Some Simple Advice On How To Self-Type

[Mal12345]

A. Find out if you are an Introvert or an Extravert.
B. Find out if you are a Sensor or an Intuitive.
C. Find out if you are a Thinker or a Feeler.
D. Find out if you are a Judger or a Perceiver.

Trying to find out if you are an Ni, an Fe, etc., is trying to do too much at once, because you're trying to find out if you are an Introvert AND an Intuitive, or a Feeler AND an Extravert, all in one swell foop.

 

[Such Irony]

The problem is some people don't know where they stand on one or more of these letters. They have read the descriptions over and over again and the tests keep showing 50/50 on a certain dimension.

Sometimes its just poor self-awareness and not being honest enough with oneself. But not always. Sometimes it isn't so clear cut and there are various reasons why self-typing can be difficult.

What you say about function is half right. If you're looking at what your dominant function is, then if it's Ni, you must be an introvert AND intuitive for example. If you're just looking at someone who prefers to use this function, things get trickier.

Let's say you're deciding between INTP and INTJ. INTP has Ti Ne Si Fe in that order. INTJ has Ni Te Fi Se in that order. Someone might be drawn to the Ne description more than the Ni one. The person may not be a dominant Ne but someone who prefers to use Ne. Which is more suggestive of INTP than INTJ.

 

[skylights]

Trying to find out if you are an Ni, an Fe, etc., is trying to do too much at once, because you're trying to find out if you are an Introvert AND an Intuitive, or a Feeler AND an Extravert, all in one swell foop.

i didn't realize my real type until i read about Ne - i'd typed as INFP prior to that, which didn't feel quite right. to all accounts i am a quasi-introvert, socially. i know you have been into the getting-back-to-the-4-letter-code recently but personally i think i didn't gain much from the MBTI until i learned the cognitive functions. the concept of "Ne" opened a world to me.

personally i wonder if it would be best to learn the structure of the functions first, then try typing yourself via 4-letter code, then using the functions to fill in gaps that don't make sense. like [MENTION=10653]SuchIrony[/MENTION] said, you could have figured out INT but be having trouble with P and J; understanding Ne and Ni could make that distinction for you.

without the cognitive functions i don't think MBTI typology tells us much we don't already know.

ENFP = scattered abstract-thinking sensitive late person... (duh, any of my friends could attest to that)

versus

NeFiTeSi = outer-world scanner of abstract patterns, inner valuer of humanistic worth, need to extravert logic, much of worldview depends on assumption of lasting meaning... (much more useful in understanding my reactions and interactions)

 

[Mal12345]

The problem is some people don't know where they stand on one or more of these letters. They have read the descriptions over and over again and the tests keep showing 50/50 on a certain dimension.

Sometimes its just poor self-awareness and not being honest enough with oneself. But not always. Sometimes it isn't so clear cut and there are various reasons why self-typing can be difficult.

What you say about function is half right. If you're looking at what your dominant function is, then if it's Ni, you must be an introvert AND intuitive for example. If you're just looking at someone who prefers to use this function, things get trickier.

Let's say you're deciding between INTP and INTJ. INTP has Ti Ne Si Fe in that order. INTJ has Ni Te Fi Se in that order. Someone might be drawn to the Ne description more than the Ni one. The person may not be a dominant Ne but someone who prefers to use Ne. Which is more suggestive of INTP than INTJ.

The server logged me off without my knowledge. So when I tried to post a response I was forced to log in again. After inputting my password my browser then brought me to a blank page and my response was lost. (I don't know how many times something like that has happened on this particular forum.)

Since I am tired of putting forth thought and energy into responding to a broken forum, I will just summarize my response. You wrote, "INTP has Ti Ne Si Fe in that order." That is a theoretical representation of an ideal type. And according to Jung it is not wrong but simplistic. Jung stated that both (ir)rational functions could serve as auxiliary functions because they are not unconscious. So in actuality my INTP function order may be something like Ti (Ne/Ni) Si Fe, while the unconscious function will remain in the inferior spot.

Edit - I should add that the tertiary is also in an unconscious fixed compensating position.

 

[Mal12345]

i didn't realize my real type until i read about Ne - i'd typed as INFP prior to that, which didn't feel quite right. to all accounts i am a quasi-introvert, socially. i know you have been into the getting-back-to-the-4-letter-code recently but personally i think i didn't gain much from the MBTI until i learned the cognitive functions. the concept of "Ne" opened a world to me.

personally i wonder if it would be best to learn the structure of the functions first, then try typing yourself via 4-letter code, then using the functions to fill in gaps that don't make sense. like [MENTION=10653]SuchIrony[/MENTION] said, you could have figured out INT but be having trouble with P and J; understanding Ne and Ni could make that distinction for you.

without the cognitive functions i don't think MBTI typology tells us much we don't already know.

