A supperior personality model compared to MBTI? Big five.

[TheCplan]

I've been reading about personality theories and the most viable/useful seem to be big five(five-factor model). It has similar flaws to other personality models but have a stronger base in research compared to philosophy. You can do a free test here: https://openpsychometrics.org/tests/IPIP-BFFM/

NOTE: No personality trait is better or worse, just some combinations of high results.
Also beware that the result can be affected by several different factors like mood, mental illness or being to self critical. Your personality can be trained and changes over time. Take it with a "grain of salt".     

 

 

[TheCplan]

These are my results

[Katty]

Here's mine

I always do highest in openness/imagination as well as agreeableness.

It might be why I have a general inclination towards fiction writing.

[Dages]

Hexaco is an interesting test too.

[Hotteok]

I hope one day a super-smart JW shows up with his personality test including spirituality quotient (SQ), if it can be measured, I mean. 

[Myew]

I recall looking into this a few years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JN6_K6ALeZI My MBTI has always flip flopped between two relatively distinct attitudes depending on my circumstances, my physical state and the amount of stress I'm dealing with. I have my core personality, and the obsessive one that the 'me' gets filtered through when I can't process or deal with the rest of existence. Too lazy to recheck the big 5 right now.

 

Edited July 29, 2020 by Myew

[Ferb]

 

It seems to me there's a pretty big margin of error in this test! 🙂

 

1 hour ago, Tryin'SoHardToBeSpiritual said:

I hope one day a super-smart JW shows up with his personality test including spirituality quotient (SQ), if it can be measured, I mean. 

It can be measured as well as this test measures stuff.  Just put a bunch of strongly agree to strongly disagree statements like 'I read the Bible every day' and 'I always pray before making a big decision'.  Throw in some things to try to add some variation, like, 'I attend every ministry meeting', ignore the circumstances that might affect that (just as the questions in these personality tests do - in fairness, the real personality tests used by psychologists are much longer in order to weed out such factors, but people just doing it for fun on the internet couldn't be bothered with such a long test) and the result you'll get will be no less inaccurate than this.

 

Incidentally Timothy, I was looking at travelling through South Korea a while ago (trying to find some way of being allowed to see Katty again during this lockdown hysteria) and I noticed that all the websites in South Korea refer to it as just 'Korea'.  So what do they call North Korea?  Do they even acknowledge it's existence as a country, or do they just consider it to be a part of their country that is currently occupied by an enemy force?

[Hotteok]

11 minutes ago, Ferb said:

 

It seems to me there's a pretty big margin of error in this test! 🙂

 

It can be measured as well as this test measures stuff.  Just put a bunch of strongly agree to strongly disagree statements like 'I read the Bible every day' and 'I always pray before making a big decision'.  Throw in some things to try to add some variation, like, 'I attend every ministry meeting', ignore the circumstances that might affect that (just as the questions in these personality tests do - in fairness, the real personality tests used by psychologists are much longer in order to weed out such factors, but people just doing it for fun on the internet couldn't be bothered with such a long test) and the result you'll get will be no less inaccurate than this.

 

Incidentally Timothy, I was looking at travelling through South Korea a while ago (trying to find some way of being allowed to see Katty again during this lockdown hysteria) and I noticed that all the websites in South Korea refer to it as just 'Korea'.  So what do they call North Korea?  Do they even acknowledge it's existence as a country, or do they just consider it to be a part of their country that is currently occupied by an enemy force?

Thanks for the explanation!

 

Hm, I’ve never thought of it that way.

We just don’t use the term South Korea to refer to us, I mean, Korea when we use Korean.

I think there’s no conscious something to call it that way. It just happens to be that way.

We are Korean, so it is Korea. North Korea is North Korea because it’s up there. 

[Hinata]

15 minutes ago, Ferb said:

Do they even acknowledge it's existence as a country, or do they just consider it to be a part of their country that is currently occupied by an enemy force?

 

1 minute ago, Tryin'SoHardToBeSpiritual said:

We are Korean, so it is Korea. North Korea is North Korea because it’s up there. 

 

There is no “North Korea” from the Republic of Korea’s perspective.

 

By the constitution, Republic of Korea occupies the entire Korean Peninsula. This includes the current territory occupied by “North Korea.” Therefore, the Korean government manages provisions for the northen Korean land as well. There even are city mayors, postal codes and phone numbers assigned for the North Korean residents. (All unused, of course.)

