Personality Cafe banner

1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
752 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Consistently get things like this, I'm 'trying' to be as honest as I can with each question these things. Is this a common theme? What does it typically mean? (possibly something to do with a mix of Enneagram and MBTI?) Perhaps I'm ignorant or incapable of being any sort of objective, that could be why I'm obsessing over it *shrug*. Either way, I'd value hearing your thoughts on my results and your experience with this sort of issue if you've had it. Thanks a bunch!


Te (Extroverted Thinking) (25%)
your valuation of / adherence to logic of external systems / hierarchies / methods

Ti (Introverted Thinking) (45%)
your valuation of / adherence to your own internally devised logic/rational

Ne (Extroverted Intuition) (55%)
your valuation of / tendency towards free association and creating with external stimuli

Ni (Introverted Intuition) (60%)
your valuation of / tendency towards internal/original free association and creativity

Se (Extroverted Sensing) (40%)
your valuation of / tendency to fully experience the world unfiltered, in the moment

Si (Introverted Sensing) (55%)
your valuation of / focus on internal sensations and reliving past moments

Fe (Extroverted Feeling) (50%)
your valuation of / adherence to external morals, ethics, traditions, customs, groups

Fi (Introverted Feeling) (95%)
your valuation of / adherence to the sanctity of your own feelings / ideals / sentiment

based on your results your type is likely - infp
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,120 Posts
Consistently get things like this, I'm 'trying' to be as honest as I can with each question these things. Is this a common theme? What does it typically mean? (possibly something to do with a mix of Enneagram and MBTI?) Perhaps I'm ignorant or incapable of being any sort of objective, that could be why I'm obsessing over it *shrug*. Either way, I'd value hearing your thoughts on my results and your experience with this sort of issue if you've had it. Thanks a bunch!


Te (Extroverted Thinking) (25%)
your valuation of / adherence to logic of external systems / hierarchies / methods

Ti (Introverted Thinking) (45%)
your valuation of / adherence to your own internally devised logic/rational

Ne (Extroverted Intuition) (55%)
your valuation of / tendency towards free association and creating with external stimuli

Ni (Introverted Intuition) (60%)
your valuation of / tendency towards internal/original free association and creativity

Se (Extroverted Sensing) (40%)
your valuation of / tendency to fully experience the world unfiltered, in the moment

Si (Introverted Sensing) (55%)
your valuation of / focus on internal sensations and reliving past moments

Fe (Extroverted Feeling) (50%)
your valuation of / adherence to external morals, ethics, traditions, customs, groups

Fi (Introverted Feeling) (95%)
your valuation of / adherence to the sanctity of your own feelings / ideals / sentiment

based on your results your type is likely - infp
With those scores, INFP (Fi Ne Si Te) is a decent fit (score sum= 230), if you really are an introvert. Too bad about the weak (Te= 25) Inferior Function, though.

If you are actually an extrovert, ENFP (Ne Fi Te Si) is a decent fit (score sum= 230) which also looks stronger. Ne Fi gives you a strong lead and Si= 55 makes a better Inferior Function.

BTW, plausible alternatives are ISTJ and ESTJ (score sum= 230).


Kind of up to you to decide which option fits you best.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,491 Posts
Dario Nardi's one of the leading cognitive functions guys (as you may know), and his test is arguably the most-linked-to cognitive functions test but, as further discussed in the spoiler in this post, INTJs typically get high Te scores and high Ti scores (with Te not substantially favored over Ti), when they take Nardi's test. They also get high Ni scores and high Ne scores (with Ni not substantially favored over Ne). And INFJs often get Fi scores that are as high or higher than their Fe scores. And so on. As I understand it, there has never been a cognitive functions test where the results come anywhere close to lining up with the Harold Grant model expectations, where INFPs are supposedly Fi-Ne-Si-Te and INFJs are supposedly Ni-Fe-Ti-Se.

Not that the Harold Grant function stack expectations make any sense, mind you, but that's a subject for another post — or maybe two posts (if you're interested): this one and this one.

I've been participating in online type-me exercises for over five years now, and I'd say the test that most often gives the correct result is the official "Step I" MBTI, and if you're interested, there's a link to that here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
752 Posts
Discussion Starter #5 (Edited)
With those scores, INFP (Fi Ne Si Te) is a decent fit (score sum= 230), if you really are an introvert. Too bad about the weak (Te= 25) Inferior Function, though.

If you are actually an extrovert, ENFP (Ne Fi Te Si) is a decent fit (score sum= 230) which also looks stronger. Ne Fi gives you a strong lead and Si= 55 makes a better Inferior Function.

BTW, plausible alternatives are ISTJ and ESTJ (score sum= 230).


