# How to Type Yourself Accurately and Honestly



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

If you are reading this, it is my assumption that you are here for one of two reasons. 1) You are here to critique my work and evaluate my methods, or 2) you are trying to type yourself, whether if it is because you are new to typology or you're second-guessing your type for the millionth time. If you belong to the first group, remember that I reward positive comments with cookies.  If you are in the second group, attention, because this article is for you.

This post arose from my experience on this forum, particularly in the Type Me thread. I've posted in a few threads here and there over the last few months, and it continually strikes me that, as folks discern their type, there are many, _many_ points of confusion that scramble one's understanding of how to actually figure out to which type you belong. Some of this is unavoidable--typology is decidedly abstract and slippery to understand, and embarking on a journey of self-understanding isn't something that can be decided in a day. It is just that--a journey. You're going to encounter trials, you're going second-guess yourself, and you're going to find things that you don't like. You're need to be able to face yourself as you are, unimpeded by ideas like "All of the descriptions of INTJs say that they're basically the best type, so I want to be an INTJ." There's more than a few things wrong with that statement.

Basically what this first little bit boils down to is that you need to know what you're getting into. If you're not willing to put the work in to learning this information and thinking deeply about yourself and how you think, then typology simply isn't for you. Now with that said, typology can be an extremely rewarding experience as it provides your with invaluable insight about those around you and, more importantly, _you_ and your own cognitive biases. Type is not an instrument for self-glorification or self-justification. If you're not approaching this with a humble spirit then you won't be able to tell which type you are; your judgment will be clouded. You must able to face your own wounds and struggles to honestly type yourself. Furthermore, this journey is significantly more difficult if you don't have someone alongside you to learn this with. It's easy, especially for introverts, to construct mental self-perceptions around some preconceived notion about type that ultimately are entirely false with respect to how you actually are or how people see you. Everyone needs an external frame of reference to avoid this problem.

If you've made it this far, then I assume that means you want to be committed to honestly discerning what type you are. At this point, there isn't actually a lot that I need to say. Everyone's journey is going to be different, but there are a few things that I myself have found helpful in typing myself that I will share with you, dear readers.

One of the biggest mistakes that people make when they first get in to typology is that they place absolute faith in the tests the find online. Go ahead, admit it--even the veterans have been there. This is a mistake for a number of reasons, but most chiefly it is a misunderstanding of what typology is and what tests are.

Typology has its roots in the work of Swiss psychologist Carl Jung. You know this--you're on this forum. What you likely do not know, mostly because online sources often leave this information out, is what exactly Jung was trying to express through his work. Now, before I got any further, I don’t want to sound like I am criticizing popular typology sites. While some of them are essentially the quacks of psychometric evaluation, more often than not information is omitted because Jung’s work is _complicated_. Infuriatingly so. Most sites’ chief concern is to quickly and concisely express the core concepts of what Jung was talking about. Granted, that in of itself is something of an impossible task, and in the process of shortening his work a lot is lost, but the internet is absolutely a decent place to _start_ learning this information. However, I would take the information presented on such sites with a grain of salt. They should serve only as an introduction to the concepts Jung spoke of, not as definitive sources on the matter.

Jung wasn’t the only one who contributed to this field, however. I’m going to skip over a number of different writers here: von Franz and van der Hoop just to name a few, partially for ease of learning on your part, dear reader, but also because knowledge of these writers is limited. In any case, eventually a woman by the name of Isabel Myers came across Jung’s work in the mid-20th century and used it as the basis for a psychometric instrument that would later be known as the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. To grossly oversimply, Myers and her mother, Katherine Briggs worked using Jung’s work as a basis--refining it and simplifying it, in essence making it more scientific by applying the psychometric practices of the day. In doing this, a number of deviations were made from Jung’s work, but this was generally in the service the MBTI’s more practical goals. Myers wasn’t terribly concerned with type as it related to how humans think. She was more focused on creating a tool that was easily applicable to any situation. Thus, the Myers-Briggs instrument was born, and it continues to be used across the United States (and much of the world) for determining one’s skills, especially in places of work.

