User Tag List

First 12345 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 58

  1. #21
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    4 so
    EII Ne


    HI Ellyn-

    You sound a lot like what I do and feel. I am an INFJ. I am a very organized person who loves details, structure, makes plans (sometimes I can be spontaneous tho), I love art and am an artist. I tend to think long before I speak, choose my words wisely so I don't step on someone else's toes, I always worry about hurting someone else's feelings. I over prepare myself in new situations and often prepare myself for scenarios that never actually happen, so usually I set myself up for the worst so that if it does result in a more positive way I won't be so angry or disappointed. You'll have to go online and take more than one or two personality tests. I have taken about 3 and I have taken a few over the years and my result is always INFJ. And Yes I tend to overthink things especially when I am by myself for too long.. (like today). At work I always hear "you are overthinking it" which I just cannot help it! I am highly intuitive and an emotional person, often get angry easily mostly at myself. I worry about what others think of me when I meet new people and when I don't hear from him I figure he suddenly dislikes me..
    Likes Ellyn liked this post

  2. #22
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2016


    Could the description I read in Personalityjunkie about ISTP, be also true for ISFP?

  3. #23
    The Devil of TypoC EJCC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    174 sp/so


    Leaning towards agreeing with @Hawthorne so far.

    Here's a much more thorough description of IxTPs "in the grip": [INTP] Recognizing the Inferior Function in INTP

    And one for IxFPs: [INFP] Recognizing the Inferior Function in IFPs

    Let me/us know which one you relate to more!
    ”We know a little about a lot of things; just enough to make us dangerous.”

    ESTJ - LSE - ESTj (mbti/socionics)
    1w2/7w8/4w5 sp/so (enneagram)
    want to ask me something? go for it!
    Likes Ellyn liked this post

  4. #24
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2016


    Quote Originally Posted by EJCC View Post
    Leaning towards agreeing with @Hawthorne so far.

    Here's a much more thorough description of IxTPs "in the grip": [INTP] Recognizing the Inferior Function in INTP

    And one for IxFPs: [INFP] Recognizing the Inferior Function in IFPs

    Let me/us know which one you relate to more!

    Hi again!
    Well, I read both of them (most parts), & the IXFP was closer to me!
    However, The "not being able to control emotions & not being able to stop them sometimes" part of IXTP, was kinda me.

    But I'm really confused these days.
    Some ppl have also suggested INFJ, INTJ & INFP to me.

    Some ppl tell me that my strong Ni, could most likely mean INXJ.

    & some others tell me that INFP could be possible due to my love for creativity, innovation, suggesting good ideas (sometimes) & planning for future (even if it's pointless).

    I'm really confused now!!!

  5. #25
    Senior Member reckful's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013


    I think you're an INF, and not far from the middle on J/P. I've maybe got a mild J lean at the moment, but the posts I've read have really been a mix in that department. I'd also say you're pretty clearly above-average in Neuroticism (more on that in the fifth post of the following five-post set).

    And I think your F may also be on the mild side, and a T wouldn't shock me — but as further discussed below, I think T/F is the messiest of the four MBTI dimensions, and the one where it may make the most sense to expect that a lot of people may effectively be T's with respect to one or more T/F "facets" and F's with respect to the rest.

    I've looked at some of your PerC threads and may be doing a follow-up post with some specific reactions to a few things, but the next series of posts is the more general input that I told you I'd be posting this past weekend — using your thread as an excuse to round up some mostly-recycled stuff I've been meaning to copy over to TC.


    • A 5-part post with some input on all four of the MBTI dimensions and a few other type-related issues.
    • A separate 2-part "intro to T/F" after that.
    • A separate 2-part J/P roundup after that.
    • And a final post on the idea that changing from J to P (or vice versa) flips all your functions.

    Assuming you're not really questioning your introversion at this point, you may well want to skip the E/I stuff (at least) in the first post.

    A-a-and more generally... please be advised that I'm a hardcore T myself, and you should definitely not feel the slightest obligation to read any of my posts or follow any of my links beyond what you'd otherwise be motivated to do for your own selfish reasons. It may look like I must have spent a lot of time putting this set of posts together, but (1) it's certified 95% recycled, and (2) again, I'll be linking to this stuff in the future (in other threads) and wanted it over here for that purpose, regardless of how much or how little use you may end up having for it.

