Would you like to type me?

[Pionart]

I'm not typing you by your self description really, i am looking at your function order and then backing it up with what you said. Checking for consistensy.
Its possible that youre an INTJ, but in this thread you have been writing as an INTP.
We are not purely one type or another. But so far i havent seen much to suggest INTJ.
I guess INTPs are usually calm, yeah. Thats the main thing that stood out about what you wrote.

 

[Falcon112]

Ah, okay. Honestly I wasn't convinced to be any of the types, so my turbulency makes it difficult.
Being calm or not is also the thing connected to life experience (or even brain activity) rather than perception, though. So it doesn't have to determine not being an INTP, on the other hand. We have all of the functions on various levels of development, so most of people (especially mentally healthy ones) have both their own feelings and want to be close to other humans, are focused on the reality and their own thoughts. That's what I meant.
In order to understand my functions, I also often compared my way of thinking with people around me. Either these people are mistyped or Ti isn't my thing.

I used to see the first function as the one you see the world through. You don't even think about it, because it's natural. The second one would be used to interact with the world, to communicate (I'm not sure about extroverts here, but probably no difference). The third one reminded me of a teen or a spoiled kid, the one that feels ignored and reminds you of its existence in unexpected moments. And the fourth one is here but not really visible, often clumsy and rather forgotten.

 

[Vendrah]

As I said, I think J is somewhat weak, so INTP isnt a bad fit, but I think INTJ is a better fit.

I've heard that INTJs are seen as "strong thinkers" but I can't get why if Te is their second function. Ti doms I know have this logical inner consistency which is very visible in discussions with them. It's hard to discuss with them because they are very confident in their opinions. My primary goal in discussion is to find the common ground and explain all of the misunderstandings. Differences on the definitions level lead to really long arguments, which could've been avoided if people explain to each other how they understand the used terminology.
Ti (and Fi) is also the reason why I couldn't understand why INTJs are seen as people who hate hypocrisy instead of IxxPs. Ti wants to make your beliefs sensible and logical, Fi wants to be authentic. If it was about Fi, why not INFP? If it is about being a thinker with a highly developed Fi, why not ISTJs, too?

I can see all eight functions in me - because there are eight, not four. The main problem is how to sort them.

Well, the community does a mix of 3 different theories that somewhat clash to each other and that is a source of great confusion. Time for me to explain them separately:
1) Jung Typology
2) MBTI
3) "The Stack" (Harold Grant Stack)
These 3 have conflicts between each other.

1) Jung Typology: Jung Typology is consisted in 8 base types, as described in chapter X - each one is a pure dom for each cognitive function. However, Jung J/P is based on the cognitive functions: One is a judging-rational type if the base type, or the dom-function, is a judging function (Fi,Fe,Ti or Te), or one is a perceiving-irrational type if the base type, or the dom function, is a perceiving function (Ni,Ne,Si,Se). At the end of chapter X, Jung mentions that the 8 pure types arent supposed to be common and adds the observation of the auxiliary function. However, Jung writing is unclear. So, on the auxiliary function, Jung states clearly that the auxiliary function is the opposite of the dominant function in terms of Judging and Perceiving; So, if the person is a rational type (Fi,Fe,Ti or Te dominant), then the auxiliary is a Perceiving function (Ni,Ne,Si,Se). Jung, however, never cleared up what happens in terms of Extroversion/Introversion. The community interprets that the auxiliary function is the opposite in terms of E/I, so, for example, a Ni-dom will get an Extrovert function; But there is another interpretation from the book that states that it is in the same direction (Introvert too); And there is a loose and literal interpretation that can be both, so the pairs for Ni can be Ti,Te,Fi or Fe, which gets 32 types instead (I follow this one because it represents the tests better).
Jung also states that the rise of a dom-function means the suppression of its opposite function (opposite in every aspect but on Jung J/P), and this function is the inferior function. And, from another book, in another context, Jung very quickly mention that the "inferior function has a pair too", and I dont know if he or the community or Harold-Grant called it "the tertiary" function."What about the other 4 functions?" Jung states that people 'start' with the 8 functions undifferentiated, or, basically, they are neither an inferior achile-heels nor dominant (in other words, we use them some few times), and then they differentiate by the rise of the primary function, by the suppression of the inferior function due to the rise of the primary function, the rise of the auxiliary of the primary function and the inferior function pair. The primary function, its auxiliary, the inferior and its pair are the differentiated function; The other 4 are the undifferentiated functions. Jung didnt seem much worried to really draw a stack, so there is this double-category where the attention is towards the differentiated functions and the undifferentiated are pretty much ignored. So, the basic Jung stack is, for Ni-dom type (same pattern for rest):
Ni-(one of the Thinking functions)-(undifferentiated functions)-(one of the feeling functions)-(Se)
OR in general terms:
(Dominant function)-(Auxiliary function)-(undifferentiated functions)-(Tertiary, that is the inferior pair)-(Inferior function)

