which system describes you the best?

[Doctor Cringelord]

The only thing that matters is accurate thetan testing.

 

[Chrysanthe]

I don't think JCF and socionics should be grouped together. If they aren't... why? :'(

 

[Litsnob]

I find a good fit with MBTI and socionics but eannagram seems to vary a lot. I could choose at least three of them and when I take a test to determine my type I get varying results. Most recently I am typed as 9w1 but with MBTI I am always INFJ and have been for years no matter what type of test I take and it is also what makes sense to me when I study the functions. The big five bores me.

 

[Bush]

I'm looking at this from self-assessment and from the way others seem to perceive me. While external feedback isn't the end-all, be-all, of course, it does help complete the picture.

• Enneagram. The Three's internal motivation is really goddamned apparent, especially to those who know me well. It also resonates with me hardcore. Some of my outward characteristics deviate from the stereotypical Three, though -- I'm not always extroverted and charming. But if you throw in the w4, sp aspect, it totally fleshes out a good explanation of those characteristics. Basically, it explains a lot.
• In Socionics, others almost always see me as LIE. If not LIE, then an ILI (and so pretty much always a γ-Ni type). But there's no way that all of the intertype relationships and Reinin dichotomies fit me (or, really, almost anyone) very well.
• I'm usually placed as Choleric/Phlegmatic in classical temperaments, and in their equivalents in the various ripoffs of classical temperaments. People flip their shit because they think that combination is impossible.
• MBTI is accurate so long as it's treated as a trait-based assessment rather than a categorical one. (But it rarely ever is.) Heavy N, relatively light everything else.
• Big Five is also in line with my MBTI results. Of course.
• For JCF -- another day, another conclusion; both from myself and others. It's unfortunate, in large part because I'd love to chime in to discussions from a JCF standpoint, and I feel like I'd still learn a lot from taking a solid stance in those discussions. I just don't obviously relate to one stacking much more than any others.

I don't think JCF and socionics should be grouped together. If they aren't... why? :'(

The function definitions are different enough that there's not necessarily a one-to-one mapping.

For example, in Socionics, ESxp's (SxE's)are pretty much the most assertive type; in MBTI we'd probably assign that characteristic to the ExTJs. Se is more passive than . I've seen that difference play out in others' self assessments.

As another example, is seen as more spacey than Ni; especially when comparing Ni-aux to -creative. (Both MBTI's aux and Socionics's creative are in the "second" position, backing up the dominant or ego function.)

 

[rien]

I don't know many personality system, I mostly use MBTI and enneagram. I think enneagram is better than MBTI to me, because MBTI is a bit more complicated than enneagram. In the MBTI system I've alredy been INTJ, INFP, INFJ, but the enneagram always give me the same result: 4w5. However it's time to take the enneagram test again, because I didn't take it a long time ago.

(Sorry for my English, I'm not a native speaker.)

 

[Kheledon]

To date, Socionics describes me best of all the psychological typing systems I have discovered.

Socionics - the16types.info - Hamlet, Male portrait, ENFj by Beskova
Socionics - the16types.info - ENFj description by Filatova
Ethical-intuitive extravert (Hamlet, The Mentor)

 

[/DG/]

No love for big five, eh? I like it because it seems to be the simplest of them all.

 

[TheMainFlamingo]

Enneagram is highly inaccurate for me, I cannot seem to find a type that fits.

 

[virtualinsanity]

I chose other because I believe Socionics was 1O× more accurate. I also got INFp. I believe Enneagram + Socionics

 

[Agent Washington]

The socionics description of me and someone else i know fit perfectly both on the psychological and behavioural front; SLI-Te and SLI-Si are so different yet both ISTp. Enneagram is accurate about my state of mind but not my behaviour. MBTI is useful as a conceptual tool for metacognition, but falls short on every front. The addition of Turbulent-whatever to 16 personalities was nice, but the description is useless.