 

However, “South Korea considers itself to be the sole legitimate government of [Korean Peninsula], and claims all territory controlled by North Korea.”
 

This may or may not be the reason why the web site had the wording “Korea.” But this is the technical reasoning.

 

[Hotteok]

3 minutes ago, Hinata said:

 

 

There is no “North Korea” from the Republic of Korea’s perspective.

 

By the constitution, Republic of Korea occupies the entire Korean Peninsula. This includes the current territory occupied by “North Korea.” Therefore, the Korean government manages provisions for the northen Korean land as well. There even are city mayors, postal codes and phone numbers assigned for the North Korean residents. (All unused, of course.)

 

However, “South Korea considers itself to be the sole legitimate government of [Korean Peninsula], and claims all territory controlled by North Korea.”
 

This may or may not be the reason why the web site had the wording “Korea.” But this is the technical reasoning.

 

wow I didn’t know that! 

[TheCplan]

1 hour ago, Ferb said:

It seems to me there's a pretty big margin of error in this test! 🙂

They usually ask the same questions in different ways. There is a better test at https://www.understandmyself.com/ made by professionals. It costs a small sum but it was worth it to me. 

[Katty]

2 hours ago, Ferb said:

 

 

Haha no way you're more extroverted than I am.
I probably am more chatty than I think I am though.
I consider myself not talkative, but I do readily talk to strangers without thinking of it.

[TheCplan]

2 hours ago, Ferb said:

It can be measured as well as this test measures stuff.  Just put a bunch of strongly agree to strongly disagree statements like 'I read the Bible every day' and 'I always pray before making a big decision'.  Throw in some things to try to add some variation, like, 'I attend every ministry meeting', ignore the circumstances that might affect that (just as the questions in these personality tests do - in fairness, the real personality tests used by psychologists are much longer in order to weed out such factors, but people just doing it for fun on the internet couldn't be bothered with such a long test) and the result you'll get will be no less inaccurate than this.

Something about that seems odd to me. That would be more of a virtue test?

Edited July 29, 2020 by ProcrastLife

[TheCplan]

3 hours ago, Tryin'SoHardToBeSpiritual said:

I hope one day a super-smart JW shows up with his personality test including spirituality quotient (SQ), if it can be measured, I mean. 

Maybe I´m incorrect but  spirituality, to me, is more of a virtue not a personality trait, although becoming a christian and being under influence of the holy spirit helps you develop and incorporate these traits, to become a more balanced person. 

[EccentricM]

I think MBTI and Big 5 measure different things. Big 5 is more generalisation, MBTI gets into specific cognitive proccesses. However when it comes to MBTI, I don't agree with the mainstream system as it puts people in boxes far too much.

 

I prefer the "Axis MBTI" system, which operates on spectrums and states you can be a blend of up to four "types" at once. My Axis type is ENFP/ENTP, more on the leaning of ENFP. My own invesitgation and take on the system.. I removed some of the functions and combined others into singular functions, as it seemed more individualistic on what a person does with their feelings and so on, when it came to individualilty, being influenced by others, etc.  

 

As for Big 5, it does go into some deeper realms of course, but not in regards to cognition style (Sensing, Intuition, Thinking, Feeling). But do appreciate it not putting people in boxes as I say. 

 

These were my results on this specific version of the test.

 

[EccentricM]

I just found my old results from the more indepth version of Big 5 I did a couple years ago or so. It's pretty interesting. I may have slightly altered on a couple of things with experience, but not by much. I feel today, my trust may be slightly lower, and my anger and assertiveness a little higher, but not drastically so.

 

EXTRAVERSION 73

 

-Friendliness 97

Friendly people genuinely like other people and openly demonstrate positive feelings toward others. They make friends quickly and it is easy for them to form close, intimate relationships. Low scorers on Friendliness are not necessarily cold and hostile, but they do not reach out to others and are perceived as distant and reserved. Your level of friendliness is high.

 

-Gregariousness 87

Gregarious people find the company of others pleasantly stimulating and rewarding. They enjoy the excitement of crowds. Low scorers tend to feel overwhelmed by, and therefore actively avoid, large crowds. They do not necessarily dislike being with people sometimes, but their need for privacy and time to themselves is much greater than for individuals who score high on this scale. Your level of gregariousness is high.

-Assertiveness 42

High scorers Assertiveness like to speak out, take charge, and direct the activities of others. They tend to be leaders in groups. Low scorers tend not to talk much and let others control the activities of groups. Your level of assertiveness is average.

