# Common Mistypings for each personality type?



## emerald sea (Jun 4, 2011)

an interesting mistype i've noticed a couple of times is INFJs typing as ISTPs...not sure how common it is.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

seastallion said:


> an interesting mistype i've noticed a couple of times is when INFJs type as ISTPs.


This makes some sense if INFJs are in an Ni-Ti loop, when you look at the cognitive functions (INFJs: Ni-Fe-Ti-Se, ISTPs: Ti-Se-Ni-Fe) - they're each other's other half! I'm starting to find the typological "other half" stuff really interesting.


----------



## Baldur (Jun 30, 2011)

I've thought about the possibility that I might be an INFJ or an ENFP before. I think those are the types ENFJs mistype as the most. But 

I've realized that even though I'm a bit shy, I'm not a true introvert; I need people around me to feel energized. 

I have seen spontaneity listed as a P trait, but I've learned that it's not *exclusive *to P. I'm also not super anal about organizing stuff. Even if I prefer to have things clean and in order and make plans in advance, I *can* get quite messy.


----------



## Dark Romantic (Dec 27, 2011)

I've played with the idea of being quite a few types, but the only actual mistypes I've made for myself are ENTJ (back when I knew nothing about cognitive functions) and ENFP (when I was having trouble telling the difference between aux Fi and Ti). There's also a possibility that I'm a mistyped ESTP, but that's very unlikely.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

One of the reasons for the mistypes is that by creating the J/P dichotomy the Myers Briggs basically forced people into certain behavioral categories (likes things decided/likes things left open). Now really this has much more to do with persona or ego than it does how you filter information. I for life the of me cannot figure out why Extraverted Perception would make someone want things left open. It's perception (If I put on tinted glasses the change in perception doesn't make me more likely to be more spontaneous -- that's obviously a simplification but its the same idea, why would perception influence behavior?) 

As Fudjack and Dinkelaker point out MBTI in its construct 'begs the question' basically setting up a premise and then making sure you fall in-line with that premise.


> What EVIDENCE is there for the MBTI assumption that J/P is NOT an independent variable? As far as we can make out, NO evidence is characteristically presented in behalf of this assumption. It is taken to be true 'by definition'. In other words, no evidence is even SOUGHT because the presumed 'dependent' relationship between certain combinations of preference-order/orientation and J/P preference is conceived as being BUILT INTO the definitions themselves.
> 
> But is this a legitimate argument in defense of such an assumption? No. In fact, this kind of argument is a fallacy that is in logic sometimes called 'begging the question'. If somebody, for instance, wanted to argue that the earth is flat, you would most likely challenge him. You'd want to know WHY he believes it to be the case that the earth is flat. If, in response to your question, he were simply to answer that he doesn't need any evidence because the word 'earth', the way he is defining it, includes in it the feature of flatness - you could correctly reply that he is 'begging the question'. And by saying that you'd be telling him, in effect, that this 'move' is not permitted.
> 
> ...


So what happens is you might get people who, due to their functions (say a ENFP who has fairly decent Te) mistype, perhaps as ENFJ, because J is often synonymous with Te on a lot of poorly written tests, but of course an ENFP and ENFJ have no functions in common. The same could be true for an INFP who has come to grips with Inferior Te. This person would likely be closer on the J/P score, maybe even score as an INFJ, but of course we know INFP and INFJ are nothing alike. This is because MBTI does not allow for a "likes things decided" INFP or ENFP (or any other P) to exist, despite many of those types having decent Extraverted Judgment. They set up rules of the game, but then don't abide by them in totality. So if we play the MBTI game, an ENTJ might like things open, if say their Tertiary Se was strong (here I'm only talking about functions from the MBTI type dynamics standpoint not Jung's ideas of conscious/unconscious function use) then on a test, according to MBTI this ENTJ may very well score as P which would be ridiculous not just because he doesn't share the same functions as an ENTP, but leads with a completely different function altogether (Te over Ne). 

