# Confused between being ESTP/ENTP



## Andre2807 (Nov 14, 2013)

Hi guys

I'm not sure how to put this in words, but I don't know if I'm more ESTP or more ENTP. Here's some factors that might help you out.

I do many of the things ENTP's imagine doing. ie I would rob a bank for fun. I eat a cupcake by putting part of the cake on top of the icing. Then proceed eating it like a hamburger.
I love debating. Sharing opinions.
I never argue when I know someone is wrong. I keep quiet until they look like a fool.
I hate making plans.
I think of a dozen things at the same time. Scatter-brained.
I have a odd knack of quickly figuring people out.
I talk to strangers out of random (from the age of 5)
I'm extremely inquisitive, yet oblivious at the same time.
The most striking personality quirk of mine, is that I'm ALWAYS against the stream. I'll try out something even though other people has proven that other methods work.


----------



## Dedication (Jun 11, 2013)

Give us something specific.


----------



## Andre2807 (Nov 14, 2013)

Specific? 

I get bored with detail: ENTP
I try out many things: ESTP
I see the bigger picutre: ENTP
I suck at making plans: ESTP
I have a big interest in behavioral sciences, much more that I do in physical science and biology. ENTP

Is that specific enough?


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

ENTPs lead with intuition, objectively, which means their most natural state is that of directly engaging concept on a high level, devoid of anything experiential. 

Your examples strike me as ESTP.

Can you make an argument for your being ENTP, or anything relating to that premise, without using anything that you could observe about yourself and your environment. Just theory, like you were a philosopher. 

I suspect that isn't natural for you. If not, consider that, given the choice between the two, ESTP is the more likely answer. 

Also, ESTPs are awesome and make my world go round.


----------



## Andre2807 (Nov 14, 2013)

Thank you very much, I think I have my answer! Definitely ESTP then.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

If you're an ESTP, the odds are pretty low that you'd be here starting a thread about your personality type.

If you're interested, you can take the official "Step I" MBTI here.

The official MBTI folks put out Career Reports that show the popularity for each type of "22 broad occupational categories," based on "a sample of more than 92,000 people in 282 jobs who said they were satisfied with their jobs." The sample included 6,579 ENTPs and 5,114 ESTPs, so it was a _very large sample_.

Here are the "Most Attractive Job Families" for ENTPs (job attraction scores above 70) and ESTPs (job attraction scores above 65):

ENTPs
*Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media* [100]
— Artist, coach, musician, reporter
*Life, Physical and Social Sciences* [87]
— Biologist, chemist, economist, psychologist
*Business and Finance* [86]
— Operations, finance, marketing, human resources
*Computers and Mathematics* [83]
— Programmer, systems analyst, database administrator, mathematician
*Sales and Advertising* [81]
— Sales manager, real estate agent, insurance agent, salesperson
*Architecture and Engineering* [80]
— Architect, surveyor, mechanical engineer, chemical engineer
*Legal* [80]
— Lawyer, arbitrator, paralegal, court reporter

ESTPs
*Farming, Fishing, and Forestry* [100]
— Rancher, farmer, agricultural inspector, fisher
*Protective Services* [89]
— Firefighter, correctional officer, security guard, police officer
*Building and Grounds Maintenance* [79]
— Gardener, tree trimmer, housekeeping, lawn service supervisor
*Construction and Extraction* [78]
— Carpenter, plumber, electrician, stonemason
*Transportation and Materials Moving* [76]
— Pilot, air traffic controller, driver, freight handler
*Installation, Maintenance, and Repair* [71]
— Office machine repair, mechanic, line installer, electronics repair
*Military Specific* [70]
— Air crew officer, command & control, radar operator, infantry member
*Sales and Advertising* [67]
— Sales manager, real estate agent, insurance agent, salesperson
*Production and Manufacturing* [66]
— Machinist, cabinetmaker, inspector, power plant operator

Do you feel like one of those lists sounds significantly more like you than the other?


----------



## Brian1 (May 7, 2011)

Do you argue just for the sake of arguing-which is fun, you might be an ESTP
Not making plans is a ESTP hallmark, I do things on the whim
I am very scatter brained-this is an ESTP hallmark
Talking to Strangers is something we ESTPs love to do. And if you've been doing it since age 5, you might want to consider yourself an ESTP?