Kind of up to you to decide which option fits you best.
Thank you very much, def an introvert however The parts where I've seen small changes in my function results would be switch the Ne>Ni typically Fe or Se is my lowest score I was actually very surprised to see Te that low that's never been so low before I'd say I usually see it around 30-35% with Fe and Se always the lowest. Also if you'd like to see more on results ect of mine: http://personalitycafe.com/whats-my-personality-type/508194-frustration-sets-again-could-use-some-advice.html it's a little older post where some back and forth happens between me and a few others as well as some questionnaire results being discussed. The answers to that questionnaire are here http://personalitycafe.com/whats-my-personality-type/505602-short-effective-scenario-questionnaire-2-0-self-type-11.html I also took another cog test and well actually the results are below a couple posts down it's almost EXACTLY INFP lol
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
752 Posts
Discussion Starter #7 (Edited)
Dario Nardi's one of the leading cognitive functions guys (as you may know), and his test is arguably the most-linked-to cognitive functions test but, as further discussed in the spoiler in this post, INTJs typically get high Te scores and high Ti scores (with Te not substantially favored over Ti), when they take Nardi's test. They also get high Ni scores and high Ne scores (with Ni not substantially favored over Ne). And INFJs often get Fi scores that are as high or higher than their Fe scores. And so on. As I understand it, there has never been a cognitive functions test where the results come anywhere close to lining up with the Harold Grant model expectations, where INFPs are supposedly Fi-Ne-Si-Te and INFJs are supposedly Ni-Fe-Ti-Se.

Not that the Harold Grant function stack expectations make any sense, mind you, but that's a subject for another post — or maybe two posts (if you're interested): this one and this one.

I've been participating in online type-me exercises for over five years now, and I'd say the test that most often gives the correct result is the official "Step I" MBTI, and if you're interested, there's a link to that here.
Thanks for the reply and all the links! I took the cog test you suggested by Dario Nardi my results are:
Cognitive Process Level of Development (Preference, Skill and Frequency of Use)
extraverted Sensing (Se) ********************** (22.8)
limited use
introverted Sensing (Si) ****************************** (30.8)
good use
extraverted Intuiting (Ne) ********************************** (34.1)
good use
introverted Intuiting (Ni) **************************** (28.8)
average use
extraverted Thinking (Te) *********************** (23.7)
limited use
introverted Thinking (Ti) ******************* (19.7)
limited use
extraverted Feeling (Fe) *********************** (23.9)
limited use
introverted Feeling (Fi) ******************************************************** (56.2)
excellent use
Summary Analysis of Profile
By focusing on the strongest configuration of cognitive processes, your pattern of responses most closely matches individuals of this type: INFP


Also if you'd like to see other things of mine I've been doing for a while trying to 'really figure my type out' I will link some answers to questionnaires and if you have time check them out! See what you think always appreciate the imput, (First questionnaire answers are here http://personalitycafe.com/whats-my-personality-type/505602-short-effective-scenario-questionnaire-2-0-self-type-11.html / Discussion on the results between me and few people is here http://personalitycafe.com/whats-my-personality-type/508194-frustration-sets-again-could-use-some-advice.html / and finally a questionnaire I filled out a few nights ago is here http://personalitycafe.com/whats-my-personality-type/530441-spades-questionnaire-my-answers.html . Again thanks for the reply and all the info you provided me!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
752 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
I didn't suggest that you take Nardi's test, and I pointed out that I thought it made more sense to take the official MBTI than to take any test that purported to determine your type based on the so-called "cognitive functions."

Oh yeah I see that now so sorry about that! :/
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
752 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
I've been participating in online type-me exercises for over five years now, and I'd say the test that most often gives the correct result is the official "Step I" MBTI, and if you're interested, there's a link to that here.
Just took that scored as INFP. 'Very Clear' for everything but Fi was -Clear 21 out of 24.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,491 Posts
Just took that scored as INFP. 'Very Clear' for everything but Fi was -Clear 21 out of 24.
If your P score was "very clear" on the official MBTI, and in light of your other scores and what else I know from your posts, I'd say it's very unlikely you're not an INFP.

In case you're not aware, there's a well-established fifth temperament dimension that isn't included in the Myers-Briggs typology and is often referred to as "neuroticism" (although it isn't a psychological disorder). The Big Five/SLOAN typology labels it Emotional Stability and refers to the two poles as Calm and Limbic. Being Limbic on that dimension tends to be associated with, among other things, anxiety/worry-proneness; emotional sensitivity/volatility; proneness to annoyance/irritation; self-consciousness; and (sometimes) depression. I'm Limbic, and it makes me less of a cucumber than some of my fellow INTJs, and it sounds to me like you may be Limbic as well.

If you're interested, the Big Five test I generally point people to is this similarminds Big Five/SLOAN test, which will (purport to) type you on the Emotional Stability dimension — in addition to the four Big Five dimensions with substantial MBTI correlations. And I've put some more information about the Big Five and that similarminds test in the spoiler.

