What is my MBTI? Please help

JonathanKieth

Michaeldavxx said:
My result:

View attachment 923986

=====

Hey guys, based on this does anyone knows what's my type?

Hmm Te and Se seems to be your highest cognitive functions here. I think you're either TeSe or SeTe.

Reply

Save

Like

Reactions: 1

Michaeldavxx

Discussion Starter · #3 · 18 d ago

JonathanKieth said:
Hmm Te and Se seems to be your highest cognitive functions here. I think you're either TeSe or SeTe.

Ooh... what's that? I have learned a bit about Cognitive Functions. And I have never seen such a combination before...

Reply

Save

Like

black_jester_3647

· #4 · 18 d ago

Michaeldavxx said:
My result:

View attachment 923986

=====

Hey guys, based on this does anyone knows what's my type?

The results aren't clean. Better off doing one of the questionaires or something. These results don't fit into MBTI type.

Reply

Save

Like

Functianalyst

· #5 · 18 d ago (Edited)

Michaeldavxx said:
Ooh... what's that? I have learned a bit about Cognitive Functions. And I have never seen such a combination before...

I will let Jonathan Kieth speak for themselves, but what I believe they are trying to say is those results appear to be of someone currently in a loop if you buy into the theory. I am not a fan of the theory since it entails a person vacillating between dominant and tertiary function equally, which runs counter to Jung's principle that:

This absolute sovereignty always belongs, empirically, to one function alone, and can belong only to one function, since the equally independent intervention of another function would necessarily yield a different orientation, which would at least partially contradict the first. But, since it is a vital condition for the conscious adaptation-process that constantly clear and unambiguous aims should be in evidence, the presence of a second function of equivalent power is naturally forbidden.

The results you show pretty much confirms my thoughts when it is claimed we go into a loop. We are simply overusing our attitude (i.e. E or I) or put another way, our auxiliary function is not working sufficiently to balance our dominant function.

Where I say this confirms my thoughts is although the loop theory is popular, I have yet to see a good example of how a certain type may appear during the flare-up. I know for me personally, when I am over introverting, I can run the gamut of Ti-Ni-Si and Fi (not necessarily in a good way). Simply put I get into my head and have to force myself to use my Se to come out of it.

See less See more

Reply

Save

Like

Reactions: 1

JonathanKieth

· #6 · 17 d ago

Functianalyst said:
I am not a fan of the theory since it entails a person vacillating between dominant and tertiary function equally, which runs counter to Jung's principle that:

Hmm, I think that your usage of Jung's principle should not be based on the assumption that there is a dominant, aux, tertiary, as that would be a mix of two different systems. Carl Jung himself did not actually say that functions should be arranged as FeSiNeTi.

The quote that you provided from his book actually refers to him saying that the functions cannot be paired as FeTe or FeTi or FiTe, whereby Feeling and Thinking as opposites cannot be first and second, similarly with S and N functions.

Here's his quote for a slightly fuller context:

This absolute sovereignty always belongs, empirically, to one function alone, and can belong only to one function, since the equally independent intervention of another function would necessarily yield a different orientation, which would at least partially contradict the first. But, since it is a vital condition for the conscious adaptation-process that constantly clear and unambiguous aims should be in evidence, the presence of a second function of equivalent power is naturally forbidden.

This other function, therefore, can have only a secondary importance, a fact which is also established empirically. Its secondary importance consists in the fact that, in a given case, it is not valid in its own right, as is the primary function, as an absolutely reliable and decisive factor, but comes into play more as an auxiliary or complementary function. Naturally only those functions can appear as auxiliary whose nature is not opposed to the leading function.

For instance, feeling can never act as the second function by the side of thinking, because its nature stands in too strong a contrast to thinking. Thinking, if it is to be real thinking and true to its own principle, must scrupulously exclude feeling. This, of course, does not exclude the fact that individuals certainly exist in whom thinking and feeling stand upon the same level, whereby both have equal motive power in con~sdousness. But, in such a case, there is also no question of a differentiated type, but merely of a relatively undeveloped thinking and feeling. Uniform consciousness and unconsciousness of functions is, therefore, a distinguishing mark of a primitive mentality.

