# Finding your actual type - a lifelong task?



## Pa3s (Oct 24, 2009)

Hello forum people,
At first, sorry for posting another thread about me, but sometimes I'm about to loose the "faith" in this 16-type-system... It's like a repetitive process: I type myself, read some descriptions of it and then I'm totally sure that's the right thing. It was INTJ first, then ISTJ and now... ??? I really don't know. I mean, of course, there can be differences within one type, but it just seems that my most significant traits can't be combined. I'm like floating from one to the other preference. 

A recent test stated I could be even more P than J. (Besides that, also more N than S, but I struggled with that before). I read the socionics description of an INTP, it could be me. Whatever... 

The only constants I know would be I and T. That's the essential "me". But for the rest...

I can barely do a task if I don't feel like, but: I'm obsessed with being punctual and following the rules for their own sake.
I am very good at remembering vocabulary, but: I'm sometimes extremely scatterbrained. (It's getting worse :S)
I love the strange and unusual, sometimes the eccentric, but: I'm also very much drawn to practical work.
I often need much time to learn something and work very slowly, but: I make some tasks with ease, others are struggling with and perceive as very hard.

I guess I take it too serious... but I always want to know the truth.


----------



## Korvyna (Dec 4, 2009)

My results vary on the test. I toggle a lot between ESTP and ESFP and ENTP.... I've noticed if I'm in a bad mood I'll test differently. I have a habit of forgetting to answer the questions as they normally apply to me... Not as they currently applied to me... I answered a question differently when I'm in a bad mood than I do when I'm in a good mood. That could also cause problems with your results. In the end... I just went by descriptions and tried to determine which one I fit the best.


----------



## Alice in Wonderland (Sep 7, 2009)

Well, regarding you title question about it being a life long task I know what you mean. I think everyone one who thinks about MBTI often enough has had doubts about it. I find that I'm often having doubt's because if I feel like I can't understand one thing, I tend to doubt _everything_.
Just from listening to your post i think you sound more like a J than a P, . (and _maybe_ more N than S?) I wasn't really aware of previous threads about you so sorry if I'm just repeating but I think you should take the function quiz like Grey always recommends. It's really pretty helpful and should tell you whether you use Si or Ni, telling you whether your an ISTJ or an INTJ. 
Right here.
and I love your last statement, about taking it too serious but wanting to know the truth  . . . High five!


----------



## Grey (Oct 10, 2009)

I would say that the system is not in any way negative because of your doubts - doubts are human, and so are the descriptions, which can become very muddled as people adapt their own styles and approaches without differentiating (Socionics is one of the few that do; I'd also like to point out that, if you're an INTp in the Socionics system, this does not necessarily make you an INTP in the MBTI). From what I've honestly seen of you, I would think ISTJ a good fit, if that's what you're looking for. The purpose of the entire system is to help you, though, so if you keep finding yourself hung up on what type you are, maybe you ought to just leave the system behind.


----------



## Pa3s (Oct 24, 2009)

Korvyna said:


> My results vary on the test. I toggle a lot between ESTP and ESFP and ENTP.... I've noticed if I'm in a bad mood I'll test differently.


Yes, absolutely. I think the mood does influence your answers very much. I'm also a person which looks at questions like this from many different angles... honestly, sometimes I can't decide which one fits. It's often totally dependent on the situation.



Alice in Wonderland said:


> Well, regarding you title question about it being a life long task I know what you mean. I think everyone one who thinks about MBTI often enough has had doubts about it. I find that I'm often having doubt's because if I feel like I can't understand one thing, I tend to doubt _everything_.
> Just from listening to your post i think you sound more like a J than a P, . (and _maybe_ more N than S?) I wasn't really aware of previous threads about you so sorry if I'm just repeating but I think you should take the function quiz like Grey always recommends. It's really pretty helpful and should tell you whether you use Si or Ni, telling you whether your an ISTJ or an INTJ.
> Right here.
> and I love your last statement, about taking it too serious but wanting to know the truth  . . . High five!


