A Quick Guide To Double-Checking Your Type

[Venom]

I've grouped together a bunch of my ideas on this stuff on a new page in the bottom link in my signature.

I read the temperament page and the one on MBTI... I think it revealed to me how much of a Cult effect MBTI has on me , I wasnt very into the temperament page...dogmatic alliance to MBTI!

Both pages are outstanding though (a little bit of information overload never hurt).

According to this:

In-Charge (Directing and Initiating). Typically taking quick action and focused on results, they drive the team to achieve the goal. (ESTJ, ENTJ, ENFJ, ESTP)

Idealist/Catalyst (Abstract and Affiliative): Want to be authentic, benevolent, and empathic. Search for identity, meaning, and significance. Are relationship oriented, particularly valuing meaningful relationships. (INFP, INFJ, ENFP, ENFJ)

Rational/Theorist (Abstract and Pragmatic): Want knowledge and to be competent, to achieve mastery. Seek expertise to understand how the world and things in it work. (INTP, INTJ, ENTP, ENTJ)


^ both of those descriptions seem to fit me only half-way, so according to the charts I'm ENFJ or ENTJ.

Kyuuei your thoughts actually highlight how "strange" the ENFJ type is. In fact it might be the strangest type of all. Its the ugly duck of merging all of these models (MBTI, humors, temperaments, interactions etc).

Its a choleric type, yet its NF. At first glance they almost seem mutually exclusive, but there ENFJ sits...the choleric NF! This would explain why it might have been hard to type myself before I became aware of all of this deeper theory. In some sense its a conflicted type: the choleric/directing/in-charge conflicts with the ____ (NF humor)/Fe/motive/affiliative. Toss in some childlike Se and you've got some confusion!

A dogmatic Ti stance claiming that because someone's values depend on their firsthand experience of the world, those values:

(a) cannot be questioned, because an individual is justified in holding any values that follow from firsthand experience, OR

(b) should make sense, and individuals who's values aren't consistent with the causal order of the universe need some sense knocked into them

An example of (a) would look like: "I'm justified in believing Y because it follows from my firsthand experience. If you don't agree, you are just naive." Such an argument may be a "defensive" use of Ti (usually used to defend oneself, but not always).

An example of (b) would be something like: "You should believe X rather than what you believe now, because X follows from firsthand interaction and observation of the world. If you can't see this, then you just aren't looking hard enough." Arguments such as this seem like an "offensive" use of Ti.

Both of these arguments exemplify Ti because they are based on the principle that the correct argument is the one that best conforms to the underlying principles of the world as observed through firsthand experience.



Oh man, is this true. Thanks for this site. It's got so much information.

Which site did this all come from?

 

[VagrantFarce]

Which site did this all come from?

Rhetorical Stances

 

[_Violence_]

Now, thinking more, think I lean toward INTP.

 

[Eric B]

I read the temperament page and the one on MBTI... I think it revealed to me how much of a Cult effect MBTI has on me , I wasnt very into the temperament page...dogmatic alliance to MBTI!

Both pages are outstanding though (a little bit of information overload never hurt).

Thanks, again.
Though, did you see the third link, on the bottom?
Type Ideas

(I'm at the character limit for the signature, so trying to figure how to make it stand out more).

That was designed to group together many of the ideas of both pages (particularly, via the tables and images) to hopefully reduce as much as possible the information overload.

Kyuuei your thoughts actually highlight how "strange" the ENFJ type is. In fact it might be the strangest type of all. Its the ugly duck of merging all of these models (MBTI, humors, temperaments, interactions etc).

Its a choleric type, yet its NF. At first glance they almost seem mutually exclusive, but there ENFJ sits...the choleric NF! This would explain why it might have been hard to type myself before I became aware of all of this deeper theory. In some sense its a conflicted type: the choleric/directing/in-charge conflicts with the ____ (NF humor)/Fe/motive/affiliative. Toss in some childlike Se and you've got some confusion!

Keep in mind, I'm the one arguing that ENFJ is the only Choleric NF. Keirsey (And Berens after him) says that all NF's are Choleric. But this is from associating "choleric" with "emotion". But I define choleric as "expressive and task focused", and NT (pragmatic, structure focused) would make a better conative analogue to the extraverted, directive In Charge style, and NF would be Supine (the fifth temperament), or even Phlegmatic (to fill in your blank again), if you think in terms of its "diplomacy" (which stems from a need for peace) instead of "calmness" (Which Keirsey then associated with NT).

And I have a similar conflict with the Behind The Scenes-NT mix (Supine-Choleric). It's the total opposite of ENFJ, where I'm more confident and aggressive in the conative area, and more reserved and peace-seeking in the social (affective) area. ENFJ is confident in the social area (Interaction-affective), but ultimately more seeking of peace and harmony in the conative area.

 

[Kaveri]

Communication style: Informing, responding.
Interaction style: Chart-the-course.
Language: I guess abstract (btw, language preferences have a lot to do with one's childhood home's language-- I don't believe one can really determine anyone's personality type by them).
Roles: I didn't understand what they meant.
Temperament: NF.