Experience shows that the secondary function is always one whose nature is different from, though not antagonistic to, the leading function : thus, for example, thinking, as primary function, can readily pair with intuition as auxiliary, or indeed equally well with sensation, but, as already observed, never with feeling.

Neither intuition nor sensation are antagonistic to thinking, i.e. they have not to be unconditionally excluded, since they are not, like feeling, of similar nature, though of opposite purpose, to thinking—for as a judging function feeling successfully competes with thinking—but are functions of perception, affording welcome assistance to thought.

As soon as they reached the same level of differentiation as thinking, they would cause a change of attitude, which would contradict the tendency of thinking. For they would convert the judging attitude into a perceiving one; whereupon the principle of rationality indispensable to thought would be suppressed in favour of the irrationality of mere perception. Hence the auxiliary function is possible and useful only in so far as it serves the leading function, without making any claim to the autonomy of its own principle.

Reply

Save

Like

Functianalyst

· #7 · 17 d ago (Edited)

JonathanKieth said:
Hmm, I think that your usage of Jung's principle should not be based on the assumption that there is a dominant, aux, tertiary, as that would be a mix of two different systems. Carl Jung himself did not actually say that functions should be arranged as FeSiNeTi.

The quote that you provided from his book actually refers to him saying that the functions cannot be paired as FeTe or FeTi or FiTe, whereby Feeling and Thinking as opposites cannot be first and second, similarly with S and N functions.

Here's his quote for a slightly fuller context:

But to conclude that section, he does say:

For all the types appearing in practice, the principle holds good that besides the conscious main function there is also a relatively unconscious, auxiliary function which is in every respect different from the nature of the main function. From these combinations well-known pictures arise, the practical intellect for instance paired with sensation, the speculative intellect breaking through with intuition, the artistic intuition which selects. and presents its images by means of feeling judgment, the philosophical intuition which, in league with a vigorous intellect, translates its vision into the sphere of comprehensible thought, and so forth.

A grouping of the unconscious functions also takes place in accordance with the relationship of the conscious functions. Thus, for instance, an unconscious intuitive feeling attitude may correspond with a conscious practical intellect, whereby the function of feeling suffers a relatively stronger inhibition than intuition.

Jung did not go into a great deal about a lot of what we now understand regarding typology. Those that studied under him, or were known as experts in the field of Jungian psychology coined many of those phrases. The first time I read about stacking was in John Beebe's 8- Model theory. I have no qualm on Dr. Beebe knowing that branch of psychology.

It wasn't my intent to derail the discussion by bringing up the loop theory. In fact I only referenced to the auxiliary section to state, the tertiary function does not have the stand alone power to create such a scenario with the dominant function which has complete sovereignty. My point is based actually on what Jung says at the beginning of the chapter when referring to extraversion and introversion. If that is what we first see in a child (regardless of connecting a function to it, then I surmise we can revert back to using extraversion/introversion using all functions related to the respective attitude.

See less See more

Reply

Save

Like

Michaeldavxx

Discussion Starter · #8 · 16 d ago

JonathanKieth said:
Hmm Te and Se seems to be your highest cognitive functions here. I think you're either TeSe or SeTe.

Heyhey, still curious to know what you meant by TeSe or SeTe here. Do you mind explaining?

Reply

Save

Like

JonathanKieth

· #9 · 16 d ago

Michaeldavxx said:
Heyhey, still curious to know what you meant by TeSe or SeTe here. Do you mind explaining?

Ah yes, woops, totally forgot about this. So, according to the common understanding of the cognitive functions, you can only form types using function stacks like EIEI or IEIE. It's called Grant's Function Stack, and it isn't based on anything evidential. So basically, it's arbitrary.

If we aren't tied to this limiting function stack, then function stacks like EEII and IIEE is possible, and hence allows for 32 types. That's the new school of thought that's been gaining traction recently, and it's a new approach to typology that's much more nuanced.