 

-Activity Level 34

Active individuals lead fast-paced, busy lives. They move about quickly, energetically, and vigorously, and they are involved in many activities. People who score low on this scale follow a slower and more leisurely, relaxed pace. Your activity level is average.

 

-Excitement-Seeking 37

High scorers on this scale are easily bored without high levels of stimulation. They love bright lights and hustle and bustle. They are likely to take risks and seek thrills. Low scorers are overwhelmed by noise and commotion and are adverse to thrill-seeking. Your level of excitement- seeking is average.

 

-Cheerfulness 77

This scale measures positive mood and feelings, not negative emotions (which are a part of the Neuroticism domain). Persons who score high on this scale typically experience a range of positive feelings, including happiness, enthusiasm, optimism, and joy. Low scorers are not as prone to such energetic, high spirits. Your level of positive emotions is high.

 

 

 

AGREEABLENESS 91

 

-Trust 82

A person with high trust assumes that most people are fair, honest, and have good intentions. Persons low in trust see others as selfish, devious, and potentially dangerous. Your level of trust is high.

 

-Morality 97

High scorers on this scale see no need for pretense or manipulation when dealing with others and are therefore candid, frank, and sincere. Low scorers believe that a certain amount of deception in social relationships is necessary. People find it relatively easy to relate to the straightforward high-scorers on this scale. They generally find it more difficult to relate to the unstraightforward low-scorers on this scale. It should be made clear that low scorers are not unprincipled or immoral; they are simply more guarded and less willing to openly reveal the whole truth. Your level of morality is high.

 

-Altruism 90

Altruistic people find helping other people genuinely rewarding. Consequently, they are generally willing to assist those who are in need. Altruistic people find that doing things for others is a form of self-fulfillment rather than self-sacrifice. Low scorers on this scale do not particularly like helping those in need. Requests for help feel like an imposition rather than an opportunity for self-fulfillment. Your level of altruism is high.

 

-Cooperation 76

Individuals who score high on this scale dislike confrontations. They are perfectly willing to compromise or to deny their own needs in order to get along with others. Those who score low on this scale are more likely to intimidate others to get their way. Your level of cooperation is high.

 

-Modesty 23

High scorers on this scale do not like to claim that they are better than other people. In some cases this attitude may derive from low self-confidence or self-esteem. Nonetheless, some people with high self-esteem find immodesty unseemly. Those who are willing to describe themselves as superior tend to be seen as disagreeably arrogant by other people. Your level of modesty is low.

 

-Sympathy 95

People who score high on this scale are tenderhearted and compassionate. They feel the pain of others vicariously and are easily moved to pity. Low scorers are not affected strongly by human suffering. They pride themselves on making objective judgments based on reason. They are more concerned with truth and impartial justice than with mercy. Your level of tender-mindedness is high.

 

 

CONSCIENTIOUSNESS 39

 

-Self-Efficacy 33

Self-Efficacy describes confidence in one's ability to accomplish things. High scorers believe they have the intelligence (common sense), drive, and self-control necessary for achieving success. Low scorers do not feel effective, and may have a sense that they are not in control of their lives. Your level of self-efficacy is average.

 

-Orderliness 27

Persons with high scores on orderliness are well-organized. They like to live according to routines and schedules. They keep lists and make plans. Low scorers tend to be disorganized and scattered. Your level of orderliness is low.

 

-Dutifulness 92

This scale reflects the strength of a person's sense of duty and obligation. Those who score high on this scale have a strong sense of moral obligation. Low scorers find contracts, rules, and regulations overly confining. They are likely to be seen as unreliable or even irresponsible. Your level of dutifulness is high.

 

-Achievement-Striving 28

Individuals who score high on this scale strive hard to achieve excellence. Their drive to be recognized as successful keeps them on track toward their lofty goals. They often have a strong sense of direction in life, but extremely high scores may be too single-minded and obsessed with their work. Low scorers are content to get by with a minimal amount of work, and might be seen by others as lazy. Your level of achievement striving is low.

 

-Self-Discipline 28

Self-discipline-what many people call will-power-refers to the ability to persist at difficult or unpleasant tasks until they are completed. People who possess high self-discipline are able to overcome reluctance to begin tasks and stay on track despite distractions. Those with low self-discipline procrastinate and show poor follow-through, often failing to complete tasks-even tasks they want very much to complete. Your level of self-discipline is low.

