# Why you are probably miss-typed



## SharkT00th (Sep 5, 2012)

If you are basing you're type off of an internet page similar to the one found in the video, than there is a very good chance that you're personality type that you perceive you're to be is wrong. Most of us on this forum, and I wouldn't be surprised if all, are really intuitives and more likely than not we all fall into the rationals. The only way to really know you're true type is by examining how each function works, and basing you're personality type on that. 

It is important to discover you're real type based on who you are, instead of pretending to be someone you are not. You have immense power in who you will become you're best self if you develop you're naturally powerful ability. If you try and develop all 8 traits, you will have poor development overall. Remember that well developed individuals are properly functioning individuals in society, so if you state that if you really are say an ENTJ you are an overpowering douche bag and that is the end all be all for you. This is not true, there are well developed ENTJ's in society who have meaningful and functional relationships, take care of business, and most of all live a good balanced life. Developing you're proper functions will bring fulfillment and improvement to you're quality of life.


----------



## Spades (Aug 31, 2011)

SharkT00th said:


> Most of us on this forum, and I wouldn't be surprised if all, are really intuitives and more likely than not we all fall into the rationals.


Hahahahahaha!! Good one.


Also, your*

I agree with the sentiment though..


----------



## Lotan (Aug 10, 2012)

Yep, I took the exact test he is talking about in the video and I got INTP.

I was actually TOO honest on the "are you late for appointments" question. I put yes, because I've been late once or twice and hung my head in shame at how "often" I've been late. There also aren't a ton of online tests in which intelligent sensors will actually type as S, because a lot of them correlate intellectual pursuits and N.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

SharkT00th said:


> If you are basing you're type off of an internet page similar to the one found in the video, than there is a very good chance that you're personality type that you perceive you're to be is wrong. Most of us on this forum, and I wouldn't be surprised if all, are really intuitives and more likely than not we all fall into the rationals. The only way to really know you're true type is by examining how each function works, and basing you're personality type on that.
> 
> It is important to discover you're real type based on who you are, instead of pretending to be someone you are not. You have immense power in who you will become you're best self if you develop you're naturally powerful ability. If you try and develop all 8 traits, you will have poor development overall. Remember that well developed individuals are properly functioning individuals in society, so if you state that if you really are say an ENTJ you are an overpowering douche bag and that is the end all be all for you. This is not true, there are well developed ENTJ's in society who have meaningful and functional relationships, take care of business, and most of all live a good balanced life. Developing you're proper functions will bring fulfillment and improvement to you're quality of life.


I beg to differ. As further discussed in this post, and especially if somebody isn't essentially in the middle on one or more of the MBTI dimensions, I think they're more likely to get the appropriate type result from a dichotomy-based test like that one SuperDuperDave scoffs at (in your posted video) than from a test that purports to priority-order their cognitive functions (or some other kind of cognitive functions analysis).

You say you think most of the self-labeled S's at the forum are really N's. I'm inclined to agree with you that a fair number (although not most) of the S's here may be N's — but it's been my experience that that most often happens when somebody who usually (or always) tests N on dichotomy-based tests ends up concluding they're an S based on faulty cognitive functions analysis. And if you want a fresh example, look here — and don't miss the follow-up posts (including his dichotomy-test results).


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Its a pretty safe bet I am not a rational. I argued with a rather absurd individual who asserted on a European preservation site that most people are ENTPs. That's about like what you're saying so I wonder if you are the very same absurd individual.


----------



## Lotan (Aug 10, 2012)

@_reckful_

Something you brought up in that topic was interesting and I think you may have hit the nail on the head:



> it's not uncommon for INFJs to test as INTJs (SFs and EFs are more likely to like the F choices on typical MBTI test items than INFs, and I think that's considerably more true of INFJs than INFPs.).


I tested "I" on most tests rather than "E", and I think that may be because an extroverted NT is less likely to see themselves in descriptions of extroversion that often lean towards the "social butterfly" side of the E scale rather than the object/result-oriented side. I tested P instead of J because I was over-critical of myself, which is one problem the speaker in the video mentioned: personal bias; someone might deny that they're late often, or consider a couple out of place books "disorganized". They might have better results if you have a good friend with you to correct you :wink:

This is one reason I've preferred cognitive function tests, because on most of those I DO test ENTJ due to high Te scores even if I say that I don't like parties, and am confident in that typing. But it might not be that letter-based tests are inaccurate, just that a lot of people have biases or certain types are slightly less likely to exhibit some typical [insert letter here] behaviors than others, even if they are that type.


