Mistyped TypeCentral Members

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Here's a description of SLOAN, here's a list of Big 5 tests, and here's a thread with some more Big 5 tests. Pick one and go!

thanks!! i got rcoai. not sure how that correlates with mbti........

 

[Eric B]

RCOAI would correspond to INFJ. (R=I; O=J; A=F and I=N)

 

[garbage]

So you finally changed again!
Well, ENFJ would be a closer match to your 4Marks result as well (Choleric). I would think ENFJ would be more a Choleric-Phlegmatic mixture, but 4Marks doesn't allow blends between those two. Being choleric would also make you identify with ENTJ somewhat.
And now, you can totally indentify with tour "Fe incarnate" birthday froggie. (If you do accommodate pople, that would be a sign of high Fe).

Now that SLOAN, Enneagram, and MBTI actually match up, maybe I can make temperament and cognitive functions align as well.. for the perfect holistic picture! I'll have to keep investigating the cognitive functions, though I'm choosing to leave them out until they do

From the standpoint of wanting to accommodate everyone around me at the expense of even knowing what I want, well.. that has described me in the past, and it's perfectly in line with Enneagram 3. I can see how that could seem Fe-dominant, but I'll need to convince myself a bit more before I'm ready to make that jump

It's strange that the frog and my signature make more sense now than when I first chose them

thanks!! i got rcoai. not sure how that correlates with mbti........

To generalize, as far as MBTI and SLOAN dichotomies are concerned, they'd correlate pretty much exactly as you expect.

Reserved/Social = Introverted/Extroverted
Calm/Limbic = --
Organized/Unstructured = Judging/Perceiving
Egocentric/Accommodating = Thinking/Feeling
Non-Curious/Inquisitive = Sensing/Intuition (although J/P has a bit to do with this dimension as well)

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

RCOAI would correspond to INFJ. (R=I; O=J; A=F and I=N)

man, you really know this sh#$. thanx. guess i really am infj, even though others question me.

 

[Eric B]

Now that SLOAN, Enneagram, and MBTI actually match up, maybe I can make temperament and cognitive functions align as well.. for the perfect holistic picture! I'll have to keep investigating the cognitive functions, though I'm choosing to leave them out until they do

From the standpoint of wanting to accommodate everyone around me at the expense of even knowing what I want, well.. that has described me in the past, and it's perfectly in line with Enneagram 3. I can see how that could seem Fe-dominant, but I'll need to convince myself a bit more before I'm ready to make that jump

It's strange that the frog and my signature make more sense now than when I first chose them

So what's the problem with the temperament?
Even though that was the last area I looked, the Berens temperament targets did help settle it for me. People even suggest starting with temperament first, before going into the cognitive processes, which are really the "advanced" level. (And As I am seeing, have several different interpretations, and can be very ambiguous. I'm still trying to make sure those fit properly, and see that Lenore Thomson's interpretation with the brain alternatives is a good check & balance for the Beebe model I was more familiar with).

Since you came from ENFP and changed over to the J, then the temperament would still be the same: NF. You had also tried on ENTJ, but it seemed F was more accurate. If you think NF is more accurate than NT, then temperament should not be a problem; that should basically be settled.

 

[garbage]

Whoops, I mean the classic temperaments, not Kiersey's. I'd also love to see how those two systems are correlated; I know that Kiersey discusses it to a certain extent.

Also, it's not that I distrust my results; it's simply the next system that I'd like to investigate in detail and attain a greater understanding of.

 

[Eric B]

Keirsey says SP=Sanguine, SJ=Melancholic, NF=Choleric and NT=Phlegmatic. These are not blended like the way 4Marks blends two of them. However, there are also the Interaction Styles that correspond to the ancient four as well:
IST/INJ=Melancholic, EST/ENJ=Choleric, ISF/INP=Phlegmatic, ESF/ENP=Sanguine.
These do blend with the four temperaments (since each type is one temperament and one Interaction Style), creating combinations similar to 4Marks, and LaHaye and others.

