i just took the test(s) recently. i took it twice for the past week and one resulted to INFJ the other is INTJ. and i don't want to take another test lol. has anyone relate to mine? part of me says i'm a INFJ but upon reading both, i felt like i'm in between. i think environment and upbringing also play a big role on each personality. i don't want to think i have split personality HAHAHAHA
[INFJ] not sure what my mbti really is.
- Thread starter Bellosome
- Start date
In theory it should be very easy to distinguish which of the two your personality falls under, as although the letters are one-letter apart, the functions differ significantly enough for there to be noticeable differences. It's very hard to say anything without knowing you though!
Here's one link: http://www.infj.com/INFJorINTJ.htm
On having Fe (INFJ trait) or Fi (INTJ trait): http://personalitycafe.com/articles/63173-fi-vs-fe-101-a.html
This is a pretty good link, on Te (INTJ trait) and Ti (INFJ trait):http://personalitycafe.com/cognitiv...-vs-ti-real-life-example-how-they-differ.html
Reading up on the functions can help you to figure out which of the two fits you better.
Here's one link: http://www.infj.com/INFJorINTJ.htm
On having Fe (INFJ trait) or Fi (INTJ trait): http://personalitycafe.com/articles/63173-fi-vs-fe-101-a.html
This is a pretty good link, on Te (INTJ trait) and Ti (INFJ trait):http://personalitycafe.com/cognitiv...-vs-ti-real-life-example-how-they-differ.html
Reading up on the functions can help you to figure out which of the two fits you better.
[MENTION=14825]bellisima[/MENTION]: there are a lot of things I wish people who are reasonably unbiased told me when I first started learning this stuff.
Here's some of those things:
- the MBTI test is constructed using similar methods to the Big Five dimensional theory of personality. In this view, it's totally reasonable to suggest someone is more an X than a F or a T, meaning they are more in between than one or the other.
- The functions theory is very different from the dimensional model (that is, the model the actual test is based on). People very frequently find a very low correspondence between the test and any kind of functions model,despite the apparent translations like INTJ=NiTe, ISTP = TiSe and so on.
- as far as achieving consensus, the MBTI test is a lot more empirical than any functions theory; the Big Five is the most widely recognized personality theory in academic psychology, and impressively, the MBTI dimensions line up well with it.
- People rarely realize how much the functions theories out there have conflicting models, because they just hear of the MBTI and think the model most popularly associated to it is somehow objective or with some kind of consensus. E.g. in Jung's theory, it is perfectly valid to have a stacking like NiTiFeSe, whereas in the model pioneered by Harold Grant, the only acceptable NiT type is a NiTeFi type. Other prominent theories -- Myers started off believing in either agnosticism on the attitude of the tertiary or even possibly claiming it the same as the aux (i.e. either NiTeF or NiTeFe!!). Socionics claims people's conscious functioning is all in the static or dynamic attitude, and their interpretation of some version of Grant's stacking is to say said stacking constitutes the valued information, not necessarily the conscious information; Beebe suggests that the opposing attitudes to the 4 Grant function-attitudes in a type constitute the shadow (in contradiction to Jung's view that the inferior 2 or 1 functions constitute the shadow region of one's function-type). Singer and Loomis, 2 Jungian analysts, decided to operationalize Jung's function-attitudes in a test, where they didn't find any established pattern of identification with the function-attitudes. More or less there's nothing incredibly objective about one functions-theoretic model over the other, and it seems it's one's matter of philosophical taste which appeals better.
I recommend treating functions theories as experimental ideas which you can gain insight from with a flexible view, but not as things you should use in the same conclusive spirit you can use the more soundly empirically validated theories (although among those, some do some things better and others do other things better, naturally).
I have often found functions theories more conceptually enlightening than good for realistic practical typing.
Still, I've formed my best-estimate of my own type in my preferred interpretation of functions theories (ILE is socionics notation for NeTi--although I like the structure of the socionics model, I object to a LOT of socionics, so I kind of just use the notation ... realistically my views are more or less my own). But I don't claim it with any kind of rigidity, only that it is my favorite description of myself using functions theoretic ideas.
