[MBTI General] The 5th letter in MBTI?

[Lsjnzy13]

I redid the mbti test on 16personalities and just realised that unlike the other personality tests where they just tell you what four letters you are, they give you 5 letters, the last letter being either A (assertive) or T (turbulent). So how come the fifth letter never comes up anywhere else? Even on 16personalities, they may give you the 5-letter result (for example I got INFP-T) but when you get redirected to the type description it would just have the first four letters.

Anyway, according to 16personalities, these are the definitions of Assertive and Turbulent personalities:

Assertive (-A) individuals are self-assured, even-tempered and resistant to stress. They refuse to worry too much and do not push themselves too hard when it comes to achieving goals.
Turbulent (-T) individuals are self-conscious and sensitive to stress. They are likely to experience a wide range of emotions and to be success-driven, perfectionistic and eager to improve.


So my question here is, how come we only use the first four letters when identifying our personalities using MBTI? Judging from the definitions above, an assertive individual is extremely different from a turbulent person. For example, wouldn't an INFP-A be very different from an INFP-T? So why is it that usually only the first four letters are used?

And also, aren't there certain mbti types that are more success-driven, or more even-tempered than others? (Whenever I hang around my ESFJ or ESTJ friends it's obvious that they are way more success-driven and more sensitive to stress than me. I've also realised that perceivers are less likely to push themselves when it comes to achieving goals.)

Can anyone explain it to me please thanks!

 

[Null]

The other letters represent cognitive processes, while Turbulent and Assertive seems to be more focused on behavior. That's probably why it's not included elsewhere.

Btw I don't really see the need for this distinction?

 

[Seymour]

I redid the mbti test on 16personalities and just realised that unlike the other personality tests where they just tell you what four letters you are, they give you 5 letters, the last letter being either A (assertive) or T (turbulent). So how come the fifth letter never comes up anywhere else? Even on 16personalities, they may give you the 5-letter result (for example I got INFP-T) but when you get redirected to the type description it would just have the first four letters.

Anyway, according to 16personalities, these are the definitions of Assertive and Turbulent personalities:

Assertive (-A) individuals are self-assured, even-tempered and resistant to stress. They refuse to worry too much and do not push themselves too hard when it comes to achieving goals.
Turbulent (-T) individuals are self-conscious and sensitive to stress. They are likely to experience a wide range of emotions and to be success-driven, perfectionistic and eager to improve.


So my question here is, how come we only use the first four letters when identifying our personalities using MBTI? Judging from the definitions above, an assertive individual is extremely different from a turbulent person. For example, wouldn't an INFP-A be very different from an INFP-T? So why is it that usually only the first four letters are used?

And also, aren't there certain mbti types that are more success-driven, or more even-tempered than others? (Whenever I hang around my ESFJ or ESTJ friends it's obvious that they are way more success-driven and more sensitive to stress than me. I've also realised that perceivers are less likely to push themselves when it comes to achieving goals.)

Can anyone explain it to me please thanks!

So I suspect the last letter is getting at some of the same characteristics as the Big 5s "Neuroticism" scale does (which the MBTI traditionally has no representation of). The sub scales of Big 5 Neuroticism are: Anxiety, Hostility, Depression, Self-consciousness, Impulsiveness, Vulnerability.

One thing I found surprising about the forums early on was how emotionally reactive some of the people who preferred Thinking are. It starts to make some sense once one realizes that one can have emotionally reactive Thinkers and even-keeled Feelers (even though that goes against the stereotypes for some types).

Note that how one expresses emotion may be affected by the traditional MBTI scales (at least in my opinion).

I think incorporating something like Big Five Neuroticism into the MBTI is a challenge, since the MBTI works hard to use neutral language. "Turbulent" vs "Assertive" seems like a decent attempt, although the connotations aren't equally positive. Plus, I think "assertive" implies a certain amount of aggressiveness, which doesn't seem ideal. (Not that I can do better.)

 

[INTP]

Because its not MBTI, but an extra dimension added by other people. Some tests also test neuroticism(from big5) along side of MBTI type(and that extra dimension you asked about is basically neuroticism put into on/off mode instead of measuring it on a scale from 0-100 like big 5 does). Basically you can make a test that tests MBTI and other stuff at the same time, by adding some extra questions.