So if Keirsey was right, ENFP would match Sanguine-Choleric. But I believe that he matched NT and NF based on the wrong criteria: emotional exciteability. But that is more fitting for the Interaction Styles, which are based on introversion and extraversion. The extraverts will be more expressive, and hence, appear more "exciteable". With the "conative" temperaments Keirsey outlined, the true Choleric need would be the NT's need for mastery, and the Strategic skills set. The true Phlegmatic would be the NF's Diplomatic skills set, and need for harmony. ENTP fits the Sanguine-Choleric better (blend of both "expressive" temperaments), and ENFP fits Sanguine-Phlegmatic (blend of both people-focused temperaments, so extra people-focused).

So if this is right, then with ENFJ, you have the Choleric. However, it would be mixed with Phlegmatic, but 4Marks doesn't allow that. So I guess it determined you had a lot of Sanguine traits next. And having both Choleric and Sanguine in the social interaction area may make you teeter between ENP and ENJ.

Here is where I correlate the types with a system that blends the ancient temperaments:
ERICA vs EISeNFelT

 

[Asterion]

RCUAI
x|C|UaI
R(52%)C(82%)U(68%)A(54%)I(74%)

I think this says it all. INFP. I'm a pretty awesome INFP, but then again, these results are more like XNXP. Calm versus Limbic is actually slightly related to T versus F ... well, I'm either a balanced ENTP that is rather reserved and emotionally stable(?), or I'm an INFP that is mostly deluded, but preferably balanced in extroversion and thinking.

 

[Jeffster]

Jeffster - I'm not sure he's a SPIF. I mean, what data has he produced to back up this typing? None that I've seen. I'm quite suspicious.

 

[Costrin]

Hay gaiz. I'm actually INFP. Discuss.

 

[Asterion]

Hay gaiz. I'm actually INFP. Discuss.

you are like... so infp
-My intuition tells me so
-Pokemon is an F thing, as is all anime
-When you hug a teddy bear, I bet you feel something

 

[Nonsensical]

Hay gaiz. I'm actually INFP. Discuss.

Hello, INFP. How are the flowers smelling today?

 

[garbage]

...

Another question for you.

In your understanding, would Fe be the "I am whoever I need to be" function, insofar as it serves to accommodate other people and diverse external situations?

With that as its core, it would explain why I don't necessarily have to relate to arbitrary social niceties that Fe is typically known for, but it could explain other traits of mine.. such as taking on different situational personas without thinking about it, right down to changing my traits--and, in some way, my type--to be whatever it "needed to be" in my personal life.

Add to that the fact that the dominant is a function that one is usually not aware that they are using, and I could see how it very well could be dominant.

Does this line of reasoning make sense?

 

[Eric B]

I imagine Fe would be the one to change to "whoever you need to be" for others. "arbitrary social niceties" only seem Fe because they might be familiar and common. On the other hand, those that are universal values might be more the domain of Fi. So Fe is whatever is agreed upon or conventional.

Now, you said "needed to be" in your personal life. What do you mean by that? Personal would be Fi, but interpersonal is Fe.

 

[lunalum]

Hay gaiz. I'm actually INFP. Discuss.

Okay then, I'll try to show you otherwise using your own reasoning.

You said yourself that INTP>all.
I'm pretty sure you have made claims about your own greatness over all too.

Therefore, it must be: Costrin=INTP

 

[garbage]

I imagine Fe would be the one to change to "whoever you need to be" for others. "arbitrary social niceties" only seem Fe because they might be familiar and common. On the other hand, those that are universal values might be more the domain of Fi. So Fe is whatever is agreed upon or conventional.

Now, you said "needed to be" in your personal life. What do you mean by that? Personal would be Fi, but interpersonal is Fe.

Yeah.. I've remembered thinking that I wanted to be "everything to everyone," and I took many problems upon my own shoulders. Some of it was personally driven, but figuring out what I wanted seemed somehow more difficult (or selfish) than what everyone else did. I could somehow give penetrating insight onto others' relationships before I'd ever had a meaningful one and take others' concerns for my own, but I had a hard time acting upon my own desires.

We're talking Feeling. Let's talk about people.

I had a relationship that, after a month, I knew wasn't "right." I'd explicitly told others that I was going to break up with her. But I kept her because I couldn't think of a logical, sound reason to do so. Turned out that the relationship was horrible.. and even afterward, I took responsibility for the relationship's failure on my own shoulders. Looking back, I wasn't being fair to myself, and I didn't trust my hunches.

And when I was getting back out into the dating realm and talking about my experiences with a therapist, she asked me what it was that I was looking for in another person. I was almost puzzled by the question, as I hadn't really thought about it before.. I'd been concentrating on offering what I could to those around me.