 

-Cautiousness 48

Cautiousness describes the disposition to think through possibilities before acting. High scorers on the Cautiousness scale take their time when making decisions. Low scorers often say or do first thing that comes to mind without deliberating alternatives and the probable consequences of those alternatives. Your level of cautiousness is average.

 

 

NEUROTICISM 27

 

-Anxiety 64

The "fight-or-flight" system of the brain of anxious individuals is too easily and too often engaged. Therefore, people who are high in anxiety often feel like something dangerous is about to happen. They may be afraid of specific situations or be just generally fearful. They feel tense, jittery, and nervous. Persons low in Anxiety are generally calm and fearless. Your level of anxiety is average.

-Anger 27

Persons who score high in Anger feel enraged when things do not go their way. They are sensitive about being treated fairly and feel resentful and bitter when they feel they are being cheated. This scale measures the tendency to feel angry; whether or not the person expresses annoyance and hostility depends on the individual's level on Agreeableness. Low scorers do not get angry often or easily. Your level of anger is low.

 

-Depression 14

This scale measures the tendency to feel sad, dejected, and discouraged. High scorers lack energy and have difficult initiating activities. Low scorers tend to be free from these depressive feelings. Your level of depression is low.

 

-Self-Consciousness 37

Self-conscious individuals are sensitive about what others think of them. Their concern about rejection and ridicule cause them to feel shy and uncomfortable around others. They are easily embarrassed and often feel ashamed. Their fears that others will criticize or make fun of them are exaggerated and unrealistic, but their awkwardness and discomfort may make these fears a self-fulfilling prophecy. Low scorers, in contrast, do not suffer from the mistaken impression that everyone is watching and judging them. They do not feel nervous in social situations. Your level or self-consciousness is average.

 

-Immoderation 3

Immoderation. Immoderate individuals feel strong cravings and urges that they have have difficulty resisting. They tend to be oriented toward short-term pleasures and rewards rather than long- term consequences. Low scorers do not experience strong, irresistible cravings and consequently do not find themselves tempted to overindulge. Your level of immoderation is low.

-Vulnerability 66

High scorers on Vulnerability experience panic, confusion, and helplessness when under pressure or stress. Low scorers feel more poised, confident, and clear thinking when stressed. Your level of vulnerability is average.

 

 

OPENNESS 91

 

-Imagination 94

To imaginative individuals, the real world is often too plain and ordinary. High scorers on this scale use fantasy as a way of creating a richer, more interesting world. Low scorers are on this scale are more oriented to facts than fantasy. Your level of imagination is high.

 

-Artistic Interests 68

High scorers on this scale love beauty, both in art and in nature. They become easily involved and absorbed in artistic and natural events. They are not necessarily artistically trained nor talented, although many will be. The defining features of this scale are interest in, and appreciation of natural and artificial beauty. Low scorers lack aesthetic sensitivity and interest in the arts. Your level of artistic interests is high.

-Emotionality 98

Persons high on Emotionality have good access to and awareness of their own feelings. Low scorers are less aware of their feelings and tend not to express their emotions openly. Your level of emotionality is high.

-Adventurousness 76

High scorers on adventurousness are eager to try new activities, travel to foreign lands, and experience different things. They find familiarity and routine boring, and will take a new route home just because it is different. Low scorers tend to feel uncomfortable with change and prefer familiar routines. Your level of adventurousness is high.

 

-Intellect 84

Intellect and artistic interests are the two most important, central aspects of openness to experience. High scorers on Intellect love to play with ideas. They are open-minded to new and unusual ideas, and like to debate intellectual issues. They enjoy riddles, puzzles, and brain teasers. Low scorers on Intellect prefer dealing with either people or things rather than ideas. They regard intellectual exercises as a waste of time. Intellect should not be equated with intelligence. Intellect is an intellectual style, not an intellectual ability, although high scorers on Intellect score slightly higher than low-Intellect individuals on standardized intelligence tests. Your level of intellect is high.

 

-Liberalism 37

Psychological liberalism refers to a readiness to challenge authority, convention, and traditional values. In its most extreme form, psychological liberalism can even represent outright hostility toward rules, sympathy for law-breakers, and love of ambiguity, chaos, and disorder. Psychological conservatives prefer the security and stability brought by conformity to tradition. Psychological liberalism and conservatism are not identical to political affiliation, but certainly incline individuals toward certain political parties. Your level of liberalism is average.

