# What exactly does having an "x" mean? How common is it to have an "x" in personality?



## Ashovare (Jan 15, 2012)

*What exactly does having an "x" mean? How common is it to have an "x" in personality?*

I'm somewhat familier with Meyers-Briggs typology, but not as much as I could be. I was just wondering what having an x in personality is and how common they are.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

X is a placeholder when someone doesn't want to delineate a certain dichotomy. Like for example if I'm talking about Extraverted Sensing dominants instead of writing out ESFP and ESTP I can just write out ESxP, which is a shorthand to indicate both types (or I can just say Se-dominants). 

Often times people use x because they don't know their type or don't feel comfortable with a type description. But people who are more advanced with this stuff will often just say "I don't know" or "I'm an Introverted Feeling type" rather than to make some erroneous statement like "I'm INFx or I'm ENFx"' In reality INFP and INFJ don't have any common functions so you can't be a hybrid of the two. A similar thing is true for INTP and INFP, where people commonly say "INxP." This is also a misnomer because INTPs are dominant thinking types with thinking as the inferior function (meaning their preference is toward thinking) and INFPs are dominant feeling types with thinking in the inferior (meaning their preference is toward feeling). These types, though not true opposites (ESTJ would be the true opposite to INFP) are nonetheless dissimilar enough to where the label INxP is a false one.


----------



## Bel Esprit (Aug 2, 2011)

^What he said.

It's not very common for a person to need a variable in their type. 
For example, my friend is an ENFJ and I type her this because that is the profile description she relates to the most. But she also uses sensing more than an average intuitive can. She can sometimes switch between the two. So you could say she's ExFJ, but if you do, you're talking about an entirely different set of functions as LiquidLight explained. It's a difference of Si to Ni, Te to Se, and Ni to Te. I apologize if that doesn't make sense, I don't know how familiar with cognitive functions you are. But basically if you are 50% in each preference - E/I, N/S, F/T, or P/J, then you can logically put an X in your type. But like I said, it is very rare for someone to need an X. Even if someone is 50% in both preferences, they will most often relate to one type more so than another. It's kind of a place holder until you find out what your real type is.

From my experience the N/S and the P/J tend to be a little sketchy and so those are the places you're more likely to see an X.


----------



## Ashovare (Jan 15, 2012)

Thanks, I get it. So for instance, if an ENTP has a hairline difference between P & J, and P > J, then he would say ENTP rather than ENTx, but in a thread he might say, "What do you think of ENTXs?" And is it the same if an ENTP also possessed many qualities of an INTP (which seems to me not completely uncommon) then he or she would refer to whichever description fit them most?

Also, where can I read about the enneagram and wing types? I've studied Myers-Briggs to a limited extent, but this is new to me. I'd also like to read up on the aspects such as Fi, etc. It's new to me.


----------



## Sovereign (Aug 19, 2011)

Ashovare said:


> Thanks, I get it. So for instance, if an ENTP has a hairline difference between P & J, and P > J, then he would say ENTP rather than ENTx, but in a thread he might say, "What do you think of ENTXs?" And is it the same if an ENTP also possessed many qualities of an INTP (which seems to me not completely uncommon) then he or she would refer to whichever description fit them most?
> 
> Also, where can I read about the enneagram and wing types? I've studied Myers-Briggs to a limited extent, but this is new to me. I'd also like to read up on the aspects such as Fi, etc. It's new to me.


The Fi, Fe, Ti, Te, etc. abbreviations are cognitive functions. We have a whole forum devoted to it, which you can get to from the community page. We also have a forum for Enneagram. Stickied at the top of each forum are a bunch of articles and threads that are particularly helpful in understanding the forum topic. You can learn a whole lot about both those you listed there.

However, you've got it a bit wrong on the "x" issue. The explanations that were provided to you were very accurate, but would almost be unintelligible if you don't have a basic grasp of the cognitive functions. To understand, that'd be the first place to start. I will, however, take a crack at explaining. 

An ENTP would never be anywhere close to a J. It just doesn't work on a cognitive functions level. However, an ESTP could potentially be very similar to an ESFP, as their cognitive order is the same except for the T and F. To learn the different cognitive orders, you'll need to do a bit of research. Therefore, some abbreviations are just fine (e.g. ESxP), but others are impossible (e.g. ENTx).


----------



## Spades (Aug 31, 2011)

Ashovare said:


> Thanks, I get it. So for instance, if an ENTP has a hairline difference between P & J, and P > J, then he would say ENTP rather than ENTx, but in a thread he might say, "What do you think of ENTXs?" And is it the same if an ENTP also possessed many qualities of an INTP (which seems to me not completely uncommon) then he or she would refer to whichever description fit them most?
> 
> Also, where can I read about the enneagram and wing types? I've studied Myers-Briggs to a limited extent, but this is new to me. I'd also like to read up on the aspects such as Fi, etc. It's new to me.