I think a deal breaker would be, do you live for the experience of eating cupcakes, or robbing banks, for fun? I would think an ESTP robbing a bank would, be, "Billy Joe and Bobby Sue, two young lovers with nothing better to do, than get high and watch the tube, and here's what happened when they decided to cut loose." An ENTP robbing a bank, would be more experienced as a safe cracker, and I would say are more Thomas Crown Affair (1968) Steve McQueen , has an elaborate team to pull off the perfect heist, not just once, but twice, in which he alludes Faye Dunaway's police team.

Also, Billy Joe shoots a man when he robs his castle. That's a very caught up in the moment line, and would tilt ESTP. So, some things to think about. 

And while I hate to admit it, because, I'm plugging ESTP, one of the other posters says truth, when he says an ESTP wouldn't be caught dead on a typology board, asking a searching for self question of, 'am I ESTP, or ENTP?.' We Sensors don't really have time for theory. I only started doing this when pushed, otherwise, I dread looking for a job ,because, of the type theory employers use now in the electronic applications. That said, there's some old timer ESTPs that know their stuff. 




Andre2807 said:


> Hi guys
> 
> I'm not sure how to put this in words, but I don't know if I'm more ESTP or more ENTP. Here's some factors that might help you out.
> 
> ...


----------



## Andre2807 (Nov 14, 2013)

reckful said:


> ENTPs
> *Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media* [100]
> — Artist, coach, musician, reporter
> *Life, Physical and Social Sciences* [87]
> ...


I'm a tax administrator (finance), with a high interest in human behavior, and social sciences like psychology and economics. I have almost no interest in any of the careers listed ESTP's.

Also the test I took at: Typeindicator... through 93 questions, these were the results:
Extraversion 22 - 0 Introversion
Sensing 4 - 22 Intuition
Thinking 24 - 0 Feeling
Judging 0 - 22 Perceiving


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

reckful said:


> If you're an ESTP, the odds are pretty low that you'd be here starting a thread about your personality type.


That is absurd.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Andre2807 said:


> I'm a tax administrator (finance), with a high interest in human behavior, and social sciences like psychology and economics. I have almost no interest in any of the careers listed ESTP's.


I am not surprised.


----------



## Octavarium (Nov 27, 2012)

arkigos said:


> That is absurd.


Why?


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Hark! It's @arkigos! On many past occasions he's pointed out that a lack of concern for real-world facts is part of what marks him as a proud INTP, and it looks like he's come through for us again! :tongue:



reckful said:


> If you're an ESTP, the odds are pretty low that you'd be here starting a thread about your personality type.





arkigos said:


> That is absurd.


As has previously been pointed out to you, the PerC membership is 86% N, notwithstanding that the general population is more like 25-30% N. And the introverts greatly outnumber the extraverts as well. And countless respectably-gathered MBTI statistics have repeatedly testified to the fact that the average MBTI N is far more likely to be interested in psychology than the average S.

Here are the June 2013 membership stats Teybo posted for PerC:

INFP	3723	0.21
INFJ	2580	0.15
INTP	2228	0.13
INTJ	1876	0.11
ENFP	1352	0.08
ENTP	1112	0.06
ENFJ	514	0.03
ISTP	527	0.03
ISFP	506	0.03
ISTJ	437	0.02
ENTJ	401	0.02
ISFJ	314	0.02
ESTP	159	0.01
ESFJ	102	0.01
ESFP	117	0.01
ESTJ	97	0.01

And here's a similar set of member percentages for Typology Central as of August 2012:

INTP 17
INFP 17
INFJ 16
INTJ 12
ENFP 10
ENTP 8
ISTP 4
ENFJ 3
ENTJ 3
ISFP 3
ISTJ 2
ISFJ 1
ESTP 1
ESFP 1
ESTJ 1
ESFJ 1

Did I say it was _impossible_ to find an ESTP at a personality-themed internet forum starting a type-me thread? Nope. I said "the odds are pretty low."

And that's what they call a fact.


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

reckful said:


> Hark! It's @_arkigos_! On many past occasions he's pointed out that a lack of concern for real-world facts is part of what marks him as a proud INTP, and it looks like he's come through for us again! :tongue:


I really enjoy it when people treat reality/facts like Italians treat speed limits... as a suggestion. 

