Spooky Season Enthusiast

Rin | About | Jungian typology

[rin-entropy]

Can I be 7w6 as an ENTP? I’m neurotic enough to worry about my dumb spontaneous decisions, but not cautious enough to let the potential for consequences actually deter me from making those dumb choices.

Type 7 is one of the most outgoing (alongside with type 3 and 8), so 7w6 is perfectly fine for a well-typed ENTP.

[contentgreenearth]

ANNOUNCEMENT: WHY I NO LONGER USE, AND WILL NEVER AGAIN USE, MBTI LETTER CLUSTER BEHAVIORS IN MY TYPINGS

Another thing that I noticed a lot of Jungian typologists using, that really screws up typings big time, are the MBTI letter cluster behaviors.

These are behaviors that are assigned to various MBTI letters clustered together. The idea to do this arose from Briggs and Myers, as they assign behaviors to ST, SF, NT and NF.

As I mentioned in the book review of Gifts Differing, the way that Briggs and Myers assigned behaviors to the letter clusters was by combining the total of all 4 types that had the same middle letters into one tally, not mentioning, for example, that the SFs who made up 61% of sales professionals, 44% of nurses and 42% of educators were almost entirely ESFJs 😯.

People who work with the Strong Type Indicator (a system that combines the MBTI and the Holland Career Inventory) says that SFs are going to score highest in the S (Social) career cluster, which is where nurses, teachers and sales professionals are all located. Well, from my own personal experience, and seeing what people who are typed correctly get for Holland Career Inventory results, I can tell you that yes, ESFJs do, in fact score highest in S. However, ISFJs tend to score higher in the C (conventional) career cluster, with positions like secretary, accountant, etc., than they do in the S career cluster. ESFPs and ISFPs on the other hand, often score low, or even *lowest* in the S(social) career cluster, because as S1s, they are more interested in physical work than mental work, so they tend to prefer the active career clusters of R (realistic) examples: skilled trades, culinary, transportation; A (artistic) self explanatory; and C (conventional) over the more passive career clusters of I (investigative) examples: scientist, doctor; E (enterprising) examples: management, marketing and S (social).

So anyway some people say that it was Briggs and Myers who also associated behaviors with the other letter clusters as well, doing like they did before, lumping all 4 types with the same series of letters together, even though the behavior associated came overwhelmingly from only 1 of the 4 types. And some say that Harold Grant did this. But whether Briggs and Myers did it, or Grant did it, it makes no difference. It was done. And it created one of the most inaccurate typing systems out there today, Type Dynamics.

In Type Dynamics, Grant takes 8 of these letter clusters, and calls them "functions". He calls the following letter cluster behaviors these "functions". He calls SP "Se", he calls SJ "Si", he calls NP "Ne", he calls NJ "Ni", he calls TJ "Te", he calls TP "Ti", he calls FJ "Fe", and he calls FP "Fi".

Disclaimer: a lot of people get confused by Grant's functions, because they think that they are the same as the functions Jung talks about in Psychological Types. To clear this up, they are *not* the same. I can write another blog post about that on a later date, but for now, know they are *not* the same.

Anyway, the point of this is, there's lots of MBTI purists and Jungian typologists out there who believe it's okay to use the MBTI letter cluster behaviors in typings, as long as you don't call them "functions". However, I've seen it leading to typings of all practical people as TPs, all compassionate people as SFs, all people who like to solve and create "brain teasers" as NPs, etc. I'd hate to say it, but that's causing a lot of mistypes, folks.

I quit using the letter cluster behaviors in typings about 6 months ago, because I realized that *the letter cluster behaviors are essentially the same thing as the Grant stack*. You will see I used them as confirmations in some of my early typings, such as the one I did on LiJo. But I have since ceased.

So yeah, I'd hate to tell those above mentioned MBTI purists and Jungian typologists, but if you're using the MBTI letter cluster behaviors in typings, you're using the very same Grant stack that you're speaking out against. You're just calling it by a different name. The MBTI letter cluster behaviors are the "functions" of the Grant stack, and the fact that you're not calling them "functions" like Grant did, doesn't change that. And gee, you see how accurate *NOT* Grant's Type Dynamics typing system is. So why are you using it in your typings, under a different name? Good question. Food for thought 🤔

Anyway, in summary, that's why I quit using the MBTI letter cluster behaviors in typings, and will never use them in typings ever again.

Off the soapbox. Rant over. Now back to our regularly scheduled program 😆😂🤣 Sorry, I just had to throw that last sentence in there 😅

[rin-entropy]

Agreed. I’ve come to the same conclusion recently. 

[contentgreenearth]

JUNGIAN TYPOLOGY POST #7: HOW JUNG DEFINED Se

This was really bothering me, and something I had to post as a result of Kristin's off-the-wall descriptions of Se in her videos. It makes me feel the need to talk about what Se is and isn't, so here we go:

THINGS Se IS NOT:

1. Spontaneous-sorry folks, that's Fe

2. Liking change and variety-that's also Fe

3. Fun-loving- and that's also Fe

If you don't believe me, look at the Fe adjectives on the Trent-Smalley paper test here:

DISC doesn't define the perceiving functions (although it has a sneaky built in way of measuring them). However, it definitely defines the judging functions, as those are used to place a person in a quadrant. And notice how all 3 of those things I said Se is not are in the "Otter" column of this Trent/Smalley DISC assessment (Otter = Influence = Conscious Jung Fe)

4. Doing things without thinking of the consequences-Sorry, folks to inform you, but that's actually a trait of people with conscious Te, and a weakness of the Briggs Myers ET types, and the Dominance quadrant of DISC

5. Doesn't care about doing the "right" thing/ "the end justifies the means" (how Kiersey defines pragmatism)- again, these characteristics are actually traits of conscious Te. And just like Se is not pragmatic by Kiersey's definition, sorry, Kiersey, not all artisans (SPs) are pragmatic. Only ESTP is pragmatic, and possibly sometimes ISFP. The other artisans have undifferentiated Te, and are what you call "affiliative"

THINGS JUNG SAYS Se IS:

1. Object oriented. Gee, if you ever wonder why I say sensation is object focused, look no further than Jung's Psychological Types Chapter 10. The very first sentence in the sensation bullet says "sensation is conditioned by the object ". Jung then goes on to say that a sensor forms a bond with the object, and stores up experiences with the object. He goes on to say that extroverted sensors live life to the full by enjoying the bonds they form with objects. And needless to say, in my summer 2021 typing experiments, I found all the extroverted sensors who were Se1 got the most enjoyment out of life and felt fulfilled when they were "playing with their toys" as I like to call it.

2. Realistic. Jung says that "no one can beat [Se1] in realism", as his first sentence in the extraverted sensation bullet. Therefore, one would expect an ESP to be highly realistic, and talking about tangible things. Granted, ESJs' conversations are going to be more dictated by either a task or people focus, but there would still be a clear secondary focus on realism and tangible objects

3. Objective. The very next sentence, Jung says that "[a person with Se1] is going to have an experience with an object, and see all the objective facts". So in other words, people with Se1 are evaluating objects, and their relationships and experiences with them from an objective viewpoint.

4. Rational. I can't remember exactly what Jung said about Se being rational. It was a few paragraphs in, in his "extraverted sensation" bullet. But yes, this was an adjective he used to describe Se

Well, that's all folks, and hopefully this clears up some big misconceptions about what Se is, and is not

[akhromant]

MBTI LIST 22: RELEVANCY, CONCRETENESS, DETACHMENT, COMMITMENT

This is a companion list to MBTI List 16. The terms are intended as the opposite of Timelessness, Abstraction, Romance and Freedom, and the list tries to say what is it that each type does right within those options. I’m not going to make another set of posts explaining what this is about, mostly because the original ones can already be read more or less like that, using these alternate titles:

✸ Ps Do Commitment Wrong. Js Do Commitment Right. ✸ Fs Do Detachment Wrong. Ts Do Detachment Right. ✸ Ns Do Concreteness Wrong. Ss Do Concreteness Right. ✸ Is Do Relevancy Wrong. Es Do Relevancy Right.