So what does this all have to do with _your_ type? Well, that depends on your approach to type. I’m assuming that, since you are reading this post, you are more interested in knowing type than just what the test might say, especially since online tests are notoriously fallible. There are two important notes to make from what I have said: first, Jung’s original work was _not_ scientific. Because a lot of you reading likely do not know what that means in its fullest capacity, I will briefly explain. Jung and Freud and a lot of those early psychologists were scholars more than they were scientists. This doesn’t make their observations invalid (quote the contrary, both Jung and Freud had valuable things to say), but for something to be considered ‘scientific’, it needs to have had the scientific method applied, that is, the experiment has been systematically designed and is repeatable and will give the same results each time. As I just said, Jung and Freud were not scientific; they did not have scientific equipment in their time for any of this stuff to be measurable. However, this does not invalidate what they have said.

The second thing to note is that Myers significantly changed large portions of Jung’s writing to make it more scientific. This is something of a controversy among typology enthusiasts today; the more scientifically-minded group praises much of Myers’ decisions, others, the more theory-centric group, is somewhat critical of the changes she made. I will not be disclosing my own personal views regarding the discrepancies between Jung and Myers in this post, however suffice to say, it is in the spirit of Western academia to continually build upon the ideas of our predecessors.

It is important that anyone studying knows where their materials came from and why they exist in the form that they do, that’s just basic thinking. Specifically with respect to Jung and Myers, you must know the limitation of the material they present. Jung’s was the first of its kind, so in many ways _Psychological Types_ presents more of a prototype look at typology than anything else. He was frequently wrong, vague, or just inconsistent with his own work. Taking Jung’s work as a whole, you can see how his understanding of his own concepts evolved as he grew, and that eventually even he realized that he had stumbled across something much bigger than he realized. All that said, it’s important to understand Jung’s work if you are going to type yourself, and an adept knowledge of his writing is basically required for this.

With respect to Myers, while saying ‘more scientific’ might make her work seem better than Jung’s in some ways (which, to be clear, it is better, but only in some ways), it is important to note that science is, in of itself, a limited system. Just because you can attach ‘scientific’ to something doesn’t automatically make it better _per se_. In this case, scientific means that Myers’ results are calculable, measureable, and repeatable. This is markedly different from Jung’s work, which is itself none of those things, and, more to the point, _you_ are none of those things. Tests such as the MBTI are flawed instruments because they can only measure performance. They simply do not and cannot tell you how you think or who you are. This makes them intrinsically more behaviorist, which any typology enthusiast will tell you is a flaw of theirs. While this doesn’t make the MBTI bad, you must understand that its effectiveness in determining your type is limited by virtue of its medium.

And this brings us to the core of the issue with deciding on your type: no one can tell you who you are. A book can only give you portraits of the different kinds of people and a test can only measure your performance at a given moment, not the underlying causes of that performance, which are themselves much more permanent and important than whether or not you like having multiple hobbies. You are not going to be satisfied with how someone else types you because you will always be able to find exceptions to that rule. In the end, only you know who you really are and what goes on in your head, even the things you don’t like about it. Your type is the amalgamation of all of those things, the mental events that caused them, and the perspective on the information fed into your psyche by the world.

So with all of this in mind, you might ask yourself, how do I type myself? Well, dear reader, the answer is very simply that you’re going to have to find your own way to do that. Like I just said, no one else is you, so you’re going to have to find that answer on your own. However, there are a few things that I found helpful in my own life that can be helpful to you as well.

First thing’s first, read _Psychological Types_. This isn’t optional. Consider this the required reading for this course. Your attempts at typing yourself are ultimately going to be stymied if you don’t have a basic knowledge of the concepts that everyone is working from. Yes it’s a dense book, yes it’s long, yes Jung spends 90% of it rambling about extraversion and introversion. You still have to read it. At the very least, buy a copy and reference it when you have questions. More than read it, make an effort to understand it. Take those concepts and learn them by wrote, and apply them to your thinking as you go about your day. Keep a brain journal if you need to, but find some way of thinking about your own thinking through the lens of Jung typology. That’s the basic thing you _must_ do.

