STUDY NOTES POST #9: HOW PEOPLE DID, IN TYPING ME AS A FICTIONAL CHARACTER

There was this one post in the Attitudinal Psyche Facebook group, where the person asked an interesting question: " How do you think the folks on Personality Database would type you if you were a fictional character?" There is a person from my dreams (part fictional, part real) who is also my typology twin. We met him earlier, in the "One family, 3 ESFPs" post. He was Arvid, Jr., the one who preferred to be called Arvid because "that was his name ". Funny how we're similar, even down to that. I'm the same way with my name 🤣

Anyway, I found a typing questionnaire online, and posted it several places: in some discord servers I knew had Personality Database type description typists, in the Attitudinal Psyche Facebook group, where I knew theory typists hang, and on Reddit, where I was likely to get both. Here is the questionnaire, and the answers:

I knew I was hard to type, but I didn't realize how hard until nearly everyone failed to type me correctly when I was a fictional character.

So if I had to pick one thing in Arvid's typology/my typology that threw off the typing for most people, it is that we're both social blind 3s. Somebody even confessed that they could clearly understand the whole typology once they knew they were dealing with a social blind 3. It just shows how flawed some 3 descriptions are, if people can't imagine 3s being social blind.

So anyway, now, I'm going to go through the parts of a Personality Database typing that can be gleaned from the questionnaire, and write what people should have seen, and then what they did see

MBTI: ESFP Yes, as we all know from the post I shared earlier, Arvid was an ESFP. However, I don't know how many people typed him as an ISTJ. I have no idea where they got the thinking from, except maybe the correlations, correlating ISTJ to his incorrect Enneagram. My answer to question number 6 is a dead giveaway he was a feeler, and I'm sure the answers to some other questions probably also suggested feeling>thinking. Other answers I got were INTJ and ISFP. How they missed the obvious Se dominance is beyond me

Enneagram: 3w4 sx/sp 3(6?7?)9 While I am clearly 379 in my tritype, Arvid could have also possibly been the 369 tritype instead of 379, as it's not clear whether his head fix is 6 or 7. In my case , my head is clearly 7, which is the one possible difference in our typology (just that one number). Anyway, nearly everyone got the sp/sx right. Two people in the Enneagram group on Reddit got the core right (3), but were newbies, so they didn't try to type anything beyond there. Everything else said about his Enneagram was incorrect. When I pointed out he was a 3 and sx/sp, people's eyes were then opened, and they could totally see 3w4 sx/sp. The top incorrect answer given was 6w5 sx/sp 613. I also had people typing him as a 9 and a 5. I think one person typed him as a 1.

Socionics: SEE (And yes, I've been able to confirm my Socionics is in fact SEE ) There was one person who actually said he was SEE. They got it right. Everybody else was wrong. The most common answer was LSI ( once again, where's the thinking?) Other incorrect answers were ESI, SEI and SLI. I also don't know where everyone got the idea he was introverted

Attitudinal Psyche/Psychosophy: EFVL Only one person got this right. They were the first person who responded in the Attitudinal Psyche group on Reddit. The most common wrong answer was FEVL, but the answer I put for number 8 is a pretty clear indication of 1E. It's also pretty obvious he's 2F with his openness and experimentation in the realm of physics. Other incorrect answers were VFEL, VFLE, LFVE and FELV. I think one person might have even responded FLEV, if I remember correctly

Classic Jungian: ES(F) Only one person took a stab at this one, and got it right. I'm pretty sure they were also the one who said he was SEE in Socionics. Go figure.

So yes, that was a summary of how people typed Arvid based on the questionnaire, and thus how they would likely type me if I were a fictional character

Here's a picture I drew of Arvid, so he could be visualized:

Here's a link to the original blog post where I talk about him:

I hope you enjoyed reading about my experiment

JUNGIAN TYPOLOGY POST #17: PULLING TYPINGS OFF THE INTERNET-THEY DON'T PROPERLY REPRESENT JUNG'S FUNCTIONS

Hello, everyone, I pulled a bunch of typings people did in a Jung MBTI group out of the group, and I'm actually going to talk about how these typings do not correctly represent Jung's functions, although that's what the people in this group *claim* to be using.

First , we will start with a typing somebody submitted to the group last Tuesday:

I could get somewhat of a typing from this, but not a complete one. If I had been doing this typing, I would have asked the person who submitted it a few key things:

1. Why did the person do xyz? Motives are very important pieces of knowledge to do a correct typing.

2. Was this person in a traumatic/abusive situation at home? This is an important question to ask in most typology groups, because they usually use some mood-based typology in their typing process. I don't, so I normally don't ask people that, but this group does, so if I were using their typing methods, this *is* something I would ask. Traumatic and abusive situations in the home definitely affect people's demeanor

3. Does he prefer xyz over abc? If his situation were different, would he still prefer xyz over abc? As I've mentioned several times in this blog, knowing a person's priorities of the 4 different foci essentially hands you the hierarchy of their conscious functions on a silver platter. Knowing a person's first and second priority in the foci can immediately tell you what the person's dominant and auxiliary functions are. With the information provided here, all I could really determine for sure is that this person is a sensor. The fact that it was mentioned that this person gets along well with others made me think the person is also a feeler. There was a remark that mentioned this guy preferred interacting with nature over interacting with people. That suggests S1, F2; or S1, T2. In these examples, the person preferred feeling and thinking about equally. So, without any further information, my tentative type for this person would be xSFP (preferring F>T) or Sx (instead of Se or Si, because we don't have enough information to know the attitude of the conscious). Here, however, were the responses of this group that *claims * to use Jung's functions. After each, I'll tell you what's wrong abou what they say. And I'm not necessarily saying these people mistyped him. They might have the right type, and just got lucky. More information being provided could back up their type claims, but with only the information provided, their typings were questionable at best, and here's why:

This is questionable at best, because as I just stated above, there was not enough information provided to definitely type this person as an ISTP. The only definitive things at all in the description above are S1 and an undifferentiated aux

To the person above, I would hate to say it, but first of all , if you read Jung, you would definitely know unconscious Fe is not about positive expressivity. Jung, in fact, defines unconscious Fe here:

Second that Kiersey Temperament +Berens Communication Style = Greek Temperament is nothing but ****, and any good typist knows that

Once again, Fe3 has nothing to do with positive expression. Jung says in many places that x3 is thae auxiliary of x4. What does that imply? That the unconscious functions have at best , neutral, and at worst, negative, connotations with them. Alternating between funny, extroverted and life of the party; and quiet, contemplative and timid; would be because of a *conscious* feeling function, not an unconscious one. Notice how after reading the exact same paragraph, I determined this person to have *conscious* feeling.

