Relatable, I'm also currently satisfied with my current typing of ENTP but like, that most likely won't last. I am much more confident in my enneagram being 7w8, and my tritype being 738 than I am with my MBTI/Socionics lol.
The same here: I've just recently discovered that I am indeed a 7w8 ENTP. My N has always been to the roof (I usually score zero on S on the MBTI form Q), but the rest... At some point in time, I considered INTJ and INFJ quite seriously. Ne is a tricky thing, so I can relate to your fear that a static type won't last. Typical 7 thing, actually.
You can read more here:
Please help me type myself – xNxx ???
And the rationale for my final typing (I hope):
Advice about typing Intuitives (N)
I agree with most of what's been said.
Maybe, instead of trying to stick to a type, just accept that you may show some aspects of multiple types. You are a unique individual, not some copy-pasted version of one out of 16 avaible templates
That must be remembered at all times. You are you. Your "type" in a system it's the Archetype of that system that you relate most, just like picking a team. It's like the Sorter Hat of Hogwart's in Harry Potter: it suggests you the House you most likely belong to, but you get the final word.
The thing that made this "journey" difficult for me is the seeming obsessive need for most people to stereotype, generalize, categorize, misconstrue, and bash analytical psychology. Or people just come up with their own theoretical understanding of things and take it as fact. Jung wasn't super clear and can be easily interpreted in various ways without a proper background in philosophy (imo) and MBTI spins type in its own way too. Socionics too. And then you get people in the MBTI trying to make money off of it and putting their own marketing spin on it or the corporate spin that uses it to pre-judge people, without knowing them. To be frank, it's all a bit annoying for people that really just want to know what type really means.
I think when type sticks, it means knowing what it is at its core, and being able to appreciate how different people are and can be, especially those of the same type.
Yes, many systems, a lot of ambiguity. That doesn't help.
My current understanding is that a standard dichotomy test is the best starting point. Keep the very clear results and be skeptical about those somewhat in between.
Don't trust ANY type description. Too many stereotypes.
Don't trust too much Functions either, and stay away from function tests. About "The stack", I see it as Jung did: there are just 4 functions, N, S, T and F; there are 2 attitudes, E and I. Dig into those, not in understanding, for example, whether you are Ni or Ne, that's a by-product of assessing whether you are E or I, assuming you are an N-dom. That was my case, the same goes with the others. Don't trust too much the orientation of the auxiliary and tertiary either.
The Enneagram is clearer, IMHO. But you have to go deep down and consider ONLY core motivations and fears; again, type description could hinder more than help.
What I like about the Enneagram is that, if you consider movements along it, it better describes when you act out of character, so to speak.
MBTI type description are too monolithic, static. Peolpe are dynamic, they change both in space (different situations) and time (growing, maturing and aging).
And I always repeat to myself that there is a lot of overlap: INTJ and ENTP, for example, (or Enneagram 5 and 7) get very clear and diverging descriptions; however, they are like caricatures; in real life, I see how a real person can easily feel in between, like there is no clear border between the 2, but a blurry, grey area where you can relate to both, and any choice would be as good as the other, being right in some aspects and missing some others.