    Also: to the extent that you do want to spend any time reading my posts and/or replying, there is no rush from my standpoint. Imma mostly be away from the forum for much of August, and might not be doing any further follow-up on your type until September in any case.
    Likes Ellyn liked this post

  6. #26
    Senior Member reckful's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013


    [1 of 5]


    You've taken some function-based MBTI tests, and I already noted (in post 7) that the official MBTI is really the only MBTI test with a lot of psychometric support behind it.

    Dario Nardi's one of the leading cognitive functions guys (as you may know), and his test is arguably the most-linked-to cognitive functions test, but as further discussed in the spoiler in this post, INTJs typically get high Te scores and high Ti scores (with Te not substantially favored over Ti), when they take Nardi's test. They also tend to get high Ni scores and high Ne scores (with Ni not substantially favored over Ne). And INFJs often get Fi scores that are as high or higher than their Fe scores. And all the IN types tend to relate pretty strongly to Ti. And so on. I'm theoretically an "Ni-dom," but Te and Ti were my two highest scores on Nardi's test.

    As I understand it, there has never been a cognitive functions test where the results come anywhere close to lining up with the Harold Grant model expectations, where INTJs are supposedly Ni-Te-Fi-Se and INTPs are supposedly Ti-Ne-Si-Fe.

    I've been involved in forum "type me" exercises for six years now, and they often include people posting their results from a variety of tests, some dichotomy-based and some function-based. And that experience has led me to conclude that, assuming someone has reasonably well-defined preferences, they're more likely to correctly type themselves using dichotomy-based tests than tests (or analysis) based on the functions. And if they've got one or more preferences that are in or near the middle, I think dichotomy-based tests are more likely to correctly indicate that situation as well.


    Your shyness is clearly a dominant element of your personality, and it's not uncommon to hear that introversion and shyness are not the same. And that's true. For one thing, there's no clear, generally-agreed-on definition of shyness, and for another, introverts may make up something close to half the population, but when most people refer to "shy people," they're talking about a substantially smaller group.

    And maybe most importantly, introversion, like the other MBTI (and Big Five) dimensions, is really a multifaceted cluster of personality characteristics, and it's a mistake to try to boil any of those dimensions down to just one or two of their facets.

    That said, it's also fair to say that, while many or most introverts aren't all that shy (partly depending on how you define shyness), most shy people are introverts — and it's probably fair to say that the likeliest candidates for noteworthy levels of shyness and/or social anxiety are people who are both significantly introverted and above-average in neuroticism (like you).

    I'm a neurotic introvert, and so was Jung, and it's maybe worth noting that Jung wasn't really a believer in the possibility of "shy extraverts" and "outgoing introverts." Here's how Jung described extraverts and introverts:

    [Extraverts and introverts] are so different and present such a striking contrast that their existence becomes quite obvious even to the layman once it has been pointed out. Everyone knows those reserved, inscrutable, rather shy people who form the strongest possible contrast to the open, sociable, jovial, or at least friendly and approachable characters who are on good terms with everybody, or quarrel with everybody, but always relate to them in some way and in turn are affected by them.

    Jung believed that extraversion and introversion were products of evolution, and had evolved to produce two contrasting sets of behaviors, with introverts hardwired to have "a hesitant, reflective, retiring nature that keeps itself to itself, shrinks from objects, is always slightly on the defensive and prefers to hide behind mistrustful scrutiny"; and extraverts hardwired to have "an outgoing, candid, and accommodating nature that adapts easily to a given situation, quickly forms attachments, and ... will often venture forth with careless confidence into unknown situations."

    Jung viewed extraversion/introversion as the most fundamental division underlying his types, and spent more of Psychological Types talking about the personality characteristics he thought extraverts tended to have in common and introverts tended to have in common than he spent talking about all eight of the functions put together. And it's true that Jung assigned too many aspects of personality to E/I, but he was right to view E/I as a multifaceted dimension, and Myers also recognized that — and any MBTI source that tells you that E/I is basically just about where you get your energy, man is an MBTI source you should cross off your list.

