• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

["Experiment"] What´s your MBTI and cognitive functions preferences?

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
TypeFinder: INTP or INFP
I (68%)
N (92%)
T (55%)
P (68%)


TypC Function Test: INTP
Ni (7) > Ti (4) = Ne (4) > Fe (0) > Te (-1) > Fi (-2) > Si (-5) > Se (-7)
 

Vendrah

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
1,947
MBTI Type
NP
Enneagram
952
[MENTION=39780]noname3788[/MENTION]

N-S
Ne+Ni>Se+Si
Preference for intuition, on both keys2cognition and typoc tests.

T-F
Te+Ti<=>Fe+Fi
TypoC and keys2cognition disagrees from each other, truity and 16P as well. Inconclusive, not due to method error, but the mismatch in the tests.

I-E
Ti+Ni+Fi>Te+Ne+Fe
Slightly preference for introversion, although I think ambiversion is the case here.

J-P
Te+Fe+Ni<=>Ti+Fi+Ne
Keys2cognition give a result slightly over J while typologycentral gives a result slightly over P. Both gets J=P when using Se and Si on the formula,truity and 16P goes slightly to the P side although.

Se vs Si
Preference for Se. Not expected for INFJ and INTJ in my "model".

Ne vs Ni
Preference for Ni. Expected for INFJ and INTJ in my model, not expected for ENFP and ENTP.

Te vs Ti
Slightly preference for Ti. Expected for INTP and INFP, not expected for ENTJ.

Fe vs Fi
Slightly preference for Fi. Expected for INFP and INTP, not expected for ENFJ.

Final thoughts: The sure thing is xNxx. You have a cognitive function that is very balanced, one of the most balanced I have seen so far, and thats cause the confusion. I dont think its a bad thing, but its a bad thing for MBTI Typing. xNxx is my final answer, but I can force you a type... Continuing, however, as I stated in the Se vs Si etc.. analysis, if you take the "not expected" N types out the only types that are left are INTP and INFP. From my "statistical analysis" to be published (its not something sophisticated, but it helps) on these types, from a more complex analysis coming from that, it is hard to explain (Ill tag you when I post these stats in the future), the only types left after discarding through function preferences in statistics are INTP, ENTP and INFP. There was something in the internet I remember being called super ENTP, like an ENTP using all cognitive functions, I think it was a joke or a kind of weird day-dream, but you are closest "super ENTP" in terms of having all the functions high and barely no weakness (statistically, the last function for ENTP is Si which is yours as well, but the preferences on the front dont match). However, taking the super ENTP apart since it disagrees with the model (but its super cool!), in order to force you a type, its either INFP or INTP. Since Fi is always higher than Ti, its an INFP by forcing. However, its very different from an INFP description. No type description can get you accurately and I cant create an Hybrid description because the balance makes impossible to create an hybrid description. I know I might not have helped, but, well by forcing objectively its INFP (and thats subject to change overtime or not) or super ENTP by coolest alternative.

[MENTION=7]Totenkindly[/MENTION]

N-S
Ni+Ne>>Si+Se
Preference for intuition without a single 1% of doubt.

T-N
Ti+Te>Fi+Fe
Preference for thinking, matches.

I-E
Ti+Ni>Te+Fe
Preference for introversion, matches.

P-J
Ti+Ne=Ni+Te
No preference. Using the complete relation doesnt change much. But typefinder says its P. I think its a failure of method, but it is only slightly (method says x when its P; But I think that failure comes from the high preference for intuition).

Se vs Si
Very slightly preference for Si.

Ne vs Ni
Preference for Ni.

Te vs Ti
Preference for Ti. Expected for INTP and INFP in my "model".

Fe vs Fi
Slightly preference for Fi. Unexpected for both INTP and INFP.

Final saying: INTP, to be more precise Ni-Ti INTP (I already saw Ni-Ti INTP type in INTP forum), with some INTJ traits coming from Ni and typoC might missed INFP/INFJ traits.

