Personality Cafe banner
1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
26 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I'm sorry if this has been asked, but I'm a bit new to the forum.

I've heard that you are really only one type, but I've also heard you can be in between.

I keep moving back and forth between ENFP and ENFJ, because everything about both groups resonates with me.

Maybe the answer lies in the cognitive functions, with a dominant Ne (interpreting situations and relationships and pickup meanings and interconnections to other contexts) vs. a dominant Fe (Connecting and considering others and the group).

Please help, either with analysis of the Meyers Briggs or with your own personal experience!!! I would really appreciate it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
347 Posts
I had the same problem. I originally tested as INTP but later began to sometimes test as INTJ. For me, an analysis of the cognitive functions settled it. After learning about extroverted thinking versus introverted thinking I knew I was an extroverted thinker, which is the secondary function for INTJs.

I can't remember where I read this, but one source let me know that the way we answer certain questions on the test sometimes reflects more on our developed characteristics than our innate personalities. For me, the P/J dynamic threw me off. I can be disorganized which screams P, but sometimes you have to think about your ideals and values rather than your reality. I desire order even if I don't always create it.

P types also try to keep possibilities open and tend to avoid making final decisions unless needed, from what I understand. I tend to hold off on making decisions, but I later realized I do that because I want to collect as much information as possible before ending the decision-making process. In other words I seek the closure that is indicative of J types, but go about it in a way that is rather abtruse, which led to my confusion.

If I were you I would focus on the functions and try to determine which ones truly resonate with you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,672 Posts
A lot of people are ambiverts. I think I'm one.
 
Joined
·
66 Posts
I sincerely think I am one. Despite all my tests came out as INFP ( And I am STRONGLY INFP Like) the strange thing about myself is that at points I can turn awfully talkative. Like I was extroverted, and then I return onto my introverted quiet self. Its strange. Anybody else gets this? Or it might just be me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
252 Posts
I used to think one can fall in between, but after delving a bit deeper into the MBTI ocean, I realized that it cannot be so. Reason being that we are always going to prefer our natural functions first and foremost. And because of this natural predilection, we may not realize that we are actually utilizing the primary/auxiliary functions. I think the only time we pay heed (if at all) to what we are doing is when we're hesitating about our decisions, or pondering about something outside our comfort zones, and thus venture into our lesser used functions or "shadow functions." Further investigation into the cognitive functions should give you much more definitive answer.

When I first got into MBTI (or became thoroughly interested in it), I couldn't figure out whether I was INFP, INFJ, or INTP. My F/T is off by 5-7% (can't remember the exact percentages anymore, but it was very close), and my P/J difference was almost split half, off by only 2%. I did a lot of digging, and found that I behave like an INFJ, but my thought processes/cognitive functions are that of an INFP. I talk in a direct manner, I take great care into presenting myself (whereas INFPs for the most part don't...???), I know how to use Fe (but I don't like it), I'm organized (although this is a rather flimsy determining factor for J/P if you ask me), and I like to make definitive decisions. I know how to use Ni too (grew up with an INTJ, so I'm crediting her for my Ni development) but it is exhausting! I also do the disappearing act that most INFJs are known for (thought I was nuts for this weird habit before I found out about MBTI).

And having said all that, I don't understand the INFJs cognitive functions! I understand the functions individually, but as a whole painting, it might as well be written in hieroglyphics for me. The INFPs cognitive functions I totally understand.

Have you tried reading into the different cognitive functions? Because I find that some of the type descriptions leaves something to be desired.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
993 Posts
no, no, no........

the problem is that the personality quiz is not alive.

whatever personality type you get is determined by YOU!.

that is why you cannot answer based on your beliefs you have to answer based on the REAl you as if you had no beliefs at all!

this is why some people complain about how "MBTI don't work" and how " I'm kinda inbetween....."

how " i keep getting multiple different types......"

YOU CAN ONLY BE ONE TYPE!.

if you keep getting different types then that means you are not truthfully answering the questions. you are answering them based on your beliefs!

you aren't suppose to do that, you are suppose to answer naturally as if you have no beliefs at all!

NOTE: ambiverts have nothing to do with MBTI types really......
oh and I'm not yelling or anything, just kind like "preaching"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,248 Posts
Theoretically, of course. You could be an even mixture of closure-seeking and open-ended, and of all the functions. If you're happy with identifying as ENFx, no problem! If you prefer to sort yourself, then keep searching :)

Personally I have found watching people of certain types and how they carry themselves perhaps most helpful of all. I found an ENFP-ENFJ video on YouTube that I thought was quite good. It's a little windy but I think their content is great!


