# Which method is most accurate?



## militantsparrow (Jul 11, 2013)

I'm struggling getting a lock on my MBTI type. If I just read the I/E, S/N, etc. I always come up with INTJ. If I read the type descriptions, INFJ seems most like me. If I take the cognitive tests, it always comes up INFP.

What does it all mean? Which method is most accurate?


----------



## Ballast (Jun 17, 2013)

When this happens, I like to look at all the different methods and see what they offer as well as where they coincide.

Personally, at the end of the day I go by the dichotomies. But if something's not lining up (you get some different result depending on which approach you take) you can try studying the dimensions a little more closely. What is the real difference between T and F? J and P?

It also helps having a few dimensions you are certain of. Looks to be I and N from your smattering of test results, and that does narrow it down considerably.

I think the cognitive functions are useful but try not getting too locked into them. You're never going to score Ni Te Fi Se or Fi Ne Si Te in that order no matter how many tests you take. You're going to score something like Ni Fi Ti Te Fe Si Se, and wonder how the hell it correlates to any MBTI type. The problem might lie with the tests themselves, as what they are accessing are the results of what you do, rather than what they are trying to measure: the processes. So don't go too heavily by your "cognitive function preference order" according to the tests. 

You can start looking for clues, though. So, both INFPs and INTJs are said to do Fi and Te. And Ni is the dominate function of INTJs and INFJs. If you have a general figure that Ni is the strongest function, you can reasonably suspect that those two are possible best fits. Likewise, if Ne is strongest, or near strongest, perhaps that suggests INTP, ENTP, INFP, ENFP. If there's no way you're an extrovert, then you've narrowed it down to the introverted types that have heavy use of Ne: INTP and INFP. Back to the dichotomies: is J or is P a better fit? If J is a better fit, but you're scoring high on Ne use, I wouldn't worry about it too much. N types are likely to score higher on both Ni and Ne, just as F types are likely to score higher on both Fi and Fe...etc. There are differences between the introverted and extroverted functions and you may find a definite preference of, say, Fi over Fe, but generally speaking it's normal to appear to prefer both (for instance, I definitely do Ni over Ne, but when taking the CF tests seem to favor Ti and Te equally). It's when you figure that you're an INTJ but score highest on Si and Fe that I would start questioning, lol.

So then, when you've figured out a best possible type or two...and you read the descriptions, and really resonate with INFJ the most, I'd say that's probably your best fit. Because when it comes down to it, the descriptions are the most qualitative (as opposed to quantitative test results) presentation you're going to get, and if it matches, I think that's your best clue.

Other things you can do to confirm your type: try hanging out around the INTJ and INFJ subforums (or INFP and any other types you may be considering) and see how well you mesh with the topics, the posters, the general feel of the place. Read those "you know you're X type when..." threads and see if you resonate with what the people are saying. It's a great way to confirm or deny your best fit type when you find yourself connecting well (or not connecting well) with other people of your type. 

Have you tried taking the Big 5/SLOAN? Your score from that will give you further clues because 4 of their 5 dimensions coincide with MBTI.

One last thing to rest your mind about your CF tests suggesting INFP: My CF tests all suggested INTP for me, when I'm very clearly a J, on the basis of high Ti. But that's what I mean; if you are a feeler, chances are you're going to read _both_ Fi and Fe and think, hey, that sounds like me! It might be a thin bit of difference until you really look closely. So if it suggests INFP as a best probable fit because you score too high on Ne or Fi to be INTJ or INFJ, I wouldn't take that too seriously.


----------



## militantsparrow (Jul 11, 2013)

Wow! What a great answer. Thank you, Ballast. This is a tremendous help.


----------



## militantsparrow (Jul 11, 2013)

What do these results tell you?

I'm a O47-C30-E15-A44-N66


----------



## Ballast (Jun 17, 2013)

militantsparrow said:


> What do these results tell you?
> 
> I'm a O47-C30-E15-A44-N66


Hmm...I haven't seen them presented that way before, I'd have to see something for comparison. (For instance, not sure if your E score is saying you're only 15% extroverted which means largely introverted, or 15% over the line towards the extroversion side.) Did you get a score like RCOAI or RCOAN or something?


----------



## Teybo (Sep 25, 2012)

I touched on my personal experience with dimension (or "dichotomy") tests vs. function tests in this post, if you're interested.

On a less personal note, psychologists (including MBTI practitioners and researchers) have collected decades of data indicating that human personality tendencies are governed by about 5 or so independent, central factors that exist in the population along continuous dimensions. In contrast, almost all attempts at finding objective evidence for function based personality models end up showing no support or actually showing that function models are specifically worse than dimension based models.

This information tells us that a function model, which is composed of a) discrete parts that b) are combined in an interactive way (inflecting the I/E dimension on the N/S dimension: "Ne", for example) rather than in an additive way (I+N+F+P, for example) is likely to have difficulties capturing the wider, fuller range of personality traits and expressions than a dimension model.

Related to this, assuming that you are reasonably aware of your own preferences and that your preferences are reasonably strong, a dimension or "dichotomy" based test is more likely to help you pinpoint your type than a function test (which nearly always produces confusing, hard to interpret, contradictory results that often do not match any MBTI type).

For more reading on functions vs. dimensions or "dichotomies", you could also read this insightful post by @reckful.

If you're interested in some extended reading/dialogue about the F/T dichotomy and related issues (including INFJ vs. INTJ), I suggest reading this post and many of the posts in this thread. If you want some input about P/J, check this post out.