Note that the inferior function is known for being the achile-heels, so if we were to merge the undifferentiated functions with the differentiated functions as order of strength, the superior function is supposed to come last and the tertiary is supposed to come right after the inferior because it is its pair. So, the term 'tertiary' only works for a stack with only 4 differentiated functions. And also note that there is no 'INTJ' in Jung typology, such name doesnt exist and the same for all other types. What there is is a Ni-dom with auxiliary thinking.

2) MBTI: MBTI had reformed Jung in many aspects and had dropped the cognitive functions entirely, plus switched the meaning of Judging and Perceiving. MBTI works in dichotomy: You are E or I, N or S, T or F, J or P. In MBTI, you are a Perceiver or a Judger based on a table comparing the J traits vs the P traits, but these are more focused by your outwards look in general, and have more Te,Fe,Ne and Se traits instead, plus additional stuff (that is why the organized vs disorganized is important). The type codes comes from MBTI, not Jung, so it is here that comes the INTJ type, which is preference for Introversion, preference for Intuition, preference for Thinking, preference for Judging. It doesnt matter it is Ni-dom or Ti-dom or Te-dom or another function dom. That is why Im saying you can be INTJ without being a Ni-dom.

Oh, Myers is considered soft-scientific because they have tests with things such as test-retest rate, internal consistencies and correlations, including dichotomies independencies (like "being detail oriented" correlates with "being practical" and does not correlate with "being organized"). It is soft because these independencies and internal consistencies are tendencies, not laws, since one can be detail oriented and not practical, although that is unusual.

3) Grant-Stack: Grant Stack tries to merge Jung typology, Jung functions and MBTI by drawing a stack for each MBTI type.
First mismatch of Jung on the Grant side is to put the 'tertiary' as if this function is really the third function in terms of strength and attributing positive qualities to it ignoring that it is the pair of the inferior function, that works as an achile-heel.
Second mismatch from Jung is that sometimes, at least a few sources, states that there are subconscious functions and conscious functions, and some of them lists the inferior as if it were conscious, while it is unconscious in Jung.
Third mismatch is attributing names like 'trickster' and blah blah blah. Jung stated that people have tendency to see their inner demons in inferior functions and to see it as 'demoniac' but he never stated that the inferior is demoniac and there isnt any other references to archetypes and the other cognitive functions, specially on the undifferentiated ones that runs out ignored.
Fourth, Jung pretty much ignores the undifferentiated functions, the order of them pretty much doesnt matter, and my 'A' here is that their order more or less are influenced about how much you need them, they contribute to 'individualize' you, but also your MBTI type influences them too.
Fifth, and important, the inferior function is known for being 'inferior', and Grant Stack list it not in the most inferior position (on the complete versions).
So, Grant stack is different from the Jung typology, it does not follow it.

However, MBTI doesnt need the Grant Stack at all (what matter is I vs E, N vs S, T vs F and J vs P).
And what happens is that, in either Google Scholar articles and on the cognitive function tests on the internet, Grant Stack does not show up with the proper patterns.
People have it so much mixed that there is not much attention if the properly interpreted Jung results, as I had written earlier, really happens. A lot of people just invalidate the whole cognitive functions because the Grant Stack does not show up, but the Grant Stack not showing up does not invalidate Jung Typology and neither cognitive functions on their own.

That is it for the theorical department! I had only mentioned the main theories, I interpret them using more or less some of my own ways, although they are not much Anti-Jung (and ignoring Grant entirely). Well, that was longer than expected, but I hope to clear it enough. So, the affirmation that INTJ is the most Thinking type I had done based on the data I could gather from the internet - dichotomy results that I gathered from 16P, Sakinorva cognitive function test overall stats shared by the author of the test and keys2cognition stats that I gathered out there.
For that I interpret thinking as MBTI thinking and I use the conversion (Te+Ti-Fe-Fi) for the cognitive functions. I posted it here:
https://www.typologycentral.com/for...ies-stats-studies-possibly-5.html#post3238632

 

[Falcon112]

As I said, I think J is somewhat weak, so INTP isnt a bad fit, but I think INTJ is a better fit.