The thing that comes across most to me is the clarity of how the ENFP talks about preparing her person to be ready for any possibility, while we see the ENFJ structuring the conversation, focusing on the main MBTI ENFJ-ENFP topic, and kind of bringing everything together for the viewer. The ENFP is clearly less experienced with MBTI than the ENFJ, but she is able to on the fly have an informed and interesting discussion on it, contributing her thoughts and adapting to however the ENFJ steers the conversation. I think it's a very good example of how the J's strategy is to alter her environment, while the P's strategy is to respond to her environment.
 

·
Registered
ILI
Joined
·
5,652 Posts
ENFP and ENFJ are pretty hard to confuse. I think if you would just go out and MEET an ENFJ, you wouldn't be in this situation.
 

·
MOTM October 2013
Joined
·
6,445 Posts
Theoretically, no.

Practically, it happens all the time. Humans weren't made to fit into 16 boxes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
993 Posts
Theoretically, no.

Practically, it happens all the time. Humans weren't made to fit into 16 boxes.
That's what most INTP and INTJ thinks however that doesn't make it true.

You see , the thing about INTP's is that they strive for objective answers and that is why they keep advancing. Because the INTP never settles and keeps discovering.

That is probably the reason why they don't trust the MBTI because there is no universal truth? However so far the MBTI has been proven true to almost everyone.

The curiosity of the INTP and it's refusal to accept the MBTI because it does not contain universal truth is why they will discover new things and make advancements in science.

In short : they are on a quest to discover an "objective truth" however on the long run the truth will still be "just a theory"

So it's kind of a loop of never ending curiosity.
 

·
MOTM October 2013
Joined
·
6,445 Posts
That's what most INTP and INTJ thinks however that doesn't make it true.

You see , the thing about INTP's is that they strive for objective answers and that is why they keep advancing. Because the INTP never settles and keeps discovering.

That is probably the reason why they don't trust the MBTI because there is no universal truth? However so far the MBTI has been proven true to almost everyone.

The curiosity of the INTP and it's refusal to accept the MBTI because it does not contain universal truth is why they will discover new things and make advancements in science.

In short : they are on a quest to discover an "objective truth" however on the long run the truth will still be "just a theory"

So it's kind of a loop of never ending curiosity.
My reasoning for why the types don't "exist" except as labels is because of my college studies (psych major), not from how two particular types behave or think (I'm INFJ, not INTP). Personally, I think MBTI has some good insights, but on the whole is out-dated and shouldn't be treated as the have-all be-all of personality science. There's some important pieces it's missing, and the way it's constructed makes it difficult to apply reliability and validity to.

If you want more detail than that, I can go into it...but I admit I was also just randomly browsing and decided to drop in to this thread.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
993 Posts
My reasoning for why the types don't "exist" except as labels is because of my college studies (psych major), not from how two particular types behave or think (I'm INFJ, not INTP). Personally, I think MBTI has some good insights, but on the whole is out-dated and shouldn't be treated as the have-all be-all of personality science. There's some important pieces it's missing, and the way it's constructed makes it difficult to apply reliability and validity to.

If you want more detail than that, I can go into it...but I admit I was also just randomly browsing and decided to drop in to this thread.
Well I don't know that the details about MBTI history but I heard it was not abandoned because it was untrue but for some other reasons?

From what I know, the research they left off with is still REALLY reliable .
 

·
MOTM October 2013
Joined
·
6,445 Posts
Well I don't know that the details about MBTI history but I heard it was not abandoned because it was untrue but for some other reasons?

From what I know, the research they left off with is still REALLY reliable .
Cognitive Functions and Type Dynamics - A Failed Theory? | Oddly Developed Types Try that on for size. It explains the controversies better than I can.

And http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers–Briggs_Type_Indicator#Criticism for a quick read on MBTI controversies in general.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
993 Posts
Cognitive Functions and Type Dynamics - A Failed Theory? | Oddly Developed Types Try that on for size. It explains the controversies better than I can.

And Myers–Briggs Type Indicator - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia for a quick read on MBTI controversies in general.
Hmmm, I think the 1st link is just pointing out to all the flaws the MBTI has which is obvious because if there is no "empirical evidence" then that leads to a whole new world of flaws that can be used against it.........

i honestly don't think the "big five " is getting anywhere anyways.( as far as "personality" goes)

Anyways i think that the MBTI types is the way to go and is on the right track but it just can't be proven as of right now.

If we can apply Dr Nardi's research to like 1000 people of each type and if their brain operates similarly it may be a hint that MBTI types are further on the right track....

what do you think of this?