 
Here's a table that shows which Big Five dimension essentially corresponds to which MBTI dimension:

SLOAN dimensionSLOAN polescorresponding MBTI poles
ExtroversionReserved vs. SocialI vs. E
Emotional StabilityLimbic vs. Calmn/a
OrderlinessUnstructured vs. OrganizedP vs. J
AccommodationEgocentric vs. AccommodatingT vs. F
InquisitivenessNon-Curious vs. InquisitiveS vs. N

I kind of like the linked Big Five test both because I think it does an OK typing job and also because, unlike the official MBTI and many of the online type tests, it's not "forced choice." It gives you five choices for each question — an "in the middle" choice as well as mild or strong in each direction. For that reason, it's reasonable to expect the SLOAN percentage scores to have something to say about the strength of your preferences. With a forced choice test, that's not really true. Somebody with, say, a mild S preference could easily take a forced choice test and, assuming they knew themselves well and interpreted the questions properly, end up choosing the S response for almost all (or all) of the questions, with the result being a very high S score. (That said, I think scores that are close to the middle on forced choice tests tend to be some indication that your preference on that dimension — in whichever direction — is probably on the mild side.)

BUT NOTE: Although I kind of like the similarminds SLOAN test, I don't think much of the corresponding personality type descriptions at the similarminds site, for a number of reasons, one of which is: Most MBTI sources reflect the perspective that it isn't better to have one preference rather than its opposite on any of the four MBTI dimensions. The descriptions at the similarminds site, on the other hand — somewhat consistent with Big Five sources generally — definitely favor Accommodating over Egocentric (F over T) and Organized over Unstructured (J over P). And if you're Limbic (even mildly), that earns you a negative-adjective bonanza. So I recommend using the similarminds test as a sort of double-check/quantifier for the MBTI dimensions, but I think the personality descriptions in a typical MBTI source are better.

And here's a link to the Big Five Inventory, which is both (1) one of the most academically well-regarded Big Five tests and (2) only 44 questions!

In case you end up taking either of the tests I've linked to, I'd be curious to see your scores, but only take them if you really want to for your own purposes.

As a final note: You may already know that INFP is probably the quintessential "creative artist" type (more here and here), but there's also some at least semi-respectable reason to believe that there may be something to the old "neurotic artist" stereotype — i.e., it may be that people who are above-average in neuroticism are at least somewhat more likely to be creative artists (and/or successful creative artists) — and just in case you're interested, here are three recent articles on that subject:

What Neuroscience Says About the Link Between Creativity and Madness
The Real Link Between Creativity and Mental Illness
Secrets of the Creative Brain
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
752 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
If your P score was "very clear" on the official MBTI, and in light of your other scores and what else I know from your posts, I'd say it's very unlikely you're not an INFP.

In case you're not aware, there's a well-established fifth temperament dimension that isn't included in the Myers-Briggs typology and is often referred to as "neuroticism" (although it isn't a psychological disorder). The Big Five/SLOAN typology labels it Emotional Stability and refers to the two poles as Calm and Limbic. Being Limbic on that dimension tends to be associated with, among other things, anxiety/worry-proneness; emotional sensitivity/volatility; proneness to annoyance/irritation; self-consciousness; and (sometimes) depression. I'm Limbic, and it makes me less of a cucumber than some of my fellow INTJs, and it sounds to me like you may be Limbic as well.

If you're interested, the Big Five test I generally point people to is this similarminds Big Five/SLOAN test, which will (purport to) type you on the Emotional Stability dimension — in addition to the four Big Five dimensions with substantial MBTI correlations. And I've put some more information about the Big Five and that similarminds test in the spoiler.

 
Here's a table that shows which Big Five dimension essentially corresponds to which MBTI dimension:

SLOAN dimensionSLOAN polescorresponding MBTI poles
ExtroversionReserved vs. SocialI vs. E
Emotional StabilityLimbic vs. Calmn/a
OrderlinessUnstructured vs. OrganizedP vs. J
AccommodationEgocentric vs. AccommodatingT vs. F
InquisitivenessNon-Curious vs. InquisitiveS vs. N

I kind of like the linked Big Five test both because I think it does an OK typing job and also because, unlike the official MBTI and many of the online type tests, it's not "forced choice." It gives you five choices for each question — an "in the middle" choice as well as mild or strong in each direction. For that reason, it's reasonable to expect the SLOAN percentage scores to have something to say about the strength of your preferences. With a forced choice test, that's not really true. Somebody with, say, a mild S preference could easily take a forced choice test and, assuming they knew themselves well and interpreted the questions properly, end up choosing the S response for almost all (or all) of the questions, with the result being a very high S score. (That said, I think scores that are close to the middle on forced choice tests tend to be some indication that your preference on that dimension — in whichever direction — is probably on the mild side.)

BUT NOTE: Although I kind of like the similarminds SLOAN test, I don't think much of the corresponding personality type descriptions at the similarminds site, for a number of reasons, one of which is: Most MBTI sources reflect the perspective that it isn't better to have one preference rather than its opposite on any of the four MBTI dimensions. The descriptions at the similarminds site, on the other hand — somewhat consistent with Big Five sources generally — definitely favor Accommodating over Egocentric (F over T) and Organized over Unstructured (J over P). And if you're Limbic (even mildly), that earns you a negative-adjective bonanza. So I recommend using the similarminds test as a sort of double-check/quantifier for the MBTI dimensions, but I think the personality descriptions in a typical MBTI source are better.