After you read _Psychological Types_, read _Gifts Differing_ by Isabel Myers. Now, I’m saying this as someone who has not been able to read it yet for a variety of reasons, but it is nonetheless an important book in this field. Your knowledge, like my own, will be lacking without it, and not understanding the refined Jungian concepts can hamper your ability to type yourself significantly.

After you have those two under your belt, you get to read even more! There is a decent amount of literature on typology in the world, so find it and read it and master it. It doesn’t matter what at this point, but it needs to be _something_. A personal recommendation of mine is _Personality Type: An Owner’s Manual_ be Lenore Thomson. Though somewhat controversial, Thomson’s book is another useful lens for understanding typology, specifically the functions. Whether or not you like what she wrote, it’s good to get another perspective. It also comes with an actual MBTI sorter inside, so if you’re interested in determining your type more scientifically, this can be a start.

I should also note that most of these books can be found on the internet fairly cheaply. You know the websites.

Another useful way to determining your type is by taking tests over a period of time and then averaging your scores. That should be decently close to correct after a few months. Consider this: in my life I have scored as INFP, ENFP, INTP, INTJ, and INFJ, all at different points. Based on that, I can reasonably conclude that my most persistent traits were introversion and intuition, which makes sense, considering that my preferred function is intuition and I am an introvert.

One caveat with this approach, however. Most of the online MBTI sorters are not validated by any sort of psychological association. I call these ‘counterfeit MBTI’ tests. Be wary of these; often times they’re poorly made or entirely lacking in any substantial content. These things are the reason most people look at typology and call it pseudoscience or no better than astrology. It is much better to take the official MBTI sorter if you can, but I understand if you don’t have the money to spare for this approach. This is why I advocate for the ‘verification through study’ method.

Another issue with online tests is, unfortunately, the cognitive functions tests. Jung’s original work is much closer to the dichotomies presented by Myers than the most function-centric websites or writers indicate (or realize). This can cause further confusion when, say, an INFP scores highly on extraverted feeling (Fe), even though their dominant function is supposed to be introverted feeling (Fi). The reasons for this is that it’s impossible to separate Fe from Fi; they are the same function, feeling, just oriented two different ways, either outward or inward. This means that it is entirely possible for an INFP to exhibit characteristics common among xxFJ (the types that are classically considered to prefer extraverted feeling) types. Put another way, the divides between the functions simply aren’t as clean as people often think, so cognitive functions tests can be especially confusing if you don’t know how to interpret the results properly.

Finally, the best thing you can do is talk to be people who also enjoy typology. This entire forum is an excellent resource with a number of highly intelligent and savvy members who can help you decipher your type. Do them a favor, though: don’t just message the senior members asking about your type. They probably won’t respond. But if you ask actual questions like “What are characteristics of the dominant function that the other functions don’t share?” well, now you’re asking the right kind of questions. I personally will try to answer any question directed at me, and if I am summoned into a thread to help out, I’ll do my best to get to those as well.

In the end, as I have said a million times already, you are the only person who can type you, so you’re much better served expanding your own knowledge than filling out a test form a hundred times. In the end, typology is the study of _people_, and you are a person. A test could never tell you that; that’s something you have to learn for yourself. Type is just one tool in understanding what it means to be human. So go forth--learn, ask questions, reflect on yourself and challenge yourself to be better. That is why you type yourself, more than anything else, that should be why this matters.


----------



## giraffegator (Dec 28, 2014)

Helpful! Thankyou. But nope, not reading Jung's book. Sorry. Not doing it, absolutely no way. I have already tried reading his stuff and what happens is I read the same paragraph over and over, failing to understand it, or I "read" the whole thing without truly absorbing it and immediately forget everything I read. I just can't understand him - he's too abstract.
The other recommendations I'm happy to give a go.