J vs P is a false dichotomy. It refers to which direction you orient your main judging function (you will probably learn about this as you become familiar with cognitive function theory and the functions).

ENTP and INTP are similar because:
ENTP: Ne-Ti-Fe-Si
INTP: Ti-Ne-Si-Fe
They have the same functions in a different order. Whereas,
ENTJ: Te-Ni-Se-Fi
Completely different functions.


----------



## Ashovare (Jan 15, 2012)

Thanks guys. I'll take a look at the links. 
(I've always considered INTP as ENTP's sister type. I have a lot of INTP qualities as well.)


----------



## DarkRain (Nov 30, 2011)

I've taken the test multiple times and my N and S always comes out at around 50% each, sometimes more S and sometimes more N. I relate with INTJ more though, so yes. Tests are after all a little unreliable. A few questions on the test was "do you appreciate art" or "are you really opinionated about art", and I've taken art classes since 3 so I naturally boosted the S of the test result. But yea, x is probably used in uncertain circumstances or to include 2 personalities, but there should be a preferred/more dominant side.


----------



## emerald sea (Jun 4, 2011)

it means that you're on the line between two personality types which are similar in two ways:

1) they share three of the four MBTI categories (I or E, N or S, F or T, P or J) AND
2) they share the same four cognitive functions, but in a different order. 

for instance it has been suggested i'm an xNFJ because my Ni and Fe cognitive functions are both close to being dominant - i've tested both as INFJ (which is Ni dominant) and as ENFJ (which is Fe dominant) and sometimes act more like an INFJ, sometimes more like an ENFJ.

the cognitive functions for these two types are:

INFJ: Ni Fe Ti Se
ENFJ: Fe Ni Se Ti
(see how both are N, F, and J in their names - I*NFJ *and E*NFJ*; and both have the same four cognitive functions - Ni, Fe, Ti, and Se - just in a different order?)


----------



## QuirkyCouple (Oct 5, 2011)

*Clarification & Emergent Question*



LiquidLight said:


> X is a placeholder when someone doesn't want to delineate a certain dichotomy. Like for example if I'm talking about Extraverted Sensing dominants instead of writing out ESFP and ESTP I can just write out ESxP, which is a shorthand to indicate both types (or I can just say Se-dominants)... Often times people use x because they don't know their type or don't feel comfortable with a type description. But people who are more advanced with this stuff will often just say "I don't know" or "I'm an Introverted Feeling type" rather than to make some erroneous statement like "I'm INFx or I'm ENFx"' In reality INFP and INFJ don't have any common functions so you can't be a hybrid of the two...


Hello L.L.,

I agree with your statement about shorthand; though I generally prefer 'x' to enumerating various types, as my posts are long enough as it is!

However, there is a portion of your statement with which I wanted to take exception; not because I don't believe you to not have known this, more for a clarification for other readers (I could see other newcomers being confused by the 'x' notation, especially those with non-technical backgrounds) that visit here.



> "I'm INFx or I'm ENFx"' In reality INFP and INFJ don't have any common functions so you can't be a hybrid of the two..."


It was my understanding:_*

All 16 types have and use all four functions in each direction (the eight functions), and in fact we really use them in the same order, the priority of the first four function assigned to a type generally referring to a "weight", or in plain-speak, "the amount of time or effort I devote to really watching this cognitive 'TV channel'". So, when the first four functions of a type do not appear to be present in another (for example, my INFJ functions are 'not present' in my ISTJ dad's cognitive leading stack), they are in fact present, but occur in the portion we generally ignore, the "Shadow".*_

_[*** This is only my understanding; corrections are greatly welcomed if I in fact have misspoken ***]_

...in the process of this response though, a question emerged:

*:: How Significant Is Functional Ordering In 'Ambiverts'? ::*

_(Or I guess in the example below, an Ambi-Func, or Ambi-CogProc?!)_

However, I would pose the following question to you; considering the way that MBTI is organized (to yield the four letters as indicators, versus a functional stack), I would anticipate that this was taken into consideration with respect to "ambiverts". For example, another family member of mine tests so close to the line, they routinely get ~50/50 results with respect to S/N, the preference for either being so slight as to be "statistically insignificant". So, if that person's N function would shift from Ne to Ni (and additionally, the S orientation changes and trades positions with N), it seems that preference would be so insignificant, that they would have essentially balanced the two effectively. I don't know if that's possible according to theory, but I can say that from personal experience, the individual in question appears to have balanced S and N capabilities from a behavioral standpoint.