Also , this particular group associates Ti with self identity 🤔 Jung's definition of Ti has nothing to do with self identity, and if you actually read Psychological Types, you find if there *is* a function that has anything to do with self identity, it's *Fi*, not Ti.

Then there's this person, talking about an "SP" trait as if it's exclusive to ISTPs, and thankfully, someone else in the group was at least able to see this error and correct the person:

Now that I read it, they aren't fully correct. To the person directly above, that's S1, not Si1.

And after I remembered that if Jung has a function that that anything to do with self-identity, it is Fi; I think I'm wrong. There was enough information provided to type this person. He's not an ISTP, by the way. His SOJT type is Se (preferring F>T), and his closest MBTI would be ESFP. Sorry, you guys. 🤣😂😆 I'm going to post this in my server . If anyone reads this here, or in my server, and sees any other misrepresentations of Jung, other than the ones I've already pointed out, please point them out , and let's discuss. I'd like my readers to learn Jung well enough to recognize typology errors like these, and I'd like to get better at recognizing them too 👍🤞✌️

TYPING IN PRACTICE #14: BEN VASSERLAN

Ben Vasserlan is a Nardi and Socionics YouTuber, who also hangs out a lot on the Jungian typology subreddit on Reddit. Ben types himself as an INTP, but just like practically everyone else in the MBTI and Socionics communities, he is mistyped. Want to know what his real type is? Read on! I've got you covered.

One time, Ben finally posted a link to a video for my MBTI type in the Jungian typology subreddit.

1. First, I watched the video. While I was watching it, I noted one interesting thing: Ben Vasserlan was definitely not an INTP. He talked very smoothly, and talked for over an hour without showing any signs of discomfort. He also clearly had Dominance traits from DISC above 50/50. Therefore, he was definitely *not* an INTP, as they have only Compliance above 50/50 (INTP =Primary C). Since I was watching the video to learn about myself, more than I was to type Ben, I didn't notice if any other DISC letters were above 50/50 or not.

2. I commented on Ben's post in the Jungian typology subreddit. I asked a question. The functions on my Nardi test were not in the same order that Ben mentioned in the video. I asked him if that might be because at one time , I had an undifferentiated attitude for my Jungian typology type. Ben just skirted around answering the question. He wrote a response, but it didn't answer the question I had. Once again, this wasn't the way an INTP would respond in such a situation.

3. I then asked another question, what Ne looked like as an "Achilles heel " funtion in Nardi. He mentioned how my type didn't have Ne in that position, and got kind of rude with me in his response. I could easily see now that his thinking was focused outward. The fact that he talked so long in the videos about theories and thorough enjoy every minute showed me that his intuition was extroverted as well. He was ENTx at this point with the letters.

4. I used function related themes to determine Ben was ideas first, tasks second; or Ne1, Te2. At this point, we have a type identification: ENTP

5. I then used the MBTI facets to confirm the letters

Ben Vasserlan is not an INTP; he is, in fact an ENTP.

TYPING IN PRACTICE POST #12: MADONNA

Continuing with the theme of Detroit area "local legends " and "hometown heroes", I am now going to show how I typed Madonna. She was another "local legend" of my era, although she started in music 2 decades after the Supremes did.

Madonna was born in Bay City, MI. That's at the base of Michigan's "thumb", for those who don't know. Her family moved to the Detroit area when she was very young, and she grew up in the suburbs of Pontiac, Auburn Hills and Rochester Hills. Her mother died from cancer at some point, and the family moved to Rochester Hills, because that's where Madonna's stepmother (her dad remarried) already had a home. She had many siblings, biological and through marriage, but one of her favorite siblings was her biological brother Chris. I read an autobiography/biography a while back that Madonna and Chris wrote together. I also have a second-cousin who graduated from Rochester Adams High School, which is also Madonna's alma mater. I asked her if they ever mentioned anything about Madonna attending there. My second-cousin said that yes, and not only do they mention that, but they make a big deal about it. I have never tried typing Madonna until now.

Just a little more background before we get started after her high school graduation, she went to New York to study dance, and dance with dance troupes. Around 1980, she decided she had had enough of just dancing, and she wanted to sing. While her dance troupe was in France, a scout for a record label heard her sing, and wanted to sign her to a recording contract. She turned it down, and told Casey Kasum in 1988, that it was because it was an easy ticket for her to get fame and fortune, but she didn't want it that easy. She wanted to *work hard* to get her contract. So she returned to the US, worked hard, and 2 years later, got a recording contract, that she *worked* for.

Now, I think that's enough background. On to the typing we go. Historically, Madonna has proved to be hard for many typologists to type. I even had a hard time typing her myself. There are a few reasons for that. The first is, in my typing, I found out Madonna has 3 conscious functions. She also is, what Vendrah would call, in this article, "more than one type":

Second, because of being more than one type, it is very hard to figure out, for the typologists who use the Berens Communication Styles or Kiersey temperaments, which one she actually is. I've seen typologists agree that she's ES, but after that, there's always disagreement as to whether she's T or F, J or P. The most common type I see listed for her is ESTP. Close, folks, but no cigar. 😉🤫

Step 1: I typed Madonna using 5 different interview videos. I will post some of them at the end. 2 were from 1984, when Madonna was 26 years old. The others were from more recent years. I watched the videos through several times, carrying out different typing procedures as I went

Step 2: the first time through, I looked for the essentials, such as DISC quadrant and function related themes. In one of the videos I used, Madonna was talking about her friendship with Michael Jackson. She was talking about dominating Michael Jackson and imposing her will on him. In one of her 26 year old interviews, she talks about how she is in music for the fame and fortune, and how she wants to conquer the world. These are just a few examples of things I saw that would place her in the D (Dominance) quadrant of DISC, so that is where I put her. As far as themes, I saw 3. Tasks, objects and people. The tasks and objects were in large amounts. The people was small by comparison. Madonna mentioned relationships and ethics between 5-10 times between the 5 videos. There was no mention at all of ideas. Well, we know she's definitely not an intuitive 😂🤣😆 Because of the 3 themes I was able to narrow down her DISC and SOJT type to either a non wheeled result D=I (-), which correlates with the SOJT type Se preferring T>F ; or Slot 21 on the DISC wheel which is the SOJT type Te-s/Se-f. As far as letters, we have ESTx.

Step 3: the third time through I did a Jungian function analysis on Madonna's instances of thinking and decision making. This is actually what I did to discover my lovely dream people's SOJT types. I wrote out instances of them thinking and deciding, and determined what functions were involved in those thoughts/decisions. Granted, I didn't have to write down Madonna's thoughts and decisions, because they were provided to me in the videos, but otherwise, I executed the procedure exactly the same. The result was Te-s/Se-f.

