Personality Cafe banner

1 - 20 of 38 Posts

·
Ace of Spades
10w11 sp/so
Joined
·
3,098 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
People are always concerned about finding their "True" Type in terms of the Jungian Cognitive Functions. While this may certainly give you a better understanding of how you process the world, how much relevance does it actually hold when sharing your type to someone unfamiliar with JCF?

If your "Best-fit" Type (standardized dichotomy-based MBTI Instrument result) and your JCF types are the same, this is a non-issue. If those two types are different however, wouldn't the standardized result provide more information to others in both casual and workplace settings?

Let's say one uses Ne-Ti (or Ne+T: ENTP) but tests as an INFJ using the MBTI instrument. There is a reason they related more to Introversion over Extroversion; perhaps they'd much rather work alone instead of in a group, perhaps they are very reserved. Saying they are ENTP might imply the opposite somehow. There may also be a reason they tested Feeling over Thinking; perhaps they prefer the humanities over the sciences, perhaps they are compassionate and consider others' feelings. Again, saying they are ENTP might imply otherwise. Would it not be more relevant, and even more accurate, to say they are an INFJ (disclosing they use Ne+T if the other person has knowledge on the subject)?

I understand it's about natural preference, but perhaps the dichotomy-based preference (especially in professional settings as MBTI is often used) is not in line with the type obtained by the dominant cognitive function preference and it's auxiliary. I personally think that's a very common occurrence. Nothing dictates they must align, and it's perfectly okay if they don't. As a theory evolves, it becomes an offshoot of the original. An excellent example is people who have different MBTI and Socionics types.

At the end of the day you have to consider: Which system am I describing myself with? What does this type say about me to others? How is the application of typology benefiting me?

Edit: Forgot to mention the important fact that any scientific study that involves the MBTI most likely used the standardized MBTI test and not the functions to obtain subjects' types. This means that any correlations drawn between Type and any other variable Y would be based on that, and not on their "true" type.
 

·
Beer Guardian
Joined
·
14,678 Posts
I would go a step further. I have ADHD, and despite being ENTP, I struggled mightily with understanding interpersonal boundaries, social cues, and my impulse control kept me on the fringes of peer interactions for most of my childhood. So although I craved outside interaction, I was terrible at it, thus I was forced to learn to deal with being alone alot.
I would say this puts me in a situation where my Ni is almost as strong as my Ne. I was an extravert who was forced to learn how to be introverted. I drew from my boundless imagination to keep myself entertained alone for hours. Now that I am older, I have learned the "rules" for interacting with others, and I am pretty good at it. I find I can be just as happy in a crowd as I am alone.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,511 Posts
Same. I used to and still hang out with mostly Fi-Te types (I don't know why most of my friends tend to be of this type judger-wise) and I think this might have made me develop Fi beyond what's "normal" for an INTP. I am still a Ti dominant and I think the MBTI and Jungian descriptions fit me to a degree and they do so better than Fi, BUT in socionics I type myself as EII or INFj (the socionics equivalent of MBTI INFP). I don't see any disrepancy here since I know I utilize both Ti and Fi strongly. I may show off my Ti more (it's my dominant overall), but my Fi can definitely be seen once in a while and in a way that's more common than just from your "average" INTP.

I also think my enneagram plays a role in this in how I have both w4 to my and a strong 4w5 fix. It provides with heightened emotional awareness and interest to reason based on my emotions I think.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,308 Posts
Let's say one uses Ne-Ti (or Ne+T: ENTP) but tests as an INFJ using the MBTI instrument. There is a reason they related more to Introversion over Extroversion; perhaps they'd much rather work alone instead of in a group, perhaps they are very reserved. Saying they are ENTP might imply the opposite somehow. There may also be a reason they tested Feeling over Thinking; perhaps they prefer the humanities over the sciences, perhaps they are compassionate and consider others' feelings. Again, saying they are ENTP might imply otherwise. Would it not be more relevant, and even more accurate, to say they are an INFJ (disclosing they use Ne+T if the other person has knowledge on the subject)?
The person is obviously a INFJ with a misunderstanding/false experience on the cognitive functions regarding her Ne+Ti assumption.

