Are You Actually A Four Letter Code?

["?"]

I thought that I would blog this from my last response on "Mom"s enneagram thread. Saying that I am ISTP or any four letter code can have so many different meanings since we all gather here from learning the type system differently and becoming more enlightened about the system at a different pace. So, am I ISTP? I am not sure what that means in the eyes of each person that I converse with on the forums.

I can say that I prefer Ti-Se based on my limited understanding of Jung's descriptions. However after studying the subject for the past seven years, I can say without a doubt that I am comfortable with and prefer Linda V. Berens and Dario Nardi's Theorist (SP) temperament and "Chart the Course" interaction descriptions. Since that leads me to their Analyzer Operator type, which they have correlated with ISTP, does not mean that I would be that type under MBTI and definitely not under Socionics. It also does not mean that I correlate with Keirsey's Artisan (SP) temperament. So in the end, it seems arduous and self-frustating for me to make failed attempts in saying that I am four letters when the four letters have differing connotations under the system that I am reading at the time.

Does anyone have a system that by now they have come to realize works for yourself, in lieu of whether you are that referenced type under MBTI?

 

[heart]

It is just a theoretical concept to play around with to gain greater understanding for me. I find the full four letter code the best tool for that. For some points earlier in my life I can look back now and see more Fi-Ne than anything else but now I can definately see all four areas in myself more and more.

 

["?"]

It is just a theoretical concept to play around with to gain greater understanding for me. I find the full four letter code the best tool for that. For some points earlier in my life I can look back now and see more Fi-Ne than anything else but now I can definately see all four areas in myself more and more.

Does any author offer a description of type and means of determining type that you like better than others?

 

[INTJMom]

Does any author offer a description of type and means of determining type that you like better than others?

MY favorites are the books by Barron and Tieger, mostly because they're practical; they help me apply MBTT to every day life which is where I need it.

I have found they tend to describe the types in a positive way, and refer to the negative aspects as "possible blind spots". They make all the types seem equally good in their own ways. They don't make the reader feel bad for being a certain type.

 

[redacted]

i'm not DEFINED by my four letter code, but it's the best fit. i definitely use Ni first, and my Je function is Fe. but i also use Ti a lot...enough that xxTP almost makes sense. but my Ne and Se are weak...so....INFJ.

i mean, not everyone with the same four letter code even has the same function usage distribution. all the four letter code indicates is the most used function, and the function it pairs with.

 

[Athenian200]

I would say that a code is an attempt to describe you within the framework of a particular personality system. So if the system is different, the code can be as well. You are yourself regardless of what code you are represented by in a system.

I also disagree with arguments that claim that since the terms in the disparate systems all have relatively similar definitions/labeling (due to common roots in Jungian typology), that they should just be treated as a amalgamation and considered basically equivalent.

 

[alcea rosea]

Answering the thread title:
Are You Actually A Four Letter Code?

No I'm not. I'm more than just ENFP.
ENFP is most likely me of all MBTI types but I don't think all ENFP's are alike. They have just some similar traits.

Best fit is a good description like dissonance put it there.

 

["?"]

i'm not DEFINED by my four letter code, but it's the best fit. i definitely use Ni first, and my Je function is Fe. but i also use Ti a lot...enough that xxTP almost makes sense. but my Ne and Se are weak...so....INFJ.

i mean, not everyone with the same four letter code even has the same function usage distribution. all the four letter code indicates is the most used function, and the function it pairs with.

It sounds as though John Beebe's theory works best for you? The Ti is an automatic back-up for the Ni. I find it interesting that some who prescribe to his work and claiming to be INTP, contradict themselves in claiming to have a poor usage of Fe since that would be the next extraverted function they use after Ne. For INFJ, Beebe says the secession goes like this Best usage: Ni, Fe, Ti, Se. The shadow usage which may be used poorly or not at all would be Ne, Fi, Te, Si.

 

[redacted]

It sounds as though John Beebe's theory works best for you? The Ti is an automatic back-up for the Ni. I find it interesting that some who prescribe to his work and claiming to be INTP, contradict themselves in claiming to have a poor usage of Fe since that would be the next extraverted function they use after Ne. For INFJ, Beebe says the secession goes like this Best usage: Ni, Fe, Ti, Se. The shadow usage which may be used poorly or not at all would be Ne, Fi, Te, Si.

i'm not very familiar with Bebe's work. i haven't read any books on MBTI or anything...

but i think i agree with the description you just gave; i'm sure i use Se more than Ne. but i'm not that comfortable with any functions besides Ni, Fe, and Ti. other INFJs i know seem to have poor control of Se, just like me.

see, there's a difference between using a function a lot and having good control over it. with IxTPs for example, i notice Fe usage somewhat often, but the control seems to be poor. they probably have better control over Te, but they probably use it much less frequently than Fe.

i think i have better control over Ne and Fi than Se, but i certainly use Se more.

that's my take. does that match Bebe's work?