 

·
MOTM October 2013
Joined
·
6,445 Posts
@the401

Read a summary of Dr. Nardi's work I found somewhere rather than watching the video, as I don't have an hour and a half to spare right now, but I must say that's interesting.

My main quibble is wondering how he assigned types to people. If we assume the MBTI tests themselves are only 70% accurate, that throws a major kink into the accuracy of any other conclusions that can be drawn from it. And if he assigned types AFTER the EEG readings, well, that's just bad science.

I'm also wondering what mental states he took the EEG readings in, as EEGs are pretty difficult to get anything clear from without the right conditions. I've always thought, if anything, the functions were something everyone had, that show up as we shift our mental gears so to speak, and conceivably that means you could see specific patterns in the brain as you present people with certain kinds of problems to solve. But how then do you jump forward into type preferences?

Anything else will have to wait until I can watch the video. Very interesting findings, though.


As for the Big Five, it's what's currently most used in scientific studies, as the tests give fairly consistent results. It's a bit "dry" and limited though, will give you that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,436 Posts
My main quibble is wondering how he assigned types to people. If we assume the MBTI tests themselves are only 70% accurate, that throws a major kink into the accuracy of any other conclusions that can be drawn from it. And if he assigned types AFTER the EEG readings, well, that's just bad science.

I'm also wondering what mental states he took the EEG readings in, as EEGs are pretty difficult to get anything clear from without the right conditions. I've always thought, if anything, the functions were something everyone had, that show up as we shift our mental gears so to speak, and conceivably that means you could see specific patterns in the brain as you present people with certain kinds of problems to solve. But how then do you jump forward into type preferences?
Please don't take my word for this, but as far as I understand it the strength of a function is found by looking at how readily a person enters the desired mental states. In the start of the video he shows the brain scans of students who had to solve simple math problems. The students who were very good at this would show high activity in the frontal cortex (and one other area) and very little activity anywhere else, showing that this state was potentiated and specialized, while students who weren't as adept at calculating would use the entire brain, meaning the brain hadn't yet refined a state for the task. He then goes on to use this as an analogy for how strong the cognitive functions are. An INFP would naturally and quickly enter a state of listening and paying attention to own emotions while other types would be able to do the same but slightly more crudely and it would take a longer time to get there.
It should be said that in interviews Nardi has stated that he doesn't give much for more the ordering of functions, i.e., functional stacks, since that would be very hard to defend looking at his research, and other results for that matter.

I believe that he spends some time with his participants to figure out their "real" MBTI type. It's not a very rigorous way of doing science, but then again it is supposed to be exploratory instead of trying to find specific answers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aizar

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,801 Posts
To answer it quickly, no. To elaborate, it's only a no if we're speaking in terms of MBTI, and if we are, we must restrict ourselves to the defined values within the theory (or else, we're taking a theory and just making shit up to tack onto it). MBTI leverages deviations between like-type people with percentile preference, and that also tells us that the theory accepts that no two people may be exactly alike. So in a way it's still realistic, but these are the hurdles that come with theory. This can partially explain the numerous people who wind up confused over their own type.

If you're interested in MBTI for introspective reasons, you don't need to stress out over what type you are, in time you may become comfortable with one type, and associate with it, but until you study the cognitive functions that will be difficult. You can avoid anecdotes and stereotypical descriptions, and J vs. P discussions if you do.

Segway:
Most J vs. P discussions just end up being utterly useless because a staggering number of people do not actually know what Judging and Percieving REALLY are in MBTI.

For extraverts, J or P indicates their dominant function. For introverts, the J or P indicates their auxiliary function. That's it, the generalizations made in terms of things like, "likes lists" or "super spontaneous" are loose correlations that really don't mean much. What you need to do when you're looking at J vs. P, is what that means for your own cognitive stack. How you think and why you think it, comes first. Behaviours are secondary.

But yeah, study functions, work from there and try to piece a type together. Work upwards, it's more difficult to try and associate with one type at a time, shuffling through 16 until you find a description that is "close enough". A lot of people do that, and still end up settling on a different one.
 

·
Registered
IEE
Joined
·
6,559 Posts
if you keep getting different types then that means you are not truthfully answering the questions. you are answering them based on your beliefs!

you aren't suppose to do that, you are suppose to answer naturally as if you have no beliefs at all!

NOTE: ambiverts have nothing to do with MBTI types really......
oh and I'm not yelling or anything, just kind like "preaching"
I'd elaborate it as a skewed self-perception. We are understandably subjective towards ourselves.

As for OP, reading into Fe and Ne in dominant positions should help.
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top