Well, the community does a mix of 3 different theories that somewhat clash to each other and that is a source of great confusion. Time for me to explain them separately:
1) Jung Typology
2) MBTI
3) "The Stack" (Harold Grant Stack)
These 3 have conflicts between each other.

1) Jung Typology: Jung Typology is consisted in 8 base types, as described in chapter X - each one is a pure dom for each cognitive function. However, Jung J/P is based on the cognitive functions: One is a judging-rational type if the base type, or the dom-function, is a judging function (Fi,Fe,Ti or Te), or one is a perceiving-irrational type if the base type, or the dom function, is a perceiving function (Ni,Ne,Si,Se). At the end of chapter X, Jung mentions that the 8 pure types arent supposed to be common and adds the observation of the auxiliary function. However, Jung writing is unclear. So, on the auxiliary function, Jung states clearly that the auxiliary function is the opposite of the dominant function in terms of Judging and Perceiving; So, if the person is a rational type (Fi,Fe,Ti or Te dominant), then the auxiliary is a Perceiving function (Ni,Ne,Si,Se). Jung, however, never cleared up what happens in terms of Extroversion/Introversion. The community interprets that the auxiliary function is the opposite in terms of E/I, so, for example, a Ni-dom will get an Extrovert function; But there is another interpretation from the book that states that it is in the same direction (Introvert too); And there is a loose and literal interpretation that can be both, so the pairs for Ni can be Ti,Te,Fi or Fe, which gets 32 types instead (I follow this one because it represents the tests better).
Jung also states that the rise of a dom-function means the suppression of its opposite function (opposite in every aspect but on Jung J/P), and this function is the inferior function. And, from another book, in another context, Jung very quickly mention that the "inferior function has a pair too", and I dont know if he or the community or Harold-Grant called it "the tertiary" function."What about the other 4 functions?" Jung states that people 'start' with the 8 functions undifferentiated, or, basically, they are neither an inferior achile-heels nor dominant (in other words, we use them some few times), and then they differentiate by the rise of the primary function, by the suppression of the inferior function due to the rise of the primary function, the rise of the auxiliary of the primary function and the inferior function pair. The primary function, its auxiliary, the inferior and its pair are the differentiated function; The other 4 are the undifferentiated functions. Jung didnt seem much worried to really draw a stack, so there is this double-category where the attention is towards the differentiated functions and the undifferentiated are pretty much ignored. So, the basic Jung stack is, for Ni-dom type (same pattern for rest):
Ni-(one of the Thinking functions)-(undifferentiated functions)-(one of the feeling functions)-(Se)
OR in general terms:
(Dominant function)-(Auxiliary function)-(undifferentiated functions)-(Tertiary, that is the inferior pair)-(Inferior function)

Note that the inferior function is known for being the achile-heels, so if we were to merge the undifferentiated functions with the differentiated functions as order of strength, the superior function is supposed to come last and the tertiary is supposed to come right after the inferior because it is its pair. So, the term 'tertiary' only works for a stack with only 4 differentiated functions. And also note that there is no 'INTJ' in Jung typology, such name doesnt exist and the same for all other types. What there is is a Ni-dom with auxiliary thinking.

2) MBTI: MBTI had reformed Jung in many aspects and had dropped the cognitive functions entirely, plus switched the meaning of Judging and Perceiving. MBTI works in dichotomy: You are E or I, N or S, T or F, J or P. In MBTI, you are a Perceiver or a Judger based on a table comparing the J traits vs the P traits, but these are more focused by your outwards look in general, and have more Te,Fe,Ne and Se traits instead, plus additional stuff (that is why the organized vs disorganized is important). The type codes comes from MBTI, not Jung, so it is here that comes the INTJ type, which is preference for Introversion, preference for Intuition, preference for Thinking, preference for Judging. It doesnt matter it is Ni-dom or Ti-dom or Te-dom or another function dom. That is why Im saying you can be INTJ without being a Ni-dom.

Oh, Myers is considered soft-scientific because they have tests with things such as test-retest rate, internal consistencies and correlations, including dichotomies independencies (like "being detail oriented" correlates with "being practical" and does not correlate with "being organized"). It is soft because these independencies and internal consistencies are tendencies, not laws, since one can be detail oriented and not practical, although that is unusual.