    For a longer introduction to E/I that does more justice to its multifacetedness (including an expanded collection of Jung quotes), see this post.

    Here's one paragraph from that post:

    Another complicating factor when it comes to sociability is that both E/I and T/F have a significant impact, on average and all other things being equal, on somebody's propensity to engage in social activity, with EFs being the most social, ITs the least, and ETs and IFs in between. (And as long as I'm rambling, I'd say male/female and S/N can also, each in its own way, have some influence on someone's social propensities, with the result that I'd be inclined to peg female ESFs as the likeliest social butterflies and male INTs — like me — as the likeliest MBTI candidates for hermithood.)

    (And as a wonkish clarification that maybe should have been in that post, it's pretty clear that Jung was above-average in neuroticism, and that he considered at least some of his neurotic characteristics part of introversion. More importantly, I'd say, Jung also viewed much of what you'd think of as the concrete/abstract component of S/N as part of E/I. So when Jung describes "introverts" in Psychological Types, his descriptions tend to be better matches for neurotic INs than for introverts in general.)

    Here are the five MBTI "Step II" E/I facets:

    • Sociable
    • Congenial
    • Introduce people
    • Reserved
    • Low-key
    • Are introduced
    • Demonstrative
    • Easier to know
    • Self-revealing
    • Controlled
    • Harder to know
    • Private
    • Want to belong
    • Broad circle
    • Join groups
    • Seek intimacy
    • One-on-one
    • Find individuals
    • Interactive
    • Want contact
    • Listen and speak
    • Onlooker
    • Prefer space
    • Read and write
    • Lively
    • Energetic
    • Seek spotlight
    • Calm
    • Enjoy solitude
    • Seek background

    And if you want to read the full descriptions of those facets in the Step II Manual, you can find those in this PerC post.

    Here are McCrae & Costa, creators of the most well-known Big Five test (the NEO-PI-R), summarizing extraversion and introversion:

    Extraverts are sociable but sociability is only one of the traits that comprise the domain of Extraversion. In addition to liking people and preferring large groups and gatherings, extraverts are also assertive, active, and talkative. They like excitement and stimulation and tend to be cheerful in disposition. They are upbeat, energetic, and optimistic. Salespeople represent the prototypic extraverts in our culture, and the E domain scale is strongly correlated with interest in enterprising occupations.

    While it is easy to convey the characteristics of the extravert, the introvert is less easy to portray. In some respects introversion should be seen as the absence of extraversion rather than what might be assumed to be its opposite. Thus, introverts are reserved rather than unfriendly, independent rather than followers, even‐paced rather than sluggish. Introverts may say they are shy when they mean that they prefer to be alone (they do not necessarily suffer from social anxiety). Finally, although they are not given to the exuberant high spirits of extraverts, introverts are not unhappy or pessimistic.

    And here are their descriptions of the six NEO-PI-R E/I facets:

    Warmth: Warmth is the facet of Extraversion most relevant to issues of interpersonal intimacy. Warm people are affectionate and friendly. They genuinely like people and easily form close attachments to others. Low scorers are neither hostile nor necessarily lacking in compassion, but they are more formal, reserved, and distant in manner than high scorers. Warmth is the facet of E that is closest to Agreeableness in interpersonal space, but it is distinguished by a cordiality and heartiness that is not part of A.

    Gregariousness: Gregariousness refers to the preference for other people's company. Gregarious people enjoy the company of others; the more the merrier. Low scorers on this scale tend to be loners who do not seek — or who even actively avoid — social stimulation.

    Assertiveness: High scorers on this scale are dominant, forceful, and socially ascendant. They speak without hesitation and often become group leaders. Low scorers prefer to keep in the background and let others do the talking.

    Activity: A high Activity score is seen in rapid tempo and vigorous movement, in a sense of energy, and in a need to keep busy. Active people lead fast-paced lives. Low scorers are more leisurely and relaxed in tempo, although they are not necessarily sluggish or lazy.

    Excitement Seeking: High scorers on this scale crave excitement and stimulation. They like bright colors and noisy environments. Excitement-seeking is akin to some aspects of sensation seeking. Low scorers feel little need for thrills and prefer a life that high scorers might find boring.