In both lists the pairs can be used to check what each type lacks, for example INTJ’s “detached commitment” is many times not relevant to the situation, and too abstract. And finally, both lists can be combined in one, for example ESTP: Relevant Concrete Detached Freedom, ISFJ: Timeless Concrete Romantic Commitment, etc.

ENFP (Ne-Fe-Ti-Si): Relevancy. ISTJ (Ti-Si-Ne-Fe): Concrete Detached Commitment.

ESFP (Se-Fe-Ti-Ni): Relevant Concreteness. INTJ (Ti-Ni-Se-Fe): Detached Commitment.

ENTP (Ne-Te-Fi-Si): Relevant Detachment. ISFJ (Fi-Si-Ne-Te): Concrete Commitment.

ESTP (Se-Te-Fi-Ni): Relevant Concrete Detachment. INFJ (Fi-Ni-Se-Te): Commitment.

ENFJ (Fe-Ne-Si-Ti): Relevant Commitment. ISTP (Si-Ti-Fe-Ne): Concrete Detachment.

ENTJ (Te-Ne-Si-Fi): Relevant Detached Commitment. ISFP (Si-Fi-Te-Ne): Concreteness.

ESFJ (Fe-Se-Ni-Ti): Relevant Concrete Commitment. INTP (Ni-Ti-Fe-Se): Detachment.

ESTJ (Te-Se-Ni-Fi): Relevant Concrete Detached Commitment. INFP (Ni-Fi-Te-Se): Everything else.

[akhromant]

MBTI LIST 10: ACCEPTABLE MBTI-DiSC CORRELATION

✸ ESTJ, ENTJ, ESTP, ENTP → Dominance ET = Conscious Te = Practical Intelligence Accomplishing results / The bottom line / Confidence Direct / Strong-willed / Forceful Sees the big picture / Can be blunt Accepts challenges / Gets straight to the point

✸ ESFJ, ENFJ, ESFP, ENFP → Influence EF = Conscious Fe = Social Intelligence Influencing or persuading others / Openness / Relationships Sociable / Talkative / Lively Shows enthusiasm / Is optimistic Likes to collaborate / Dislikes being ignored

✸ ISFJ, INFJ, ISFP, INFP → Steadiness IF = Conscious Fi = Inner Intelligence Cooperation / Sincerity / Dependability Gentle / Accommodating / Soft-hearted Doesn’t like to be rushed / Calm manner Calm approach / Supportive actions

✸ ISTJ, INTJ, ISTP, INTP → Conscientiousness IT = Conscious Ti = Critical Intelligence Quality and accuracy / Expertise / Competency Private / Analytical / Logical Enjoys independence / Objective reasoning Wants the details / Fears being wrong

[akhromant]

TYPING HELP WITH COGNITIVE FUNCTIONS

In this post I’ll try to give some indications to check and complement an analysis of the 4 letter dichotomies with one of the functions. If you’re trying to type yourself or someone else, make sure to read about the dichotomies first, and get a fairly conclusive result before starting with the Functions and then continuing here. You have an ordered list of recommended links in the FAQ.

There are 4 main sections or steps: 1) read, examine and get a result with the letters, 2) read, examine, and think about the functions, 3) place them following the diagram of your type, and 4) check the descriptions of the locations (and anything else) to see if everything fits. If there are problems you might need to reexamine your typing.

1. LETTERS

The letters and the functions are different levels of analysis. Both are important sources of information, and both need to fit. If you don’t pay attention to the dichotomies you are simply not typing people. These are some fundamental posts: post #14, post #20, post #69, post #84, MBTI Lists, MBTI Tables.

There are “typologists” out there who actually think things like “there is no such thing as SP or TJ”, for example, and that clearly means they just don’t know what they are talking about. The 4 letters are not random nicknames for collections of functions. They mean something very important. SP means dominant sensation (Se1 or Si1), TJ means dominant thinking (Te1 or Ti1), EF means conscious Fe, etc. So there are definitely things in common among those people than can be described with SP, TJ, EF, etc, adding another angle on top of the functions. Also, for those who think that the letters are “too black and white”, remember that there’s a granularity for each pair that’s reflected in the MBTI facets, so you can be 3/5 E, 4/5 S, etc. That is: the dichotomy is the spectrum, and the spectrum is the dichotomy. It’s the same thing.

If you know what you’re doing, sometimes you can type with the letters alone, and skip the functions. Doing it the other way around is less reliable because the definitions of the functions have been distorted for many years now, thanks to the nonexistent eiei/ieie order and all those “new systems” that keep coming up with new ways of misunderstanding them (Socionics included). The best solution is to check both things, and also the temperaments and any other correlation that you may find in this blog.

2. FUNCTIONS

The two most important posts to keep in mind are post #24 and post #87. What you’ll find here includes a combination of those two and bits of others that I’ll link later, but it’s better if you read them all entirely.

The functions are very difficult to describe, and attempts at simplifying them are prone to misinterpretations. It doesn’t matter if they seem “easy enough” at first sight, because they aren’t. Anybody can read 8 words and think they just got everything right in 20 seconds. But it’s not that simple. You have to understand what those words mean here, because they can have lots of meanings, and many people use them with different ones, and assume everybody else does the same. What’s in this post alone is not enough. You need to read at least point 5.3 in post #17 (an example of what the functions are not) and then everything in post #87, but I’d recommend spending some time in the Functions section in general, and then coming back here.

You can’t explain the functions to someone “like [s]he’s 5”, simply because a 5-year-old can’t understand them. That’s just how it is. This is the kind of concept that requires a minimum of life experience and insight to be understood. Many people who feel confident in their knowledge of these terms are completely off, and very likely mistyping everybody. So please, as always, be careful with all this. Don’t rush it.

2.1. WHAT THE FUNCTIONS ARE NOT

This is something that needs to be clear from the beginning. Many times it can be more helpful than anything about what they are. I’m not going to repeat what I wrote in post #15 and post #17. You have to read them and then come back. I’ll talk about some things that I’ve noticed lately.

If you are angry, organized or productive doesn’t mean you have Te. If you worry about other people and want to help them doesn’t mean you have Fe. If you are happy and enjoy doing things with others doesn’t mean you have Se. If you have a lot of things in your mind and can’t attend to everything doesn’t mean you have Ne. If you like learning things and/or feel you are “overthinking” all the time doesn’t mean you have Ti. If you are sad, “depressed”, tense or “emotional” doesn’t mean you have Fi. If you are nostalgic or think often about the past doesn’t mean you have Si. If you have ideas and/or plans for the future doesn’t mean you have Ni.

Everybody can be angry, worried, happy, overworked, overthinking, sad, nostalgic and hopeful. Those examples above include several widespread misconceptions and many instances of psychological state being mistaken for “psychological type”. Everybody can go through all kinds of psychological and emotional conditions, sometimes for a few seconds, sometimes for much longer. Everybody can have lots of interests, friends and memories.

The functions are not curses, stigmas, problems, weaknesses or flaws, either. Having a function doesn’t make you “worse” in any sense. People need to stop making this kind of meaningless comparisons and hierarchies.

2.2. SUMMARY OF THE FUNCTIONS

The functions are essentially different layers of reality, and some people can see some of them more clearly. Important reference posts: post #17, post #31, post #39, post #87 (← required reading), post #118 and post #137.

The following list includes in the first line the essence of each function, a name and an adjective to describe its contents in a very general way, and then a place that could symbolize it (mostly through what happens in it). The interesting part is in the contrast between them, what appears in their relationships. The second line has keywords related to the function and includes some ideas that don’t refer to the function itself, but to its possible manifestations, especially as dominant (X1).

Te = external difference | formulas | determined | factory What is said/done, action, fact, objective data, production, text, rule, justice, imitative, materialistic.

Ti = internal difference | concepts | identified | library What you think/know, idea, [self-]identity, intellect, questions, theories, inner structure, scrupulosity.

