I've been studying Typology for nearly 4 years..and still dont know my type..

[Geirfrid]

Yes, I know it seems odd.. "How can you study something so long and not know your type?" Honestly, I haven't the slightest clue. I've been typed by..people..tests..friends...but nothing really seems right. There is a lot of vague info imo. Many meanings can be interpreted by a function's display. I've scored many types on tests. Every NT and ST type has been scored on tests. Others have typed me more specifically as the NT and STP types. But I get a LOT of mixed answers and perceptions.
So..with this long and useless intro out of the way, my question is:
Is there any way to truly determine my dominant and auxilary functions? How did you do it? I'm ready to know my type for sure. I'm tired of being confused. After studying Jung and all the branches of his work I'm still at a loss.. Care to help me out?

 

[Geirfrid]

Any advice would be welcome.

 

[reckful]

I suspect (and it's consistent with quite a lot of type-related data at this point) that it's possible to be more or less in the middle on one or more of the MBTI dimensions, or close enough to the middle that you're likely to find yourself at least somewhat torn between two or more types — even if you have a pretty solid understanding of what the types tend to be like.

Buuut another likely source of confusion for a typical modern MBTI forumite — whether they're middlish on any type dimension or not — is a misguided understanding of what the MBTI is really about. And the number one source of misunderstandings along those lines is bad "cognitive function" analysis — most often based on the forum-famous Harold Grant function stack. That's the model that says INFJ=Ni-Fe-Ti-Se and INFP=Fi-Ne-Si-Te, and ZOMG, INFJs and INFPs have no functions in common and bla bla bla. It's also a model that's inconsistent with Jung, inconsistent with Myers, and has never been endorsed by the official MBTI folks. More importantly, and unlike the respectable districts of the MBTI, that function stack has no substantial body of evidence behind it — and indeed, should probably be considered all but disproven at this point, given that the correlational patterns associated with it have stubbornly failed to show up in over 50 years of MBTI data pools.

In case you're open to some weekend deprogramming, you can find quite a lot of potentially eye-opening discussion about that (and other function-related issues) in this post.

And just in case that post (and the "bogosity of the tandems" post it links to) leaves you open to a more respectable (i.e., dichotomy-centric) perspective on your type, you can find a link to the official MBTI here, and a boatload of typing guidance from me on all four of the MBTI dichotomies (and Big Five neuroticism), in a 10-post series that starts here.

 

[highlander]

Yes, I know it seems odd.. "How can you study something so long and not know your type?" Honestly, I haven't the slightest clue. I've been typed by..people..tests..friends...but nothing really seems right. There is a lot of vague info imo. Many meanings can be interpreted by a function's display. I've scored many types on tests. Every NT and ST type has been scored on tests. Others have typed me more specifically as the NT and STP types. But I get a LOT of mixed answers and perceptions. So..with this long and useless intro out of the way, my question is: Is there any way to truly determine my dominant and auxilary functions? How did you do it? I'm ready to know my type for sure. I'm tired of being confused. After studying Jung and all the branches of his work I'm still at a loss.. Care to help me out?

Why don't you take the jung kiersey test on the home page and let me know exactly what time you took it central time. I can look at the log of results and we can discuss it in this thread.

 

[Geirfrid]

Thanks guys. I'll be back with my findings.

 

[Geirfrid]

Why don't you take the jung kiersey test on the home page and let me know exactly what time you took it central time. I can look at the log of results and we can discuss it in this thread.

So I took the test and Scored INTJ.

 

[Mal12345]

I suspect (and it's consistent with quite a lot of type-related data at this point) that it's possible to be more or less in the middle on one or more of the MBTI dimensions, or close enough to the middle that you're likely to find yourself at least somewhat torn between two or more types — even if you have a pretty solid understanding of what the types tend to be like.