And here's a link to the Big Five Inventory, which is both (1) one of the most academically well-regarded Big Five tests and (2) only 44 questions!

In case you end up taking either of the tests I've linked to, I'd be curious to see your scores, but only take them if you really want to for your own purposes.

As a final note: You may already know that INFP is probably the quintessential "creative artist" type (more here and here), but there's also some at least semi-respectable reason to believe that there may be something to the old "neurotic artist" stereotype — i.e., it may be that people who are above-average in neuroticism are at least somewhat more likely to be creative artists (and/or successful creative artists) — and just in case you're interested, here are three recent articles on that subject:

What Neuroscience Says About the Link Between Creativity and Madness
The Real Link Between Creativity and Mental Illness
Secrets of the Creative Brain
Thank you so much for the response I took the Big Five/SLOAN test, here are the results for that test.

Extroversion results were moderately low which suggests you are reclusive, quiet, unassertive, and private.

Orderliness results were medium which suggests you are moderately organized, structured, and self controlled while still remaining flexible, varied, and fun.

Emotional Stability results were medium which suggests you average somewhere in between being calm and resilient and being anxious and reactive.

Accommodation results were medium which suggests you are moderately kind natured, trusting, and helpful while still maintaining your own interests.

Inquisitiveness results were moderately high which suggests you are intellectual, curious, imaginative but possibly not very practical.

Your Global5/SLOAN type is RLUEI**I've taken this a few times, this has been a more common outcome than any other result **
Your Primary type is Reserved

My results for the Big Five inventory were as follows-

Openness to Experience/Intellect
High scorers tend to be original, creative, curious, complex; Low scorers tend to be conventional, down to earth, narrow interests, uncreative.
You enjoy having novel experiences and seeing things in new ways. (Your percentile: 88)

Conscientiousness
High scorers tend to be reliable, well-organized, self-disciplined, careful; Low scorers tend to be disorganized, undependable, negligent.
You are neither organized or disorganized. (Your percentile: 46)

Extraversion
High scorers tend to be sociable, friendly, fun loving, talkative; Low scorers tend to be introverted, reserved, inhibited, quiet.
You probably enjoy spending quiet time alone. (Your percentile: 7)

Agreeableness
High scorers tend to be good natured, sympathetic, forgiving, courteous; Low scorers tend to be critical, rude, harsh, callous.
You find it easy to criticize others. (Your percentile: 17)

Neuroticism
High scorers tend to be nervous, high-strung, insecure, worrying; Low scorers tend to be calm, relaxed, secure, hardy.
You are a generally anxious person and tend to worry about things. (Your percentile: 84)


I'm going to read those articles you linked at the end, very interested in those I have a feeling I will relate to them in many ways if not completely. Thanks again for all the responses, let me know what you think of these results here as well whenever you have time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,491 Posts
Thank you so much for the response I took the Big Five/SLOAN test, here are the results for that test.

Extroversion results were moderately low which suggests you are reclusive, quiet, unassertive, and private.

Orderliness results were medium which suggests you are moderately organized, structured, and self controlled while still remaining flexible, varied, and fun.

Emotional Stability results were medium which suggests you average somewhere in between being calm and resilient and being anxious and reactive.

Accommodation results were medium which suggests you are moderately kind natured, trusting, and helpful while still maintaining your own interests.

Inquisitiveness results were moderately high which suggests you are intellectual, curious, imaginative but possibly not very practical.

Your Global5/SLOAN type is RLUEI**I've taken this a few times, this has been a more common outcome than any other result **
Your Primary type is Reserved

My results for the Big Five inventory were as follows-

Openness to Experience/Intellect
High scorers tend to be original, creative, curious, complex; Low scorers tend to be conventional, down to earth, narrow interests, uncreative.
You enjoy having novel experiences and seeing things in new ways. (Your percentile: 88)

Conscientiousness
High scorers tend to be reliable, well-organized, self-disciplined, careful; Low scorers tend to be disorganized, undependable, negligent.
You are neither organized or disorganized. (Your percentile: 46)

Extraversion
High scorers tend to be sociable, friendly, fun loving, talkative; Low scorers tend to be introverted, reserved, inhibited, quiet.
You probably enjoy spending quiet time alone. (Your percentile: 7)

Agreeableness
High scorers tend to be good natured, sympathetic, forgiving, courteous; Low scorers tend to be critical, rude, harsh, callous.
You find it easy to criticize others. (Your percentile: 17)

Neuroticism
High scorers tend to be nervous, high-strung, insecure, worrying; Low scorers tend to be calm, relaxed, secure, hardy.
You are a generally anxious person and tend to worry about things. (Your percentile: 84)

I'm going to read those articles you linked at the end, very interested in those I have a feeling I will relate to them in many ways if not completely. Thanks again for all the responses, let me know what you think of these results here as well whenever you have time.
You scored as pretty strongly neurotic (aka Limbic) on the Big Five Inventory, but just mildy so on the similarminds test. Limbic in any case, though — which, as I said before, seems consistent with the quick look I took at one of your type-me threads.

