which system describes you the best?

[GavinElster]

If I had to answer, though, some version of socionics ILE-Ne really seems to get it right.

 

[OrangeAppled]

Enneagram, as 4w5 better explains why I test as INxP without my overly complicated take on Fi.

 

[Galena]

From easiest to hardest:

Enneagram: Already claimed as best fit earlier in the thread. Wing isn't strong, but sometimes they're not.

Big 5: Maybe this is wrong, but I get the impression that one's type in this system is more malleable over a lifetime, if only to a point. RLOAX helps the big picture of my type a great deal.

JCF: A solid typing on the functional level where it counts, though behaviorally I'm not a very clear example of FiSe.

Socionics: ESI-Fi fits more effectively than the rest, sure, but there's no good fit here. It fills in holes left by other types, more than anything.

Instinctual Variant: kill with fire. all of them

 

[GavinElster]

Enneagram, as 4w5 better explains why I test as INxP without my overly complicated take on Fi.

I think the gist is that the first two letters IN roughly relate to a lot of Jung's introversion, and so do many enneagram portrayals of 4 and 5 (orientation to mind over the external, inner life, separation/isolation from the external and so forth). Tack on that Jung conceived of "Fi" as just the typical ego-consciousness of an introvert who happens to also be a feeling type (not a discrete 1/8 called Fi as we do nowadays) and the X would probably lean to F, in parallel to 4's (usually) leaning in that direction too.
Obviously one can complicate things a lot more than that, state a billion exceptions and other angles, but while we're stating things without the overly complicated...I think we can do it with Jung and not just enneagram! Meaning, I think one can be simple about Fi and still arrive at a similar place (even if not being simple is fun, too).

Myers' test frames F in a way that includes a lot of stuff that doesn't have to go with Jungian F, since value judgments don't have to be tender or compassionate, quite the opposite sometimes, so if the X varies a little, that's still pretty obviously consistent with a non-overly complex take on Jungian Fi.

 

[OrangeAppled]

I think the gist is that the first two letters IN roughly relate to a lot of Jung's introversion, and so do many enneagram portrayals of 4 and 5 (orientation to mind over the external, inner life, separation/isolation from the external and so forth). Tack on that Jung conceived of "Fi" as just the typical ego-consciousness of an introvert who happens to also be a feeling type (not a discrete 1/8 called Fi as we do nowadays) and the X would probably lean to F, in parallel to 4's (usually) leaning in that direction too.
Obviously one can complicate things a lot more than that, state a billion exceptions and other angles, but while we're stating things without the overly complicated...I think we can do it with Jung and not just enneagram! Meaning, I think one can be simple about Fi and still arrive at a similar place (even if not being simple is fun, too).

Myers' test frames F in a way that includes a lot of stuff that doesn't have to go with Jungian F, since value judgments don't have to be tender or compassionate, quite the opposite sometimes, so if the X varies a little, that's still pretty obviously consistent with a non-overly complex take on Jungian Fi.

A 4w5 would suggest Fi over Ti and 5w4 the opposite, yes, but they're not dichotomous.
Th compassionate stuff is not what I don't relate to. Actually, that and being arty farty is also why I identify just slightly more with INFP profiles.
But I recognize myself in Fi only so much as it is defined as rational and focused on creating and exploring concepts of value (ie meaning in the human experience), not as holding emotionally driven values.

Myers' Feeling does sound more like Fe to me, but not because I am not empathetic or unemotional. As with many people, the logic vs emotion thing is a false dichotomy for me. I define feeling vs thinking as a focus on meaning/worth of things vs their technical definitions. As Jung says, Thinking tells you what something is, but Feeling what it is worth.

 

[GavinElster]

but they're not dichotomous.

Sure, and I'd also note Fi/Ti as Jung thought of them share introversion -- that's I think pretty consistent with 4/5 which seem to often at least involve introverted themes. I think post-Jungian thought frequently emphasizes the axes (Ti/Fe vs Fi/Te) to the point of obscuring that Jung would've probably viewed Fi and Ti doms as sharing a ton of things, given for him, these meant introverts...who happen to also be of the feeling or thinking type respectively. In this sense, there would be no dichotomy, only a difference.

But I recognize myself in Fi only so much as it is defined as rational and focused on creating and exploring concepts of value (ie meaning in the human experience), not as holding emotionally driven values.

I think at bottom, I should ask this: why do you think feeling/thinking is a legitimate dichotomy (as defined in the Jungian sense)? Intuition/sensation is kind of obvious comparatively, but I find a lot of people's understandings of feeling/thinking doesn't even make it clear why they'd repress each other, rather than merely be different (I mean, being different isn't sufficient to repress, because otherwise how would we pair the auxiliary with dominant).

Also, when you suggest "I recognize myself in Fi only so much as....not as holding emotionally driven values," it almost makes it seem as if you think you'd recognize yourself in Fi more were you driven by emotional values.
But I guess the latter part of your post seems to bring up the traditional point of view that feeling is not about emotion, but value judgment.

