• 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.

which system describes you the best?

what system describes you the best?


  • Total voters
    96

GavinElster

Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2017
Messages
233
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
3w4
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I currently prefer just using the good ideas from all the Jungian-esque systems, doing a mixture of keeping in mind their good ideas and ultimately keeping in mind that all the children of Jung's original thoughts really are presenting interpretations of the same ideas. The interpretations may differ, and I've studied those in precise detail, but I've remained convinced that there's an overall intuition tying them together that's more important than the individual precise framings. But paradoxically, I think studying the different framings in detail is what really got me to appreciate this fact.
 

GavinElster

Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2017
Messages
233
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
3w4
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
If I had to answer, though, some version of socionics ILE-Ne really seems to get it right.
 

OrangeAppled

Sugar Hiccup
Joined
Mar 20, 2009
Messages
7,626
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Enneagram, as 4w5 better explains why I test as INxP without my overly complicated take on Fi.
 

Galena

Silver and Lead
Joined
Mar 12, 2013
Messages
3,786
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
From easiest to hardest:

Enneagram: Already claimed as best fit earlier in the thread. Wing isn't strong, but sometimes they're not.

Big 5: Maybe this is wrong, but I get the impression that one's type in this system is more malleable over a lifetime, if only to a point. RLOAX helps the big picture of my type a great deal.

JCF: A solid typing on the functional level where it counts, though behaviorally I'm not a very clear example of FiSe.

Socionics: ESI-Fi fits more effectively than the rest, sure, but there's no good fit here. It fills in holes left by other types, more than anything.

Instinctual Variant: kill with fire. all of them
 

GavinElster

Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2017
Messages
233
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
3w4
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
OrangeAppled said:
Enneagram, as 4w5 better explains why I test as INxP without my overly complicated take on Fi.

I think the gist is that the first two letters IN roughly relate to a lot of Jung's introversion, and so do many enneagram portrayals of 4 and 5 (orientation to mind over the external, inner life, separation/isolation from the external and so forth). Tack on that Jung conceived of "Fi" as just the typical ego-consciousness of an introvert who happens to also be a feeling type (not a discrete 1/8 called Fi as we do nowadays) and the X would probably lean to F, in parallel to 4's (usually) leaning in that direction too.
Obviously one can complicate things a lot more than that, state a billion exceptions and other angles, but while we're stating things without the overly complicated...I think we can do it with Jung and not just enneagram! Meaning, I think one can be simple about Fi and still arrive at a similar place (even if not being simple is fun, too).

Myers' test frames F in a way that includes a lot of stuff that doesn't have to go with Jungian F, since value judgments don't have to be tender or compassionate, quite the opposite sometimes, so if the X varies a little, that's still pretty obviously consistent with a non-overly complex take on Jungian Fi.
 

OrangeAppled

Sugar Hiccup
Joined
Mar 20, 2009
Messages
7,626
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I think the gist is that the first two letters IN roughly relate to a lot of Jung's introversion, and so do many enneagram portrayals of 4 and 5 (orientation to mind over the external, inner life, separation/isolation from the external and so forth). Tack on that Jung conceived of "Fi" as just the typical ego-consciousness of an introvert who happens to also be a feeling type (not a discrete 1/8 called Fi as we do nowadays) and the X would probably lean to F, in parallel to 4's (usually) leaning in that direction too.
Obviously one can complicate things a lot more than that, state a billion exceptions and other angles, but while we're stating things without the overly complicated...I think we can do it with Jung and not just enneagram! Meaning, I think one can be simple about Fi and still arrive at a similar place (even if not being simple is fun, too).

Myers' test frames F in a way that includes a lot of stuff that doesn't have to go with Jungian F, since value judgments don't have to be tender or compassionate, quite the opposite sometimes, so if the X varies a little, that's still pretty obviously consistent with a non-overly complex take on Jungian Fi.