Fe = external concordance | agreements | shared | theatre What/how is shared/expressed, recognition, declaration, display, social, fashion, suitability, hysteria.

Fi = internal concordance | values | good | home What/how you like/want, responsibility, hidden desire, taste, self-admiration, coldness, indifference.

Se = external presence | realities | present | restaurant What is there, physical world, concrete, details, conscious, realism, fresh, enjoyment, style.

Si = internal presence | experiences | useful | garden What you perceive, inner sensations, pain/pleasure, eating, health, sleep, dreams, images, resources.

Ne = external absence | possibilities | possible | market How things [can] change, options, potential, expectancy, newness, escape, creative, enthusiasm.

Ni = internal absence | meanings | true | sanctum How you [can] change, inner transformation, unconscious, inaccessible essence, archetypes.

Try to picture the functions forming 4 spheres or dimensions of reality, with the usual pairs as extremes or poles: Te–Fi, Fe–Ti, Se–Ni, and Ne–Si. See how they imply each other, how identity is at the other end of expression, for example, and how attending closely to one means that you can’t attend so well to the other. You can do the same with determined–good, market–garden, etc. Now you have to place those 4 spheres occupying the 8 function locations: {X1—X4}, {X2-X3}, {G1—G4} and {G2-G3}, following one of the 16 diagrams and the guidelines below.

3. DIAGRAMS

These diagrams are the 16 specific variants of the general one in post #24, made with the colors of post #27. Like I said in #24 (another post that you should read if you haven’t yet), the layout is just an abstraction of an average state. The functions are not perfectly distinct circles floating around like bubbles, this is only an approximate reference to talk about them. I hope that’s clear. Conscious functions are those on the left half (black text for extraverts, white for introverts), and the unconscious ones are on the right half (text color inverted). The 4 proper functions of each type are above, and the 4 ghosts are below (G1 is “behind” X4). Dominant functions are bigger, auxiliaries are smaller. The color/light of the dominants extends to their corresponding auxiliaries to denote their particular interrelation, the way the auxiliary is derived from, depends on and follows the dominant (serving or magnifying it). This can be seen quite clearly in X1>X2, X4>X3 and G4>G3. G1>G2 can be harder to see because G1 is eclipsed by X4, so there’s only its reflection on the right upper side of G2. The colors of ghost functions are slightly faded to indicate their unreal quality.

This isn’t very important, but the reflected colors show also how the auxiliaries are never perfectly “shared” between types, only dominants are. For example: both ETPs have Te2, but ESTP’s has a touch of white and ENTP’s a yellow one. (It’s just a curiosity because in reality all functions crystallize differently in each individual, so not even the dominants are really “shared” with anyone).

4. LOCATIONS

This image is a summary of the general characteristics that go from one extreme to the other along the conscious-unconscious line. Those of the unconscious (right column) are essentially synonymous with the effects of the separation between each proper function and its ghost. As their number grows, each X appears more difficult to grasp for our conscious mind because we start getting two increasingly disparate views of the same thing (X2/G2, G3/X3, G4/X4). The concept of time comes out of this perceived difference (more on this below).

The memory-forgetfulness line includes the fact that the more unconscious a function is, the more often we [have to] rediscover it. X2 is found and stays with us, so we can see how it changes (if it does). X3 and especially X4 are more easily forgotten (“lost”) and they seem to change on their own, X3 sometimes, but X4 basically always, continually.

Another effect of the unconscious is an increased chance/range of projection (this is related to the availability-inaccessibility line). The more a function is unconscious, the more we might look for it and/or expect it to be in another person, place, object, etc. Sometimes we know it’s part of us but we would prefer or we simply act as if it came from someone or somewhere else, not only to save us the associated trouble but also because of our insecurities regarding those functions. That’s why introverts might take/use some external components (Te, Fe, Se or Ne) just as they are, and extraverts might do the same with internal ones (Ti, Fi, Si or Ni).

In the next sections I’m going to include a series of keywords for every proper function location, expanding on the global description above. You’ll see they are quite varied, and sometimes apparently contradictory, but that’s because they refer to different angles of interpretation, different possibilities (for example the two directions of X↔G transference), different stages or states in the individual psychology of the person, etc. You can combine those keywords with the function ones and see what comes up. (For example, for Ti1: created + theories, for Fe2: consecutive + agreements, etc).

I’ll also write something about the X-G [dis]connection in each location. The general idea is this (remember that X=proper and G=ghost):

✸ When the X is conscious, the greater, better, faster or more intense that function goes, the lesser, worse, slower or less intense its corresponding G becomes. This is the classic compensatory effect of the unconscious, of course, and even though it’s more severe in X1-G1, it’s often easier too see between X2-G2 because G1 is entirely unconscious and the auxiliaries aren’t. The result is somehow surprising but actually logical: we don’t really mind the X1//G1 separation because it’s a given, but we notice and [might] care about it between X2//G2 because that ghostly auxiliary is closer to consciousness.

✸ When the X is unconscious things get complicated, and the ghosts can make it hard for us to focus on the Xs. That’s partly because it implies spending more energy in order to attend to what’s true for us, and probably expose ourselves to certain (apparent) inconveniences (like the very fact that our actual standpoint is X3 and not G3, for example, which demands a sort of courage). As I said in post #131, the point is not to deny the ghosts entirely, but to be conscious of the disparities, not use them to feed any kind of illusions, and dismantle possible confusions.

Remember that different people might be centered on different functions and interrelations inside their own psychology, and this can change with time. Some follow their dominant and auxiliary, of course, but many are fascinated by their unconscious, sometimes all their lives, and their interests and work reflect that. Lots of people identify with their unconscious side, and believe they are the opposite of their true type, especially E→"I", but also S→"N", F→”T” and even T→”F”. Be aware that one of the most difficult tasks when typing someone (including yourself) is getting this right.

X1 = DOMINANT

Keywords: clear, detailed, nuanced, demystified, self-evident, manifest, ever-present, created, unrestricted, unlimited, absolute, independent, discernible, controllable, manageable, personal, global identity.

This is the most important location. If you identify your X1 correctly you already know your X4, your G1, your G4, and 3 of your MBTI letters.

Jung called the dominant “prime power of conviction”, but many people don’t even recognize their own X1 as a function, because it’s basically what life is for them. Jung himself pointed this out for ESPs, saying that sensation for them “is simply real life lived to the full”. Many ESPs don’t realize that their very focus on being conscious of everything is a manifestation of their dominant function: Se1. Many ENPs don’t know that their peculiar interest in exploring all kinds of possibilities comes from their Ne1. Etc, etc. This is a very important issue, and it can cause lots of mistypes. There’s a tendency to go directly to X3 or even X4 and think one of those is dominant (for example in these Puzzle mistypes), and that’s assuming the person got at least one pair of functions right about him/herself, of course.

To avoid that, you have to try and step outside yourself. Don’t focus just on one corner, on the things you like/think about, the words you use to describe yourself, or the people you admire, for example. You have to zoom out and look at everything you do, not just in your mind, but with your behavior, your very presence, your influence, etc, all day and night included, everyday, and you have to put that next to other people, always as if you were an impartial observer, and then compare and notice what stands out, what sort of constants are there, what makes others not-like-you, etc.

Sometimes if you can’t do this the reason might be that you’re not truly interested in knowing your inner self, and/or other people’s, because both go hand in hand: you need to understand others to understand yourself (in the end, it’s the same thing). You might be only looking for an excuse, for some kind of external “seal of approval” that others have to “obey”, for a way to put yourself above the rest, etc. Psychological type is not about that. It’s about you knowing yourself better. So there’s a need for honest humility here, for appreciation of those things that others can do better than you, and for realizing that you can’t control everything.

Your true dominant is related to the things you control best. And identifying it doesn’t make you “less intelligent” or “worse” in any sense (quite the contrary). But holding on to some fabricated image of yourself does. Don’t use your supposed type to build a persona that others will like or “respect”, or ignore the facts of your existence among others to keep intact some imaginary “identity” that you prefer. Read post #120 and post #130, too.