Hybrid description:
"Easily able to see ten steps ahead and predict what might happen in the future. Tend to experience their inner world as constantly fluctuating. Has insatiable thirst for knowledge and learning. Prize rationality and objectivity. use their intuition to find patterns, underlying principles, and ideas, to construct theories and frameworks, and to form connections as they talk, write, or create. It can make them seem quite "rambley" at times as they can jump from topic to topic based on the connections they're making in the moment rather than following a more linear path of conversation." (basically, INTP with Ni).
 

noname3788

Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2019
Messages
155
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
9w8
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
[MENTION=32874]Vendrah[/MENTION]

I think you're spot on with this, and I'm very curious about your finalized results of your theory. For the self-typing, I agree on xNxx, and yeah it doesn't make things easy in MBTI communities. You're supposed to have 1 set of cognitive functions for your entire life, aren't you? I'm not sure how to deal with it, I don't want to see myself as an weird anomaly that doesn't fit in, but forcing a specific type is also an inauthentic representation. My own take on this is to completely reject functional stacks, functions could be developed independently, according to situation and personal preference, and for most people it just happens that they prefer 2 functions which they use all the time, however I'm also aware that this may simply be a band-aid fix to rationalize my own struggles with typing. And honestly, it feels kinda shitty. I guess there is a significant number of people who take MBTI tests to find like-minded individuals who think in a similar manner, and then there's me who's kinda left out of it. On the other hand, it's kinda fascinating how I seem to fit into so many different types, at least on a superficial level. Anyway, thanks for that detailed analysis and I think it was really accurate, you clearly have a talent for this.
 

Vendrah

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
1,947
MBTI Type
NP
Enneagram
952
[MENTION=32874]Vendrah[/MENTION]

I think you're spot on with this, and I'm very curious about your finalized results of your theory. For the self-typing, I agree on xNxx, and yeah it doesn't make things easy in MBTI communities. You're supposed to have 1 set of cognitive functions for your entire life, aren't you? I'm not sure how to deal with it, I don't want to see myself as an weird anomaly that doesn't fit in, but forcing a specific type is also an inauthentic representation. My own take on this is to completely reject functional stacks, functions could be developed independently, according to situation and personal preference, and for most people it just happens that they prefer 2 functions which they use all the time, however I'm also aware that this may simply be a band-aid fix to rationalize my own struggles with typing. And honestly, it feels kinda shitty. I guess there is a significant number of people who take MBTI tests to find like-minded individuals who think in a similar manner, and then there's me who's kinda left out of it. On the other hand, it's kinda fascinating how I seem to fit into so many different types, at least on a superficial level. Anyway, thanks for that detailed analysis and I think it was really accurate, you clearly have a talent for this.

Thanks.
The idea that you are supposed to have one fixed cognitive functions for your entire life has been more or less proven wrong - or, at least, no one ever find one that consistently works so far. Also, the 'x' is not rare, just have a look in this thread and you will see me displaying x in the final saying of several other people (and then forcing a fit). Also, this quote is a good read:
reckful said:
Isabel Myers allowed for the possibility of middleness on all four MBTI dimensions, and in at least one of the early versions of the MBTI, it was possible to get an "x" on any dimension. The current version assigns people a (tentative) type on each dimension, but that's a very different thing from saying that it isn't possible for someone not to have a preference — and 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. What's more, the 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.

As a final note, and speaking of Jung and the MBTI, your references to the tertiary function make it clear that you're a subscriber to the Harold Grant function stack, and just in case you're not aware, that model is inconsistent with both Jung and Myers, and has never been endorsed by the official MBTI folks — and for good reason: namely, that unlike the respectable districts of the MBTI, the Grant function stack has no substantial body of evidence behind it, and should probably be considered all but disproven at this point. In 50 years of correlating the types with countless personality-related things (both internal and external), the patterns associated with those HaroldGrantian function axes have stubbornly failed to show up.