*High Fives back*  Hey, no problem. I don't expect you to look for all the stuff I posted here before.  I certainly have many J traits but as I said, my obliviousness reaches new (scary) dimensions these days...  It's hard to describe, like putting a pen on a table and instantly forgetting where it is or telling a friend the same story three times. And I'm also very prone to put things off at home. Doesn't fit too well with ISTJ, but okay... how off can you be to still be that specific type? I guess that's the main question for people who are unsure. (maybe it's also just a situation-thing how I answered now) And thanks for that test, I guess I haven't done it yet.



Grey said:


> I would say that the system is not in any way negative because of your doubts - doubts are human, and so are the descriptions, which can become very muddled as people adapt their own styles and approaches without differentiating (Socionics is one of the few that do; I'd also like to point out that, if you're an INTp in the Socionics system, this does not necessarily make you an INTP in the MBTI). From what I've honestly seen of you, I would think ISTJ a good fit, if that's what you're looking for. The purpose of the entire system is to help you, though, so if you keep finding yourself hung up on what type you are, maybe you ought to just leave the system behind.


Wise words as usual Grey, I would really wish to look from a third person's view at myself to follow my actions throughout the day. I sometimes typed friends correctly, but myself... no way! XD Sure, I could leave the system behind, but I always come back again after a while...


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

Pa3s said:


> Wise words as usual Grey, I would really wish to look from a third person's view at myself to follow my actions throughout the day. I sometimes typed friends correctly, but myself... no way! XD Sure, I could leave the system behind, but I always come back again after a while...


Which is what I was going to suggest and what you should be doing regardless. Like Alice, I saw the title and agreed it is a lifelong journey. Grey hit the nail on the head and you appear to have an idea of what you should and should not be doing. 

Reading descriptions and taking tests are only part of the task. The biggest part is getting to know you. You are, and can only be, that third person. No one can claim to know you, especially from a forum. You have to give yourself an honest and objective self-analysis. It's the only way the system works.


----------



## Pa3s (Oct 24, 2009)

Functianalyst said:


> You are, and can only be, that third person. No one can claim to know you, especially from a forum. You have to give yourself an honest and objective self-analysis. It's the only way the system works.


Yeah, that's how it is, thank you. Of course, it would be easier to just ask someone who you are... you'll have a fast answer, but the true one will may be different. It's the hard part to gain enough knowledge about yourself to answer questions like: "Was it really a typical reaction?", "Are these traits just temporary, maybe caused by the current situation?" and "WwIad?" (= "What would I actually do?")


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

Pa3s said:


> Yeah, that's how it is, thank you. Of course, it would be easier to just ask someone who you are... you'll have a fast answer, but the true one will may be different. It's the hard part to gain enough knowledge about yourself to answer questions like: "Was it really a typical reaction?", "Are these traits just temporary, maybe caused by the current situation?" and "WwIad?" (= "What would I actually do?")


Don't get me started on people claiming to be able to type others when they generally are having an arduous time getting their own type correct. The problem with a lot of people typing others is that how do you know when you are oberving the real person or whether they are role playing because the environment calls for you to be that way. Besides I am suspect that since most people I see and observe appears quite introverted, MB may be correct in we will generally witness an extraverted function or mistype an introverted function as extraversion.

A lot of your dilemmas can be answered in also getting a good understanding of all eight functions and how they play out in differing scenarios.


----------



## peterk (Jan 3, 2010)

don't take the tests so seriously they are all based on probability and statitics! getting to be a type is not a life long procces, perfecting your type is. there is no truth to be had, only probability. read as much as possible.:happy:


----------



## Iapetus (Dec 14, 2009)

Once again the fatal flaw in the Jungian system is evident. As long as you have to be either/or you're going to bounce around. Nature loves the middle. The middle confers the benefits of adaptability. Most people are going to be somewhere in the middle between E and I,N and S,T & F, and P and J. This means that you are likely to jump the narrow line quite often. 

There are some Jungian tests such as the SLIP that build their typology on the degree of Introversion/Extarversion etc.

Unfortunately the MBTI is the most popular personality test. This isn't because it's a good test. Its because it has good promoters. It's interesting to watch the charisma battles between the socionics group and MBTI. Both are grounded in Jung. Jung himself never felt he had enough time to prove a scientific basis for his functions. 

But even the most widely accepted personality schema - the Big Five - doesn't have a scientific theory but relies on a model they call the "lexical approach". This is the same as saying the dictionary explains personality.