Buuut another likely source of confusion for a typical modern MBTI forumite — whether they're middlish on any type dimension or not — is a misguided understanding of what the MBTI is really about. And the number one source of misunderstandings along those lines is bad "cognitive function" analysis — most often based on the forum-famous Harold Grant function stack. That's the model that says INFJ=Ni-Fe-Ti-Se and INFP=Fi-Ne-Si-Te, and ZOMG, INFJs and INFPs have no functions in common and bla bla bla. It's also a model that's inconsistent with Jung, inconsistent with Myers, and has never been endorsed by the official MBTI folks. More importantly, and unlike the respectable districts of the MBTI, that function stack has no substantial body of evidence behind it — and indeed, should probably be considered all but disproven at this point, given that the correlational patterns associated with it have stubbornly failed to show up in over 50 years of MBTI data pools.

In case you're open to some weekend deprogramming, you can find quite a lot of potentially eye-opening discussion about that (and other function-related issues) in this post.

And just in case that post (and the "bogosity of the tandems" post it links to) leaves you open to a more respectable (i.e., dichotomy-centric) perspective on your type, you can find a link to the official MBTI here, and a boatload of typing guidance from me on all four of the MBTI dichotomies (and Big Five neuroticism), in a 10-post series that starts here.

I like your stuff Reckful, but you do have an annoying habit of citing yourself.

 

[Mal12345]

I'll put my foot in my mouth by adding to the anti-MBTI agenda. The I/E scale is weakly defined in the MBTI dichotomies. It omits the presence of ambiverts among us. And it includes neuroticism which is not the same as introversion. The MBTI is based on psychology that is outdated by over 70 years. It's most egregious error is the idea that a person can only be one type. In fact, your personality is a group of traits. It also neglects the strength of individual traits you possess by looking at them as a distinction between 1 (all) or 0 (nothing). You could for example have nine Intuitive traits and one Sensing trait, but the nine Intuitive traits are very weak (not used consistently) while the one Sensing trait is very strong (used on almost a continual basis).

JCF determines your type based on a formula that ASSumes your highest function score determines the last letter as either a P or a J. But recently I did an experiment here which revealed Fi-dominants who have Judging stronger than Perceiving, when by the terms of the formula they should all have Perceiving (as in INFP and ISFP).

Socionics has corrected this by asserting that anybody with a Judging function as the dominant has J as the last letter, and anybody with a Perceiving function has P as the last letter. So as an INTP in the MBTI/JCF I am, as a Ti-dominant, an INTj in Socionics.

 

[highlander]

So I took the test and Scored INTJ.

Your raw scores are:
Ni > Ne > Ti > Te > Fi > Se > Fe > Si
NF=-6;NT=5;SP=2;SJ=-1
Te=3;Ti=4;Fe=-7;Fi=1;Ne=5;Ni=6;Se=-4;Si=-8

It seems pretty obvious you are a thinking type and an intuitive (NT). The program said INTJ because of the clarity of the temperament score and Ni as a dominant function. However, I think you could be an ENTP or INTP as well given the second and third highest scoring functions. I would go with ENTP because of the strongly dominant intuition as the two top scoring function results.

 

[reckful]

I like your stuff Reckful, but you do have an annoying habit of citing yourself.

Ya, it would make much more sense if I repeated the contents of those posts in each thread, rather than just linking to them.

Thanks for the tip, Mal.

 

[Mal12345]

Ya, it would make much more sense if I repeated the contents of those posts in each thread, rather than just linking to them.

Thanks for the tip, Mal.

Open a Bible for more examples of self-citation.

 

[reckful]

I'll put my foot in my mouth by adding to the anti-MBTI agenda. The I/E scale is weakly defined in the MBTI dichotomies. It omits the presence of ambiverts among us.

Jung viewed his eight types as four varieties of extravert and four varieties of introvert, while also declaring that more people were essentially in the middle on E/I than were significantly extraverted or introverted — and characterizing those ambiverts as "the normal man." And Jung also stressed that people of the same type varied considerably in terms of the strength (or, as he often characterized it, "one-sidedness") of their preferences. Myers likewise distinguished between people with mild and strong preferences, and allowed for the possibility of middleness on all four MBTI dimensions. So the idea of middleness on one or more dimensions goes all the way back to the MBTI's theoretical roots.