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

SharkT00th said:


> Most of us on this forum, and I wouldn't be surprised if all, are really intuitives and more likely than not we all fall into the rationals.


Why do you think this? Sometimes I actually feel I might be mistyped as an N. When I first learned about MBTI I bought into the silly stereotypes about N's and S's, N's being creative and intelligent while S's being straightforward and simple. I wonder sometimes if somewhere subconsciously I'm holding on those stereotypes when I'm trying to type myself. Making myself bias towards typing myself as an N. 

Also the number of people typed as N's here are already a lot higher than would be expected from the general population, it seems unlikely that the actual number of N's would be even higher.


----------



## huahuafood (Aug 25, 2012)

This is exactly what I want to know .


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Well, to take this thread seriously (giving this a shot), I would say that these are the top 3 reasons people are probably mistyped:

1. T = valuing intelligence and/or N = valuing intelligence (actually, I heavily doubt either of these are true at all in any way that can be significantly associated with these functions - after all, everyone probably thinks that their dominant function is the height of intelligence, while their inferior is either intelligent or stupid, which would depend on their inferiority complexes) - yep, there's no doubt in my mind anyone who values intelligence will, through stupid MBTI stereotypes, go for these functions.

2. F = being nice, popular, deep, willing to not be egotistical, more love-worthy than the average human, emotional, passionate, behaviorally appealing, moral, caring, need more love than thinkers (LOL), etc. - Don't even get me started on the sheer idiocy of these stereotypes - I frankly have no idea how anyone in their right minds CANNOT call themselves feelers by so many of the definitions on the internet (day 1, my first thought upon seeing these was, "Who the f**k isn't a feeler?" Those f***ing definitions sound like a socially-acceptable persona or normal human drives/responses to what you want/need (Maslow's Hierarchy material). I swear feelers with intellectual personas probably go under the radar via MBTI - it seems like I know more than a few who would never associate themselves with some of the most pronounced of these stereotypes. 

3. Introversion = being deep and shy/ Extraversion = being outgoing and happy - yeah, these aren't even worth intellectual energy to explain.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

I agree with the video premise as well. The tests and type descriptions couldn't sound more like something someone made after skipping through a movie and extracting stereotypes, that to Jung and other experts, probably wouldn't mean anything at all (definitely not from face value interpretation of the persona, which is a whole other issue). Reading Jung, most of what gets associated with type via MBTI impressions has 100% nothing to do with it. The reality he describes is esoteric and impossible to stereotype.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> I agree with the video premise as well. *The tests and type descriptions couldn't sound more like something someone made after skipping through a movie and extracting stereotypes, that to Jung and other experts, probably wouldn't mean anything at all* (definitely not from face value interpretation of the persona, which is a whole other issue). Reading Jung, most of what gets associated with type via MBTI impressions has 100% nothing to do with it. *The reality he describes is esoteric and impossible to stereotype.*


You keep recycling this same silly canard — essentially, that Jung just focused on deep psychodynamics and the "MBTI" is about superficial "stereotypes" — in post after post. And I keep correcting you — sometimes with vivid quotations from Jung — in post after post.

Jung devoted more of Psychological Types to _introverts and extraverts_ than he did to all eight of the functions put together, and he said it was relatively easy for an ordinary layman to identify introverts and extraverts, based on their behavior:



Jung said:


> [Extraverts and introverts] are so different and present such a striking contrast that their existence becomes quite obvious even to the layman once it has been pointed out. Everyone knows those reserved, inscrutable, rather shy people who form the strongest possible contrast to the open, sociable, jovial, or at least friendly and approachable characters who are on good terms with everybody, or quarrel with everybody, but always relate to them in some way and in turn are affected by them.



WTF, eh? It sounds like "something someone made after skipping through a movie and extracting stereotypes," doesn't it? It's too bad Mr. Jung didn't have you around to point out the error of his ways.

