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

JonathanKieth

· #6 · 5 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

JonathanKieth

· #9 · 5 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

JonathanKieth

· #13 · 2 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.

Reply

Save

Like

Reactions: 1

JonathanKieth

· #14 · 2 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

Top Contributors this Month