Anyway, I personally think this topic is pretty subtle, because I think ultimately, we have to ask: what exactly IS the feeling/thinking dichotomy about? Why are judgments of worth in some sense opposed to focus on these other kinds of judgments?
The way I look at it, the key is that we wouldn't have value judgments without subjective reactions to things, but we can't solely explain them by those reactions. Even super non-emotion-based value theories like those of Kant seem to at least mention moral sentiment, and I think the point is not all sentiment is subjective in the sense of *personal* but may involve some more general property of being human.

So I tend to view the feeling function's role as mediating between the two necessary faculties for value judgment: reflection and subjective reaction. We can't explain how the process of reflection can lead to literally revising our reactions to things if the reaction is just a sort of blind thing. It isn't unrelated to feelings, but the point is it seems to be more about determining the appropriateness of the feelings than essentially tacitly accepting whatever one's personal whims say.

T-dom types seem to be just a bit more fatalist about hey, my personal reaction is just a fact about my psychology, we can deal with it, but questions of appropriateness of feeling are a rabbit hole. This means the two things above aren't in quite as much dialogue -- the reactions are raw, and the reflection is also raw, and leads to making things explicit/defining ideas clearly. So some T types are pretty emotional, but with the reactions largely unrationalized. There's something more pragmatic and functional about this view -- kind of reminiscent to how money does ultimately reflect human values in a crude way, but it's an instance where the values just are what they are, and the question of what they ought to be isn't raised as seriously.

 

[Agent Washington]

since value judgments don't have to be tender or compassionate, quite the opposite sometimes,

OH MY GOD THANK YOU. THANK YOU

 

[Taibreah]

Although I have questioned my Enneagram type a few times, I think I've questioned it less than I have MBTI and Socionics. I find Enneagram to be more relatable with its descriptions. If I delved deeper into Socionics, I might have chosen that, but I'm going with Enneagram.

 

[GloriaInExcelsisDeo]

I particularly like the MOTIV+ system where I am an AcTIVrS (Ascetic).

 

[Zeego]

I identify most with my Enneagram type. I feel like MBTI sometimes relies on stereotypes that don't apply to me, and Socionics is a bit of a mess tbh.

 

[Obfuscate]

most assuredly it is mbti... the enneagram reminds me of jello (it is hard to pin down)... i like the scionics system well enough, but most translations are shoddy at best... mbti works for me because the defining terms feel "crisp"; it is easy to define where it's curvatures align and depart from my own... none of the big 5 types are a "tight" fit for me... i feel like i need a hacksaw and rawl pins to get a match...

 

[Bardsandwarriors]

Both MBTI and Enneagram describe aspects of me very well. Socionics also, but I see that as a variation or extension on MBTI. I like them because they categorise, and then tell you a whole lot more about yourself, which perhaps you weren't aware of.

Big 5 is all sliding scales, and I know there is a wealth of expert analysis which psychologists are aware of, but it doesn't seem to be available on the web. So all you get is 5 numbers, and no more explanation than that. I have no great motivation to study it further, if all I have is 5 numbers! (I could have guessed them in the first place).

JCF I like, but the stackings looks spurious. Most people seem to be non-standard, which suggests the theory is out.

 

[BlackCat]

Socionics and the Enneagram explain so much. It's a tie for me.

 

[DB968]

I always fall in between this type and that type. Even with the 4 temperaments, I feel it's equally true that I could be an nt nf or sj, following the angle of observation. I find tests more interesting as a whole, like looking different sides of a figure.

In terms of core type determination, it's the Enneagram for me.

 

[kotoshinohaisha]

Socionics

 

[Kanra Jest]

xNTP should say enough when it comes to mbti. There's an inconsistency that serves to confuse. Socionics is always said to mirror mbti and do a reverse flip sometimes which makes them seem connected and thus the same confusion. I also get xNTp on those(which if INTp which it has been before, by introverted socionics type theory it should be INTJ in mbti because of having Ni).

With instinct I use to think I was sp/sx simply because of a test but I lacked understanding of a lot of things about it. Upon further reflection I realized I was definitely an sx dom ... the last part still serving confusion though, as I can relate to both sx/sp and sx/so in particular ways.

Other than that, hm... Enneagram describes the way I approach things and think the best thus far. It holds to goals and a variety of stresses and the way we even react to them and things, and I can relate. Especially with the Tritype. 359 describes me quite well.

 

[kotoshinohaisha]

No psychology shit actually describes me perfectly

 

[Mal12345]

I agree that the Enneagram is great at describing people, including me. But I voted against it because in my view the best system for describing me is the Oldham typology.

- - - Updated - - -

No psychology shit actually describes me perfectly

I don't see anything in the thread topic about having a perfect fit, do you?

 

[kotoshinohaisha]

I agree that the Enneagram is great at describing people, including me. But I voted against it because in my view the best system for describing me is the Oldham typology.

- - - Updated - - -



I don't see anything in the thread topic about having a perfect fit, do you?

Oldham typology? That's new to me.. XD well, enneagram i can relate to it as well but not fully. But it's better than mbti [emoji14] mbti doesn't really fits me xD

I'm gonna check oldham typology

 

[Mal12345]

Oldham typology? That's new to me.. XD well, enneagram i can relate to it as well but not fully. But it's better than mbti [emoji14] mbti doesn't really fits me xD

I'm gonna check oldham typology

Here's the test New Personality Self-Portrait