 

[Eric B]

At first, I thought this would be about Enneagram, as that's what many have in practice added as a "fifth letter of type".

But that A/T concept does seem to be an attempt to add the missing "fifth factor". Subscales for one (called "comfort/Discomfort") were in fact included in Myers' original work, but were blended into the other scales, being deemed to be too potentially negative.

Part of A/T might figure in I/E, as extraverts will tend to be a bit more assertive. Introverts might be more "turbulent", as they do hold things in more rather than venting (and from here, I'm getting into classic temperament theory, where the low "expressive" Melancholy and fifth temperament Supine do hold in reactions more, but may explode later). "Turbulent" may also figure in what's known as "directiveness" or "structure focus", which are the "low responsive" poles of temperament, where the classic Melancholy and Choleric tend to hold onto emotions (especially negative ones) longer.

Overall, I had determined that "Neuroticism" in the five temperaments corresponds to either dimension (esxpressive/responsive) being LOW. What we end up with matched Eysenck's original assignment of that factor, where only the high/high Sanguine and mod./mod. Phlegmatic are the low N or "stable" temperaments.

Where Phlegmatic and Supine end up fitting into the same Interaction style or Keirsey temperament in the translation to type, that may explain some of these distinctions. An INxP-A might be Phlegmatic, where an INxP-T is probably Supine. The Phlegmatic one will be not only more calm or emotionally stable, but also not as reserved, and thus appear more "assertve". (Phlegmatics have a stronger stubborn streak, where Supines tend to be more yielding. Phlegmatic seemed more shy and reserved compared to the extroverts, but this is actually from low emotional energy, where the Supine is driven into himself by fear of rejection).

Thus, the stereotypical types would be INFP-T and INTP-A. But an INFP-A and INTP-T may seem to reverse the typical "T/F" expectations, and this will explain a lot of the T/F uncertainty they have. Like I'm sure several of us here are INTP-T's, while [MENTION=6561]OrangeAppled[/MENTION] is likely an INFP-A.
Also, the third area of temperament, Affection (deep personal relations) may influence it as well. And all of this may affect what that Enneagram number affixed to the type is as well.

 

[KitchenFly]

I should not really say anything because I have no experience with the 5th letter,in the MBTI.

But I have read all these posts and I have thoughts at the gut level of what I may assume it being the 5th may refer to. (A guess).

Copy write and plagiarism and originality is a big thing.

-A and -B maybe like touching on the energy of the two triangles at the instinctive level of the enneagram, that would make sense to me but that is a guess, I have not looked at the 5th letter in the MBTI in any way other than reading these posts above.

Eric B spoke of a neurotic component, I can give one or two examples via my understanding utilising my model.

In the example below the neurotic energy will be Ti-Fi the Ti comes from the first preference of the 3 energy in the 3w4 So/Sx and the Fi comes from the first preference from the 6w7's first function.

In my model the point of integration is also the point of neurosis for the type, this example is for the 3w4 So/Sx who's Point of Integration/Neurosis is at Point:6 , 6w7.

Example: 3w4 So/Sx , T-S,N,F , Ti-Se,Ne,Fe , Ti-Ni , Ne-Si , Fe-Fi .

This example hits the First shock with out successfully proceed to the second shock. Probiotic actions flux between the actions of the three dynamics ( Ti-Ni , Ne-Si , Fe-Fi ). These dynamics combined add to the difficulty of understanding and viewing the one to one correlation between the two components 3w4 and ISTP witch has more than one four letter order in its four letter order as a combination.

Ti = 3 = Preferred function for the 3w4.
Ne = w4 = 4w5 Preferred function Ne.
Si = w2 = 2w3 Preferred function Si.
Ni = 9w8 = Point of Stress 9w8's Preferred function = Ni.
Fe = 3w4's fourth/ Lest preferred function fourth function = Fe.
Fi = 6w7's preferred function Fi.

Note six actions.

