If three different people develop their way of seeing people as 16 types, and all come up with different combinations of INTP, INFP, and INTJ for both me and you, who is right and who is wrong? Honestly I don't mean to be overly critical here - I think they could be all right from a certain perspective (whatever that is). I may have some problems with using MBTI type codes for this if they're using functions or Socionics or whatever just because of the confusion it leads to when people are referring to such different things with the same codes, but the essence of what they are saying can all be "right".So we both take issue with similar things, and we also may also take issue with some different things. I think that's healthy. I personally only use MBTI type codes to describe letter typing because I value clarity. If INTP doesn't mean Introvert iNtuitive Thinking Perceiving then why use those letters? I believe when we're abstractly representing something with the code, the code should NOT be counter-intuitive.My "prism" nowadays, as far as MBTI/CFs/Socionics/Keirsey/etc, tends more towards Socionics. And, broadly speaking, the "prisms" I take issue with are those which I find superficial or biased. (I know, "I find," annoyingly subjective.) Not, as much, the definition-based prisms, but rather the sort which say Sensors are all dumb, or Ni is the source of all power, etc. I borrow a little from "CFs" because my usage of Socionics terminology is rusty/beginnerish-as-hell, and I can 'translate' into letter dichotomies, just depends. But yeah, I find most things I'm talking about to be somewhere in Socionics, so maybe I should just make the switch. The CF community here is much easier to get "into," though...
Like you mention getting into Socionics, so wouldn't it just make more sense to use Socionics type code to describe a prism which is sorting based upon Socionics concepts?Me too......I would be interested to know which questions score on which types...Please do ramble on about Enneagram. I think it can be interesting. Maybe not so much in describing people but just like how the prisms differ so much even within respected references (let's say Riso-Hudson vs. Naranjo vs. Chestnut vs. Fauvre). It's interesting to look at people as "Riso-Hudson 3's" when they would be completely different types in other prisms.But yeah, my system probably isn't as blended as you seem to think. I'll defer MBTI/CFs to you for now; Enneagram is more my jam, anyways. The older works of Enneagram are really interesting, especially if you notice how some types' identifiers got moved or switched with other types'. That's why I tend to see certain Enneagram types "differently," since it's often a little more divorced from MBTI than most people here work with, and it's based on a generation before the mainstream. In any case, I will say that combining systems to Type with is bad practice, imo. There's patterns but no guarantees, so the conflation leads people astray. I suppose that's my biggest gripe about this test.
I could ramble on about Enneagram, but I get the impression you don't care as much about it, so I'll stop here :P
I've always just assumed I was a tritype 9 but it just came to my attention that I can be more of a 1 than a 9 in some worlds... Parallel universes where light refracts differently. That's what it all is.