I understand that a person cannot 'flip' between personality types (under normal circumstances, and certainly not day to day), just like a person that finished 1st in a car race maintains that distinction. However, if the 2nd place driver finished 0.5 ms later, could we really indicate the 1st place finisher has remarkably different driving skills?

Thoughts?


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

Well ambiversion can't really exist because, for example, an INFP doesn't become an ENFP because they lead with different dominant functions and the dominant function will always be the most differentiated. This does not mean that a person may not also have a very strong auxiliary function, but that aux will not supercede the dominant (in fact the ego would see to it that it doesn't as you can only have one captain of the ship). So an INFP might differentiate their Ne to where it plays a major role in their overall cognition, but at best this is akin to a highly empowered first-mate, because the overall preference of cognitive energy direction is toward the self (that's what makes the introvert an introvert). Because the MBTI is testing introversion as behavior and not really as cognitive preference this can occasionally create false results (introverts who are functionally extraverts but shy or withdrawn). For example, a lot of INFPs and INTPs are probably Fe and Te-doms, but because they are shy or withdrawn score as I on the test or close to the middle.

Now regarding functions like S/N or T/F generally if you score 50/50 you don't lead with either (meaning neither is your dominant function). This is because of the nature of functions being in initial opposition (thinking opposes feeling, sensing opposes intuition) so the preference will be strongly for one over the other in most cases (again it really depends on how the test tests for these things, because often what the test describes as 'thinking' is really just intellect which any type can have, and what the tests call 'feeling' is emotion, which of course everyone has). So a lot of people think they are smart or intellectual, thus they must be Thinking types, but not necessarily. In fact what makes Thinking is the rejection of Feeling (feeling being a way of rationalizing emotional content but not the emotions themselves - this is why both Thinking and Feeling are referred to as judgment). 

So often times you have people who score as INFP, for example, on tests with 50/50 T/F but whose N scores are through the roof and S score is nonexistant. This is a bell ringing indicator that the person is probably not really an INFP (which is a dominant Feeling type) but rather an Intuitive who leads with N and for whom T and F would be the two middle functions which could have parity (on a test at least) with one another. 

Also for people who have aux/tert functions that are balanced on a test, those functions will still manifest in characteristic ways (one will have a slightly negative or flippant bent to it, even if only perceived by the person themselves). So for example, ESTJs often have healthy tertiary Ne, which might open them up to all kinds of activities and ideas, but they themselves may not take that perspective all that seriously, but see it as a pastime or play rather than something they could actually use in their daily lives in a meaningful way (many ESTJs have normal stable jobs by day, but may delve into some hobby like art or DJing on the side as a result). INFJs can have a pronounced Ti-bent but might recoil if their thinking is questioned defaulting to their more comfortable Fe perspective rather than really defending their intellectual position (for example when I'm challenged, I'll often default to a perspective of bringing up the opinion of someone else rather than giving a full-throated articulation of my own intellectual opinion -- this is a way of saying that I really don't trust my thinking of its own volition, which is an indicator that thinking for me isn't a function that I lead with). In a lot of the theories the auxiliary will the function used to nurture or take care of people (ENFJs might 'intuit' for people having a sense of their needs) but the tertiary will be like an eternal child function, something of a trouble maker, the first to throw a punch, but the first to run away. The inferior is the complete antithesis of the dominant function, the complete opposite way of doing business, a mutinous crewmember on the boat (again why someone with two equal function strengths won't lead with either, because the dominant and inferior have very specific characteristics). The people claiming to be XXXX type would probably change their tune if they figured out their inferior function.


----------



## Neon Knight (Aug 11, 2010)

@LiquidLight
Thank you for this. I have been long considering the possibility that i in fact am an isfp because even k2c tests are coming out rather ambiguously between my dom/aux preferences even more lately. the more stuff happens in my life between stressed and non-stressed states, it's been getting to the point where i wonder if i am actually possibly an isxj of some sort. i even had a strange dream where i tested as estj and i was like "holy, was i ever off!" All mbti tests however distinguish my heavy extraversion (as well as big 5m despite my shyness) and p, higher s by quite a bit, with t + f alternating frequently. even considered estp for a while but the fi is way too much to even consider it. so there has to be other way to figure it out. so this is an interesting turn of events, which i somewhat suspected at one point to be a possible guide strangely enough, so thanks for that


----------



## Mjay (Apr 16, 2021)

Ashovare said:


> Thanks guys. I'll take a look at the links.
> (I've always considered INTP as ENTP's sister type. I have a lot of INTP qualities as well.)


I tested intj first round and ixtj second round. I do identify with n more but there are times when i can use both. It's very confusing.


----------