----------



## militantsparrow (Jul 11, 2013)

Teybo,
I started reading through the thread you mentioned (the one touching on your personal experience). It seems similar to what I've been seeing. I will take the big 5 over the next day or two and see how that lines up.


----------



## militantsparrow (Jul 11, 2013)

Ballast said:


> Hmm...I haven't seen them presented that way before, I'd have to see something for comparison. (For instance, not sure if your E score is saying you're only 15% extroverted which means largely introverted, or 15% over the line towards the extroversion side.) Did you get a score like RCOAI or RCOAN or something?


Ballast, now that I think I understand it better, I believe these initial results would represent RLOEI.

But the test is a little difficult. It feels like some of the questions are asking if I'm a saint or not. I'm not, but I I'm not the opposite either.

I'm going to retake the test and try to be a little more (or less) introspective.


----------



## militantsparrow (Jul 11, 2013)

Okay. Now I get RLOAI.


----------



## militantsparrow (Jul 11, 2013)

I've been trying to figure out who I am for most of my life. The fact that I'm pretty certain I'm INxJ now should be a relief. Now, if I can just figure out that pesky T/F. I wish there was a test just for thinker/feeler. It would probably help me figure out my enneagram also. 4w5 or 5w4.


----------



## Teybo (Sep 25, 2012)

Both of your Big 5 results are consistent with an MBTI type of INXJ.

The F/T dimension is probably the messiest of all the MBTI dimensions, and Jung famously said that he had difficulties with it as well!

A pervasive finding in personality research is that the F/T dimension (or the correlative Big 5 dimension of "Accommodation") tends to be mixed up in some ways with gender and sex, in that males tend toward the T end of the spectrum while females tend toward the F end. This means that it's difficult in some ways to make really hard statements about F/T that will apply regardless of gender.

It's way more typical for a male on the border between F and T to end up finding that INFJ is a better fit than INTJ partly because of how gender influences male INFJs from being as strongly F as female F types. 

At this point, the thing I'd recommend most is to read through @reckful 's series of posts at INTJforum about INFJ vs. INTJ as well as this post about the messiness of F/T and how to move forward and use the ideas of psychological type even if you feel like your preferences don't fall neatly into F or T.


----------



## militantsparrow (Jul 11, 2013)

Thank you. I will.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

@militantsparrow --

In case it's useful to you, here's a PerC post that I put together to be a somewhat more comprehensive/organized "portal" to some of my INTJforum posts on T/F.

Note that the portal stuff is actually in the spoiler at the end of the linked post.


----------



## Sol_ (Jan 8, 2013)

All current methods are much inaccurate when used by most typers. Avarage probability to be typed correctly by almost any single typer and any method today is <50%.

The best way is to study typology yourself and find your type yourself too. Other typers may help, because some type better than accidentaly.


----------



## militantsparrow (Jul 11, 2013)

Thanks, Sol_,
I have been trying to study it. I started with the tests, but I've been really trying to understand the theories. At this point, I'm almost certain I'm an INFJ. I think the most confusing or challenging thing for me is that I'm an ACA (adult child of an alcoholic). As a result, I have a form of PTSD. This poses a few problems for me.

I am tempted to get in touch with my lost self. I don't want to type the broken me. I want to type the whole me. But that isn't so easy. I remember being a sensitive and creative child, but also naturally gifted with science and computers. I was a painter and poet (obviously not professional) into my twenties. For the past 15 years I have become more and more INTJ'ish. But I can't tell if that is a rediscovery of who I once was or a further departure from who I was meant to be. In other words, am I the poet who hardened into a scientist to protect myself or was I the scientist who retreated into poetry for safety and have been slowly rediscovering that broken child.

All of this makes typing myself confusing on top of the typical confusion one might experience.


----------



## militantsparrow (Jul 11, 2013)

@Teybo and @reckful,
The links have been extremely helpful. I can relate to Mogura to a scary degree and reckful's breakdowns were fantastic.


----------



## myexplodingcat (Feb 6, 2011)

Understanding the 8 Jungian Cognitive Processes (8 Functions)

Use the functions, and your own judgment, and the forums for someone with more experienced judgment if you need to. As someone who types people a lot, I can say with confidence that those tests are almost never accurate, no matter which type of test you take.


----------



## militantsparrow (Jul 11, 2013)

I figured it out. I used a method that I haven't seen recommended before but I feel good about it. I basically listed all of the cognitive functions in a spreadsheet and sorted them by preference. I did it blindly. I just looked at the descriptions. I had several descriptions for each function which I took from multiple sources. The results were clearly INTP. I did the same sort of sorting again but tried to sort them against my memory--my development. It just so happens that I had previously journaled my life story in bullet points for the sake of remembering who I was. The results were the same. I am an INTP.

Is this a crazy method?


----------



## Teybo (Sep 25, 2012)

If you're asking if this method is likely to produce a person's best fit type, and unlikely to produce types that do not better fit the person, my answer would be: no, not really. A dichotomy approach is more likely to be accurate.

Why? Well, two main reasons.

First of all, there is no consensus about how functions are configured (e.g. is your auxiliary the same or different as the dominant in terms of introversion/extraversion), and there is controversy about how MBTI types are supposed to map to function models (e.g. is an INTP an N dominant or a T dominant?). So even if you were reasonably confident that you were a Ti dominant, that doesn't settle whether you're an INTJ or an INTP, and it doesn't settle whether you are Ti-Ne or Ti-Ni, for example.