You scored as the equivalent of an MBTI T (low in Agreeableness) on both those Big Five tests, but it's been my experience that it's pretty common for the Big Five Inventory (especially) to score MBTI INFs as low in Agreeableness. I'm still in the F camp for you, but those scores suggest that your F preference may be somewhat on the mild side. T/F and male/female are something of a tangle, and I think it's fair to say that, all other things being equal, the average male F is somewhat "less F" than the average female F.

Here's some recycled reckful on how INs tend to come out on MBTI tests (including the official MBTI):

I think it's not uncommon for INFs to test as INTs, at least partly because many of the F choices on typical MBTI tests (including the official test) are choices that are more likely to appeal to SFs and EFs than INFs — and I think that's probably more true of female INFs than male INFs. I think male F's are often aware that they differ from cultural male stereotypes in ways that make them more "F-ish" than average whereas, by contrast, I think INF women who compare themselves to cultural female stereotypes — not to mention the majority of actual women — are reasonably likely to think of themselves as more T-ish than those "feeler" women (EFs, SFs and, especially, ESFs).

I also think the T-ward skew tends to be somewhat greater for INFJs than INFPs. In any case, it's certainly been my experience that it's considerably more common for an INFJ (male or female) to mistype as INTJ (and later conclude they're really INFJ) than vice versa. I think that, in some ways, it's fair to say that INFJs are both the "least F" of the F's and the "least NF" of the NFs.​

Against that background, the fact that your past MBTI reading had led you to think you were an F and that you chose the F response to 21 out of the 24 official MBTI T/F items leads me to think it's pretty likely you're an F. Just in case you're interested, you can find quite a bit of T/F input from me in this post, and a l-o-n-g explanation for why I think "T/F's a mess" in this post.

But rest assured that I'm a hardcore T myself, and you should definitely not feel the slightest obligation to follow either of those links or otherwise pay any attention to anything else in my posts beyond what you're motivated to do for your own selfish reasons.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
752 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
You scored as pretty strongly neurotic (aka Limbic) on the Big Five Inventory, but just mildy so on the similarminds test. Limbic in any case, though — which, as I said before, seems consistent with the quick look I took at one of your type-me threads.

You scored as the equivalent of an MBTI T (low in Agreeableness) on both those Big Five tests, but it's been my experience that it's pretty common for the Big Five Inventory (especially) to score MBTI INFs as low in Agreeableness. I'm still in the F camp for you, but those scores suggest that your F preference may be somewhat on the mild side. T/F and male/female are something of a tangle, and I think it's fair to say that, all other things being equal, the average male F is somewhat "less F" than the average female F.

Here's some recycled reckful on how INs tend to come out on MBTI tests (including the official MBTI):

I think it's not uncommon for INFs to test as INTs, at least partly because many of the F choices on typical MBTI tests (including the official test) are choices that are more likely to appeal to SFs and EFs than INFs — and I think that's probably more true of female INFs than male INFs. I think male F's are often aware that they differ from cultural male stereotypes in ways that make them more "F-ish" than average whereas, by contrast, I think INF women who compare themselves to cultural female stereotypes — not to mention the majority of actual women — are reasonably likely to think of themselves as more T-ish than those "feeler" women (EFs, SFs and, especially, ESFs).

I also think the T-ward skew tends to be somewhat greater for INFJs than INFPs. In any case, it's certainly been my experience that it's considerably more common for an INFJ (male or female) to mistype as INTJ (and later conclude they're really INFJ) than vice versa. I think that, in some ways, it's fair to say that INFJs are both the "least F" of the F's and the "least NF" of the NFs.​

Against that background, the fact that your past MBTI reading had led you to think you were an F and that you chose the F response to 21 out of the 24 official MBTI T/F items leads me to think it's pretty likely you're an F. Just in case you're interested, you can find quite a bit of T/F input from me in this post, and a l-o-n-g explanation for why I think "T/F's a mess" in this post.

But rest assured that I'm a hardcore T myself, and you should definitely not feel the slightest obligation to follow either of those links or otherwise pay any attention to anything else in my posts beyond what you're motivated to do for your own selfish reasons.
I would have to agree with you. I took the second questionnaire to mainly to get some further input/reassurance in my logic which I do not tend to trust even though I may attempt to use it on a regular basis it's not typically something I'm comfortable only going off. I need outside input to help 'double-check' my ideas because I can't always reconcile them alone.

I have no problem in recognizing that I for sure have low-agreeableness, which could be do the fact I follow what 'feel is right/wrong'. I don't tend to voice or show this however. I respect other peoples 'thoughts-opinions' to a point. And would never assume to be correct for them. But have no issue subconsciously feeling like they're wrong if it's something I just don't stand for

example:politics/ethics. I will however have no issue calling someone out in conversation when they're totally over looking the ethics in a situation where I feel they should be relevant. Claiming that they may be correct with the facts but the facts contradict the ethics solution, so a new option should be explored. I'll always quickly voice my opinion if I think it will negatively effect a person or group even if I don't particularly 'side' with said person or group.