ENFP = scattered abstract-thinking sensitive late person... (duh, any of my friends could attest to that)

versus

NeFiTeSi = outer-world scanner of abstract patterns, inner valuer of humanistic worth, need to extravert logic, much of worldview depends on assumption of lasting meaning... (much more useful in understanding my reactions and interactions)

This method of function analysis operates under the assumption that NiTe winds up with a J at the end. And in that case, the J merely has symbolic import for retaining the old MBTI nomenclature. But there is no reason to assume that NiTe = INTJ, none whatsoever. There is no reason given, and if you'll notice, there is never any reasoning offered in its support.

 

[Mal12345]

i didn't realize my real type until i read about Ne - i'd typed as INFP prior to that, which didn't feel quite right. to all accounts i am a quasi-introvert, socially. i know you have been into the getting-back-to-the-4-letter-code recently but personally i think i didn't gain much from the MBTI until i learned the cognitive functions. the concept of "Ne" opened a world to me.

personally i wonder if it would be best to learn the structure of the functions first, then try typing yourself via 4-letter code, then using the functions to fill in gaps that don't make sense. like [MENTION=10653]SuchIrony[/MENTION] said, you could have figured out INT but be having trouble with P and J; understanding Ne and Ni could make that distinction for you.

without the cognitive functions i don't think MBTI typology tells us much we don't already know.

ENFP = scattered abstract-thinking sensitive late person... (duh, any of my friends could attest to that)

versus

NeFiTeSi = outer-world scanner of abstract patterns, inner valuer of humanistic worth, need to extravert logic, much of worldview depends on assumption of lasting meaning... (much more useful in understanding my reactions and interactions)

That is your personal interpretation of how the two systems describe type. When I first found my type I had no Jungian function analysis and I did just fine despite the fact that my S and N scores were exactly equal. All I had to do to solve this problem was read and compare the two type descriptions. And those descriptions were much longer than "scattered abstract-thinking sensitive late person."

 

[garbage]

I agree with the sentiment in the OP overall. At least, most folks who use MBTI will roughly place themselves in each dichotomy to get a scope of where they might "fit in," realize that there are other preferences, and move on. That's enough to at least get the message that people have different styles of thinking.

The only thing that's absolutely certain for me is that I'm intuition-dominant, which tells me roughly what my primary Big Five trait (openness) does. And I'm perfectly fine with that answer myself.

We should ask ourselves: How useful, powerful, and accurate is the assumption that we have a locked-in cognitive function order, anyway? Is a strict ordering of functions (especially past "dominant" and "auxiliary") necessary?

That is a theoretical representation of an ideal.

Wholeheartedly agree.

The server logged me off without my knowledge. So when I tried to post a response I was forced to log in again. After inputting my password my browser then brought me to a blank page and my response was lost. (I don't know how many times something like that has happened on this particular forum.)

I have a habit of a quick "Ctrl+A, Ctrl+C, End" once in a while to save my post in the clipboard in case either this forum or I mess up.

 

[King sns]

I think people should do whatever works for them. If dichotomies and descriptions give people that "aha" moment, that's what they should use.

For me, especially over time and understanding, functions have given me a very good understanding of myself and how to read others, so I enjoy the functions, that's how I like thinking about personality.

 

[Mal12345]

I agree with the sentiment in the OP overall. At least, most folks who use MBTI will roughly place themselves in each dichotomy to get a scope of where they might "fit in," realize that there are other preferences, and move on. That's enough to at least get the message that people have different styles of thinking.

That is one of the most important things that has come out of typology. So often people blunder terribly by operating under the assumption that everybody thinks alike, i.e., "the same as me."

A friend I worked with (ISFP probably) was contracting labor out to people and (as many contractors do) paying no attention to the needs of the customers. His reasoning to me stated that if a customer is unhappy with the job then they can have a nice chat about it, come to an agreement and thereby solve the problem. After all, that's what he would do in the same situation!

Unfortunately, this customer waited a few weeks to say anything; but in the meantime he was doing a slow burn until he was finally driven into such a fury that his "nice chat" turned out to be a raging flood of verbal abuse.

With this ISFP I learned a lot - about how NOT to do things.

The only thing that's absolutely certain for me is that I'm intuition-dominant, which tells me roughly what my primary Big Five trait (openness) does. And I'm perfectly fine with that answer myself.