"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored" Aldous Huxley.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Perhaps I should supplement my earlier ESTP "job family" stats — from that 5,000-subject sample — by noting that the job family that includes psychologists was ranked 21st (out of 22) for the ESTPs, with a job attraction score of 29 (out of 100).

*Life, Physical, and Social Sciences* [29]
— Biologist, chemist, economist, psychologist


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

reckful said:


> Hark! It's @_arkigos_! On many past occasions he's pointed out that a lack of concern for real-world facts is part of what marks him as a proud INTP, and it looks like he's come through for us again! :tongue:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No, that is what is called an assumption derived from facts.

Consider the following:

We are given a dilemma of ENTP vs ESTP. According to to those stats, there are about 7 ENTPs for every 1 ESTP on the forum. Assuming that those numbers are an accurate representation WHICH WE DO NOT KNOW, you have a one in seven chance, straight up, that someone coming onto the forums is an ESTP rather than ENTP? 

Well, that depends. First, are these active members? Do ESTPs retain their membership? I have specifically heard from ESTPs on the forum that they do not. Are ESTPs who are interested in typology more likely to mistype ENTP than those in the general population? How about the What is my type? subforum? Do an equal ratio of ENTPs and ESTPs seek help in determining their type? Perhaps this subforum is not in the least representative. 

Perhaps 120 of those ESTPs passed through here and only 300 of the ENTPs did. 

Factors and factors and factors abound. 

Have you considered them? Honestly, have you?





Scelerat said:


> I really enjoy it when people treat reality/facts like Italians treat speed limits... as a suggestion.
> 
> "Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored" Aldous Huxley.


People wield their interpretation of facts as a blunt weapon to push their subjective views. I don't deny that there are indeed facts of immense value... I simply refuse to accept these generic statistics and studies that pretend to present facts when in fact they simply mirror their own subjective systems. Someone decides what ESTP is, then polls people with a test to that effect, and then calls it proof. Silliness.


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

arkigos said:


> People wield their interpretation of facts as a blunt weapon to push their subjective views. I don't deny that there are indeed facts of immense value... I simply refuse to accept these generic statistics and studies that pretend to present facts when in fact they simply mirror their own subjective systems. Someone decides what ESTP is, then polls people with a test to that effect, and then calls it proof. Silliness.


Those are not facts, that's circular reasoning in statistical form. However, I also dislike people who dismiss entire datasets on those grounds, there is a balance. As Karl Popper said, you should be willing to continue the discussion in the language of your opponent.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

ESTP's might start asking questions about who they are if they're in a rough period in their lives. If they're unsure about their direction. If they're having problems. @Andre2807 are you currently experiencing upheaval in your life? Generally speaking, I think ESTP's don't struggle to figure out our type unless we're facing an identity crisis. 

When someone is asking if they're an ESTP, I tend suspect they're an ENTP unless they mention confusion or lack of direction in their lives. ESTP's might just have an interest in psychology. What makes me suspect ENTP is that the person has taken a questionnaire and at the end of it, are second guessing their results. That seems out of character to me. 

Of course, that's just my view. I could be wrong. I've been very unsure with socionics and enneagrams. But I don't seem to be the ESTP that struggled with socionics and enneagrams but easily identified with ESTP. The questions, cognitive functions and descriptions aren't a perfect match but match me, by far, better than any of the other options.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

Scelerat said:


> Those are not facts, that's circular reasoning in statistical form. However, I also dislike people who dismiss entire datasets on those grounds, there is a balance. As Karl Popper said, you should be willing to continue the discussion in the language of your opponent.


...and that is more than fair. However, I think it is natural to my mind to not accept ostensible logic at face value. What people call facts so rarely are in any meaningful sense.

I think I go to far in my rhetoric. I do think that facts can be and are meaningful... I just question whether or not some qualify as such as presented.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

arkigos said:


> No, that is what is called an assumption derived from facts.


Kind of a silly post, with all due respect.