A 4w5 would suggest Fi over Ti and 5w4 the opposite, yes, but they're not dichotomous.
Th compassionate stuff is not what I don't relate to. Actually, that and being arty farty is also why I identify just slightly more with INFP profiles.
But I recognize myself in Fi only so much as it is defined as rational and focused on creating and exploring concepts of value (ie meaning in the human experience), not as holding emotionally driven values.

Myers' Feeling does sound more like Fe to me, but not because I am not empathetic or unemotional. As with many people, the logic vs emotion thing is a false dichotomy for me. I define feeling vs thinking as a focus on meaning/worth of things vs their technical definitions. As Jung says, Thinking tells you what something is, but Feeling what it is worth.
 

GavinElster

Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2017
Messages
233
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
3w4
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
OrangeAppled said:
but they're not dichotomous.

Sure, and I'd also note Fi/Ti as Jung thought of them share introversion -- that's I think pretty consistent with 4/5 which seem to often at least involve introverted themes. I think post-Jungian thought frequently emphasizes the axes (Ti/Fe vs Fi/Te) to the point of obscuring that Jung would've probably viewed Fi and Ti doms as sharing a ton of things, given for him, these meant introverts...who happen to also be of the feeling or thinking type respectively. In this sense, there would be no dichotomy, only a difference.

But I recognize myself in Fi only so much as it is defined as rational and focused on creating and exploring concepts of value (ie meaning in the human experience), not as holding emotionally driven values.

I think at bottom, I should ask this: why do you think feeling/thinking is a legitimate dichotomy (as defined in the Jungian sense)? Intuition/sensation is kind of obvious comparatively, but I find a lot of people's understandings of feeling/thinking doesn't even make it clear why they'd repress each other, rather than merely be different (I mean, being different isn't sufficient to repress, because otherwise how would we pair the auxiliary with dominant).

Also, when you suggest "I recognize myself in Fi only so much as....not as holding emotionally driven values," it almost makes it seem as if you think you'd recognize yourself in Fi more were you driven by emotional values.
But I guess the latter part of your post seems to bring up the traditional point of view that feeling is not about emotion, but value judgment.

Anyway, I personally think this topic is pretty subtle, because I think ultimately, we have to ask: what exactly IS the feeling/thinking dichotomy about? Why are judgments of worth in some sense opposed to focus on these other kinds of judgments?
The way I look at it, the key is that we wouldn't have value judgments without subjective reactions to things, but we can't solely explain them by those reactions. Even super non-emotion-based value theories like those of Kant seem to at least mention moral sentiment, and I think the point is not all sentiment is subjective in the sense of *personal* but may involve some more general property of being human.

So I tend to view the feeling function's role as mediating between the two necessary faculties for value judgment: reflection and subjective reaction. We can't explain how the process of reflection can lead to literally revising our reactions to things if the reaction is just a sort of blind thing. It isn't unrelated to feelings, but the point is it seems to be more about determining the appropriateness of the feelings than essentially tacitly accepting whatever one's personal whims say.

T-dom types seem to be just a bit more fatalist about hey, my personal reaction is just a fact about my psychology, we can deal with it, but questions of appropriateness of feeling are a rabbit hole. This means the two things above aren't in quite as much dialogue -- the reactions are raw, and the reflection is also raw, and leads to making things explicit/defining ideas clearly. So some T types are pretty emotional, but with the reactions largely unrationalized. There's something more pragmatic and functional about this view -- kind of reminiscent to how money does ultimately reflect human values in a crude way, but it's an instance where the values just are what they are, and the question of what they ought to be isn't raised as seriously.
 

Taibreah

New member
Joined
Feb 20, 2017
Messages
125
Although I have questioned my Enneagram type a few times, I think I've questioned it less than I have MBTI and Socionics. I find Enneagram to be more relatable with its descriptions. If I delved deeper into Socionics, I might have chosen that, but I'm going with Enneagram.
 
Joined
Mar 7, 2017
Messages
590
MBTI Type
ISTJ
Enneagram
125
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
I particularly like the MOTIV+ system where I am an AcTIVrS (Ascetic).
 