----------



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

sassafrassthelioness said:


> Helpful! Thankyou. But nope, not reading Jung's book. Sorry. Not doing it, absolutely no way. I have already tried reading his stuff and what happens is I read the same paragraph over and over, failing to understand it, or I "read" the whole thing without truly absorbing it and immediately forget everything I read. I just can't understand him - he's too abstract.
> The other recommendations I'm happy to give a go.


Taking notes in the book can be quite helpful to consolidate the ideas. I don't expect that anyone, even intuitives, would be able to get through the book in any quick fashion. I wouldn't give up on it just yet though; but at the very least the reason behind reading it is to have the background knowledge of those concepts, so I guess what's really important is that you learn the material somehow.

Thomson's book is a good read, surprisingly easy considering the subject matter. I imagine Myers' text is the same way to some extent.

Glad I could help!


----------



## SheWolf (Apr 17, 2015)

sassafrassthelioness said:


> Helpful! Thankyou. But nope, not reading Jung's book. Sorry. Not doing it, absolutely no way. I have already tried reading his stuff and what happens is I read the same paragraph over and over, failing to understand it, or I "read" the whole thing without truly absorbing it and immediately forget everything I read. I just can't understand him - he's too abstract.
> The other recommendations I'm happy to give a go.


Yes, what little I've read of it makes my head HURT. I mean it literally gives me a headache. Only frustrates me.
*siggghhh*


----------



## SheWolf (Apr 17, 2015)

I just read through your whole post, and I DEFINITELY agree with you and love how you explained things I was very curious about, such as why an ISFP, for example, also score high in Si on those silly tests.

I definitely want to pick up Jung's book, but my problem is, I don't know how in the world I will go about ACTUALLY understanding it. Feel me? How you manged to do it, well, I give you props for genius.

And, I have no one in person who is as into Typology as I am. It's hard to do this alone. It's almost weird to me that I sit here and say that I have no clue how my own mind works.

As for tests scores over a period of time, the only consistent thing has been Introversion and Feeling. That's the only thing I'm for certain of myself and I will quickly dismiss anyone questioning my Feeling and Introversion. The rest? No idea.


----------



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

SheWolf said:


> I just read through your whole post, and I DEFINITELY agree with you and love how you explained things I was very curious about, such as why an ISFP, for example, also score high in Si on those silly tests.


Yeah. The other thing there is that ISFPs have auxiliary sensation, which means that it is not as differentiated in terms of attitude (e/i) as their Fi is. the attitudes of the auxiliary and tertiary functions are much more fluid and changeable, though a person will generally more frequently direct those in certain ways. For instance, I frequently introvert my thinking, even though it's tertiary and doesn't really have an attitude.



SheWolf said:


> I definitely want to pick up Jung's book, but my problem is, I don't know how in the world I will go about ACTUALLY understanding it. Feel me? How you manged to do it, well, I give you props for genius.


It's not so much genius as it is doggedness. I feel you though, it's a dense book.

In terms of buying it, you can get it fairly cheap online. Just Google "Jung Psychological Types cheap" or something along those lines.

As far as understanding it goes, you'll need to find a system to help you understand the information. This would mean taking notes or otherwise annotating it to help you make sense of the information. Rewrite concepts in your own words so you're forced to think about them and not just absorb them, mark sections that refer back to earlier pages and start making those connections among the text. Underline the big ideas and think about how they all relate to each other. It's an intense process, but if you set aside and hour or two a day you'll eventually learn it. You'll need to devise your own system for understanding it, though, but I imagine that as you read you'll refine your system.

On a totally unrelated note, reading your college textbooks in a similar fashion is a healthy practice to be in.



SheWolf said:


> And, I have no one in person who is as into Typology as I am. It's hard to do this alone. It's almost weird to me that I sit here and say that I have no clue how my own mind works.