If my post had said that the odds of a type-me thread OP being an ESTP were 1%, then your ankle-bitey issues might have been more relevant. "See here, reckful," you could have posted, "have you considered ESTPs may drop their memberships more often bla bla bla." And then I could have said ya, I see what you mean, maybe the odds are somewhat higher — _or lower_, of course.

But all I said was that the "odds are pretty low" — which I'm happy to report is keeping my ankles blissfully bite-free.


----------



## idoh (Oct 24, 2013)

@arkigos @Andre2807 you are an ENTP :tongue:


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

bearotter said:


> @reckful for curiosity, where does Dr. J say that about the middle thing as per your reference? Would be useful to know; I think certainly my observations indicate this to be roughly the case.


In 1923 — two years after Psychological Types was published — Jung gave a lecture (separately published in 1925) that's included in the _Collected Works_ edition of Psychological Types. After first introducing the audience to the "extraverted" and "introverted" types, Jung said this:



Jung said:


> There is, finally, a third group, and here it is hard to say whether the motivation comes chiefly from within or without. This group is the most numerous and includes the less differentiated normal man, who is considered normal either because he allows himself no excesses or because he has no need of them. The normal man is, by definition, influenced as much from within as from without. He constitutes the extensive middle group.


----------



## Andre2807 (Nov 14, 2013)

I just find it very strange that answering all the questions (72) then get the results: a definite clear cut ENPT (33% S and 66% N). But when reading about the functions, there are so many deviations which caused me to get confused, much to the fact that my Se is highly developed even if I don't prefer it.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

arkigos said:


> Just for the sake of devil's advocacy... say there are 4 functions, with alternating attitudes, and we assume a constancy in descending influence, like so:
> 
> E40 I30 E20 I10 = E60 I40 = EI100
> I40 E30 I20 E10 = I60 E40 = EI100
> ...


I don't think there's any question that Jung thought that whether a person was an extravert or an introvert would correspond to the attitude of their dominant function — which he called their "conscious attitude" — rather than corresponding to the greater of two function-strength subtotals. Following the short introduction, Chapter X is divided into two main sections — "The Extraverted Type" and "The Introverted Type" — and the eight "function-types" consist of four varieties of the "extraverted type" and four varieties of the "introverted type." So... I think it's pretty clear that, as Jung saw it, you couldn't be, say, an Ne-dom without _also_ being an extravert.

But beyond that, and as further discussed in this post and the posts it links to, when Myers declared that the auxiliary function's attitude would be the opposite of the dominant's, she acknowledged that that interpretation put her in a very small minority among Jung scholars. I agree with the majority of Jung scholars — and I really think it's the only fair reading of Psychological Types as a whole — that Jung believed that a person's second function, to the extent that it was differentiated and put to service as the auxiliary function, would have the same attitude as the dominant (again, the person's "conscious attitude").

So, to me, that's two independent reasons for rejecting the idea that Jung might have thought that a person could be an ambivert because, even though they had a dominant function with an attitude, they had one or two auxiliary functions with the opposite attitude that balanced it to 0.

Also, if you look at the actual Jung quote (two posts back, in my reply to bearotter), he said the reason the "normal man" was an E/I ambivert was because he was "less differentiated" than introverts and extraverts, rather than because he had two (or three) differentiated functions that canceled each other out. And it's also worth noting that, in his discussion of the auxiliary function, Jung specifically explained that the auxiliary couldn't both serve as the auxiliary and be as differentiated as the dominant. He said:



Jung said:


> Experience shows that the secondary function is always one whose nature is different from, though not antagonistic to, the primary function. Thus, thinking as the primary function can readily pair with intuition as the auxiliary, or indeed equally well with sensation, but, as already observed, never with feeling. Neither intuition nor sensation is antagonistic to thinking; they need not be absolutely excluded, for they are not of a nature equal and opposite to thinking, as feeling is — which, as a judging function, successfully competes with thinking — but are functions of perception, affording welcome assistance to thought. But* as soon as they reached the same level of differentiation as thinking, they would bring about a change of attitude which would contradict the whole trend of thinking*. They would change the judging attitude into a perceiving one; whereupon the principle of rationality indispensable to thought would be suppressed in favour of the irrationality of perception. Hence the auxiliary function is possible and useful only in so far as it serves the dominant function, without making any claim to the autonomy of its own principle.