Step 4: I watched the videos yet again, and this time, looked for facets of DISC. I couldn't slot her, however, I could definitely place her in the D/C profile.

Step 5: Who gets Te-s/Se-f as a SOJT type and the D/C profile? The "more than one type" ESTJ. There are 2 dream people who have this SOJT type: a man named Ariel who we read about in True Types post #30, and a woman named Callie. The commonalities between Madonna and Ariel, and especially Madonna and Callie, since the were the same gender, were absolutely crazy, and made me laugh, they had so much in common 🤣 😂 😆

So anyway, with that, we have a type identification: although Madonna does not fit a type perfectly, I have identified her SOJT type as Te-s/Se-f, and the MBTI type most resonant is ESTJ

Here are the 2 interviews I cited above. I'm only posting the ones I cited:

And here's more information about the SOJT type Te-s/Se-f, in my "mock interview " with Ariel:

JUNGIAN TYPOLOGY POST #9: GRANT'S "FUNCTIONS"/THE STACK AND JUNG'S FUNCTIONS/PSYCHOLOGICAL TYPES ARE NOT THE SAME

I said in my announcement about letter cluster behaviors, that I was going to write this, and some people have made me mad in a Jungian typology group I'm in, because they're in fact, typing people in a very "Grant-ian" way. But I'm going to address that in the second way Grant and Jung are not the same. But let's start with the first reason they're not the same. This one should be obvious if you read my announcement about the letter cluster behaviors:

1. Grant just took 8 letter clusters associated with various behaviors and called them "functions". Jung's functions, on the other hand, are fundamental aspects of reality.

With Grant: SP behavior = Se, SJ behavior =Si, NP behavior = Ne, NJ behavior = Ni, TJ behavior = Te, TP behavior = Ti, FJ behavior = Fe and FP behavior = Fi

Whereas with Jung (Jung's quote): " To sum up, we have considered four kinds of realities: (1) static reality that comes to us through sensation; (2) the dynamic reality revealed by intuition; (3) static images given to us by thinking; (4) dynamic images sensed by feeling. "

2. Because Grant's "functions" are actually behaviors, he had to change the definition of each "function", depending on its location in the stack, to make it conform to the MBTI type descriptions.

Whereas Jung's functions maintain the same definition no matter their location, because they are thinking patterns first and foremost. They do change orientation, when they move from the conscious to the unconscious, in how they're perceived and how well the duties of the function are performed. However, the definitions and duties of the function to not change.

To show what I mean about Jung's functions changing orientation of how they're perceived and how well the duties are performed, but the functions not changing definitions or duties, I will use the following example: Ni1 in INPs vs. Ni4 in ESPs.

Ni manifests the same way in both INPs and ESPs. It's hard to define, so I'm not going to try to define it, but its definition is the same in both types. Its duties are also the same in both types. Some of its duties are to suspect, to ponder, to assume (draw conclusions), and more.

However, in INPs, Ni is looked at favorably by others. They generally perceive the INP as someone making good assumptions and drawing accurate conclusions. Sometimes they mess up, and those moments they tend to remember, but they usually get it right. INPs can be suspicious of people or things, but once again, it's usually perceived by others as them being cautious and not fanatical, and is seen as a good thing. Their pondering is actually perceived by others as a good thing as well, because it shows that they're looking at many possible angles to draw the conclusion from, and people think that's important.

Then, by contrast, ESPs have Ni4. In ESPs, the Ni is looked at by others with disfavor. People generally perceive ESPs as people who are very suspicious of others, and have a hard time trusting them. They often perceive ESPs as people who "jump to conclusions", and are more often wrong than right.

See how the function stayed the same and performed the same duties? However, what changed were how well the duties were performed, and how people perceived the duties of the function, as a result.

And I'm glad I used Ni as an example, because that gets me into the very "Grant-ian" typings and weird function definitions I've been seeing floating around in a group that's *supposed* to be Jungian typology

One is the belief that you must have Ni to have a relationship with God. 🤔 Huh, you've really got me, there. I just described the duties of Ni as suspicion, pondering and drawing conclusions. What the heck does that have to do with having a relationship with God? To whoever came up with that idea, God is omnipresent. He knows everything there is to know. He can be anything a human needs him to be to connect with him. There were many people who had a relationship with God in the Bible who had Ni in the undifferentiated realm (in other words neither conscious nor unconscious Ni): King David-an ENFP, King Solomon-an ENTJ, Isaac-an ISFJ, Jacob-an ISTJ, Moses-an ISTP, Joshua-an ENTP, Nehemiah-an ISFP, the apostle John-an ISTP, Simon Peter-an ENFJ*

* these typings were listed as DISC profiles in "Understanding How Others Misunderstand You " by Ken Voges and Ron Braund. I put them with the corresponding MBTI types

Another one I've seen is that people with Te4 write poetry. What the heck does Te have to do with writing poetry, and ever since when was poetry something not done well 🤔? That belief obviously had its origin in a "Grant-ian" MBTI theororist, because, first it singles out Te in a specific location, and second, because it is a completely different definition of Te from Te1, Te2, or Te3, and has nothing to do with Jung's Te at all. Well, anyway, in this group, people were using this "Grant-ian" MBTI theororist's theory to justify typing Taylor Swift as an ISFJ. "Taylor writes poetry. Therefore she has Te4, and she's an ISFJ ". Highly laughable 😆😂🤣. Anybody typing her correctly can clearly see that she's in the D (Dominance) quadrant of DISC. She's just about as opposite an ISFJ as you could be! 😆😂🤣 In my Typing In Practice post on her, I typed her as ENTP, and trust me, ENTP makes a whole lot more sense!

So that's 2 ways that Grant's "functions" and Jung's functions are different. I'm sure there's more, but I believe I've done enough writing for now, so I'll just end things here, and let you digest it

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 😅

TYPING IN PRACTICE POST #9: PINK

Pink, who's real name is Alecia Moore, is one of my favorite singers from the 2000s and 2010s. I have a few of her albums. She's a collaborator and promotes harmony and unity, and fights for justice. She's a very passionate singer, and got signed to a recording contract, after being singled out as the most passionate singer in an all female vocal group. She's also very athletic, and does athletic type things in her live shows while she's singing. Without further ado, lete explain how I typed her.

Step 1: I think everybody can tell pretty clearly that Pink has conscious Se. I think that's why most in the MBTI community mistype her as ESTP. And yes, my dear followers and readers, that is a mistype. And please continue reading to see what her type actually is. But the fact that she clearly has conscious Se puts knowledge of her perceiving axis as Se-Ni. At this point, letter-wise we have ESxx.

Step 2: we place Pink in a DISC quadrant. As I mentioned in the intro statement, Pink is collaborating, harmonizing and unifying. Those are actually all traits of people in the I (Influencing) quadrant of DISC. Therefore, sorry Personality Database, and all the websites out there that love to say she's an ESTP. She's definitely not that type, because ESTP is in the D (Dominance) quadrant. At this point letter-wise, now we know ESFx.

Step 3: Although we got there through different means, we are down to the same 2 types we were for Miley Cyrus in Typing In Practice Post#4. So how are we going to settle this dilemma? I did it by watching a few Pink interviews, and looking for the presence or absence of S (Steadiness). If it is largely present, Pink would be ESFJ; and if it's largely absent she would be ESFP. The reason is ESFJ is I/S in DISC, whereas ESFP is Primary I.

Step 4: a hangup glitch kind of thing happened- at least that's what I thought it was, but then I realized it was not. It seemed like her foci were people first , then objects. Fe1, Se2. But there was an issue in the fact that Steadiness was absent. Well, thank goodness for True Types Post#28. Yes, Chris (formerly Blaine) loved to promote harmony and unity, and swoop in and save the day. And he did that again 😂😆🤣, and outside of the context of my head while sleeping this time😂😆🤣. Thank you, my lovely dream dude. I remembered your DISC slot, and realized that Pink is in the same slot on the DISC wheel, the Primary I profile, slot 8.

Step 5: What is Primary I profile, slot 8? Is is the short primary/long secondary slot on the DISC wheel for ESFP. When I was figuring Out Chris's functions for the True Types post they came back on my analysis as Fe Se Ti Ni. Notice, Jungians, how the Se and Fe came back backwards? That's a phenomenon called short primary, long secondary or short dom, long aux for short. It will make a person's auxiliary function appear to be, or test as, their dominant function. The way to recognize this phenomenon is by looking at what the lowest function is, because the lowest function is always going to be the pole of the dominant function, even if another function seems to be eclipsing it. In my analysis, Chris's lowest function was Ni. Therefore, it didn't matter that Fe was higher than Se . Se was still his dominant function. That's why it's always important to note a person's lowest function when you're testing them, folks. You might end up with situations like I did with Chris, and then with Pink.

So in summary the superhero Chris and the superheroine Pink share the same slot on the DISC wheel, and the same MBTI type.

Pink is an ESFP

TYPING IN PRACTICE POST #7: ERIK THOR

I was talking to someone today about my "Typing In Practice " posts, and was reminded that I keep forgetting to post this typing example from last summer (2021).

Erik Thor has a typology YouTube channel and website. For many years, Erik thought he was an INFJ, until he discovered a system called "Neo Jungian typology ". Through that system, he was able to conclude he was actually an Ne dom. At that point, he removed everything about him being an INFJ from his YouTube channel and website. I very much respect him, for admitting that he was wrong about his type, and removing it from his YouTube channel and website. Without further ado, I will discuss how I typed Erik Thor.

1. First, I commented on a video he posted about the INFJ type removal. Some people were commenting that he was an ENTP, others ENFP. I said that a Jungian typologist I know of (didn't mention the name in the comment, but it was Akhromant, FYI) had him typed as ENFP, but watching his videos, I could see the possibility of ENTP as well. Erik actually replied to my comment, saying that was his exact dilemma, whether he was Ne-t or Ne-f was unclear.

2. So I went back through Erik's videos, and saw exactly what both he and I were talking about. Sometimes Erik was more task oriented, and focused on production and releasing of videos, not so much on his subscribers. Other times, he would release videos where he was truly having a heart-to-heart with his subscribers, and he was certainly bring more people focused. It was at this point, that it became clear to me Erik Thor has an undifferentiated auxiliary function.

3. I went through Erik's videos, to determine his DISC quadrant. Because ENTP and ENFP are in two different quadrants (D and I respectively), I kind of figured I would see common instances of both Dominance and Influence. So what I was looking for was which was more common (Yep, that's the difference between slot 124 and slot 105 on the DISC wheel, folks-frequency of T and F, believe it or not 😯).

4. I came to the conclusion that Erik Thor was I more often than D , and I could also see some C in Erik as well. (And the DISC profile I/C corresponds with ENFP )

5. So I decided that Erik Thor's SOJT type is Ne , preferring F>T. That would make him Slot 105 on the DISC wheel, not Slot 124, which is Ne preferring T>F.

6. So in summary, although Erik Thor does not fit nicely into an MBTI type, his most resonant MBTI type is ENFP.

ANNOUNCEMENT: WHY I DO NOT AND WILL NOT USE ANYTHING RELATED TO TEMPERAMENT IN MY TYPINGS

As many of you know, there's a few other Jungian typologists out there who use temperament religiously in their typings, and guess what. Because of that, they mistype a lot of people. Granted, they get more people right than the mainstream MBTI community does. But still I find a lot of mistypes even there.

I want to be better than that, by assuring that every method I use in determining someone's type has higher test-retest, accuracy and reliability ratings than the MBTI facets, ehich are going to be my "weakest link". I refuse to use any methods with worse ratings than the official MBTI in my typings or confirmations . Well, if you want more details, I will gladly oblige:

1. The 4 Greek Temperaments, thanks to folks like Tim La Haye and Florence Littenauer, are just as messed up as mainstream MBTI, if not even moreso. Based on what I've read, the 4 Greek Temperaments were originally simply this:

sanguine = stable *social* extrovert

choleric = neurotic *social* extrovert

phlegmatic = stable *social* introvert

melancholy = neurotic *social* introvert

Yep, thats it, believe it or not. Anything above and beyond that was totally an invention of Tim and Florence and others, some of whom completely misrepresent the temperaments from what Hippocrates actually observed. Needless to say, I don't mind taking a 4 Greek Temperaments test from time to time, to see how stable or neurotic I am at any given moment, but you can definitely see why I wouldn't want to use anything that far removed from the truth in any part of my typing process.

2. Jungian typology, DISC, the Big 5 and the official MBTI all measure the same thing; however the 4 Greek Temperaments measures completely different things. Jungian typology and DISC both measure *cognitive* extroversion/introversion, thinking vs. feeling and intuition vs. sensation. The Big 5 and the official MBTI measure *social* introversion and extroversion, however *social* and *cognitive* very often are the same, so they got lucky there, but not always. They also measure judging and perceiving. Even though in Jung and DISC, J/P is about whether the judging or perceiving function is dominant, in the Big 5 and the MBTI, it's a dichotomy that has to do with conscientiousness. But I can kind of buy that, because on a whole, J types are more conscientious than P types. So yeah, the E/I and J/P dichotomies are kind of sketchy in those methods, but still have roughly enough commonalities with Jung and DISC to be compatible with them, maybe as a confirmation tool. And yes, that's how I use them.

But take a look at the 4 Greek Temperaments on the other hand. Once again, I said it measures *social* extroversion and introversion, which is what the dichotomy tests measure. However, it also measures *neuroticism*. Do Jungian typology, DISC and the MBTI measure *neuroticism*? No! So what should that tell you right there? Those systems are *not* compatible with the 4 Greek Temperaments!

The only test of those that correlates is the Big 5, because the Big 5 also has a neuroticism dichotomy. On the Big 5, based on the *original* definitions of the 4 Greek Temperaments, and not the embellished La Haye/Littenauer definitions; the Big 5 would correlate like this:

High E, low N=sanguine

High E, high N= choleric

Low E, low N=phlegmatic

Low E, high N=melancholy

This is the *only* correlation between the 4 Greek Temperaments, and any of the typing methods I listed above. Any other correlations come from modern day MBTI theororists, and that leads me into...

3. MBTI typing methods that rely heavily on temperament to determine your MBTI type, such as the Kiersey Temperament Sorter, the Berens Communication Styles and the CS Joseph Grid (which combines the 2 mentioned before it on a grid) are the most inaccurate MBTI tests out there, and mistype more people than they type correctly! 😯 Last summer (2021), I did a research project on the CS Joseph grid, and to summarize quickly, it mistyped around 60% of the people I threw at it. That's the accuracy of Kiersey and Berens for you. Which segways into the most important thing I learned from the CS Joseph grid study...

4. Any method of typing that relegates the whole entire populace of an MBTI type to a particular Greek temperament is extremely inaccurate, and is going to mistype more often than it types correctly. The reason is, and anyone who's a Big 5 specialist will say this is true:

Not all ESTJs, ESTPs, ENTJs and ENFJs are neurotic (choleric). A decent amount of them are stable (sanguine).

Not all ESFJs, ESFPs, ENTPs and ENFPs are stable (sanguine). A decent amount of them are neurotic (choleric).

Not all ISTJs, ISTPs, INTJs, and INFJs are neurotic (melancholy). A decent amount of them, including a majority of ISTPs 😯 are stable (phlegmatic).

Not all ISFJs, ISFPs, INTPs and INFPs are stable (phlegmatic). A decent amount of them are neurotic (melancholy).

If I remember correctly, nearly all the mistypes on the CS Joseph grid were people who were the opposite temperament of the one their MBTI type was *supposed* to be, for example, stable ENFJs (a stable ENFJ was actually the first mistype I found; the grid mistyped him as an ENTP), stable ISTPs , neurotic INTPs, stable INTJs, neurotic ESFPs.

So I hope you understand now, why I refuse to use temperament in typing. And anyone who's telling you temperament correlates accurately with the MBTI, but that DISC and Jungian typology are not compatible, is spinning you all kinds of lies. Please do not buy, or support such people. Sorry Kiersey, Berens and Joseph. You all deserved it

Rant over. Now we return to our regularly scheduled program 😀 Sorry, I had to throw that in there 😅

TYPING IN PRACTICE POST #5: KRISTIN (YOUTUBER FROM AUSTRALIA) FROM "DEAR KRISTIN "

Kristin is a YouTuber from Australia, who does many MBTI skits, and just like everyone else, practically, in the mainstream MBTI community , she is mistyped. I'm going to let her true type unfold as you read the process I went through to type her.

But first a little background about Kristin. She really wanted to go into professional acting, however, she didn't want to put in the time and effort and risk necessary to go into acting, so she went to college to become an acting teacher instead. She became a teacher and taught acting in South Korea for a few years. Then she returned to Australia to get a masters degree in education. Sometime during this time, she discovered the MBTI, and started making videos of MBTI skits, posting them on Instagram. When she finished her masters degree, the pandemic hit, and she figured it would be a long time before she could get a new teaching job. Someone advised her that those MBTI skits she was posting on Instagram, she should post on YouTube. And with that , the "Dear Kristin " YouTube channel was born.

So without further ado, I will take you through the process I went through to *correctly* type Kristin:

1. Back in September of last year (2021), I watched this video:

It is very clear in watching this video, that she is a mistype, based on the way she's describing Fi and Te. Rather than describing them the way modern MBTI theororists describe them, she used the actual Jungian definitions of those functions. The people who function like that in Jungian typology are all the ET (Dominance) types. Also in this video , she mentioned having high expectations for her housemates, but not so high for herself. As you can see from the chart below, ( Taken from " Understanding How Others Misunderstand You " by Ken Voges and Ron Braund p. 55) that is actually associated with high Dominance

So, for a long time, I thought Kristin was likely actually an ESTP or ESTJ, as they get mistyped as ESFPs all the time because of applying Jung's definitions of functions to the alternating stacks. You can't do that, people!

2. Well, anyway, I was caught on her being some kind of ET type, for the reasons listed above, and I was getting ready to submit her for a typing to a Jungian typology discord I'm on. But then, I watched this video, and it totally changed my mind about her type:

Remember how in my True Types posts, I'm constantly talking about foci? I say there's 4 possible foci we can have. They are : tasks (T), people (F), objects (S) and ideas (N). Well, upon watching this video, two things became clear to me: 1. Even though Kristin fancied herself as a High D in the other video , she's actually a High I (Influence), which corresponds with the EF types in MBTI and conscious Fe with Jung. And 2. I was able to get a good read on her foci. Her primary focus is people, people, people, and more people. So her conscious Fe is actually her dominant function. Her secondary focus, and this caught me off guard, (but in the end,it made sense) is ideas. Therefore, Ne is her auxiliary function, and Kristin is an intuitive, not a sensor! 😯

I watched the lockdown video again, as well as another video she did about mental health, and I kept seeing the same things over and over: Fe1, Ne2.

3. So then, I sent this to the Jungian typology group. They saw exactly what I saw, but typed her as an ESFJ, because she couldn't possibly be an ENFJ because she didn't match the Kiersey or Berens temperaments for ENFJ, and said that what I was calling Ne2 could also just be from Fe1/Ti4. I didn't agree with that, and almost told the people who were saying this to go back and look at the MBTI facets, because on these videos, Kristin makes hardly any mention of objects or object relationships. However, she's constantly talking about ideas, abstract concepts, her creativity, her imagination, and how she wants her and things to be new, original and unique. Those are all MBTI facets for N not S. But I didn't. I figured I'd keep this thought to myself

And here's a picture of the MBTI facets:

See all those words Kristin demonstrated and described herself as on the N side? I do agree Kristin is a little bit more on the experiential side than the theororetical side. But all the other 4, she's N. So N would, in fact, be her second letter.

4. One thing I had left to do to confirm this was DISC. So I looked for D traits and S traits in the 3 videos, as I/D =ENFJ and I/S= ESFJ. I did this to see if I might have been missing something, and that maybe Kristin has an undifferentiated auxiliary function, in which case , both her D and S would be above 50/50 , like they were for Felipe in True Types post 2. But , no, she came back straight I/D. She mentioned people pleasing in all the videos, but that's the only S trait she mentioned. However, she mentioned a lot of D traits: the ones I've already mentioned, as well as a dislike for expressing feelings, and a desire for self-autonomy.

5. I already mentioned that ENFJ is a type that gets I/D results on DISC assessments. But I didn't mention who gets I/D. The types that get an I/D result are the 5 variations of ENFJ, as well as the I/D (-) result. I'm thinking that result might be another type. I've got to have someone get the result to know for sure. And as you have already seen, Kristin's Jung function analysis and MBTI facets also suggested ENFJ.

So yes, in summary, Kristin is an ENFJ

STUDY NOTES POST #1: STUDY ON CS JOSEPH GRID

Study conducted on the CS Joseph grid summer 2021

This study was conducted using 180 personalities that were present in my night time dreams from approximately 1986- 2010. These personalities were likely those of people I knew, but they just had different names and appearances in my dreams. They were spontaneously living their lives in my dreams, and I was sleeping, I was not influencing the outcome of the situations I dreamed in my dreams. For about a decade, I had wanted to do a mass typing of my "dream people" , in order to better understand their interactions. I watched a video about the CS Joseph grid last spring, and figured it would be a great tool to use for such a mass typing. So I typed 180 of my "dream people" using it. But a short time later, CS Joseph lost all credibility with me, as I delved deeper into his video library. What I uncovered called into question the accuracy of his grid, and all the typings I had just done on it. So I then went and retyped all the 180 "dream people", using DISC. I then used my then new, now seasoned, knowledge of Jung's functions to associate each DISC result with a Briggs Myers type. The summary of the study results follow. The correct type of the 180 dream people is whatever type they got in DISC and Jungian typology, regardless of if it coincided with the CS Joseph grid result or not. And trust me, for each person the CS Joseph grid mistyped, the DISC/Jungian arrived Briggs Myers type made a lot more sense, in all cases. Without further ado, here's the numbers:

Type Total Number + Number- %+ %-

INTP 11 5 6 45 55

ISFP 12 8 4 67 33

INFJ 8 4 4 50 50

INFP 3 2 1 67 33

ISTJ 21 6 15 29 71

ISFJ 10 6 4 60 40

ESFJ 13 8 5 62 38

ENFP 7 7 0 100 0

ESTP 8 3 5 37 63

ENFJ 7 3 4 42 58

ESFP 16 7 9 44 56

INTJ 15 9 6 60 40

ISTP 18 5 13 28 72

ENTJ 1 1 0 100 0

ENTP 15 3 12 20 80

ESTJ 13 1 12 8 92

Statistics Typed correctly- 78 Mistyped- 102 Accuracy rating- 43%

Correct typing statistics Highest totals- 9 (INTJ), 8 (ISFP/ ESFJ), 7 (ENFP/ ESFP), 6 (ISFJ/ ISTJ), 5 (ISTP/ INTP) Highest % correct- ENFP/ ENTJ - 100%, ISFP/ INFP - 67%, ESFJ - 62%, ISFJ/ INTJ - 60%

Mistyping Statistics Highest totals- 15 (ISTJ), 13 (ISTP), 12 (ENTP/ ESTJ), 9 (ESFP) Highest % mistypes- ESTJ - 92%, ENTP - 80%, ISTP- 72%, ISTJ - 71%, ESTP - 63%

Type Total Break-# Break-%

ISTP 10 INTJ-5, INTP-2, ISTJ-1, ESTJ-1, ESFP-1 50, 20, 10, 10, 10

ENTP 7 ESTP-4, ESTJ-1, ENFJ-1, INTP-1 57, 14, 14, 14

ENFP 7 ESTJ-3, ESFJ-1, ESFP-1, ISFP-1, INTJ-1 43, 14, 14, 14, 14

ESTJ 8 ENTP-6, ENFJ-2 75,25

ISFP 12 ISTP-3, INFJ-3, ISTJ-2, INTP-1, INFP-1, ESFP-1, 25, 25, 17, 8, 8, 8, 8

ENTP-1 INTJ 4 INTP-2, ISTP-1, ISTJ-1 50, 25, 25

ISTJ 11 ESTJ-4, ISTP-3, ISFP-2, ISFJ-1, ENTP-1 44, 33, 22, 11, 11

INTP 8 ISTP-6, INTJ-1, ESFP-1 75, 12.5, 12.5

INFP 11 ISTJ-6, ISFJ-3, ISFP-1, ESFJ-1 55, 27, 9, 9

ISFJ 4 ISTJ-4 100

ESFJ 3 ESFP-3 100

ESFP 2 ESFJ-2 100

ESTP 8 ENTP-5, ESTJ-2, ENFJ-1 62.5, 25, 12.5

ENFJ 4 ESFP-2, ESFJ-1, ESTP-1 50, 25,25

INFJ 1 ISTJ-1 100 ENTJ 0 0 100

Types for mistypes statistics Highest totals for mistype types- 12 (ISFP), 11 (ISTJ/INFP), 10 (ISTP)

Mistypes < or = 4- ISTP for INTJ, ENTP for ESTP, ESTJ for ENTP, ISTJ for ESTJ, INTP for ISTP, INFP for ISTJ, ISFJ for ISTJ, ESTP for ENTP

% < or = 50- INTJ- 50% of ISTP m.t., ESTP- 57% of ENTP m.t., ENTP- 75% of ESTJ m.t., ISTP- 50% of INTJ m.t., ISTP- 75% of INTP m.t., ISTJ- 100% of ISFJ m.t., ESFP- 100% of ESFJ m.t., ESFJ- 100% of ESFP m.t., ENTP- 62.5% of ESTP m.t., ESFP- 50% of ENFJ m.t., ISTJ- 100% of INFJ m.t.

Type Total Breakdown-# Breakdown-%

INTP 6 ISTP-3, INTJ-2, ENTP-1 50, 33, 17

ISFP 4 ENFP-1, ISTJ-2, INFP-1 25, 50, 25

INFJ 4 ISFP-3, INFP-1 75,25

INFP 1 ISFP-1 100

ISTJ 15 INFP-6, ISFJ-4, ISFP-2, INFJ-1, ISTP-1, INTJ-1 40, 27, 13, 7, 7, 7

ISFJ 4 INFP-3, ISTJ-1 75, 25

ESFJ 5 ESFP-2, ENFP-1, ENFJ-1, INFP-1 40, 20, 20, 20

ESTP 5 ENTP-4, ENFJ-1 80, 20

ENFJ 4 ESTJ-2, ESTP-1, ENTP-1 50, 25, 25

ESFP 9 ESFJ-3, ENFJ-2, ISFP-1, ISTP-1, INTP-1, ENFP-1 33, 22, 11, 11, 11, 11

INTJ 7 ISTP-6, ENFP-1 86, 14

ISTP 13 INTP-6, ISFP-3, ISTJ-3, INTJ-1 46, 23,23,8

ENTP 12 ESTJ-5, ESTP-5, ISTJ-1, ISFP-1 42, 42,8,8

ESTJ 12 ISTJ-4, ISTP-1, ENFP-3, ESTP-2, ENFJ-1, ENTP-1 33, 8, 25, 16, 8, 8

ENFP 0 0 0

ENTJ 0 0 0

Types mistyped statistics Highest totals for types mistyped- 15 (ISTJ), 13 (ISTP), 12 (ENTP/ ESTJ), 9 (ESFP)

Mistypes < or = 4- ISTJ as INFP, ISTJ as ISFJ, ESTP as ENTP, INTJ as ISTP, ISTP as INTP, ENTP as ESTJ, ENTP as ESTP, ESTJ as ISTJ

% < or = 50- 75% of INFJ m.t. are ISFP, 100% of INFP m.t. are ISFP, 75% of ISFJ m.t. are INFP, 80% of ESTP m.t. are ENTP, 86% of INTJ m.t. are ISTP, 50% of ENFJ m.t. are ESTJ

Common mistypes ISTJ→INFP ISTJ→ISFJ ESTP→ENTP INTJ→ISTP ISTP→INTP ENTP→ESTJ ENTP→ESTP ESTJ→ISTJ Correct type→mistype

One other statistic of note: 54 of the 102 mistypes are Latinos

Conclusion

After looking at these statistics, I was both surprised and horrified at the same time. I personally will no longer use the CS Joseph grid as a typing tool anymore, based on its 43% accuracy rate from the 180 person sample I threw at it. It only typed 78 of the 180 people correctly. From now on, I will use DISC assessments only. Why did the CS Joseph grid mistype 102 people? Here's my theories, in the order I feel they had an impact:

1. The CS Joseph grid attempts to place the 16 Briggs Myers types on a grid that has different dichotomies than the MBTI. The grid's dichotomies are the dichotomies of the 4 Greek Temperaments (extroversion vs introversion, neuroticism vs stability). Neuroticism vs stability is measured in the 4 Greek Temperaments, but not in the MBTI. As a result, when one tries to place the 16 Briggs Myers types on such a grid, one is basically categorizing whole populations of Briggs Myers types as either neurotic or stable. But the truth is, that since neuroticism vs stability is not measured in the MBTI, there are neurotic and stable people in all 16 types. So what happens if you're neurotic and have a categorized stable type, or you're stable and have a categorized neurotic type? You get mistyped. Plain and simple. I estimate this was a main factor, or a contributing factor, for nearly all the mistypes.

2. The CS Joseph grid makes incorrect correlations between traits and Kiersey types. For example, all Intellectuals are systematic. No, all NJs are systematic. Or all Artisans are pragmatic. No, all ETs and IFs are pragmatic. I estimate this was a main factor, or a contributing factor, for nearly all the mistypes.

3. The CS Joseph grid's interaction styles are not universal, and don't transcend cultural barriers. I believe the interaction styles on the grid are geared towards mainstream western culture, however, a large portion (about half) of the 180 people I typed on the grid interacted in ways typical of hispanic culture. This led to mistypes, because interactions between people in Hispanic culture and western culture are different. This was a main factor, or a contributing factor, for 54 mistypes.

4. There are stereotypes for each Briggs Myers type that end up getting associated with the wrong types after generations of common mistypes and associations with incorrect cognitive functions. For instance, about 75% of an ISTP type description actually describes an INTJ. Or about 65% of an ESFP type description actually describes an ESFJ. This was a main factor, or a contributing factor, for 42 mistypes

TYPING IN PRACTICE POST #2: LI JO

This is one of the first typings (other than my dream people) I did, using my combined DISC/Jungian typology approach. I'm going to break it down step by step, how I typed LiJo.

LiJo is a YouTuber, who's real name is Lindsay Johnson, and believes firmly that she is an INTJ. In many people's eyes, she is obviously mistyped, and when viewers mention that in the comments of her videos, she blocks those viewers from her channel. She has a reputation for being very unfriendly and dominant and controlling on YouTube.

So I figured I would take her on. Here's how I approached the situation:

1. I started by trying to figure out LiJo's function preferences first, to determine which way I should be looking in a type. LiJo prefers S to N and T to F.

2. I looked for facets of DISC, that could help me identify LiJo's DISC profile. LiJo is very authoritative, dominant and controlling. She's also quite productive in her video output, and is efficient in getting videos up and done. She is very practical in her videos, and gets right to the point. She doesn't beat around the bush. She is conscientious, and has some perfectionistic tendencies. Those are facets of D and C, therefore LiJo's DISC profile is D/C. D/C is the only DISC profile that combines those two letters, so yeah, we know the profile has to be D/C.

3. D/C normally has a higher D than C, and is equivalent to the Briggs Myers type ESTJ. However, if the C is higher than the D (same profile name), the type also could be some versions of INTJ and ISTP. So next, we look at Jung's functions. Let's go back to the T and S preferences we identified earlier. Are they "outgoing or reserved" as Marson would say? One thing I often use as a visual aid for "outgoing and reserved " is "outgoing" pushing outward and "reserved" pulling inward. LiJo's conscious functions push outward, so they are extroverted, which means the first letter of LiJo's Briggs Myers type is E. So we know from the available Briggs Myers type options that the D/C profile represents, the only one that makes sense is ESTJ.

4. After this, to confirm LiJo was ESTJ further, I used the letter pairing traits from Briggs Myers. LiJo is definitely SJ and not SP, because she tells all kinds of stories in her videos, and relates them to the past. I also found her to be TJ over TP as well.

5. So, in conclusion, LiJo is ESTJ

REVIEWS POST #5: BRIGGS MYERS-KEYS 2 COGNITION (DARIO NARDI TEST)

EXPECTED RESULT: ESFP

RESULT GIVEN: ESFP 2x (2010 and 2022)

WHAT WENT WRONG: there were some algorithm issues on this test. It had a pretty easy time translating my Jung Fe to Grant Fi, but once again, this test also had a snarl translating my Jung Ti to Grant Te. I was Se Fi Ti Ni on this test as well , or maybe should I say, Se Fi Ni Ti 🤔🤣😂😆

Needless to say, back around 2010, when I was originally trying to type myself in Briggs Myers, I took this test, and it was the only test that typed me as ESFP at that time. As I wrote other places in this blog, my 2010 test results were inconsistent and incomplete, even , in some cases. So I had to figure out and confirm my Briggs Myers type through the Big 5 and DISC. I remember thinking to myself, looking back at my Big 5 test, which automatically correlated my results to the type ESFP, "Man , that one lone test with the ESFP result might have been right. " After I figured out what Briggs Myers type my DISC profile correlated with, and taking both the Big 5 and DISC again to confirm, I was then like, "Yeah, that one test was right. I guess my Briggs Myers type is ESFP!"😮

So, anyway, I took it again, for these reviews, and once again , got an ESFP result

This test gives themselves a 75-80% accuracy rating. People Keys failed them, but based on the luck I've had with this test, I will give it exactly what they say....

RATING: 👍👍

GRADE: C+

ADVICE: This test's algorithm is kind of weird, in that it puts functions all over the place, and once again, like the other tests, it had trouble translating my Jung Ti into Grant Te. So your functions probably won't come out perfect to your type, just so you know.

If you want to learn more about the algorithm:

REVIEWS POST #4: BRIGGS MYERS-MISTYPE INVESTIGATOR

EXPECTED RESULT: ESFP

RESULT GIVEN: ESFP on 2 of the 4 scales, ESTP on one, and inconclusive on one

WHAT WENT WRONG: I think on this test, just like on Sakinorva, the algorithm was not able to translate enough of my Jung Ti into Grant Te, so, just like on Sakinorva, function- wise, I came out Se Fi Ti Ni 🤣😂😆 . Also, on this test, confusing the issue even more, the algorithm translated only enough of my Jung Fe to Grant Fi to make the percentages exactly equal! 🤔

Now, you see how the ESxP result came up on the Grant Brownswood scale, and how I got ESTP on the MI scale. And I got it barely, by less than 1% 😮! The other 2 scales, letter preference based on my functions, and type families, I was ESFP:

So, yeah , I guess my extremely high for a third function Jung Ti is a lot of the typing issue, but at least this test made an effort to try to translate my Jung Fe and Ti, unlike the Michael Caloz test.

RATING: 👍👎

GRADE: D-

ADVICE: This test's algorithm is not great for those who have middle Jung functions Ti and Fe. Meaning, for those who know Jungian typology, this test will produce a lot of ESxP and INxJ results. If you are one of those types, I mentioned, you'll have better luck with Sakinorva or Keys 2 Cognition, as far as the algorithm goes. Otherwise, this test did a pretty good job, considering it was given a person with an exceptionally strong x3 function to work with

If you want to read more about the algorithm:

REVIEWS POST #3: JUNGIAN TYPOLOGY- THE IDR LABS JUNG FUNCTION TEST

EXPECTED RESULT: Se-f

RESULT GIVEN: Se-f

WHAT WENT WRONG: absolutely nothing went wrong on this test. This is a pure Jung functions test, so no translation was necessary. It also gave me the Jung functions that are typical for Se-f, and exactly what I expected.

It's a good test, and I would highly recommend it, but not so much for Briggs Myers addicts, because it doesn't use the Grant Brownswood stack. But if you have any grasp and understanding of Jungian Typology, and the way the functions are arranged there, the test results will make clear sense to you. And I highly recommend this test. On Reddit, I have even interpreted results of this test where the results showed the person to have an undifferentiated attitude or undifferentiated auxiliary function !😮 That's how detailed and helpful this test is.

RATING: 👍👍

GRADE: B+

ADVICE: This test sometimes goes a little bonkers with Fe, so if the Fe might seem a tad too high, you'll know why

REVIEWS POST #2: BRIGGS MYERS- SAKINORVA

EXPECTED RESULT: ESFP

RESULT GIVEN: ESFP

WHAT WENT WRONG: The only thing that went wrong for me on this test was that the algorithm didn't completely translate my Jung Ti to the Grant stack, so this Grant Brownswood test said my functions were Se Fi Ti Ni 🤣😂😆 But the test must know the algorithm has trouble translating Jung Ti, because it still called me an ESFP. It also still called Ni Ti Fi Se in Grant Brownswood an INTJ, when an INTJ got that result with them, and posted it on Reddit

There are people who say that this test has an intuitive bias, but I observed absolutely no intuitive bias in my result, as I got very low scores for both Ne and Ni.

RATING: 👍👎

GRADE: D-

ADVICE: highly scrutinize your results on this test for possible intuitive bias. If the intuition scores seem too high, they probably are. Also, know this test has trouble translating Jung Ti to Grant Te, so if it says your Ti is higher than your Te, and it shouldn't be, you know why

Here's an article about the algorithm:

REVIEWS POST #1: BRIGGS MYERS - THE MICHAEL CALOZ TEST

I felt I had to go ahead and post my review of this test, that actually mistypes everyone, sad to say 😔, since a lot of people are taking it on Reddit, and unknowingly mistyping themselves 😯

EXPECTED RESULT: ESFP

RESULT GIVEN: ESTP

WHAT WENT WRONG: All function tests measure actual Jung functions, because Grant functions are so flimsy and vague in definition, that they can't be used. When these function tests are Grant stack tests, they are supposed to have an algorithm that translates the middle two Jung functions into Grant functions. The middle two functions switch attitude between Jung and Grant.

However, this algorithm apparently is not present on the Michael Caloz test, because at the end of the test, my functions were still Se-Fe-Ti-Ni, which are my Jung functions, not my Grant functions. And since the test was based on the Grant stack, it typed me as ESTP, because ESTP is the type that has my Jung functions as Grant functions! 😯

If this test just claimed my Jung functions were my Grant functions, and that I actually am the type that has my Jung functions as Grant functions, it's likely doing the same thing with every other single person who takes the test, therefore, unfortunately , I will have to rate the test like this:

RATING: 👎👎

GRADE: Fail

ADVICE: Do not use!!!!!

Some useful links-

This person was on to the test, but didn't know about Jung functions, so didn't realize the full implications of their observation:

This is the source for my info about the algorithm:

https://www.typologycentral.com/threads/claryfing-differences-and-conflicts-of-jung-typology-mbti-and-the-stack.106887/