True Personality Typing

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 #18: SOJT TYPE FAMILIES, MBTI TYPES AND SOCIOTYPES ARE NOT EQUAL! THE PANJUNGIANS ON PERSONALITY DATABASE ARE WRONG!

Hello, everyone. After being asked questions over and over about the likelihood of ESTJ 6, it has become clear to me that many people believe that SOJT, the MBTI and Socionics are all the same. I have already discussed how these 3 typologies are actually very different from each other, but I think this will make it clearer, as I talk about levels of specifity :

Most specific: the SOJT type. The SOJT type is the most specific unit of the 3 typologies, and is a person's differentiation pattern, with everything that is conscious in their pattern listed.

Next most specific: the SOJT type family. The SOJT type family contains several SOJT types that are related to a fully differentiated SOJT type, and all manifest similarly to the fully differentiated SOJT type they are grouped with

Next most specific: the MBTI type. An MBTI type contains SOJT types from about 4 closely related SOJT type families, which can be either introverted or extroverted, thanks to the alternating Grant stack

Least specific: Sociotype. A Sociotype contains various SOJT types from about 10 closely related SOJT type families. The SOJT types, once again, can be either extroverted or introverted, because of the Socionics alternating stack

I hope this explains a lot of what I've been talking about when I mention the specifity of SOJT, and how it is different than MBTI and Socionics

INTRODUCTION

Welcome all to my page.

Let me introduce myself. I am not going to include my actual name, or any identifying information about me, but I will say I am a middle aged person, who's been interested in typology for self improvement and group dynamics reasons since I was a teenager.

The personality typing method I have the most experience with is DISC, which I have used for nearly 25 years. I also have experience, or am familiar with many other typing methods, including Jungian typology, the Big 5, Briggs Myers, Socionics, the 4 Humors, and the Enneagram. I'm going to not reveal my type anywhere on this blog, except in my ratings of methods and tests. Obviously, there I will have to. But I don't want this blog to be about me. I want it to be about you getting to know yourself and others through the resources I provide

I will tell a little bit about my background here. I was first introduced to personality typing at the age of 13. I had already been through puberty, and was socially mature for my age, so I definitely don't feel like I got started too early. It was with Tim La Haye and the 4 Greek Temperaments, aka. the 4 Humors. I actually found my study of the 4 Humors very confusing, and hard to comprehend. The people Tim La Haye described sounded more like theories than people, to be honest. The first personality typing test I ever took was the Tim La Haye Temperament Test that was included in one of his books. And it also ended up being my first experience being mistyped. About 5 years later, a certified Tim La Haye practitioner, who went to a church, where I was a part of the college campus ministry, typed me correctly. He said he honestly couldn't understand how the test mistyped me, but still seemed to be sympathetic to my story.

Then, when I was 25, I was in a Christian bookstore, and I saw a book called, "Understanding How Others Misunderstand You ". I opened the book, and at first, thought it was another 4 Humors book, but it was not. It was actually about another typing method, called DISC. Right away, I found DISC a lot easier to comprehend than the 4 Humors, and the people in the DISC book seemed a lot more real than theororetical. So I bought the book, and I studied the book through and through. I noticed pretty early on that DISC was actually considerably different than the 4 Humors, and much more real. My nearly 25 years of loyalty to DISC started with me buying that book

My first intro into Briggs Myers came a few years later, in the early 2000's, when I was at a church women's event, and one of the speakers at the event encouraged me to read Kiersey's book, "Please Understand Me 2". I read the book, and I could almost immediately clearly identify myself as one of Kiersey's main types (guardians, artisans, rationals and idealists). I couldn't get any further than that, though. In 2007, I took what would end up being the first of many Briggs Myers tests I took over a 4 year period. I got a mistype on my first test, snd I knew it was a mistype, because it did not match up with the Kiersey type I had identified myself belonging to. So over the next 4 years, I took several different Briggs Myers tests, both dichotomy and function tests, and couldn't get the same result twice. I literally gave up on ever finding the truth about my Briggs Myers type

Then, I read Workplace ratings for Briggs Myers. I found they were not very high. However, Workplace did give significantly higher ratings to DISC and the Big 5. In 2009, I had taken 2 tests: my first DISC assessment and my first Big 5-and, go figure, like a good girl, I had saved my results for both! I then looked at the Big 5 results, and lo and behold, they had been correlated with a Briggs Myers type that was a part of my Kiersey type! I then tried to figure out if my DISC result correlated with the same Briggs Myers type. I had to do a few years of study and research to figure it out, but yes, my DISC result did, in fact, correlate to the same Briggs Myers type as my Big 5. But before I was going to say that the Briggs Myers type that correlated with those results was, in fact , my type, I wanted to get the same result twice on both DISC and the Big 5. So I took both tests again, years later, with different companies, and got nearly identical results. So I accepted the Briggs Myers type that both my DISC and Big 5 results correlated with as my Briggs Myers type. Notice how ultimately, I found out my Briggs Myers type by not even taking a Briggs Myers test, but rather, by focusing on other, more reliable, methods, and seeing how they correlated with Briggs Myers 😮

I first took an Enneagram test in 2015, I believe. Then I took it again last year. My 3 highest numbers were the same both times, and last year, I figured out what my enneagram was, by following the directions on the test

I also started learning about Socionics in 2020 and Jungian typology (SOJT) last year. I am not as well versed in them, as a result. But I can tell you that Jungian typology (SOJT) is the only typing method coming obviously out of Jung's work that Workplace gives a good rating to. It gives bad ratings to Briggs Myers and Socionics

So after that story, now I hope you can see where I intend to go with this blog. I will be talking about how to use the only 3 of all the methods I mentioned, that got at least a 60% (passing) rating from Workplace, to type yourself and others. Those methods are: DISC with a 97% Workplace rating, Jungian typology with an 80% Workplace rating, and the Big 5, with a 78% Workplace rating. I'm also going to look at Enneagram, because I think its Workplace rating would probably pass if people simply read the test instructions. I'm going to pass Enneagram on my reviews, anyway

The other methods, for obvious reasons, will not get good reviews from me, and I will not talk about them extensively outside of the review section, like I will the others.

And one last side note: I had a pediatric stroke, and 2 things I have as a result of that stroke are cerebral palsy and dyslexia. The dyslexia definitely affects my writing. So sometimes things might not flow, and I might not choose the best wording. Please understand that about me, as you read this blog.

Happy reads to you all, and I hope you learn a lot. Let's get typing!