User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 48

  1. #11

    Default

    [sorry if I reply late, but my post were never published, and I tried several times]

    Yes, I jumped... I hope there's water down there.

    First of all, thank you @noname3788 for the links, the MBTI test was the best test I took ever, now I understand why many people recommend to take the official test. Many questions made me think, you could tell that they put a lot of effort and fine tuning to have the right wording so as to catch all the nuances.

    These are my results:

    your myers-briggs type ENTP
    your form m myers-briggs type ENTP

    e n f p
    22 35 18 18
    15 0 21 16
    i s t j

    concrete 0 9 abstract
    realistic 0 9 imaginative
    practical 0 4 conceptual
    experiential 0 3 theoretical
    traditional 0 10 original
    initiating 2 1 receiving
    expressive 6 4 contained
    gregarious 3 3 intimate
    active 1 5 reflective
    enthusiastic 10 3 quiet
    logical 4 2 empathetic
    reasonable 5 3 compassionate
    questioning 2 2 accommodating
    critical 2 5 accepting
    tough 6 6 tender
    systematic 5 3 casual
    planful 2 6 open-ended
    early starting 1 4 pressure-prompted
    scheduled 5 5 spontaneous
    methodical 2 1 emergent

    I am very surprised but, this time, I am more convinced, at least about my P-ness. Many questions were actually in the line of what I think about structure and planning: a means to an end, a useful tool but not the Bible; something that can be tweaked. I believe that is my N ruling it all: I see a possibility, I get excited about it (look how high my enthusiasm is, I fully relate to it), then I start envisioning infinite ways to make it happen; I go into J-mode with the best option T-wise, but at any time I tweak the plan as new options manifest themselves. This is the way I wrote all my books. I'm never fully committed to the plan, you see. And when structure is imposed on me from outside - especially with work and family schedule - I loathe it with all my heart. But many quizzes fail to grasp it, now I'm aware of that. For example, they ask you "I follow a schedule", which I do! But not one that I would follow if I could avoid it.

    About E/I and T/F, I’m still unsure, but I can relate to the facets as they came out; I can be content saying that I'm an ET with some out-of-preference IF traits.

    [continues...]

    - - - Updated - - -

    [part 2]

    @Vendrah , I am so glad you suggest that my E is related to my P, that is something I always felt myself; sometimes I had ENTJ in some tests, but never related; I can be forceful and very strong willed, but not against my F or my N - which is something that ENTJ can do, not just stereotypes, also the ones that I know IRL; I'm sure I am not like them.

    Searching for the super ENTP that you mentioned, I've found and article about “The three ENTP modes”
    It says that ENTP has three modes of operation:
    Ne, wild idea generator, brainstorming and being weird and funny (exhausting)
    Ti, analysit
    Fe, pleaser (draining)
    I relate to this point of view, but I would add, in my case: Si-Ti/Te mode, eg not INTJ, but ISTJ instead! That is, a dutiful, steady, reliable worker, slave to Ne; a means to an end; efficient and thorough, but draining. Like a fire extinguisher "break the glass only when necessary".

    That would be the "persona" that you mention, another idea that I felt many times. That is a concept I’m still digesting, but the disintegration/integration process is something I experienced myself many times in my life. Anyway, I believe in the Free Traits Theory by Brian Little: you can act out of type if you need it for your core projects, it's just draining after a while. His book is very interesting, at least the first half, checked it out - or at least his TED talks.

    So, function-wise (oh my, here we go…), if I accecpt my P-ness, all the mistyping can be explained:
    - I'm an E who was "repressed" by the environment, as you explained with plenty of true details - we two relate so much in our experiences!
    - My N is undoubted, therefore that make me an Ne
    - Being so N makes me so abstract that the patterns that I see and my big picture point of views sound so "out of nowhere" that can be mistaken for Ni
    - Ne+Ti looking like Ni and forced I lead to INTJ, first mistype
    - As I am in my forties, I'm more concerned with Fe, also being a father changed me a lot.
    - pseudo-Ni and Fe make INFJ, second mistype
    I still don't believe in function per se, but at least I see a way to frame it that way.

    [continues...]
    Likes Vendrah, noname3788 liked this post

  2. #12

    Default

    [part 3]

    Now, the Enneagram: that was a long one!

    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
    8 1 6 9 44 -8 23 7 5
    most likely enneagram type 5
    (with wing) 5w4
    possible instinctual variant stacking sx/sp/so

    type 1 self-preservation -1 sexual 2 social -4
    type 2 self-preservation -1 sexual 4 social -2
    type 3 self-preservation -1 sexual -3 social -2
    type 4 self-preservation -1 sexual 2 social 0
    type 5 self-preservation 6 sexual 4 social 10
    type 6 self-preservation 2 sexual 0 social -7
    type 7 self-preservation 3 sexual 0 social 1
    type 8 self-preservation 5 sexual -1 social 3
    type 9 self-preservation -2 sexual 3 social 2
    I don't know anything about variants. The questions were a bit weird sometimes, but for the most part I could identify with the answer I gave.
    Knowing how I answered, I see how I could be a 7 as most ENTP are. There were questions regarding knowledge and the urge to know, but perhaps my motivation is different from a typical 5. IIRC, 5s want to save energy and be prepared; in my case, learning is fun! So I never related to the thrill-seeking typical 7 profile, but if I frame it as fun-seeker, and you interpret fun as "exploring ideas" that could be me. Maybe even with a weak 8 wing when I'm fully engaged in pursuing my idea.

    You could see in in a different angle: if I was to improve MBTI, I would change the 16 boxes; many people have a hard type choosing one because they have at least one 50-50-ish preference.
    However, it would work smoothly if you had just 8 types: one for each pole, N, S, T, F, J, P, E, I.
    Your type would be your strongest preference, period.
    Then you could add wings, one for each of the 6 remaining poles; you could have no wing, or up to tree.
    Me, I would be a pure N, or maybe an N with a mild E wing, or a P wing, or a T wing, or all three.
    Another current ENTP would be a P with a strong E wing (and too weak N and T preferences to have a wing), and we would be very, very different.

    I've seen somebody suggesting that you could alter the order of the letters to take strength of preference into account, but saying that I'm a NPET vs PETN, for example, multiply types and invalidates the system. With my "new MBTI", it would be simpler than now.