We should ask ourselves: How useful, powerful, and accurate is the assumption that we have a locked-in cognitive function order, anyway? Is a strict ordering of functions (especially past "dominant" and "auxiliary") necessary?

I don't take the word "tertiary" literally. I use it because others know what I'm talking about. So as far as ordering goes, I don't care if it's third place or last place. I am primarily interested in what it does - its function.

I have a habit of a quick "Ctrl+A, Ctrl+C, End" once in a while to save my post in the clipboard in case either this forum or I mess up.

I've done things like that. At one time I also had a keystroke logger in my pc for the purpose of saving my text automatically just in case. In another situation, I had this horrible problem of accidentally hitting the menu key which is just below the right shift. In combination with other key strokes I would lose all my text without knowing what happened! I eventually learned that ctrl+z can bring all my hard work back to the screen.

 

[Mal12345]

I think people should do whatever works for them. If dichotomies and descriptions give people that "aha" moment, that's what they should use.

For me, especially over time and understanding, functions have given me a very good understanding of myself and how to read others, so I enjoy the functions, that's how I like thinking about personality.

Functions give an added dimension to the MBTI. But note my caveats above. There is no reason to think that NiTe is equivalent to INTJ. It is only an assumption.

I have a hunch that most people are turning to the internet to find information on this for free, and they just get what they pay for.

 

[luismas]

Jung stated that both (ir)rational functions could serve as auxiliary functions because they are not unconscious. So in actuality my INTP function order may be something like Ti (Ne/Ni) Si Fe, while the unconscious function will remain in the inferior spot.

Edit - I should add that the tertiary is also in an unconscious fixed compensating position.

What do you mean by 'both (ir)rational functions' and 'unconscious fixed compensating position' ?

 

[lunalum]

There is no reason to think that NiTe is equivalent to INTJ. It is only an assumption.

NiTe=NT
Lead function is introverted=I
Judging function is extraverted=J

Is it only the J part that is the problem for you or the whole thing?

It's only an assumption that a chocolate chip cookie has chocolate in it...

....

Going just by each dichotemy is a great place to start. By the time you're questioning your type on here it's assumed that you've already tried at least a little of doing that I did and advocated just "going by the letters" my first couple years here and it works but there is a ton that I was missing It's sort of a colorless approach... thinking of things in functions can be the thing that adds the color (And for the rest, insert Skylight's story but with a T). Determining dominant function is sort of like trying to figure out two things at once but that's also part of the beauty of it because it is finding both of these things out through a unified concept. It's really not that complicated if you don't make it so.

 

[Mal12345]

NiTe=NT
Lead function is introverted=I
Judging function is extraverted=J

Is it only the J part that is the problem for you or the whole thing?

It's only an assumption that a chocolate chip cookie has chocolate in it...

That is a false analogy. MBTI and Jung have two different theories. There's no question that the MBTI is based on assumption. The NiTe = INTJ equation shows that the assumption lies in adding the last letter, whether it is P or J.

So following your analogy, we can safely assuming that INTJ has a J in it, just as a chocolate chip cookie has chocolate in it. But we can't safely make the same assumption for NiTe because, if you'll notice, it has neither a J nor a P in it.

Therefore, someone needs to explain exactly how, in theory, NiTe is equivalent to INTJ.

 

[garbage]

MBTI and Jung have two different theories.

This is another thing that needs to be said in virtually every thread on these forums. Please repeat this until you are blue in the face, because it truly deserves to be repeated over and over.

--

At the very least, if we can't make that strong of a statement, we can say the following. Jung, MBTI, Socionics, Kiersey, etc. use similar labeling schemes but ultimately describe fairly different perspectives. They might hint at similar sets of traits, but they sure don't describe them from the same point of view.

How exactly do we reconcile one system's use of a sliding scale for four dichotomies with another system's rigid ordering of cognitive functions? We can either perform some insane mental gymnastics to mash them together, or we can accept that they are different perspectives that might have just a bit of overlap.

Most who delve heavy into typology will treat the MBTI (that is, the instrument) as a 'lie to children,' so to speak, that ought to be discarded eventually and replaced with a more detailed model. But how useful is our more sophisticated model if it winds up further muddying the waters? Sometimes, as demonstrated by the OP, it's worth taking a step back when this happens.


Scientifically, it's all bollocks until we've got some validation anyway; until then, we should just embrace whatever perspective is meaningful or useful for us. (Some incontrovertible, conclusive EEGs would be nice. A man can dream...)

 

[SingSmileShine]

That's generally a good way, OP, to find out. I've found it's accurate for all of the people I've secretly typed in my mind. x3