The Grant Function Stack is the fixed cognitive function stack we popularly know, for example, Ni-Te-Fi-Se for INTJ. There are other alternative fixed cognitive function stack, even Jung had one, none of them seem to work out. There is a big read about it here:
https://www.capt.org/research/article/JPT_Vol69_0109.pdf
If you look for MBTI in Google Scholar most, if not all, of the articles about it wont involve function stacks. My idea in terms of philosophy is that we dont need to discard cognitive functions (since the cognitive functions themselves, on their own, are not disproven at any point, but neither proven), but rather discard the idea to have a fixed cognitive function stack, but rather a flexible one (that needs to full fill relations in order to fit a type, for example, intuitive is the relation Ni+Ne>Se+Si), and that we could use our own cognitive function stacks (that are our very own, since the probability of someone showing up with the exactly order we have is very low) to understand us deeper and gather more information about ourselves than the 4-letter code gives. For example, in your case having a medium-high Ni and Fi, and medium-low Si gives you more information than just stating that you are N alone (the idea is meant to complement and not to compete against 4-letter code MBTI).

I dont think you should try to fit, although you could. Your situation is not unnatural, but, in my own experience gathering several cognitive function stacks for building stats, having 3 Xs is very rare (and the most common triple X type in the tests is IXXX). You are not the first xNxx I saw although (but dont ask me who, I dont know, but I saw someone with xNxx). You could try big five, which is the MBTI alternative (MBTI arrogant alternative that claims a superiority that doesnt exist; But its an interesting alternative), since it has some different criterias (but it works with superiority/inferiority in some criterias whereas MBTI works always with pros and cons) you could find more clear preferences in there.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
P-J
Ti+Ne=Ni+Te
No preference. Using the complete relation doesnt change much. But typefinder says its P. I think its a failure of method, but it is only slightly (method says x when its P; But I think that failure comes from the high preference for intuition).

Hybrid description:
"Easily able to see ten steps ahead and predict what might happen in the future. Tend to experience their inner world as constantly fluctuating. Has insatiable thirst for knowledge and learning. Prize rationality and objectivity. use their intuition to find patterns, underlying principles, and ideas, to construct theories and frameworks, and to form connections as they talk, write, or create. It can make them seem quite "rambley" at times as they can jump from topic to topic based on the connections they're making in the moment rather than following a more linear path of conversation." (basically, INTP with Ni).

The hybrid description is pretty accurate, but IRL (in contrast to the J/P assessment you made) I'm naturally classic P and only move towards closure when required by my work (I'm a low-level manager now, after a career in analysis) and only as a forced unpleasant reality of life. My life might be better if I were more naturally Te but I accomplish very little except through sheer force of will to create closure, which tends to exhaust me in the process. It also meant becoming more of a realist and less of a purist of ideas, since forced closure unhappy typically cuts off some nuance/openness I prefer.
 

noname3788

Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2019
Messages
155
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
9w8
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
I've already read the whole Reynierse article before, kinda fascinating how function stacks are still that common. I think we could do so much more out of both the 4 letters and the functions. In the first case, we should include the percentages of the 4 letters, a 100% I is very different from a 51% I. Same could obviously be done for Step II facets it's sad how these don't seem to be used at all. For functions, I would like to see individualized stacks. STill, if we measure things in this way, then what's the actual purpose of distinct types? To make things easier for newcomers? To have some degree of order in an otherwise chaotic environment? I think Big 5 is less popular than MBTi in non-professional applications because there aren't easily differentiated types. It's all numbers, interpretation is up to the person reading it, and there are few profiles based on Big 5 results and the ones that do exist are, in many cases, even more stereotyped and generalized than MBTI types. Btw, I think you know 16 personalities is a test based on Big 5 that simply uses MBTI terminology to makes things easier for the average test-taker.

