What MBTI type are you?

[Phaedrus]

are you Swedish?

Are you Goathic?

[Creepy-bg]

Are you Goathic?

Are you serious?

[Phaedrus]

Are you serious?

... Can a be serious?

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Creepy-bg]

I never do end up consistently getting the same results on MBTI tests. I've tested as almost every single introvert there is. The descriptions you can find don't help much either. I don't think I have an MBTI type.

if that's true than according to Phaedussian socionics you don't have socionics type either

[Phaedrus]

if that's true than according to Phaedussian socionics you don't have socionics type either

No, it means that she doesn't know what she is like.

[Creepy-bg]

No, it means that she doesn't know what she is like.

do you have any suggestions for an authentic Swedish meal? I like meat and not vegetables.

[Expat]

do you have any suggestions for an authentic Swedish meal? I like meat and not vegetables.

Caviar on your bread during breakfast.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Phaedrus]

No, I know quite well what I am like, and I don't fit neatly in any of their boxes.

You fit very well in the boxes. It's just that you don't realize it.

It's that whole crappy dichotomy thing that sucks in its entirety.

No, it doesn't. It's just that you don't understand it.

Sure I nicely fit the introvert category, but that's as far as it goes.

So you know that you're an introvert. That's good. But it means that you answer some questions incorrectly when you get an E result on a test occasion.

Am I N or S? Both, neither, some of each.

Certainly not. You dont' understand the difference between S and N. If you did, you would not for sure which you are.

Am I F or T - well strictly speaking in MBTI terms I'm probably more T than F, but really again it's both, neither, some of each.

Wrong again. You don't understand what you are talking about. The difference between F and T is the exact same difference as the difference between ethics and logic. And you do understand that difference, don't you? If you don't, you don't know which socionic type you are either.

Am I J or P? Some of each again.

Wrong again. You cannot be both a rational and an irrational type at the same time, and the difference between J and P is the difference between rationality and irrationality. It's the exact same difference.

People don't fit into a narrowly defined set of four boxes when you're talking about something as complex as nature and personality.

You are wrong again, because they definitely do. You simply don't understand the dichotomies.

Clear observable traits are one thing - and it's why dichotomous keys are used to identify plants in botany for example, but fluid traits and characteristics? Not a chance. You have to remove from the person huge chunks of what actually makes them who they are, and look shallowly and crosswise to even begin to imagine they can be divided as such. It takes a shallow and unimaginative brain lacking any true comprehension of others or oneself to believe that all people must always fit into ANY contrived system with such narrow parameters!

You express a typically ethical attitude here, which is a stong indication that you are an F type, as you probably believe that you are. And you are so wrong about this. Totally wrong, in fact. And that's why your attitude is so irritating.

Now, if you start trying to take a functional kind of approach, rather than the dichotomous approach you'll have better luck.

You act like a moron, just like so many others on this forum. And you do it because you don't understand the theory. The dichotomous approach is never ever in conflict with the functional approach.

Unfortunately the MBTI function descriptions that I've managed to find and read are shallow, empty, useless pieces of crap. Find me some better ones and maybe I'd be able to tell you where I lay in their system. As it is, I don't see where I fit anywhere within it.

And here you are proving my point. You don't understand what you are talking about, and therefore you should not have an opinion on this subject.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Gilly]

The people I know who have the most knowledge about MBTT have typed me ENTJ, which I'm not entirely sure I understand, but I have always tested ENTP/ENFP, with the exception of my first testing as a 12 year old which was INFP.

[Phaedrus]

I said that I consistently test as an introvert. I don't believe I've ever gotten an extrovert result. And it's why I said that I neatly fit into that box. Some people do not though you know. Not the way the terms are described in different systems. Try to stretch your mind around that reality.

Like so many other idiots on this forum you simply don't understand the logical distinction between meaning and reference. You can't grasp it. And it doesn't seem to help how many times I explain this logical distincion. Some people are incabable of thinking some thoughts. Their brains seem to be lacking some capacity for logical reasoning, and there is not much I can do about it. If you are born with a low IQ, that's not your fault.

Not so. You're assuming that all apples are red, and that if someone puts an apple in the green box that they are incorrect even if the apple is indeed green rather than red. You seem to have a mental block of some kind causing you to ignore reality and cling to your superstitious ideas. The pieces don't always match up Phaedrus. They can, and probably often do, but the don't always, and there are very good reasons for why they don't, but you have to be able to accept that green apples exist, and I'm not sure you're able to do that, even if one was placed in your hand.

You are blind and I am not. You don't see any pattern, because you are an idiot. Yeah, but so what? Why having discussions with idiots?

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Phaedrus]

Lol. You think calling me an idiot makes your argument all of a sudden correct?

Of course not. But the fact that you make that illogical implication is a strong indication that you really are one.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Phaedrus]

Yes of course. You must be right. I'm the village idiot in fact. Oh man, I'm just a complete fool.

Now you are making some intellectual progress ...

[Brentano]

INTJ

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Creepy-bg]

can I have an apple too?