Second of all, function descriptions themselves are disputed, and the traits that are associated with each function are likewise disputed. So, for example, if you categorize yourself as a Ti dominant primarily because you identify with having a mental model of something and liking to work out how things fit together, well, you could just as easily say that those are characteristics of all IN types in general.


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

@Teybo, with all due respect, which method is most accurate is incredibly personal and FYI. you typed me as an INFJ when I am clearly and unquestionably an INTJ and many others did the same mistake because that dichotomy approach is victim of the "this person focuses on people so s/he must be an F".

Also, even tho many disagree about the definitions about the functions *on the internet*, it doesn't mean that they aren't extremely obvious for those who are well read as it is about subjectivity vs objectivity which Jung says in his book "psychological types" and for those who have read it then they should know that simple distinction. There is however many BS descriptions around on the internet (I mean, HELLO! *It's the internet*, what do you expect?), just like there's BS descriptions of the dichotomies like Ns being creative and SJs being traditionalists and Ts cold etc.
@militantsparrow, some books I recommend:
Really Me
Psychological Types - Wikisocion
That should be enough for you to be fairly knowledgeable about MBTI by the time you're done.


----------



## Teybo (Sep 25, 2012)

Acerbusvenator said:


> @Teybo, with all due respect, which method is most accurate is incredibly personal and FYI. you typed me as an INFJ when I am clearly and unquestionably an INTJ and many others did the same mistake because that dichotomy approach is victim of the "this person focuses on people so s/he must be an F".
> 
> Also, even tho many disagree about the definitions about the functions *on the internet*, it doesn't mean that they aren't extremely obvious for those who are well read as it is about subjectivity vs objectivity which Jung says in his book "psychological types" and for those who have read it then they should know that simple distinction. There is however many BS descriptions around on the internet (I mean, HELLO! *It's the internet*, what do you expect?), just like there's BS descriptions of the dichotomies like Ns being creative and SJs being traditionalists and Ts cold etc.
> @militantsparrow, some books I recommend:
> ...


You didn't understand what I was saying, if that's what you think I said. I said it was likely that your preference on F/T was closer to the middle than either extreme end, which you confirmed.

I think you're INXJ.

You are the one that wanted things in black and white.


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

Teybo said:


> You didn't understand what I was saying, if that's what you think I said. I said it was likely that your preference on F/T was closer to the middle than either extreme end, which you confirmed.
> 
> I think you're INXJ.
> 
> You are the one that wanted things in black and white.


Which is another of my problems with your approaches exactly, the whole ambivert/borderpreference thing is just so silly and uneducated and tbh. has caused huge destruction and confusion in the MBTI community because people are gullible enough to believe it even tho there is no official support for the claim that you can be in-between preferences. The official MBTI states however that you can be too young to clearly have developed a preference but that is however not the case for me as I am 21.

My F/T preference is closer to the middle as I am an INTJ (Ni *Te Fi* Se) and that is what the dichotomies fail to recognize. Why? Because they are made for testing and not for the in-depth understanding of the system.

This is a quote from My MBTI Personality Type - MBTI Basics


> The purpose of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® (MBTI®) personality inventory is to make the theory of psychological types described by C. G. Jung understandable and useful in people’s lives.


Yes, the purpose of MBTI is to make the theory of psychological types understandable for the common (wo)man who might not be educated enough or wanting to read psychological types by Jung, but would still like to reap the benefits of knowing how to develop themselves and what their strengths and weaknesses are etc.
MBTI is a Type Indicator, and an indicator is designed to indicate something (in this case your preference for cognitive functions), it is a tool, not a system. The dichotomies are merely the instrument which allows MBTI to in a simplified way find your preference but in reality they are far less efficient as they are simplifications.
To ignore the cognitive function is to ignore the basis of the dichotomies as they are made to simplify the cognitive functions and you can't believe the dichotomies if you don't believe the cognitive functions tho you can very much do the opposite.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Acerbusvenator said:


> To ignore the cognitive function is to ignore the basis of the dichotomies as they are made to simplify the cognitive functions and you can't believe the dichotomies if you don't believe the cognitive functions tho you can very much do the opposite.


As explained in this long INTJforum post, and despite quite a lot of lip service to the "Jungian functions" over the years, the mainstream MBTI has always been centered around the dichotomies, and that continues to be the case (again, as explained in that linked post) in the more recent "Step II" manifestation of the MBTI, which breaks each dichotomy into five facets.

Far from being just a simplified testing tool (as described in your post), the dichotomies, as Myers rightly recognized, can make a much better claim than the functions to be the core components of temperament. The MBTI dichotomies, like the Big Five factors with which they substantially correlate, now have decades of studies behind them, while the few studies that been done with respect to the functions — as further described in that linked post and the articles it links to — have basically failed to support them.

-----------------------------------------------------

ADDED: For non-INTJforum members, here are links to the two articles linked to in that post:

McCrae & Costa article
Reynierse article


----------



## Octavarium (Nov 27, 2012)

@Acerbusvenator, mind explaining why you think the idea of borderline preferences is "silly and uneducated"? Even if any particular source doesn't explicitly state that it's possible to be in the middle of any particular dimension, it allows for more variation, and therefore does a better job of capturing individual differences. In the function theory, an INTJ is Ni, Te, Fi, Se and that's it. There's no room for different types of INTJs. In dichotomy theory, you might have an INTJ who is borderline T/F, and would therefore look very much like an INFJ. Another INTJ might have a stronger T preference than the first one, but be borderline N/S, and therefore be similar to an ISTJ. An INTJ is simply someone who is more I than E, more N than S, more T than F and more J than P. Whether that's very slightly more, quite a bit more or definitely a lot more on each of those dimensions varies from one INTJ to the next. Human personality simply doesn't work in terms of discrete, black and white categories.