I don't believe it has to be a life long search. At least for me I have a good knowledge of my personality and I reached that point when I was about 35 years old. I am now 64 and I haven't seen a shred of evidence that my assessment at 35 is different from what it is now.


----------



## peterk (Jan 3, 2010)

if there seems a flaw in the jungian system it is the mbti test and its extension of jung's typology. you can't make psychological statements about your mbti scores other than that you are one type or another. the big5 has in fact given some validation to the mbti. the dictionary does'nt explain personality it only gives just about all the traits possible in a person--something like 30,000 adjectives, most are redundant. i'm 64 and was always an ectomorph but now i'm an endomorph. i wish i had been a mesomorph it would have made life easier.:happy:


----------



## Pa3s (Oct 24, 2009)

Alice in Wonderland said:


> I wasn't really aware of previous threads about you so sorry if I'm just repeating but I think you should take the function quiz like Grey always recommends. It's really pretty helpful and should tell you whether you use Si or Ni, telling you whether your an ISTJ or an INTJ.
> Right here.


Well, I had a try and the result was very surprising to me: 

*Cognitive Process**Level of Development (Preference, Skill and Frequency of Use)*
extraverted Sensing (Se) *************************** (27.9)
eintroverted Sensing (Si) ****************** (18.5)
extraverted Intuiting (Ne)  *********************************** (35)
introverted Intuiting (Ni)  ******************************** (32.9)
extraverted Thinking (Te)  ***************************** (29.7)
introverted Thinking (Ti)  ***************************** (29.9)
extraverted Feeling (Fe)  *********************** (23.7)
introverted Feeling (Fi)  ******************************************* (43)

overall result:* INFP*

Okay, this function test has led me a totally different result. I would have never thought I could be an INFP. Some traits apply to me, but I don't know... (haha, the Si function is lowest! the ISTJ's main function. Funny and tragic)  However, I don't trust this test much more than the others, but it's another piece in the puzzle.


----------



## Iapetus (Dec 14, 2009)

Peterk:

ALL PERSONALITY TESTS are somewhat correlated. They all ask similar questions. But, because they don't measure anything that is objective none can explain your personality. True, they can describe your personality but there is a difference between describing something and explaining something. Magnets have been observed for thousands of years. They were described as possessing the "trait" of magnetism. That's not science. Today we have an explanation for magnetism. This reminds us how little psychology of personality has progressed. The four humour theory of temperament was at least scientific although erroneous. So today we have the five factor MODEL - which is just a way of grouping words that describe personality. It's just more description minus scientific explanation.

When you say you were "ectomorph" and now you are "endomorph" were you professionally assessed? Adding weight or building muscle mass doesn't change your somatotype - at least as it is explained by the orignator of those terms - W. H. Sheldon. Midrange body types can easily be very thin when they are young and gradually add 40-60 pounds over 30 years or so. If you think you were once an ectomorph and are now an endomorph you need to give attention to your diet and get back to your maximum weight at age 25. If you don't already have diabetes you are a prime candidate for that diagnosis. 

If you want to see your old (young) body again you have to give up bread, potatos, and sugar (including fruit juice and too many fruits.)

I was 5'10" 120 pounds when I graduated frome high school. Got up to 213 by late 40's. Down to 165 now. My somatotype based on what is called trunk index remains the same.


----------



## Grey (Oct 10, 2009)

> Okay, this function test has led me a totally different result. I would have never thought I could be an INFP. Some traits apply to me, but I don't know... (haha, the Si function is lowest! the ISTJ's main function. Funny and tragic)  However, I don't trust this test much more than the others, but it's another piece in the puzzle.



Have you actually ever given any thought to functions? By this note, despite what you believe you are, it is quite contrary.


----------



## Pa3s (Oct 24, 2009)

Grey said:


> Have you actually ever given any thought to functions? By this note, despite what you believe you are, it is quite contrary.
> [/size][/size]


I read a bit about functions and what they are, but I always found it harder to understand what they stated compared to the questions of 'normal' test like that one of humanmetrics.com or others. Do you think analyzing the functions would be a better attempt of determining your type?