For me, it made much more sense, and it resolves the issue for people who can't seem to strongly relate to any of the 16 types. You can find out more about this from sites like Personality Ninja, and OPS.

Personality Ninja | Discover The Shadows Within

Embark on a journey of self-discovery with NXT personality types and unlock the secrets to personal growth. Take our free personality test and transform your life today!

www.personality.ninja

Terms | Objective Personality

www.objectivepersonalitysystem.com

Reply

Save

Like

Reactions: 1

Michaeldavxx

Discussion Starter · #10 · 16 d ago

JonathanKieth said:
Ah yes, woops, totally forgot about this. So, according to the common understanding of the cognitive functions, you can only form types using function stacks like EIEI or IEIE. It's called Grant's Function Stack, and it isn't based on anything evidential. So basically, it's arbitrary.

If we aren't tied to this limiting function stack, then function stacks like EEII and IIEE is possible, and hence allows for 32 types. That's the new school of thought that's been gaining traction recently, and it's a new approach to typology that's much more nuanced.

For me, it made much more sense, and it resolves the issue for people who can't seem to strongly relate to any of the 16 types. You can find out more about this from sites like Personality Ninja, and OPS.

Personality Ninja | Discover The Shadows Within

Embark on a journey of self-discovery with NXT personality types and unlock the secrets to personal growth. Take our free personality test and transform your life today!

www.personality.ninja

Terms | Objective Personality

www.objectivepersonalitysystem.com

Wow this is interesting!

I've never thought about why the functions are always stacked that way. But it's intriguing to come across these new functions stack.

Where can I read more about this theory?

Reply

Save

Like

Functianalyst

· #11 · 16 d ago (Edited)

Curious about the notion that one may have two functions with the same attitude at the dominant/auxiliary level. Is it being suggested that we are incapable of using functions in tandem or that we use one function at a time? The laws of physics must be considered here in being able to occupy the same space in time, in that we can't extravert/introvert two functions simultaneously.

On the other hand, am I understanding by implying being able to EEII or IIEE, and still assuming that we can extravert and introvert functions simultaneously, that a person may be able to use in tandem their dominant-tertiary, dominant-inferior, auxiliary-tertiary or auxiliary-inferior equally? In that case that person would not have one personality, but 4.

Reply

Save

Like

Reactions: 2

black_jester_3647

· #12 · 16 d ago

Functianalyst said:
Curious about the notion that one may have two functions with the same attitude at the dominant/auxiliary level. It either suggests we are incapable of using functions in tandem, or that we can only use one function at a time since the theory would violate the laws of physics in occupying the same space in time. I think to the contrary this would not increase the number of types, since it means we can only use one function at a time.

Going back to our references to Jung, even that section indicates the auxiliary has to be opposite of the dominant function in all respect, i.e. if one is a rational, the other must be irrational and if one is extraverted, the latter must be introverted. As I understand Myers-Briggs expounded on the notion that the two functions must oppose one another.

The information provided by the OP references more to how they are using their functions than a particular type. My pet response to taking test indicating function usage is if you take it again, you will get different results, take it later you get even more different results. That's because function-attitudes are not static, but fluid and circumstances dictate which are being utilized at the time of taking the test. JMHO.

Absolutely. The whole idea is that of balancing out.

Well understood and stated for all above.

Reply

Save

Like

Reactions: 1

JonathanKieth

· #13 · 14 d ago

Functianalyst said:
Curious about the notion that one may have two functions with the same attitude at the dominant/auxiliary level. Is it being suggested that we are incapable of using functions in tandem or that we use one function at a time? The laws of physics must be considered here in being able to occupy the same space in time, in that we can't extravert/introvert two functions simultaneously.

On the other hand, am I understanding by implying being able to EEII or IIEE, and still assuming that we can extravert and introvert functions simultaneously, that a person may be able to use in tandem their dominant-tertiary, dominant-inferior, auxiliary-tertiary or auxiliary-inferior equally? In that case that person would not have one personality, but 4.

