u/Grand-Scarcity3615

Going to any mbti subreddits is like donating yourself to feed the hyenas. It's like a hell hole of stereotypes and superficiality.

Does a person's typology affect someone with mild neurocognitive impairment?

Someone typed themselves as ENFP 2w1

Rando commenter: "your enneagram or your mbti is mistyped. Enfp only correlates with e7"

🫩🫩🫩🫩🫩🫩🫩🫩🫩🫩🫩🫩🫩🫩🫩🫩🫩

Are there any adults in this community? I've seen a lot of people so far from TypoTok and Discord that I joined that are swarmed by aged 17 and below (scared to even chat there because, you know... teenagers, their unpredictable tendencies and their reactive stage, with very few 18 and above). So far, Typology Junction is somewhat filled with them, and most of the adults are very quiet, anonymous, or not very loud compared to the majority of the community, I think. Is there a Discord that is specifically like these subreddits but diverse in age and mostly has a lot of 18+ members? (Or have I joined the wrong community that I was looking for?)

Yes, the title says it all. Which personality system do you prefer between these two, Jung or Myers-Briggs? I'm curious and want to hear different opinions about it. I know it's a different system, but it’s mostly a matter of personal preference.

INFJ 6w5 sp/sx 694(6w5, 9w1, 4w3) or 649(6w5, 4w3, 9w1) IEI (Intuitive Ethical Introvert)(?) LEFV-1324

Reevaluation, not that big of a change. Right now, I am pretty much sure of IN(F)/INFJ and my Enneagram, but for some reason my mind cannot settle down with my MBTI that I evaluate this "experience" as just the core influence of my E6. Not so sure about my Socionics though, I have to read that thoroughly again. I might also look into Psychosophy if I have the time and Big Five too.

Now I don't see any contradiction, pretty much safe, I guess.

Note: Just for fun AND READ THE COMMENTS before forming a conclusion

Well, I guess I wasn't the INFP 4w5 sp/so 459 I thought I was. What a huge mistype, but I'll still continue larping as an INFP regardless.

Another note for the people: I think people are reading “larping” as “pretending to be an INFP” which isn’t what I meant. I’m not trying to imitate Fi-Ne, teach INFP cognition or make INFPs a bad representation. The joke was about the label within the typology community especially the stereotype-driven side of it. If someone asked me about functions I’d explain my actual thought process and why I think I mistyped in the first place. I’m not interested in forcing myself into an INFP framework again.

If anything, the reason I made the joke is because I think a lot of MBTI stereotypes are exaggerated. People often reduce INFPs to a very specific caricature, and I’ve realized that my original typing was influenced by those caricatures. So I’m not trying to deceive anyone I’m making fun of how attached typology communities can become to labels. The label is the joke, not my actual psychological orientation.

INTJ 6w5 sp/sx6 649 (6w5, 4w3, 9w1) ILI (Intuitive Logical Introtim) LEVF

Am I making sense here? I know that structurally especially with the wings on my tritype it’s actually a pretty common configuration for an INTJ, but I still catch myself wondering if I’m leaning a bit too heavily into that 6 core and the 4 and 9 fixes in a way that feels unusual. I sometimes worry how it holds up against standard typology correlations too since we’re always told that certain systems and archetypes have to line up in a very specific neat way even when human psychology is naturally messier than the theory allows part of me wonders if I'm just overthinking the correlations entirely trying to find a mathematical formula for a personality that naturally resists being pigeonholed.

(NEED an expert on cognitive functions to explain me this than who knows the archetype)

Quick question for INTPs: How do you all manifest your inferior Fe function? Honestly, I doubt whether I am Fi-dom or Ti-dom because, as you can see, I posted something here hours ago, vented my rawest thoughts without a single filter and realized how inconsistent and absurd my post was. I couldn't bear but delete it to save my dignity. First off, I admit how immature my engagement approach was, and I was hoping to form a validation on that until it backfired and someone pointed out my mistake. The second they called out the flaw in my post's reasoning my stomach just dropped. It wasn't even that they were being mean it was just the fact that they were right. My brain instantly went into overdrive re-reading what I wrote, and suddenly the whole argument looked completely messy and embarrassing. I couldn't even leave it up to defend myself because I realized I couldn't logically back up my own point anymore, to the point I made a reasonable excuse which is also true... I think I was just desperate for some kind of community engagement or reassurance but my attempt to find validation completely blew up in my face.