----------



## Grey (Oct 10, 2009)

Actually, yes, I would. It's my main approach when trying to deduce type in the first place. Would you like to go over it, or would you just like me to direct you to resources instead?


----------



## Pa3s (Oct 24, 2009)

Grey said:


> Would you like to go over it, or would you just like me to direct you to resources instead?


Well, I would be grateful for any useful information you could give me. Maybe you have found more stuff than I did. (sorry, I didn't really understand what you meant in the first part^^)


----------



## Aerorobyn (Nov 11, 2009)

From the descriptions given in the original post, I would say you sound most like an ISTJ. However, I just saw that you took the Function Analysis Test and got INFP, which is quite interesting. But as Grey has said, I would pay attention to the functions; although you may not believe yourself to be a certain type, the functions are often a good indicator of the type, I think. 

I came on this forum with the belief that I was an ISTP, and then I had doubts - and thought possibly ESTP. I then took the Function Analysis Test (several times, in fact) and scored ESFP each time. It's clear that I'm an SP, and I'm almost certain now that I'm an E (low E, but still dominant). The F/T part is tricky - I feel that T is definitely dominate, but I can also see F. Description wise, ESTP fits me much better than ESFP - but yes, it may be a lifelong task figuring out your true type. And honestly, I can relate to Enneagram so much better than the MBTI. So, yeah. 

May I ask, if you have read into functions, how would _you_ rate your usage of each function - obviously focusing on who you are, and not who you wish to be.


----------



## NotSoRighteousRob (Jan 1, 2010)

The truth is out there, we just have to know where to look. I want to believe, but I can trust no one. :laughing:

I'm in the middle of an x-files marathon (watching the first 9 seasons consecutively) but anyways I think it's natural to always question results. I rather enjoy the quest for the answer more than the final result and I think having my preconceptions challenged has made this a much more enjoyable experience for me. Good luck looking for your truth, it is out there!


----------



## Grey (Oct 10, 2009)

What I meant by the first part was that I could give you my ideas of each of the functions, and we could, essentially, 'root out' what it is you use best and what you do not use at all to determine your type.


----------



## Pa3s (Oct 24, 2009)

Aerorobyn said:


> May I ask, if you have read into functions, how would _you_ rate your usage of each function - obviously focusing on who you are, and not who you wish to be.





Grey said:


> What I meant by the first part was that I could give you my ideas of each of the functions, and we could, essentially, 'root out' what it is you use best and what you do not use at all to determine your type.


Okay, thank you very much for your effort. I'll try to describe you how I think I use the functions: (I'll use the descriptions of cognitiveprocesses.com as information resource.)

*Se*: I think I don't make much use of that function. Well, I may have good reflexes, but I'm not very much of an "action-person". I don't know if that is a part of it, but I'm not good at many sports which require fast action. I may enjoy the thrill of action, but only in special situations, not in day-to-day life.

*Si*: Well, my memory isn't that good. That's why I'm probably not able to build something like a "storehouse" out of it. I sometimes forget what people said to me or details of past experiences, I often just remember scraps of whole situations. But I'm often aware of the details if I make projects of my own and I like practical work and tinkering.

*Ne*: It's a bit better with this one. I'm good at brainstorming and I often come to decent results with this method. Also, interpreting texts, quotes or poems is mostly a nice task for me since I often find hidden meanings if I got to know the background.

*Ni*: I often think about the future and also speculate what might happen, but I can't say I have a foreseeing sense or anything like that. I guess anyone will know those sudden enlightenments followed by an "Aha!", I guess I'm maybe a bit above average regarding these experiences.

*Te*: I like it if information is put into a table because it's easier to access in my opinion. Maybe I'm also prone to create such things, but not for a day schedule or something like that. If it comes to logic, I may have some problems even if I don't like to admit it. People always tell me math is great because it's all logic. Honestly, I often don't see it and have to put great effort in it to understand the theories. I don't always notice if something (important) is missing.

*Ti*: I think I'm quite good at it, because I often find the right words to say what I want to say. I'm generally good at problem solving, both practical and also theoretical. I'm also able to improve existing things with creative ideas. My goal is not always to fix problems with the least effort, I often have rather other goals in mind like "doing it right".