X1↔G1: Time is not a factor here. We don’t even have the concept of X1-G1 transmission because we simply don’t care about G1. Some people might say they do, of course, but ultimately they don’t. They might try to solve problems related to their G1, but they always do it from the standpoint of X1. Some ESPs (Se1), for example, are quick to explain their health problems and take [a lot of] medicine[s] to remedy them, or use some other external method[s], tool[s] or element[s] to “compensate” what they feel inside, which in many cases only makes the problem worse (or adds a different one). They have an extremely hard time approaching the issue from the other side. That’s what we all do with our dominant.

X2 = AUXILIARY

Keywords: found, filtered, screened, derived, deduced, dependent, not personal, usable, advantageous, improvable/improved, manifold, diversified, ordered, consecutive, with “levels” or “paths”, sequential, hierarchical, recursive, [pre-]determined, circumscribed, restricted, limited.

The auxiliary depends on the dominant. You can read about this in post #25 (point 3) and post #31 (point 2). What X2 can’t do is go against X1. That’s ultimately what this comes down to. The dominant is the limit and the “master” of the auxiliary. That dependence makes X2 adopt some kind of limits or “rules” for itself, and always be and evolve under them, never freely. It doesn’t mean that we automatically go and change X2 because of X1, that’s not what this is, many times we simply find X2 and make it work for the dominant. This interrelation means that X2 elements are always taken and interpreted in a way that X1 can “understand” them, in a way that obeys, serves, enhances and/or magnifies X1. If you picture the functions as lenses, X1 is the main one, and we can never look through X2 alone, we can only see it through X1, which is inescapable.

If you are much more or much less unsure about your S/N than your T/F you can use that doubt as a factor in the identification of your dominant (which includes J/P), because Judgers tend to have doubts about their S/N, and Perceivers about their T/F. It’s not always like that, but it has to be mentioned. It’s a manifestation of X2 and G3 being closer than X1 and G4.

X2↔G2: I talked about this in post #82. You know how to differentiate between the two (you’re quite literally conscious of the difference), and you see the contrast very clearly. Sometimes you make a point out of the fact that they are not [and should not be] the same. Other times you just find that your behavior reflects that gap. You might try to make G2 more like X2, but you can also leave it, ignore it, and focus solely on X2, which then gets better but at the same time farther away from G2, which gets worse. (All this makes some people believe their auxiliary is their dominant). Part of the pulling away from G2 comes from that little reflection of G1’s color in the diagrams: we know G2 has a master that’s incompatible with us.

X3 = TERTIARY

Keywords: interesting, fascinating, sought, pursued, hoped-for, amassed, collected, disordered, chaotic, addictive, dangerous, mapped, experimental, reexamined, reworked, trials, disguises, but also distilled, artistic, concentrated in something both beautiful and meaningful, perhaps even sublime, like some kind of treasure, like a jewel.

The tertiary is sometimes seen as “the key to everything”, because it is the bridge to the unconscious. Many people are obsessed with this function, and might even believe it’s their dominant or auxiliary. That’s part of the reason behind many Puzzle mistypes, for example. It’s also at the center of Jung’s concept of the “symbol” or “transcendent function”.

One way to look at X3 is to take the specific and detailed order of X2 and think how an opposite could be, with the influence of the unconscious. Maybe the result can be pictured as something like the contrast between a regular army and guerrilla forces. The first is somehow “established” and always works well. The second might not be very efficient, but their victories are really inspiring. (Don’t imagine them fighting each other, though: they are actually partners).

X3 depends on X4 (see post #35), but many times what we notice the most is its connection to G3. So I’ll talk about that first.

X3↔G3: You need to read post #122 first. You like the idea of putting/taking G3 in[to] X3 form, in the most efficient way possible, looking for something special, something exceptional that you haven’t found yet. This is a big part of X3’s attraction. At the beginning you are probably not very skilled at this, and the result is often quite chaotic: the good things are difficult to distinguish from the not-so-good, it’s all a bit of a mess. Then you try to improve, with some kind of (everchanging) attempts at learning, regulation and/or uniformity. But you realize that it’s hard, never easy. Sometimes you even try to stop yourself, because you know this transference can be very addictive.

Something I didn’t mention in post #122 (which is only one particular angle of analysis) is that sometimes we misinterpret X3 as if it was “only G3” or “actually just G3” because we don’t want to face the consequences of that X3 being proper to us. In this case extraverts need courage to admit their subjectivity, and introverts their objectivity. So it’s not that we are mistaken about X3, but about the fact that X3 is not G3.

A particular instance of X3 can only be accepted by the person’s mind when it’s also seen, validated, reflected or included in/as/by X4, that is: when it obeys X4’s “rules”, when it serves or magnifies it. This is the unconscious counterpart to the X1>X2 dependence. For example for INTJs: Se3 is only “valid/solid/real” when it follows Fe4, when it serves as a vehicle for Fe4, when Fe4 “recognizes it” or is helped by it, etc. This is another reason why we keep trying different X3s, of course. We don’t automatically discard those X3s that don’t work, sometimes we collect them or leave them hanging around “just in case”, because we think we might find a use for them later. When enough time passes we often forget about some (or many) of them (after all, we are already in our unconscious side).

X4 = INFERIOR

Keywords: lost, separate, independent, unreachable, non-participable, missed, glimpsed, dreamed, kaleidoscopic, bewildering, all-or-nothing, trusted/suspected, loved/feared, coveted/forgotten, treasured/neglected, revered/condemned, sacred/demonic, heaven/hell.

The second half of those ·/· pairs is mainly applied to artificial, manipulated or “unnatural” forms of X4, while the first word goes with natural or “pure” examples of X4 (= archaic, age-old, primitive, infantile, etc).

You might have an inaccurate measurement of your inferior’s elements, its parts, etc. You might fear or despise it, or something related to it, some form of it, etc. You need to make a great effort to focus on it. When there’s a problem with your X4, it’s always the worst kind of problem. Sometimes you wish you could live without your X4. But you can’t do that. This is crucial. You have to learn how to live with it, how to integrate it in your life, in the best way possible. You have to do it, somehow. Otherwise, it will start working against you. And you won’t know where the blows are coming from.

X4↔G4: You have to read post #131. It covers what this point is all about, and some general things about the functions. I’ll add a few comments here. (Remember that there are lots and lots of possible variations inside all of this).

We don’t want our consciousness to be interrupted, and G4 is the location that feels the most like an intrusion, so we try to block the X4→G4 transference (or at least keep it to a minimum) by not touching X4 at all. That’s why the “default state” of G4 is basically being empty or absent. When/if we gather enough energy/will to interact with X4 we get mentally or physically “ready" for the expected G4 invasion, and we enter in the “all” mode of the inferior function. This manifests many times in a sudden chain of activities that involve X4, like an ENP (Si4) who tends to skip meals and never sleep but one day eats everything in the fridge and then sleeps for 20 hours.

The transference from X4 to G4 is often perceived and/or represented as an avalanche, an explosion, a flash, lightning, or some kind of disaster, because it’s essentially a sudden discharge of energy, all at once. (In the tarot these manifestations or effects are symbolized by the Tower). In that sense this is the most demanding separation, obviously. It doesn’t seem to provide any kind of “victory”, not even the sporadic ones that we get in G3/X3. In general, it seems more like a question of avoiding severe defeats. But that’s not the whole picture.

This separation leads some people to develop a sort of faith, belief, or trust in smooth/right outcomes regarding X4→G4, and/or in the ultimate goodness of it (this would be the Star in the tarot). In fact, for certain people that faith becomes the basis for their life mission, or for different kinds of religious, ritualistic or artistic practices. (Something similar might happen with X2→G2 for some people, but you can probably notice the difference because in that case the X function is not unreachable or mystified, and the activity looks less like faith and more like work. X3→G3 would be an intermediate point).