    A closing remark to this long post. It's long because I felt compelled to share my views with all my passion, as you have done with your, and with generosity. @Vendrah , There were so many ideas in your last post that I still need to digest some, I’ll come back to you when I have some insight about those.

    I end with this link I found about being a polymath. (at a site called juliankohtx, google it)

    I didn't know the word, but I fully recognize myself in the Pareto rule applied to learning, and I've been called a "Renaissance man" before (not boasting, you, know, it just happened). I even go around quoting the same passage from Heinlein!

    "A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects." ― Robert A. Heinlein
    Likes Vendrah, noname3788 liked this post

  3. #13
    Remember, Humanity. Vendrah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    MBTI
    ANFP
    Enneagram
    592
    Posts
    912

    Default

    @mancino Yep there still a lot to be talked in here!

    First thing in my head, your own system... Actually, your system is somewhat what Jung original system was. System and patterns, or the hidden math, is the same, you would just have different cognitive functions.

    Jung has 8 cognitive-function-archetypes (he has other archetypes not related to cognitive functions, at least not directly).
    These are the 8 pure types. There is a pure Ne dom, pure Se dom.. etc.. Basically, these types. In your case, the N-dom, the P-dom, the E-dom, etc... you would have a different arrengement but the pattern is the same.
    Then, even he acknowledges that these types are unrealistic and introduces the reader to the auxiliary function. The auxiliary function call the characteristics of another pure type, and its the equivalent of a wing. Basically, an ENTP would be Ne wing Ti (pure Ne type wing Ti). And the big discussion is that Jung never actually counted how many types existed counting the auxiliary function and never minded explained them. Myers appears with 16, but, with alternative and more literal but wide interpretation, Jung had 64 types. And Jung didnt had a "dichotomy" either; Jung J/P was actually a 'status', not a dimension. Fe,Fi,Te,Ti are the judging functions for Jung, while Ne,Ni,Se,Si are the perception functions for Jung. However, because of pair effect, only pure types were judgers or perceveirs in Jung. Most people, realistically, werent really rational (rely only on judging functions) or irrational (rely only on perceveing functions). And for that, it is likely that Myers got a lot of borderlines in Jung J/P and had to swap definitions in order to people show up with preferences. So, J in Jung just means a higher use of Fe,Fi,Te,Ti, and a J Jung pure type is a Fe, Fi,Te,Ti dom only. This difference in J/P for Jung or J/P for Myers create some great confusions, like this one:

    Quote Originally Posted by Sakinorva
    For comparison, we should analyze Brownsword's description for an INFP:

    iF: The guiding force in the INFP personality comes from value judgments made internally. Throughout their lives, INFPs reflect on people and things and make, test, apply, and re-examine the powerful values that govern their behavior. Beneath a gentle and often easy-going exterior, they hold tenaciously to an inner core of values. INFPs will become rigid and unbending whenever these are violated. Intuition supports their introverted feeling and is subordinate to it. They feel most fulfilled when what they do contributes to a better world for all mankind. Inner values based on a sensitivity to intuitive possibilities causes most INFP to set very high standards for themselves, others and the world. When they judge themselves unworthy, they can withdraw from extraverted activities. Deeply depressed, they may become immobilized. When they have a positive sense of self, INFPs more often than not prefer to express their deeply-held commitments in quiet and unassuming ways. Taking active leadership positions takes a great deal of energy and a powerful dedication to a cause.

    eN: When involved in extraverted activities, INFPs naturally and easily access their intuitive skills. Still focused on people, they are quick to find meaning, see possibilities, and discover unusual solutions. They are spontaneous and flexible. Unless their powerful inner values are involved, they seek to understand, not judge.

    This is a very peculiar and specific profile, and I would be inclined to say that despite Brownsword stating that "they are spontaneous and flexible," his profile for an INFP would seem more inclined to be a judger. But more specifically, Brownsword seems to be implying that the person behind this INFP profile behaves like a judger when alone, but behaves more like a perceiver when "involved with extraverted activities." This person would likely see themselves as a perceiver, but the preference may not be strong—regardless, this should be unusual for an INFP profile.
    Source: full context: the cognitive functions

    Fi is a judging function, and a pure Fi-dom is a judger - in Jung (and pure Fi-dom are unrealistic). Since this INFP description is focused on Fi, the description will be Judging in Jung (but its P in Myers). However, in Myers, Fi was adapted to be a perceveing function. This generally a hell of confusion and its hard to explain the difference between Myers and Jung J/P without cognitive function and I prefer to let @OldFolksBoogie old post explain it (clear explanation):

    Quote Originally Posted by OldFolksBoogie
    In Jung, it's rather simple: N & S are the irrational functions (also called perceiving functions), and F & T are the rational functions (also called judging functions).

    In MBTI it's more complicated:

    MBTI basically agrees with Jung that N&S = perceiving and F&T = judging. However in the MBTI-based personality types, the last letter of each type (P or J for perceiving or judging) is just a marker. The last letter is just a placeholder that simply designates your topmost extraverted function. In other words, that last letter simply designates how a certain type will deal with the external world. Or to put it another way, the last letter designates whether people are using a perceiving function (Ne&Se) or a judging function (Fe&Te) as their primary way of dealing with the objects and people in the external world around them.

    Why does MBTI work that way? Because MBTI is all about how people deal with the external world. Remember that MBTI was developed in part as a career placement testing device--its most obvious commercial application, anyway. So it was important to designate how people extravert; in other words, it was important to designate whether people will use a perceiving function (Ne&Se) or a judging function (Fe&Te) when they are on the production line dealing with the objects and people in the external world around them.
    (...)
    Fi is always a rational/judging function. Because the F function (covering both Fe and Fi) is always a rational/judging function.

    MBTI doesn't say that Fi is a perceiving function. Here is what MBTI says:

    The top two functions for an INFP are Dom Fi (a judging function) and Aux Ne (a perceiving function). But when assigning a P or a J to a personality type, MBTI only cares about one question: What's your top extraverted function? Out of its two top functions, INFP uses its perceiving function (Ne) to deal with the world. As a result, MBTI considers INFP to be a perceiving personality type. The top extraverted function for INFPs is Ne, so INFPs get assigned a P.