This is where the forum is useful. This is why I say to ask questions. I'd even go so far as to say that this forum is one of the best resources you have to learn typology. Perhaps it may be helpful to read some posts by senior members and see what they ask/say and begin to develop a sense for what kinds of questions they ask and why they ask them. And if you don't understand, just ask them to explain it further. They're people, and a lot of them are happy to help.

As far as not understanding your own mind...I think that's just part of being young. 



SheWolf said:


> As for tests scores over a period of time, the only consistent thing has been Introversion and Feeling. That's the only thing I'm for certain of myself and I will quickly dismiss anyone questioning my Feeling and Introversion. The rest? No idea.


It'll come. Just give it time.


----------



## SheWolf (Apr 17, 2015)

KalimofDaybreak said:


> It's not so much genius as it is doggedness. I feel you though, it's a dense book.
> 
> In terms of buying it, you can get it fairly cheap online. Just Google "Jung Psychological Types cheap" or something along those lines.
> 
> ...


LOL @ the textbook suggestion. I hate reading textbooks. They _always_ confused me. 

Actually, I JUST went back to my ISFJ or INFJ thread and took time to sit and ABSORB your post. Especially the definitions of the functions you spoke in your own words. (I've yet to read them all. Just got done with the Sensing and Intuition explanations. Will be going onto the Feeling and Thinking sections next.)

For the first time, Ni makes sense to me. Well... sorta! Lol. I get the general concept even though I fail to understand how it _actually_ works inside the mind (Which seems to be a struggle for, like, everyone.) David Bowie is an INFJ. Look at his lyrics and use of art in his videos. It's so surreal and bizarre that no one gets it but him. In his interviews he had a lot of things to say behind the meaning of world events, such as the strong influence the Internet has the world.

Same with Yoko Ono, also INFJ.

So does Ne, even though you quoted that your understanding of Ne is flawed. It was pretty clear to me anyway.



KalimofDaybreak said:


> This is where the forum is useful. This is why I say to ask questions. I'd even go so far as to say that this forum is one of the best resources you have to learn typology. Perhaps it may be helpful to read some posts by senior members and see what they ask/say and begin to develop a sense for what kinds of questions they ask and why they ask them. And if you don't understand, just ask them to explain it further. They're people, and a lot of them are happy to help.


I'd be more than happy to put my trust into the members who... ya know, actually know what they're talking about. Lol. But I have been misinformed many, many times by people on here as well.



KalimofDaybreak said:


> As far as not understanding your own mind...I think that's just part of being young.


Yeah, you're right, Grandpa(ma?) 

Haha, I jest, I jest!


----------



## Hottest_Commie_Ever (Nov 11, 2015)

@KalimofDaybreak yeah, that was an excellent article you wrote! This helps people realize a lot of what's going wrong with their own typing and confusion. I would vote for this to be a sticky...although i don't like the idea of people clicking through this thread and deciding that they can't buy an entire book on typology which they probably wouldn't want to spend SO much time trying to figure out over and over again. However, even though they might not take essential action based on your recommendations, i think this is still a great read for anyone in typology.

STICKY!
STICKY!
STICKY!
STICKY!

And btw, no, i'm neither Reason 1 nor Reason 2. I read this because i wanted to know what you want to say about mistypes and typing accuracy. Just for fun, and for knowledge *shrugs*


----------



## penny lane (Nov 21, 2011)

I score high on Fi and Fe and usually get INFP, ISFP,or ENFP sometimes I get another type altogether.I generally score lower on Te or Ti and about even on Se and Ne so I know it's not the way to type yourself. Yet I find myself still doing it! Maybe thinking I will find a clue in there somewhere.

I'll have to look into Gifts Differing and Lenore Thomson.I have some familiarity with Lenore's writing. I do confess Jung's writing has made my brain hurt too.

I do find this forum a good place to learn and some very helpful people around here!