Another aspect of G4 (quite the opposite of the previous one) comes from its ghostly quality. Our proper functions (X) are true for us, and our ghosts (G) are what we consider false, so, in a similar way as that of G3, but even more extreme because G4 has a sort of independence, we can sometimes manipulate it and put there something to deceive others and/or ourselves. That is: G4 is consciously falsifiable, in different degrees, sometimes to the point of being impossible. And even though this doesn’t necessarily imply a negative use, sometimes it takes the form of a lie that we tell [ourselves]. (This is part of the Moon in the tarot). When we stop doing that we go back to the reality of things, to the truth (symbolized by the Sun).

(Temperance includes the idea of undifferentiation, and the Devil includes differentiation and, of course, the ego. Judgement is related to the expansion of consciousness, and the World is a symbol of the Self).

[rin-entropy]

Why are people so obsessed with the traditional Meyers-Brigs MBTI classification? Could it be because of the need for humans to stereotype and simplify?

It's more about its advertisement: how it reveals "100% accurate personality profiles" and stuff. But its language was also plainer than that of Jung.

People are obsessed with putting themselves into boxes (usually a sign of the Ti-Fe dimension) so that others can get as much information about them as possible via alleged descriptive labels. Personal abbreviations here and there, functionally like a business card... I deduce these folks were somewhat abandoned as kids and they’re looking for attention, encouragement, glorification as teens/adults by strangers, and a sense of belonging online.

[rin-entropy]

What would be some examples of famous female INTP’s?

Hello there! You're asking almost the impossible for the reasons below:

in contrast to the general misconceptions, the INPs are the hardest to find, not IN(F)Js. They are the "weirdest", most "outcasted", and "no-one-wants-to-hear-what-they-are-saying" types but not in a funny/silly/lunatic way (like mistyped ENFPs and ESFs) since they are the real Ni-dominants. It's the result of the widespread descriptions, written by people who clearly do not understand Ni. That's the "elusive subjectivity" function, the meaning behind Se (= external world), so everybody covers their ears whenever they meet someone being conscious of it in real life, even the INP wannabes here on Tumblr. The phlegmatic temperament (the most secretive out of the four) doesn't help it, either.

T-type females are "overshadowed" by the majority, F-type females, just like F-type males, but the searching is much easier among extraverts. The celebrity world, history books, and fictional entertainment are not full of ET females, but they do exist and stand out more.

combining the previous two, I don't need to tell you how hard it is to come across an IT woman with Ni1. All I can say is that they - foolproof - are the least "popular" and outspoken out there, maybe it'd be easier to find them in a monastery. Or imagine Yoda hiding in a swamp on Dagobah... Yes, that hard. And my analogy is dead-on because Yoda (INTP) is among the few Ni1 fictional characters that come to mind.

If I have to say a fictional INFP (Ni1-Fi2) girl, that's Luna Lovegood, but I can't name any famous IN(T)P woman because celebs are typically extraverts (and Sensors), and I've never dug into the life of famous people that much to discover a woman with Ni1-Ti2.

[akhromant]

MISTYPES BETWEEN PUZZLE TYPES

Puzzle types are those that only share TJ, FJ, SP or NP (for example ESTP-ISFP). Mistypes between them are extremely common, especially from the extravert to the introvert. In this post I’m going to write about some of those, and hopefully it can help people realize a few things. They are, in order: 1) “INTP”-ENFP, 2) “INFJ”-ESFJ, 3) “INTJ”-ESTJ, 4) “INFP”-ENTP and 5) "ISFP”-ESTP.

Remember that there are lots of posts in this blog that can help you with mistypes in general: MBTI Lists, MBTI Tables, the Differences and Typing sections, the MBTI Typings page, etc.

All this isn’t only for other people, but also for you. Don’t be afraid to reexamine your own type from time to time. You might be thinking you’re something that you are not. Your true type might be waiting for you, and whatever it is, finding it is going to make you more intelligent, never less, because it’s self-knowledge, and that always opens the mind of the person in amazing ways :)

Note that there are many factors that contribute to mistypes in general. I’ve talked about some of them before. Some of the main ones are a) lacking sufficient experience and knowledge regarding psychological dimensions and scales, b) taking types as characters to play, and c) focusing on very limited corners of the subject’s mind/behavior (which many times are precisely unconscious ones). You have to imagine all of that included in the sections below, even if I don’t mention it.

This particular tendency can be considered a portion of the huge amount of mistypes caused by the false eiei/ieie order. Sometimes the people involved have a sense of what the real cognitive functions are, but it’s only a blurry idea because they don’t recognize how those functions actually manifest in different positions, and mistake their fascination with the unconscious for their conscious identity. In all the cases below people can see what in reality is their tertiary function (X3), but mistake it for their dominant, and they look at their true dominant as if it was their auxiliary.

Another issue here is that it’s quite common to admire the work of certain people with our Puzzle type, to the point of being absolute fans, completely absorbed by it (like someone in front of a puzzle), and believing we share with them much more than we actually do. There are also lots of Puzzle couples out there, so you can say there’s definitely a compelling connection between these types.

1. “INTPs” WHO ARE ACTUALLY ENFPs (Ne-Fe-Ti-Si)

Among Puzzle mistypes, “INTP”-ENFP is probably at the top, and I’d say it qualifies as one of the most prevalent mistype tendencies all over the world. It’s understandable, because typology misconceptions are too widespread, and it’s been decades of distortions. Many people share the same false images of the types, and under their false stereotypes, the four INs in general are the most unknown of the 16. The extraverts mentioned in this post are 4 of their most prevalent “replacements”.

The main factors here are 1) ENFPs’ unrelatedness to physical objects, which comes from gSe4 and makes them believe they are introverts, and 2) the attraction of their unconscious functions, especially Ti3, which makes them believe introverted thinking is their dominant.

Apathy towards reality gets mistaken for “introversion” by many ENFPs because Se (= the external world) is actually a ghost function for them: gSe4, precisely the one that can disrupt more their own life-essence (Ne1). If the elements from their unconscious (Si4) are ignored, mistaken for “Si3” or not taken into account, it’s very likely that ENFPs look at their intuition and believe it’s also introversion. Something that I think it’s worth remembering here is that now with the internet, extraverts in general but especially those with inferior sensation (=ENPs) don’t really need to leave their rooms to be social, meet people, play games, find new discoveries, new stories, new information, discuss ideas, understand, promote and join activities with others, etc.

There’s also the fact that, for many people when they are young (of any type), the unconscious is where they spend a lot of time, and for many of them it feels like their “natural place”. This is because the mind of the person already “knows”, somehow, that [s]he is going to be able to manage when it comes to the conscious part, there isn’t going to be any problem there, so interest and attention move towards possible “weak points”: X3 and/or X4, trying to understand and improve them. In ENFP’s case there’s a sort of fascination with getting information about lots of topics (gTe3→Ti3), and perhaps combining them, building a sort of “internal library” of knowledge, “overthinking”, etc. When extraversion is obvious, this is also a cause for many ENFPs mistyping as “ENTPs”, because the false eiei/ieie order makes people believe those have TiFe.

It can be a bit difficult to acknowledge this situation. Intuition and Feeling are not “solid” or “heavy” functions like S and T, they are hard to identify as proper in their minds by many ENFPs because they are the “light” pair (they are not concepts or forms). In some cases my impression is that Ti3 makes them feel like their identity is rather variable and/or elusive, on top of always following Si4 which seems very changeable, too. X3 is always in a state of re-definition, re-distillation, etc, so even if they love working with intellectual subjects, ENFP people don’t find it easy to be convinced of concepts in any “established” or “fixed” way, and this applies to their own thinking, which might include their own identity, their own type/functions, etc. There’s always something that can be re-combined and re-interpreted differently, perhaps indefinitely. Some embrace this and treasure the idea of being a “mystery”, someone that “can’t be figured out”, etc. But if you understand the problem, you realize that’s precisely a sign of ENFP, not INTP.

