User Tag List

First 345

Results 41 to 48 of 48

  1. #41
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    43,631

    Default

    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)
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  2. #42
    Senior Member Vendrah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    MBTI
    xNFP
    Enneagram
    9
    Posts
    109

    Default

    @noname3788

    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.


    @Totenkindly

    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).

  3. #43
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    7

    Default

    @Vendrah

    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.

  4. #44
    Senior Member Vendrah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    MBTI
    xNFP
    Enneagram
    9
    Posts
    109

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noname3788 View Post
    @Vendrah

    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:
    Quote Originally Posted by reckful
    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/articl...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.

  5. #45
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    43,631

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vendrah View Post
    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.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  6. #46
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    7

    Default

    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.

  7. #47
    Senior Member Vendrah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    MBTI
    xNFP
    Enneagram
    9
    Posts
    109

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Totenkindly View Post
    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.

    @noname3788
    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.

  8. #48
    Senior Member Vendrah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    MBTI
    xNFP
    Enneagram
    9
    Posts
    109

    Default

    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.

Similar Threads

  1. Help!!!! What’s My Type and Cognitive Functions?!
    By Taylor_Prez in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-31-2018, 01:52 PM
  2. MBTI and Cognitive Functions - Incompatible??
    By highlander in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 09-10-2012, 01:59 PM
  3. What is your dominant Jungian cognitive function?
    By highlander in forum Online Personality Tests
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 03-17-2011, 02:06 AM
  4. MBTI and Cognitive Functions
    By paradox fox in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 03-16-2010, 05:45 PM
  5. MBTI and Cognitive Functions
    By RansomedbyFire in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 09-10-2007, 06:52 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO