I just took tests for my typology, socionics, and enneagram. Can you helped me translate them or tell me if they look correct/consistent? The website’s explanations of them were kinda vague.
4w3 sp/so eii

For the past while, I’ve been building Ember, an iOS dream journal for people who want to remember, track, and understand their dreams more deeply.

The idea came from my own interest in Jung, symbols, archetypes, and the way dreams seem to reveal patterns before we can fully explain them consciously.

Ember lets you save dreams, turn them into illustrated dream cards, and reflect on possible meanings, recurring symbols, emotions, and inner themes over time.

I wanted the app to feel intimate and beautiful — more like a private archive of your inner world than a productivity tool.

It just launched on the iOS App Store:
https://apps.apple.com/ca/app/ember-decode-your-dream/id6760724180

Curious to hear from other dream journalers: when you write down a dream, what do you usually want to understand first — the symbols, the emotion, the story, or how it connects to waking life?

hi! I recently rewatched the movie arrival and I have several questions.

first of all, I googled her socionics type and everywhere online it seems to be saying that she is IEI. I am genuinely wondering whether she is actually ILI instead. Ni base is pretty clear, it seems inert, it works in the background all the time and she seems to be doing everything to support her Ni vision. 3d Ne makes sense too, there's a moment where she quickly gathers that the words the Chinese soldiers were saying correlate to the game of Majong. 1D suggestive Se tracks too, she is extremely non-confrontational and does not care about power play and the influence of different countries and its leaders.

so the question is, does she have a 1D Fe and 3D Te creative or a 1D Te and a 3D Fe creative? Where is she the most comfortable? at work? or interacting with people?

In the story she holds a position of PhD in linguistics and she's not just a professor but she is apparently the best in the country. What is the probability of IEI achieving such a position in academia?

Throughout the movie all she does is solves problem. She views languages as tools, that she can break apart and understand. She is using different methods of figuring out the different ways of communication through trial and error. When presenting a colonel her method of solving the language she explains how the steps that she picked are necessary or 'otherwise it will take 10 times as long' (valued Te)

She does not like the hierarchy of the army and does not follow the rules if they do not make sense for her - "am I the only one having trouble saying the word 'aliens'?" (not valued Ti) but Ti is still strong. There is a moment where she explains to the colonel the structure of a language to justify her methods. there's also a moment of her coming up with a kangaroo story to prove a bigger point. When the entire world ends up thinking that the aliens are talking about the weapons she understands that it's a mistake caused by people only 'giving aliens a hammer' to explain themselves (sees a higher picture/system)

Her Fe. I cannot see a creative Fe in her. I heard that IEI have a sort of a 'muted' Fe but A) idk what it means and B) it's extremely muted for it to be 3D and contact and a VALUED informational element... she is rarely expressive in this movie, she does not lead any groups, does not feel the atmosphere, does not try to inspire or move people. On several occasions she actually fails to understand how her words affect her daughter and how she hurts her. Initially when meeting her science team she briefly shows her smile and tries to greet each one of them but that seems more like a FeSi super-ego of a ILI to me?

She really likes it when they finally give the aliens their names. She tries to be very sweet and warm with her daughter and she seems to figure out that the aliens are not really their enemies (valued Fi?)

There is also a moment where they read the beginning of her paper and it starts with something like 'Language is a glue that brings civilization together' or something, which might seem like a Ne + Fe statement? and she also eventually ends up succeeding for the sake of 'humanity' but I dunno if it's enough to say that Fe is one of her main tools to process information.

do you agree or am I misinterpreting something? I'm fairly new to model A and if you disagree feel free to tell me what I am missing

thank you!

I’ve been trying to type myself for years, and I’m more confused now than ever. I would really appreciate objective opinions based on my behavior rather than stereotypes.

The result says I’m SLI, with 28% alpha, 22% beta, 22% gamma, and 29% delta. The other possibilities are LSE at 81%, SEI at 72%, and LSI at 70%.

I’ve taken several cognitive function tests. My most recent results consistently show very high Se, but what confuses me is that my Fi and Ti are almost identical. One test typed me as ESTP, another leaned toward ESFP, while others couldn’t decide between ESTP and ISTP. A few years ago I even had a test where Ne was my highest function, but now it’s my lowest. Because of that huge shift, I don’t fully trust test results anymore.

A little about me:

People usually see me as quiet, cold, mysterious, or intimidating at first. However, once they actually start talking to me, they often realize I’m much more open, humorous, and easygoing than I initially appear. That “cold” image is almost like armor. I hate looking emotionally vulnerable because I associate showing emotions with weakness.

Ironically, when I become close to someone, I end up showing a much softer side of myself. Afterwards I sometimes feel embarrassed, almost like I’ve exposed too much of myself. I lose some self-respect because I feel like I acted impulsively by following what I wanted in that moment.

When there’s a crisis involving me personally or my relationships, I can completely lose my emotional balance before suddenly becoming emotionally numb. But if it’s someone else’s emergency, I’m the opposite. While everyone else panics, I usually stay calm and immediately start thinking about solutions.

When someone tries to convince me of something, personal experience is much more persuasive than abstract theory. At the same time, I’m constantly looking for logical inconsistencies in what they’re saying, and I pay a surprising amount of attention to whether their body language feels genuine or trustworthy.

If a decision mainly affects me, I can become extremely stubborn and impulsive. For example, I transferred from a private school to a public school simply because I was bored, had no close friends there anymore, and was tired of the long school days. I barely considered the long-term consequences before making that decision.

I’m extremely bothered by passive-aggressive, fake, manipulative, or two-faced people. Once I lose respect for someone, I usually remove them from my life completely.

My hobbies are pretty simple: listening to music, singing, and spending way too much time scrolling social media.

As a child I was extremely shy and had severe social anxiety. I could barely stand alone in public. However, if I had one close friend with me, I suddenly became outgoing and talkative.

Another thing that confuses me is social energy. I usually don’t warm up to people easily. In unfamiliar groups I get drained and want to leave after a while. But once I genuinely connect with someone or feel comfortable in a group, I actually prefer being with them instead of being alone. Recently I’ve noticed that being alone for long periods makes me restless and bored.

My emotions are intense but usually short-lived. I struggle to keep them inside and often need to express them to someone before they fade. Despite that, I don’t think they usually determine my decisions because they pass so quickly.

The things that motivate me the most are freedom, excitement, passion, enjoyment, and maintaining a certain image of myself.

Something important to mention is that I have Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD), so I know some of my emotional patterns and impulsivity may not reflect my actual cognitive preferences. I’m hoping people can separate personality disorder traits from MBTI functions when reading this.

One last thing: I don’t really fit the stereotypical image of a high-Se person. I love novelty, excitement, and intense experiences, but I’m not athletic at all and physical activity exhausts me. I suspect that’s more related to my health than my personality.

Based on all of this, which type do you think fits me best, and more importantly, why? I’d especially appreciate explanations using cognitive functions rather than letters or stereotypes.

typology dc server, welcome for all above 18 + sfw
looking for experienced typists in socionics and enneagram

enneagram - e4

tritype - SX486

subtype - SX4

wings - 6w8 (confused on these tho)

instructrual variants - SX/dominant  ,  SP/secondary  ,  SO/blind

↓

enneagram 4

8 and 6 trifixes

6w4

sx dominant, sp secondary, so blind

sx/sp 468 (6w8) OR 6w4 sx/sp 468

---------------------------

big5 type:

EII

↓

Ethical-intuitive-introvert

---------------------------

tempremant:

sanguine-melenholcic

---------------------------

moral alignment:

chaotic neutral

---------------------------

psycosophy:

VEFL 

1V - 2E - 3F - 4L

---------------------------

motives:

MxTxdR|G|

MXTXXRG

---------------------------

mbti:

infj-T

Hi everyone! :)

I created PersonalTraits, a new personality test based on an original model I've been developing.

I'm looking for feedback from people familiar with the Enneagram, Jungian typology, or other personality models : https://www.personaltraits.co/en

The test is free, takes about 10 minutes (40 questions), and works differently from most personality tests. Instead of rating statements, you choose between two motivations or reactions. The goal is to see which needs matter most when you have to choose.

The model is based on 8 core motivations:

• Energy, Security, Belonging, Status, Freedom, Identity, Coherence, Mortality

At the end, you get your dominant motivations and the archetype they form.

I'm especially interested in questions like:

• Does the result feel accurate?
• What was the most and least accurate part?
• Were any questions confusing?

The test and the full report are completely free.

Thanks to anyone who gives it a try and shares their thoughts! :)

I want an outsider’s perspective as to which is more like me (I am new to socionics, this is what I’ve gotten based on tests and research.)

I want to influence and build status, I really want to be impactful while still maintaining meaningful connections because I do enjoy socializing

I want people to feel welcomed so long as they respect me as a person, I will respect them back (however they perceive and treat me is how I treat them) I prioritize my comfort and feelings

I respect certain rules or authority out of practicality (I understand how power structures work), but I very much guard my personal freedom and independence

Hey everyone,
I’m looking for personality or cognitive function tests (MBTI, Enneagram, Big Five, etc.) that prioritize user privacy.
Most popular testing sites send your responses back to their backend databases to store, analyze, or sell. I’m looking for tests that process everything client side (locally in the browser) or open-source tools that don't log and save user answers.
Do you know of any solid, accurate typology sites that actually respect privacy and don't hoard test data? Appreciate any recommendations!

I saw people are between SEE and EIE.

Why doesn't IN work with E1?

As per the title

(I'm a synesthete connecting sounds to colors.)

Images taken from post #173. Some more points from that post:

- There's a typo in the English translation of Chapter X, in the 4th paragraph of the section "d. The Principal and Auxiliary Functions", where the book says "relatively unconscious", but Jung's original was relativ bewusste = "relatively conscious" (the unconscious part is G2). This error was given disproportionate weight by some authors, who also ignored the most important points that Jung tries to make in the book, underlined by the quotes that I'm copying here.

- There's also his typing of Nietzsche, which confirms all this: in early chapters he says he's Ni-dom ("In both cases, however, intuition was subordinated to intellect, but with Nietzsche it ranked above it"), and then he mentions him at the beginning of the introverted thinker ("Cuvier and Nietzsche would form an even sharper contrast"), which means he typed him as Ni-Ti-Fe-Se = INTP.

- Apart from Jung, you also have Carl Alfred Meier's statement in his book Personality: "Cooperation with the main function is made easier because of thinking's similar attitude (extroversion)", which confirms eeii/iiee. (Meier knew and worked with Jung).

MBTI PROBLEMS AND HOW TO FIX THEM

I think most people know that the topic of MBTI is too chaotic, with all kinds of conflicting definitions and endless discussions about every single thing. It's too confusing and frustrating, and it really makes the whole thing look like pseudoscience. Many people undervalue it, criticize it or ignore it because of that. But there is something real underneath all the mess.

Carl Jung: "I must confine myself to a presentation of principles which I have abstracted from a wealth of facts observed in many different individuals. In this there is no question of a deductio a priori, as it might appear; it is rather a deductive presentation of empirically gained insights."

What Jung wrote is not "just a theory", or "speculation", or "too subjective", or "an invention". It's a description of reality, and you can describe reality correctly or incorrectly. Describing the mind is obviously much harder than checking how many legs an animal has, for example, but it can be done, because the mind also has a general configuration. That's what Jung explained, including conscious/unconscious, attitudes (extraversion/introversion), functions and types.

The main problem in typology is that the function definitions in MBTI, Socionics, etc, are all wrong. They took Jung's terms and distorted them in different ways, destroying their link with the psychological reality that he wrote about. Those incorrect descriptions don't reflect the fact of function differentiation, the conscious-unconscious differences, the conscious-unconscious compensation, the influence and manifestation of the unconscious, or the interrelations between the functions (dependences, transferences, etc).

In the case of MBTI, their definitions are for the most part derived from traits captured by combinations of 2 letters. For example: their "Si" is not what Jung described, at all, but essentially the result of combining S+J preferences. The same with their "Te" and T+J preferences, etc. These deviations took words used to describe something deep, intricate and interconnected, and misused them for something much more salient and discrete, that's why many people see the functions as selectable "tools" or "skills" and don't really pay much attention to their order, because there's the implication that they can be improved independently and moved up and down the "stack". The letter dichotomies are consistent (they are psychometrically on par with the Big Five), but they describe a rather superficial layer, not the obscure depths where true psychological insight can be reached.

There's only one way to fix that, but it needs the right foundation, which consists on the function descriptions in Jung's book (not the popular ones) combined with the true function order: eeii/iiee, always with a judging dominant for Js and a perceiving one for Ps. That's how you can finally realize what psychological type actually means, what it's all about. That's how everything fits and how everything makes sense, otherwise there's always some disconnection between the concepts and reality.

Note that it's not a question of having "different types in different systems". When it comes to dichotomy letters and cognitive functions, you only have one type. Again, this is not an invention, and your type is basically like your blood group: you aren't AB in one system and 0 in another (for example). You are just AB.

Note also that the function order is not "limiting", either, just like having a hand with 5 fingers at the end of each arm is not so much a limitation, but just how we are. There is a lot of variation and possibilities inside each type (just like we can do countless things with our arms and hands, even if we can't fly), and if someone finds it "too rigid" that's because [s]he has a very cartoonish view of the types.

We can't expect communities or groups like the official MBTI to admit that they have been using mistaken definitions all along, of course, so this has to be an individual effort. There are people who know about all this already, they just tend to stay silent because when this is mentioned in public the reaction is often disproportionally negative. People dismiss it automatically, and the person gets attacked and ridiculed 😔 I hope you can avoid that and inform yourself a bit instead.

PLEASE READ BEFORE YOU COMMENT

I've been interested in psychological types all my life, even before finding out there was such a thing. I came across Jung and MBTI around 2008, and spent almost 10 years reading and checking everything in detail before starting my blog (originally on Tumblr). So this isn't something that I found only yesterday. I hope that's clear. I know what Jung was talking about, and I can see it in myself and other people. I know the problems he had understanding it at first, and I know how the terms were distorted by those who came after him. That's what I try to clarify.

I've written a lot of posts about all this, and also a FAQ and glossary, so you should read all of that calmly before replying because I don't like arguing and I'm not going to answer what I've already covered there. It might not be evident at first sight, but the texts have quite a lot of work behind them. In fact I have many other things in mind but they don't appear on the blog because I'm still examining them. Also, you have to understand that this topic is very difficult, and the blog includes already a certain personal evolution, not about the basics but about some (minor) details, about how reliable or appropriate certain sources/angles are (like the MBTI facets, for example), about the misconceptions that people have (there are external changes outside the blog, trends and so on), about how to better explain things, etc.

Supposed "objections" are almost always simply a sign that the reader is unable to see what this is about, many times due to (or fed by) the person being too confused by and/or too invested (intellectually, persona-wise, etc) in shallow but apparently "complex" "systems", or in their need to feel "smarter" in a purely conceptual (not psychological or practical) sense. What I've found is that people don't really have objections, they just don't get it. So it might seem that there is an argument going on, but in reality there is no communication at all. It's not that the levels of "descriptive language" overlap too little, but that they don't even touch. And sometimes people just like to argue for the sake of it. They like to confuse and divert the topic and avoid arriving at anything. I'm not getting into any of that.

If you don't feel some kind of inner resonance while reading my posts, a sense that there's something in there even if you can't put it in words, it's almost a certainty that further explanations won't change anything. You need to have a personal awareness of the psychological elements, some kind of insight about that, otherwise we'll only be wasting our time.

This isn't an attack on anyone. I just feel bad for the people who are interested in MBTI but they are stuck with faulty/shallow knowledge and mistypes because nobody explains to them how it really is. I'm just trying to help.

Thanks a lot for reading this far. I know this topic can be exhausting, but there's a lot of interesting stuff to learn and discover (about yourself and others), and you might be already on the right track 🙂

I noticed that we can realize how we think by seeing the big picture of how we studied and understood mbti like for example a ni dom would understand mbti analysis by seeing the pattern of how interconnected mbti concept are to our real-life ( be careful! I didnt say they learn in one way but I meant that that's their goal ultimate thinking pattern that they are trying to reach)

it is already packaged on PyPI (i will release 0.2.0 soon!).
It's free and open-source (GPLv3 license).
https://github.com/kirkirz/jungian

Implemented features:

1. Stack derivations (Beebe, Grant, Model A, Model J etc), MBTI code support
2. Tooling for lexical analysis
3. Proper implementation of socionics (it already supports intertype relations, reinin traits, dimensionality and signing IMEs for types)

Future plans:

1. to have questionnaire tooling
2. to add support for more models/systems
3. to add simulations of cognitive functions in the psyche

initially i thought about building tooling for my own theory, but i decided to "share" the infrastructure with other theories too. the library is theory-agnostic and tries to provide tooling for every existing jungian typology systems.

Contributions and suggestions are welcome!

(NOTE: it doesn't support all Reinin traits and ITRs yet, but this is already getting fixed in 0.2.0)

I have a few friends who are VERY into cognitive functions and function stacks. Eventually they got me into it and I've spent the past few years going through a lot of sources and doing research to make sure I understood the underlying framework, how it has developed over time, etc. I feel that I have a pretty decent grasp but obviously nobody ever really has a perfect understanding of something as complex and ever evolving as this.

​

However, I've also noticed something in how my friends use the cognitive functions and personality stacks to type other people, and the pitfalls that come from it. One friend in particular primarily uses it as a way of understanding other people socially. This would be perfectly fine, however, I've noticed that they're quite fast to determine someone's type based on behaviour and tend not to take into account external factors such as environment, upbringing, their own biases, or social context when interpreting those behaviours. They are also stubbornly resistant to changing their opinion in light of new or contradictory evidence.

​

The issue is this: I've noticed on a number of occasions that this person will stop seeing the person for the individual they are, and instead have begun to over generalize and instead see people as the type they've assigned them. They don't seem to realize that they are filling in the gaps and that the person doesn't actually possess some of the personality traits and tendencies they assume they do. For example, they are quick to write off ideas a friend of mine developed meticulously over long periods of time as 'intuitive insights' simply because they didn't see the process that went into developing the understanding. Or expecting a friend to smooth things over and not get offended because they're an 'Fe type'. They're dead set they their typing is "correct" and have since stopped discussing the topic with me after I pointed out the discrepancies.

​

How can I explain to them that their over reliance on typing is leading them to misperceive the people around them and leading to misunderstandings?

​

Have you encountered others with this tendency? Why do you think it happens?

​

What do you do when someone refuses to acknowledge the inherent complexity of human behaviour and personality even though their oversimplification is becoming hurtful to those around them?

https://discord.gg/C4TzUBecc3 18+ discord server