3) Grant-Stack: Grant Stack tries to merge Jung typology, Jung functions and MBTI by drawing a stack for each MBTI type.
First mismatch of Jung on the Grant side is to put the 'tertiary' as if this function is really the third function in terms of strength and attributing positive qualities to it ignoring that it is the pair of the inferior function, that works as an achile-heel.
Second mismatch from Jung is that sometimes, at least a few sources, states that there are subconscious functions and conscious functions, and some of them lists the inferior as if it were conscious, while it is unconscious in Jung.
Third mismatch is attributing names like 'trickster' and blah blah blah. Jung stated that people have tendency to see their inner demons in inferior functions and to see it as 'demoniac' but he never stated that the inferior is demoniac and there isnt any other references to archetypes and the other cognitive functions, specially on the undifferentiated ones that runs out ignored.
Fourth, Jung pretty much ignores the undifferentiated functions, the order of them pretty much doesnt matter, and my 'A' here is that their order more or less are influenced about how much you need them, they contribute to 'individualize' you, but also your MBTI type influences them too.
Fifth, and important, the inferior function is known for being 'inferior', and Grant Stack list it not in the most inferior position (on the complete versions).
So, Grant stack is different from the Jung typology, it does not follow it.

However, MBTI doesnt need the Grant Stack at all (what matter is I vs E, N vs S, T vs F and J vs P).
And what happens is that, in either Google Scholar articles and on the cognitive function tests on the internet, Grant Stack does not show up with the proper patterns.
People have it so much mixed that there is not much attention if the properly interpreted Jung results, as I had written earlier, really happens. A lot of people just invalidate the whole cognitive functions because the Grant Stack does not show up, but the Grant Stack not showing up does not invalidate Jung Typology and neither cognitive functions on their own.

That is it for the theorical department! I had only mentioned the main theories, I interpret them using more or less some of my own ways, although they are not much Anti-Jung (and ignoring Grant entirely). Well, that was longer than expected, but I hope to clear it enough. So, the affirmation that INTJ is the most Thinking type I had done based on the data I could gather from the internet - dichotomy results that I gathered from 16P, Sakinorva cognitive function test overall stats shared by the author of the test and keys2cognition stats that I gathered out there.
For that I interpret thinking as MBTI thinking and I use the conversion (Te+Ti-Fe-Fi) for the cognitive functions. I posted it here:
https://www.typologycentral.com/for...ies-stats-studies-possibly-5.html#post3238632

Ah, so that is what you meant! I thought that MBTI is called "16 personalities" and called the Grant Stack "MBTI" instead (if I got it correctly). I found 16p inaccurate. Here I always scored as an INTJ-T with 70% I, 65% N, 65% T and 95% J. It would be the opposite of what you said. I explained this high J as Te manifest.
Which of these three described approaches to typing you find most reliable? Jung?

 

[Vendrah]

Ah, so that is what you meant! I thought that MBTI is called "16 personalities" and called the Grant Stack "MBTI" instead (if I got it correctly). I found 16p inaccurate. Here I always scored as an INTJ-T with 70% I, 65% N, 65% T and 95% J. It would be the opposite of what you said. I explained this high J as Te manifest.
Which of these three described approaches to typing you find most reliable? Jung?

Official MBTI is paid, and its quite expensive.
16personalities is a website that has more or less of a free copy that doesnt use the MBTI name to avoid copyright and use slightly different version of MBTI, but it is the MBTI no doubt.
But the 16Personalities test lacks facet and it is more superficial than the official MBTI.

The most reliable is MBTI, I would say truity MBTI is the best n my opinion, but its a little bit superficial. Even the official MBTI does works on stereotypes, partially because in MBTI, J and P are pretty much determinate by stereotypes. I like the cognitive functions because they give more depth to the mix, but I interpret them on a loose way instead (more closer to match the test result).
So, I drifted a little, but I consider MBTI most reliable, Jung typology less reliable and deeper and Grant as unreliable and I do ignore it - mostly. I only consider the part where it agrees with Jung typology.
However I do have several different lens and points of view, I know where they connect and clash, and I like to use them at the same time, to see if everything fits. I can use that to know if a person is self-reporting badly too, which is not your case. The problem is that explaining them would be too long. But I do use the functions, but in, like, 3 different methods (actually, its 4). The simplest one is to simply convert the results into dichotomy by summing the functions - you sum E functions vs I functions, N functions vs S functions (Ne+Ni-Se-Si for intuition) and so on. The other one I had created stacks merging the 32 types (although I didnt know that on that time and phrased it differently), but they are not rigid and the person is typed on the closest match. So, for example, a Ni dom thinker can have Te or Ti, which merged gives Ni-Te-Ti as the first 3 functions for INTJ.