Some personal thoughts to close it off: Even while knowing the limits of the theory and knowing that no type can probably describe me accurately, I still seem to come back too often. I have no idea why, it's certainly not logical, what makes the most sense for me is that it is a missing sense of belonging. As said in my last comment, it's simply trying to fit in when you don't fit in, and things like this make me wonder whether models based on logical rules are even capable of describing human behavior accurately. Sure it is possible to create a list of needs that have to be taken care off, but is that really a comprehensive theory or just an arbitrary collection of traits based off statistical measures? Are we even able to define what really motivates people? And is there a good reason why some individuals get rejected frequently by most other human beings? Okay I drift away here... Probably my Se telling me to get back into the real world :)Anyway looking forward to your model and I may share some more thoughts about how it could work.
 

Vendrah

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
1,947
MBTI Type
NP
Enneagram
952
The hybrid description is pretty accurate, but IRL (in contrast to the J/P assessment you made) I'm naturally classic P and only move towards closure when required by my work (I'm a low-level manager now, after a career in analysis) and only as a forced unpleasant reality of life. My life might be better if I were more naturally Te but I accomplish very little except through sheer force of will to create closure, which tends to exhaust me in the process. It also meant becoming more of a realist and less of a purist of ideas, since forced closure unhappy typically cuts off some nuance/openness I prefer.

Not wanting to go too much into, buuut, where is Ni on your life then?
Ni is the reason I had not distinguish P-J.
[MENTION=39780]noname3788[/MENTION]
You have a lot of questions and interesting points, but I just dont want to get off-topic. Ill mark you both in theory and stats when I get them completely done.
 

Vendrah

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
1,947
MBTI Type
NP
Enneagram
952
Just caming to say that I am no longer analyising results (because I will do barely or no login) for some periods of time, that could be weeks, months or years, for a very reason that at least one not-new forum member should have noticed and cared about it, but didnt. I did had more belief on INs... Now I have a good reason to be an I for purpose, always had.

EDIT: Thanks for those who came by, at least helped for the idea.
I cant edit my first post sadly, to put the advise, so, sorry for those who unadverted will post.
 

Vendrah

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
1,947
MBTI Type
NP
Enneagram
952
So I was almost forgetting to post results and correlations!

I am going to show the results of Keys2cognition test (9 'participants'). TypoC test failed because due to low number of 'participants' (5) and unluckyness, because had a lot of bias inside of it (I evaluated if there was any bias by comparing relations between dichotomy dimensions. None of the dichotomy dimensions are suppose to relate with themselves, for example, introversion is not suppose to correlate with feeling). Keys2cognition had only one random bias: The more intuitive the person, the more extroverted the person is. This is not from MBTI but rather a "random" pattern from people who come to this thread and participated. An odd trend indeed. It is important to state what Im showing doesnt work as a proof, because it has a low number of 'participants' that are not truly random from overall population. However, there´s no study using my model of open function stacks, it will likely not be anytime soon, and I never read any studies relating cognitive functions and MBTI dichotomy dimensions. So, I will likely use this to support my posts and the MBTI view I am building despite there is only 9 members.

In average, by dichotomy, people who came here was more Introverted, Intuitive, Feeling, Perceveing, so Ill use these as reference: When the table has "I" its measuring introversion, the highest value the more introversion, same for N, F and P. So, here is the first table, that just did correlations inside the dichotomy dimensions to find the bias:

tb1.png

attachment.php


The standars for correlations are:
1: Completely correlated
0,8-1: Strong correlated
0,6-0,8: Correlated
0,4-0,6: Weakly correlated (my standards, for general standard its already non-significant)
0,0-0,4: Non significant correlated

Also, the correlations have "issues" that its worth to mention. First, correlation doesnt imply causation, sometimes its just coincidence. Second, in a system with a lot of variables changing the correlations tends to disappear even when there is a causation.