At the end of the day you have to consider: Which system am I describing myself with? What does this type say about me to others? How is the application of typology benefiting me?
It provides understanding and potential that needs to developed further. It shows different approaches from a theoretical level and can be applied in a practical way if the understanding of the types is evolved in a way that you can see it in action.
 

·
MOTM August 2012
Joined
·
3,467 Posts
Well since the MBTI is dichotomy based, its sort of hard to know whether or not the test is accurately testing the difference between Ne and Ni. The function attitudes are implied not tested outright like on Nardi's test. So it's quite possible that someone who was behaviorally introverted, since that is a variable on the MBTI, could have a best-fit that wasn't their real type (although then we get into the whole notion of, if the person is behaviorally introverted, and we are using a trait-based metric, then what traits are being shown to the world?) Remember that in MBTI there are a ton of assumptions going on (some of them Jungian some of them not) like the assumption that in an introvert their auxiliary function should be pronounced and in an extraverted way or that a high J/P score will point to a correspondingly pronounced extraverted function.

Again the example I would use is Marie Louise Von Franz typing of Sigmund Freud as an Introverted Feeling type with strong Intuitions, by looking at his (to her) raging inferior Te function. However Freud would likely not be an INFP in MBTI. I would imagine him to be more likely typed as a Te-dom than Fi-dom (nor would he fit the P stereotype) and yet functionally it makes perfect since that Freud would've been an Introverted Feeling type. One of the things that most tests do not take into account (and really only an analyst could really look at) is the quality of the function or perspective. Freud had a crap-load of Te going on, but it was 'inferior' in its quality. Poorly adapted, tyrannical, convinced that everything could relate back to one simplistic idea -- all of the hallmarks of an Inferior Te function not a dominant Te-function, but a simple test without further scrutiny might just see a lot of Te and conclude the person as a Te-type (its why the real instrument has an interview process and a few other steps beyond the instrument).

So there are some real mismatches out there to be aware of and its quite possible for both perspectives to be right depending on how you look at it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
850 Posts
I've been thinking a lot about this...I identify as an ESFP with Myers-briggs typing, but my Ti is so developed according to every test I've taken and everything I've read about it and everyone I've talked to about it. According to my cognitive functions, I should be an ESTP, butI don't identify with any description of ESTP I've read. The weird thing is, my Ti and Fi are both highly developed but my Fe and Te are both underdeveloped. If I was forced to decide between feeling and thinking in general I would probably say feeling, but my Ti is very strong, so what does that mean? I think it means that I am an ESFP according to MBTI but I have very strong Ti, that's all. Myers-Briggs and Jung are related but not the same thing. A person of any MB type will generally have cognitive functions in a certain stack but sometimes they vary a bit, particularly since they can strengthen/weaken over time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,516 Posts
Perhaps I got to know my Ti better because of all this.
or Si, if that's possible? as in forced seclusion brought more balance to your psyche?

thread: i would say that if you're going to describe yourself at all, you should probably go Jungian since it gets at something that you cannot control and in turn controls you (and maybe include your other types that contradict your "true type" in reference to how they're describing something that pertains to you, but fits onto a different plane all together).

i think that an MBTI type, even an incorrect one, can still be useful in that it serves as a look into the disconnect between the image one has of themselves and the side of them that, for some reason, isn't apparent to them. i think it would be like seeing holding two different images of yourself and being able to find the trail and reasons that has led to a false view.
 