If any of this is confusing, I am more than happy to discuss it at length.
Here's some of those things:
- the MBTI test is constructed using similar methods to the Big Five dimensional theory of personality. In this view, it's totally reasonable to suggest someone is more an X than a F or a T, meaning they are more in between than one or the other.
- The functions theory is very different from the dimensional model (that is, the model the actual test is based on). People very frequently find a very low correspondence between the test and any kind of functions model,despite the apparent translations like INTJ=NiTe, ISTP = TiSe and so on.
- as far as achieving consensus, the MBTI test is a lot more empirical than any functions theory; the Big Five is the most widely recognized personality theory in academic psychology, and impressively, the MBTI dimensions line up well with it.
- People rarely realize how much the functions theories out there have conflicting models, because they just hear of the MBTI and think the model most popularly associated to it is somehow objective or with some kind of consensus. E.g. in Jung's theory, it is perfectly valid to have a stacking like NiTiFeSe, whereas in the model pioneered by Harold Grant, the only acceptable NiT type is a NiTeFi type. Other prominent theories -- Myers started off believing in either agnosticism on the attitude of the tertiary or even possibly claiming it the same as the aux (i.e. either NiTeF or NiTeFe!!). Socionics claims people's conscious functioning is all in the static or dynamic attitude, and their interpretation of some version of Grant's stacking is to say said stacking constitutes the valued information, not necessarily the conscious information; Beebe suggests that the opposing attitudes to the 4 Grant function-attitudes in a type constitute the shadow (in contradiction to Jung's view that the inferior 2 or 1 functions constitute the shadow region of one's function-type). Singer and Loomis, 2 Jungian analysts, decided to operationalize Jung's function-attitudes in a test, where they didn't find any established pattern of identification with the function-attitudes. More or less there's nothing incredibly objective about one functions-theoretic model over the other, and it seems it's one's matter of philosophical taste which appeals better.
I recommend treating functions theories as experimental ideas which you can gain insight from with a flexible view, but not as things you should use in the same conclusive spirit you can use the more soundly empirically validated theories (although among those, some do some things better and others do other things better, naturally).
I have often found functions theories more conceptually enlightening than good for realistic practical typing.
Still, I've formed my best-estimate of my own type in my preferred interpretation of functions theories (ILE is socionics notation for NeTi--although I like the structure of the socionics model, I object to a LOT of socionics, so I kind of just use the notation ... realistically my views are more or less my own). But I don't claim it with any kind of rigidity, only that it is my favorite description of myself using functions theoretic ideas.
If any of this is confusing, I am more than happy to discuss it at length.
Last edited:
The general way we should view "types" is as cases where people are differentiated (have pronounced preferences) on the more continuously varying scales.
On top of that, some scale-combinations are ultimately more philosophically interesting than others. I think that's basically what's going on when people select some kind of model of choice and say people fall into one such category: the claim is that, beyond certain variables being descriptive of human personality, in addition, certain special combinations are frequently how one is led to define oneself.
I believe the most advanced understanding of psychological type inevitably considers both approaches (some more empirical and some less), but leans to the former when it comes to direct description of real people (as opposed to the theoretically aesthetically satisfying combinations that are very symmetric, eg function-attitudes in an alternating order like e/i/e/i).
On top of that, some scale-combinations are ultimately more philosophically interesting than others. I think that's basically what's going on when people select some kind of model of choice and say people fall into one such category: the claim is that, beyond certain variables being descriptive of human personality, in addition, certain special combinations are frequently how one is led to define oneself.
I believe the most advanced understanding of psychological type inevitably considers both approaches (some more empirical and some less), but leans to the former when it comes to direct description of real people (as opposed to the theoretically aesthetically satisfying combinations that are very symmetric, eg function-attitudes in an alternating order like e/i/e/i).