# Which of one these methods are the most accurate in typing someone so far?



## Reginer (Jun 18, 2020)

I was bored, do i made this thread. Anyways assume that subject is honest and self aware decently.


----------



## brightflashes (Oct 27, 2015)

This is a cool idea for a thread.

With MBTI, I think the best way is the official test.

With Jungian typology, short of seeing an analytical psychotherapist, I think active imagination techniques is the best way ... or, just reading Jung's collected works. It would be near impossible not to arrive at one's type after reading enough Jung.

Of all of these, I think the least valid and reliable are the youtubers (not that they can't be valid ... I know a lot of people who I'd trust to type me or someone I cared about who are on YT, just not anyone offering services heh).


----------



## ImpossibleHunt (May 30, 2020)

I think the MBTI tests are not accurate at all. In fact, if we are being generous, it would be around 50% accurate if we are lucky. The dichotomies the test uses (Thinking, Feeling, Judging, Percieving, etc) are one of the main reasons so many people (including myself) have often mistyped. The only letter that is mildly useful in MBTI is I and E (introversion and extroversion), but even that revolves around a different interpretation than what introversion and extroversion traditionally meant. 

In all due honesty, I think the best way to get typed is to *do the research yourself*, and then if you want to take the extra step, get the thoughts of multiple people with various different perspectives to type you. These don't have to be youtubers or well known figures, but I like to find people who have done their research, and can offer a different perspective. I just find that youtubers are just easier to find and get a hold of. 

For example, I've been typed by Harry Murrell (_Cognitive Personality Theory_), and I have taken CS Joseph's personality assessment test. These two people have wildly different theories, and probably disagree with each other heavily. But despite that, I've been typed as an INTJ by both. 

Harry made it very clear to me before we started that he didn't care what type I identified with before the assessment (which was INFJ at the time), and that would not affect his conclusion in any way. Lots of his questions were extremely complex, and the language he used was foreign to me. So as a result of that, I found it difficult to answer the questions in a manner that would confirm my bias. 

On the other hand, C.S Joseph's assessment tries to improve the online testing process, and it eliminates possibilities (some potential answers are negated depending on your choices) as the test progresses, and you can complete the test in any order you choose. If there is a question you don't know the answer to, you can just move on and answer other questions. Often, you'll find when you come back, all of the other answers for that particular question would be removed (due to your answers on the other parts of the assessment). All in all, I think it is a pretty good assessment. 

Not saying they both can't be wrong in their conclusion, but I think if you have multiple people who disagree with one another come to the same conclusion you did, it can provide a basis of support. But that does not excuse anyone from doing the research themselves.


----------



## Reginer (Jun 18, 2020)

ImpossibleHunt5 said:


> I think the MBTI tests are not accurate at all. In fact, if we are being generous, it would be around 50% accurate if we are lucky. The dichotomies the test uses (Thinking, Feeling, Judging, Percieving, etc) are one of the main reasons so many people (including myself) have often mistyped. The only letter that is mildly useful in MBTI is I and E (introversion and extroversion), but even that revolves around a different interpretation than what introversion and extroversion traditionally meant.
> 
> In all due honesty, I think the best way to get typed is to *do the research yourself*, and then if you want to take the extra step, get the thoughts of multiple people with various different perspectives to type you. These don't have to be youtubers or well known figures, but I like to find people who have done their research, and can offer a different perspective. I just find that youtubers are just easier to find and get a hold of.
> 
> ...


CS Joseph seems to oversimplify things and use stereotypes, CPT while it is complex and all that, seems to me that he is presenting info in such a way that it only makes sense to him(if you don't read up his definition of terms btw), but I like how he tries to explain some forms of scoring on test(I think it was made to explain that, initially but developed with time beyond that), . Difficulty in YouTube MBTI is that it is actually difficult to select a source to learn from. I would actually consider them to be different theory to MBTI system(ofc developed by using that,maybe socionics and Jungian Function as a base). Although they are interesting to listen to.


----------



## ImpossibleHunt (May 30, 2020)

Reginer said:


> CS Joseph seems to oversimplify things and use stereotypes, CPT while it is complex and all that, seems to me that he is presenting info in such a way that it only makes sense to him(if you don't read up his definition of terms btw), but I like how he tries to explain some forms of scoring on test(I think it was made to explain that, initially but developed with time beyond that), . Difficulty in YouTube MBTI is that it is actually difficult to select a source to learn from. I would actually consider them to be different theory to MBTI system(ofc developed by using that,maybe socionics and Jungian Function as a base). Although they are interesting to listen to.


I absolutely agree on C.S Joseph, and that is one of my main criticisms of him. He often gets too subjective in his argumentation, and it gets annoying to listen to after a while.
However, I think his assessment is a step up. Probably, because he has lots of different people working on it and offering feedback and criticism to him. It is an open project.

Ever since I've taken the test, the assessment has underwent huge changes based on the criticisms of the community working on it.

I don't largely subscribe to MBTI because of the issues I labelled above. I just think the letter system it uses is inaccurate, and it primarily forms the basis of that whole theory.
So I really don't have much issue when a theory deviates from the MBTI dichotomies.