I think for the 3w4 So/Sx/Sp the order of the six variant heads is:

Ti = So/Sx
Ne = Sx/So
Si = Sp/So
Ni = Sx/Sp
Fe = Sp/Sx
Fi = So/Sp

So is it a switch the terms ( -A & -T ) or a measured set of questions for whether an individual is part of the ( -2-5- team work triangle perhaps -T or the ( -1-7-4- ) personal triangle perhaps -A. Or is it neither of these two guesses of mine. I don't know.

But that my input.

 

[indra]

Jung founded his theory on some pretty monolithic constructs in philosophy, namely Immanuel Kant.

Kant described two modes of reason, analytic reasoning and synthetic reasoning. This is both the base and outer limit to experience, each corresponding to SENSE and INTUITION respectively.

This is why the four letters are most popular, it already contains the totality of experience in a nice, neat package.

 

[á´…eparted]

It really wouldn't make *that* much sense to me to add a 5th dichotomy. Largely because, how would this fit into functions? Without modification to the functions, it just feels like a weird extra layer that can't be indicated.

 

[OrangeAppled]

At first, I thought this would be about Enneagram, as that's what many have in practice added as a "fifth letter of type".

But that A/T concept does seem to be an attempt to add the missing "fifth factor". Subscales for one (called "comfort/Discomfort") were in fact included in Myers' original work, but were blended into the other scales, being deemed to be too potentially negative.

Part of A/T might figure in I/E, as extraverts will tend to be a bit more assertive. Introverts might be more "turbulent", as they do hold things in more rather than venting (and from here, I'm getting into classic temperament theory, where the low "expressive" Melancholy and fifth temperament Supine do hold in reactions more, but may explode later). "Turbulent" may also figure in what's known as "directiveness" or "structure focus", which are the "low responsive" poles of temperament, where the classic Melancholy and Choleric tend to hold onto emotions (especially negative ones) longer.

Overall, I had determined that "Neuroticism" in the five temperaments corresponds to either dimension (esxpressive/responsive) being LOW. What we end up with matched Eysenck's original assignment of that factor, where only the high/high Sanguine and mod./mod. Phlegmatic are the low N or "stable" temperaments.

Where Phlegmatic and Supine end up fitting into the same Interaction style or Keirsey temperament in the translation to type, that may explain some of these distinctions. An INxP-A might be Phlegmatic, where an INxP-T is probably Supine. The Phlegmatic one will be not only more calm or emotionally stable, but also not as reserved, and thus appear more "assertve". (Phlegmatics have a stronger stubborn streak, where Supines tend to be more yielding. Phlegmatic seemed more shy and reserved compared to the extroverts, but this is actually from low emotional energy, where the Supine is driven into himself by fear of rejection).

Thus, the stereotypical types would be INFP-T and INTP-A. But an INFP-A and INTP-T may seem to reverse the typical "T/F" expectations, and this will explain a lot of the T/F uncertainty they have. Like I'm sure several of us here are INTP-T's, while [MENTION=6561]OrangeAppled[/MENTION] is likely an INFP-A.
Also, the third area of temperament, Affection (deep personal relations) may influence it as well. And all of this may affect what that Enneagram number affixed to the type is as well.

I am definitely not phlegmatic. I am the opposite of how you describe it here. Ive never related to it. Melancholy usually suits me best.

In person, people think I'm temperamental, not calm or stable.
There are different kinds of emotion. I tend to be more stormy than soft. I tend to be more fiery than warm, or I seen as cool when not expressing much. I tend to hold it in then explode.
The T/F issue comes down to me not being a people-pleaser. People think Fs are warm, fuzzy, and focused on people. But some Feeling is more intense and focused on ideals. Understanding Fi and that Feeling is rational clears it all up for me. I never test as a T for being "calm".

In Big 5, I test high on the limbic/neurotic side. It is close to being my subtype, with inquisitive/open just barely edging it out. Makes sense given my enneatype.

 

[Eric B]

OK. I remember discussing type in light fof the classic temperament with you years ago, and you had considered INTP, but went with F, and I figured you being Phlegmatic would explain it. I forgot what exactly you said regarding the temperaments. And Supine didn't fit either? (That one could be mistaken for Melancholy up front. It too would be more limbic).

 

[KitchenFly]

[MENTION=3521]Eric B[/MENTION]

I remember and just revisited the topic on the fifth temperament.

And now this topic on the idea of a fifth letter. This has got my mind ticking.