----------



## giraffegator (Dec 28, 2014)

KalimofDaybreak said:


> Taking notes in the book can be quite helpful to consolidate the ideas. I don't expect that anyone, even intuitives, would be able to get through the book in any quick fashion. I wouldn't give up on it just yet though; but at the very least the reason behind reading it is to have the background knowledge of those concepts, so I guess what's really important is that you learn the material somehow.
> 
> Thomson's book is a good read, surprisingly easy considering the subject matter. I imagine Myers' text is the same way to some extent.
> 
> Glad I could help!


That's true... and maybe reading it in actual book format and not online would help too.


----------



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

SheWolf said:


> LOL @ the textbook suggestion. I hate reading textbooks. They _always_ confused me.


Yeah, I know what you mean. You learn to get through them, though. It just takes time.



SheWolf said:


> Actually, I JUST went back to my ISFJ or INFJ thread and took time to sit and ABSORB your post. Especially the definitions of the functions you spoke in your own words. (I've yet to read them all. Just got done with the Sensing and Intuition explanations. Will be going onto the Feeling and Thinking sections next.)


Absorbing is a good way to put it. You really to have to let this stuff simmer.



SheWolf said:


> For the first time, Ni makes sense to me. Well... sorta! Lol. I get the general concept even though I fail to understand how it _actually_ works inside the mind (Which seems to be a struggle for, like, everyone.) David Bowie is an INFJ. Look at his lyrics and use of art in his videos. It's so surreal and bizarre that no one gets it but him. In his interviews he had a lot of things to say behind the meaning of world events, such as the strong influence the Internet has the world.


It sounds like you're on the right track here. You'll have a number of those moments where things just make sense to you if you're anything like I am. But yeah, David Bowie is a good example of an INFJ. We tend to be rather reserved until we have something to say, but once you get us on a topic of our interest, well, you've just opened the floodgates.



SheWolf said:


> Same with Yoko Ono, also INFJ.


I'll have to look in to that.



SheWolf said:


> So does Ne, even though you quoted that your understanding of Ne is flawed. It was pretty clear to me anyway.


I sort of got the hang of it towards the end of the Ne vs. Ni thread I linked to in the ISFJ or INFJ forum. My knowledge is still lacking, but I think that's just how it's going to be for me.



SheWolf said:


> I'd be more than happy to put my trust into the members who... ya know, actually know what they're talking about. Lol. But I have been misinformed many, many times by people on here as well.


Don't worry about it. This is hard stuff to understand. If it wasn't, places like this forum wouldn't exist because there wouldn't be anything to talk about. In a way, all of us are just trying to understand it ourselves, even the more knowledgeable ones.



SheWolf said:


> Yeah, you're right, Grandpa(ma?)
> 
> Haha, I jest, I jest!


Haha, I embrace my oldness. I took one of those silly facebook quizzes one time that tried to guess my age based on my vocabulary...I got 80. I don't really know what that says about me.


----------



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

sassafrassthelioness said:


> That's true... and maybe reading it in actual book format and not online would help too.


Or at least making printouts of the online information can be helpful. I'm a firm believer that holding any sort of literature in your hand is superior to an online copy.


----------



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

penny lane said:


> I score high on Fi and Fe and usually get INFP, ISFP,or ENFP sometimes I get another type altogether.I generally score lower on Te or Ti and about even on Se and Ne so I know it's not the way to type yourself. Yet I find myself still doing it! Maybe thinking I will find a clue in there somewhere.


Even though they're flawed, tests still have some value. In the end, they tell you what you put in to them, so if you're being authentic odds are they're going to have some veracity. IxFx seems like a good starting point for you just based on those results; it's not uncommon for IxFPs to have a lot of 'Fe'. (I've said that before...maybe on this forum. I forget where.)



penny lane said:


> I'll have to look into Gifts Differing and Lenore Thomson.I have some familiarity with Lenore's writing. I do confess Jung's writing has made my brain hurt too.


Yeah. I think that Myers and Thomson are a little lighter reading, so if you wanted to sort of 'build up' to Jung, I can see that being a valid strategy. The issue there is that you'd have to actually read PT at some point. 



penny lane said:


> I do find this forum a good place to learn and some very helpful people around here!