And first of about the Ti dom and Fi dom thing, I find myself constantly trapped in this loop where I can't tell if I'm protecting my logic or just protecting my feelings. On one hand, I find myself care so much purely about objective truth and dismantling bad arguments which screams Ti dom. But on the other hand, the fact that a bad debate or a flawed post can make me feel this intensely frustrated and self-conscious makes me wonder if I'm actually an Fi dom who is just deeply attached to my own intellectual identity.

When I look at classic Fi descriptions, they talk about morals, values, and authentic self-expression. I don’t necessarily relate to being highly sentimental or being authentic, but I do experience these massive waves of internal sensitivity when my ideas are challenged. I start questioning if my search for logical consistency is just a glorified personal value system that I'm over-identifying with.

But then I realize that when I get upset, it’s not because my personal morals were violated it’s because the framework didn’t click or because I allowed myself to put out a flawed product. It’s like my Fi and Ti are constantly mimicking each other and because they are both introverted judging functions, they both feel incredibly deeply personal and I'm left wondering... am I an INFP who uses logic as a shield, or am I an INTP whose inferior Fe makes me deeply insecure about how my intellect looks to the outside world?

I want to see what kind of debate the two have. sx1 and sx8 (pls pls pls it would be a dream come true)

Yknow... funny how that the result that I often dwell in the entp sub cause infp perm ban me makes me doubt my type cause damn I highk use my Ti alot and make me convinced i might be heavy so1 or sx8 in there with bunch of air heads that doesnt answer my question and what the heck are this tags???

I hope ya'll are chill here guys, please don't interact if you don't know mbti or cognitive functions that deep and passionately like me and doesn't generalized people as stereotypes

Disclaimer: This is just a subjective discussion based on my own experiences. I'm not promoting hate toward any type or Enneagram, and I'm definitely not saying everyone who belongs to a certain type is the same. Personality is nuanced and healthy vs. unhealthy expression matters far more than the label itself

That said...

I've noticed I tend to struggle the most with unhealthy Ni-dominants or sometimes Ni-auxiliaries even more so if it's paired with an unhealthy e1 something about that combination tends to clash with me. And don't even get me started on unhealthy Fi-dom e1s... nightmare combo for me personally it's like dealing with a human lie detector who has zero empathy and uses a rigid double standard to judge you and completely stonewalls you the second you try to defend yourself... I'm an Fi-dom myself but for whatever reason e1 is the enneagram type I've consistently had the roughest experiences with (at least for now, I've also met some unhealthy sexual 4s and I'd say they're up there too). At this point I don't think my issue is with the MBTI type itself it's mostly with unhealthy manifestations of e1, they just seem to rub me the wrong way.

Again that's just my personal experience. I've also met wonderful healthy people who fit those same labels so I'm not making a blanket statement.

What about you?

Next time I post, I'll evidently need to mandate a disclaimer: "PLEASE READ BEFORE COMMENTING. Requirement: basic reading comprehension. The lines are already there people."

I notice that SOME and I emphasize some people here won't even bother to read the actual material unless they are genuinely struggling with english comprehension. A few might skim it, but please, just pleaseee actually digest the context before forming a final judgment. A title of the post is not enough to convey the actual context

Do you ever get annoyed when someone is mansplaining something to you that you literally just said you already know? Like, they look at your comment on a post, completely gloss over the words you actually typed, and immediately launch into a full-blown presentation just to hear themselves talk.

It is the absolute worst, you are sitting there thinking, "Bro, did you even read past the first line, or did your brain just short-circuit because you saw a keyword you wanted to lecture me on? "They treat you like a beginner while trying to look like the ultimate genius, but they just end up looking like they failed first-grade reading comprehension. It makes you want to hit them with a "Congrats on discovering reading, now try doing it to the whole post."

There is a huge lack of nuanced discussion on this sub regarding how cognitive functions actually work. Most people here do look at the theory, but the problem is how they reduce it to a rigid, absolute truth about a person. Instead of looking at these processes as fluid mental filters, it feels like the community oversimplifies them into strict binaries. For example, people will confidently claim that certain functions are entirely locked out of being objective, or that others can never be subjective. We have all seen posts where someone treats these black and white interpretations as absolute objective facts, completely ignoring the nuance of actual human behavior. We are so obsessed with categorizing everything that we never stop to ask why we need these labels in the first place. Is it a genuine tool for understanding or just a way to feel in control? Honestly, it feels like we are just building new complex stereotypes hidden behind sciencey language.