    Positive Emotions: Positive Emotions is the facet of E most relevant to the prediction of happiness. This facet assesses the tendency to experience positive emotions such as joy, happiness, love, and excitement. High scorers on this scale laugh easily and often. They are cheerful and optimistic. Low scorers are not necessarily unhappy; they are merely less exuberant and high-spirited.

    It's not uncommon to hear introverted forumites saying they feel like they were more extraverted as children. Although, all other things being equal, an introverted child can be expected to feel/act more introverted than an extraverted child, it's also quite typical for an introverted child, growing up in an untroubled family/school environment in which they excel (and which mostly involves interaction with familiar people), to feel/act significantly more extraverted than they will as an adult. That was true for me in spades. I'm pretty strongly introverted, but was something of a class clown in my school days, and significantly more gregarious than in my adult incarnation — while at the same time being significantly less gregarious than my extraverted classmates.

    And I'm a T. As already mentioned, as far as the importance of friends and other people in somebody's life goes, T/F can play just as important a role as E/I, with EFs being the most social types, ITs being the least social types, and ETs and IFs in between. IFs are introverts, and that means they'll tend to favor social interaction that involves what's often referred to as their "inner circle," but it's not at all uncommon for IFs — and this is more true during their school years than later in life — to end up having a regular gang (or two) who they spend a lot of their free time hanging out with. And it's always important to keep in mind that, in general, the differences between introverts and extraverts tend to be substantially more pronounced when they're dealing with strangers or not-too-close acquaintances than when they're dealing with their family, friends and familiar classmates.

    Extraverts — and especially EFs — actually enjoy meeting new people. I am not making this up. And at large gatherings, too. Send them to a business conference where there's a cocktail party between the afternoon presentations and dinner, and they don't grit their teeth and endure the damn thing. They're jazzed! They've got lots of stories they like to tell, and opinions they enjoy expressing, and a fresh audience means people who haven't heard their stories before. They enjoy the process of crossing paths with a total stranger and turning that stranger into something more friend-like.

    But if an IF's introversion gives them a tug in the leave-me-alone direction, their F is likely to make them someone whose life revolves to a substantial degree around the relationships that are important to them. And there's more on that issue in the T/F section of the third post, below.

    [cont'd in next post...]
    Likes Digital Lion liked this post

  7. #27
    Senior Member reckful's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013


    [2 of 5]


    The next spoiler has an "introduction to S & N" that I put together a while back (including quotes from Myers and Keirsey).

    And the next spoiler has brief bullet-point summaries (from official MBTI reports) of the five "facets" of S/N in the "Step II" version of the MBTI.

    And if you want to read the full descriptions of those facets in the Step II Manual, you can find those in this PerC post.

    On the artistic front, and in case you've been led to believe that either ISFJ or ISFP is a more likely arts-oriented type than INFJ or INFP, the opposite is actually true. INFP is arguably the single most likely artist type (with INFJ and INTP both runner-up contenders), while ISFPs and ISFJs are relatively unlikely artist types. The "ISFP as artist" notion came from David Keirsey, and I think Keirsey had quite a few insightful things to say, but the ISFP=artist thing was probably his biggest mistake. For quite a lot more on that issue (stats included), see this post.

    Prior to the publication of the 1998 edition of the MBTI Manual, the official MBTI folks created a "national sample" of 3,000 people that was tweaked to be a representative sample in a number of respects, and besides typing everybody, they also asked the people in the sample quite a lot of supplemental questions. And one question asked them to indicate how important 11 values were in their lives, on a scale of "Very Important," "Somewhat Important," "Somewhat Unimportant," or "Not Important." And one of those 11 values was "being creative" — and on average, 31% of the entire sample said "being creative" was "very important." But of all the 16 types, can you guess which type was the least likely (just 16%) to rate "being creative" as "very important"? Well, if you guessed ISFP, you are correct. (The ENFPs were #1, with 55% of ENFPs saying "being creative" is "very important.")

    In the next spoiler are membership stats for Personality Cafe and Typology Central. For each type, the first percentage is the percentage of that type at the forum, the second percentage (in parentheses) is the estimated "general population" percentage from the official MBTI folks (from this page), and the final number on the right is the self-selection ratio for that type — i.e., the ratio of the forum percentage to the general population percentage.