----------



## Andre2807 (Nov 14, 2013)

arkigos said:


> Trust me, ENTP is notoriously hampered by procedural walls. They have no patience for them whatsoever, often, but instead of seeing all the variances.... ENTP needs to reconceive the scope of the problem conceptually in order to overcome those walls. ESTP would attempt to agilely navigate barriers -
> 
> this is why, for example, STPs are known to often enjoy gambling... it is all about seeing the possibilities in the experiential realm, and intangible patterns "anything can happen, and I think luck is coming my way".


I relate highly to having almost no patience... and I hate gambling. I'll rather participate where I know all the possible outcomes. When I play chess for example I have an inability of taking risks like Michael Tal, but still make risky moves, just because I will often see the possibilities in the outcome of my risk.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Andre2807 said:


> I just find it very strange that answering all the questions (72) then get the results: a definite clear cut ENPT (33% S and 66% N). But when reading about the functions, there are so many deviations which caused me to get confused, much to the fact that my Se is highly developed even if I don't prefer it.


The MBTI dichotomies, which substantially line up with four of the Big Five dimensions, now have decades of studies in support of their validity and reliability, while the "cognitive functions" — which James Reynierse (in the 2009 article linked below) refers to as a "category mistake" — have barely been studied. And the reason they've barely been studied is that, unlike the dichotomies, they've never been taken seriously by any significant number of academic psychologists. Going all the way back to 1985, the MBTI Manual described or referred to somewhere in the neighborhood of 1,500 MBTI studies and, as I understand it, _not one_ of the many study-based correlations reported in the manual were framed in terms of the functions. And many more dichotomy-based studies have been done in the years since. The third edition of the MBTI Manual was published in 1998 and, as Reynierse notes in the linked article, it cited a grand total of _eight studies_ involving "type dynamics" (i.e., the functions model) — which Reynierse summarizes as "six studies that failed, one with a questionable interpretation, and one where contradictory evidence was offered as support."

Dario Nardi's one of the leading cognitive functions guys (as I'm sure you know), and his test is arguably the most-linked-to cognitive functions test — but, as further discussed in this INTJforum post, INTJs typically get high Ni scores _and high Ne scores_ (with Ni not substantially favored over Ne), and high Te scores _and high Ti scores_ (with Te not substantially favored over Ti), when they take Nardi's test.

As I understand it, there isn't a single function-based test on or off the internet on which INTJs reliably get high Ni and Te scores and low Ti and Ne scores and INTPs reliably get high Ti and Ne scores and low Ni and Te scores — never mind scoring the third and fourth functions in a way that matches the model.

And what functions model should a good test be matching, anyway? Myers acknowledged that the majority of Jung scholars believed (rightly, IMHO) that Jung's model for a Ti-dom with an N auxiliary was Ti-Ni-Se-Fe. Myers' model was Ti-Ne-Se-Fe — although, as explained in my linked post (below), Myers, despite some lip service to the contrary, essentially abandoned the functions for the dichotomies. Harold Grant's model — followed by Berens and Nardi and most of the other modern functions theorists — was Ti-Ne-Si-Fe.

If you're interested, you can find out quite a bit more about the place of the functions (or lack thereof) in the MBTI's history — and the tremendous gap between the dichotomies and the functions in terms of scientific respectability — in this long INTJforum post.

Links in INTJforum posts don't work if you're not a member, so here are replacements for two of the links in that post:

McCrae & Costa article
Reynierse article​
ADDED: Also, as a reminder, your results on the _official MBTI_ were even more lopsided in favor of N than the results on whatever that 72-question test was (HumanMetrics?). Here are those official results:

Extraversion 22 - 0 Introversion
Sensing 4 - 22 Intuition
Thinking 24 - 0 Feeling
Judging 0 - 22 Perceiving


----------



## The_Wanderer (Jun 13, 2013)

reckful said:


> Dario Nardi's one of the leading cognitive functions guys (as I'm sure you know), and his test is arguably the most-linked-to cognitive functions test — but, as further discussed in this INTJforum post, INTJs typically get high Ni scores _and high Ne scores_ (with Ni not substantially favored over Ne), and high Te scores _and high Ti scores_ (with Te not substantially favored over Ti), when they take Nardi's test.