----------



## Reginer (Jun 18, 2020)

ImpossibleHunt5 said:


> I absolutely agree on C.S Joseph, and that is one of my main criticisms of him. He often gets too subjective in his argumentation, and it gets annoying to listen to after a while.
> However, I think his assessment is a step up. Probably, because he has lots of different people working on it and offering feedback and criticism to him. It is an open project.
> 
> Ever since I've taken the test, the assessment has underwent huge changes based on the criticisms of the community working on it.
> ...


I agree. But I think it is actually better to label it as a "new name(whatever name they think is appropriate)" or Jungian Typology. Deviating from MBTI otherwise isn't much of a problem for me at all, besides the possibility of the title being misleading to beginners.


----------



## Wax Diamond (Apr 9, 2020)

As I am concerned I do think CS Joseph explanations can help with avoiding mistyping (type grid and so on), on one condition :
you already know every function so that you can know how to navigate with autonomy. 'Cause yes his method (or the one of his mentor) is too much "simpliste" in my opinion.

The tests don't work for me, neither does Socionics. I was typed different type every single time and generally speaking,
the tests don't always make sense to me, + aren't precise enough to give me accurate results.

Some online tests seem to work better for me (see the links bellow).
Both of those tests seem more precise, I have noticed some questions are asked several times in different ways,
to verify you are sure of what you say, give you a second chance etc.

So I would still be between INFP and Enfp.
They also mention I could be ISFP as the most developped functions are Fi, Ni, Se and Ne.
Those two are the most efficient I've found online and I feel a mirror effect like no other tests before.

Hope one day I can really know my type. But in a way I'm glad I don't put myself in any box. I'm an INiFesFip !
Sure my ego likes it !

Being typed by online youtubers, that seems tricky. I would not pay 400 for being typed by Joseph.
As for other great people like Erick thor or F.James I don't know how good they are about typing.
You can have super info to offer, but it does not mean they are good at this.
I try to avoid being influenced. Then the bus test is a joke. Like so many others.
So unless we like to see typing as a game, it takes time to be sure of one's type.
Time, research. Moreover if we take into account the four sides of the mind and other concepts, we see we can really make big mistakes...


----------



## Meltar (Jul 22, 2021)

Reginer said:


> I was bored, do i made this thread. Anyways assume that subject is honest and self aware decently.


The best assessment can be found on practicaltyping.com. It's a written assessment, based on a questionnaire you answer in a Word document. It's based solely on your cognitive functions according to Jungian typology. Ryan and Mara at practicaltyping.com give you detailed explanations on how each of your answers demonstrates which cognitive functions you're using. I highly recommend their assessment. It's not expensive.

Harry Murrell at Cognitive Personality Theory is a kind and patient person, but I didn't find his explanations as thorough, logical or persuasive as those provided by Ryan and Mara at practicaltyping.com.


----------



## mia-me (Feb 5, 2021)

The official dichotomies test is likely the fastest and easiest way to type someone. As far as accuracy is concerned, IMO, it's more of a starting point and from there, research into the functions can help people self-evaluate, if for nothing else, learn a bit of self-awareness. In other words, the journey's more important than the result.


----------



## Wax Diamond (Apr 9, 2020)

mia-me said:


> The official dichotomies test is likely the fastest and easiest way to type someone. As far as accuracy is concerned, IMO, it's more of a starting point and from there, research into the functions can help people self-evaluate, if for nothing else, learn a bit of self-awareness. In other words, the journey's more important than the result.


With all the tests available here... do you think I can have a chance to be sure of my type before next Christmas, once and for all ?!

(I honestly cannot see how one can draw a conclusion on one single/precise type trying those ...)


----------



## mia-me (Feb 5, 2021)

Wax Diamond said:


> Will all the tests available here... do you think I can have a chance to be sure of my type before next Christmas, once and for all ?!


Since you're not a noob, rather than taking more tests, look into the cognitive function descriptions to see which resonate with you.


----------



## Handsome Dyke (Oct 4, 2012)

Meltar said:


> The best assessment can be found on practicaltyping.com. It's a written assessment, based on a questionnaire you answer in a Word document. It's based solely on your cognitive functions according to Jungian typology.


This poll/thread is about the best way to find one's Myers-Briggs type. Jungian typology is not the same as Myers-Briggs typology, so the assessment you mention (especially if the Myers-Briggs dichotomies are completely omitted) cannot be the best way to get one's Myers-Briggs type.


----------



## Atarah Derek (Aug 10, 2015)

Researching the cognitive functions on your own, surveying others, watching videos and learning everything you can about the functions, how they work together, and what they mean in the MBTI code.


----------



## Wax Diamond (Apr 9, 2020)

mia-me said:


> Since you're not a noob, rather than taking more tests, look into the cognitive function descriptions to see which resonate with you.


Beginner or not, this was not my question.
People would not ask clues here on a forum if looking (as you say) was enough...
Even for a very simple stuff, like before trying on clothes, you cannot tell someone : "well just look at the tag and you'll know what size suits you ! "


----------



## eeo (Aug 25, 2020)

Wax Diamond said:


> People would not ask clues here on a forum if looking (as you say) was enough...


