I keep getting different results with each test I take

[lalalalala]

Whenever I take a myers briggs test I get different results so I was wondering if anyone could help me out.

E/I
My school has about 60 students per grade and I'm friends with nearly everyone. The test always ask questions like, would you rather read a book alone all weekend or be with friends, and I always choose be with friends. I hang out with people and walk to classes with people and things like that, but my confusion comes because I always do more listening then talking in conversations and I hate small talk. I went to two proms this year and was the most hyper I've ever been at both, but I became very tired later, but so did other people because they go to like 1AM.

S/N
I notice details when walking down the street or things like that, that my mom (who I'm pretty confident is an ISTP) does not. But I also am always thinking about what does everything mean and I enjoy the books I've read in english class that have hidden meanings. I'm always thinking about the meaning of life and looking up and discussing different philosophies.

T/F
I'm going to major in engineering next year and I think I'm better at math and science type things, but I enjoy writing english papers and reading certain books because I like analyzation and an opportunity to be creative. But other times I'll mess with someone or do something then later think about how mean it was and how I feel bad about it.

J/P
I'm pretty confident I'm a P because I hate having to make decisions and I'm a pretty easy going person except if someone is trying to lead me, then I resist.

Thank you for helping

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Dissecting MBTI type into letters, or into the lesser known functions, may lead to more confusion with the inherent ambiguity of the system.

Try to compare what you know about yourself and what you hear from others with various type profiles. This is an okay site for that: http://typelogic.com/

I also like Keirsey's idea of temperament letter grouping which can give you a better idea of where you generally fit, but I particularly do not like his choice of groupings, they seem inconsistent(NT SJ SP NF; should be NT ST NF SF or SP NP NJ SJ)

 

[A22]

First of all no one is purely INTP or whatever. You can prefer, for instance, a logical way of thinking over a caring/emotional one in some situations, and the opposite on others. You may also have only a slight preference for a logical way of thinking at a given moment, and a strong preference for the logical way of thinking at other moments/ages. The letters indicate what you prefer most of the time/situations and may change over the years.

E/I is about what you focus more on: the world in your mind or the outside world. If you don't know what I mean by "the world in your mind" you're probably an extrovert.

The other letters are all strongly related to E/I and each other. Using your description of self I'd guess (I'm no expert on the subject) you're ENTP or maybe ESTP. Not sure thought, you could be INTP, ISTP, INFP, ISFP, etc

*edit* As ESC said, read the theory and do comparisons, going letter by letter result by result won't get you nowhere.

 

[snafupants]

The letter perspective is a bastardization and simplification of MBTI. That's unlike the way Jung conceived things. Look at the cognitive functions. The introverted feeling types are the -FP and -TJ ones, and the extraverted feeling types are the -NJ and -TP ones. Think along these lines. Narrow down a few functions, look at the cognitive functions' hierarchies for each type, and then use the tertiary function as a possible tiebreaker. Enjoy.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

The letter perspective is a bastardization and simplification of MBTI. That's unlike the way Jung conceived things. Look at the cognitive functions. The introverted feeling types are the -FP and -TJ ones, and the extraverted feeling types are the -NJ and -TP ones. Think along these lines. Narrow down a few functions, look at the cognitive functions' hierarchies for each type, and then use the tertiary function as a possible tiebreaker. Enjoy.

The letter perspective is MBTI. I'm guessing you meant Jung.

Cognitive functions from an MBTI standpoint will just have you running around in circles, since MBTI wasn't conceived from that point of view. The OP probably could do better looking into Jungian theory, but at that point you aren't talking MBTI anymore.

 

[snafupants]

The letter perspective is MBTI. I'm guessing you meant Jung.

Cognitive functions from an MBTI standpoint will just have you running around in circles, since MBTI wasn't conceived from that point of view. The OP probably could do better looking into Jungian theory, but at that point you aren't talking MBTI anymore.

There are two ways of interpreting the letters within the MBTI framework - from a cognitive functions' perspective and, second, from a letter by letter perspective. Since MBTI is an outcropping of Jungian theory, barring the last letter, which is actually negligible according to factor analysis, the demarcation between MBTI and Jungian theory is fuzzy; moreover, interpretations, of anything really, vary on the degree to which they take liberties with the original source material. I see nothing wrong with my prior counsel - to narrow down type it's advisable to look at cognitive functions and their hierarchies within particular types. I take your first point, save its aggression, but, then again, each type according to MBTI does possess a rigid hierarchy of cognitive functions - hence the two foregoing conservative interpretations; we could just as easily say that the cognitive functions are MBTI and be perfectly justified in that postulation. Nonetheless, my overriding contention is that the cognitive functions' perspective is more airtight and tiebreaker-prone when determining otherwise inscrutable personalities strictly according to tests and letters, which really aren't that helpful. Every person has introverted and extraverted components to her personality, so exclusively labeling someone, say, an introvert is somewhat beguiled.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