I think that's the misconception here—that functions of the same attitude are unable to operate in tandem. I understand that Grant's Function Stack posits that functions must be arranged as EIEI or IEIE, but that's not really proven though, is it?

Let's look at it this way. Although definitions might differ from system to system, Te is generally defined as a function that focuses on making decisions through objective logic, while Si is generally defined as a function that focuses on subjective personal experiences. And yes, they can work in tandem.

But if Se is just defined as a function that focuses objective external experience, then why can't it work in tandem with Te too?

The point here being, there's no solid and substantial reasoning as to why functions of the same attitude cannot work hand in hand together, except for the laws of physics, which I don't think relates or justifies anything in the topic of personality.

See less See more

Reply

Save

Like

Reactions: 1

JonathanKieth

· #14 · 13 d ago

Michaeldavxx said:
Wow this is interesting!

I've never thought about why the functions are always stacked that way. But it's intriguing to come across these new functions stack.

Where can I read more about this theory?

Oh yeah, you can read more about the NXT theory here

Introduction | Overview | NXT Core | Personality Ninja

Embark on a journey of self-discovery with NXT personality types and unlock the secrets to personal growth. Take our free personality test and transform your life today!

www.personality.ninja

Reply

Save

Like

Reactions: 1

Functianalyst

· #15 · 10 d ago (Edited)

JonathanKieth said:
I think that's the misconception here—that functions of the same attitude are unable to operate in tandem. I understand that Grant's Function Stack posits that functions must be arranged as EIEI or IEIE, but that's not really proven though, is it?

Let's look at it this way. Although definitions might differ from system to system, Te is generally defined as a function that focuses on making decisions through objective logic, while Si is generally defined as a function that focuses on subjective personal experiences. And yes, they can work in tandem.

But if Se is just defined as a function that focuses objective external experience, then why can't it work in tandem with Te too?

The point here being, there's no solid and substantial reasoning as to why functions of the same attitude cannot work hand in hand together, except for the laws of physics, which I don't think relates or justifies anything in the topic of personality.

Ummm as indicated from his quote I posted in #7, I am pretty sure when Jung says, "For all the types appearing in practice, the principle holds good that besides the conscious main function there is also a relatively unconscious, auxiliary function which is in every respect different from the nature of the main function." , he is meaning not only does the auxiliary function have to be a perceiving one if the conscious or dominating function is a judging one and vice-versa, but it also has to have a different orientation. Are you reading that differently?

Reply

Save

Like

JonathanKieth

· #16 · 9 d ago

Functianalyst said:
Ummm as indicated from his quote I posted in #7, I am pretty sure when Jung says, "For all the types appearing in practice, the principle holds good that besides the conscious main function there is also a relatively unconscious, auxiliary function which is in every respect different from the nature of the main function." , he is meaning not only does the auxiliary function have to be a perceiving one if the conscious or dominating function is a judging one and vice-versa, but it also has to have a different orientation. Are you reading that differently?

That's an interesting point. However, Jung did not explicitly state that the functions had to be opposites in terms of introversion and extraversion; he only said that they were total opposites. Hence, I wouldn't definitely conclude that Jung intended exactly what you've mentioned, though I understand where you're coming from.

Reply

Save

Like

Functianalyst

· #17 · 9 d ago (Edited)

JonathanKieth said:
That's an interesting point. However, Jung did not explicitly state that the functions had to be opposites in terms of introversion and extraversion; he only said that they were total opposites. Hence, I wouldn't definitely conclude that Jung intended exactly what you've mentioned, though I understand where you're coming from.

But that is exactly what the phrase "in every respect" means...., totally, wholly, absolutely, alone, etc. He covers three subjects in the chapter, the orientation of the attitude (E/I), the functions (J/P) and the conscious/unconscious. Jung could have easily said, with exception to the orientation of the attitude, this is what I think. Instead he says "in every respect".