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

Octavarium said:


> @_Acerbusvenator_, mind explaining why you think the idea of borderline preferences is "silly and uneducated"?


I'm about to go to sleep, but alright.
Because it is based on the guessing by the Internet community (most of which know little about psychology or the system itself), it is based on this utopian idea that the mind is a peaceful place where everything gets along and nothing fights for power and control. The categories are rather vast and they are about preferences, not some highly specific and tiny boxes. You can't be outside the box if there is no box because MBTI is not a set of boxes, it is binary, either you are one or the other. The borderline preference thing was made by people who wanted to feel special and better than others and it is nurtured by those as well etc. the list goes on.
The answer to your question seems rather obvious.

Also, fun fact: Google the definition of "dichotomy". That people say that the DICHOTOMY supports people having a borderline preference is ridiculous, haha.
If it still doesn't make sense, google for the definition to "opposing".


----------



## liminalthought (Feb 25, 2012)

Octavarium said:


> In the function theory, an INTJ is Ni, Te, Fi, Se and that's it. There's no room for different types of INTJs.





Octavarium said:


> In dichotomy theory, you might have an INTJ who is borderline T/F, and would therefore look very much like an INFJ. Another INTJ might have a stronger T preference than the first one, but be borderline N/S, and therefore be similar to an ISTJ.


To everyone: 
Pick a theory. No theory soup, it would help everyone. 
Establish the one that will be used to drive the discussion so that you're all on the same page. No "it depends on my current interest".



Octavarium said:


> Human personality simply doesn't work in terms of discrete, black and white categories.


Common sense. 

By *freeeekyyy *In this thread:http://intjforum.com/showthread.php?p=2956132#post2956132

"Cognitive functions don't exist or "not" exist. They are an abstraction of human thought. They're just one lens among many through which human cognition can be viewed and understood. They are an especially useful lens for certain purposes, but they are not a thing in and of themselves. Human cognition is obviously real, but the "cognitive functions" are just one way of viewing it among others. Not all are equally useful, but they're all abstract concepts, not actual, physical things that exist in the real world." 

This is why you must pick a specific system and stick strictly to it's definitions. They're all lenses used for estimation.

Anything along the lines of "Well, universally..." is usually the start of straying out of the borders of the theory, the borders being essentially the theory.


----------



## Octavarium (Nov 27, 2012)

Acerbusvenator said:


> The borderline preference thing was made by people who wanted to feel special and better than others...


Whether or not you're right about that has absolutely no effect on whether the theory itself is accurate.



> Also, fun fact: Google the definition of "dichotomy". That people say that the DICHOTOMY supports people having a borderline preference is ridiculous, haha.
> If it still doesn't make sense, google for the definition to "opposing".


If there's a mismatch between the words we're using and the concepts we're using those words to describe, I'd say its the words, not the concepts, we need to change. If the word "dichotomy" suggests something more black and white than the reality of human personality, maybe we need to use a different word. The fact that a particular label has been assigned to a concept does not prove anything about that concept.


----------



## Teybo (Sep 25, 2012)

@Acerbusvenator

You misstate my position and then belittle me (based on a conjecture that stands in contradiction to the overwhelming weight of hundreds of thousands of data points collected over decades across over a hundred cultures, I might add.).

Am I really supposed to believe that your asking me to comment on your type was anything but an ego thing, something you could point to, sneeringly, at a later time?:



Acerbusvenator said:


> You can usually see how experienced/knowledgeable people are by the way they reason, like the thread I did here: http://personalitycafe.com/whats-my-personality-type/160208-come-me-bro.html


Were you genuinely interested in hearing a differing viewpoint, my viewpoint, or was this all just a way to puff yourself up and feel better about yourself by attacking other people who don't think like you?


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Acerbusvenator said:


> Also, fun fact: Google the definition of "dichotomy". That people say that the DICHOTOMY supports people having a borderline preference is ridiculous, haha.
> If it still doesn't make sense, google for the definition to "opposing".


Actually, dichotomy gets used in multiple ways, and certainly isn't limited to dualities that involve an _empty middle zone_.

As I explained in another recent post:



reckful said:


> Having raised the issue of where the 0 goes in a personality scale, let me just briefly note that that is yet another possible source of messiness/confusion in the area of personality types. The idea of a "dichotomous" scale can mean somewhat different things, depending on who's using the term, but I'd say the principal defining feature of a _dichotomous_ scale involves neither the shape of the distribution curve nor whether there's some kind of empty zone in the middle, but rather whether it's a scale where the 0 goes in the middle (or at least somewhere midstream), and the people to the left of the 0 have more and more (as you move left) of something (or some cluster of things) and the people to the right of the 0 have more and more (as you move right) of something (or some cluster of things) that can meaningfully be said to be the _opposite_ of the stuff on the left side. As I understand it, the history of personality psychology has mostly involved _non-dichotomous_ scales, where the 0 is located at the left end and the scale simply measures whether a person has more or less of something — and I think reasonable people can disagree about the extent to which the Big Five characterizes its dimensions in dichotomous or non-dichotomous terms. Neuroticism sounds to me like a non-dichotomous scale, and I'd say most of the Agreeableness descriptions I've seen make it sound more like a unidimensional cluster of people-oriented stuff that a person simply has more or less of — without there being an "opposite" side of the scale where, as you move in that direction, people have more and more of some other thing.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

liminalthought said:


> Common sense.
> 
> By *freeeekyyy *In this thread:Arguments for and against cognitive functions - Page 2 - INTJ Forum
> 
> "Cognitive functions don't exist or "not" exist. They are an abstraction of human thought. They're just one lens among many through which human cognition can be viewed and understood. They are an especially useful lens for certain purposes, but they are not a thing in and of themselves. Human cognition is obviously real, but the "cognitive functions" are just one way of viewing it among others. Not all are equally useful, but they're all abstract concepts, not actual, physical things that exist in the real world."




Continue reading that INTJforum thread and you'll find that I took my pal freeeekyyy to task for his limited perspective and, in the end, he basically conceded that it was possible it would turn out there was some underlying biological reality to one or more of the dichotomies and/or functions.

ADDED: Here's a better link to that freeeekyyy post you quoted:

http://intjforum.com/showthread.php?p=2958710&postcount=35


----------



## Teybo (Sep 25, 2012)

I don't see what the point is of engaging @Acerbusvenator if his single minded goal is to elevate himself above others. Why bother to correct his mistakes if he's only in it for his ego?


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Acerbusvenator said:


> You can't be outside the box if there is no box because MBTI is not a set of boxes, it is binary, either you are one or the other. The borderline preference thing was made by people who wanted to feel special and better than others and it is nurtured by those as well etc. the list goes on.


Jung himself said that more people were essentially in the middle on E/I than were significantly extraverted or introverted, and Myers allowed for not having a preference on each of the four MBTI dimensions.

When you say "MBTI ... is binary, either you are one or the other," whose "MBTI" are you talking about?


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Teybo said:


> I don't see what the point is of engaging @Acerbusvenator if his single minded goal is to elevate himself above others. Why bother to correct his mistakes if he's only in it for his ego?


Regardless of how accurate or inaccurate your take on Mr. A may be, I'm a hardcore T and, much of the time, I don't really think of myself as engaged in a dialog with the person I happen to quote and am formally "replying" to. I think of myself as publishing a little nugget (whether golden or some other material, as the case may be) for the possible benefit of all the forumites who ever happen to read it.

How much value (if any) the post I make has isn't really dependent on whether the post that "inspired" it (so to speak) has any value and/or what the motives of that poster might have been.


----------



## liminalthought (Feb 25, 2012)

reckful said:


> Continue reading that INTJforum thread and you'll find that I took my pal freeeekyyy to task for his limited perspective and, in the end, he basically conceded that it was possible it would turn out there was some underlying biological reality to one or more of the dichotomies and/or functions.
> 
> ADDED: Here's a better link to that freeeekyyy post you quoted:
> 
> Arguments for and against cognitive functions - Page 2 - INTJ Forum


He conceded to your "If, then" statement, to which I would also concede. The key point was "If it was possible"

Our conversation would boil down to whether people are born with a certain personality (your biological perspective) or learn it as they grow (the lens concept perspective). 

To which the next step would be to prove whether there are concrete biological indicators of those functions.

On this point, I would love to learn about any concrete scientific proof produced by scientists in the biological field. But, until then, the world is flat.


----------



## Teybo (Sep 25, 2012)

@reckful

Some days I go back and forth on my F/T preference, since there are some sub-traits on which I fall closer to T than F. I think it's strong evidence that I'm an F that I can't really engage on this thread because my feelings are so hurt and I feel so foolish for believing that he was actually interested in what I had to say. I'm grateful that you're here to provide some clarity.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

liminalthought said:


> On this point, I would love to learn about any concrete scientific proof produced by scientists in the biological field. But, until then...


Decades of twin studies strongly suggest that genes account for around half (or more) of the kinds of relatively stable temperament dimensions measured by the MBTI and Big Five. But the genetics is complicated: an introvert's twin brother would probably be an introvert, but they might have two extraverted parents.

The most counterintuitive conclusion that's been drawn from the cumulative data is that _how your parents raise you has almost no influence on your basic temperament_ — e.g., whether you'll end up an INTJ. Identical twins raised in the same household are not significantly more alike (in terms of temperament) than identical twins raised in separate households.

For more, see this post.

There's more Big Five data than MBTI data, as I understand it, but here's one respectable MBTI study.


----------



## liminalthought (Feb 25, 2012)

reckful said:


> There's more Big Five data than MBTI data, as I understand it, but here's one respectable MBTI study.


Big five is another story. I wish I could get my hands on the real article. The abstract didn't indicate any substantial findings. 
I'm sure there are many other studies on cognitive functions, but findings continue to remain cloudy (I would have heard of it by now). 

General functions have been mapped out in the brain, of course, but there aren't any indicators of MBTI cognitive functions as they are defined in the theory.

The lens perspective remains the most essential foundation until concrete biological findings are established.


----------



## Teybo (Sep 25, 2012)

@liminalthought

Shh, don't tell anyone. Full text.

EDIT:

For what it's worth, the Spousal correlation on the N/S dimension is... just striking.