This is why you get so many INFP/INTP mistypes in particular. One because the way the functions are defined by MBTI basically makes anyone who is sort of shy an introvert (because MBTI tests Introversion/Extraversion as a factor separate from the functions, essentially looking at behavior) and basically equates feelings with Feeling and intellect with Thinking. But the question that determines type is not where a person scores on the F/T or S/N scale, but why they score. Because if we just take MBTI at face value than only types with Ni can understand the significance of something (when significance is really a factor of Feeling), or only types with strong Intuition are creative, or only Extraverted Sensing types can be concrete, or only Extraverted Thinking types have a sense of duty, and by the way what does Si (sensation) have to do with memory or traditionalism? 

It's like @Fucntianalyst said MBTI is a really convoluted way of basically doing what Kiersey does (only Kiersey, by ignoring the functions altogether actually comes up with more accurate descriptions). But it's just identification, and the point of Jungian psychology is not to identify what someone is and check that box off (there are plenty of tests that do that with much more scientific accuracy than MBTI - and quite frankly we do that to ourselves anyway with words like nerd, party animal, slut, prude, wild child, good girl, bad boy, etc). Jung wrote PT as a way of uncovering WHY we are what we are. MBTI somehow turned the Extraverted Sensation type from someone who perceives things as is, to someone who basically likes to party. Of course this will lead to mistypes not to mention MBTI's insistence on best-fit type, which is basically an admission of the fragility of their own instrument. Best-fit type is, to me pointless, because, one, people will almost always consider themselves in the best possible light, and any of us who know better know that to be typed accurately is to know the sides of you, you'd rather not admit to having. And two, what is the point of taking a test if you can choose the outcome? Aren't the proctors supposed to be the experts (MBTI says "no one can know you better than yourself" but isn't that the point of taking the test? To uncover something about yourself _that you weren't aware of?_ Otherwise you're just getting a label and move right on to the next thing. Where is the growth in that?


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

> Of course this will lead to mistypes not to mention MBTI's insistence on best-fit type, which is basically an admission of the fragility of their own instrument.


Kudos for mentioning this and your reasoning! I always thought it was completely pointless to take a test to tell you your type, when the types are: 

*a.* laid out in descriptions and information, so why even answer test questions for something you can't even study for, when the necessary information already exists online (it might actually make more sense for people to read up on type info before taking a type test, if they are uncomfortable evaluating the type info on their own without guidance, although we all know that the tests are crap anyhow) - it's redundant (technically, I think this is called "parroting," which plagues the MBTI), and frankly, the tests tend to be more accurate for people after they already are familiarized with the novel concepts originated by Jung - don't the tests pretty much assume that people should be somehow aware of the concepts of typology before they even learn their own type? That's a totally sucktastic way of promoting confirmation bias in the self-assessments, since, if people don't even know what they're being tested for, then they're obviously going to insert their own bias into the test results (considering all you said about the poor definitions of Jung's concepts, like equating things like being open-ended with Ne, complexes, especially the persona complex, etc.) - since the tests test for situational things ("using" functions as tools), rather than constants of personality, then I can see why there's about a 50% accuracy rate for the MBTI (I mean, it's pretty much a two-way street with type anyway, in that people have only two options of "experiencing" type: be yourself, or force yourself not to be yourself - there's the 50% accuracy right there, since one has the freedom to not "be themselves" if they just want to go against the "personality constant" and just "use" so-and-so function at any given time within the variable occurrences of any situation - after all, there are skill sets associated with every function that anyone can learn and employ at any given time, particularly to build up personas when interacting with others and whatnot!). 

*b.* Yes! The craptastic instrument pretends that the uglier sides of personality don't exist - wow, that's some real psychological integrity there (who doesn't know that they have weaknesses - gimme a break) - no wonder psychologists don't take it seriously! It's a form of deception! I'm surprised that Myers and Briggs didn't get ex-communicated from the psychological community for this - oh wait, that's right, they weren't even trained psychologists in the psychological profession! Duh. Unbelievable (only in America, right. *sarcasm*)!