I've only tested once or twice as an INTP in my whole exploration of personality types. And to be honest, I was really pissed off and frustrated with myself when I took the test that time, not at the result but that was my emotional state going into the test. I tested as an INFJ a for a while in the beginning, but the F there is just something when I was honest with myself delving into it's process was not something I related to. I'm honestly glad someone who is T is responding to me here not that I wouldn't value any persons thoughts on all of this, I just know I don't trust my own personal logic and tend to project that onto others within mine and similar types. Thank you for those links as well I'll be checking them out, I want to become as informed as I can here. To not look like an idiot, but it's also interesting to me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,222 Posts
The Personality Café Cognitive Function test is really good. I think it is the best cognitive function test. Whoever wrote it knows their cognitive functions. If the tests were coming back INFP, there is a very high probability you are that type. The MBTI axis is a good starting point, but you’ll have to look deep inside yourself for the answers, which is tough because those MBTI summaries are pretty catchy and will make you think that is you. MBTI states it is about preferences, and we all know those change not only with age, but by situation and mood. Everybody is in a grey zone when you go by picking a preference from a dichotomy.

I like the five factor model and suggest the VisualDNA Who Am I assessment (I have a thing for visual quizzes) which is based on the five factor model. I take five factor based quizzes seriously, while the cognitive functions and the MBTI are a theoretical playground. One is theory, the other is legit. Converting your five factor results to an MBTI type is turning a horse into a unicorn. There are only two of the five that have a high correlation and one that doesn’t even translate at all. A 40% correlation creates a lot of questions on the other half, the most important part…the middle two letters, of a person’s personality type.

It all comes down to the cognitive functions. It is the heart and soul of Jungian Theory of Psychological Types. The goofy dichotomy based systems are based on cognitive functions. From MBTI’s website: “The purpose of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® (MBTI®) personality inventory is to make the theory of psychological types described by C. G. Jung understandable and useful in people's lives.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: the401

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,491 Posts
It all comes down to the cognitive functions. It is the heart and soul of Jungian Theory of Psychological Types. The goofy dichotomy based systems are based on cognitive functions. From MBTI’s website: “The purpose of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® (MBTI®) personality inventory is to make the theory of psychological types described by C. G. Jung understandable and useful in people's lives.”
Sorry, Dude, but it sounds like the Cognitive Functions Crew has taken you for a ride.

Briggs and Myers started from Jung (mostly) — but fortunately for us, they treated Jung the way Jung thought theorists ought to be treated, rather than the way Freud wanted to be treated (which is largely why Jung broke with Freud).

Mystical streak notwithstanding, Carl Jung was a believer in the scientific approach, and Isabel Myers took Psychological Types and devoted a substantial chunk of her life to putting its typological concepts to the test in a way that Jung never had, and in accordance with the psychometric standards applicable to the science of personality.

As explained at length in this post and the posts linked to in its last two paragraphs, it's reasonably clear that Myers, despite quite a bit of lip service to Jung and the functions, understood (based on her many years of data-gathering) that the dichotomies were the essential components of Jungian/MBTI type, and that dichotomy combinations were also associated with many noteworthy aspects of personality — but also that there was nothing particularly special about the combinations that are purportedly associated with the eight faux-Jungian "cognitive functions" that people like Linda Berens love to talk about. I agree with James Reynierse, an MBTI practitioner who has rightly (IMO) concluded that those functions are best viewed as nothing more than a "category mistake."

And just in case that sounds to you like some kind of MBTI revolution, and on the assumption that you've never read it, I've put a sizeable chunk of recycled reckful in the spoiler (from a long INTJforum post that I often link to) that explains why it makes no sense to view the functions as what the MBTI is really about — assuming the "MBTI" you're talking about is Isabel Myers and the official MBTI folks. Official MBTI materials have always been heavily dichotomy-dominated and, as Reynierse (among others) has rightly noted, there's now lots of respectable data in support of the dichotomy-centric MBTI, and virtually no respectable body of support for "type dynamics."

 
Meanwhile, for anyone who thinks that the rejection of the functions that Reynierse advocates would represent a revolutionary shift as far as the "official" MBTI is concerned, I'd argue, to the contrary, that the MBTI has essentially been centered around the dichotomies from the beginning. Aside from the test instruments themselves, the analysis in Myers' Gifts Differing focuses substantially more on the dichotomies than the functions. Myers was a nobody who didn't even have a psychology degree — not to mention a woman in mid-20th-century America — and I assume that background had at least something to do with the fact that her writings tend to somewhat disingenuously downplay the extent to which her typology differs from Jung. So it's no surprise, in that context, that the introductory chapters of Gifts Differing, besides introducing the four dichotomies, also include quite a bit of lip service to Jung's conceptions — or, at least, what Myers claimed were Jung's conceptions — of the dominant and auxiliary functions. But, with that behind her, Chapters 4-7 describe the effects of the "EI Preference," the "SN Preference," the "TF Preference" and the "JP Preference," and those four chapters total 22 pages. Chapter 8 then describes the eight functions — and that chapter consists solely of a half-page table for each function, for a total of four pages. What's more, those four pages were simply Briggs' summaries of Jung's function descriptions, and Myers ignored (and/or adjusted) substantial portions of those in creating her own type portraits. (As one example, as discussed in this post, Myers' IS_Js bear little resemblance to Jung's Si-doms. And for a detailed discussion of the surgery Myers performed on Jung's conception of Te, see this post.)