    In the meantime, MBTI doesn't say anything particular about Fi one way or the other. It's just taken for granted that Fi is a judging function. But Fi doesn't come into play when MBTI labels INFPs as perceiving types, because Fi is hidden away from the world. As far as labeling types P or J, MBTI is only concerned about what your top extraverted function is. Because MBTI only cares what function you use in the outside world. (I already explained the reasons why MBTI chooses to designate type this way in my previous post on the subject.)
    (...)
    Ambivalence on the J/P scale doesn't arise from the functions themselves. Instead, ambivalence arises because every adult has one perceiving function and also one judging function in his top two functions (the Dom and Aux functions).

    Think about it. As an INFP, I have a judging function (Fi) working together with a perceiving function (Ne) in my Dom and Aux functions. As a result:

    Sometimes I'm operating in Judging mode, mainly with internal things that I think about, via use of my Fi.
    At other times I'm operating in Perceiving mode, mainly with external things that I deal with in the world around me, via use of my Ne.


    For example:
    As an Ne perceiver, I can be extremely flakey and playful and whimsical about things in the world around me. (That's my perceiving Ne at work.) But on the other hand, when I'm thinking hard about some ethical issue using my internal Fi judging function, I can be incredibly judgmental and even harsh in how I choose to view that issue. (That's my judging Fi at work.)

    In other words, like most adults I'm a judger about some things and a perceiver about other things. That's why it's so difficult to test for personality type. Because it isn't always clear which function is being used when an answer is chosen. Did the person answer according to his Dom function or his Aux function? Because every adult has one perceiving function and also one judging function in his top two functions (the Dom and Aux functions).

    As a result there tends to be a lot of ambivalence in how people deal with type-related questions or issues: Because they may be looking at things through the prism of their Dom function or the prism of their Aux function. And it's hard to tell which sometimes.
    The whole discussion topic is here:
    Jung J/P (rational/irrational) versus MBTI J/P: Do they even correlate?

    Just need a final note that Fi/Ti being counted as a perceveing function in Myers (and Ni/Si as judging function in Myers) for stats had better results than just counting the extraverted functions.

    Second thing, what was "to this point, disproven" is the cognitive function stacks - Ne-Ti-Fe-Si for ENTP, and not the cognitive functions themselves. The tertiary, in special, is completely unrealistic from the stats I gathered, and the last one - the achile heels that is not actually the 4th, but really the 8th (it wouldnt be achile heels if it was the fourth, and I gather test results to check what was more accurate, 4th or 8th, and 8th was more accurate) - is usually on the back of the stack but I found out that it wasnt appropriated, I have seen cases such as ISFP being a Ti-tard instead of Te-tard or highly balanced cognitive stacks that didnt had any clear achile heels or, still, multiple low cognitive functions. But yeah, for Ne-doms, Si tends to be on 7th or 8th position (6th,7th or 8th in most cases), same patterns. I think you already read me on the other thread INTP vs INTJ that the fact that you are a Ne-user doesnt mean you dont have Ni as a lot of people on typing websites believes. You are not mistaken Ne for Ni, Ne and Ni are correlated with each other in stats comparing multiple tests results - the ones who have one usually have the other one higher than Se and Si - and for people with high preference for intuition both presence are a must. But the whole thought proccess doesnt limit to one sequence order all the time. For example, ENTP though procces should start with Ne, but, sometimes, you have to start conceptualizing before having the ideas, which is you starting with Ti instead.

    I have already three typing methods - but only bother to explain the concepts of one so far - and this one serves to give things more depth and remove black and white thinking, so sorry for giving you too much reads but I think you are ok with that so I dont need to create resumes...

    A new vision of MBTI and function stacks: Open function stack

    That topic is on my current signature.
    The big deal about all these cognitive functions is that you shouldnt kill your Ni because you think you are ENxP and must be a Ne-dom. They can work togheter except where they conflict. There is no pseudo-Ni (ok, sometimes we mistake it, but being NP doesnt mean not having Ni)! Another thing, I think your cognitive function stacks already have a pattern. Its always Ne, Ni first, Se and Si on the back (although Se>Si by your words), and Te,Ti,Fe,Fi on the middle. Dont limit yourself thinking that you are ENTP and that only Fe and Ti and Ne are relevant (and the lack of Si). On the Open Stack schema, your "tertiary" are actually Te,Ti,Fe,Fi, your doms are Ne and Ni and your achile heels are Si and Se (it seems more Si). One reason I dont like this dom-theory is that you can show up with multiple doms sometimes. However, that schema is one out of 3 I have, and I applied partially the third one for reaching that E--P conclusion (the third can attack these cases that has different results).

    Third, I dont know much about enneagram, but there is the tri-type thing. A lot of people see themselves in more than one of these enneagrams, and the tri-type is simply the 3 enneagrams you most relate. My tritype with wing is 9w1 7w6 5w4, where the latter could be 4w5, I just dont know yet. So in this specific test your two-type (theres no clear third) should be 57, with wings gives 5w4 7w8. Theres no way we know about which enneagram test is really the most reliable, at least I dont, so I recommend doing others. If you search the ones in "Whats My type" section, you can see others results and if their results match what they filled in "enneagram" below the avatar. And about these wings… I have no idea why 5w7 or 9w7 are impossible and why 5 wing is restricted to 4 and 6 and the same for others. Still havent figured it out yet and perhaps it is only a convention rather than a real reason.

    Fourth, I think I can arrive with a final answer..
    My type can be seen as D-N-A-P; N and P are stable traits for me, D is for Dynamic, changes through time, and A is for ambivalence - both preference. Yours seems to be D-N-A-D, Dynamic E/I just like me, clear intuitive, ambivalence in T/F, slightly more inclined to T, and Dynamic J/P. I came with Dynamic on this topic but Im not that used to the idea of dynamic besides on E/I. However, I already used my third method on myself, and my type removing the Dynamic (but that removal change partially what it means to be that type) is ENfP, with f in small/lower case because Im still ambivalent beside Dynamics. While yours, giving that I partially used the third method, is ENtP, with t in small because you are ambivalent. The E is because of the intelligence-introverts you thing, the P comes from correlation with E, the N was clear since the start, and the t in small Im still in doubt, could be f in small. Besides me perhaps even being a true E (still have some doubts), I have been I by a long time because of... You already know.