*c.* It's pretty much a joke to me that Isabel Myers is considered an American "psychological theorist" when in fact, she didn't theorize about anything (unlike Jung) - she just distorted some of Jung's original ideas by over-simplifying them and packaging them as a personality test, while inventing the J/P labels on risky intellectual foundations (with logical fallacies abound) with no theoretical backing. I totally agree about the tests turning the test taker into the expert - it's disingenuous and a total slap-in-the-face to all of the actual concepts behind this stuff - that's scary that MBTI says "no one can know you better than yourself" - it's almost like a way of saying, "Don't trust our assessment over your own." Exactly. I can totally understand why the MBTI is accused of being a horoscope, since it basically tells you who you are, and you have no way of fighting it with knowledge of the concepts behind this stuff via the test, since the test tells you that it gives you the freedom to use your self knowledge to define yourself - um, according to the test results. From personal experiences with the MBTI stuff, it really can have a hypnotic influence over you, due to it's misinformation techniques. I thought I wouldn't be vulnerable to this when I first heard about the horoscope comparisons, but of course, I was wrong - I'm not afraid to say anymore that it's probably one of the most dangerous personality tests out there - probably the most dangerous personality test out there, due to the clever little techniques it employs (and if reading about all of the horoscopic and logical fallacies behind the MBTI on Wikipedia wasn't helpful in the beginning to fighting it, since without the education on Jung's original concepts, you have no way of knowing the actual sources of the problems with it, you're pretty much doomed to major brain rape and confusion about your personality).


----------



## Emerill (May 27, 2011)

I mistyped as INFJ.


----------



## TaylorS (Jan 24, 2010)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> This makes some sense if INFJs are in an Ni-Ti loop, when you look at the cognitive functions (INFJs: Ni-Fe-Ti-Se, ISTPs: Ti-Se-Ni-Fe) - they're each other's other half! I'm starting to find the typological "other half" stuff really interesting.


Jung called the "other half" Personality 2, it is our inner shadow, things that we have repressed because they do not fit the Persona we show the world.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

> I could be INFP. But I believe that I'm an INTP. Want to clear up your question a bit?


You're clearly not viewing your type from the cognitive functions perspective, which can be very problematic, since the dominant function of both types is completely different. T opposes F, and INFPs are F dominant, while INTPs are T dominant.


----------



## TaylorS (Jan 24, 2010)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Kudos for mentioning this and your reasoning! I always thought it was completely pointless to take a test to tell you your type, when the types are:
> 
> *a.* laid out in descriptions and information, so why even answer test questions for something you can't even study for, when the necessary information already exists online (it might actually make more sense for people to read up on type info before taking a type test, if they are uncomfortable evaluating the type info on their own without guidance, although we all know that the tests are crap anyhow) - it's redundant (technically, I think this is called "parroting," which plagues the MBTI), and frankly, the tests tend to be more accurate for people after they already are familiarized with the novel concepts originated by Jung - don't the tests pretty much assume that people should be somehow aware of the concepts of typology before they even learn their own type? That's a totally sucktastic way of promoting confirmation bias in the self-assessments, since, if people don't even know what they're being tested for, then they're obviously going to insert their own bias into the test results (considering all you said about the poor definitions of Jung's concepts, like equating things like being open-ended with Ne, complexes, especially the persona complex, etc.) - since the tests test for situational things ("using" functions as tools), rather than constants of personality, then I can see why there's about a 50% accuracy rate for the MBTI (I mean, it's pretty much a two-way street with type anyway, in that people have only two options of "experiencing" type: be yourself, or force yourself not to be yourself - there's the 50% accuracy right there, since one has the freedom to not "be themselves" if they just want to go against the "personality constant" and just "use" so-and-so function at any given time within the variable occurrences of any situation - after all, there are skill sets associated with every function that anyone can learn and employ at any given time, particularly to build up personas when interacting with others and whatnot!).
> 
> ...


She also invented the notion that the auxiliary and tertiary have an opposite attitude from the dominant and inferior, I believe. Jung said that the auxiliary is a "slave" of the dominant (and the tertiary a slave of the inferior), the Auxiliary (Tertiary) is "concretized" and does not have an attitude independent from the Dominant (Inferior).