·
MOTM August 2012
Joined
·
3,467 Posts
or Si, if that's possible? as in forced seclusion brought more balance to your psyche?

thread: i would say that if you're going to describe yourself at all, you should probably go Jungian since it gets at something that you cannot control and in turn controls you (and maybe include your other types that contradict your "true type" in reference to how they're describing something that pertains to you, but fits onto a different plane all together).

i think that an MBTI type, even an incorrect one, can still be useful in that it serves as a look into the disconnect between the image one has of themselves and the side of them that, for some reason, isn't apparent to them. i think it would be like seeing holding two different images of yourself and being able to find the trail and reasons that has led to a false view.
I don't think people's MBTI types, as relates to the dichotomies are that far off from their real type (i.e. an MBTI ESFP is probably not really an INTP or anything like that). A person who scores strong N and strong F is probably an NF, its just a matter of figuring out which flavor. The whole J/P thing sort opens up a can of worms though, but in introverts you could almost ignore it altogether and just pay attention to the function dichotomies and J/P should be reasonably accurate for extraverts anyway.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,516 Posts
I don't think people's MBTI types, as relates to the dichotomies are that far off from their real type (i.e. an MBTI ESFP is probably not really an INTP or anything like that). A person who scores strong N and strong F is probably an NF, its just a matter of figuring out which flavor. The whole J/P thing sort opens up a can of worms though, but in introverts you could almost ignore it altogether and just pay attention to the function dichotomies and J/P should be reasonably accurate for extraverts anyway.
it may or it may not. i think that would depend on the honesty of the person, or their ability to even realize whether or not they're being honest. the person taking the test would not only have to have knowledge of themselves, but also access to how the common uses of the words/phrases differ from what the author was really getting at. somebody may (correct me here if i'm wrong) feel societal pressure to act a certain way and may adopt a persona--that they're unaware of--that gives them the image that they are either caring or that they couldn't care less; from there, it seems like you have more of an end product than a definitive cause.

as it relates to Fe/Ti, that person could really be an unhealthy Ti-dom. who was forced into the mindset of his sub-culture, or a Ti-dom. who hasn't developed a conscious relationship with their inferior whatsoever (or an Fe-dom. who's assimilated "uncouth" values, or just a regular Fe-dom :p--a person, for whatever reason, could potentially identify with either of those descriptions regardless of which function was dominant/inferior); from there, it seems like you'd have to asses the health or the general depth of the attitude the person has towards the "plane" of Fe, but could a test pick up on that (disregarding professionally give tests)? in the awareness of self/image of self in either person, would they have any reason to question what is reality within their own minds? (i'm not talking stereotypical types or healthy people--i admit this example is extremely specific and situational, but also possible)

the test giving results that are closer to what the person thinks they are, or what they'd like to be, and that either being far from their true type or actually just their shadow popping up in an unhealthy state, was just a possibility that i think could account for what Spades was talking about (like one out of many options that could lead to that point, although i think we're trying to do different things with it. i was thinking about using the other forms as an introspective tool that could let one shine some light on why their MBTI type (possible persona) doesn't match their Jungian "true" type--shining light on a disconnect if one's present that could allow for growth).

but i agree that someone could find their true type through MBTI :)P, i was just throwing stuff out there).
 

·
MOTM August 2012
Joined
·
3,467 Posts
Yea I was just making the point that generally speaking who the person thinks they are is probably not terribly far off from who they really are even if it is a persona image. That's why I said a person probably shouldn't score as an ESFP who is really an Introverted Thinker, unless their self-perceptions were just completely out to lunch or they really had no clue as to how to answer the questions on the test and just guessed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,511 Posts
The person is obviously a INFJ with a misunderstanding/false experience on the cognitive functions regarding her Ne+Ti assumption.
No, I think what this means is that you don't understand what Spades is actually saying.
It provides understanding and potential that needs to developed further. It shows different approaches from a theoretical level and can be applied in a practical way if the understanding of the types is evolved in a way that you can see it in action.
Yes, but considering how behaviorally focused the MBTI is it often gets it wrong than it gets it right. That's why she differentiates between true type and best fit type. Considering the original intention of Jung, if the best fit type and the true type are as different as Spades suggests in her example, then trying to develop as an INFJ is not going to be useful if you really as a Jungian ENTP since INFJ and ENTP have their functions oriented differently and in a different order.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,308 Posts
No, I think what this means is that you don't understand what Spades is actually saying.
Yes, but considering how behaviorally focused the MBTI is it often gets it wrong than it gets it right. That's why she differentiates between true type and best fit type. Considering the original intention of Jung, if the best fit type and the true type are as different as Spades suggests in her example, then trying to develop as an INFJ is not going to be useful if you really as a Jungian ENTP since INFJ and ENTP have their functions oriented differently and in a different order.
I understand that there are more options of what she is trying to say so I don´t see here a problem really. How can you develop without jumping in and trying?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,511 Posts
I understand that there are more options of what she is trying to say so I don´t see here a problem really. How can you develop without jumping in and trying?
The point is that you should know what you are actually developing and that the method is sound for you before you try to develop anything. There's no point to read a book about personal growth and development based on the MBTI but you got your type wrong the suggested ways to develop don't even apply to you. If this was enneagram then it would even be considered dangerous and unhealthy to do so.