Interestingly I just happen to be experiencing another times span with out and with drawing from cigarettes. And an interesting thing I recognise is that one of the most appealing things about smoking is that it provides a third option experience that derives from the chemical reaction smoking has on the nervous system, it switches the nerves on of on of on of while smoking and that is very relaxing and a pleasing feeling, and it also slightly dampeners the awe arenas towards temperament at a respective level in my opinion.

This leads me to thinking that the idea of four or of five for both ideas the MBTI 5th letter and Temperament's 5th Option.

I think there is an action like a two part switch between 4 parts and five parts and if one of the two parts was assigned a + value as in let's say positive the other would be assigned a - value as let's say negative.

Then a third value is neutral, all nine parts, and there maybe more phases between 9 parts and the two options of four pars and five parts.

But most of all I tend to think there are several states for the value of nine parts and then they act upon or with the two cements of four parts and five parts.

I shear this because I am banging my head against the wall trying to work out how to create a correct symbol for two parts in my new Tri-loop model.

 

[Eric B]

I think what you're saying sounds like what I said on my first temperament page

Having the two factors results in a square table consisting of the two scales of scores which basically answers the questions "is the person outgoing?", and "are they people-oriented?": NN, YY, YN and NY; or in terms of "positive" and "negative": --, ++, +-, and-+; or in terms of high, and low [which is generally what FIRO-B uses], ll, hh, hl and lh.
The ancient four temperaments correspond to these four types of behavior. The true introvert who is task-oriented rather than people-oriented is the Melancholy; the true extrovert who is people-oriented is the Sanguine, and the extrovert who is task-oriented rather than people-oriented is the Choleric.

The Phlegmatic was assumed to be -+, but was determined to be neutral (00, representing the e/w scores of 4/4, 4/5, 5/4 and 5/5), and Supine the true -+ (e=0-3=low, w=6-9=high).

This also leads to the possibility of 0+, 0-, +0 and -0, which would yield nine, which is generally done on the FIRO-B locator map, but in the APS temperaments, these ranges are actually divided between the two temperaments they lie between. So 0- (low e mod. w) is both PhlegmaticMelancholy (e=4) and PhlegmaticCholeric (e=5).
These are all those extra temperaments on the temperament report pages I often link to (why there's 17 links for each area instead of just five). They represent moderate versions of the temperaments.

 

[EcK]

 

[KitchenFly]

Wow you really have done some work Eric B.

I had not thought of such a model as you have sheared in part or full in this post.

The temperaments are something I am lazy towards acknowledging for some reason.

If from reading above I was to guess my temperament I would think I would be perhaps Phlegmatic 99% of the time kinda flowing along looking to keep peacefully happy within my portion as long as I am settled within my mind set, if I am not settled I tend to rock the boat and disturb others comforts and boundaries. I do this because I know I have a giant power that lay beneath that can surface automatically and seems to be like an indomitable force.

After reading your post I am wondering if this could linked to the Supine and it the two can unit. In my terminology I would refer to this power as Presence under the order of having engaged the law of three within, or as Chee.

I maybe incorrect.

I am troubled with not knowing how to describe as symbols the ambidextrous S&N and ambidextrous F&T functions I believe exists at Points 1 and 5. (1w9 ESNTJ) & ( 5w6 INFTP).

Know that I am working on a layer I find difficult to believe that I am the first and only to recognise I believe it is important to get it right because the symbol language speaks to the visceral within understand and I need to be correct before I raft the simple week of 36 base components.

I am leaning towards, Simply writing SN , and Simply writing FT as the symbols but all of the others have an i or e accompanying.

If I write it as above then I must explain exactly how it work in a frame work model am I am unable to that I believe because there is alway a chemistry of action below the simple level and I believe the level of what I am calling Tri-loop is like the boundary of multiple part components unifying as a combined order. If that make sense.

What are your thoughts?

 

[gromit]

That is not a useless distinction. Two people of same mbti type can be totally different.

I think enneagram sort of gets at it a bit too.

 

[KitchenFly]

That is not a useless distinction. Two people of same mbti type can be totally different.

I think enneagram sort of gets at it a bit too.