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Creepy-bg]

Yep. Here you go. *tosses apple to bionic*

Hey Phaedrus, what color is this apple?

[Phaedrus]

Hey Phaedrus, what color is this apple?

I can't see it. Probably because it is already in the goat's stomach.

[JuJu]

So you are in the 50 % range of Extratim/Introtim and in the 50 % range of Ethics and Logic? But what could that possibly mean? That you don't know whether your leading function is extraverted or introverted? And that you don't know whether your creative (auxiliary) function is ethical, logical, sensory, or intuitive? Are you confused?

i answered the questions on the test as honestly as i could... the results were percentages... i dunno... like 53% extroverted, 55% ethical, something like that.

[Phaedrus]

i answered the questions on the test as honestly as i could... the results were percentages... i dunno... like 53% extroverted, 55% ethical, something like that.

So what? Don't you understand that your MBTT type is something entirely different than your test result? People must stop this idiotic behaviour. Your test result is never the final word on what type you are. It is nonsensical to say that you are 53 % extraverted, etc. You are ALWAYS 100 % of every single dichotomy. You are either extraverted or introverted, either sensing or intuitive, either thinking or feeling, and either judging or perceiving. YOU ARE NEVER ANYTHING IN BETWEEN.

[hellothere]

So what? Don't you understand that your MBTT type is something entirely different than your test result? People must stop this idiotic behaviour. Your test result is never the final word on what type you are. It is nonsensical to say that you are 53 % extraverted, etc. You are ALWAYS 100 % of every single dichotomy. You are either extraverted or introverted, either sensing or intuitive, either thinking or feeling, and either judging or perceiving. YOU ARE NEVER ANYTHING IN BETWEEN.

how come scientific studies of extraversion (at least in the way Eysenck defined it) don't show a bimodal distribution?

[JuJu]

So what? Don't you understand that your MBTT type is something entirely different than your test result? People must stop this idiotic behaviour. Your test result is never the final word on what type you are. It is nonsensical to say that you are 53 % extraverted, etc. You are ALWAYS 100 % of every single dichotomy. You are either extraverted or introverted, either sensing or intuitive, either thinking or feeling, and either judging or perceiving. YOU ARE NEVER ANYTHING IN BETWEEN.

Phaedrus, your argument is with the way the test results are presented, not with me.

[Phaedrus]

how come scientific studies of extraversion (at least in the way Eysenck defined it) don't show a bimodal distribution?

Becasue they are measuring behaviour (or in some cases the level of certain chemical substances in your brain) -- not the direction of your base function. It is the latter that determines whether you are a 100 % extraverted type or a 100 % introverted type. Your behaviour is of course strongly correlated with your leading function, and that's why we can observe extraversion and introversion directly in the behaviour of a person. But it is more easily seen in some people than in others.

[hellothere]

Becasue they are measuring behaviour (or in some cases the level of certain chemical substances in your brain) -- not the direction of your base function. It is the latter that determines whether you are a 100 % extraverted type or a 100 % introverted type. Your behaviour is of course strongly correlated with your leading function, and that's why we can observe extraversion and introversion directly in the behaviour of a person. But it is more easily seen in some people than in others.

Okay fair enough. Is there any way of determining what the direction of your base function is then? And do you think it maps in any meaningful way into the physical mechanisms of the brain (i.e. size of a certain area/activity in a certain area/etc)?

ETA: but if there is a strong correlation between behaviour and your leading function, then shouldn't you still expect a bimodal distribution to appear?

[Phaedrus]

Okay fair enough. Is there any way of determining what the direction of your base function is then?

Yes, by observing people's behaviours, and/or by looking into their brains, and/or interviewing them about personal preferences, attitudes, etc., and/or by letting them take a test. There are several methods available, but none of them is in itself a final proof of anything.

And do you think it maps in any meaningful way into the physical mechanisms of the brain (i.e. size of a certain area/activity in a certain area/etc)?

Yes, of course it does.

ETA: but if there is a strong correlation between behaviour and your leading function, then shouldn't you still expect a bimodal distribution to appear?

A bimodal distribution of what? Not of the types anyway, because they are distinct entities. You are not a mixture of two or more types, you are not something in between. You are one particular type. And that type has only one leading function, which is either 100 % extraverted or 100 % introverted.

Reality itself (the types) is neatly divided in sharply demarcated boxes -- it is only our typing methods that are inexact and give us a somewhat muddled picture of the world. Our minds may be clouded with gray areas, but the structure of the world itself is cristal clear and painted in white and black.

[hellothere]

Yes, of course it does.

Could you please expand?

A bimodal distribution of what? Not of the types anyway, because they are distinct entities. You are not a mixture of two or more types, you are not something in between. You are one particular type. And that type has only one leading function, which is either 100 % extraverted or 100 % introverted.

Reality itself (the types) is neatly divided in sharply demarcated boxes -- it is only our typing methods that are inexact and give us a somewhat muddled picture of the world. Our minds may be clouded with gray areas, but the structure of the world itself is cristal clear and painted in white and black.