So, according to Jung My functions would be

Si - F | T - Ne

or

Si - Fi | Te - Ne

or more graphically


```
Persona
-------
   Si
Fi
-------
  Ego
-------
     Te
  Ne
-------
Shadow
-------
Anima
```
This completely destroys the justification for a P/J distinction.

So I prefer to describe my type as IS(F), Introverted Sensation with Feeling.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

@TaylorS

I'm confused on how a person's persona can consist of all introverted functions, if the persona is about masking one's tendencies and complexes and refining how one appears to the outside world. Would the motivation come from the introverted functions in an introvert, since an introvert's and introvert? Would the persona be cultivated around the introverted functions in an introvert and the extroverted functions in an extrovert?


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> @TaylorS
> 
> I'm confused on how a person's persona can consist of all introverted functions, if the persona is about masking one's tendencies and complexes and refining how one appears to the outside world. Would the motivation come from the introverted functions in an introvert, since an introvert's and introvert? Would the persona be cultivated around the introverted functions in an introvert and the extroverted functions in an extrovert?


Ideally the person's persona will have vestiges of their superior function/s (Von Franz says the aux can often be just as developed as the dominant in many people including the corresponding pathologies, which is why only typing by Inferior function provides the most accuracy). But not necessarily. For example, I lived in the American South, where the prevailing culture is basically ESFJ/ESTJ-on-steroids, yet not everyone who lives down South is an ESTJ or ESFJ. Many are introverts, or Se-doms or Ni-doms or whatever, they've just sort of adopted an ESTJ/ESFJ outer exterior (sort of like how men often take on a Thinking type persona, even if they aren't really Thinking types). They walk the walk and talk the talk, but they don't really think the think lol. You realize quickly that the similarities that everyone focuses on are really just superficial (it's no less silly than saying all African-Americans can dance). 

But in fact on MBTI many of these people would probably test as ESxJs because of identifying as their persona image (they can't distinguish between the actor and the act). This helps explain the off balance results you get in these MBTI surveys where they come up with strange stats like 60% of the country are ESTJs but only 3% are INTJs or something that's probably way outside of the statistical norm for a country of 300+ million people.


----------



## TaylorS (Jan 24, 2010)

LiquidLight said:


> Ideally the person's persona will have vestiges of their superior function/s (Von Franz says the aux can often be just as developed as the dominant in many people including the corresponding pathologies, which is why only typing by Inferior function provides the most accuracy). But not necessarily. For example, I lived in the American South, where the prevailing culture is basically ESFJ/ESTJ-on-steroids, yet not everyone who lives down South is an ESTJ or ESFJ. Many are introverts, or Se-doms or Ni-doms or whatever, they've just sort of adopted an ESTJ/ESFJ outer exterior (sort of like how men often take on a Thinking type persona, even if they aren't really Thinking types). They walk the walk and talk the talk, but they don't really think the think lol. You realize quickly that the similarities that everyone focuses on are really just superficial (it's no less silly than saying all African-Americans can dance).
> 
> But in fact on MBTI many of these people would probably test as ESxJs because of identifying as their persona image (they can't distinguish between the actor and the act). This helps explain the off balance results you get in these MBTI surveys where they come up with strange stats like 60% of the country are ESTJs but only 3% are INTJs or something that's probably way outside of the statistical norm for a country of 300+ million people.


You beat me to the punch, thanks, LOL!!!


----------



## kiskadee (Jan 9, 2009)

I briefly mistyped myself as an INFP before I figured out that being a Feeler and having strong emotions are not even remotely the same thing.


----------



## Dark NiTe (Mar 5, 2012)

Grish said:


> I briefly mistyped myself as an INFP before I figured out that being a Feeler and having strong emotions are not even remotely the same thing.


I can relate, albeit with J-ness. I once thought I might be an INFJ, until I actually learned what the extroverted feeling function is


----------



## TrailMix (Apr 27, 2011)

Ive mistyped as a bunch of things... Half because I over-analyze all of the descriptions and half because of my cognitive functions.

I have really strong both Ne and Ti and a moderately strong Ni and Fe, so that gets confusing on some tests, but overall I identify most with Ne/Ti

I dont mistype on letter-based tests tho


----------