The thing is, even if people gave them the clues, they still have to do all the work and narrow things down. Because they know themselves better than anyone, let alone people here who try to type by text. Sometimes taking a step back and putting all the info aside for a later review is more helpful.


----------



## mia-me (Feb 5, 2021)

Wax Diamond said:


> Beginner or not, this was not my question.
> People would not ask clues here on a forum if looking (as you say) was enough...
> Even for a very simple stuff, like before trying on clothes, you cannot tell someone : "well just look at the tag and you'll know what size suits you ! "


Then take a barrage of tests and from there, research the cognitive functions that are associated to all the types resulting from the tests, to evaluate which type you might be. No one on PerC knows you IRL or your patterns of thoughts.


----------



## Wax Diamond (Apr 9, 2020)

mia-me said:


> Then take a barrage of tests and from there, research the cognitive functions that are associated to all the types resulting from the tests, to evaluate which type you might be. No one on PerC knows you IRL or your patterns of thoughts.


Yes I did that already, and several times but what confuses me it the "trisome result" ... 
Grant function isfp 
Myers function intp
Myers briggs type infj


The second time 
Grant brownsword function type (what the hell does that mean ?) infj
Axis based function type infj
Myers briggs function type infp
Most likely m. B. Type intp

🤔🙄

I guess it is somewhat accurate (which is to me very rare considering most tests) 
moderate I préférence 
E: 30.4.i : 75,9
N: 91.7 s: 23
F: 51.6 t: 52.9
P: 63.3.j 43.1
Strong n préférence 
Undifferentiated 
Slight p préférence 

How to reconsider the results ? 

Are those reliable ?


----------



## mia-me (Feb 5, 2021)

Wax Diamond said:


> Yes I did that already, and several times but what confuses me it the "trisome result" ...
> Grant function isfp
> Myers function intp
> Myers briggs type infj
> ...


Look into the profiles and cognitive functions associated to INFP and ISFP, to see which ones you resonate with:

www.cognitiveprocesses.com

I can't and won't help you any further since I don't know you at all.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

I'm of the opinion that no single typing method is good enough. It has to be multimodal. I would recommend the a few tests, interaction, observation, and thorough understanding of the functions.

I think some of the tests (properly applied) can help narrow things down. Then it becomes a matter of interacting and observing the person in conjunction with knowing the functions well enough to spot them in action.

If the person has any skills at writing, I can sometimes use this because I was an English teacher, editor, and I evaluated written exams as part of a state-mandated writing program.


----------



## Wax Diamond (Apr 9, 2020)

tanstaafl28 said:


> I'm of the opinion that no single typing method is good enough. It has to be multimodal. I would recommend the a few tests, interaction, observation, and thorough understanding of the functions.
> 
> I think some of the tests (properly applied) can help narrow things down. Then it becomes a matter of interacting and observing the person in conjunction with knowing the functions well enough to spot them in action.
> 
> If the person has any skills at writing, I can sometimes use this because I was an English teacher, editor, and I evaluated written exams as part of a state-mandated writing program.


That is right about shortcuts. 
I am a teacher as well but I don't know what you mean by "state-mandated writing programm". I wrote a post not even two weeks ago I think to have some analyse and ideas, the person has been trying to type me throughout questions etc. I do not recognise myself in the general typical type he thinks I could be, but at least we arrived to the conclusion I do not repress Se... 

So I have a track. In this case I cannot be infj. 
Now to say if it is secondary... 
I feel much more at ease typing with enneagramm, even with children I teach face to face and I instinctively use enneagramm to communicate with them in a more efficient way...


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

Wax Diamond said:


> That is right about shortcuts.
> I am a teacher as well but I don't know what you mean by "state-mandated writing program". I wrote a post not even two weeks ago I think to have some analyse and ideas, the person has been trying to type me throughout questions etc. I do not recognize myself in the general typical type he thinks I could be, but at least we arrived to the conclusion I do not repress Se...


The state of Nevada requires students pass a writing exam as part of graduation. Basically, each student's writing is evaluated by two examiners. Neither knows what score the other gave. If the scores are not close, then a third examiner evaluates the work. We do a set of "calibration" writings before we start on the student work. Oh, and we got paid for the day too. It was actually fun. 



> So I have a track. In this case I cannot be infj.
> Now to say if it is secondary...
> I feel much more at ease typing with enneagram, even with children I teach face to face and I instinctively use enneagram to communicate with them in a more efficient way...


You think you might be aux Se?


----------



## Wax Diamond (Apr 9, 2020)

tanstaafl28 said:


> The state of Nevada requires students pass a writing exam as part of graduation. Basically, each student's writing is evaluated by two examiners. Neither knows what score the other gave. If the scores are not close, then a third examiner evaluates the work. We do a set of "calibration" writings before we start on the student work. Oh, and we got paid for the day too. It was actually fun.
> 
> 
> 
> You think you might be aux Se?


Who knows ?... 

Maybe you can have a look at the set of calibration about the thread "from *NFP to Isfp, ask me some more questions" 

You will have fun, but you won't be paid for it.


----------