Overall, "I am whoever I need to be" meant that I took on a diligent, analytical, and conscientious persona at work, and I fit in with a bunch of different crowds as a "social chameleon" of sorts. I certainly had a hard time figuring out my own identity, but I could innately adapt to different social situations. Customers would call me personable, and I'd wonder why--in my own eyes, I hadn't done anything special.

I know that I now have a good grasp on the concepts generally rolled into Fi--that is, my own motivations, desires, and emotional state--for sure, and I'm definitely more motivated by those. It just took me a while to discover. I'm just wondering if Fe wasn't also running all along without me knowing about it.

This and this seem to be pretty on-key with what I'm talking about.

In any case, if my functions point to some other type but the pure dichotomy preferences point to another.. it doesn't matter to me

Okay then, I'll try to show you otherwise using your own reasoning.

You said yourself that INTP>all.
I'm pretty sure you have made claims about your own greatness over all too.

Therefore, it must be: Costrin=INTP

But if he were indeed INTP, his Ti would've picked up on this inconsistency.

 

[Costrin]

Okay then, I'll try to show you otherwise using your own reasoning.

You said yourself that INTP>all.
I'm pretty sure you have made claims about your own greatness over all too.

Therefore, it must be: Costrin=INTP

Your logic does not affect me.

 

[Orangey]

Okay then, I'll try to show you otherwise using your own reasoning.

You said yourself that INTP>all.
I'm pretty sure you have made claims about your own greatness over all too.

Therefore, it must be: Costrin=INTP

Fallacious. Affirming the consequent.

 

[Eric B]

Yeah.. I've remembered thinking that I wanted to be "everything to everyone," and I took many problems upon my own shoulders. Some of it was personally driven, but figuring out what I wanted seemed somehow more difficult (or selfish) than what everyone else did. I could somehow give penetrating insight onto others' relationships before I'd ever had a meaningful one and take others' concerns for my own, but I had a hard time acting upon my own desires.

We're talking Feeling. Let's talk about people.

I had a relationship that, after a month, I knew wasn't "right." I'd explicitly told others that I was going to break up with her. But I kept her because I couldn't think of a logical, sound reason to do so. Turned out that the relationship was horrible.. and even afterward, I took responsibility for the relationship's failure on my own shoulders. Looking back, I wasn't being fair to myself, and I didn't trust my hunches.

And when I was getting back out into the dating realm and talking about my experiences with a therapist, she asked me what it was that I was looking for in another person. I was almost puzzled by the question, as I hadn't really thought about it before.. I'd been concentrating on offering what I could to those around me.

Overall, "I am whoever I need to be" meant that I took on a diligent, analytical, and conscientious persona at work, and I fit in with a bunch of different crowds as a "social chameleon" of sorts. I certainly had a hard time figuring out my own identity, but I could innately adapt to different social situations. Customers would call me personable, and I'd wonder why--in my own eyes, I hadn't done anything special.

I know that I now have a good grasp on the concepts generally rolled into Fi--that is, my own motivations, desires, and emotional state--for sure, and I'm definitely more motivated by those. It just took me a while to discover. I'm just wondering if Fe wasn't also running all along without me knowing about it.

This and this seem to be pretty on-key with what I'm talking about.

In any case, if my functions point to some other type but the pure dichotomy preferences point to another.. it doesn't matter to me

Well, the cognitive process scores you just posted on the Function Analysis thread point to ENTP.

As for what you've been saying about Feeling here and over there, it would actually make a lot of sense. Fe as tertiary is on one hand, a less mature function. Yet on the other hand, it would inflate itself, and then deflate. So you would seem to display it a lot sometimes, and then not be good at it other times.

Not only that, but under Lenore Thomson's system, Fi would be the right brain alternative to the Ti, and also possibly crop up in certain situations.
Ni would be opposing/backup, meaning it would normally back up your Ne as well as be a defense under stress. So that could explain that being high as well, (but not really high enough to match an ENJ's parent function as the scores suggest).

So two questions you need to look at now are:

determing whether your primary intuition is introverted or extraverted (this last test suggests, extraverted).

Between Thinking and Feeling, which one is the most preferred? Thinking or feeling in a tertiary position may inflate itself at times and seem preferred, but which is the final judgment in your decision-making, and is ultimately more mature?