But most tellingly, following Myers' introductory and portrait chapters, the second half of Gifts Differing — covering a variety of topics, including "Use of the Opposites," "Type and Marriage," "Learning Styles" and "Type and Occupation" — focuses almost exclusively on the dichotomies, both singly and in combinations that don't correspond to the functions. She talks about introverts and extraverts, thinking types and feeling types, intuitives and sensing types, judging types and perceptive types, "INs," "ESs," "NF types," "STs," "introverts with thinking" (i.e., ITs), "EF types," "ESF types," "ISTs" and on and on. At one point in the Type and Marriage chapter, "FJ types with extraverted feeling" are mentioned, but that's very much the exception that proves the rule. References to the functions (and the dichotomy combinations that correspond to them) are almost entirely absent from the book's second half, and on the rare occasions when she refers to one of the two-letter combinations that corresponds to a function — e.g., SJ (Si) — she most often makes no reference to the function. At one point, for example, she notes that "Judging types, especially those who prefer sensing (the –S–J types), like their work to be organized, systematic, and foreseeable." I'm not suggesting that this means Myers didn't really believe in the functions (necessarily, anyway), but she was certainly not a theorist who thought the functions were anything like the main event.

Five years later, the 1985 edition of the MBTI Manual, co-authored by Myers, was even more lopsided in favor of the dichotomies. In a 1990 article ("Review of Research on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator." Perceptual & Motor Skills, 70, 1187) in which John B. Murray concluded that the MBTI's "indices of reliability and validity have been extensively investigated and have been judged acceptable," Murray noted that over 1500 studies were included in the 1985 Manual — many of them either discussed in the text or included in one or more tables of statistics. And good luck finding any results in that manual that are framed in terms of the cognitive functions. The 1985 Manual is full of statistics correlating type with interests, occupations, scholastic achievement, other personality measures, etc. — and the reported correlations almost exclusively involve the four dichotomies, the sixteen types and/or dichotomy combinations with no meaningful function correspondence — with the combinations most often included (by a wide margin) being ST, SF, NT and NF. So, on top of the fact that Myers and the rest of the official MBTI establishment were predominantly dichotomy-focused, it's also clear that the independent psychologists conducting many of those studies weren't laboring under any misconception that the MBTI dichotomies were relatively superficial indicators (convenient for testing and/or labeling purposes) while the cognitive functions were what the typology was really about.

The third edition of the MBTI Manual was published in 1998 and, according to the Reynierse article I linked to above, it cites a grand total of eight studies involving "type dynamics" (i.e., the functions model) — and Reynierse summarizes them as "six studies that failed, one with a questionable interpretation, and one where contradictory evidence was offered as support." He then notes, "Type theory's claim that type dynamics is superior to the static model and the straightforward contribution of the individual preferences rests on this ephemeral empirical foundation."

And finally, I think it's also worth noting that the 17-page report that an ENFJ (for example) receives after taking the relatively recent MBTI Step II test includes page after page of dichotomy-based analysis (including five separate subscales for each of the four dichotomies) and not a single mention of "extraverted feeling" or "introverted intuition" other than a diagram near the end that shows that "ENFJs like Feeling best, Intuition next, Sensing third and Thinking least," and one brief note about tending to use Feeling in the "outer world" and Intuition in the "inner world." All the rest of the ENFJ descriptions in the report — after the brief initial profile, which isn't broken down by components — are descriptions of N (not Ni or Ne), F (not Fi or Fe) and so on, and they're the same descriptions of N and F (and the five subscales of each) that ENFPs receive in their reports (notwithstanding the fact that ENFJs are Fe-Ni and ENFPs are Ne-Fi). And Nancy Harkey has pointed out that "there is no discussion in the Step II manual of applying type dynamics (dominant, auxiliary etc.) to the overall preferences. I really don't know what that means at the moment, but it is curious."

The more I reread Psychological Types, the more I appreciate the extent to which getting from Jung to the Myers-Briggs typology involved substantial adjustments and additions. I think the formidable job Briggs and Myers did in separating the Jungian wheat from the chaff and modifying and supplementing Jung's theory is grotesquely underappreciated by many internet forumites. Myers may not have been as smart as Jung, and she may not have had a psychology degree, but she and her mother had the benefit of standing on Jung's shoulders, and Myers then spent many years, as a labor of love, designing and refining her test instrument and gathering data from thousands of subjects, leading her to conclude — among other things — that the four dichotomies (as she conceived them), and not the functions, were the main event. I think Myers' conceptions of the dichotomies and the types still leave plenty of room for further improvement but, fifty years later, the results of many more studies — and, in particular, the correlation of the MBTI dichotomies with the Big Five — suggest that, in terms of the basics, Myers pretty much got it right. If Jung were still around, I think he'd mostly approve.