 

[arcticangel02]

Humans have a habit of oversimplifying things, categorising things. It makes things easier, sometimes, and other times harder.

Using an example of something totally different:

My hair is what I consider 'brown'. However, many people around me would look at it and call it 'blonde'. Without going into complicated explanations ("Well, it's brown with blonde highlights, so you could call it a blondy-brown? But some people would have considered it a dark blonde before it was even highlighted, so maybe light brown-blonde?) there isn't really a median description in there.

What I'm trying to say (in a horribly roundabout way) is that even really basic labels are subjective.

You are what you are. We use labels to categorise ourselves, even though the labels are hardly sufficient to measure human personality. It is impossible to determine exactly what the same label would mean to everyone who was presented with it - everyone's experiences are different. A label helps to narrow things down so that you're in the right ballpark, at least. Despite the differences between the theories, an ISTP of any description is similar to an ISTP of any other description, right? You can know the specifics (but once it becomes too specific it's hardly a label anymore, is it?), but other people really only need to know the approximation. And so, if you know your definition of ISTP is the Berens/Nardi version, then that's all you need to know, right?

huh: Okay, apologies if that didn't make any sense. I should have been asleep hours ago.)

In reference to your original question, though:
Does anyone have a system that by now they have come to realize works for yourself, in lieu of whether you are that referenced type under MBTI?

I have yet to determine the exact differences between the different theories - and so I consider myself an ENFP because it is the best type as far as describing me. I do not think it covers all of me, and neither do I think I am everything an ENFP is. But slowly I pick up more information, about MBTI and other systems, which adds detail to my self-description.

But I'm quite happy with the vagueness of that definition, and I think for all intents and purposes it suffices for me - the only time there might be an issue is if I was to have a prolonged conversation or debate with an expert on the subject.

 

["?"]

i think i agree with the description you just gave; i'm sure i use Se more than Ne. but i'm not that comfortable with any functions besides Ni, Fe, and Ti. other INFJs i know seem to have poor control of Se, just like me.

i think i have better control over Ne and Fi than Se, but i certainly use Se more.

that's my take. does that match Bebe's work?

Good points Dissonance, which is why I am perplexed with the average INJ saying that they have little or no usage of Se, however describe activities that clearly show they are using it. I have always found that based on descriptions, I readily use Fe however come to realize that taking actions based on my Fi gets me into trouble. I also find Te totally foreign.

see, there's a difference between using a function a lot and having good control over it. with IxTPs for example, i notice Fe usage somewhat often, but the control seems to be poor. they probably have better control over Te, but they probably use it much less frequently than Fe.

I agree that we do use all functions, but have little or no control over some. Naturally we will use our dominant and auxilary in most situations, yet certain functions are not appropriate for certain situations, and some situations calls for us to use certain functions. Lenore Thomson gives a great example in distinguishing Ti from Te. Te is too exacting when an activity calls for on the spot or spontaneous action (as most likely Fe). When grocery shopping, what use is Te in determining whether you have more room in your shopping cart. That takes being in the present and over time in grocery shopping, you become more and more comfortable in knowing how much to get in that basket. That is a clear use of Se. On the otherhand, attempting to build or construct something new, may call for reading, understanding and applying per instructions. In that case, Te will be necessary and someone who has a poor control over that function will find the task arduous.

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

I had higher hopes for the OP after reading the title. Are you a 4 letter symbol? No. MBTI doesn't try to gather who you are, it just collects a small sample of you, and makes predictions by recombining those samples. Then it pretends like this is some deep part of you, deeper than any of the other parts. There're deeper parts to your personality. And of course, that's only your personality. Is that really YOU, anyway? What about your body? Is there a you separate from your personality? All good questions. Finally, there's the problem of confusing a symbol for something with the thing itself -- a lot like going to the border and getting confused because there are no red dashed lines separating one territory from another. Yikes.

 

["?"]

Humans have a habit of oversimplifying things, categorising things. It makes things easier, sometimes, and other times harder.

It's very much human nature for us to label something in order to give it concrete meaning, therein simplifying it's meaning. It also gives us control in order to then interpret that label based on our past perceptions, stereotypes and prejudices, and dissect.

What I'm trying to say (in a horribly roundabout way) is that even really basic labels are subjective.

You are what you are. We use labels to categorise ourselves, even though the labels are hardly sufficient to measure human personality. It is impossible to determine exactly what the same label would mean to everyone who was presented with it - everyone's experiences are different. A label helps to narrow things down so that you're in the right ballpark, at least.

You did travel a bit didn't you.... OMG, my son is correct, he is most likely ENFP. He does the same thing.

Artic you raise some very good points. I do question whether we are on the same page, as we gain more knowledge into any matter, including this topic. At some point we all settle on our understanding (some with a more limited understanding than others) of the topic, but that is where we stop being in the same park. Fortunately most of us acknowledge unspoken principles that keeps us on topic. In the end we all have differing points of view, and can appreciate certain sub-systems more or less than others. Now I am going to go back a read my inquiry. For some reason I feel off topic at this point.