----------



## liminalthought (Feb 25, 2012)

Teybo said:


> @_liminalthought_
> 
> Shh, don't tell anyone. Full text.
> 
> ...


Gimme some time! I'll get some quality time on it soon, it's on my priority list.


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

@Teybo, you are taking this waaay too personally. In my type me thread I wanted to see the arguments people would make, here I am simply arguing for the benefit of the OP and not against you per se. That I used my type me thread as an argument was because it was relevant information and because you go around talking about how accurate your approach is when you clearly failed to even type me within the system. I say "your approach" because as I originally said then which method works the best is very individual.


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

reckful said:


> Jung himself said that more people were essentially in the middle on E/I than were significantly extraverted or introverted


which is because of the cognitive functions...


> Myers allowed for not having a preference on each of the four MBTI dimensions.


Nowhere have I read this, she said if anything that it cam still be an undifferentiated preference (which has to do with the cognitive functions and age). You forget that they saw themselves as students of Jung, they merely translated his work for the common (wo)man.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Acerbusvenator said:


> which is because of the cognitive functions...
> 
> Nowhere have I read this, she said if anything that it cam still be an undifferentiated preference (which has to do with the cognitive functions and age). You forget that they saw themselves as students of Jung, they merely translated his work for the common (wo)man.


As described at some length in that long INTJforum post I previously linked you to, Myers did far more than "translate Jung's work for the common man." The MBTI reflects many changes and additions, both large and small, to Jung's original concepts, and it's Myers' dichotomies, not Jung's original functions, that have stood up to actual testing by academic psychologists and that correlate well with the Big Five factors.

I pointed out that Jung thought more people were in the middle on E/I than were introverted or extraverted, and you've replied that that's "because of the cognitive functions...." What do you mean by that? The "borderline" concept that you've been arguing with others about in this thread is the idea of being borderline on the _dichotomies_, and E/I is one of the dichotomies.

And if you're saying that it was Jung's view that someone ended up ambiverted on E/I because they had, say, an introverted dominant function but also an equally differentiated extraverted auxiliary that balanced it out, that explanation fails on several levels. First, Jung 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 not only a differentiated dominant function but also an auxiliary function that was more strongly differentiated than usual. Second, Jung specifically explained, in his description of the auxiliary function, that it couldn't both serve as the auxiliary and be as differentiated as the dominant. And third, it's highly doubtful that Jung even viewed the auxiliary function as having the opposite attitude to the dominant in the first place. That was Myers' position, but she acknowledged that that interpretation put her in a very small minority among Jung scholars and, if you're interested, you can read more about that issue in this post.

Also in case you're interested, Jung's description of ambiverts comes from a lecture he gave in 1923, which was two years after Psychological Types was published. He published the lecture as an article in 1925 and it was later 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.


I'd say Myers, unlike Jung, didn't think there were _more_ ambiverts than extraverts or introverts, but she did, as I said, allow for the possibility of middleness on each dimension. On E/I, she wrote that, "although everyone lives partly in the extravert world of people and things and partly in the introvert world of concepts and ideas, most people are consciously more at home in one of those worlds and do their best work in the preferred world." On S/N, she wrote that "most people ... enjoy one more than the other." On T/F, she wrote that "a person is almost certain to enjoy and trust one way of judging more than the other." And on J/P, she wrote that "most people find one ... more comfortable than the other."

Hopefully needless to say, "most people" is not _all_ people. And that was Myers' _theoretical_ position. As previously noted, decades of MBTI and Big Five data has now been gathered since Myers wrote Gifts Differing, and it suggests that most or all of the personality dimensions both typologies are tapping into demonstrate something like a normal distribution (with lots of people in or near the middle) rather than a bimodal distribution (with an empty or near-empty middle zone).


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

@_reckful_, I appreciate your use of sources. It intrigues me (I respond well to people backing up what they say), tho I talked to someone who has extensively been studying the work of Jung who said that Jung basically asked people to ignore everything that was said outside chapter X of psychological types. So I wonder if he later went back on that and told people to ignore the possibility of undifferentiated people or if he later made another correction to his published work, hm.

I will see if I can find that lecture. Do you have any link to it? I want to see it in context. I will say tho that the presence of people without a type defeats the purpose of types (INXJs still have no actual type).

EDIT: Searching around, it is funny how the only results on this seems to be posts by you. Funny thing is that I am fairly sure I got the correct book that it should be in. Still, I'd like to get a link to this information.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Acerbusvenator said:


> @reckful, I appreciate your use of sources. It intrigues me (I respond well to people backing up what they say), tho* I talked to someone who has extensively been studying the work of Jung who said that Jung basically asked people to ignore everything that was said outside chapter X* of psychological types. So I wonder if he later went back on that and told people to ignore the possibility of undifferentiated people or if he later made another correction to his published work, hm.
> 
> I will see if I can find that lecture. Do you have any link to it? I want to see it in context. I will say tho that the presence of people without a type defeats the purpose of types (INXJs still have no actual type).


Whoever you talked to has Jung's view of Chapter X exactly backwards. In the Foreword to a 1934 edition of the book, Jung bemoaned the fact that too many people were inclined to view Chapter X as the essence of the book, and noted that he'd stuck Chapter X at the back for a reason. As he explained:



Jung said:


> [F]ar too many readers have succumbed to the error of thinking that Chapter X ("General Description of the Types") represents the essential content and purpose of the book. ... My typology is far rather a critical apparatus serving to sort out and organize the welter of empirical material, but not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical. For this reason I have placed the general typology and the Definitions at the end of the book, after having described, in chapters I to IX, the processes in question with the help of various examples. I would therefore recommend the reader who really wants to understand my book to immerse himself first of all in chapters II and V.


