I have always veiwed Myers Briggs to revolve around human preference, and not to be a strict code of events that define a person, and that the person is always going to act a certain way under a given type.
That being said, I think it's pretty much impossible to be 100%, no matter what the test tells you, because MBTI isn't a set of boxes where different types fit in certain boxes, it's more like a scatter plot where you're a little here, a little there. You're type only defines the actions and decisions that you are most likely to act upon and carry out on a normal routine, disregarding any environmental catalysts (say, Mental disorders).
As for my type, If I were to guestimate my type percentage I'd have to say..
E - 15/100 - 15%
N - 75/100 - 75%
F - 70/100 - 70%
P - 45/100 - 45%
As you can see, my E is very week, almost nearing borderline I. My N is very strong, in relative to percentages, as is my F. My P is fairly strong to average, as nothing is said to be 100%.
Is it that by its indefiniteness it shadows forth the heartless voids and immensities of the universe, and thus stabs us from behind with the thought of annihilation, when beholding the white depths of the milky way?
I resonate closest with the type descriptions of ENTJ, then ENTP, then ENFP, in that order. Looking at the ideal function ordering of each type and the descriptions of the functions makes sense, too, as I see how Ne and Fi come into play for me but the planning and organization combo of Te/Ni is obviously strong in me. I also sometimes test as a feeler or a perceiver (or their near-equivalents) on personality tests that I haven't taken before, but factors that would map to extraversion (e.g. "Outgoing" in the Big 5) and intuition are pretty well consistent.
So, it's a combination of different metrics that have led me to discover my type and preference strengths, not just the tests alone. Tests are inherently flawed for reasons described, type descriptions won't always match spot-on, and function ordering tries to explain too much.
[RANT]I think you have to know yourself really well, to the point of objectivity, in all the areas the test questions. I don't believe any type is purely objective in that sense, and it doesn't help that most people are taking the test to learn more about themselves. They use their MBTi type to help learn more, and at the same time learn with a huge bias in what they explore or believe as a result of it. It can highlight strengths and produce feel good moments, but tomorrow I might waking feeling like ISTJ is the way for me, and learn a sudden appreciation of thinking that way and seeing the world that way. Tell me some idiots who thought they'd choose 16 categories, rather than 25 or 10 or whatever else they could've chosen, will change that. They are arbitrary, and if someone can ever explain a scientific basis for grouping by these things, rather than it just being comfortable groupings in social terms, I might believe there is something to it. That isn't to say you can't group humans, just that this is all we are doing. Creating modules where there are no clear barriers. We group all the time, I can group black haired people, blue eyed people, there are traits to group, but why do the groups mean anything deeper than blue eye people have blue eyes and black haired people have black hair. Obviously they are genetic things, but I was highlighting them as superficial things we perceive hence group. The human brain is adaptable, that is the beauty of it. If anything MBTi has made me bored of being my type and want to explore the world as something new. Type is a limitation. And a boxing in of thinking and perspective. And you'll never learn that more than when you put an F in your type. If there is another way to see it, why not go there. Is it an excuse to be something, and not learn more? And does defining self achieve much more than comfort and restriction in what you can be?
Why does anyone need to be anything except to keep others happy with an image? Humans are too dynamic to define, and regardless of the four letters next to names, social cliches, whatever else, everyone should be met on a personal basis, because that is the only level you will ever truly define them on. And I believe it has never been the goal of psychology to change that.[/RANT]
Freude, schöner Götterfunken Tochter aus Elysium, Wir betreten feuertrunken, Himmlische, dein Heiligtum! Deine Zauber binden wieder Was die Mode streng geteilt; Alle Menschen werden Brüder, Wo dein sanfter Flügel weilt.
Humans are too dynamic to define, and regardless of the four letters next to names, social cliches, whatever else, everyone should be met on a personal basis, because that is the only level you will ever truly define them on. And I believe it has never been the goal of psychology to change that.[/RANT]
This was actually much of the point of Gifts Differing, which just so happens to have been written by Isabel Briggs Myers. Typing wasn't intended to be a limitation, rather as a starting point in the realm of self-discovery and an aid in understanding general differences in other people.