INTP (Ni-Ti-Fe-Se) is not the “awkward”, “random”, “lazy”, absent-minded and a bit shy “weird genius” type that basically everybody thinks. That’s the ENFP. INTP is a ·/choleric type with no sanguine component. It’s not strange in a funny way at all, it’s not entertaining, and it’s not a “brainstorming” type with lots of ideas, jumping from one to the next, telling everybody about their discoveries, etc. If ENFP is Prince, INTP is Andrew Eldritch. If ENFP is Albert Einstein, INTP is The Unabomber.

2. “INFJs” WHO ARE ACTUALLY ESFJs (Fe-Se-Ni-Ti)

Being an FJ type (that is: a feeling dominant) who often feels “special” about its own identity (Ti4), likes helping others in some positive way, and coincidentally has the supposed functions of “the rarest MBTI type”, makes ESFJ the perfect candidate for mistyping as “INFJ”.

There’s a very obvious and generalized ignorance about what certain types are for the most part, and INFJ is definitely one of them (this happens basically with all the INs, like I said before). The stereotype of “INFJ” as simply “helpful person interested in psychology” doesn’t make it easier.

INFJs (Fi-Ni-Se-Te) are not sanguine. They don’t have a funny, interacting, optimistic or trusting main stance. Quite the opposite: INFJ is actually a melancholic type. They are not about “positive” vibes, continuous open expressivity or joyful shared action. They can be oddly funny, and make occasional jokes, but if you have a basic understanding of psychological levels, you’ll see that this is not their true core. You see those things don’t come from a light, carefree or engaging place. With ESFJs, it’s the other way around. They are externally melancholic and internally sanguine, so you could say they cry as a sort of means to go back to being happy.

Many people have Fe and Fi totally backwards. This is actually a big problem in typology, and it’s not going to be solved at all unless people stop using false orders and definitions. Fe1 is the one that declares their likes and dislikes openly, not Fi1. Fe1 can express many nuances and details of feeling related to the present situation, they can smile and then get angry right after that, but go back to smiling in two seconds. INFJs are totally different people. In fact, they are very often perceived as cold and distant. ESFJs are people like Amy Lee, Anne Hathaway or Kate Winslet. INFJs are people like Aretha Franklin, Lisa Bonet or Sigmund Freud.

3. “INTJs” WHO ARE ACTUALLY ESTJs (Te-Se-Ni-Fi)

This one is somehow more understandable, in comparison, because both types have the same components of temperament (melancholic + choleric), only reversed. Many people mistype ESTJs as “INTJs” because there’s an extremely simplistic INTJ stereotype that basically amounts to “intelligent + organized”, or “intelligent person related to technology”. You could say “INTP”-ENFP was “intelligent + chaotic” (or “intelligent person related to whatever”), so if you put the two together you’ll see what many are doing out there is taking ESTJ-ENFP and calling them “INTJ-INTP”.

People seem to recognize FiTe and NiSe in many ESTJs. They just don’t know how those are arranged. They probably think “Ni” is being driven (absolute misconception), and call “auxiliary Te” to dominant Te (they also mistype some ENTJs as “ISTJs”).

Anyway, take a look at this table. INTJs (Ti-Ni-Se-Fe) are much more abstract and conceptual than technical or practical, more about intangible ideas than factory products. They are not hard-charging or expansive people, and their focus is often on some sort of achievement of the mind, of individual identity, etc, not on mechanical designs or reproductions. They are cautious and perhaps even suspicious regarding new technologies, while ESTJs are, well, very often the engineers themselves, and if not then very likely among the first adopters. ESTJ is James Cameron, Elon Musk, Margaret Thatcher. INTJ is Carl Jung, Gregor Mendel, Hillary Clinton.

4. “INFPs” WHO ARE ACTUALLY ENTPs (Ne-Te-Fi-Si)

Well, everybody mistypes [others] as “INFPs”: ISFPs, ISFJs, INFJs, ENFPs, ESFJs, ESTPs, ISTPs, ISTJs, etc, so in a sense this isn’t really anything special. Just more of the same. People have no idea what real INFPs are (I talked about this in the second section of this post), and the ambiguous stereotype is very often just “weird artist”, so they end up throwing there all kinds of types because everybody is “weird” and everybody is an “artist”. Some ENTPs manage to fit that description (like John Lennon), and together with the misconceptions about “Fi-dom” they end up somehow being called “INFPs”.

This mistype has many similarities with the “INTP”-ENFP one, but it’s actually even more mistaken because ENTP and INFP don’t even share a component of temperament: INFP (Ni-Fi-Te-Se) is pure phlegmatic, while ENTP is sanguine/choleric. Maybe that’s why this particular Puzzle mistype doesn’t seem as common as the others, I don’t know.

5. “ISFPs” WHO ARE ACTUALLY ESTPs (Se-Te-Fi-Ni)

If the false ISFP stereotype is basically “emotional person who likes to have fun and could be considered artistic” you’re definitely going to end up with many mistypes there, not only ESTPs but also for example ESFJs, ESFPs and ENTPs (like David Bowie or Trent Reznor) (literally ISFP’s Mirrors).

Many ESTPs mistype as “ISFPs” because they are the SP type with the supposed functions of ISFP, and one of the false images that people keep repeating about Fi corresponds in reality to Fi3. People do this with fictional characters, too, of course. In fact, the post I wrote about Harry Potter covers many points related to this mistype. Take a look and try to see how all those things can be analyzed in real people. (When the mistype occurs with someone interested in typology you can many times recognize it because the person makes use of misleading visual methods like “vultology”, an ESTP favorite).

These two types might be both externally sanguine, but on the inside they are opposites: ESTP is choleric and ISFP is phlegmatic. ISFP (Si-Fi-Te-Ne) is not a “cool”, direct, blunt, often foul-mouthed and ultimately confrontational person like many ESTPs are. They might make jokes (like any other type), but they do it mainly as a neutral and lighthearted thing, because it’s fun, not to instigate or provoke a reaction, which is what ESTPs often want. In fact, ISFPs’ most peculiar trait is gentleness, and they tend to simply go along with whatever. If we stick to the “artistic” adjective then some ESTPs could be for example Alicia Keys, Eminem and Kurt Cobain, while ISFPs are people like Elliott Smith, Van Gogh or Pavarotti.

[akhromant]

HARRY POTTER IS AN EXTRAVERT AND A THINKER

I’ve only watched the films, but I think it’s pretty clear that Harry is not an IF. Just because he doesn’t talk too much doesn’t mean he’s an introvert. Also, many people seem to think that suffering equals introversion (or directly “IFP”). Because extraverts are always happy, right?

E/I

For E/I you have to identify where his attention is focused, which side occupies his conscious decisions, etc. Harry is all about what’s happening in the moment, objectively: where is what, who is in danger, what can be done, etc. He always refers to and works through present realities, not concepts or impressions. And he doesn’t imagine things or show any artistic inclination at all, he’s almost strictly practical in a very straightforward way. He reacts, decides and responds instantly to almost everything. He isn’t theorizing or reinterpreting what he finds, he just interacts directly with what/who’s there. His role in the story is basically to get things done. The “wondering”, the “planning”, the scheming and the “philosophizing” happens through other characters, not Harry.

S/N

This one seems to be more obvious: he’s clearly S>N, [re]active and effective, a person who doesn’t really go beyond the tangible and the practical, in the sense of considering patterns and flows over immediate situations and needs, or seeing opportunities for progress/benefit, making plans, trying new things for the sake of it, etc. He’s described as someone who “lacked intellectual curiosity” and “did his best magical work when tackling practical exams rather than theoretical ones” (S>N).