A bimodal distribution of people across "levels" of extraversion. If the types are neatly divided into sharply demarcated boxes (i.e. you are either an introvert or an extravert), then even through the use of an imperfect measurement technique (e.g. observing behaviour), wouldn't you expect there to be two peaks in the distribution (one for the introverts and one for the extraverts) rather than a normal distribution peaking in the middle?

[Phaedrus]

Could you please expand?

There have been empirical studies on this. Extraversion and introversion can be measured but maybe not very accurately yet. You will probably find some material if you search the web.

A bimodal distribution of people across "levels" of extraversion. If the types are neatly divided into sharply demarcated boxes (i.e. you are either an introvert or an extravert), then even through the use of an imperfect measurement technique (e.g. observing behaviour), wouldn't you expect there to be two peaks in the distribution (one for the introverts and one for the extraverts) rather than a normal distribution peaking in the middle?

Yes, perhaps. But so what? It is not relevant, because the types are not a continuum. They are sharply dividided into boxes. The boundaries between these boxes are clear-cut. You are either an introvert or an extravert, not something in between.

[hellothere]

There have been empirical studies on this. Extraversion and introversion can be measured but maybe not very accurately yet. You will probably find some material if you search the web.

I have read about a study which showed that introverts have a higher level of activity in the ascending reticular activating system in the brain. Is this what you are referring to? The problem I see with this is that activity levels can exist on a continuum so it can't explain extraversion and introversion if they are sharply divided into boxes.

P.S. most empirical studies I have seen have measured extraversion as a dimension of personality - i.e. something that can vary continuousoly from one extreme to the other. I would be rather grateful if you could point me to some studies which conceptualise it as a dichotomy, but from your responses so far you do not seem to care about being helpful. Hopefully you will prove me wrong.

[Phaedrus]

I have read about a study which showed that introverts have a higher level of activity in the ascending reticular activating system in the brain. Is this what you are referring to?

I don't know. I am referring to every study that is relevant. There is no problem here. It is self-evident that extraversion and introversion can be observed as differences in the activity of certain areas of the brain. Every pshychological phenomenon is ultimately physical in nature, so of course it is correlated with the physical mechanisms of the brain.

The problem I see with this is that activity levels can exist on a continuum so it can't explain extraversion and introversion if they are sharply divided into boxes.

You don't seem to understand what a type is. A type is not a mixture of components, it is a structure of "vectors". A function can be compared to a vector in that it has a certain direction. If you are an extraverted type, your leading function has a totally opposite direction to what it would have if you are an introverted type. So it is totally impossible to be something in between. You cannot be somewhere in between => and <=.

The direction of your leading function is what defines if you are extraverted or introverted. But this is still a biological phenomenon that can be observed independent of any theory. Your whole body/person/system has a certain direction -- either inwards (introversion) or outwards (extraversion). It doesn't make sense to talk about degrees of introversion or extraversion.

P.S. most empirical studies I have seen have measured extraversion as a dimension of personality - i.e. something that can vary continuousoly from one extreme to the other.

Yes, but that is because they don't know what they are dealing with. They are only describing what they can observe and measure. In a socionic perspective we have an explanation for what they are observing, and that explanation is related to the direction of the leading function. If Socionics is a true theory, there are no degrees of extraversion, and there is no continuum (except from a continuum of social behaviour).

I would be rather grateful if you could point me to some studies which conceptualise it as a dichotomy, but from your responses so far you do not seem to care about being helpful. Hopefully you will prove me wrong.

Studies which conceptualizes it as a dichotomy?! Socionics and MBTT conceptualizes it as a dichotomy. It is a logical necessity that it is a dichotomy, because that lies in the nature of what a type is according to the model. If you dispute that, you are disputing the correctness of the theory of Socionics. You can do that of course, but that is a totally different problem.

[hellothere]

I'm not really talking about socionics anymore, I am talking about the personality trait of extraversion which is commonly studied. But yes I realise that you believe notions of introversion/extraversion in all theories (including socionics) refer to the same observable phenomenon.

The direction of your leading function is what defines if you are extraverted or introverted. But this is still a biological phenomenon that can be observed independent of any theory. Your whole body/person/system has a certain direction -- either inwards (introversion) or outwards (extraversion). It doesn't make sense to talk about degrees of introversion or extraversion.

yes, this is what I'm referring to. So do you believe there is a qualitative difference in the biology (probably somewhere in the brain) of introverts and extroverts? More fundamental than something like level of activity in the ARAS (because that is only a quantitative difference)?

[Phaedrus]

So do you believe there is a qualitative difference in the biology (probably somewhere in the brain) of introverts and extroverts? More fundamental than something like level of activity in the ARAS (because that is only a quantitative difference)?

I believe that there is a clear difference in their biology, and that that difference is more fundamental than just a difference in levels of activity. But whether we shall call that difference "qualitative" or not is another matter. Perhaps, but that might depend on what exactly you mean by "qualitative".

I don't think that we need anything else than a physical description of the brain to explain these differences. The brains of introverts and extraverts are differently structured somehow. Further research is needed to find out the true nature of that difference in structure.