Well it's a funny thing how do you express a primary focus that relates a context-content orientation function focus that is not two parts but four parts.

It's a subtle thing but an Important characteristic. We all have an aperture for these two characteristics but it is like a two in to two.

There is Introversion and there is Extroversion so each has a context-content component to the orientation application of intelligence and then there is the divide between.

So there is the divide between S&N and also F&T but there is the divide between simply S&N and F&T.

So it's like there are three dual contextual focuses ( I-E , S-N ,F-T ) and four contextual content a states of awarenesses with two content orientation. One content is contextual to the lens view INFTP and the other content is contextual to the lens view ESNTJ.

It's a bit of a tung twister to try to explain and I am not shore that I have quite explained or conveyed an understanding correctly.

But you should be able to understand it. It's really quite simple it is two parts and two parts that divide in to four parts in two ways but produce or pertain to two perspectives from to perspectives.

A focus toward content into context for explanation.
A context into content focus for understanding.

I think I kinda got it across the line.

All types utilise these two functions but the other sixteen types have a function orientation of a slightly different order.

 

[Eric B]

When you say "ambidextrous S/N", I take it, it must be from this page: A Calibrated Table of Correlations for the Enneagram and MBTI systems I thought that was interesting a long time ago, and it was the inspiration of the notion of "81 types" (adding a third moderate pole to all four of the dichotomies, which would make them easily map to the Enneagram, and the five temperaments plus four "moderate" ranges, which also made nine). But I found it didn't work with the functions, and there's probably no true "ambidextrous" poles anywhere. There's always at least a slight preference for one pole or another.

I don't know the other concepts you mention. Of the different MBTI-Enneagram correlations out there, the one that always made the most sense to me was this one: Myers-Briggs, XYZ Leadership and Team Roles by David M. Boje, Ph.D.

 

[KitchenFly]

When you say "ambidextrous S/N", I take it, it must be from this page: A Calibrated Table of Correlations for the Enneagram and MBTI systems I thought that was interesting a long time ago, and it was the inspiration of the notion of "81 types" (adding a third moderate pole to all four of the dichotomies, which would make them easily map to the Enneagram, and the five temperaments plus four "moderate" ranges, which also made nine). But I found it didn't work with the functions, and there's probably no true "ambidextrous" poles anywhere. There's always at least a slight preference for one pole or another.

I don't know the other concepts you mention. Of the different MBTI-Enneagram correlations out there, the one that always made the most sense to me was this one: Myers-Briggs, XYZ Leadership and Team Roles by David M. Boje, Ph.D.

Well I am surprised that someone took my work seriously.

Thank you for being honest. I'm not shore what to say I only record what I sore and still see.

I am flexible about the to ambidextrous types but I still think I am right. But I can't keep pushing on promoting something that has been taken seriously.

I suppose I should simply keep it to my self and celebrate it as my own personal insight. Witch is kinda disappointing because I am working on the 36 Tri-loops.

But just because I see them it obviously dose not mean others will see them as well.

Ok then thanks Eric B

Cheers

 

[Eric B]

Are you saying that you wrote that article/page or at least the theory behind it on that Socionics site?

 

[KitchenFly]

Yes that's me, I am Mark Anthony Rockliff. I did those correlations in 1997-1998. And it has always surprised me that others don't see the connections. It's disappointing but that's the way it is.

I do understand that part of the resistance is due to the rules of science, nothing can be subjective and testing personality is difficult due to the complexities. Any way I'm ok with it. Part of the disappointment is that I like looking for correlations and I'm excited about moving my focus to the layer of the 36 Tri-loops, because 6 multiplied by 6 = 36. Six Astroid belts and six objects that make up what we call Pluto. And 18 + 36 = 54.

I think there maybe a direct relationship between the six instincts and the six Astroid belts between Mars and Jupiter and Pluto. This is an old thought of mine but now science knows more about Pluto I am keen to think about possibilities.

Pluto's spinning moons.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ei5aF6Bw56E


I was selected for a survey some time back while visiting the new horizons journey to Pluto web sight and in the survey I requested what I would like to learn and see graphically The speed of the spin and the speed of the orbits they all journey in relation to each other.

I was excited that basically all the information is in that youtube video posted by Nasa. Cool.