    But Im still somewhat finding a lot strange about you two Dynamic J/P. Lucky for the whole MBTI, J/P for most people is usually static and only vulnerable to excessive neuroticism and apathy (or perhaps a few other disorders); Dynamic cases on that dimension are really rare (while for E/I dynamic cases are somewhat common, not really that common although).

  4. #14
    alchemist Legion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    MBTI
    INF
    Enneagram
    945
    Posts
    3,484

    Default

    I see a lottt of Fe in your posts. Furthermore I see the ENFJ function order.

    So, ENFJ.
    Likes mancino liked this post

  5. #15

    Default

    @Vendrah , thanks for all the info, so much to dig into. Homework for this we...

    Btw, I had already read your Open Function Stack theory, very interesting. I agree that the worst part of the Cognitive Function model is the stack and the rigid order of preference, but I'm not sure that it can be fixed with a different one. Maybe it's the whole stack concept that is flawed.

    The J-P vision is fascinating. So, one function for the outside, one for the inside, one P and one J, that part I knew already. But I never thought that you could interpret your J-P score as an "average" of the strength of this two functions. Is that what led you to my EP typing? Like, having an extraverted perceiving dominant function and an introverted judging auxiliary, so that i "feel" EP when leading with my dominant and IJ with my auxiliary? OR EP with Ne and IJ wiht (less dominant but still strong) Ni?

    (out of curiosity, @Vendrah , which is your mother tongue? Maybe one that I speak?)

    @Legion , thanks for weighing in. I see Fe myself, but I have to ask: could you elaborate a bit more? Why are you so sure?
    On the other hand, I could never see myself as an Fe-dom, my behaviour as a child is inconsistent with that. Could you see it as auxiliary Fe, ie Ni-Fe, INFJ? Or even tertiary Fe, ie Ne-Fe, ENTP? For sure I don't fit in a stereotypical INTJ type. As I said, I don't believe in the standard function stack, but still, Fe PoLR is something I could never, never relate to.

    Thanks guys, I'm so glad I decided to star this thread, so much help from you all!
    Likes noname3788, Vendrah, awbro liked this post

  6. #16
    Senior Member noname3788's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    120

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mancino View Post
    [sorry if I reply late, but my post were never published, and I tried several times]

    Yes, I jumped... I hope there's water down there.

    First of all, thank you for the links, the MBTI test was the best test I took ever, now I understand why many people recommend to take the official test. Many questions made me think, you could tell that they put a lot of effort and fine tuning to have the right wording so as to catch all the nuances.

    These are my results:




    I am very surprised but, this time, I am more convinced, at least about my P-ness. Many questions were actually in the line of what I think about structure and planning: a means to an end, a useful tool but not the Bible; something that can be tweaked. I believe that is my N ruling it all: I see a possibility, I get excited about it (look how high my enthusiasm is, I fully relate to it), then I start envisioning infinite ways to make it happen; I go into J-mode with the best option T-wise, but at any time I tweak the plan as new options manifest themselves. This is the way I wrote all my books. I'm never fully committed to the plan, you see. And when structure is imposed on me from outside - especially with work and family schedule - I loathe it with all my heart. But many quizzes fail to grasp it, now I'm aware of that. For example, they ask you "I follow a schedule", which I do! But not one that I would follow if I could avoid it.

    About E/I and T/F, I’m still unsure, but I can relate to the facets as they came out; I can be content saying that I'm an ET with some out-of-preference IF traits.

    [continues...]
    Error 404 sensing not found... I just like how you actually managed to score 0 on S in this test. The other scores indicate weak preferences for T and P and moderate E preference. Actually, any of the 8 N types seems somewhat plausible, even though you don't seem to fit INFP or INTJ stereotypes, not even slightly. Taking Enneagram into account, type 5 is typical for INTx types, your second-highest result 7 is typical for ENxP's. I think you've already read Vendra's post about MBTI/Enneagram correlation, however you may want to keep in my mind that most of these correlation where done in typology communities, with people who typed themselves with functions, but in most cases function type and dichotomy type is identical. Also, enneagram is problaby not the most exact and reliable personality assessment, even at 300 questions Also, just to add something unrelated to tests, your writing style reminds we very much of INFx types, especially INFJ's. Doesn't fit into your latest test results, but fits quite well into my first impression of you that a single type code may not describe you accurately. If there's something you demonstrated here then it is that you can adapt your way of thinking to the situation at hand. It allows you to learn quickly, to think in a rational manner, but also to express warmth, tact and care when needed. However MBTI theory (=cognitive function stacks) tries to find your way of thinking and making decisions, and it cannot succeed if there's more than one way. And that's what makes typing you so damn difficult.

    Also, just wanted to say that you aren't boasting at all. It's actually quite the opposite, your style is quite humble, you respect other people, and you compliment other people. I guess you experienced that people react quite dismissive and maybe jelaous about your qualities, if they know them at all, and if they do they probably won't take your own problems seriously. As a consequence, you open up slowly about these topics, and generally only talk about it when other people mention it. Ofc I can't be sure whether it is actually the case here, but I guess it is, and it makes sense within the context. Maybe it could be a start towards getting to know more of yourself if you start researching and following your multiple interests
    Likes mancino, Vendrah liked this post

  7. #17
    Remember, Humanity. Vendrah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    MBTI
    ANFP
    Enneagram
    592
    Posts
    912

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noname3788 View Post
    Error 404 sensing not found... I just like how you actually managed to score 0 on S in this test. The other scores indicate weak preferences for T and P and moderate E preference. Actually, any of the 8 N types seems somewhat plausible, even though you don't seem to fit INFP or INTJ stereotypes, not even slightly. Taking Enneagram into account, type 5 is typical for INTx types, your second-highest result 7 is typical for ENxP's. I think you've already read Vendra's post about MBTI/Enneagram correlation, however you may want to keep in my mind that most of these correlation where done in typology communities, with people who typed themselves with functions, but in most cases function type and dichotomy type is identical. Also, enneagram is problaby not the most exact and reliable personality assessment, even at 300 questions Also, just to add something unrelated to tests, your writing style reminds we very much of INFx types, especially INFJ's. Doesn't fit into your latest test results, but fits quite well into my first impression of you that a single type code may not describe you accurately. If there's something you demonstrated here then it is that you can adapt your way of thinking to the situation at hand. It allows you to learn quickly, to think in a rational manner, but also to express warmth, tact and care when needed. However MBTI theory (=cognitive function stacks) tries to find your way of thinking and making decisions, and it cannot succeed if there's more than one way. And that's what makes typing you so damn difficult.