 

 

The test can be found here, and I advise taking the "full" version  https://www.personalitytest.net/ipip/index.html

 

Edited October 17, 2020 by EccentricM

[Raven]

Be careful with typology theories. For instance, MBTI is not scientific, and the Enneagram of Personality has roots in eastern religion. Not only that, but when I was personally involved in typology, I noticed that there is a significant problem with something called "typism", which is prejudice towards certain personality "types", bias towards some types over others, and negative stereotypes of certain types ~ and most people I've come across who were "typist" (and it wasn't difficult to find people who held these views) were not aware that they were. It even affects things like who someone would consider for marriage, try to befriend, or even hire for a job.

Nowadays I'm not interested in any typology theory, and I feel like it was one big waste of time, and of no benefit. There are certainly better things to spend one's time doing.

[Hope]

1 hour ago, Bjern said:

Be careful with typology theories. For instance, MBTI is not scientific, and the Enneagram of Personality has roots in eastern religion. Not only that, but when I was personally involved in typology, I noticed that there is a significant problem with something called "typism", which is prejudice towards certain personality "types", bias towards some types over others, and negative stereotypes of certain types ~ and most people I've come across who were "typist" (and it wasn't difficult to find people who held these views) were not aware that they were. It even affects things like who someone would consider for marriage, try to befriend, or even hire for a job.

Nowadays I'm not interested in any typology theory, and I feel like it was one big waste of time, and of no benefit. There are certainly better things to spend one's time doing.

I know my "type" isn't very popular.  I think I tend more to focus on understanding and getting on with others.

[EccentricM]

2 hours ago, Hope said:

I know my "type" isn't very popular.  I think I tend more to focus on understanding and getting on with others.

It's why it's best not to focus on the sterotypes, because really it's just another form of "ism", ie: racism, etc. Like I say, these tests, MBTI or similar tests I refer to, are more about "functions" than "personas", but people lock themselves in to the "personas", and Jung's functions were never orginally meant to be about persona, but how people "proccess" things and where their cognitive strengths and weaknesses lie.

 

It reveals such to you, and opens a door to self improvement and balance, as opposed to being a prison. People treat it like some sort of "end all" system where you can date the right person, find the right job, aka, people treat it like star signs, and it's not that at all, a person's "type" tells you nothing about "them". Now certain stereotypes may ring true, but that's very broad, and "non-defining" parts of a person's persona, ie; daydreams a lot, scatter brain, random, organised, emotionally sensitive, externally cold (etc). And the thing is, all types can be any of those things too, but it's where the "energy" lies really, and how much effort or not someone has to put into a certain mental activity or way of thinking.

 

Many INTJs are very soft people, and talk with lots of people, some ENFPs or INFPs (sterotypically the happiest and most sensitive types) are horrible, selfish, even boarderline psychopathic (I've seen personally), because tools don't define "who" you are, only how you "achieve" what you are.

 

And tools can be trained too. It's more like a.. "functional inclination/natural strengths" system. For example, such ways of thinking is described in other ways, Te and Ti in the system is more "commonly known" as inductive and deductive logic in the broader world of cognition and psychology, and people can train both, but may be "better at" or prefer one or the other.

 

But as for being nice, or likable, etc, that's on the "individual", not the "type" you are. Because we all choose how to conduct ourselves, explain ourselves, etc.

Edited October 17, 2020 by EccentricM

[Pjdriver]

Traits I’ve been accused of in the left column...how I see it, in the right column.  

 

Edited October 17, 2020 by Pjdriver

[Raven]

4 hours ago, Hope said:

I know my "type" isn't very popular.  I think I tend more to focus on understanding and getting on with others.

Understanding and getting on with others was part of why I was studying typology too, though now I want nothing to do with it. I understand and get along with people better without it, as I'm not training myself to put people into preconceived boxes that aren't even based on scientific evidence.

[Hope]

7 hours ago, EccentricM said:

It's why it's best not to focus on the sterotypes, because really it's just another form of "ism", ie: racism, etc. Like I say, these tests, MBTI or similar tests I refer to, are more about "functions" than "personas", but people lock themselves in to the "personas", and Jung's functions were never orginally meant to be about persona, but how people "proccess" things and where their cognitive strengths and weaknesses lie.

 

It reveals such to you, and opens a door to self improvement and balance, as opposed to being a prison. People treat it like some sort of "end all" system where you can date the right person, find the right job, aka, people treat it like star signs, and it's not that at all, a person's "type" tells you nothing about "them". Now certain stereotypes may ring true, but that's very broad, and "non-defining" parts of a person's persona, ie; daydreams a lot, scatter brain, random, organised, emotionally sensitive, externally cold (etc). And the thing is, all types can be any of those things too, but it's where the "energy" lies really, and how much effort or not someone has to put into a certain mental activity or way of thinking.