The official MBTI test is designed on the operational assumption that people have four preferences, and assigns people a (tentative) type on each dimension. But that's a very different thing from saying that the MBTI theory says that it isn't possible for someone to be in the middle on any dimension — and in fact, the MBTI Manual specifically notes that someone with a score near the middle is someone who has essentially "split the vote" rather than offered much evidence of a preference. And the more recent "Step II" version of the MBTI has five subscales for each dimension, and it's possible to come out on the E side (for example) of some of them and the I side of the rest.

And it includes neuroticism which is not the same as introversion.

Although I'd agree that Jung's overbroad conception of introversion included some elements of Big Five neuroticism, Myers' many corrections to Jung included pretty much leaving those behind. What E/I items on the modern MBTI do you think reflect the inclusion of neuroticism?

It's maybe worth noting that Big Five stats suggest that there's a mild correlation between being introverted and being above-average in neuroticism, but that's not the same thing as introversion "including" neuroticism.

The MBTI is based on psychology that is outdated by over 70 years.

The latest version of the MBTI (Form M) was substantially updated in 1998, based on lots of data, studies, etc., much of it going back no farther than 1980. I believe the NEO-PI-R is still the leading Big Five test, and it's from 1993.

If you don't mind me linking to myself again, here's a two-part post that has quite a lot of discussion about the scientific respectability of the MBTI, and how it compares to the Big Five — and about several other issues often raised by people claiming to "debunk" the MBTI — and that cites (among other sources) a large 2003 meta-review and supplemental study that found that the MBTI was basically on a par with the Big Five in the psychometric respectability department.

 

[Mal12345]

Jung viewed his eight types as four varieties of extravert and four varieties of introvert, while also declaring that more people were essentially in the middle on E/I than were significantly extraverted or introverted — and characterizing those ambiverts as "the normal man." And Jung also stressed that people of the same type varied considerably in terms of the strength (or, as he often characterized it, "one-sidedness") of their preferences. Myers likewise distinguished between people with mild and strong preferences, and allowed for the possibility of middleness on all four MBTI dimensions. So the idea of middleness on one or more dimensions goes all the way back to the MBTI's theoretical roots.

The official MBTI test is designed on the operational assumption that people have four preferences, and assigns people a (tentative) type on each dimension. But that's a very different thing from saying that the MBTI theory says that it isn't possible for someone to be in the middle on any dimension — and in fact, the MBTI Manual specifically notes that someone with a score near the middle is someone who has essentially "split the vote" rather than offered much evidence of a preference. And the more recent "Step II" version of the MBTI has five subscales for each dimension, and it's possible to come out on the E side (for example) of some of them and the I side of the rest.



Although I'd agree that Jung's overbroad conception of introversion included some elements of Big Five neuroticism, Myers' many corrections to Jung included pretty much leaving those behind. What E/I items on the modern MBTI do you think reflect the inclusion of neuroticism?

It's maybe worth noting that Big Five stats suggest that there's a mild correlation between being introverted and being above-average in neuroticism, but that's not the same thing as introversion "including" neuroticism.



The latest version of the MBTI (Form M) was substantially updated in 1998, based on lots of data, studies, etc., much of it going back no farther than 1980. I believe the NEO-PI-R is still the leading Big Five test, and it's from 1993.

If you don't mind me linking to myself again, here's a two-part post that has quite a lot of discussion about the scientific respectability of the MBTI, and how it compares to the Big Five — and about several other issues often raised by people claiming to "debunk" the MBTI — and that cites (among other sources) a large 2003 meta-review and supplemental study that found that the MBTI was basically on a par with the Big Five in the psychometric respectability department.