Furthermore, Jung suggests that one cannot force development anyway. He attributes this to a 9th function that works on its own outside of the pyshce. In the end, you see people using the MBTI to say, find a best-fit career based on their type as a part of their personal development but I also think this is flawed reasoning because I could actually figure this out without the MBTI. Sometimes people need to learn to ask WHAT THEY WANT instead of thinking that a tool for personality assessment will solve all their questions to lead a life that feels fulfilling and successful.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,308 Posts
The point is that you should know what you are actually developing and that the method is sound for you before you try to develop anything. There's no point to read a book about personal growth and development based on the MBTI but you got your type wrong the suggested ways to develop don't even apply to you. If this was enneagram then it would even be considered dangerous and unhealthy to do so.
If you got your type wrong and you read this book you accumulate informations and you can use them to refine your understanding.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,511 Posts
If you got your type wrong and you read this book you accumulate informations and you can use them to refine your understanding.
You just took what I said out of context in a literal sense. I meant that if you read something about personal growth and do it with the wrong intentions in mind you will learn the wrong things to begin with.

To clarify, it doesn't help, it hinders personal development. The inferior function for an Ne dominant type is Si, the inferior function for an Ni dominant type is Se. Now, let's assume this hypothetical person who is a Jungian ENTP but MBTI INFJ starts to develop Se because this person thinks Se is the weakest spot - what happens is that this person will probably become fairly good at using Se but the person will not be able to actually grow as a person because Se is not the weak spot - Si is.

You are attacking the problem from the wrong angle and while it may help you grow in one area, it's the wrong area to grow in because this area was never a problem for you to begin with. An ENTP could make use of Se but it would be even better to develop Si because this is the function that you exhibit in the poorest possible way being your inferior function. Your inherent personal flaws do not change. Thus, the end result is fake growth than actual growth.

I mean, I am beginning to think my MBTI best fit type is probably INFP (heck, that's what I got on the Thomson test after all), but my true type is INTP. Completely different inferior functions. I'm quite able at using Te. Fe is an entirely different subject though. I also have this on-off switch between Ti-Fi that may not be noticeable to everyone but to those that know me well, it is noticeable. This however does not INFP make even though I still feel confused at times.

However, to go off and develop Te would be quite useless to me. I can already utilize Te well when I need to thanks to my academic studies. Fe on the other hand, that's something that will probably be a constant work in progress until I die.
 

·
Ace of Spades
10w11 sp/so
Joined
·
3,098 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
The person is obviously a INFJ with a misunderstanding/false experience on the cognitive functions regarding her Ne+Ti assumption.
Completely disagree and this misses my point.

There are many, many reasons why someone could relate to certain functions and/or letters. I think at some point, it becomes irrelevant what you were innately, if you've grown to prefer something else - in that case I personally think it's best to try and use/develop all 4 (or 8) functions and see which ones you most enjoy/feel most natural. And these may be ones you've ignored all along.