    Every S type has a self-selection ratio of 0.6 or lower, and no N type has a self-selection ratio below 1.0. And the stats suggest that an average MBTI INFP is 10 times more likely than an average MBTI ISFP to join a personality-related internet forum, and that an INFJ is more like 25 times more likely than an ISFP (and more like 50 times more likely than an ISFJ) — because as we all know, there's no type that's as prone to catch an incurable case of the what's-my-type bug as the infamous INFJ.

    So... the mere fact that you're at two MBTI forums trying to figure out your type — by way of multiple threads! with lots of exclamation marks! just sayin'! — has earned you one or two IN-over-IS points here at Casa Reckful.

    You'll also note that 62% of PerC's members are INs (as compared to 11% of the general population), and 83% of the members are N's (as compared to 27% of the general population), and that's somewhat consistent with the fact that, although I agree with Keirsey that I have some significant things in common with my fellow NTs, I've increasingly come around to the view that, if I had to pick a group of four MBTI types to really be my "kindred spirits" group, it would be the INs rather than the NTs. And if you want to read a bit of "reckful on INs" — to maybe help you decide if we're your peeps — you can find it in the spoiler at the end of this post.

    Another possible point of typing confusion is that it's not uncommon for INTJs and INFJs who get exposed to function descriptions to question their type at some point because "Ni" descriptions sound too mystical or psychic or whatever, and if you ever find yourself resisting either of the INJ possibilities on that basis, you may want to take a look at this post.

    50 years of MBTI statistics indicate that S/N is the dimension that has the greatest impact on career choices, and the official MBTI folks put out Career Reports that show the popularity for each type of "22 broad occupational categories," based on "a sample of more than 92,000 people in 282 jobs who said they were satisfied with their jobs." The sample included 4,267 INFPs, 2,297 INFJs, 3,230 ISFPs, and 5,830 ISFJs — so it's a big sample by personality typology standards.

    In the next spoiler are the "Most Attractive Job Families" for each of those four types, together with a rank-order list of the 24 specific occupations that are "most attractive" to each type, based on the fact that they're "found in these occupations in much greater proportion than would be expected based on the frequency of this type in the general U.S. population."

    And I'd be surprised if you don't think the INF lists sound more like you than the ISF lists.

    [cont'd in next post...]
    Last edited by reckful; 08-04-2016 at 12:03 PM.

  8. #28
    Senior Member reckful's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013


    [3 of 5]


    Of the four MBTI dimensions, T/F is the dimension where I'm least satisfied with the standard ways MBTI sources tend to describe the essence of the dimension, so I think there may be a greater possibility with T/F than with the other three dimensions that someone might end up with mixed or in-the-middle results, or otherwise confused, even though they really have a significant preference. Besides being entangled with male/female, I think T/F might also turn out to be something along the lines of two or more personality dimensions somewhat messily rolled into one.

    Both the "Step II" version of the MBTI and the most popular version of the Big Five (the NEO-PI) have multiple "facets" for each dimension, with the idea that an MBTI F, for example, might effectively be on the T side of one or more of the T/F facets and on the F side of the rest. And I don't think the current MBTI facets are necessarily onto anything much, but I do think T/F may be a substantially bigger tangle than the other three dimensions.

    I've often noted that I think it's not uncommon for INFs to test as INTs, at least partly because many of the F choices on typical MBTI tests (including the official test) are choices that are more likely to appeal to SFs and EFs than INFs — and I think that's more true of INFJs than INFPs, and probably even more true of female INFJs than male INFJs. I think male F's are often aware that they differ from cultural male stereotypes in ways that make them more "F-ish" than average whereas, by contrast, I think INF women (and maybe especially INFJ women) who compare themselves to cultural female stereotypes (not to mention the majority of actual women) are reasonably likely to think of themselves as more T-ish than those "feeler" women (EFs, SFs and, especially, ESFs). In any case, it's certainly been my experience that it's considerably more common for an INFJ to mistype as INTJ (and later conclude they're really INFJ) than vice versa. I think that, in some ways, it's fair to say that INFJs are both the "least F" of the F's and the "least NF" of the NFs.