And is my point that the MBTI is about superficial behavioral stereotypes _but so was Jung_? Of course not. The point is that Jung, Myers, Keirsey and every other respectable MBTI-related source talks about personality first and foremost in terms of the underlying, non-behavioral elements, while also talking about characteristic behavior that the various types _tend_ to engage in. All of which is as it should be.

You admitted yesterday that, gosh, it sounds like maybe you've been mixing up Myers and Keirsey all this time in the "stereotypes" department. That's a step in the right direction. Can we perhaps look forward to your changing your name to JungyesKeirseyno?

Maybe the next step would be for you to take your blinders off and actually read Jung, Myers and Keirsey. And then you could change your name to ReckfulWasRight.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Lol. Well, Jung was pretty specific in his analysis of I/E. He didn't just say anything about temperaments - he was literally describing I/E in terms of interpretations of phenomena in these people's interactions. I should've prefaced my statement with "internet" before "descriptions" (I meant to, but it slipped my mind) - still though, I stand by my perception anyhow, even if it isn't so bad for the real deal MBTI stuff.


----------



## themartyparade (Nov 7, 2010)

SharkT00th said:


> Most of us on this forum, and I wouldn't be surprised if all, are really intuitives and more likely than not we all fall into the rationals.


I'm hoping this was a poor attempt at sarcasm.


----------



## SharkT00th (Sep 5, 2012)

I seem to have stirred up some controversy , so let me clarify. 

The purpose of this thread is to point out to everyone that these online tests on the internet are most likely wrong, and misleading. Second, I want the forum to come together and help others find a better way of discovering their personality type. Third, is everyone on this forum an intuit rational? Of course not, this is meant as a wake-up call to everyone to re-evaluate their perceived personality types, after browsing around on the internet the common narrative is that somehow you're type is between a J or a P, and those types are similar. Nothing could be further from the truth, the J and the P variant of a type like an INTP/INTJ are more different then they are alike. I hope that more individuals discover what their true type really is, because that is what I am doing, but I want to start a shift towards understanding the functions and developing tests that can test specific functions.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

SharkT00th said:


> The purpose of this thread is to point out to everyone that these online tests on the internet are most likely wrong, and misleading. Second, I want the forum to come together and help others find a better way of discovering their personality type. ... [A]fter browsing around on the internet the common narrative is that somehow you're type is between a J or a P, and those types are similar. Nothing could be further from the truth, *the J and the P variant of a type like an INTP/INTJ are more different then they are alike*. I hope that more individuals discover what their true type really is, because that is what I am doing, but *I want to start a shift towards understanding the functions and developing tests that can test specific functions.*


Yeah, yeah. "INTP/INTJ are more different than they are alike." Because when you move from J to P, it _flips all your functions!_ And it's "all about your functions," people. Just listen to SuperDuperDave!

Well, just for starters, Jung spent far more of Psychological Types discussing the characteristics that _all introverts_ and _all extraverts_ have in common than he did talking about all eight of the functions put together — and, in the Foreword to a late edition of the book, he explained that he'd stuck the eight function descriptions at the back (in Chapter X) for a reason.

As further discussed in this post, if you focus too exclusively on the eight "cognitive functions" — many of which, in the forms typically discussed on internet forums, are not particularly Jungian — and you lose sight of the things that introverts, N's, F's, NFs, and etc. have in common, you're making a mistake that's pretty much only found in internet forum posts and other dubious internet sources. It's a perspective that's inconsistent with Jung, inconsistent with Myers, and inconsistent with all the respectable MBTI sources, including authors — like Berens and Thomson — whose work is more function-centric than dichotomy-centric.

As I'm sure you know, a person with an "X" in the J/P position presents quite a conundrum, at least potentially, for a cognitive functions person. Marie Louise von Franz — who's one of Jung's most famous pupils —said (citing Jung) that people have the most difficulty understanding _not_ the _opposite_ of their dominant function (i.e., Se for an Ni-dom), but rather their dominant function turned in the opposite direction (i.e., Ne for an Ni-dom). As she put it:



von Franz said:


> Jung has said that the hardest thing to understand is not your opposite type — if you have an introverted feeling it is very difficult to understand an extraverted thinking type — but the same functional type with the other attitude! It would be most difficult for an introverted feeling type to understand an extraverted feeling type. There one feels that one does not know how the wheels go round in that person's head....