    Also, just wanted to say that you aren't boasting at all. It's actually quite the opposite, your style is quite humble, you respect other people, and you compliment other people. I guess you experienced that people react quite dismissive and maybe jelaous about your qualities, if they know them at all, and if they do they probably won't take your own problems seriously. As a consequence, you open up slowly about these topics, and generally only talk about it when other people mention it. Ofc I can't be sure whether it is actually the case here, but I guess it is, and it makes sense within the context. Maybe it could be a start towards getting to know more of yourself if you start researching and following your multiple interests
    The thing about the enneagram table and every statistics is that they mostly work - always mostly, not always, and they have their exceptions. A variable J/P is already a special case that can cause an exception there. Its very different from some typings I had done with people who were straight an obvious INFPs for example. Also, there is the whole winging thing. I dont think that these wings were based on stats and I dot get where they come from or if there is a good reason for 7w5 and 9w7 being forbidden on Enneagram. It could be a mistake, although you understand that, if they had every wing possible, they would end up with way too many types. Even Jung "enneagraming" "limits the wings" (the wing of a judgment function must be a perceveing one and the wing of a perceveing function must be a judging one) but Jung had justifications for that (enneagram just states it).

    There is one website that types you base on long texts... For some of mine texts it gave me INTP and INTJ, but... I had tested a lot of forumnites and it didnt got the right types for half of them, it kept saying that everyone write like INTJ! So its not worthy mentioning the link, the idea was super cool although.

    "If there's something you demonstrated here then it is that you can adapt your way of thinking to the situation at hand. It allows you to learn quickly, to think in a rational manner, but also to express warmth, tact and care when needed. However MBTI theory (=cognitive function stacks) tries to find your way of thinking and making decisions, and it cannot succeed if there's more than one way. And that's what makes typing you so damn difficult"

    You give a good description because thats seems to be your case either! I was going to put "right?", but, nope, its already a sure thing. It is important to note that this think in a rational matter but also express warmth is more a thing for borderline T/F than dynamic T/F. Dynamic T/F as I see is supposed to be more like a feeler or like a thinker according to the situation on a term of days, it gets quite complicated to explain but its slightly different. And I can already "see" you get excited to find a case just like yours, and that isnt a bad thing =).

    Quote Originally Posted by mancino View Post
    @Vendrah , thanks for all the info, so much to dig into. Homework for this we...

    Btw, I had already read your Open Function Stack theory, very interesting. I agree that the worst part of the Cognitive Function model is the stack and the rigid order of preference, but I'm not sure that it can be fixed with a different one. Maybe it's the whole stack concept that is flawed.

    The J-P vision is fascinating. So, one function for the outside, one for the inside, one P and one J, that part I knew already. But I never thought that you could interpret your J-P score as an "average" of the strength of this two functions. Is that what led you to my EP typing? Like, having an extraverted perceiving dominant function and an introverted judging auxiliary, so that i "feel" EP when leading with my dominant and IJ with my auxiliary? OR EP with Ne and IJ wiht (less dominant but still strong) Ni?

    (out of curiosity, @Vendrah , which is your mother tongue? Maybe one that I speak?)

    @Legion , thanks for weighing in. I see Fe myself, but I have to ask: could you elaborate a bit more? Why are you so sure?
    On the other hand, I could never see myself as an Fe-dom, my behaviour as a child is inconsistent with that. Could you see it as auxiliary Fe, ie Ni-Fe, INFJ? Or even tertiary Fe, ie Ne-Fe, ENTP? For sure I don't fit in a stereotypical INTJ type. As I said, I don't believe in the standard function stack, but still, Fe PoLR is something I could never, never relate to.

    Thanks guys, I'm so glad I decided to star this thread, so much help from you all!
    Im a brazilian portuguese speaker. And I´ve been in a dislike of my country for some reasons... But Im kind of bad in Portunhol (Portu-anish), had a friend that was an excelent Portunhol, he could voice chat spanish speakers just distorting portuguese with quite an ease....

    My EP didnt came from that explanation... Actually I made one PS, that besides the good explanation in my starts using Fi as if it was a perceveing function in Myers led better results than just using extraverted cognitive functions to determine Myers J/P (and I tested that exactly on Open Function Stack). And I didnt reached to the EP part based on that. The neutrality of J/P, the idea of one side J and one side P for everytype, belongs to Jung J/P. I already measured Jung J/P using the same principles of Open Function Stack (to be more specific, using Fe+Fi+Te+Ti<=>Ne+Ni+Se+Si), most people are neutral on Jung J/P and thats the reason I think Myers made switches on Jung J/P (and she made changes on E/I either, because as Reckful explained and I think that post is in TypoC Wiki, Jung E/I has a correlation with N/S, as E had a tendency to be related to S and N tend to be related to I; And that makes quite an achile heels for Ne and Si). A dichotomy where most people are neutral is not useful for MBTI purposes, but it was for Jung psychology, perhaps the firts months when she started the whole system, when the firsts persons in the world taking the very first MBTI tests, she realized that most people didnt had a preference for J/P and decided to swap it in a way that most people have J/P preferences. In your case, you are neutral on Jung J/P, with a balance in rational (Jung J) and irrational (Jung P) side as most people are. That shows in your cognitive functions, the irrational from intuition are up, the irrational from sensing are down, and the rational ones (Te,Ti,Fe,Fi) are always in the middle.