Buuut alas, Myers' lip service to the functions created what proved to be a significant marketing opportunity for a handful of MBTI theorists who've made names for themselves in the last 20 years or so by peddling a more function-centric version of the MBTI. And for better or worse (and I think it's unfortunate), both the CAPT and the Myers-Briggs Foundation have long reflected the attitude that the MBTI "community" is basically all one big happy family, and — within certain limits — dichotomy-centric theorist/practitioners are free to be dichotomy-centric and function-centric theorist/practitioners are free to be function-centric, and everybody can sell their books and hold their seminars and it's all good.

I like the five factor model and suggest the VisualDNA Who Am I assessment (I have a thing for visual quizzes) which is based on the five factor model. I take five factor based quizzes seriously, while the cognitive functions and the MBTI are a theoretical playground. One is theory, the other is legit. Converting your five factor results to an MBTI type is turning a horse into a unicorn. There are only two of the five that have a high correlation and one that doesn’t even translate at all. A 40% correlation creates a lot of questions on the other half, the most important part…the middle two letters, of a person’s personality type.
You're misinformed about the scientific status of the MBTI, and about how strongly the MBTI dimensions correlate with four of the Big Five factors.

If you're interested, you can read quite a lot about the scientific respectability of the MBTI — and about several other issues often raised by people claiming to "debunk" the MBTI — in this post and in this post (also linked to in the first linked post).

As explained (with copious citations) in those posts, the MBTI's scientific validity and reliability now have decades of studies behind them. And McCrae and Costa, the leading Big Five psychologists, long ago concluded that the MBTI passed muster in the validity and reliability departments, that the MBTI was effectively tapping into four of the Big Five factors, and that each typology might have things to teach the other.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,491 Posts
You scored as the equivalent of an MBTI T (low in Agreeableness) on both those Big Five tests, but it's been my experience that it's pretty common for the Big Five Inventory (especially) to score MBTI INFs as low in Agreeableness. I'm still in the F camp for you, but those scores suggest that your F preference may be somewhat on the mild side. T/F and male/female are something of a tangle, and I think it's fair to say that, all other things being equal, the average male F is somewhat "less F" than the average female F.

@Mac The Knife

The revival of this thread caused me to reread this post, and I see I mischaracterized one of your Big Five scores. You got a low Agreeableness score on the Big Five Inventory — and I noted that it's been my experience that it's not uncommon for INFs to get low Agreeableness scores on that particular test — but your Agreeableness score on the similarminds SLOAN test was basically in the middle.

So in other words, one of your two Big Five scores was less inconsistent with my F lean than I mistakenly indicated.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
752 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
@Mac The Knife

The revival of this thread caused me to reread this post, and I see I mischaracterized one of your Big Five scores. You got a low Agreeableness score on the Big Five Inventory — and I noted that it's been my experience that it's not uncommon for INFs to get low Agreeableness scores on that particular test — but your Agreeableness score on the similarminds SLOAN test was basically in the middle.

So in other words, one of your two Big Five scores was less inconsistent with my F lean than I mistakenly indicated.
To be honest, I was going through some heavy heavy Non-type related things (am now too but aware of it) that sorta accentuated whatever Fe/Fi I my have-or was trying to 'show' with my words. Whats clear is I have no real control over it and when I read my old posts I see how I even mislead myself/convinced myself I was INFP ect. Though it's most certainly not true however in reality, apparently a few of the INFPs noticed I stood out somewhat like a sore-thumb in the INFP sub. If you'd be interested in chatting more, would you mind letting me know about what exactly it was that led you to find less F (in comparison to your first time) I would enjoy hearing what you have to say.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,491 Posts
If you'd be interested in chatting more, would you mind letting me know about what exactly it was that led you to find less F (in comparison to your first time) I would enjoy hearing what you have to say.
It was just a careless misread on my part. Your Agreeableness result on that first Big Five test was "medium," but I must have been looking at the wrong paragraph when I put my reply together, because I said you'd come out "low" on Agreeableness on both tests. That mistake is all I was referring to (and correcting) in post 17.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
752 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
It was just a careless misread on my part. Your Agreeableness result on that first Big Five test was "medium," but I must have been looking at the wrong paragraph when I put my reply together, because I said you'd come out "low" on Agreeableness on both tests. That mistake is all I was referring to (and correcting) in post 17.
OH okay gotcha. Thanks for the reply so quick too. I plan on retaking a few of those tests soon because I'm personally aware ho much all of this self-type stuff nd even my response too were just WAY to compromised by what I know is goig on with me now. So you know what I'm referring to exactly its the fact Ive MDD (the psychiatrist believes I've probably had it un-treated / medicated / since I was about 8 *I'll be 29 this month*. But more to the point have MDD, Agoraphobia, and a few serve clinical anxiety's. Social/General/ so-on. Being treated with Gog-native Behavioral Therapy/Meds.

Most of hat I witnessed in my posts here sometimes and few forums jus backed INTP (MBTI) more and more.
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Top