Assuming you subscribe to the cognitive functions model most commonly encountered on MBTI forums (e.g., INTJ=Ni-Te-Fi-Se), switching a person's J to P (or P to J) purportedly flips each of their "top four" cognitive functions to the opposite attitude — so an Ni-Te-Fi-Se (INTJ) turns into a Ti-Ne-Si-Fe (INTP). Someone whose MBTI analysis revolves more around the four dichotomies (and combinations of the dichotomies) than the eight cognitive functions is likely to expect an INTJ and an INTP to be quite similar, since they'll tend to share all the characteristics that introverts have in common, and Ns have in common, and Ts have in common, and NTs have in common, and so on. By contrast, if your analysis revolves mostly around the cognitive functions, and if you subscribe to von Franz's version of Jung's perspective (combined with the simple INTJ=Ni-Te-Fi-Se model), it seems to me that you'd expect an INTJ and an INTP to be more like opposites than similar types — which seems to be your perspective.

Alas for you, there are some real-world facts that call your perspective into question. First, as I understand it, there's now a fair amount of data (both MBTI data and data with respect to the corresponding Big Five dimension) that suggests that J/P is a continuous personality dimension that exhibits something like a normal distribution, with most people not that far from the middle. Since Jung himself said that more people were essentially in the middle on introversion/extraversion than were significantly extraverted or introverted, I suspect that data might not have surprised him — assuming he'd ended up accepting Myers' adjustments to his typological concepts.

But second, I'm here to tell you that "Am I INTJ or INTP?" is the most common dilemma encountered in type-me threads at INTJforum — and _by a pretty wide margin_. If INTJs and INTPs are "more different than they are alike" (as you say), how do you explain that? Why is there this endless parade of people who have _read up on the MBTI (including the functions)_, and read INTJ and INTP profiles, and ended up concluding (1) that they relate better to INTJ and INTP descriptions than any other types, and (2) that they relate pretty much equally well to INTJ and INTP?

As I said in my first post, for people who actually have reasonably well-defined preferences on all four MBTI dimensions, it's pretty clear to me, based on three-plus years of MBTI forum experience, that a reasonably decent dichotomy-based test is more likely to yield the right result than "cognitive functions" analysis. And if someone tends to come out essentially in-the-middle on a dimension on dichotomy-based tests (and feels torn between the corresponding two profiles) — including, potentially, on the J/P dimension — I'd say the most likely explanation for that is that the person actually _is_ in or near the middle on that dimension.

In case you're interested, here's a 300-post thread at INTJforum with results from the HumanMetrics test — and it's probably worth noting that they're results from subjects who, on average, have substantially more familiarity with the MBTI than someone who's only taken that test and otherwise knows nothing about the typology. If you peruse the thread, you'll see that, notwithstanding that infamous question about "TV soaps," the HumanMetrics results line up with the type in the subject's profile in the great majority of cases — and, where there's a mismatch, it's often a case where the relevant HumanMetrics percentage score is low for that dimension. And the same is true of this l-o-n-g (600-post) INTJforum thread devoted to the similarminds Big Five/SLOAN test.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Another fact that's important to consider to avoid mistyping is the following: playing up functions toward the ego is different from actually having a type: MBTI appears to capture the playing up functions toward the ego side of "type" (their rigid hierarchy stuff is questionable, because they ignore the unconscious, which is the main source of what we consider type - this would constitute the unconscious functions and how they influence the conscious attitudes around each function - definitely not something that can be easily captured by a type dynamics model), while Jung focuses more on dom/inferior as just a habituated orientation, making type possible at all, let alone, giving it some kind of meaning in the personality on the psychological level. The type descriptions probably don't help anything, since they separate functions out too artificially (e.g. T+F and S+N are always working together - it's how people compartmentalize their functions toward accomplishing ego goals that would count as type - in this sense, it will more often come into play with a person's public persona, but it is not the qualities of the persona (e.g. how you act) - it defines the person's approach via the persona, which can be very hard to unearth - I find that it tends to appear in academic settings/an academic context moreso, but often, you might get more from the inferior than the dominant, which is kept under wraps often for many reasons, including the fact that it's focused on actually handling most of the problem-solving (therefore, it's also the most abstract function a person has in how it comes to conclusions - easily the least accessible to the outside world in terms of it's reasoning, to the point that it's hard for anyone to penetrate it when a person is defending him/herself - the person can bind themselves up with their own reasoning around it (as it's very sophisticated - inferior would be hard to reason with, because it gets reasoned toward the shadow of personality that a person would likely not be able to explain consciously), just to defend the ego and be "right". If the dom is differentiated, it's very much a done-and-overwith occurrence (certainly influential though), while the rest of the functions might actually stand out more in trying to back it up (so, it's often getting filtered through or implied through the others). 

So, to get the basic point across, I think people focus too much on how functions get played up to the ego, which might mean nothing about the person having a type. Jung specifies that when a function is the decisive factor for action (which can include instances like trying to draw conclusions about something, accomplishing goals, deal with on-the-spot occurrences that one doesn't have much time to prepare for in advance, etc.) is when type comes into play. The extent to which one's type is related to their persona is pretty arbitrary (it might be or might not be - if it were, it would have to decide the actions of your persona, which beyond the dominant, is rare). It's more accurate to look at the functions like they "show up" in your persona - they don't define your persona, unless you have a very rigid persona. The functions after the dom usually look like they just happen to you - more like blips in the persona or other sides of the person. Why I know as much as I do? I don't know - reading Jung was really helpful to say the least, as well as The Jungian Lexicon online.


----------



## SharkT00th (Sep 5, 2012)

@*reckful *I'm glad that you have brought up criticisms of SuperDave.


----------



## LadyO.W.BernieBro (Sep 4, 2010)

Sporadic Aura said:


> Why do you think this? Sometimes I actually feel I might be mistyped as an N. When I first learned about MBTI I bought into the silly stereotypes about N's and S's, N's being creative and intelligent while S's being straightforward and simple. I wonder sometimes if somewhere subconsciously I'm holding on those stereotypes when I'm trying to type myself. Making myself bias towards typing myself as an N.
> 
> Also the number of people typed as N's here are already a lot higher than would be expected from the general population, it seems unlikely that the actual number of N's would be even higher.


l agree. l think l totally hold the N bias. l' not even as creative a lot of N's, l'm not stupid and l am smarter than others in some areas but the GENIUS factor has never appealed to me.

TBH l think what makes me most sure of my N dominance are the type of flaws that l have. l recognize that l learn in a ''unique'' way(as l was told in special ed classes in early elementary school lolz). l have that kind of kinship with other Ns but in the past it has lead to more deficits than advantages and still does if l don't ''train'' myself correctly.


----------



## StaceofBass (Jul 1, 2012)

SharkT00th said:


> Most of us on this forum, and I wouldn't be surprised if all, are really intuitives and more likely than not we all fall into the rationals..


----------



## Bast (Mar 23, 2011)

I agree that the majority of people here are probably mis-typed. Hell, I'm probably mis-typed. It's just the nature of the beast when you rely on self-report data.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

reckful said:


> I don't have any firm position on whether an INTJ has more in common — assuming there was some way to quantify that — with an INTP than with an INFJ. I mentioned that "Am I INTJ or INTP?" is the most common typing dilemma you see at INTJforum, but INTJ vs. INFJ is probably the runner-up.ion
> 
> If you're basically asking why I don't presume INTJs and INFJs are most alike because they're supposedly the two "Ni-dom" types: As explained in this long INTJforum post, I'm not much of a believer in the cognitive functions.


Oh ok I see the problem. You are in reality an adherent to the Keirsey temperaments. Not Jung. Not Nardi. Not even the simple fact that two INXJ have just as many letters letters in common, as two INTx with two INXJ also having "plot the course" in common (I had to edit that I just woke up from a nap, I did outdoor volunteer work this morning).

You follow temperament theory. Therefore I don't think you are really much of a voice of Jungian reason.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

fourtines said:


> Oh ok I see the problem. You are in reality an adherent to the Keirsey temperaments. Not Jung. Not Nardi. Not even the simple fact that two INXJ have just as many letters letters in common, as two INTx with two INXJ also having "plot the course" in common (I had to edit that I just woke up from a nap, I did outdoor volunteer work this morning).
> 
> You follow temperament theory. Therefore I don't think you are really much of a voice of Jungian reason.


No. As explained in that long linked post (did you read it?), I'm pretty much an "adherent" of the mainstream MBTI, which built on a Jungian base but made many appropriate adjustments and improvements.


----------