This interests me; have you also looked into other types and not just INTJs? My results averaged over several tests were extremely high Ne followed closely by very high Fi, with high Se and Te, middling Ti and Ni and not used Fe and Si. From people who've shared results with me, mostly people I know in real life, I've noticed that about half have one high introverted function and one high extraverted function and they were usually opposite types (i.e. one judging, one perceiving). The other half tended to have either first two-three extraverted or introverted.

Also, have you seen test results where people are practically equal between two functions? I haven't, most people seem to have a rather clear-cut preference for one function, in my (admittedly small) experience.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

The_Wanderer said:


> This interests me; have you also looked into other types and not just INTJs? My results averaged over several tests were extremely high Ne followed closely by very high Fi, with high Se and Te, middling Ti and Ni and not used Fe and Si. From people who've shared results with me, mostly people I know in real life, I've noticed that about half have one high introverted function and one high extraverted function and they were usually opposite types (i.e. one judging, one perceiving). The other half tended to have either first two-three extraverted or introverted.
> 
> Also, have you seen test results where people are practically equal between two functions? I haven't, most people seem to have a rather clear-cut preference for one function, in my (admittedly small) experience.


That INTJforum post I linked to is part of a 350-post thread where people have posted their results from that test, and I don't think there's any type with any significant number of posts in that thread where their typical test results line up very well with the standard functions model.

And I'd say it's pretty common for posted results in that thread to show two top functions of relatively equal strength.

I consider all four of my dichotometric preferences pretty strong — i.e., I consider myself an unambiguous INTJ — and here were my results on the keys2cognition test:

extraverted Sensing (Se) ************* (13)
unused 
introverted Sensing (Si) ***************************** (29.1)
average use 
extraverted Intuiting (Ne) *********************** (23.9)
limited use 
introverted Intuiting (Ni) ***************************** (29.9)
average use 
extraverted Thinking (Te) ************************************************ (48.5)
excellent use 
introverted Thinking (Ti) *********************************************** (47.1)
excellent use 
extraverted Feeling (Fe) *************** (15.5)
unused 
introverted Feeling (Fi) ******************************** (32.8)
good use

So: Te-Ti-Fi-Ni-Si-Ne-Fe-Se


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

Andre2807 said:


> I relate highly to having almost no patience... and I hate gambling. I'll rather participate where I know all the possible outcomes. When I play chess for example I have an inability of taking risks like Michael Tal, but still make risky moves, just because I will often see the possibilities in the outcome of my risk.


Don't get too hung up on specifics like this... certainly not all ESTPs like gambling, in fact many hate it - the analogy was meant to be read as a model for a conceptual connection - rather than a literal one. Also, it isn't that ENTP is more or less patient than an ESTP... but in what arena they perceive fatal obstacles and in which they are able to easily see dynamic variance. 

For example, when I play chess............. I lose. I can't see any outcomes. I've memorized enough rote procedure to feign capability, but last time I played it was against an ISTP and he brutalized me, all the while playing Fruit Ninja and paying more attention to the meeting we were in... while I fretted over the game. 

For your example of the possibilities in the outcome... that is actually not a bad example of what I mean about Se/Ni-Ni/Se style possibilities. My brain doesn't work remotely like that. I am not sure that should be considering significant, but I mention it anyway.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

reckful said:


> That INTJforum post I linked to is part of a 350-post thread where people have posted their results from that test, and I don't think there's any type with any significant number of posts in that thread where their typical test results line up very well with the standard functions model.
> 
> And I'd say it's pretty common for posted results in that thread to show two top functions of relatively equal strength.
> 
> ...



*Cognitive Process**Level of Development (Preference, Skill and Frequency of Use)*extraverted Sensing (Se) *************************************************** (51.1)
excellent useintroverted Sensing (Si) ***************** (17.6)
limited useextraverted Intuiting (Ne) *********************** (23.6)
limited useintroverted Intuiting (Ni) ********************** (22.5)
limited useextraverted Thinking (Te) *************************************** (39.8)
excellent useintroverted Thinking (Ti) *************************** (27.7)
average useextraverted Feeling (Fe) ******************** (20.3)
limited useintroverted Feeling (Fi) ************************************** (38)
excellent use
 
Se-Te-Fi-Ti-Ne-Ni-Fe-Si 

I come out pretty clearly ESTP on most tests. I got ENTP/SCUEI on the Big 5. And here, it's calling me an ESFP. Well, it was interesting.