 

Many INTJs are very soft people, and talk with lots of people, some ENFPs or INFPs (sterotypically the happiest and most sensitive types) are horrible, selfish, even boarderline psychopathic (I've seen personally), because tools don't define "who" you are, only how you "achieve" what you are.

 

And tools can be trained too. It's more like a.. "functional inclination/natural strengths" system. For example, such ways of thinking is described in other ways, Te and Ti in the system is more "commonly known" as inductive and deductive logic in the broader world of cognition and psychology, and people can train both, but may be "better at" or prefer one or the other.

 

But as for being nice, or likable, etc, that's on the "individual", not the "type" you are. Because we all choose how to conduct ourselves, explain ourselves, etc.

Agreed.  My ISTJ-A type is like, the least fun, interesting or discussed type out there. It's me and it fits... but it's not "me", if you get my drift.  😛

[Katty]

I believe MBTI types exist, to an extent, but it's not binary.  For the sake of definition, I'll start by saying sensing in the Jungian/MBTI sense would be taking in information through the senses without trying to abstract it, Intuition would be imagination or abstraction, thinking would mean forming a world view and making a decision based on facts or internal logic and feeling would be value judgments (good, bad, evil, etc.)

I think it makes sense that some people see the world with the lens of intuition, generally focusing on abstract concepts and ideas over tangible things, or vice versa, that some people prefer tangible things over abstract ideas. Being an abstract person myself, I've seen how many people take little interest or have little patience for my more abstract ideas or exotic imaginations. The same can be true of how some people prefer to build their world view and decisions upon what they view to be factually true or what makes sense in a more logical or rational sense, while others put more importance on what one feels to be right and good or what is more socially acceptable. Then perceiving vs judging would merely mean the order in which one takes in as much information as possible through perception (sensing intuition) or forms the world view and decides (thinking feeling) and then backs it up with more information..

I don't think the problem with MBTI is that it's entirely innacurate, so much as it's very limited. The binary nature makes it limited, and the fact that it only contains a few paremeters also makes it limited. Also, I don't believe people fit neatly into 16 categories. I think they're somewhat loose categories that might give a rough idea as to what a person might take into account more often when making decisions, but won't necessarily tell you the specific values or ideas that influence those decisions, which will vary greatly from person to person. I've gotten to the point where I'm not sure if it really provides very useful information for most people in predicting what their specific tendencies will be, for the most part.

 

The thing about cognitive functions as well, they were developed at a time when psychology was little more than philosophy and people were not being tested and studied as case studies the way they are now, and relatively little was really known about neuroscience. I do, however, believe they exist, but I don't think people of a particular type necessarily has to fit the cognitive function stacking determined by MBTI or by Jung's ideas. (such as INFJ being introverted intuition followed by extraverted feeling followed by introverted thinking...) I think that each individual is different. It makes more sense for an introvert that prefers intuition perceive their intuition more internally. I think Jung's idea that all introverts who are intuitive would be introverted intuitive. But some people are ambiverts, and I believe ambiverts can both introvert and extravert intuition.

I think what @EccentricMbelieves about feeling, I kinda believe about all the functions. I believe that, to an extent, whatever tendencies a person prefers more, if they're more ambiverted, they can like go either way, but some introverts who exhibit a function are more introverted than others and some extroverts are more extroverted than others.

 

I mean, the neuroscience of typology is still really limited, so you can't really say definitively whether cognitive function theory is based in reality. I mean, the part of the brain that deals with sensory perception is indeed different from the part of the brain that deals with abstract thinking, and the thought process for imagining flows in the opposite direction the thought process for taking in sensory information. Perhaps what was considered cognitive functions has a lot to do with people who give priority to particular thought processes and have more gray matter in particular areas. But, then again who knows?

On 10/17/2020 at 2:10 PM, Hope said:

Agreed.  My ISTJ-A type is like, the least fun, interesting or discussed type out there. It's me and it fits... but it's not "me", if you get my drift.  😛

I mean, as I said above, I don't believe your type is really actually your personality, just more or less a template of how decisions are generally made. Most people won't really fit their type all that well, because they tend to be too rigid to take account for individuality. That being said, most people I know that would be typed as ISTJ are really cool people, that I tend to get along with really well.

Edited October 26, 2020 by Katty