Jung also does not say that for all the types appearing in theory. Instead he says for all types appearing "in practice", which literally means "in reality". I agreed with you earlier that sometime he may imply something that the reader can interpret in different ways, but in this case he was quite explicit.

There is a page on the varied function order found on Wiki that covers most models. If there is a model out there that covers how the dominant and auxiliary can have the same orientation of attitude, I would be interested in reading about it.

See less See more

Reply

Save

Like

JonathanKieth

· #18 · 8 d ago

Functianalyst said:
But that is exactly what the phrase "in every respect" means...., totally, wholly, absolutely, alone, etc. He covers three subjects in the chapter, the orientation of the attitude (E/I), the functions (J/P) and the conscious/unconscious. Jung could have easily said, with exception to the orientation of the attitude, this is what I think. Instead he says "in every respect".

Jung also does not say that for all the types appearing in theory. Instead he says for all types appearing "in practice", which literally means "in reality". I agreed with you earlier that sometime he may imply something that the reader can interpret in different ways, but in this case he was quite explicit.

There is a page on the varied function order found on Wiki that covers most models. If there is a model out there that covers how the dominant and auxiliary can have the same orientation of attitude, I would be interested in reading about it.

Ah yes, that was the same belief I held at first. But after falling into the rabbit hole of this whole issue, I am convinced that Jung was misinterpreted.

In fact, Jung was mistranslated by the English version of Psychological Types. And one of these major mistranslations can be found within the passage you were referring to:

You can read more about it from this source:

https://polarityinstitute.com/mbti-jung-psychological-types/

Furthermore, I would like highlight the work of Reckful, who I think does a way better job than me at explaining this matter. It's worth the read:

Jung and the attitude of the auxiliary

I've posted before on Jung's perspective on the attitude of the auxiliary function, but I've been meaning to plant a more longform post on that subject for a while. The issue just got raised here and, rather than derail that thread, I thought it made more sense to reply in a new thread...

www.personalitycafe.com

See less See more

Reply

Save

Like

Functianalyst

· #19 · 8 d ago (Edited)

JonathanKieth said:
Ah yes, that was the same belief I held at first. But after falling into the rabbit hole of this whole issue, I am convinced that Jung was misinterpreted.

In fact, Jung was mistranslated by the English version of Psychological Types. And one of these major mistranslations can be found within the passage you were referring to:

You can read more about it from this source:

https://polarityinstitute.com/mbti-jung-psychological-types/

Furthermore, I would like highlight the work of Reckful, who I think does a way better job than me at explaining this matter. It's worth the read:

Jung and the attitude of the auxiliary

I've posted before on Jung's perspective on the attitude of the auxiliary function, but I've been meaning to plant a more longform post on that subject for a while. The issue just got raised here and, rather than derail that thread, I thought it made more sense to reply in a new thread...

www.personalitycafe.com

Thanks for the information. I only became aware last week when listening to an interview by John Beebe that it was Isabella Myers-Briggs who pointed out the statement in question. In only a way that Beebe could describe, he acknowledged that when Myers-Briggs brought this to the Jungian community’s attention, there was an uproar for the fact that a layman with not psychological credentials would notice something so obvious. Beebe says that nevertheless, the majority of the Jungian community started looking at cognitive functions in a different light and building their theories off of Myers-Briggs discovery.

That brings me to today, and what you are presenting. To make sure I understand what this person is alluding to, they are saying that the dominant function is not the only conscious function, and that the auxiliary function is also conscious? Didn’t need him to tell me something I discovered in my own self journey a decade before he wrote that post. My Se is as conscious as my Ti, but just not its equal.

Where I have a problem with this guy is claiming Jung to have said the dominant and auxiliary is different not opposite, not based on what Jung said but what he did not say. The author of the blog does not discount that Jung still uses the phrase “ different in every respect”. They seem to be saying that since Jung does not specifically use extravert/introvert in his instructions, then Myers-Briggs misinterpreted Jung.

