Tell me my Type

It can be helpful to take a peek at your cognitive functions, although of course online test results should be taken with a grain of salt.

http://www.keys2cognition.com/explore.htm

(For the fields at the bottom like "Your ID" you can enter anything)

I do definitely get some pretty strong Fe vibes, just IMO.
 
hush said:
It can be helpful to take a peek at your cognitive functions, although of course online test results should be taken with a grain of salt.

http://www.keys2cognition.com/explore.htm

(For the fields at the bottom like "Your ID" you can enter anything)

I do definitely get some pretty strong Fe vibes, just IMO.
Click to expand...

I've poked around in there a couple times. If I remember correctly, I scored highest on Fe and then Ni, but it still said INFj

I'll take it again :)
 
64j9du.jpg
 
CindyLou said:
Yes I have. :) The description of the ISFJ can fit me for sure but I'm definitely not Si dominant, so I can't be ISFJ.

Just using functions I think it's either INFJ or ENFj. If I read type descriptions I could be ISFJ, INFP, or INTP.
Click to expand...
ENFj as in socionics? If so, that would be ENFP with mbti. Does that fit at all?
 
For what it's worth, I strongly recommend separating your investigation of functions-theoretic typologies and ones that are more empiricism-oriented (like the Big 5).

A good example of why this might be is that, while you *could* argue the attitudes of dom and aux should be reversed to provide balance between the subjective and objective factors in cognition -- although orthodox Jungian typology has them in the same attitude, eg Nietzsche Chapter 3 Psychological Types is shown to be Ni+Ti, it seems like the I/E dimension that corresponds to what's measured by the Big 5 is hardly this way (you don't need much balance between the I and E sides).
But more to the point, they're simply different systems on closer inspection. So, assuming you're deciding say, between NiFe and FeNi, I'd just make that a pretty independent consideration....e.g. I know I would test as an introvert in normal tests, probably something like INTP.

With regards to functions tests: when tested in that format, one really can't expect the orders of the function-attitudes to be anything particular; in my experience (or by the data -- the Jungian analysts Singer and Loomis actually built a test, and it confirms this), to get at one's axis eg Fe-Ti or Ne-Si, one actually has to construct in one's mind a new variable called, say, Ne-Si (rather than treating Ne and Si as two separate variables.).

Part of the reason for this is that the very idea that, say, someone is Ne-dom/Si-inferior is a philosophical one: Si-inferior does not mean you "use Si and don't use Se" in any straightforward way -- it's more like Si is relegated to the unconscious/compensatory to Ne (so you'd detect it indirectly in the philosophy of ego-consciousness always ending up played up against an Si attitude to define itself against), so somehow, there's no real sense you can empirically test for "using Si" independent of Ne to establish Ne-dom/Si-inf -- you have to examine Ne-Si as a variable of its own right. Same for Fe-Ti, Fi-Te, etc.
Basically, make a function axis a variable rather than making the function the variable.

I can't see your post history, or I'd go find previous type-me's to see if there's anything that points me one direction, so I'm just rambling these points of theoretical concern, as I've found they're at the heart of what is unclear about the systems.
 
charlatan said:
For what it's worth, I strongly recommend separating your investigation of functions-theoretic typologies and ones that are more empiricism-oriented (like the Big 5).

A good example of why this might be is that, while you *could* argue the attitudes of dom and aux should be reversed to provide balance between the subjective and objective factors in cognition -- although orthodox Jungian typology has them in the same attitude, eg Nietzsche Chapter 3 Psychological Types is shown to be Ni+Ti, it seems like the I/E dimension that corresponds to what's measured by the Big 5 is hardly this way (you don't need much balance between the I and E sides).
But more to the point, they're simply different systems on closer inspection. So, assuming you're deciding say, between NiFe and FeNi, I'd just make that a pretty independent consideration....e.g. I know I would test as an introvert in normal tests, probably something like INTP.

With regards to functions tests: when tested in that format, one really can't expect the orders of the function-attitudes to be anything particular; in my experience (or by the data -- the Jungian analysts Singer and Loomis actually built a test, and it confirms this), to get at one's axis eg Fe-Ti or Ne-Si, one actually has to construct in one's mind a new variable called, say, Ne-Si (rather than treating Ne and Si as two separate variables.).

Part of the reason for this is that the very idea that, say, someone is Ne-dom/Si-inferior is a philosophical one: Si-inferior does not mean you "use Si and don't use Se" in any straightforward way -- it's more like Si is relegated to the unconscious/compensatory to Ne (so you'd detect it indirectly in the philosophy of ego-consciousness always ending up played up against an Si attitude to define itself against), so somehow, there's no real sense you can empirically test for "using Si" independent of Ne to establish Ne-dom/Si-inf -- you have to examine Ne-Si as a variable of its own right. Same for Fe-Ti, Fi-Te, etc.
Basically, make a function axis a variable rather than making the function the variable.

I can't see your post history, or I'd go find previous type-me's to see if there's anything that points me one direction, so I'm just rambling these points of theoretical concern, as I've found they're at the heart of what is unclear about the systems.
Click to expand...

I for one...could not agree more :)
 
Fwiw Only I's switch in socionics/mbti--ENFj is still ENFJ/FeNi, vs INTp is NiTe ~ INTJ

My understanding is a combo of Jung, socionics, Myers + my own ideas, but I like the structure of socionics' model best, even if I don't use all of the rest of it.

The strongest difference between the systems seems to be that socionics' i/e is not quite the same; it seems to be less psychological and more information processing. Jung's i/e had to do with psychological orientation to the inner/outer life, whereas I get the sense socionics works in terms of relations/objects, which is certainly related to what Jung was saying (e.g. one could say the external world contributes objects, whereas the mind imposes relations, such as causality, on those objects...and a skeptic such as Hume would say those relations are artificial to some degree)....

So the difference between Fe/Fi won't quite be that Fe~considering the group's/others'/collective feelings over personal ones.
 
Last edited:
Maybe you could write how you relate personally to Fe/Ni both, if you feel inclined! Analyze yourself out loud and others could join in/comment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top