Following by, the next table is the most important here. I2, N2, F2 and P2 are Intuition, Intuitive, Feeling and Perception dimensions measured by the relations presented on the theory topic (post above) (Ne+Ni-Se-Si for intuition and so on). This table correlates them with the MBTI dimensions, so, I2, N2, F2 and P2 comes directs from cognitive functions while I,N,F,P are dichotomy only.

tb2.jpg

attachment.php


Explaining the result: The N-S, F-T and P-J sucessufully correlated with the formula properly. So, the higher Ne+Ni-Se-Si, the highest value for intuition preference. Same for F-T and P-J. The inverse correlation between Introversion on dichotomy and Intuition from cognitive functions come from the bias showed on the first table. However, I-E fails to correlate. I2, which is the sum of all introverted cognitive functions minus the sum of all extroverted cognitive functions didnt correlate with anything at all, except a very weak correlation between dichotomy feeling and cognitive functions introversion. I am not surprised. The original concept of I-E as draw by Jung is highly different between the MBTI concepts we have the same today. They got so distant between each other that they dont correlate anymore. In a very basic matter, there are at least 3 definitions of extroversion/introversion over MBTI unofficial internet community, and in short they are these:
1) How sociable and outgoing the people is.
2) If gather "energy" from the "inside" or the "outside".
3) Preferency towards the object - if attention is towards the object (external) then its extroversion, if attention is towards self (inside) then its introversion.
Just a quick example, if you are watching the sunset you are doing an introvert activity in 1 and extroverted activity in 2 and 3. So, its possible to be introverted in one and extroverted in another definition, making the person being a quiet extroverted or sociable introvert.
Jung original is related with 3 (3 is a simplification of Jung original concept). Number 3 is E-I concepts in cognitive functions. However, I-E dichotomy is done towards 1 and 2 mostly, they correspond to MBTI I-E concepts in a simple description.

So, although this not exactly classify as a study, it indicates that the idea of open cognitive stacks seems to do just fine in N-S, T-F and P-J dimensions, while fails for I-E dimension for the reason I explained. Its important to state that the both test must be good for this to work since they hold the all concepts for this kind of "measurement".

There is still more. The next table shows the correlation between each cognitive function to each dichotomy dimensions.
Just remember, in theory, the conversion cognitive function to dichotomy is:
Se=E+S+P
Si=I+S+J
Ne=E+N+P
Ni=I+N+J
Te=E+T+J
Ti=I+T+P
Fe=E+F+J
Fi=I+F+P

tb3.jpg

attachment.php


First thing to notice: Since table 1 showed us the bias relation between Intuition and extroversion, this repeated in the cognitive functions Se,Si,Ne and Ni relations to Introversion measure. However, Te,Ti,Fe and Fi are immune to this bias. None of them relates to their Es or Is on dichotomy levels. So, we can say that increase of Te doesnt imply in any increase or decrease in dichotomy Extroversion and the same for all other cognitive functions as well.

Fe, Fi, Te and Ti all correlated or highly correlated with F/T. Si and Ni highly correlated to S/N dimension, while Ne and Se, curiously, weakly correlated with the S/N dimensions, but all with proper signs (Ne correlated to intuition while Se correlated negatively with intuition). Its important to note that Ne didnt seem to correlate or strongly correlate with any dichotomy dimension at all.

When we take on perceveing, however, nothing properly correlates. However, the perceveing formula, which combines all 8 functions, did highly correlated as shown on the second table. Since there are 8 cognitive functions involved on this dimension, the correlations tends to go weaker due to high numbers of variables. All of them, except Te, had the proper sign. It is important to notice that Fi and Te correlations are near zero (with Te being nearly zero positively correlated with Perceveing).

There are four interesting "noises" on the cognitive functions. Te shouldnt have any relation at all with S/N, but it has. Fe and Fi has correlations with near 0,4 with intuition. There is a slightly correlation with Fi and Fe with intuition - this could be the test flaw or a flaw on the definitions. I have never read anything relating that issue before. Te has a correlation with sensing, an weak one, however, there is an interesting (and big text) by [MENTION=18736]reckful[/MENTION] that might explain where this correlation flaw. It seems that Te has S components, to be more specific I suspect that it has Si components on it. Reckful post link:
Exclusive "Te" characteristics - Page 2

Fe and Fi correlation could be just a consequence with Te correlation with sensing. Te negatively strong correlates with Fe and Fi (I measure that on a work in progress), so, if S correlates with Te, Te correlates negatively with Fe and Fi, then Fe and Fi negatively correlates with sensing (or correlates with intuition). The last one is a close to weak correlation with Se to Thinking, which I never seen any explanation for this, could be test flaw, a bias or flaw on Se definitions. Notice that these definitions I speak of are Keys2cognition Dario Nardi defintions.