As someone whose been into mysticism for almost 6 years now, I can heavily relate to Ni over the other 7 due to the nature of the descriptions. Does that mean it's my dominant? Maybe, maybe not. But my future orientation, love of epiphanies, and constant planning relate to it, so it was very useful to read about regardless.

Well since the MBTI is dichotomy based, its sort of hard to know whether or not the test is accurately testing the difference between Ne and Ni. The function attitudes are implied not tested outright like on Nardi's test. So it's quite possible that someone who was behaviorally introverted, since that is a variable on the MBTI, could have a best-fit that wasn't their real type (although then we get into the whole notion of, if the person is behaviorally introverted, and we are using a trait-based metric, then what traits are being shown to the world?) Remember that in MBTI there are a ton of assumptions going on (some of them Jungian some of them not) like the assumption that in an introvert their auxiliary function should be pronounced and in an extraverted way or that a high J/P score will point to a correspondingly pronounced extraverted function.
This this, exactly this. There are a lot of assumptions made and it's important to be mindful that they are assumptions.

Again the example I would use is Marie Louise Von Franz typing of Sigmund Freud as an Introverted Feeling type with strong Intuitions, by looking at his (to her) raging inferior Te function. However Freud would likely not be an INFP in MBTI. I would imagine him to be more likely typed as a Te-dom than Fi-dom (nor would he fit the P stereotype) and yet functionally it makes perfect since that Freud would've been an Introverted Feeling type. One of the things that most tests do not take into account (and really only an analyst could really look at) is the quality of the function or perspective. Freud had a crap-load of Te going on, but it was 'inferior' in its quality. Poorly adapted, tyrannical, convinced that everything could relate back to one simplistic idea -- all of the hallmarks of an Inferior Te function not a dominant Te-function, but a simple test without further scrutiny might just see a lot of Te and conclude the person as a Te-type (its why the real instrument has an interview process and a few other steps beyond the instrument).

So there are some real mismatches out there to be aware of and its quite possible for both perspectives to be right depending on how you look at it.
This is an excellent point I forgot to mention! For example, I have a friend who tests ExFJ and is pretty sure on the F. However, her behaviour is very much indicative of a Te-dom with inferior Fi. I think that sort of behaviour is how some ExTJ's get a bad rep as being demanding, belligerent, and inconsiderate. Te-doms with a good grip on Fi are not like that at all.

I've been thinking a lot about this...I identify as an ESFP with Myers-briggs typing, but my Ti is so developed according to every test I've taken and everything I've read about it and everyone I've talked to about it. According to my cognitive functions, I should be an ESTP, butI don't identify with any description of ESTP I've read. The weird thing is, my Ti and Fi are both highly developed but my Fe and Te are both underdeveloped. If I was forced to decide between feeling and thinking in general I would probably say feeling, but my Ti is very strong, so what does that mean? I think it means that I am an ESFP according to MBTI but I have very strong Ti, that's all. Myers-Briggs and Jung are related but not the same thing. A person of any MB type will generally have cognitive functions in a certain stack but sometimes they vary a bit, particularly since they can strengthen/weaken over time.
I personally believe this too, especially the last sentence. Theory goes that we have an innate preference, but nothing says we can't become more proficient in the other functions or neglect our preferences. Over time, this will be reflected in our behaviour, and we will most certainly have a different stacking than is proposed by theory. It's perfectly fine to type as ESFP if that describes you better, and you can always change the label if it no longer does. I see the MBTI from a more utilitarian approach than an absolute approach.


Enneagram too. Sure, we have a Core type, but we can learn about ourselves through reading about the other types as well. At least the Enneagram explicitly acknowledges that the motivations are universally human, we just have one that takes a heavier hold on us.

thread: i would say that if you're going to describe yourself at all, you should probably go Jungian since it gets at something that you cannot control and in turn controls you (and maybe include your other types that contradict your "true type" in reference to how they're describing something that pertains to you, but fits onto a different plane all together).
As someone who's a total control freak (98th percentile of Agency on the PersonalDNA test), something inside me squirms in rebellion about this =P

i think that an MBTI type, even an incorrect one, can still be useful in that it serves as a look into the disconnect between the image one has of themselves and the side of them that, for some reason, isn't apparent to them. i think it would be like seeing holding two different images of yourself and being able to find the trail and reasons that has led to a false view.
Yes, agreed. Peeling off the layers of the psyche is wonderful, and one can really learn a lot by looking at the disconnect between them.

