# What is my MBTI type?



## hal0hal0 (Sep 1, 2012)

I've been toying around with this idea that MBTI type isn't really set in stone and that my "personality type" changes depending on context and where I am in life. I think of the Jungian Cognitive Functions like muscles in the body... I might be good at long-distance running, but I can sprint, too, and if I choose, I could develop upper body strength as well. In other words: I don't believe in labels like long-distance runner, sprinter, swimmer, etc.. 

I have the full spectrum of cognitive functions in me, it's just that some colors are stronger than others (and they aren't necessarily going to fit the JCF stacking of a given MBTI type).

I think MBTI is a gross oversimplification—imagine trying to describe a complex atom like uranium with the one-dimensional particle in a box model... you're using a very rudimentary theory to describe something on a much higher plane of complexity.

I know tests are incredibly biased, but I tried taking one yesterday and my JCF stacking goes:

Ne(95)
Ti(90)
Ni(70)
Fe(50)
Si(50)
Se(30)
Te(30)
Fi(20)

I've usually stuck with INFJ as my main type, which makes sense regarding my hyper-reclusive behavior "underdeveloping" Fe-Se.

But, here's where I think MBTI is screwy: *The Shadow Functions*. Specifically, what DaveSuperPowers says about avoiding them:






I don't agree with this at all. So... Does an Ni-dom (INFJ and INTJ) somehow have a crappier Ne than their Se? Ni is inward pattern perception with a focus on the *subject* (i.e., how can *I* look at this?) whereas Ne is more *object-focused* like "how can I look at *this*?" In a way, they are doing things backwards to each other, even if they are both pattern-recognizers... Ni is subject > object whereas Ne is object > subject.

But, I feel like I do it both ways. Sometimes, I'll be obsessed with this one idea and be attacking it from new angles and changing *my *perception of it (Ni's subjective focus). Reinterpreting existing ideas in light of new circumstances... Often times, in this mode, I don't really care about external validation or someone understanding my ideas at all... what matters is that *I personally* understand them. And that is the subject-focus of Ni.

BUT sometimes, I do want external validation and I do want these ideas to "stick" in the outer world. I get in these modes where I'm juggling multiple ideas that are totally disconnected. A good example of Ne (maybe) is this drawing technique I have. What I'll do is make a bunch of random dots on the page and start connecting them as spontaneously as I can and being in a very "stream of conscious" mode. It's essentially "connecting the dots" like with constellations. And almost invariably, I'll end up drawing patterns or making it LOOK like something (often a face or a tree):









And most importantly: There is almost *zero *subject (me) in these drawings. I don't think about *my *perception when I'm drawing these—I just do it. The focus is entirely on the object and the connections I make out there, on that piece of paper—NOT in my head. Importantly, I think Ne is a very SPONTANEOUS thing... there's little in the way of planning.

*Why I don't think we should avoid Shadow Functions:*

Here's an analogy: Ne is hunting/foraging whereas Ni is cooking/marinating.

I think the interplay between my Ni-Ne is a beautiful, beautiful thing. Sometimes I'll go into hermit mode (Ni) and I couldn't care less whether my ideas make sense to others. It's all about *my *interpretation of something. And other times, I relish the opportunity to present these ideas to someone else or just look for connections* out there *(Ne) without any connection on my part (i.e., no subject).

So, saying "_I'm-an-INFJ-therefore-Ne-is-a-shadow-function-I should-avoid_" makes no sense to me. I feel like MBTI, even when JCF is somehow [arbitrarily?] grafted onto it, is far too limiting and far too pigeonholing. Only 16 personality types? Really? 

*So... what's my type?* (For shiznots and bongles)

I like the Enneagram more, so I've been toying around with this idea that's partially inspired by the concept of tritypes (and also the idea that we have a bit of all 9 Enneatypes in us, just that some are "stronger" than others).

The idea is this: We have *all *MBTI types in us and what makes us different is the level of influence each type has on us. So, if someone asks me what MBTI type I am, I'll go:

INFJ
ENTP <--- We need to reevaluate the idea that extraverts "get energy from other people."
INTP
ISTP

So, I guess I'm saying I have a love-hate of MBTI labels. They provide a nice, general system for categorization, however I think they are far too limiting and compartmentalizing.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

Maybe you're overdoing it. The tests are not the best way to learn about your type. We all have the full spectrum of type functions, but we PREFER the ones that make up our types, Our preferred type functions are going to be the ones we are better at than all the others. When we're young, it can be very hard to sort out the ones we prefer from all the others, because a lot of us are still figuring out who we are as adults. It becomes more clear as time goes on, but your best bet for truly understanding your type is to study the types. "Gifts Differing" by Isabel Briggs-Myers, is a good place to start.


----------



## hal0hal0 (Sep 1, 2012)

tanstaafl28;bt33355 said:


> Maybe you're overdoing it. The tests are not the best way to learn about your type. We all have the full spectrum of type functions, but we PREFER the ones that make up our types, Our preferred type functions are going to be the ones we are better at than all the others. When we're young, it can be very hard to sort out the ones we prefer from all the others, because a lot of us are still figuring out who we are as adults. It becomes more clear as time goes on, but your best bet for truly understanding your type is to study the types. "Gifts Differing" by Isabel Briggs-Myers, is a good place to start.


Oh, I agree that we have preferences... I'm just not sure that MBTI's 16 types are the most comprehensive model... For me, it's like trying to solve a calculus problem only using addition/subtraction/multiplication/division operations. 

Isn't it possible for one to identify strongly with both Ni and Ne, for instance? It doesn't make sense to me to say an ENTP's Ni is somehow "weaker" than his/her inferior Si. I'm just looking at the functions and saying: Yes! I identify with this one! Or: No, I don't really think that way... as opposed to saying: here's my type, how _ought_ my functions look?

And yes, tests aren't terribly reliable; I rely more on the functions themselves than any externality, but I think it does provide a perspective (i.e., just because a test isn't totally reliable doesn't mean it's totally invalid, either). It's extremely rare for me to use Si, so that score ought to be much lower.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

I think our judging functions are less hardwired than our perceiving. It struck me that your Ne exercise, regardless of how u relate to it, is just that - an exercise. Your Ni usage is prob more unconscious. I agree with a lot of ur post tho...will respond more in depth later  (Don't u be holding out on those shiznots and bongles now...)


----------



## hal0hal0 (Sep 1, 2012)

@Veggie I'm more than happy to share my shiznots and bongles.


----------

