# I don't know anymore



## Max (Aug 14, 2014)

I started off as an ESFP, then ended up as an ESTJ. Something still seems off. We haven't eliminated every option, and it stills seems like something is missing. 

I don't want to write down how I am, things I like etc, due to stereotypes of functions.

I am happy to answer some questions, but not the questionnaire. They're not very detailed, or good at determining types through their questions.

I will be honest, I have no clue anymore. I need help finding my best fit.


----------



## xraydav (Jan 3, 2013)

"I don't know anymore" = most common MBTI type conclusion .

try filling out the questionnaire on Guess Your Type. Some people may give you ideas on how you should approach it. 

Also not being so conclusive on such things, is I think, an Intuitive trait.


----------



## Max (Aug 14, 2014)

AverOblivious said:


> "I don't know anymore" = most common MBTI type conclusion .


Yeah, I am going by functions, and even that seems dodgy lol.


----------



## xraydav (Jan 3, 2013)

LuchoIsLurking said:


> Yeah, I am going by functions, and even that seems dodgy lol.


What sources are you trusting in?


----------



## Max (Aug 14, 2014)

AverOblivious said:


> What sources are you trusting in?


PersonalityCafe.


----------



## xraydav (Jan 3, 2013)

LuchoIsLurking said:


> PersonalityCafe.


Jungs psychological types is available online , it is a book, and helps clarify what it all mean when it comes to functions. Also have you tried taking a cognitive functions test online? That seems to help clarify what may be stronger just a bit.


----------



## Max (Aug 14, 2014)

AverOblivious said:


> Jungs psychological types is available online , it is a book, and helps clarify what it all mean when it comes to functions. Also have you tried taking a cognitive functions test online? That seems to help clarify what may be stronger just a bit.


Yes, I did. Those are bullshit too. All messed up. Get a different result each time. None of the top four make an MBTI type.


----------



## xraydav (Jan 3, 2013)

LuchoIsLurking said:


> Yes, I did. Those are bullshit too. All messed up. Get a different result each time. None of the top four make an MBTI type.


Take the theory from the mind of the creator. If you don't like it, throw it in the trash and move on .  

Classics in the History of Psychology -- Jung (1921/1923) Chapter 10


----------



## Max (Aug 14, 2014)

AverOblivious said:


> Take the theory from the mind of the creator. If you don't like it, throw it in the trash and move on .
> 
> Classics in the History of Psychology -- Jung (1921/1923) Chapter 10


You want me to read all that? Fuck that shit. What key points do I need to know? XD


----------



## Blindspots (Jan 27, 2014)

LuchoIsLurking said:


> What key points do I need to know? XD


Jung might be way too heavy to start with. Still, it's hard to learn how the functions work while bypassing reading and some discussion.

PerC does have useful material on functions, in relatively easier formats to digest. It's just a matter of finding where they are. Here are some stickied threads at the Cognitive Functions sub forum to start with:

http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/85534-functions-how-they-work.html - an introduction to functions, shows the framework and has preliminary definitions of often-used terms
http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/85534-functions-how-they-work.html - a simpler description of the functions, a good place to start
http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/2842-cognitive-functions-diagram-approach.html - functions in diagrams, in case you're more of a visual learner
http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/206250-jungian-definitions.html - excerpts lifted from Jung's work, with important parts highlighted. Perhaps best left for last.

Lenore Thomson offers an alternate definition of the functions, which may be less dense and esoteric than Jung's, but still retaining most of the essence of the latter. - Socionics - the16types.info - Lenore Thomson's MBTI Wiki Explanation of Functions

Just holler if you need any help or clarifications.


----------



## Coburn (Sep 3, 2010)

LuchoIsLurking said:


> You want me to read all that? Fuck that shit. What key points do I need to know? XD


Hahaha, such a great answer. Thanks for that; cheered me up.


----------



## Max (Aug 14, 2014)

Pilot said:


> Hahaha, such a great answer. Thanks for that; cheered me up.


No problem, but it's true. I wouldn't say I get lost with reading, I just prefer the tl;dr spoilers so I can remember everything, lol.


----------



## Simpson17866 (Dec 3, 2014)

LuchoIsLurking said:


> Yes, I did. Those are bullshit too. All messed up. Get a different result each time. *None of the top four make an MBTI type.*


 Sadly, most people's top 4 wouldn't, but that doesn't mean that cognitive functions _themselves_ are useless, just that trying to combine them with a second system of terminology (I-E, S-N, T-F, J-P) is pointless. As for getting a different result each time, I'd recommend taking the test 3-4 different times and averaging the results.


----------



## Max (Aug 14, 2014)

Simpson17866 said:


> Sadly, most people's top 4 wouldn't, but that doesn't mean that cognitive functions _themselves_ are useless, just that trying to combine them with a second system of terminology (I-E, S-N, T-F, J-P) is pointless. As for getting a different result each time, I'd recommend taking the test 3-4 different times and averaging the results.


Maybe. But that means getting up, and making a tally chart in my notes book :3


----------



## xraydav (Jan 3, 2013)

LuchoIsLurking said:


> No problem, but it's true. I wouldn't say I get lost with reading, I just prefer the tl;dr spoilers so I can remember everything, lol.


If you're going to be unmotivated about it, then you shouldn't be bothered with finding a type which encompasses your whole "being" in the first place. LOL


----------



## Max (Aug 14, 2014)

AverOblivious said:


> If you're going to be unmotivated about it, then you shouldn't be bothered with finding a type which encompasses your whole "being" in the first place. LOL


But why read something you are never going to remember in a million years? And why keep going over and over it to retain that information, when there's bound to be a more simplified version of what Jung is saying from other sources online? ;D


----------



## KingAndrew (May 8, 2015)

Through reading this post and your other posts on other pages, here's how your functions tallied up.

Ti IIIIIII
Te IIIIII
Fi IIII
Fe II
Ni IIIII
Ne I
Si 
Se IIIII

Most likely 

1. Se-Fi-Te-Ni(ESFP)
2. Se-Ti-Fe-Ni(ESTP)
3. Ti-Se-Ni-Fe(ISTP)

Could be wrong, but that's what I got for you.


----------



## Max (Aug 14, 2014)

KingAndrew said:


> Through reading this post and your other posts on other pages, here's how your functions tallied up.
> 
> Ti IIIIIII
> Te IIIIII
> ...


Well, at least I can resonate with this. It has a pattern to it, and it's not like ESFP, ESTJ and INTP. 

How can you belong to three different temperments at once? Haha.


----------



## mashedpotato (Apr 12, 2015)

Understanding the Myers Briggs Type Indicator: The 8 Cognitive Functions

Do some research and some introspection.


----------



## Max (Aug 14, 2014)

mashedpotato said:


> Understanding the Myers Briggs Type Indicator: The 8 Cognitive Functions
> 
> Do some research and some introspection.


Here are the functions I think I resonate with, more in order from most to least used at the moment, after reading those descriptions:

Se/Si
Te
Fi/Fe
Ti
Ne
Ni

EDIT: It's all probably wrong. I need to dwelve deeper into things. Four lines ain't enough.


----------