As stated previously, Jung focused on three subjects in the whole chapter. This guy is arguing that if he meant to add the orientation of the attitude to the mix, then he would have stated it. Why would it be necessary to be redundant with the statement since Jung made it clear the functions are "different in every respect”? This person sounds as bad as Keirsey and Myers-Briggs in attempting to claim what Jung meant by pointing out what he did not need to say. What does “which is in every respect different from the nature of the main function" if not opposite?

I am no fan of Keirsey or Myers-Briggs' work. In fact reading "Please Understand Me II" and "Gifts Differing" frustrated me so, to where I decided to go straight to the source to understand the subject. Yes Jung's work takes patience and re-reading, but it was worth it. The author of the blog seems to be trying to make a name for himself on discrediting someone's work, but saying nothing of importance to change what Jung said.

See less See more

Reply

Save

Like

Reactions: 1

JonathanKieth

· #20 · 7 d ago

Functianalyst said:
Thanks for the information. I only became aware last week when listening to an interview by John Beebe that it was Isabella Myers-Briggs who pointed out the statement in question. In only a way that Beebe could describe, he acknowledged that when Myers-Briggs brought this to the Jungian community’s attention, there was an uproar for the fact that a layman with not psychological credentials would notice something so obvious. Beebe says that nevertheless, the majority of the Jungian community started looking at cognitive functions in a different light and building their theories off of Myers-Briggs discovery.

That brings me to today, and what you are presenting. To make sure I understand what this person is alluding to, they are saying that the dominant function is not the only conscious function, and that the auxiliary function is also conscious? Didn’t need him to tell me something I discovered in my own self journey a decade before he wrote that post. My Se is as conscious as my Ti, but just not its equal.

Where I have a problem with this guy is claiming Jung to have said the dominant and auxiliary is different not opposite, not based on what Jung said but what he did not say. The author of the blog does not discount that Jung still uses the phrase “ different in every respect”. They seem to be saying that since Jung does not specifically use extravert/introvert in his instructions, then Myers-Briggs misinterpreted Jung.

As stated previously, Jung focused on three subjects in the whole chapter. This guy is arguing that if he meant to add the orientation of the attitude to the mix, then he would have stated it. Why would it be necessary to be redundant with the statement since Jung made it clear the functions are "different in every respect”? This person sounds as bad as Keirsey and Myers-Briggs in attempting to claim what Jung meant by pointing out what he did not need to say. What does “which is in every respect different from the nature of the main function" if not opposite?

I am no fan of Keirsey or Myers-Briggs' work. In fact reading "Please Understand Me II" and "Gifts Differing" frustrated me so, to where I decided to go straight to the source to understand the subject. Yes Jung's work takes patience and re-reading, but it was worth it. The author of the blog seems to be trying to make a name for himself on discrediting someone's work, but saying nothing of importance to change what Jung said.

Well, I think at the end of the day, it's really just up to our personal interpretations on how "different" Jung meant the auxiliary function to be.

Let's use an analogy. Suppose a man said: "Car A is in every respect different than Car B ."

One could say that the man meant Car A is gas powered, while the other is electrical. Or one could also say that, because of the statement "in every respect different", that would mean Car A has wheels, is black, drives forward; while Car B has no wheels, is white, and drives backwards.

Based on this analogy, we can see that the word "different" can mean very distinct things, based on where the interpreter draws the line.

So, if Jung's original text states:
"...besides the conscious main function there is also a relatively conscious, auxiliary function which is in every respect different from the nature of the main function."

Then shouldn't the auxiliary function be unconscious too if it's in EVERY respect different? Yet, we know that's not the case...

Therefore, I think this final interpretation is hard to prove for both of our sides, because it's a matter of how we interpret what "in every respect" means.

That's why I feel that observational evidence is more important. And since discovering this possibility, I have noticed that IIEE/EEII is not only possible, but evidential in a lot of my observations.

Of course, it's my own observations, and for all I know I could be wrong. Nevertheless, I am happy to have found the answer as to why so many individuals feel mistyped... because they were simply unaware of the possible existence of 32 types.

See less See more

Reply

Save

Like

Top Contributors this Month