T/F

Now, is he T or F? Well, “struggling to do the right thing” seems a problem that Ts would have, at least more than Fs, because values are unconscious for them. That’s what happens with Harry. They say he “tended to see morality in a rather stark, absolute manner”, which matches unconscious Fi, as opposed to a more nuanced (=conscious) view of it. He likes people, but he shows that by focusing on the task at hand. I think it’s evident that his internal world is hidden, private and [highly] emotional, not something that he displays gracefully or manages easily. In fact, many of his problems are related to that repression, which turns values into something that can suddenly overpower what’s normally a practical and neutral conscious disposition. All ETs have some choleric component of temperament, and that’s very often associated with descriptions like “prone to anger”. The way the words “courage” and “determination” are used for Harry seem to indicate that, too.

J/P

For J/P the problem is basically the same as with Sherlock Holmes. There are conflicting signs, sometimes he’s a rebel who shows “rudeness and disrespect” (EP), but others he looks more like a master (EJ), for example when Rowling describes him with the opposite word: “respectful”, and expressions like “an old soul”, which don’t really fit EPs in general. The previous point about morality would fit Fi4 (ESTJ) better than Fi3 (ESTP).

I think this is important: “Rowling modeled her young hero after her childhood neighborhood friend, Ian Potter, who once lived four doors down from her in her home near Bristol. Ian, who is now a damp-proofer, was a mischievous trickster when he was young, forming an unwelcoming habit of placing slugs on his friends’ picnic plates and encouraging Rowling to run through wet concrete with her sister”. That really seems like an ESTP, not so much an ESTJ. In fact, people make a distinction between Harry’s way of thinking and Hermione’s (ESTJ), saying their minds work differently. Other things that feel P>J could be the way he’s described as “irrational” and “impulsive”, with “a nice thirst to prove yourself”, “a certain disregard for the rules”, “a streak of pride and independence” and a “weakness for heroics”, which sounds more about application (SP) than correction (SJ). So in the end I think most points go to ESTP (Se-Te-Fi-Ni), although I’m not entirely sure if Rowling herself knows which version he is in her mind.

It seems a lot of people see FiTe+NiSe in Harry, but they mistype him as “ISFP” because, well, everybody mistypes extraverts as introverts, people don’t know what conscious Fi actually is, and also because they are using the nonexistent eiei/ieie order. ESTP and ISFP are Puzzle types, and there are lots of mistypes between them (especially E→"I", like “INTP”-ENFP, “INFJ”-ESFJ, “INTJ”-ESTJ, etc). Harry is much more Hacker than Messenger, more Confident than Retiring, more Realist than Useful, more about Experience than Inclusion, more Spontaneous than Gentle, etc.

RELATIONSHIPS

Harry as ESTP fits really well with the types of other characters in the series. Dumbledore (INFJ: Fi-Ni-Se-Te) is his Contrary, so they form a nice global team, covering basically every angle between the two. Hermione and him are Crossed types (J↔P): they are often together but she’s the one that tries to keep some kind of order. I don’t see a clear typing for Ron, but I tend to imagine him as an ISTP (Si-Ti-Fe-Ne), which would make him Harry’s Ghost, and explain their natural friendship. Luna (INFP: Ni-Fi-Te-Se) also fits as Potter’s Mirror. Sirius Black has the same type as Harry, something that I think is implied in the movies. And then there’s Voldemort (ENFJ: Fe-Ne-Si-Ti), a Distant figure.

[akhromant]

[rin-entropy]

Hello, I was wondering if you ever got interested in the SLOAN system and if you found any correlation between it, enneagram and Jung's types

Hello there!

I do use the SLOAN/Big5 test for typing others, in fact, I advise taking the Big5 test as the very first step. Statistically speaking, it's the most accurate besides the Jungian System and the two do overlap so far according to my research.

If we are at it, here are the steps how I verify typings.

1. Do the SLOAN/Big5 test

2. Analyze temperament (primary & auxiliary)

3. Do Enneagram Tritype tests (compare the result of 2 or 3 tests)

4. Do the Tritype typing on my own

5. Compare the Big5 result with Tritype

6. Compare the temperament with the previous conclusion

7. Take Socionics (and its relationship with Jung’s functions) into consideration

8. Do the DiSC test

9. Sort out the most plausible Jungian types out of these

I was skeptical at first, but I find this method the most effective for verifying someone’s type because it can sort out inaccuracies and self-contradictions.

[contentgreenearth]

JUNGIAN TYPOLOGY POST #1: AN OVERVIEW

So now, we are going to look at the second method that I use to type people. It's the MBTI's about 30% more reliable cousin, Jungian Typology. Jungian Typology takes Jung's writings in Psychological Types literally, and doesn't misinterpret them, like Myers and Kiersey did.

The biggest difference between Jungian Typology and Briggs Myers is the belief that the auxiliary function has the same attitude as the dominant function. So, essentially Jungian typologists believe that both the dominant and auxiliary functions are extroverted in extroverts , or both are introverted in introverts.

Now, some Jungian typologists, when they talk about Briggs Myers types, will call IJs dominant perceivers and IPs dominant judgers, because that's what Myers did , and that was never fixed. I frown on this because it's not the way Jung would have wanted it, if he had invented the typing system. Jung would've wanted Ti-n to be a judger, and Ni-t to be a perceiver, and not the other way around.

As a result, I much prefer the Jungian typologists, then, who make INTJ (Ti-n) a judger, and INTP (Ni-t) a perceiver. Those Jungian typologists are getting rid of even *that* inaccuracy from Briggs and Myers, and creating an even purer Jungian form of the Briggs Myers letters than what you normally see.

Inaccuracy, you say?🤔 Yes calling IJs perceiving dominants and IPs judging dominants is an inaccuracy, because there is no evidence to back up that as being true. In fact, the evidence I found in my test subjects proves that it is an inaccuracy. Every test subject was given a DISC assessment, and a MBTI facet and attitudes analysis. And then , since it was hard to observe a lot of my test subjects thinking patterns, only one per DISC wheel slot received a Jungian function analysis. But in all this testing, a trend emerged. Yes, short primary/long secondary was more common in introverts than extroverts, but still:

The vast majority of INFJs were Fi-n.

The vast majority of INFPs were Ni-f.

The vast majority of ISFJs were Fi-s.

The vast majority of ISFPs were Si-f.

The vast majority of ISTJs were Ti-s.

The vast majority of ISTPs were Si-t.

The vast majority of INTJs were Ti-n.

The vast majority of INTPs were Ni-t.

So, yes, that evidence leads me to believe that the Jungian typologists who call IJs judging dominants and IPs perceiving dominants are fixing an inaccuracy created by Briggs and Myers, that just doesn't fit with reality. Thanks, folks who do this! I love you to shreds. And if no one wants to believe you, you can use my study notes to back up your claim 😉

Anyway, since I have dyslexia, reading Jung's Psychological Types is hard, so I will be sharing paraphrases and clips from it, that others used, as well as sharing their posts, for most of the rest of the Jungian Typology posts.

Another question I pondered was why Jungian Typology is around 30% more accurate than Briggs Myers. I would say the dominant and auxiliary functions having the same attitude and IPs being perceiving dominants/IJs being judging dominants is probably a lot of it, but I also think that Jung was influenced by Marston in creating his Psychological Types, just as much as Marston was influenced by Jung in creating DISC. I have read in many sources that Marston and Jung were contemporaries, knew each other, read each other's books and exchanged ideas. Marston was a psychologist and Jung was a psychiatrist. Go figure, a psychologist and psychiatrist teamed up to create between themselves, the 2 most accurate typing methods out there, DISC and Jungian Typology. Why do we put so much faith in methods that were invented by people who didn't even work in the field of psychology, like Briggs, Myers and Grant; and basically ignore the methods created by Marston and Jung? Good thought to ponder 🤔

[rin-entropy]

What type do you think the queen of cups and high priestess are for mbti?

I’ve learned that both figures are twin cards, the difference is that QoC is gentle, direct, and is just familiar with her intuition, while HP is full of cold universal truth spoken in riddles, and is the master of her intuition, so if we’re going by the logic that the Queen of Cups is ISFJ (FiSi), the High Priestess is INFJ (FiNi).

[rin-entropy]

so i am confusion, i scored ne>se>ti>ni>fi.. etc as top functions... who the fuck am i 🥲

Hello there!