*Fe*: Well, I almost never show any kind of affection in public and probably never will. I am kind, of course, but I won't laugh about a joke which wasn't funny just to please others. I'm not good at starting conversations or keeping them up, I'm generally very much of a loner.

*Fi*: I think I am quite empathetic. I think this was the main thing which prevented me from bullying other people back in elementary school. I now realized that I rather dodge conflict, especially with people who are close friends or family members. If it can't be avoided it can stir me up quite a bit and stress me if I have to bring it up. I may also be able to see behind the masks of people, so the unusual high rating of this function might be not that wrong. (It's probably something I've denied?)

Again, thank you for your help.


----------



## Grey (Oct 10, 2009)

I think that some of your function knowledge is a bit wrong - if I'm not offending you, I would like to clarify.

Fi has to do with an inner value system, not about being empathetic. Fi represents the beliefs and values that are important to you. Fe is also not about affection in public - it has to do with looking for and creating harmony in the outside world, through actions such as peace-making and whatnot. Ni has less to do with the ah-ha! moment that you're thinking of, however. I would say Ni, as a dominant function, is about unconsciously gathering information and making instant connections (represented by a good example here: A to B to L to M... Z). 

Based on that, have any of your answers to usage changed?


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

Pa3s said:


> Well, I had a try and the result was very surprising to me:
> 
> *Cognitive Process**Level of Development (Preference, Skill and Frequency of Use)*
> extraverted Sensing (Se) *************************** (27.9)
> ...


I know that Grey and I do disagree on this subject, but whether your results actually confirms your type is irrelevant since the test in my opinion was not, and cannot, assess something as complex as the personality. The results of this particular assessment merely give you an indication of which functions you are currently using. Take the same test honestly in a week or two and your results may most likely change. You cannot determine your best fit type from assessments alone. Even the authentic MBTI assessment administered to you professionally does not give you a guarantee. In the end you must put in the effort of an honest self analysis. Depending on someone else will never happen no matter how well the person knows you.


----------



## Linesky (Dec 10, 2008)

"Lifelong" depends on your investments, I'd say. But that's quite irrelevant.

The MBTI system does not truly describe your essential personality. Never forget that. It merely offers a reference to patterns that may be found within people. The use and order of functions is one way of dealing with these things... Perhaps you ought to gather as much resources as possible on every single function, and figure out where you relate. You'll likely not end up being a full stereotype, but that is not a necessity. Eventually you'll discover the most fitting pattern. And remember: the pattern fits you , not the other way around... This means there might appear to be 'gaps', as your personality is more complex than the basic assesments of that system. Even though you may find a type which you relate most to (which is likely to happen), this type does not describe all of you - and so you may, for instance, also relate to other functions / different types as well, to a certain extent.
Hope this made sense.


----------



## Grey (Oct 10, 2009)

> I know that Grey and I do disagree on this subject, but whether your results actually confirms your type is irrelevant since the test in my opinion was not, and cannot, assess something as complex as the personality.


I don't mean to de-rail the topic in any way, but I would like to point out, for the original poster's sake (and since you've brought this up before), that I feel the test is not end-all, but a good starting point if one has not been adequately introduced to functions. The test itself rates your usage at any particular time, but at the same time, analyzing the results may lead to finding what are the learned functions, what are the results of moods only, and what are truly the naturally inclined functions of a person.


----------



## Pa3s (Oct 24, 2009)

Grey said:


> Based on that, have any of your answers to usage changed?


Of course you're not offending me in any way. I know I only have a poor knowledge about these functions so it's very good that you corrected me. I partly interpreted the descriptions as I thought they were meant.

If I include your corrections I would say that I:
- use *Ni* not in a very extended way, I do look up many things and search for information, but this is only caused by sudden interest in the topic and I'm always aware of gathering information. But the information I wanted to learn stays longer in my mind than those which I was forced to understand. I'm prone to forget the latter after tests or similar things. I'm not too bad in this matter after all, but this won't be my primary function I think.
- *Fe* is still not very often used by me. It maybe was when I was a whole lot younger but I mostly abandoned the attempt to create harmony among others. 
- I definitely have a kind of inner value system. A personal "code of honour" if you want to call it so. I also think I'm more concerned with being fair to other people than most of my friends and acquaintances. I almost never deviate from the way I think it's would be the right one and I have a guilty conscience if I do so.