There are two ways of interpreting the letters within the MBTI framework - from a cognitive functions' perspective and, second, from a letter by letter perspective. Since MBTI is an outcropping of Jungian theory, barring the last letter, which is actually negligible according to factor analysis, the demarcation between MBTI and Jungian theory is fuzzy; moreover, interpretations, of anything really, vary on the degree to which they take liberties with the original source material. I see nothing wrong with my prior counsel - to narrow down type it's advisable to look at cognitive functions and their hierarchies within particular types.

Cognitive functions in MBTI didn't become a focus until later on, they pay little to no respects to their Jungian counterparts and are largely derivative(of profiles/letters), this makes them even less accurate and less straightforward, as it involves more bastardizing.

 

[snafupants]

Cognitive functions in MBTI didn't become a focus until later on, they pay little to no respects to their Jungian counterparts and are largely derivative(of profiles/letters), this makes them even less accurate and less straightforward, as it involves more bastardizing.

That's fuzzy logic. Everything that's derivative isn't necessarily worse (e.g., "less accurate" and "less straightforward"); innovation can confer a benefit to the original framework and idea. Was the first Model T a bastardization of the cart? Was it perhaps an improvement on that concept? Anyway, there are huge similarities between Jung's writing in Psychological Types and what's meant today in MBTI (according to a cognitive functions' perspective) by, say, introverted intuition. These things didn't fall out of the sky.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

That's fuzzy logic. Everything that's derivative isn't necessarily worse (e.g., "less accurate" and "less straightforward"); innovation can confer a benefit to the original framework and idea. Was the first Model T a bastardization of the cart? Was it perhaps an improvement on that concept? Anyway, there are huge similarities between Jung's writing in Psychological Types and what's meant today in MBTI (according to a cognitive functions' perspective) by, say, introverted intuition. These things didn't fall out of the sky.

Not necessarily, no, but in this case derivation makes worse.

You say they are similar but closer inspection reveals not only are they described differently(semantics and contexts) but intended differently. What I mean by the latter is that almost all attempts to convey the meaning of P vs J by MBTI experts, official or not, basically end up at the spontaneous-planned route, or something to that effect. It's clearly a faint hint at what Jung originally intended for perceiving and judging with his respective irrational and rational categories, but P vs J does not rightly correspond with the functions like it should. Planned J types under MBTI included NiTe, NiFe, SiFe and SiTe(Jung's perceivers/irrationals); Spontaneous P types include TiNe, TiSe, FiNe, and FiSe(Jung's judgers/rationals). These distributions ignore their intended conceptions and observational data provided by Jung.

You have noticed yourself that MBTI J/P is ineffectual and it's because of the system's inherent inconsistency.

 

[snafupants]

Not necessarily, no, but in this case derivation makes worse.

You say they are similar but closer inspection reveals not only are they described differently(semantics and contexts) but intended differently. What I mean by the latter is that almost all attempts to convey the meaning of P vs J by MBTI experts, official or not, basically end up at the spontaneous-planned route, or something to that effect. It's clearly a faint hint at what Jung originally intended for perceiving and judging with his respective irrational and rational categories, but P vs J does not rightly correspond with the functions like it should. Planned J types under MBTI included NiTe, NiFe, SiFe and SiTe(Jung's perceivers/irrationals); Spontaneous P types include TiNe, TiSe, FiNe, and FiSe(Jung's judgers/rationals). These distributions ignore their intended conceptions and observational data provided by Jung.

You have noticed yourself that MBTI J/P is ineffectual and it's because of the system's inherent inconsistency.

Yes, I have alluded to the statistical finding that the last dimension doesn't load properly - thus, a three-factor structure is more suitable. That said, I repudiate conventional conceptions of the MBTI because they paint a misleading picture of similarities between types. Take the "NT Rationals" for instance. Even by discounting the last letter - perhaps between INTP and INTJ - they really share quite little in the way of cognitive functions or the manner in which each garners information. You're right though, these things are characterized (semantics, etc.) differently. My previous message on interpretations may prove edifying in this regard.

 

[Sandregor]

I am 90% sure you are a Ne dominant and that makes you an ENxP. Start from there....

 

[DetachedRetina]

By Jung types I always get ENTP, though by the definition of introversion and extroversion I am always an introvert. (That whole thing about drawing energy from alone time and becoming exhausted during social events.)