First of all, don't "score" any function unless you actually read Jung's descriptions of them and really get them. Only then you can compare and ponder. Test makers never read Jung and don't work with the correct function orders, keep that in mind.

Second of all, if you're indeed an extravert, your "top functions" must be all extraverted. So even if there's no clarity of the primary and auxiliary's nature (Sensing, Intuition, Thinking, Feeling), the E-I orientation should be evident. Therefore, 4 functions out of 5 in your list have to be extraverted.

[rin-entropy]

Could somebody who is 3w2 be mistyped as 8w7?

Any type can be mistyped as anything, really. With boisterous extraverts, it can be quite common as type 8 and type 3 are tend to be the most extraverted out of all.

[akhromant]

G3→X3 AS A KIND OF UNCONSCIOUS NAIVETY

First of all, note that this is only a general approach to one specific aspect or angle of analysis regarding X3. As always with the functions, there are many more links and things to discover and explain (I’ve already done this for example in posts #35 and #87). Also remember that descriptions here are not about isolated components, so try not to take them too out of context because the effect is not independent at all, it must be interpreted inside the dominant dimension of each type: X1(···)X4.

Ok. Now, with the word “naivety” I’m not trying to say that it’s a good thing. It’s naivety in a sense that’s very close to self-ignorance, of course. We are talking about the unconscious here. You can think of it also as unconscious credulity or ingenuousness (sometimes a sort of functional “belief in ghosts”). This influence is even harder to notice and avoid (or control) than X2→G2, which is already very difficult and energy-consuming.

The idea here is that most people have a hard time telling X3 from G3. With X2→G2 the main problem was a mostly conscious attempt at an impossible transference (from proper to ghost), which devalues X2 in the process, but now it’s G3 that we often mistake for X3 (from ghost to proper), as if they were identical, and this is mostly unconscious, so our real standpoint remains undiscovered. Apart from not being able to see the difference, extraverts might take something that’s actually internal for them (X3) as external (G3), and introverts can mistake something that they need to acknowledge as external (X3) for something internal (G3).

As usual, this is just an “average” situation, of course: some people might be still having real problems with X2/G2, and others might be already past X3/G3 (although this is less common). It’s a kind of middle point to use as reference. One of the keys here is that those two problems actually go hand in hand, so in reality knowing and looking at your X3/G3 can be really helpful for your X2/G2.

X3 is a kind of weak spot that the person can, through effort, turn into something that can be seen as a work of art. This is [at] the center of what Jung called symbol or transcendent function. Most people, if they know themselves well enough, try to protect, control, specify, itemize, distil, detail and/or delineate very carefully what goes in and comes out of there. It’s much more difficult to do than X2, and it has the characteristics of the [semi]unconscious, so this preoccupation might sometimes appear to others as obsessive or perfectionistic in some sense.

This interrelation is part of why I say that X3→X2 is the “internal engine” of each type, and why more self-awareness leads to wanting a refined or perfected smooth running of the mechanism. If people don’t do that filtering or screening, if they let anything and everything enter their X3, then the result is almost always harmful: the engine gets overworked, overheated, etc, and starts malfunctioning.

In fact, some people like to check, keep, follow and/or make some kind of map, diagram, recipe, manual or blueprint of their X3 in order to have a stable guide or reference. I think this is quite common, and you can see it for example in the way many ISTJs (Ne3) love planning, history and stories, how lots of ENFPs (Ti3) love everything that works as a catalog of identities (like superheroes and typologies), etc.

The G3→X3 effects are very different from one type to another, and inside the same type they vary a lot from person to person. In some cases the potentially negative consequences fall mostly on the side of the subject, and other times on his/her environment. Knowing about typology and the correct functions of each type and each person is obviously a first step in the direction of being aware of and solving these issues.

EXAMPLE MANIFESTATIONS

I’ll try to write some examples of what this means for each “age group” and each pair of Tangents inside them. It’s going to be just an approximation, and I’ll try not to repeat things so you can take bits and see how they’d manifest in different types. What follows applies in general, but of course more to some individuals than others, and it’s described at an intermediate stage, which some people might overcome in some degree. Remember everything I’ve said before, and note that the word “history” below includes ideas of game, options, power, luck and success (all Ne-related).

✸ The Elders (EJs) reinterpret unconsciously an external frame of reality as a transcendental element, and almost as if it was their property or responsibility, mostly because it actually depends on their unconscious feeling or thinking (X4). This can make them grand, but also very oppressive and/or dangerous.

ESJs (gNe3→Ni3) see history (gNe3) as “god’s will” or the only real meaning (Ni3), that’s why many want to be famous, rich, powerful, lucky, etc. Many have absolutely no shame demanding everything and anything they want, declaring themselves the best, etc. Those that overcome this realize that the real meaning is not in how things are going. (See also the last paragraph in post #115).

ENJs (gSe3→Si3) take reality (gSe3) as mythological or a dream (Si3), that’s partly why many of them are quite dangerous (and perhaps a bit… crazy). This is the Don Quixote effect, of course. ENJs are the kind of person that’s very prone to having nightmares after watching a horror movie, for example.

✸ The Adults (IJ) reinterpret unconsciously a ghostly internal element as inextricably represented or embodied in external reality, and almost as if it was outside their reach, because it actually depends on an external judgment (their Fe4 or Te4). That’s why many of them seem to “submit to” or even be overwhelmed by external circumstances.

ISJs (gNi3→Ne3) take “the power above” (gNi3) as history (Ne3). That is: they [want to] see the will of god[s] in what happens, in how things [might] progress or unfold, their own luck, etc, and that gets mixed and conditioned by an external judgment (Fe4 or Te4) that they often don’t want to touch, so it makes them what I call “resigned” [to “fate”] (or somewhat “pessimistic”). They can apply extreme patience and care to plans, plots, routines and other processes.

INJs (gSi3→Se3) take mythology and/or dreams (gSi3) as reality (Se3). This is of course what happens to people like Freud (INFJ) or Jung (INTJ), for example. They can treat physical presences with extreme skill, thoughtfulness and detail. This can be a work of art, clothes, etc. Part of the effect rests on the fact that their “model”, their internal vision or sensation, is really close to the actual thing.

✸ For the Teenagers (EPs) this unconscious transfer makes them active and engaging, often giving them skills to navigate situations and/or relationships rather effectively or cunningly. It can also make them overvalue themselves and undervalue others.

ETPs (gFe3→Fi3) feel/charge themselves (Fi3) with what others express as good/bad (gFe3), so they might get addicted to emotional interaction, not only positive but also negative. This of course can make them exaggerate and escalate expressions of love and hate, like fights, etc. They can also feel morally superior, even bragging about it.

EFPs (gTe3→Ti3) absorb/think (Ti3) what they read/hear (gTe3), so they might get really argumentative, complicating discussions or any kind of textual work. Some of them get to the point of taking reality as language. EFPs might also believe themselves more original than they actually are, that just being exposed to a topic makes them experts on it, or that they are the only ones that understand something (especially themselves).

✸ The Children’s (IP) naivety is the one that’s closest to innocence: it makes them unable to hide or fake an important judging aspect (which in turn makes them extremely careful about it), and also tends to make them undervalue themselves and overvalue other people in some sense.

ITPs (gFi3→Fe3) assume that their evaluations (gFi3) are obvious to others (Fe3), and when they manifest them they can’t really hide their ghostly likes/dislikes, that’s why they don’t tend to be expressive. They also tend to think that others care as much as they do, so in that sense they can fit very well as members of a group or team, and when they start recognizing their X3 they really show appreciation for shared values.

IFPs (gTi3→Te3) assume that others know what they are thinking (that’s one of the reasons for their shyness), and when they talk they can’t really help but say (Te3) what they think (gTi3), that’s why they are usually quiet (this applies to actions as well). They tend to think that others understand concepts better than they actually do (and/or just as the IFP does), so they are never convinced of being smart[er].