If got it wrong again, I'm sorry, but this is not that easy after all... 
(Sorry for the somewhat late reply, I wanted to answer but the homepage was down and then I left.)


----------



## Pa3s (Oct 24, 2009)

Sorry for the double post, but after I checked the functions again, it looks like this:

Fi>Ti>Ne>Te>Ni>Fe>Si>Se

As you could see, Fi is quite strong, which would make me a INFP. But interestingly, Ti plus Te would be stronger than Fi plus Fe. Would that mean I use more T than F overall? Or is just the function with the best use the determining one? (Which would really be Fi because of my constant search for my identity and the principles I have set myself to guide my life.)


----------



## Grey (Oct 10, 2009)

The two combined functions of T and F do not matter - it's the dominant function that first matters. It may not be that Fi is your dominant, though - if it were your dominant, according to the system, your inferior, or least natural function, would have to be Te, even if you learned how to use it at some point. Instead of relying on the test now, why not figure out which function of the eight seems the least natural to use for you? Try to discount if you use it well or not.


----------



## Kevinaswell (May 6, 2009)

No one can ever find a definite type to fit them for these 3 reasons (probably more):

1. Within a system of only 16 variants, one that is for you IS IMPOSSIBLE. 
2. The types themselves are ambiguous. It's impossible to determine a concrete conclusion from a system like this.
3. A persons brain is physically altered EVERY SINGLE time you look, move, notice, think, hear, etc., etc. You were a different person last night when you went to bed than you were when you woke up that previous morning. 

So don't stress over it, and settle happily over one that makes you feel comfortable in general


----------



## Pa3s (Oct 24, 2009)

Grey said:


> Instead of relying on the test now, why not figure out which function of the eight seems the least natural to use for you? Try to discount if you use it well or not.


Well, then probably Se. Fe also a bit, but I guess Se is the least natural to me.



Kevinaswell said:


> So don't stress over it, and settle happily over one that makes you feel comfortable in general


Yeah, you're right. There are also more important things to do.


----------



## Grey (Oct 10, 2009)

The 'opposites' of Se and Fe are, respectively, Ni and Ti. How do you find you relate to those functions as a natural preference?


----------



## Pa3s (Oct 24, 2009)

Grey said:


> The 'opposites' of Se and Fe are, respectively, Ni and Ti. How do you find you relate to those functions as a natural preference?


I guess of this both, Ti would be familiar to me than Ni. I realized that INTP has Ti as main function, INFP in contrast, Fi. That's clear. These are the most familiar and simultaneously, the most used functions of me. That's why I actually had to split both types and redesign a new type to describe myself more detailed. All in all, (and after your corrections Grey) I think that I could either be an INFP with a strong Ti or an INTP with developed Fi. So that's it (at least, until I get more doubts ). Thanks a lot for your help Grey!

Hmm, that would make me an INXP... most exactly. There should be also names and descriptions for the types with one variable. There would be 81 types instead of just 16, nice! =)


----------



## Grey (Oct 10, 2009)

Well, there's one more thing to consider, if you're actually deciding between INTP and INFP and not just settling for INxP. As a Fi-dominant personality type, INFP has Te as its inferior function. If you use Te at all, do you think its usage is natural, or something you have trouble with (but perhaps developed out of necessity)?


----------



## Pa3s (Oct 24, 2009)

Grey said:


> Well, there's one more thing to consider, if you're actually deciding between INTP and INFP and not just settling for INxP. As a Fi-dominant personality type, INFP has Te as its inferior function. If you use Te at all, do you think its usage is natural, or something you have trouble with (but perhaps developed out of necessity)?


Okay, then I would say that this function is rather natural to me. But this is not so easy to determine. 


> "In written or verbal communication, extraverted Thinking helps us easily follow someone else’s logic, sequence, or organization."
> 
> "...challenge someone’s ideas based on the logic of the facts in front of us or lay out reasonable explanations for decisions or conclusions made..."


For instance, these two things are somewhat familiar to me. (source: Extraverted Thinking)


----------



## Keyleen (Nov 26, 2017)

Did you come to a conclusion? There's infp friend of mine who is more logical than most people i know.


----------