Chapter II is Jung's detailed discussion of Schiller's Letters on the Aesthetic Education of Man, and centers around Schiller's insight, as an introvert, into the specific kinds of "barbarism" found in the dominant Christian culture as the result of its one-sidedly extraverted orientation. Jung, as a fellow introvert, concurred with much of Schiller's analysis, and noted that the extraverted one-sidedness of the culture (and its consequential barbarism) had only gotten worse since 1795 (when Schiller wrote).

At 110 pages, Chapter V is by far the longest chapter in the book, and it centers around a detailed analysis of Spitteler's Prometheus and Epimetheus — which, as Jung notes, very much parallels his interpretation of Schiller. Jung calls Prometheus & Epimetheus "a poetic work based almost entirely on the type problem," and explains that the conflict at the heart of it "is essentially a struggle between the introverted and extraverted lines of development in one and the same individual, though the poet has embodied it in two independent figures and their typical destinies." Epimetheus (embodying the extraverted attitude) represents the established, traditional Church and the (by Spitteler's time, as both he and Jung saw it) barbaric influence of its one-sidedly extraverted attitude on Western culture, while Prometheus tries to bring about a religious reformation/renewal as a result of the introverted, intuitive orientation that causes him to represent the view that God is to be found within each man rather than outside him.

It's also worth noting that Chapters II and V, like the vast majority of Psychological Types — with the exception of Chapter X — are almost exclusively about _extraversion and introversion_, with virtually no mention of any of the four (or eight) functions.

Again, that 1925 article is included in the _Collected Works_ edition of Psychological Types — which I believe is the only (English language, anyway) version of Psychological Types that's been available for quite a long time. It's not on the internet, though, as far as I know. But there's no additional "context" to what I quoted. I quoted everything Jung says about the "middle group," and the rest of the article is about what extraverts are like and what introverts are like.


----------



## Octavarium (Nov 27, 2012)

Acerbusvenator said:


> I will say tho that the presence of people without a type defeats the purpose of types (INXJs still have no actual type).


Just to respond to that one point: if you know you're an INXJ, you know you're an I, N and J, and that already gives you a lot of information about yourself. It also means that, in most cases, you will share the characteristics that INs have in common, that IJs have in common, and that NJs and INJs have in common. Looking at the effects of those preference combinations can be really quite fascinating, and gives us a much deeper understanding of type than we would have if we only ever looked at the individual preferences. You might then explore your T/F preference by noticing the ways in which you relate to each side of that dichotomy. Even if that doesn't lead you to a definite conclusion as to whether you're a T or an F, the theory has still given you a framework to help you understand yourself.


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

reckful said:


> Whoever you talked to has Jung's view of Chapter X exactly backwards. In the Foreword to a 1934 edition of the book, Jung bemoaned the fact that too many people were inclined to view Chapter X as the essence of the book, and noted that he'd stuck Chapter X at the back for a reason. As he explained:
> 
> 
> Jung said:
> ...


Indeed, unlike you he did not give a source to his claim but merely expected to be listened to (A bit like Mrs. douchebag thomson bentz who I've talked to enough to know that she has a very limited understanding of just about everything).

I will look around some more, but you've given me quite something to think about.
Still haven't found that article about his lecture.



Octavarium said:


> Just to respond to that one point: if you know you're an INXJ, you know you're an I, N and J, and that already gives you a lot of information about yourself. It also means that, in most cases, you will share the characteristics that INs have in common, that IJs have in common, and that NJs and INJs have in common. Looking at the effects of those preference combinations can be really quite fascinating, and gives us a much deeper understanding of type than we would have if we only ever looked at the individual preferences. You might then explore your T/F preference by noticing the ways in which you relate to each side of that dichotomy. Even if that doesn't lead you to a definite conclusion as to whether you're a T or an F, the theory has still given you a framework to help you understand yourself.


Not really my point tho, the idea of typology is that everyone can be categorized within a set structure of types, the mere existence of people outside that structure defeats the system as it means it has holes.


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

I asked a friend of mine who definitely has this book as he has invested far more in books by Jung. He has found no evidence of this quote:


> 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.


I would like it if you could give a precise reference to where you found it, also, as Jung himself stated there is no pure introvert or extrovert which he also explains as being as for example Ni doms also having Se.



> [F]ar too many readers have succumbed to the error of thinking that Chapter X ("General Description of the Types") represents the essential content and purpose of the book. ... My typology is far rather a critical apparatus serving to sort out and organize the welter of empirical material, but not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical. For this reason I have placed the general typology and the Definitions at the end of the book, after having described, in chapters I to IX, the processes in question with the help of various examples. I would therefore recommend the reader who really wants to understand my book to immerse himself first of all in chapters II and V.


This quote is also fairly irrelevant as he is rather saying that he didn't really want to make it into a typology (which is common knowledge), but limit it to identifying psychological disorders which also is common knowledge.

It should also be noted that the quotes seems to be completely or at least semi-out of context and it makes me a bit uncomfortable that there is barely any well made reference that points to where exactly you got your quotes from.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Acerbusvenator said:


> I asked a friend of mine who definitely has this book as he has invested far more in books by Jung. He has found no evidence of this quote:


The four articles that were added to the _Collected Works_ edition of Psychological Types are in an appendix at the end of the book. The 1925 article is the second of those four.