I don't think people's MBTI types, as relates to the dichotomies are that far off from their real type (i.e. an MBTI ESFP is probably not really an INTP or anything like that). A person who scores strong N and strong F is probably an NF, its just a matter of figuring out which flavor. The whole J/P thing sort opens up a can of worms though, but in introverts you could almost ignore it altogether and just pay attention to the function dichotomies and J/P should be reasonably accurate for extraverts anyway.
I think celticstained already refuted this point in an elegant manner. It heavily depends too, on how self-aware one is, and how well the tests/descriptions are written. Furthermore, how much society or past experience has set a standard for what's "average" and how the person compares themselves to that.
 

·
MOTM February 2014
Joined
·
4,775 Posts
Add me to the list of having different best fits vs true type. I prefer to call it persona, though... Implies it's based more on outward behavior than on "this is the type that fits me best out of all of them." Mild nitpicking xD Interesting to note, however, that on the whole bestfittype.com thing I fit more behind-the-scenes INFP than chart-the-course INTJ (kind of).

I think this sort of thing is an important distinction. A lot of people type as what they want to be rather than what they are, and it ends up being extremely unhelpful to everyone involved. I have to work through quite a few ego defenses to realize I'm not as strong in Fi as I like to think I am, and I think it's helped me recognize my weaknesses and strengths.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
14,808 Posts
It matters to me because I often test as INFP but on Best Fit I actually relate to both SFP types better.

A lot of people think Im NF I guess bc of some of my intellectual interests, but I am not diplomatic as Keirsey suggests, nor do I fit the airy fairy physically disconnected stereotypes. I have a real INFJ friend and she is definitely more spiritual and mental and physically disconnected. Just now in her early 30s she's starting to develop the physical more. I have always been more connected to my body since Ive known her, and for me the big challenge in my 30s is being more emotionally stable and logically detached. I think our strengths and weaknesses are different.

However I could see how we both have Ni and that's why I enjoy her company, she brings me more into that part of myself, so Ive always seen her as fun and an important influence in my life.

So ISFP is truly my best fit type. I really dont think Im the INFP or NF stereotype unless you go by the fact that I have certain intellectual interests, but its stupid to say Ns are intellectual and Ss are not. Id actually venture to guess a lot of people in academia are ISxJ.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
2,220 Posts
I'm starting to think it's best to focus on either Jungian type or MBTI dichotomies or, if you use them both, to think of them is interrelated but separate systems. The whole "best fit type" thing where they combine Jung/MBTI/Keirsey/everything else just seems like a huge mess to me. To use myself as an example, I identified as an INTP because, according to the modern function definitions, it describes my thought process fairly well, However, on dichotomy tests I score INxJ. Calling myself a P would be misleading because I like structure, am not at all spontaneous, ETC. Some might argue that my borderline T/F scores aren't entirely consistent with being a thinking dominant, and I do tend to get a clear N preference, but I'm definitely not either of Jung's intuitive types, so not an Ni or Ne dom. I think I could be a jungian thinking type because I have trouble with Fe values, and I don't accept any of my evaluations without subjecting them to Ti-style analysis. I think my values are more consistent with a T preference, however, my interests are more in line with what would be expected of a feeler, and I've read things about INFJs that really resonated with me, more so than with INTJs. I see mostly Ti and Si in myself (I don't buy the theory that having a dom/aux of the same attitude is unhealthy) but I don't know whether a Jungian would consider me to be an introverted thinking type, an introverted sensation type, or something else entirely. Finding your type according to Jung's original conceptions seems impossible.
 
1 - 20 of 38 Posts
Top