Definitely. Glad I could be part of them.


----------



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

penny lane said:


> I score high on Fi and Fe and usually get INFP, ISFP,or ENFP sometimes I get another type altogether.I generally score lower on Te or Ti and about even on Se and Ne so I know it's not the way to type yourself. Yet I find myself still doing it! Maybe thinking I will find a clue in there somewhere.


Even though they're flawed, tests still have some value. In the end, they tell you what you put in to them, so if you're being authentic odds are they're going to have some veracity. IxFx seems like a good starting point for you just based on those results; it's not uncommon for IxFPs to have a lot of 'Fe'. (I've said that before...maybe on this forum. I forget where.)



penny lane said:


> I'll have to look into Gifts Differing and Lenore Thomson.I have some familiarity with Lenore's writing. I do confess Jung's writing has made my brain hurt too.


Yeah. I think that Myers and Thomson are a little lighter reading, so if you wanted to sort of 'build up' to Jung, I can see that being a valid strategy. The issue there is that you'd have to actually read PT at some point. 



penny lane said:


> I do find this forum a good place to learn and some very helpful people around here!


Definitely. Glad I could be part of them.


----------



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

@MessyJessie103 Thank you for your kind words. I'm creating a Reason 3 now for people like you. You also get a cookie. :3


----------



## SheWolf (Apr 17, 2015)

KalimofDaybreak said:


> Even though they're flawed, tests still have some value. In the end, they tell you what you put in to them, so if you're being authentic odds are they're going to have some veracity. IxFx seems like a good starting point for you just based on those results; it's not uncommon for IxFPs to have a lot of 'Fe'. (I've said that before...maybe on this forum. I forget where.)


I think they're also good maybe for telling you what you're absolutely not. I have never once scored ESTP, ESTJ, ENTJ, or ENTP.

I have noted I only get Thinking scores when I'm in a foul mood  One time I was absolutely rotten and got a RAGING INTJ score. Lol.

Introvert seems to be consistent as well as Feeling.

Also, I read about the Introverted Feeling type in your post. Fits me quite well. I have an online friend that I message all the time that studies MBTI and he SWEARS I'm an INTJ. My sister, whom I've been trying to get into MBTI, thinks I'm a Thinking type as well. But I know I'm not. I get in scuffles all the time with true T types. They call me irrational and "feely", I call them arrogant and narrow-minded. I avoid T groups on Facebook like the plague because I KNOW they're gonna piss me off somehow. Aforementioned friend is ENTJ and he's fine, however. Weird.



KalimofDaybreak said:


> Yeah. I think that Myers and Thomson are a little lighter reading, so if you wanted to sort of 'build up' to Jung, I can see that being a valid strategy. The issue there is that you'd have to actually read PT at some point.


REALLY glad you said that. Trust me, I WANT to understand and get into Jung's writings. But, I think jumping RIGHT into that will end in disaster because I know how I am. I'll get intimidated first off, then I'll start to read it, not understand a word, get frustrated and want to give up.   
But, I think if I start a little lighter with Thompson and Myers, I can work up to Jung if I at least have a seed of clearer knowledge. Might be a good idea, I think, to bounce between them when I start getting into PT.
I did read your most of the excerpts you posted in my old thread. I did find I had to reread every sentence and find some way to "absorb" and make sense of it. But this wore my mental energy pretty quick, so I stopped for a bit. Gonna go back and try and finish later.


----------



## penny lane (Nov 21, 2011)

KalimofDaybreak said:


> Even though they're flawed, tests still have some value. In the end, they tell you what you put in to them, so if you're being authentic odds are they're going to have some veracity. IxFx seems like a good starting point for you just based on those results; it's not uncommon for IxFPs to have a lot of 'Fe'. (I've said that before...maybe on this forum. I forget where.)
> 
> 
> True you get out what you put into it. I think there is some value in them .Reading over the questions enough I think does help in making connections with the functions and how they work. Sometimes I may see the question in a different way affecting my answer so I do realize some a different outcome should be expected.
> ...


