean they have matured enough to achieve those values. So simple, it makes my three years of arguing on personality forums about this very issue seem moot.

[madhatter]

Also, I just wrote a lengthier-than-expected email to Personality Junkie about their ISTP profile, which is the most I've written on the subject since I left PerC. For the tl;dr version, this is the main take away: "It's not that I'm uninterested in the abstract. I'm uninterested in discussing what would happen if elephants had telekinetic powers while I'm trying to watch a movie."

I do like their profile, since it is better than most, but I think it could be better if they removed some of the common S stereotypes, mainly to do with prescribing ISTP hobbies and career paths.

[Duck_of_Death]

Awesome! I will actually read this when I have a chance.

[madhatter]

Cool.  I've only read a few so far, but they seem very accurate.

I also got a response back from the Personality Junkie thanking me for the feedback, so that was pretty sweet.

[Sponsored content]