which system describes you the best?

[Doctor Cringelord]

Currently, I think the two systems for which I’ve listed types in my signature

MBTI is too constraining and static. I think the Jungian functions do exist, but that they’re far more fluid than the 16 type systems are capable of articulating in any meaningful way.

 

[Mind Maverick]

Forgot to mention...none of the PoLRs in Socionics fit and I relate to several type descriptions, so there's that.

Interestingly...Si fits me the most in Socionics right now. MBTI Si is far from first place in me though. Anyone who bothers to read about both knows those are different.

 

[Morpeko]

Forgot to mention...none of the PoLRs in Socionics fit and I relate to several type descriptions, so there's that.

Interestingly...Si fits me the most in Socionics right now. MBTI Si is far from first place in me though. Anyone who bothers to read about both knows those are different.

I came here to say the same thing. I haven't seen any singular type that fits me as well as Socionics Si, and I'm confident that I am an SLI. MBTI Si is something else and I don't relate to it. Actually, MBTI is just a horrible fit overall.

Also, I think types 4 and 6 are very relevant to me although I am not a perfect example of either. I think the 4+6 combo, however, would be most fitting.

 

[Luminous]

Enneagram - 9sx/sp, 259 tritype

 

[RadicalDoubt]

I struggle to fit comfortably within any of the systems, but I'm sort of an extreme in terms of personality. I think the only thing (outside of whole syn-flow contra-flow bs) that is really fitting is the enneagram IV theory, in the sense that I am meme-ishly sp/so. In terms of the ones I know of:

IV >>>> Big 5 > Socionics >= Enneagram > AP > MBTI/CF (As I don't differentiate between dichotomies and grant stack since there are 7+ different perspectives surrounding it)

 

[mofongo]

Definitely Enneagram, I'm still struggling to really grasp which cognitive functions I use, nothing seems to fit completely. Big 5 is also great in a more practical sense.

 

[Mind Maverick]

I guess I'd say Big 5 is the most accurate...it doesn't type you and it allows for change...it's also the most supported by research...

 

[mancino]

I voted Enneagram. I'm very surprised by the vote split: if you consider the sheer volume of MBTI/Cognitive Function (CF) material (also here on TC) you would guess otherwise.

Maybe many of you have had the same experience I had: first you enter typology from 16personalities or some other dichotomies test. It's simple, seems to work, the description you get is eye-opening, or at least intriguing. Then you get mistypes, so you dig and discover the CF. But the more you dig, the muddier it gets.
Then you discover the Enneagram, which is the other way around. It is very esoteric at the beginning, but the more you dive into it, the more sense it makes.

Knowing what I know now, when a friend who knows nothing about typology and asks me about it, I go for the Enneagram and skip MBTI/CF altogether. It's not that they don't make sense or don't work, it's just that they're either too shallow or too complicated for the job.

A side note, my take on CF in the spoiler:

Maybe we should go back to the original Jungian concept: there are just 4 functions, N-S-T-F, and two orientation, E-I; the orientation is the most prominent trait, and refers to the person as a whole, and just after that to the dominant function. For example, me being ENTP would mean:
- I am and extravert with dominant intuition, not an Ne-dom (or Ne user, a wording that I loathe).
- N dom means S repressed/unconscious, with I repressed/unconscious too, NOT Si-inferior per se. As an extravert, you would expect me to show quite some Se (E is not repressed); Si, on the other hand, would be very weak, twice repressed, so a blind spot easily visible and felt, hence unconscious in its workings but very telling, especially regarding the F domain (as I'm a T).
- I would have T auxiliary, with the I/E orientation pretty mixed up: E as a general orientation, but I coming from the unconscious, so it would make sense to show both Te and Ti in common CF terms. The difference would be that I would feel more that I"use" Ti because Te is overshadowed by dominant Ne, actually felt like and extension of Ne, like a Ne-Te combo, hence Te shadow; Ti, on the other hand, would be more "alien" to the general Extraversion, so used with volition, hence more valued (not stronger or preferred, just more "felt").
- F would be repressed, but less than S, and could raise to consciousness, being E more conscious and I more unconscious. F would be very felt, because F is repressed by T so that, if I use it, I would feel it; but as an Extravert, I would use F much more in the E domain, hence Fe "third function"; Fi, on the other hand, would be more "blind", twice repressed (I and F), so shadow again.

What I like about the Enneagram:
- There are Archetypes, which are very relatable, like the 16 MBTI types but unlike modern CF description (each function in a vacuum, which is not as Jung put them)
- The model describes nicely how you move from one type to another, from one coping strategy to another, keeping the same fixation but changing behavior. I love the integration/disintegration and wings much more than the CF development, tertiary loop and grip concepts, which are very flimsy at least.

I'm currently very excited about this take on the Enneagram:
Triune Brain and the Enneagram article
You could say that it was by reading this that I settled on my being 7w8 and, hence, ENTP.

 

[Mind Maverick]

Nvm, actually. Forgot about Johari/Nohari. Nohari is the most accurate.

 

[Saturnal Snowqueen]

Literally 100% of these are me. What a mood:

RLUAI
moody, not good at sports, low energy level, unable to speak up for self, avoidant, depressed, withdrawn, attracted to things associated with sadness, easily frightened, feels defective, lonely, no self confidence, easily discouraged, avoids crowds, backs down when threatened, easily intimidated, socially unskilled, loner, unproductive, late with work, prone to health problems, focuses on fantasies more than reality, self loathing, wounded at the core, easily hurt, often sad, becomes overwhelmed by events, fearful, rarely prepared, fears doing the wrong thing, often aware how the color and lighting of a room affects their mood, feels untalented, quiet around strangers, prone to addiction, doubting, anxious, easily confused, frequently overwhelmed by unpleasant feelings, weak sense of purpose, relates to broken and discarded things, unsure where life is going, continually losing things, fears drawing attention to self, avoids unnecessary interaction, often bored, second guesses self, embarrassed by praise, worrying, resigned, prone to jealousy

 

[Schrödinger's Name]

Hmn, most likely the Enneagram and possibly Objective Personality.

I struggle with 'The Big Five' since the characteristics depend a lot on the context and my state of mind. I can't generalize myself based upon five characteristics that are so changeable.
The MBTI is difficult since I see myself as relatively balanced, using every function from time to time, not really having one that 'pops out'... (But I also don't have enough knowledge of the MBTI system.)
Socionics explains the functions better than the MBTI but I haven't read through everything yet.

 

[Snakebite]

Hmn, most likely the Enneagram and possibly Objective Personality.

Agreed.