Think about the core contradiction here. We use this system to define the objective nature of the human mind, yet we rely entirely on anecdotal stories to prove it works. We claim we are using objective functions, but we are really just using our own biases to decide what those functions look like in practice. It is like trying to measure a ruler using the ruler itself. Are we actually uncovering the blueprint of human cognition or are we just mapping out our own assumptions and calling it reality? The reality is that modern peer reviewed psychology rejects MBTI precisely because it lacks empirical validity and test retest reliability. Carl Jung himself stated that his original character types were just fluid, rough observations to help illustrate a concept, not static boxes meant to lock people in for life.

The most frustrating part is how people conflate cognitive processing with emotional maturity. You see it all the time when someone dismisses a person entire type profile just because they lack social skills or act immaturely. We treat these functions like deep unchangeable structures, but then judge them based on whether someone is being polite. How your mind processes information has nothing to do with how you were raised or how much therapy you have done. By mixing the two, we end up pathologizing normal personality traits as cognitive imbalances. It makes you wonder where the actual theory ends and where our desire to judge who is doing it right begins. If these functions are universal, why is this community so obsessed with policing how people express them? We are not just observing psychology anymore. We are grading people on a rubric of social competence. It creates this toxic loop where users try to fix their cognitive stack to match the popular socially acceptable version of their type. Your mind is not broken, it is just different.

The deepest irony is that by clinging to these labels to understand ourselves, we blind ourselves to our own biases. This whole dynamic relies on the Barnum Effect, which is the proven psychological phenomenon where people read vague, generalized trait descriptions and mistakenly believe it uniquely applies to them. We treat our internal mental map as absolute truth, project it onto everyone else, and write off anyone who does not fit as mistyped or an outlier. It is a closed circuit echo chamber. We are not learning about other minds. We are just building intellectual armor to keep the messy, unpredictable reality of other people at a safe labeled distance.

I get the appeal. People come here to find their tribe, and there is real value in that connection. But that exact desire to find our people is what is poisoning the theory. Instead of using these labels to expand our perspectives, we are using them to gatekeep. A space meant for exploration has turned into a clubhouse where you have to perform a specific archetype just to be heard.

Funnily enough, most people here do not even realize they are doing it. They will confidently state their own subjective experiences as if they are universal laws of physics, completely unconscious of the fact that they are just projecting their own personal reality onto everyone else. Once a consensus forms around a certain vibe for a type, anyone who does not mirror it perfectly gets interrogated. We prune away the individuals who challenge the stereotype so the community shared opinion remains unchallenged and uniform. It is no longer a discussion, it is a performance of type loyalty. Logic takes a backseat to whoever can spin the most convincing narrative.

We need to be honest with ourselves. Is our logic actually consistent? True logic is independent of the observer. What we are doing here is using personal filters to define a correct type, mistaking our subjective consistency for objective truth. As long as we use this theory as a shield for our own biases, we will never actually see what is going on underneath the surface.

It’s actually kind of impressive to get banned from your own type’s subreddit (INFP), but honestly, a personality label doesn't really capture who you are as a person. I missed my shot to drop a massive question over there, so I figured I’d bring it here instead.

Since everyone hangs out in these subs, I’m curious: what’s your actual source for this stuff?

Are you just going off of 16Personalities, or are you actually diving into the original Myers-Briggs and Carl Jung theories?

I’ve been lurking for a bit and noticed a lot of posts that feel like they're just leaning into 16Personalities stereotypes, so I'm curious to hear where you all are coming from.

Yes, the title is the purpose of this post. I haven't explored the subreddit yet, but I'm interested in where you all read and base your theoretical frameworks for distinguishing yourselves from those specific systems: Jungian cognitive theory, Myers-Briggs, Socionics, Enneagram/Tritype/Subtype/Instinctual Variants, Attitudinal Psyche/Psychosophy, and the Big Five OCEAN & SLOAN. It would be nice if you, yes you, the one who's reading this, could lend me a link to them. Much appreciated.

Block me, I despise you people, a stereotypical INFP just shows how much a mistype you are