    The reason for EP was... it was simply because I observed that the higher your E, the higher was your P on your log. Actually, this has a deeper reason and is connected to my third typing method, but, I prefer to not share to not give too much clues about it, because there is a chance I will need this for personal use later (you two live on develop countries, even if you dont realize you get your living much easier than in Latin America, where only persons with a whole big lot of luck or that can inherit their jobs get a easier living while the rest live "with a headache" because its way harder to make a living; Im not the one that suffers the most, and I wouldnt be posting here if I was one of the most, but I still have plenty of headache, and Im being out of luck lately). However... "you can adapt your way of thinking to the situation at hand", my third method is supposed to get a type even with that, although my main idea first was to find a way to get the right type of a person with a lot of struggles, such as neuroticism>70 or apathy (emotion<10). And I started MBTI being apathetical - 16P thought I was INTJ at the beggining, and I thought I was a NT.. since my F is weak it is true that Im a little bit of NT... - so I really needed a bazuca to find my type and I made it by literally creating myself the bazuca =). It wasnt meant for these very adaptive cases but it should work either. But this method changes some deep meanings, because, you know, ENFP does no longer means having preference for E, N, F and P, but something different and that has to happen to justify the cases where an ENFP, gets, for example, ESFJ on a test (it happened on one of the 5-6 cases I could gather for sample... I only got 5-6 sadly).

    There is one thing although... For some odd reason, I started to really "believe it all" with this topic...
    It really got me sad that I realized that perhaps Ill never be ENFP (in the preference for E,N,F and P) while truly being ENFP because my enviroment and perhaps a not good choice of profession (because as you I didnt realize that I didnt clicked with most of engineers, I was different from them and perhaps not much compatible), although I buy the idea Robert A. Heinlein for me, I really never putted myself in "Im engineer" and all the sequence of that (which leads to "Im good at math", "I hate humanities", etc..). I think Robert is right as long as the person is not a Ne-tard (and we got lots of Ne-tards in the real world, the most common type in world is ISTJ which is a Ne-tard..). But getting back on subject, it makes me quite sad realize it, the possibility that I will never truly able of being myself - but perhaps Im not alone on that. Part of the problem with the ENFP personality for men is that ENFP is supposed to be and is mistakely taken as "feminine". Basically, the society has concepts of what is to be a man and what is to be a woman that doenst actually have much to do with truly being a man and truly being a woman and these misconcepts create a lot of headache for people on conservative enviroments full of extraverted SJs (althought the extraverted SJs doesnt fully explain that, it involves a lot of more stuff but the extraverted SJs play a big role on that) with the, unluckly, the "wrong" personality traits. And I am one of them. I have pseudo-feminine traits that I need to keep hiding and that has nothing to do with being gay or being a woman. There is even a music here were a woman sings... "Sou mais macho que muito homem"... "Im more male than many mens", the translation is something, but not exactly, like that. It seems that these standards doesnt realize that, if they end up reaching the conclusion that a woman is more men than an actually men, then there is something wrong with the whole concept of what is to be a man. Its like you reaching a conclusing that yellow is more blue than blue. But despise that, because these concepts are mostly pseudo-rational (people using these things praise themselves for a rationality that doesnt actually exist), they will be kept like that anyway. The same thing happens for some womans ISTP and INTP, usually the woman that are more men than I tend to be on these types, and it ends up that Im more woman than them, except they are still woman and Im still a man. Despise the whole concept being flawed, we are still forced to adapt to it. This seems to be my rant but my complete rant about me not being able to be ENFP is bigger than that, but it happens that you are at the same situation - you also have pseudo-feminine traits.
    "A big caveat: during many years, I thought “men are T”, I was good at numbers, I don’t wear my heart on my sleeve… Long story short, I never doubted my T back then. Later, I discovered that a substantial share of men are F (25-40% I read somewhere), so I re-framed it; I started comparing my judgment with other men’s, and now I’m much inclined to see me in the “sensible” male minority."
    And yeah, it pretty strikes me badly but Im accepting my need to be pseudo INTP sometimes... Actually more times than being myself. Still, I find Ti quite handy cognitive function.. Theres no directly measure about which cognitive functions you have skill, no test tests cognitive function skill, skill would be something like testing your ability to see patterns (N skills) or to perceive details (S skills) and deeper stuff, the tests only measure preferences. Im not bad at using Ti, although Im not really sure of that. I believe the preference and skill use of cognitive functions, or MBTI dichotomies if you want to get rid of cognitive functions, are different, so there must be some INTPs that are better ENFPs than I do and I should be a better INTP than some INTPs, and just to make sure the explanation is clear, in simple terms the INTPs that are better ENFPs than I have better social skills (mine are quite underdeveloped because I have been I for long time, but I was E in most of my childhood) and have better F, which is more or less emotional inteligence, than I. At the same time, I should have better thinking skills than some INTPs and being better at introverting, whatever that means. But I already talked wwwaayyy too much about myself now, but its super sad that it seems I truly wont be ENFP for my whole life, hope the conditions changes, or perhaps Ill be stubborn and try it and deal with the consequences even before reaching it.

  8. #18
    Remember, Humanity. Vendrah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    MBTI
    ANFP
    Enneagram
    592
    Posts
    912

    Default

    One other thing... There is a website, perhaps you already heard of it or I already mentioned it, that is a community of typing fictional characters and famous people. Its called personality-database.

    If you two were a fictional character, this community would say that you two are a bad written character

    It reminds me... This is not from your age, but from my generation "Naruto" is a popular anime. And in there, there is one character called Sasuke (but the pronounce is Saske), and this guy is simply the most commented (you can comment on the character´s page and type him in enneagram and MBTI from there) guy. There is a funny fight: Out of 669 votes today, 290 thinks he is ISFP and 262 thinks he is INTJ. I had written right: ISFP vs INTJ! And there are people "killing themselves" on the comments and somewhat saying one or another are ridiculous because of that. And some people just grap the popcorn and read the comments.

    I would answer that perhaps both are wrong, and would get a lot of downvotes if I did that, and that he is a Ni-Fi, but that would auto-imply that he is INFx which doesnt see the case. He is supposed to be the bad written character, because he has lots of alternate moments of ISFP and INTJ. And since, without realizing, that community is a little bit close mind and they follow the Grant Cognitive Stack (which means that they cant decide if the guy uses Fi-Se-Ni or Ni-Te-Fi). Perhaps this character isnt bad written, just unsusually dynamic.