...Big-5 is scientifically sound but, like everything that is scientifically-sound, kinda boring.

I guess we have ways to go to understand the workings of consciousness.

 

[Tengri]

My enneagram tri-type feels like a closer fit than either Socionics or my MBTI archetype. In the past, I used to test as an INFJ due to my INFP + 9w1-so interplay, so I grew somewhat disillusioned with the typology overall because I could only vaguely identify with them. That frustration was misplaced though since it was just my mistaken understanding of the functions. After some (slightly obsessive) research, I came to a better working definition of that interplay.

Thanks to [a far wiser member] for pointing me in the right direction with this

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Enneagram and JCF.

 

[Yara the Corpse]

Idk my type but enneagram is definitely the most personal to me

 

[Kanra Jest]

Mbti is too ridged. It has served to confuse me.

Enneagram is almost perfect. With minor wing issues.

 

[Carpe Vinum]

Definitely Enneagram/Tritype or Socionics for descriptive power.

The only thing that I take issue with in Socionics is function order. For me personally, as an ENTJ, I relate more to Te-Ni-Se-Fi than Socionics' Te-Ni-Fe-Si. However, the descriptions seem to go more in-depth than MBTI and generally fit better.

The most accurate descriptions that I've found so far are:
the16types.info - Jack, Male Portrait, ENTj
the16types.info - ENTj The Entrepreneur profile

 

[Yuurei]

Enneagram. By a very large margin.

 

[kotoshinohaisha]

Socionics ftw

 

[Yara the Corpse]

Definitely Enneagram/Tritype or Socionics for descriptive power.

The only thing that I take issue with in Socionics is function order. For me personally, as an ENTJ, I relate more to Te-Ni-Se-Fi than Socionics' Te-Ni-Fe-Si. However, the descriptions seem to go more in-depth than MBTI and generally fit better.

The most accurate descriptions that I've found so far are:
the16types.info - Jack, Male Portrait, ENTj
the16types.info - ENTj The Entrepreneur profile

As long as you can relate to Strong Ne/Te first, then Ni/Ti a bit less, followed by Se/Fe, and least of all Si/Fi, I think you should be pretty okay with your typing. Well given that you're LIE and not ILE in your preferences.

But relating more to Se/Fi and not Fe/Si is normal since they are of equal strength except Se/Fi is valued.

Unless you meant that you relate more to having Conscious Se/Fi instead of it being in the unconscious block, since according to Socionics you can only either have conscious Je/Pi (LIE having conscious Te/Ni/Fe/Si) or Conscious Ji/Pe. Some people disagree and say that their valued weak functions (Se/Fi for you) are more conscious than the ones they suck at and dont care about (Fe/Si), while socionics says that the painful functions are on your mind more because they work in the same direction of your ego but with different goals and perception of life.

Do ISTps in Socionics actually ignore and have little control over their weak 4th Fe and have no awareness of how they affect others, implying the Fe should be Unconscious and not Conscious... or do they actually perceive this weakness and feel this hurts their relations with others? Alot of people ignore their 4th function so it really has no worth as a "conscious" function.

 

[Carpe Vinum]

But relating more to Se/Fi and not Fe/Si is normal since they are of equal strength except Se/Fi is valued.

Unless you meant that you relate more to having Conscious Se/Fi instead of it being in the unconscious block, since according to Socionics you can only either have conscious Je/Pi (LIE having conscious Te/Ni/Fe/Si) or Conscious Ji/Pe. Some people disagree and say that their valued weak functions (Se/Fi for you) are more conscious than the ones they suck at and dont care about (Fe/Si), while socionics says that the painful functions are on your mind more because they work in the same direction of your ego but with different goals and perception of life.

Thanks for the insight. I'm honestly not sure about conscious vs. unconscious. I would have to research it more. I just know that, for whatever the reason, I relate more to Se/Fi than Fe/Si.

If there's a theory in Socionics that explains why, that's cool.

 

[GavinElster]

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.