All the book's paragraphs are numbered, and that quotation comes from paragraph 894.



Acerbusvenator said:


> This quote is also fairly irrelevant as he is rather saying that he didn't really want to make it into a typology (which is common knowledge), but limit it to identifying psychological disorders which also is common knowledge.


That quote is "irrelevant"? Perhaps you've forgotten that I pointed you to it in response to your statement that you'd been told that "Jung basically asked people to ignore everything that was said outside chapter X."


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

reckful said:


> That quote is "irrelevant"? Perhaps you've forgotten that I pointed you to it in response to your statement that you'd been told that "Jung basically asked people to ignore everything that was said outside chapter X."


It is irrelevant because he is talking about him not intending it to turn into a typology, but a way to identify and avoid psychological disorders, that's not what we're talking about. :tongue:


----------



## militantsparrow (Jul 11, 2013)

I've learned a great deal reading this thread. However, I feel even more confused now. I don't know who's right. I don't care for the dichotomy approach because I can't decide on P/J. That's why I tried the cognitive function stacking. I thought it would be a little more abstract. I just posted my answers to the "What's my personality form?" I'd welcome any input you may have. http://personalitycafe.com/whats-my...-seeking-help-finding-myself.html#post4169125


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

militantsparrow said:


> I don't care for the dichotomy approach because I can't decide on P/J


I can't resist noting that someone who feels torn between, e.g., INTJ and INTP after reading up on the functions — and who reads INTJ profiles and INTP profiles and feels like they relate pretty well to both, but not one more than the other — is arguably the _last_ person who ought to be favoring the functions approach, since they're the kind of person that the most popular functions model says _shouldn't exist_.

As one of the Kogfunk Kids once put it in a memorable INTJforum post:



> The differences between INTJ and INTP couldn't be greater. ... People who try to figure out if they're INTJ or INTP don't know the first thing about typology. The two types are so different, I don't even see how anyone can think they are one or the other. INTJ: Ni, Te, Fi Se; INTP: Ti, Ne, Si, Fe. It's completely fuckin' different!


And here's a PerC post from just last week:



phoenixpinion said:


> I've seen this ENFJ on youtube blatantly promoting herself as an ENFP without a second thought. ... How the hell can you make this mistake? ENFJ and ENFP have no fucking functions in common. ... ENFJ/ENFP are as different as ENFP and ISTJ. Even though the ISTJ has all letters different, he still uses the same functions.


In any case, if you're interested in a long J/P post from me, you'll find it here.

And if you want my thoughts on the INTx possibility, see this post.

I know you've read lots of my T/F stuff (and said you related to Mogura "to a scary degree"), so I'll refrain from repeating any of my T/F views here, but I should note that I continue to lean F for you.

Finally, in case they're of any use to you, I've put profile link roundups for the four IN types in the spoiler.


* *




_INFJ Profiles_
MBTI Manual (2nd Ed.)
MBTI Manual (3rd Ed.)
Keirsey (Please Understand Me)
Kroeger & Thuesen (Type Talk)
Hirsh & Kummerow (Lifetypes [abridged])
Berens & Nardi
personalitypage: Portrait
personalitypage: Personal Growth
personalitypage: Relationships
personalitypage: Careers

_INFP Profiles_
MBTI Manual (2nd Ed.)
MBTI Manual (3rd Ed.)
Keirsey (Please Understand Me)
Kroeger & Thuesen (Type Talk)
Hirsh & Kummerow (Lifetypes [abridged])
Berens & Nardi
personalitypage: Portrait
personalitypage: Personal Growth
personalitypage: Relationships
personalitypage: Careers

_INTJ Profiles_
MBTI Manual (2nd Ed.)
MBTI Manual (3rd Ed.)
Keirsey (Please Understand Me)
Kroeger & Thuesen (Type Talk)
Hirsh & Kummerow (Lifetypes [abridged])
Berens & Nardi
personalitypage: Portrait
personalitypage: Personal Growth
personalitypage: Relationships
personalitypage: Careers

_INTP Profiles_
MBTI Manual (2nd Ed.)
MBTI Manual (3rd Ed.)
Keirsey (Please Understand Me)
Kroeger & Thuesen (Type Talk)
Hirsh & Kummerow (Lifetypes [abridged])
Berens & Nardi
personalitypage: Portrait
personalitypage: Personal Growth
personalitypage: Relationships
personalitypage: Careers


----------



## militantsparrow (Jul 11, 2013)

> I can't resist noting that someone who feels torn between, e.g., INTJ and INTP after reading up on the functions — and who reads INTJ profiles and INTP profiles and feels like they relate pretty well to both, but not one more than the other — is arguably the last person who ought to be favoring the functions approach, since they're the kind of person that the most popular functions model says shouldn't exist.


I had a feeling that would come up.  If I read the functions and assume I have to pick Te or Ti and Ni or Ne, I stack them, pretty confidently exactly following the ENTP stacking. But I don't think I'm E at all. And I could easily flip Ne and Ti. So, I concluded I was likely an INTP.

But you're right. It doesn't make sense for someone like me to (torn between two types that don't have any functions in common) to follow the functions model. I am not learned enough about MBTI to have a real preference. I'm trying both on for size for the sake of finding an answer for myself. I couldn't possibly enter the debate as to which is a better methodology.

I really appreciate your help and insights.


----------