    Here are some funny coments, even if you dont know who the guy is or never watched it:
    1: Guy A: "Sasuke is no INTJ. He might seem cool, aloof, uncaring, dark but he's just a product of others' manipulation. He's a tool. He's no mastermind. In fact, he's one of the lamest characters in the series. He's the Jar Jar Binks of Naruto."
    Guy B: ""He's the Jar Jar Binks of Naruto",should be the most cruel way to insult a character."

    2:
    Guy A: "Childish Fi use, Delusions of Ni, Te seems in him, and the Se inferior Points to his complete lack of sense of reality.

    A common autis... I mean, INTJ"
    Guy B: "agree with the INTJs being autist but he is ISFP"
    Guy C: "@GuyB NOOB"
    Guy B: "Only noobs would vote Sasuke as INTJ, literally."

    3:
    Guy A: "For the 28389th time the votes are being spammed by mistyped fruits of utter filth who think they are INTJs.
    Poor animals. I pity the dogs you are."
    Guy B: "Lol why do you hate INTJ’s so much"
    Guy A: "Hate is a strong word, I don't have that kind of energy to waste on subhumans.

    I 'pity' the INTJ wannabes (most of the "INTJs" on internet). Like I would pity a poor animal.

    The few real INTJs though are actual smart people and I have a mutual appreciation with every single one of them.

    I can count the real INTJs on this website on the the fingers of my hands."

    (...)
    YouAre(Not)INXJ: "all of this comments section... is Just pure art. each Day there is more and more people who is realizing that INXJ self-inserters are really pathetic, Those IXXP kids can't face the truth." [his arrogant comment on the kids is pure art as well]

    4:
    "Inferior Se doesn't want to make reaility anything, they live into the wonderland. (...) Having Se as Inferior Means than you are a Turtle Person."
    [INTJs and INFJs are supposed to all have inferior Se, so they are all suposed to be a turtle person. The guy kind of confirms that on other replies]

    5:
    "Emo=ISFP
    End of dicussion
    Close thread
    Discussion over"

    6: "Yesterday was INTJ
    Today is ISFP
    Tomorrow will be ISTP
    After tomorrow?? Who knows"

    7: "Um what? Why would any of us INTJ's want this loser categorized as one of us?

    He's an emotional whiny lil kid that doesn't think things through and bases all his decisions on 'feels'

    What's the most Emo category? ISFP I assume since that's the one he's tied with INTJ as

    He's ISFP, end of!"
    [eeeeeeemmmmoooooooooooo!]

    ...

    They deleted some of the bests comments, partially because they were offensive.

    And just to not you make think so bad about general MBTI community (I think that you already understand what Reckful cause is about - he posts stuff on at least 3 different forums), heres one interesting comment:
    "I think that sasuke switches from ISFP to INTJ throughout the show. He’s a very hard character to type in my opinion since a lot of events happens to him that changes his personality so it can get hard to navigate. However, not everyone stays in one type all the time. I think people can switch from one type to another depending on the situation. If you’re an INFJ, I also believe that your Fe can switch to Te if a life changing event happens to you. The count of Monte Cristo was believed to be an ISFP at the beginning of the book but after spending time in prison he becomes an INTJ."

  9. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noname3788 View Post
    Error 404 sensing not found... I just like how you actually managed to score 0 on S in this test. The other scores indicate weak preferences for T and P and moderate E preference. Actually, any of the 8 N types seems somewhat plausible, even though you don't seem to fit INFP or INTJ stereotypes, not even slightly. Taking Enneagram into account, type 5 is typical for INTx types, your second-highest result 7 is typical for ENxP's. I think you've already read Vendra's post about MBTI/Enneagram correlation, however you may want to keep in my mind that most of these correlation where done in typology communities, with people who typed themselves with functions, but in most cases function type and dichotomy type is identical. Also, enneagram is problaby not the most exact and reliable personality assessment, even at 300 questions Also, just to add something unrelated to tests, your writing style reminds we very much of INFx types, especially INFJ's. Doesn't fit into your latest test results, but fits quite well into my first impression of you that a single type code may not describe you accurately. If there's something you demonstrated here then it is that you can adapt your way of thinking to the situation at hand. It allows you to learn quickly, to think in a rational manner, but also to express warmth, tact and care when needed. However MBTI theory (=cognitive function stacks) tries to find your way of thinking and making decisions, and it cannot succeed if there's more than one way. And that's what makes typing you so damn difficult.

    Also, just wanted to say that you aren't boasting at all. It's actually quite the opposite, your style is quite humble, you respect other people, and you compliment other people. I guess you experienced that people react quite dismissive and maybe jelaous about your qualities, if they know them at all, and if they do they probably won't take your own problems seriously. As a consequence, you open up slowly about these topics, and generally only talk about it when other people mention it. Ofc I can't be sure whether it is actually the case here, but I guess it is, and it makes sense within the context. Maybe it could be a start towards getting to know more of yourself if you start researching and following your multiple interests
    Maybe @Vendrah has it right about you, @noname3788 , and me... you understand me very well because we are very alike! I don't know enough about you to be sure about that, maybe you already have some post about yourself around here that I could read?

    "Error 404 sensing not found" made me laugh! About your last comments, I can't relate to INFP - my wife is one, and even after 15 years knowing her, dominant Fi is a mystery to me. INTJ, as you know, was my first type back at the beginning of time, but I was never sold. Can I ask why you see it one of the least likely?

    In your first post IIRC you asked me why I wanted to know my type. It was a question that I needed to be reminded of, a very useful one. At the beginning I thought that it could be useful to learn more about types for better character development in my books, as a tool. But I immediately discovered that typing was very powerful, that it resonated with the people around me, their behaviour, their motives (I always end up connecting everything to everything else). And so I started trying it on myself... and here I am.

    But the answer is: I'm ok with not knowing my type. Type - in any system - is not the be-all end-all of the human essence. I believe Jung was onto something really deep - not just types and functions, I love his archetypes work, at multiple levels. However, if we believe what he wrote, that being extreme in any function is very unhealthy, the direct consequence would be that the easier is to find one's type, the clear one's preference are, the more unhealthy one is; on the other hand, the more one travels toward the middle, the more balanced one is, the better for one's psycologycal health; so being XXXX is the end of the journey! I'm not sure the typology community - especially Jungian - is aware of this.