A good note about Jung typology is that there is room for two things that I omitted in my resume:
a) A swap on the first and second function, Jung stated that almost direct.
b) A skip on the secondary function - the secondary function mix itself on the undifferentiated ones. Jung states this one directly as far as I remember.
So there is a suppression hypothesis for Ni and a hyper stimulation of Te or Ti on Jung typology.
The problem is that Jung does not really made any proper way to determinate whatever that happens or not, Jung relates these kind of phenom with unhealthy symptoms, the problem is that none of the predictions that he made make much sense in mental health terms, some of them could be even a product of environment adaptation.
So, dont jump to the conclusions that you are on "unhealthy loop" or any sort of these things. You cant do that deduction even if that is a popular one, you can at best speculate that there could be something wrong. Taking a look on Big Five neuroticism and search for "personality disorders" and mental health stuff is way better and more reliable.

 

[Falcon112]

Official MBTI is paid, and its quite expensive.
16personalities is a website that has more or less of a free copy that doesnt use the MBTI name to avoid copyright and use slightly different version of MBTI, but it is the MBTI no doubt.
But the 16Personalities test lacks facet and it is more superficial than the official MBTI.

The most reliable is MBTI, I would say truity MBTI is the best n my opinion, but its a little bit superficial. Even the official MBTI does works on stereotypes, partially because in MBTI, J and P are pretty much determinate by stereotypes. I like the cognitive functions because they give more depth to the mix, but I interpret them on a loose way instead (more closer to match the test result).
So, I drifted a little, but I consider MBTI most reliable, Jung typology less reliable and deeper and Grant as unreliable and I do ignore it - mostly. I only consider the part where it agrees with Jung typology.
However I do have several different lens and points of view, I know where they connect and clash, and I like to use them at the same time, to see if everything fits. I can use that to know if a person is self-reporting badly too, which is not your case. The problem is that explaining them would be too long. But I do use the functions, but in, like, 3 different methods (actually, its 4). The simplest one is to simply convert the results into dichotomy by summing the functions - you sum E functions vs I functions, N functions vs S functions (Ne+Ni-Se-Si for intuition) and so on. The other one I had created stacks merging the 32 types (although I didnt know that on that time and phrased it differently), but they are not rigid and the person is typed on the closest match. So, for example, a Ni dom thinker can have Te or Ti, which merged gives Ni-Te-Ti as the first 3 functions for INTJ.

A good note about Jung typology is that there is room for two things that I omitted in my resume:
a) A swap on the first and second function, Jung stated that almost direct.
b) A skip on the secondary function - the secondary function mix itself on the undifferentiated ones. Jung states this one directly as far as I remember.
So there is a suppression hypothesis for Ni and a hyper stimulation of Te or Ti on Jung typology.
The problem is that Jung does not really made any proper way to determinate whatever that happens or not, Jung relates these kind of phenom with unhealthy symptoms, the problem is that none of the predictions that he made make much sense in mental health terms, some of them could be even a product of environment adaptation.
So, dont jump to the conclusions that you are on "unhealthy loop" or any sort of these things. You cant do that deduction even if that is a popular one, you can at best speculate that there could be something wrong. Taking a look on Big Five neuroticism and search for "personality disorders" and mental health stuff is way better and more reliable.

Thanks for your explanation and typing, it's been informative. Using Big Five and personality disorders is what I've done so far. I just don't like having unanswered questions, so I was digging a bit.
If it was up to me to say which functions I have, I'd say Te>Ne>Ni>Fi. And about the roles? I'm trying to match them, but it doesn't make much sense.

 

[Vendrah]

Thanks for your explanation and typing, it's been informative. Using Big Five and personality disorders is what I've done so far. I just don't like having unanswered questions, so I was digging a bit.
If it was up to me to say which functions I have, I'd say Te>Ne>Ni>Fi. And about the roles? I'm trying to match them, but it doesn't make much sense.

Roles..?

 

[Falcon112]

Third mismatch is attributing names like 'trickster' and blah blah blah. Jung stated that people have tendency to see their inner demons in inferior functions and to see it as 'demoniac' but he never stated that the inferior is demoniac and there isnt any other references to archetypes and the other cognitive functions, specially on the undifferentiated ones that runs out ignored.

I meant the archetypes. I wonder if these were part of original jungian theory and their meaning had been kept or is it something new and so are the names (which can be confusing). Nevermind

 

[Vendrah]

I meant the archetypes. I wonder if these were part of original jungian theory and their meaning had been kept or is it something new and so are the names (which can be confusing). Nevermind

Yes, archetypes exists in Jungian theory.
But Jung never linked them with any cognitive function or any cognitive function position.