INFJ Type 6 spsosx

Angela

Angela

Community Member
MBTI
INFJ
Enneagram
6spsosx
So just recently I fell upon all of these personality tests. I signed up for a dating app, and noticed that there were alot of people with 4 letter acronyms and curiosity caught this cat. I googled it. Made my way over to the 16 personalities website. (side note, i seem to have awful ADD today, i have tried to type this out multiple times and keep forgetting what i am doing) Found out I am INFJ-T apparently the T is for turbulent, but i didnt see where it went into that explanation. So i join a facebook group, i get on google and i'm doing some more looking, i find this forum. Then i see Enneagram on the registration form... so off i go to take that test, type 6spsosx, i am currently reading about it, but got sidetracked to type this, so i havent completed my reading yet. Crucify me if you must lol.

Anyway, I cant believe these types exist, and i cant believe the describe me. does that mean that i am not alone in this world? I am not the only one that has a brain that works the way that i do?
 
Angela said:
Anyway, I cant believe these types exist, and i cant believe the describe me. does that mean that i am not alone in this world? I am not the only one that has a brain that works the way that i do?
Click to expand...

Yes, you are not alone in your aloneness. Check out socionics while you are at it.

Happy reading and welcome to the rabbit hole.
 
socionics says INTJ... you cant do this to me! lol i need definition. that f and that t could be a big difference!
 
I just signed up so that I could reply to you. It's crazy to me that I googled infj type 6 spsosx and I found your post. I could have written it myself. I wanted to know more about the types because I was nearly a 7.
 
Angelina Commesso said:
I just signed up so that I could reply to you. It's crazy to me that I googled infj type 6 spsosx and I found your post. I could have written it myself. I wanted to know more about the types because I was nearly a 7.
Click to expand...

Welcome to the forum @Angelina Commesso !

If you want to get a users attention, it's good to reply to their post or @ them like @Angela so the next time she is on she will get a notification about your interest here :)
Hope you enjoy and I hope you two can connect!
 
I don’t pretend to know anything, even myself for that matter. But I’m available to chat about anything you’d like. I’m an open book.
 
My general recommendation is to draw a bit of a line in your head that there are more data-driven sides and more philosophically driven sides. I find as is often natural, the former produce more consensus (though far from perfect), but spilling into the latter allows one to explore lots of more esoteric ideas and how they connect to personality which might not otherwise be available.

The mbti and enneagram both have roots in both sides, so it's very important to keep track of this distinction.
The enneagram originated with some fairly mystical-philosophical ideas, like the idea of not being awake to the true nature of self, and has since been migrated by some theorists into the direction of actually having tests you can take, trying to turn it into a science more.
The mbti is an offshoot of Carl Jung's psychological types theory, which began with no test, just a whole brain-dump of ideas, but where Myers attempted simultaneously to revise some of the more philosophical aspects of the theory (such as the controversial issue of the attitude of the auxiliary) and to set some of Jung on more data-driven footing, and the whole 4-letter code is the result, basically a psychometric tool that is well-related to 4/5 Big 5 dimensions, and is thus probably measuring something real. It suffers from some dogmatic assumptions, though, i.e. some will insist there are only discrete preferences, and it's not a matter of degree, which I find hilarious because even Jung didn't think this.


The main reason I draw attention to the philosophical vs empirical sides is I think in the former case, you'd better question the assumptions some try to present as fact, because philosophy that is pawned as empiricism is basically a cult/dogmatic religion ... and realize a lot of theorists disagree very sharply for what i think are important reasons. I think there are some insights we can mostly agree on, but these need to be fished for amidst the controversy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top