    There's more discussion of that issue, along with quite a lot of my perspective on what the T/F dimension is about, in this two-post "intro to T/F."

    And anyone who reads that post and hasn't had enough of me on T/F yet can follow up with what I call my "T/F's a mess" post (at PerC), which explains why I think T/F is probably the messiest of the four MBTI dimensions.

    One of the things mentioned in that last linked post is the fact that the official MBTI folks are currently estimating that less than 25% of women are T's (whereas over 40% of men are F's). And that would appear to mean that, assuming you view T/F as a spectrum (at least to some extent), a woman can be more T-ish (if you will) than 70% of women, but still be a mild F (rather than a T).

    In my S/N discussion, I noted that one possible point of typing confusion for INFJs is "Ni" descriptions that lead them to think they're not mystical enough to be "Ni-doms." And another possible function-based point of typing confusion for INFs is poor Fi and Fe descriptions that lose sight of the common-F characteristics, or describe "Fe" in a way that's too extraversion-skewed, or suffer from one or more other significant defects as actually applied to INFJs and INFPs. Believe it or not, it's pretty typical of all the IN types to relate better to typical Fi descriptions than typical Fe descriptions — and for another, and as noted at the start of this post series, "cognitive function" analysis is a poor way to type yourself in the first place.

    More specifically, possible INFJs shouldn't resist the INFJ type based on the mistaken notion that an INFJ's "Fe" (1) makes them emotionally expressive, or (2) makes them strongly prone to adopt the values of their culture or some other group they're part of — in contrast to "Fi types" who are more independent/individualistic in arriving at their values. And those mischaracterizations are further discussed in this post.

    Here are the five MBTI "Step II" T/F facets:

    • Impersonal
    • Seek impartiality
    • Objective analysis
    • Personal
    • Seek harmony
    • Central values
    • Truthful
    • Cause-and-effect
    • Apply principles
    • Tactful
    • Sympathetic
    • Loyal
    • Precise
    • Challenging
    • Want discussion
    • Approving
    • Agreeable
    • Want harmony
    • Skeptical
    • Want proof
    • Critique
    • Tolerant
    • Trusting
    • Give praise
    • Firm
    • Tough-minded
    • Ends-oriented
    • Gentle
    • Tender-hearted
    • Means-oriented

    And if you want to read the full descriptions of those facets in the Step II Manual, you can find those in this PerC post.

    Here are McCrae & Costa, summarizing the characteristics associated with being high and low in Agreeableness:

    Agreeableness is primarily a dimension of interpersonal tendencies. The agreeable person is fundamentally altruistic. He or she is sympathetic to others and eager to help them, and believes that others will be equally helpful in return. Agreeable people tend to be more popular than antagonistic individuals. A high A may be associated with the dependent personality traits.

    The disagreeable or antagonistic person is egocentric, skeptical of others' intentions, and competitive rather than cooperative. Through skeptical and critical thinking, the person scoring low on Agreeableness might contribute to accurate analysis in the sciences for example. In addition, the readiness to fight for one's own interests is often advantageous (i.e., Agreeableness is not a virtue on the battlefield or in the courtroom). Low A may be associated with narcissistic, antisocial, and/or paranoid personality traits. Extremely low Agreeableness may indicate hostile intolerance or authoritarian aggression.

    And here are their descriptions of the six NEO-PI-R Agreeableness facets:

    Trust: High scorers have a disposition to believe that others are honest and well-intentioned. Low scorers on this scale tend to be cynical and skeptical and to assume that others may be dishonest or dangerous.

    Straightforwardness: High scorers on this scale are frank, sincere, and ingenuous. Low scorers on this scale are more willing to manipulate others through flattery, craftiness, or deception. They view these tactics as necessary social skills and may regard more straightforward people as naive.
    A low scorer on this scale is more likely to stretch the truth or to be guarded in expressing his or her true feelings, but this should not be interpreted to mean that he or she is a dishonest or manipulative person. In particular, this scale should not be regarded as a lie scale, either for assessing the validity of the test itself, or for making predictions about honesty in employment or other settings.

    Altruism: High scorers on this facet have an active concern for others' welfare as shown in generosity, consideration of others, and a willingness to assist others in need of help. Low scorers on this scale are somewhat more self-centered and are reluctant to get involved in the problems of others.