Obviously middleness is a thing, as many MBTI test results show. Whether or not the MBTI professionals acknowledge it is something you've only asserted, as well as the idea that Jung thought most people fell in the middle of the I/E spectrum and were thus "normal." You only assert that "Jung thought more people were essentially in the middle on E/I than were significantly extraverted or introverted, and Myers allowed for the possibility of middleness on all four dimensions," and then you cite yourself asserting the same thing in another thread.

The problem of scoring different results over time is also a factor to be considered in gauging the validity of a test. A test that claims to be able to find your type, but that cannot do so consistently over time, is not a valid test.

There is no proof to the JCF assertion that Ni-dominants are Judgers, or that Ti-dominants are Perceivers. Socionics doesn't solve this problem, it only makes an adjustment to the theory being asserted.

If you want me to find out which Introversion questions are talking about neurosis, you'll have to give me some questions to look at and ponder.

 

[Mal12345]

"More importantly, I'd say, there was really no doubt in either Jung's or Myers' minds that people on either side of the dimensions fell along a notably wide spectrum from mild to strong preferences. So, regardless of where anybody wants to come down on the "exact middle" possibility, if they take the position that, e.g., all introverts are equally introverted, their perspective is way out of line with Jung, Myers and every respectable MBTI source I've ever encountered."

Obviously I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about a test score result which must give either an I or an E.

 

[reckful]

Open a Bible for more examples of self-citation.

If you're saying I'm a noah-it-all, I plead guilty.

 

[Mal12345]

If you're saying I'm a noah-it-all, I plead guilty.

I recently heard that in order to save all of the animal species during the great Flood there had to be multiple arks. Sort of like a Nina, Pinta, and a Santa Maria situation.

 

[Mal12345]

'Jung viewed his eight types as four varieties of extravert and four varieties of introvert, while also declaring that more people were essentially in the middle on E/I than were significantly extraverted or introverted — and characterizing those ambiverts as "the normal man." '

"Myers likewise distinguished between people with mild and strong preferences, and allowed for the possibility of middleness on all four MBTI dimensions. So the idea of middleness on one or more dimensions goes all the way back to the MBTI's theoretical roots."

It sounds like Jung's original types were based on abnormality then. So Myers-Briggs' idea that the MBTI should be used to focus on strengths is not a take-away from Jung but rather a reversal.

 

[reckful]

'Jung viewed his eight types as four varieties of extravert and four varieties of introvert, while also declaring that more people were essentially in the middle on E/I than were significantly extraverted or introverted — and characterizing those ambiverts as "the normal man." '

"Myers likewise distinguished between people with mild and strong preferences, and allowed for the possibility of middleness on all four MBTI dimensions. So the idea of middleness on one or more dimensions goes all the way back to the MBTI's theoretical roots."

It sounds like Jung's original types were based on abnormality then. So Myers-Briggs' idea that the MBTI should be used to focus on strengths is not a take-away from Jung but rather a reversal.

It sounds like you just like to argue. But we knew that.

Ambiverts could be a plurality (that's all Jung said) and introverts and extraverts could still total over 60% of the population. So "abnormality" seems like a Malappropriate characterization of Jung's characterization.

And both Jung and Myers emphasized that having a notable preference was typically associated with both strengths and weaknesses. So "reversal" seems like a Malappropriate characterization of whatever Jung/Myers differences there may be in that regard.

 

[Mal12345]

It sounds like you just like to argue. But we knew that.

Ambiverts could be a plurality (that's all Jung said) and introverts and extraverts could still total over 60% of the population. So "abnormality" seems like a Malappropriate characterization of Jung's characterization.

And both Jung and Myers emphasized that having a notable preference was typically associated with both strengths and weaknesses. So "reversal" seems like a Malappropriate characterization of whatever Jung/Myers differences there may be in that regard.

Why do you continue with the same assertions over and over again? Do you have anybody to cite except yourself?

 

[Yara the Corpse]

Hehehe, at least I have an excuse: I don't do enough to study myself in different situations, and what I do try to type myself with is rather minimal and abstract information that I make up about myself.

Maybe you feel the same way? Or you just don't know yourself enough or see yourself as all sorts of different sides of a whole self.