At least it’s helpful for me to point at the ‘challenges’ section and tell people ‘I do this, please keep poking me until I give you attention’.
In the same way it’s helpful to have a literal definition of how other people think, because the idea that someone might deliberately go with a suboptimal idea because they value peace is absolutely foreign to me.
Except the Myers-Briggs types are meaningless.
> the idea that someone might deliberately go with a suboptimal idea because they value peace is absolutely foreign to me.
That seems like you're lying to yourself. Everyone goes along with tons of suboptimal ideas or has enough money and power that everyone does what they want or is insufferable and everyone avoids. You could be in the latter two categories, but that doesn't seem likely.
BTW have you ever gotten into acting, even on the side? Asking because your comment reminded me of some people I've known with similar experiences.
If you decide to stay on your type-script, your life will be more repetitive than it otherwise would. Many of the same problems, repeated. Your preferences will be less flexible by definition, so your scope of decision-making and even perceptual skill will be limited by subconscious pressure inputs, for example.
Also, you can more readily be manipulated by those who understand your blind spots better than you do. (This makes some people angry, but IMO it's better to embrace it and find a way to work on those)
However, to transcend one's own type requires intense learning, growth, and therefore stress. And the concepts here are so new that there is very little support available should you decide to really go in this direction.
Anyway. Personally I can understand either way. But the theoretical answer to "is having a personality type a problem" is both a hard no and a hard yes. This applies both for yourself and others as they interact with you.
The implied undertone was that all others should accommodate the author and change themselves to better interact with the author so that his needs were met and he could be a productive member of the work force.
But what does that imply the other way around? If I were to write a play book like this, were this person to also adapt to my ways/wants? Or would this be too much to ask?
Working in any professional environment to me implies adapting to others around at least a bit (without loosing what makes out our personality). Out of respect to other human beings alone I think this is decent human behavior.
But as said, to me these writings sound like excuses to expect one sided adaption and I could say "pampering". But maybe that is just me.
I was using this style of enquiry with new hires 20+ years ago as a natural step to ensure we would get the best out of them - it just seemed like an obvious thing to do.
I don't like sticking square pegs in round holes so if by understanding, and being able to accommodate, personal characteristics, we can make the person more comfortable they'll generally contribute more, faster, and better.
You hate travelling in rush-hour? fine, set your own hours to fit in with the team requirements.
E.g. for myself I'd say: "No distractions - if I'm obviously focused on something do NOT disturb me - send an email" and "I'm productive when my brain gets intensely into something - when it doesn't I don't sit around I go do something else" and "I work better in darkness or dim light, or overnight" and "Sometimes I need to do intense random brain-storming sessions to clear the crap out my head".