Zeego

Mind Wanderer
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
390
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I identify most with my Enneagram type. I feel like MBTI sometimes relies on stereotypes that don't apply to me, and Socionics is a bit of a mess tbh.
 

Obfuscate

Permabanned
Joined
Aug 20, 2016
Messages
1,907
MBTI Type
iNtP
Enneagram
954
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
most assuredly it is mbti... the enneagram reminds me of jello (it is hard to pin down)... i like the scionics system well enough, but most translations are shoddy at best... mbti works for me because the defining terms feel "crisp"; it is easy to define where it's curvatures align and depart from my own... none of the big 5 types are a "tight" fit for me... i feel like i need a hacksaw and rawl pins to get a match...
 

Bardsandwarriors

Xena's boyfriend
Joined
Nov 4, 2012
Messages
100
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4w3
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
Both MBTI and Enneagram describe aspects of me very well. Socionics also, but I see that as a variation or extension on MBTI. I like them because they categorise, and then tell you a whole lot more about yourself, which perhaps you weren't aware of.

Big 5 is all sliding scales, and I know there is a wealth of expert analysis which psychologists are aware of, but it doesn't seem to be available on the web. So all you get is 5 numbers, and no more explanation than that. I have no great motivation to study it further, if all I have is 5 numbers! (I could have guessed them in the first place).

JCF I like, but the stackings looks spurious. Most people seem to be non-standard, which suggests the theory is out.
 

BlackCat

Shaman
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
7,038
MBTI Type
ESFP
Enneagram
9w8
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Socionics and the Enneagram explain so much. It's a tie for me.
 

DB968

Ginger Snap
Joined
Apr 15, 2017
Messages
53
I always fall in between this type and that type. Even with the 4 temperaments, I feel it's equally true that I could be an nt nf or sj, following the angle of observation. I find tests more interesting as a whole, like looking different sides of a figure.

In terms of core type determination, it's the Enneagram for me.
 

Kanra Jest

Av'ent'Gar'de ~
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
2,388
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
4w3
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
xNTP should say enough when it comes to mbti. There's an inconsistency that serves to confuse. Socionics is always said to mirror mbti and do a reverse flip sometimes which makes them seem connected and thus the same confusion. I also get xNTp on those(which if INTp which it has been before, by introverted socionics type theory it should be INTJ in mbti because of having Ni).

With instinct I use to think I was sp/sx simply because of a test but I lacked understanding of a lot of things about it. Upon further reflection I realized I was definitely an sx dom ... the last part still serving confusion though, as I can relate to both sx/sp and sx/so in particular ways.

Other than that, hm... Enneagram describes the way I approach things and think the best thus far. It holds to goals and a variety of stresses and the way we even react to them and things, and I can relate. Especially with the Tritype. 359 describes me quite well.
 

kotoshinohaisha

Permabanned
Joined
Jul 9, 2016
Messages
1,083
MBTI Type
STFU
Enneagram
7w8
Instinctual Variant
so
No psychology shit actually describes me perfectly
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I agree that the Enneagram is great at describing people, including me. But I voted against it because in my view the best system for describing me is the Oldham typology.

- - - Updated - - -

No psychology shit actually describes me perfectly

I don't see anything in the thread topic about having a perfect fit, do you?
 

kotoshinohaisha

Permabanned
Joined
Jul 9, 2016
Messages
1,083
MBTI Type
STFU
Enneagram
7w8
Instinctual Variant
so
I agree that the Enneagram is great at describing people, including me. But I voted against it because in my view the best system for describing me is the Oldham typology.

- - - Updated - - -



I don't see anything in the thread topic about having a perfect fit, do you?
Oldham typology? That's new to me.. XD well, enneagram i can relate to it as well but not fully. But it's better than mbti [emoji14] mbti doesn't really fits me xD

I'm gonna check oldham typology :)
 
Top