    It's nice that you see INFJ in my writing style, I definitely take that as a compliment! I've read INFJ profiles and I can relate, even to some ENFJ things - like @Legion suggested. But NF description always sound like saints! It's soooo difficult to say yeah, I'm one of those. Perhaps it's enough to say "You can adapt your way of thinking to the situation at hand. It allows you to learn quickly, to think in a rational manner, but also to express warmth, tact and care when needed", it describes me pretty well. If that leads to no type, so be it.

    "Humble" is just another compliment that I take with gratitude. Your guess was also right about people being jealous and dismissive when relating to me. Not everybody, lukily. I do follow my multiple interests, I'm quite satisfied with it, I could say I'm happy with the live I live. That is something wierd to write down on a forum, but still, that's the truth.

    I feel this need to make an impact, or to get some sort of egotistic recognition, maybe, I don't know. Like with my novels, it's not that I want to "sell" more - I couldn't care less about the business itself - but when people tell me that they loved one character's internal struggle, or that what I wrote made them think, or simply that they had a good time reading, that gives me joy and pays me back for all the effort I put in all those pages.

    There's more to say, but it has to be in another post
    Likes Vendrah, noname3788 liked this post

  10. #20

    Default

    As usual, a lot of input from your side, @Vendrah .

    I can't keep up commenting on all the ideas, but I will add some random stuff that comes to mind. The dynamic J-P concept is intriguing. I'm open to see it as two funcions clashing, one "J" and another "P", but can't come to any meaningful conclusion.

    Your bimodal ENFP-INTP pattern is something I understand perfectly. And you're right about forgetting about living in the first world. Another thing to put in my little gratitude journal.
    Anyway, going back to the bimodal pattern, I'm sure it has to do with the T-F "tangle" that reckful explained so well somewere (I think it was Pesonality Caf&eacute; but maybe also somewere else). Briefly, maybe T-F is not just one dimension, or maybe it's messed up with male and female (because of social pressure or other external biases).

    Or maybe it has to do with our misunderstanding of what T and F mean. For example, I've always seen the IxFJ type given to fictional characters resembling the "protector" stereotype, for example in The Game of Thrones, Jon Snow being INFJ and Brienne of Tharth ISFJ. So they both should have Te as PoLR, which is surprising with their being warriors and fighters - Jon Snow should have even inferior Se, and many people say he's a textbook INFJ, being a reluctant hero.

    Anyway, it's not that I want to dig into fictional types, it's just that those two types seem absurd but on the other hand they make perfect sense if you frame T and F differently: Te and Fe can be similar, Je means somebody that wants to arrange the environment, being auxiliary means according to some perceived Pi framework. Then, Fe is just like Te but with human values first: a warrior could even use Fe to lead as a general, giving orders like Te to pursue a common goal in the battlefield, it's just that the goal has human values first, not cold rational efficiency.

    But then, when we apply those concepts IRL, we say "I can't be F, I'm not emotional, or I am rational, logical", especially we guys. If you define F in those terms, then I'm F to the bone. Being F doesn't mean you don't understand numbers or formula, or being moody, or acting in an irrational way, or deciding according to "feelings". It's a stereotype, IMHO.
    Also, as being Limbic in the Big 5 Neuroticism obfuscates your real type, making you look F even if you're not, being Calm give a bias in the other direction, making you look T even if you're F.

    Unrelated to this, if you indulge me, I'm giving you a short personal anecdote. I was browsing Typologycentral and I found a link to a nice short MBTI test by Personality Pathways so I gave it I try. At the beginning, it says:

    Determining one's natural Myers Briggs Personality Type is frequently complicated by our life-long learning experiences. The classic question is: " Am I this way because I learned it or is this just the way I am?"

    In reviewing the comparisons in our personality assessment, you may find yourself drawn equally to opposing personality preference choices. In such cases I suggest you try to think back to how you were before the age of 14 or even younger if you can recall. The rationale for this suggestion is the fact that by the time we are 3 years old, the core of our cognitive organization is well-fixed. . . although the brain continues to allow some plasticity into puberty and in some cases throughout life.

    After the onset of puberty, our adult learning begins to overlay our core personality - which is when the blending of nature and nurture becomes more evident. For some people, this "learning" serves to strengthen what is already there, but with others it produces multiple faces to personality. Discovering or rediscovering this innate core of yourself is part of the journey of using personality types to enrich your life.
    That suddenly reminded me of when I started learing to write in first grade (6 yo, that's the custom in Italy). I'm left handed (very much), so I started writing mirror-like: right to left, letters turned left-right around the vertical axis. I was gently corrected, so I started writing left to right, letters still turned; eventually, I got it "right". But if you see the way I write now, it's a conundrum of akward inventions: hand coming from above the line and covering what I've just written, counterintuitive pen point movement, circles done the other way round... like I had to reinvent the whole thing, finding my way in a system that was not invented for how I work internally.
    Can you see the metaphor?
    It's the way I feel. Not necessarily misunderstood, or isolated; simply different. So that I always have to find my path to deliever the expected result, my way. In the process, many times I streamline what's there, so that the result is great nonetheless.
    I share it becaus I think it's window on my cognition, which is supposed to be what all this typology jazz is all about.

    Now, which type is it? Who knows!
    But it explains perfectly my bimodal J-P pattern: being J when the environment calls on it, being P otherwise. Now that I write it, it sound like J on the outside, P on the inside; that would be IJ, right? Inner perciever, outer judger? If my earlier take on F-T is right, that would confirm the INFJ gut feeling of @noname3788 , also @Legion 's ENTJ - he saw Fe but that is just the outside.

    Food for thought.
    Likes Vendrah liked this post

Similar Threads

  1. Please help me type myself...
    By Ellyn in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: 08-26-2019, 03:32 AM
  2. Hi guys, Please help me type myself
    By Elle00 in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 02-11-2018, 08:36 AM
  3. **please help me type myself ?!
    By e.lee.sa in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-19-2015, 06:09 PM
  4. Please help me type myself.
    By Noon in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-24-2010, 11:28 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