    Compliance: This facet of A concerns characteristic reactions to interpersonal conflict. The high scorer tends to defer to others, to inhibit aggression, and to forgive and forget. Compliant people are meek and mild. The low scorer is aggressive, prefers to compete rather than cooperate, and has no reluctance to express anger when necessary.

    Modesty: High scorers on this scale are humble and self-effacing although they are not necessarily lacking in self-confidence or self-esteem. Low scorers believe they are superior people and may be considered conceited or arrogant by others. A very low score may indicate sufficient lack of modesty to indicate narcissism.

    Tender-Mindedness: This facet scale measures attitudes of sympathy and concern for others. High scorers are moved by others' needs and emphasize the human side of social policies. Low scorers are more hardheaded and less moved by appeals to pity. They would consider themselves realists who make rational decisions based on cold logic.


    If you're interested in a boatload of input from me on J/P, you'll find it in this two-post J/P roundup.

    And if you're ever feeling torn between J and P and anybody tries to tell you that INFJs and INFPs (or INTJs and INTPs) are waaay different (because functions!) or that you can't possibly be an INFx (or INTx) (because functions!), you may want to look at this post.

    If you want to read the full descriptions of the five J/P facets from the Step II Manual, you can find those in this PerC post.

    [cont'd in next post...]
    Last edited by reckful; 08-04-2016 at 12:07 PM.

  9. #29
    Senior Member reckful's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013


    [4 of 5]

    Profile roundups

    The next spoiler has roundups of online profiles of the 16 types.

    One possible way for someone to give prospective type-me contributors more information to go on is to read through one or more of the profiles for the likeliest types and post about anything in them that provokes a notably strong "that's just like me" or "that's not me" reaction.

    [cont'd in next post...]

  10. #30
    Senior Member reckful's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013


    [5 of 5]


    There's a well-established fifth temperament dimension that isn't included in the Myers-Briggs typology and is often referred to as "neuroticism" (although it isn't a psychological disorder). The Big Five/SLOAN typology labels it Emotional Stability and refers to the two poles as Calm and Limbic. Being Limbic on that dimension tends to be associated with, among other things, anxiety/worry-proneness; emotional sensitivity/volatility; proneness to annoyance/irritation; self-consciousness; and (sometimes) depression. I'm Limbic, and it makes me less of a cucumber than some of my fellow INTJs — and it can sometimes muddy the water for somebody trying to figure out their T/F preference.

    One of the more popular (although maybe not too respectable) Big Five tests on the internet is this similarminds SLOAN test, which will (purport to) type you on the Emotional Stability dimension — in addition to the four Big Five dimensions with substantial MBTI correlations. And I've put some more information about the Big Five and that similarminds test in the spoiler.

    Alternatively, you can skip similarminds and use this link to the Big Five Inventory, which is both (1) one of the most academically well-regarded Big Five tests and (2) only 44 questions.

    As already noted, MBTI sources have traditionally taken the position that being on one side of any of the four MBTI dimensions is no better than being on the other, but Big Five sources often describe one or more of the dimensions in a way that at least implies that it's better to be on one side than the other — and Neuroticism is undoubtedly the dimension that's most often framed in that way. Buuut assuming Neuroticism exhibits something like a normal distribution, then it follows from that that it's as "normal" for one person to be above-average in Neuroticism as for another person to be below-average, just like it's as normal for one person to be introverted as for another person to be extraverted. Being above-average in Neuroticism (as I am, methinks) doesn't mean you have a psychological disorder, or have issues you need to work on. And twin studies suggest that where somebody falls on the Neuroticism scale is substantially inborn, rather than being something they can change.