In this case, you should focus on the dichotomy first, for now, rather than the attitude. (Which as we see can be ambiguous) It's likely that you prefer iNtuition, so on that one, you can work on which attitude now. But it seems you need to decide between T and F in general, and then determine the attitude, especially once the N attitude is determined.

 

[garbage]

From the standpoint of independent dichotomies, I am indeed extraverted and intuitive, I consider the subjective measure more important than an objective "fairness" one, and I'm more planned than spontaneous. I've always been conscientious, organized, and forward-looking, though I know that appreciating the subjective is probably more recent. This points to E, N, F, and J. This is the model I'm currently using, and it corroborates my more reliable Big 5 description.

Type descriptions? I can read myself into pretty much every single ENxx description, depending upon my mood, environment, and current happenings. Many of the T descriptions as pertaining to relationships do not fit me at all, however; I always find it necessary to connect with and understand my partner and others around me, and I take things much more personally than pretty much every other T I know.

As far as cognitive functions, I've found that, on the whole, I relate well to Ne, Fi, Ti, and Te the most, with a fairly strong Ni, and Se cropping up every now and then. Fe and Si are typically "lost" on me. Many type descriptions can be formed with this combination, with Te being seen as a ENFP's tertiary, Ne+Ti coming together to "mimic" Te doh in ENTP, and so on. Reconciling this has been a major point of confusion for me, athough, aside from the overly strong Te, ENxP has made the "most sense" in this respect. Historically, probably ENTP; however, I have much more in common with the ENFPs on this board, especially in people-related discussions.

So as I've thought, type depends upon the model used, as well as how I choose to see the exact nature of the individual pieces. I am perfectly fine with the raw dichotomies pointing to one answer and the cognitive functions to another. In my mind, they can be considered separate personality models, just as Socionics and MBTI, or MBTI and Big 5, are separate models.

So, the question comes down to this: Which model should I use?

And I realize how ENTP this answer sounds, juggling the viewpoints of several objective models.

Well, the cognitive process scores you just posted on the Function Analysis thread point to ENTP.

As for what you've been saying about Feeling here and over there, it would actually make a lot of sense. Fe as tertiary is on one hand, a less mature function. Yet on the other hand, it would inflate itself, and then deflate. So you would seem to display it a lot sometimes, and then not be good at it other times.

Not only that, but under Lenore Thomson's system, Fi would be the right brain alternative to the Ti, and also possibly crop up in certain situations.
Ni would be opposing/backup, meaning it would normally back up your Ne as well as be a defense under stress. So that could explain that being high as well, (but not really high enough to match an ENJ's parent function as the scores suggest).

From the cognitive function standpoint, Ni as an "under stress" function could make a lot of sense as something that has developed during my college years. It would explain why Ni is pretty well developed and something that I can very readily tap into now, and why I tend to take on leadership and positions involving planning fairly easily, swiftly, and naturally.

Do you have a link to Lenore's system which explains the "alternatives" as you describe?

So two questions you need to look at now are:

determing whether your primary intuition is introverted or extraverted (this last test suggests, extraverted).

Likely extraverted.

Between Thinking and Feeling, which one is the most preferred? Thinking or feeling in a tertiary position may inflate itself at times and seem preferred, but which is the final judgment in your decision-making, and is ultimately more mature?

In this case, you should focus on the dichotomy first, for now, rather than the attitude. (Which as we see can be ambiguous) It's likely that you prefer iNtuition, so on that one, you can work on which attitude now. But it seems you need to decide between T and F in general, and then determine the attitude, especially once the N attitude is determined.

Historically? Thinking. But then, I've also historically "preferred" introversion, and that's drastically changed for me. I have always typically held a more "judging" attitude and have only recently found relaxation through spontaneity. I have also become more people-focused, and I tend to incorporate the subjective and people-orientedness much more than my other T bretheren do. My ENTj father and ENTP brother-in-law come to mind as those who are typically contrary to the viewpoints of others

So I'm not sure whether this "newfound" feeling is an exposure of my natural preferences just as my extroversion (and, possibly, spontaneity) is, or whether it's just been part of the process of constructing a more well-rounded character.

And in any case, thanks for your patience on this. It seems you're enjoying the discussion, and it's something I could keep up for a long time.