 

[Alasse]

Behind-the-Scenes and Idealist/Catalyst. Yup, looks like I'm still INFP!

Although, I couldn't figure out if I used a directing or informing communication style until I watched the video towards the bottom of the website you adapted/stole it from. That video was very helpful.

 

[wolfy]

That video is a bit iffy. I am much more comfortable with the chopping motion but have a funny feeling that is from years of weight training.

 

[brainheart]

Yeah, I am not a fan of Vicky Jo. But most INFJs seem to dig her.

I presume that's what you're talking about?

 

[Invisiblemonkey]

Personal Results.

Fascinating, this confirms me as an INTP... But the fact of the matter is, I'm somewhat doubting of such a an arch-typical analysis, due to the largely 'Unemotional' or 'Spockish' traits associated with INTPs *Vulcan Salute*. Then again, it does create a conflicting sense of both joy and concern for my own psychological stability, being of the same type as HK-47.

 

[pure_mercury]

No offense, but this is the same grouping as Ygolo's.

ENTPs have nothing in common with ESFJs or ESFPs. If you insist they are part of the same group, then you are denying reality.

Extroversion? :hi:

 

[Super Nova]

Directing/Informing--Informing. Directing is not my style.

Initiating/Responding--Responding. I am definitely more "slow paced."

Abstract/Concrete--I can communicate in both ways, but more often find myself communicating in a concrete manner.

Affiliative/Pragmatic--My first inclination, as the description says, is to act independently. Sometimes, this is to my own detriment.

So...taking all of the above into consideration, it seems I'm an ISFP. I've been "trying on" different types for awhile. This gives me yet another to "try on!"

 

[Mondo]

No offense, but this is the same grouping as Ygolo's.

ENTPs have nothing in common with ESFJs or ESFPs. If you insist they are part of the same group, then you are denying reality.

Heh heh, I'm willing to say we ENTPs do have some traits in common with the ESFJ and ESFP- in particular, our irresistible charm.

Yea- ENTP according to this.

 

[Aleksei]

ENTJ, according to this. Interestingly, that's actually my Socionics type.

 

[Moiety]

Directing/Informing - I'm tempted to say Informing but the truth of the matter is, my caricatural façade leans towards Directing

Initiating/Responding - Initiating no doubt. And love the descriptions because that's exactly it. I have somewhat of a fear that I'll lose control over the group if I relax too much and become responding. I've been miserable in groups where I take the responding role.

Abstract/Concrete - Gonna quote Jennifer on this one because I agree with her words completely : "Abstract without a doubt, although I force myself to go Concrete as a communication point with S-types and also to support abstract judgments."

Affiliative/Pragmatic - I don't to be dependent on other people, and want to be in control in what is required of me.


What type would I be?

 

[Red Herring]

Informing
Responding
Abstract
Pragmatic

By that method I´m a clear INTP. Interesting.

 

[wolfy]

Responding, Concrete, Pragmatic are easy. That makes me isxp. It gets harder when I think about directing/informing or behind the scenes and chart the course. I prefer directing and chart the course but will take the informing, behind the scenes role too if it suits my purpose or am unsure. Who knows...

 

[wolfy]

I suppose a preference for informing would be a preference for giving people space and that would be why it is linked with people orientation.

Why didn't you guys tell me that?

 

[coconut]

That confirmed me as my type; I've never understood the directing/informing distinction before and wondered how I could be considered a directing type since I don't bark out orders, but reading Berens' explanation made it clear.

 

[/DG/]

Directing/Informing - I do both. I use inform when I try to manipulate people to make them do what I want, or if I want to give subtle directions. I suppose I might prefer to direct though, but I'm unsure. I like being blunt, but at other times I feel guilty about it.

Initiating/Responding - I feel more comfortable responding, but I have tried to be more of an initiator lately. I think I prefer responding.

Abstract/Concrete - Definitely prefer concrete on this one, although I do think that abstract things can be interesting.

Affiliative/Pragmatic - Again, I'm torn. I like working with others and cooperating, but I also like being an individual. I suppose I lean more toward the affiliative side, but when I want to accomplish things, I like to do them by myself.

So I have a choice between ISTJ, ISTP, ISFJ, and ISFP.

 

[Aleksei]

Directing/Informing - I'm tempted to say Informing but the truth of the matter is, my caricatural façade leans towards Directing

Initiating/Responding - Initiating no doubt. And love the descriptions because that's exactly it. I have somewhat of a fear that I'll lose control over the group if I relax too much and become responding. I've been miserable in groups where I take the responding role.

Abstract/Concrete - Gonna quote Jennifer on this one because I agree with her words completely : "Abstract without a doubt, although I force myself to go Concrete as a communication point with S-types and also to support abstract judgments."

Affiliative/Pragmatic - I don't to be dependent on other people, and want to be in control in what is required of me.


What type would I be?

ENTJ, same as me.

You know, I think you're wrong about having a weak Te.