    Statistics indicate that being on one side or the other of almost every (if not every) Big Five factor means that a person is more prone to certain psychological disorders, and as I understand it, being above-average in Neuroticism is the worst offender in that regard. But it's worth keeping in mind that the intra-population variation represented by all five Big Five factors probably evolved for a reason, and there have been studies suggesting that there are also advantages associated with being above-average in Neuroticism. As one example, here's a Nov. 2012 Atlantic article about what's referred to as a "healthily vigilant mindset" — i.e., above-average neuroticism in combination with the Big Five version of a J preference:

    Being a healthy degree of neurotic lowers risk of chronic disease

    As another example, it appears that there may be some at least semi-respectable reason to believe that there's something to the old "neurotic artist" stereotype — i.e., it may be that people who are above-average in neuroticism are at least somewhat more likely to be creative artists (and/or otherwise creative) — and in case you're interested, here are three recent articles on that subject:

    What Neuroscience Says About the Link Between Creativity and Madness
    The Real Link Between Creativity and Mental Illness
    Secrets of the Creative Brain

    And here's an article about a 2015 study that suggests that there may be some kind of correlation between anxiety-proneness and high IQs.


    Just briefly...

    I don't claim to have looked into the Enneagram with much depth, although I've read Riso's Personality Types and perused a number of Enneagram websites to one degree or other.

    I believe the MBTI is basically tapping into the same real, substantially-genetic personality dimensions as four of the Big Five, and I'm not convinced that the Enneagram is tapping into any separate set of real, hardwired personality dimensions. Instead, I suspect that whatever validity the Enneagram could demonstrate may largely be limited to the piggybacked validity that results from the fact that several (if not most) of its type categories significantly correlate with one or more of the MBTI/Big Five dimensions.

    As further discussed in this PerC post, I don't think much of the view that the MBTI and the Enneagram deal with essentially different parts of personality (e.g., your "motivations" vs. how you "process information"), so there's no reason to expect much correlation between MBTI types and Enneagram types — and I'm inclined to say that the less the Enneagram (which has almost no scientific support) meaningfully lines up with the MBTI and Big Five (both of which, besides substantially correlating with each other, have decades of scientific support behind them), the less attention someone should be inclined to pay to the Enneagram.

    BUT NOTE: Just because the Enneagram's overlap with the Big Five and MBTI dimensions is sloppy, and even assuming that the fault for the overlap failures is mostly with the Enneagram, that doesn't necessarily mean that, for any particular person who relates (at least partly) to any particular Enneagram type, Enneagram sources might not have insightful things to say about them — and in some cases, insightful things that, for one reason or other, MBTI and/or Big Five sources have (so far) missed.

    Most of what I know about typical Enneagram-MBTI correlations involves MBTI INs and Enneagram 4's and 5's, and for what it's worth (in case anyone's interested), here's some recycled reckful on how I think those types tend to line up:

    I'm far from an Enneagram expert, but my understanding is that Enneagram 5 is basically INT country and Enneagram 4 is basically INF country. If you picture Enneagram 4 and 5 positioned on a spectrum (with 4 on the left), I'd position the four IN types along that spectrum (from left to right) in INFP–INFJ–INTP–INTJ order, with INFP the most firmly in 4 territory, INFJ close to the 4/5 borderline, and INTJ more likely than INTP to have a 6 wing. (But I don't necessarily think a 5w4 INTP is more likely than a 5w6 INTP; just that a 5w6 INTP is probably less likely than a 5w6 INTJ.) My experience with type-me subjects at INTJforum has been that it's maybe as likely for an INFJ to be a 5w4 as a 4w5 — but that could be because a 5w4 INFJ is more likely to enjoy hanging with a bunch of INTJs than a 4w5 INFJ.

    Dichotomies vs. functions

    A-a-and finally (phew!), for anyone who's made it this far, isn't totally exhausted, and might be interested in some general discussion of the relationship between the dichotomies and the functions, the place of the functions (or lack thereof) in the MBTI's history, the tremendous gap between the dichotomies and the functions in terms of scientific respectability, and the unbearable bogosity of the Harold Grant function stack (the one that says INTJ=Ni-Te-Fi-Se), a lot of potentially eye-opening discussion can be found in this TC Wiki page and the posts it links to.

Similar Threads

  1. **please help me type myself ?!
    By in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-19-2015, 06:09 PM
  2. Please help me type myself.
    By Noon in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-24-2010, 11:28 AM
  3. Please help me type this guy...IxxJ?????
    By b4b in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 02-25-2009, 05:11 PM
  4. Please help me type this girl...
    By LindseyLadybug in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 02-21-2009, 01:08 AM
  5. Please help me type my boss
    By JustDave in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 03-31-2008, 04:31 PM

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