I admit I feel a little foolish when I'm so uncertain but I know it's process and I'm hardly the only one who is searching. It nice I'm not the only one who can change sometimes even daily on what their type is. That itself is helpful knowing their are many looking for help.


----------



## giraffegator (Dec 28, 2014)

penny lane said:


> I score high on Fi and Fe and usually get INFP, ISFP,or ENFP sometimes I get another type altogether.I generally score lower on Te or Ti and about even on Se and Ne so I know it's not the way to type yourself. Yet I find myself still doing it! Maybe thinking I will find a clue in there somewhere.


Yeah I get results all over the shop... ISFP, ENFP, ESFP, ESTP and one time I got ENTJ which is out of the blue. I'm pretty much questioning all the letters except P!


----------



## Silent Theory (Nov 1, 2014)

Thank you so much for taking the time to write this, it is brilliant. I've been meaning to read Jung's work in a while but it is somewhere in the list of other books I want to read and concepts I want to learn so it has been pushed aside. But I'm very interested in typology and discovering my type to become more self aware and grow. So, in going to take your advice and delve into the theory to stop this confusion.


----------



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

SheWolf said:


> I think they're also good maybe for telling you what you're absolutely not. I have never once scored ESTP, ESTJ, ENTJ, or ENTP.


Very true. One technique that I found amusing was to take the test and answer the exact opposite of what you'd actually answer. That can be enlightening.



SheWolf said:


> I have noted I only get Thinking scores when I'm in a foul mood  One time I was absolutely rotten and got a RAGING INTJ score. Lol.


Feelers tend to perceive the thinking demeanor as antagonistic or negative, so scoring thinking while feeling poor is a pretty good indication of a feeling preference.



SheWolf said:


> Also, I read about the Introverted Feeling type in your post. Fits me quite well. I have an online friend that I message all the time that studies MBTI and he SWEARS I'm an INTJ. My sister, whom I've been trying to get into MBTI, thinks I'm a Thinking type as well. But I know I'm not. I get in scuffles all the time with true T types. They call me irrational and "feely", I call them arrogant and narrow-minded. I avoid T groups on Facebook like the plague because I KNOW they're gonna piss me off somehow. Aforementioned friend is ENTJ and he's fine, however. Weird.


It's not uncommon for INFPs and INTJs to mistype as each other. One issue, at least as far as your sister is concerned, with those 'out of the loop' with typology is that they tend to assume that thinking just means 'thinks a lot', which is really more INxx than anything else. F/T is a lot more nuanced than that.

You definitely seem to have a strong feeling, that's for sure. I actually get frustrated when feelers are too 'feely' around me. I have one INFP friend who could be positively draining just because she was like that. I'm also not averse to thinkers being thinky, so if you don't have these problems, that could also be an indication of dominant feeling.



SheWolf said:


> REALLY glad you said that. Trust me, I WANT to understand and get into Jung's writings. But, I think jumping RIGHT into that will end in disaster because I know how I am. I'll get intimidated first off, then I'll start to read it, not understand a word, get frustrated and want to give up.
> But, I think if I start a little lighter with Thompson and Myers, I can work up to Jung if I at least have a seed of clearer knowledge. Might be a good idea, I think, to bounce between them when I start getting into PT.


Go for it! It's great material.

I'm cutting your last part and posting it in the INFP/ISFP thread because I don't want to have two threads where I'm trying to type you. That said, you said something relevant that may help sort this out.



penny lane said:


> I admit I feel a little foolish when I'm so uncertain but I know it's process and I'm hardly the only one who is searching. It nice I'm not the only one who can change sometimes even daily on what their type is. That itself is helpful knowing their are many looking for help.


Definitely. I think part of typing yourself is just acclimating to your type, which in of itself can be a battle. I went through a pretty long stint of that myself. I'd definitely seek out some people who are in the same place as you, just having that group can be helpful.


----------