----------



## Kabosu (Mar 31, 2012)

I think the cognitive functions are better learned than through tests, because sometimes I even find their test questions a bit generalized. Sometimes my results are all over the place. It's actually through outing my results that I made the switch to ENTP, ha (before coming here, I _always_ tested as INFJ, but in retrospect, that was a Forer Effect/description identification thing). When I did a what's my type with a poll (with my type revealed), 100% of the voters had me on the Ne/Si axis somewhere but not the other way around. There was some variation on Fi/Te but not much.

The reckful results, does that even make a proper type? Te > Ti would probably make Ti a shadow but to have the total opposite as auxiliary doesn't even add up. That would still technically end up a xNTJ.

I've learned after coming here to not trust tests too much. The main Socionics test would be a bit incongruous of a result with my MBTI type.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Doge said:


> I think the cognitive functions are better learned than through tests, because sometimes I even find their test questions a bit generalized. Sometimes my results are all over the place. It's actually through outing my results that I made the switch to ENTP, ha (before coming here, I _always_ tested as INFJ, but in retrospect, that was a Forer Effect/description identification thing). When I did a what's my type with a poll (with my type revealed), 100% of the voters had me on the Ne/Si axis somewhere but not the other way around. There was some variation on Fi/Te but not much.
> 
> The reckful results, does that even make a proper type? Te > Ti would probably make Ti a shadow but to have the total opposite as auxiliary doesn't even add up. That would still technically end up a xNTJ.
> 
> I've learned after coming here to not trust tests too much. The main Socionics test would be a bit incongruous of a result with my MBTI type.


Every test that I've done --MBTI, Keys2cognition, sociotype, etc-- I type as ENTP. I used to type as INFJ consistently as well. Many of the first responses to a type me thread made here was that I was an ESTP. After some back and forth, it came down to either ISTP and ENTJ. I don't see myself as a J-type at all, so I went with ISTP.


----------



## FX (Sep 30, 2013)

reckful said:


> That INTJforum post I linked to is part of a 350-post thread where people have posted their results from that test, and I don't think there's any type with any significant number of posts in that thread where their typical test results line up very well with the standard functions model.
> 
> And I'd say it's pretty common for posted results in that thread to show two top functions of relatively equal strength.
> 
> ...


That is the most interesting stack I have ever seen for an INTJ.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

foxhead128 said:


> That is the most interesting stack I have ever seen for an INTJ.


Well, actually... as discussed in this INTJforum post (which I previously linked to) — and as evidenced by a lot of INTJ results in that long thread — my results are pretty typical INTJ results on that test, in the sense that:


My N totals and T totals are higher than my S totals and F totals.
My T total is higher than my N total.
My Ti isn't significantly lower than my Te.
My Ne isn't all that much lower than my Ni.
My Fi is reasonably high and my Fe is low.
Much of that is inconsistent with what the Ni-Te-Fi-Se model leads people to expect but, again, those are pretty typical INTJ results on that test.


----------



## FX (Sep 30, 2013)

reckful said:


> Well, actually... as discussed in this INTJforum post (which I previously linked to) — and as evidenced by a lot of INTJ results in that long thread — my results are pretty typical INTJ results on that test, in the sense that:
> 
> 
> My N totals and T totals are higher than my S totals and F totals.
> ...


Fascinating. It hadn't occurred to me to look at it in that way. It's likely that my view on this has been influenced by the fact that my own stack falls neatly in line with the "standard" INTP Ti-Ne-Si-Fe.


----------



## MattPerkins (Jan 26, 2014)

I'm actually both an ENTP and an ESTP. I've taken 3 different tests by 3 different sites and all agree I'm around 50-50 with Intuitive and Sensing. Similar Minds gave me an even 50-50. Personality.info gave me 53% sensing and 47% Intuitive. While humanmetrics said I had a slight preference to intuition (12%) over sensing. All agree I'm an extrovert, all have me thinking, all have me as perceiving. Anyone else have a similar balance?


----------