And finally, i think its good to mark everyone who participated to this post.

[MENTION=35566]Luminous[/MENTION] [MENTION=29978]Methylene[/MENTION] [MENTION=37565]Sung Jin-Woo[/MENTION] [MENTION=34313]RadicalDoubt[/MENTION] [MENTION=6689]Polaris[/MENTION] [MENTION=30122]Amethyst Archon[/MENTION] [MENTION=37553]LittleCat[/MENTION] [MENTION=35079]Tina&Jane[/MENTION] [MENTION=36258]Quick[/MENTION] [MENTION=39780]noname3788[/MENTION] [MENTION=7]Totenkindly[/MENTION]
 

Venus Rose

New member
Joined
Jul 8, 2016
Messages
324
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
truity
I/E 65/35
S/N 23/77
T/F 43/57
P/J 72/28

INFP - very good match
INTP - very good match
ENFP - good match
---
16P - I have taken this several times before and gotten INFP-T
but since this is an "experiment" and I don't want to ruin it haha...I will take it again

"when you are looking for a movie to watch, you spend ages browsing the catalog"
wow I thought I might be the only one who did this
hehe

INFP-T
Intuitive/Observant 74/26
T/F 28/72
J/P 28/72
Assertive/Turbulent 25/75
---

Cognitive Process
Level of Development (Preference, Skill and Frequency of Use)
extraverted Sensing (Se)
******************** (20.8)
limited use
introverted Sensing (Si)
*************************** (27.5)
average use
extraverted Intuiting (Ne)
********************************************* (45.1)
excellent use
introverted Intuiting (Ni)
********************* (21.3)
limited use
extraverted Thinking (Te)
************* (13.3)
unused
introverted Thinking (Ti)
*************************** (27.7)
average use
extraverted Feeling (Fe)
************************ (24.5)
average use
introverted Feeling (Fi)
*********************************************************** (59.2)
excellent use

alright that's it!
 

Vendrah

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
1,947
MBTI Type
NP
Enneagram
952
I am supposedly done but Ill give you a quick hand.

IE - Post 50
NS - Ne+Ni>Se+Si
TF - Fe+Fi>Te+Ti
JP - Ne+Fi+Ti+Se>Si+Ni+Te+Fe
NFP (I skipped IE evaluation because of post 50), matches all properly.
 

Opal Star

Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2020
Messages
516
Enneagram
173
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
16 Personalities: ISTJ-T
57% Introverted | 43% Extroverted
56% Observant | 44% Intuitive
65% Thinking | 35% Feeling
88% Judging | 12% Prospecting
68% Turbulent | 32% Assertive
Truity:
ENTJ (very good match)
ESTJ (very good match)
INTJ (good match)
Percentages:
57% Extroverted | 43% Introverted
53% Intuitive | 47% Sensing
77% Thinking | 23% Feeling
95% Judging | 5% Perceiving
Final Type: ENTJ (Truity)
Keys2cognition:
Extroverted sensing (Se): 20.9 (limited use)
Introverted sensing (Si): 36.9 (excellent use)
Extroverted intuiting (Ne): 27 (average use)
Introverted intuiting (Ni): 38.5 (excellent use)
Extroverted thinking (Te): 47.9 (excellent use)
Introverted thinking (Ti): 26.9 (average use)
Extroverted Feeling (Fe): 12 (unused)
Introverted Feeling (Fi): 30 (average use)
Your type: INTJ
Alternate types: ENTJ or ISTJ
An INTJ with extremely high Te.
Typology Central Jung Personality Test:
ISTJ
Te > Si > Ni > Ti > Se > Fi=Ne > Fe
Frankly, I think that this functional stack could fit ESTJ as well...
 
Top