- MBTI
- ENTP
- Enneagram
- Sexy
http://www.benziger.org/articlesIng/?p=30
Don't limit yourself to Jung alone, expanding your scope of study is always good.
The above described was confirmed via empirical research, not "hear and say". You may want to look up the references cited before you make that claim. It also helps us understand the mechanics of typology on a different, biological level.
Even though MBTI was used, this kind of research actually helps move away from it because it introduces to the people the possibility they may have mistyped themselves by adhering to silly extremist stereotypes of Introversion and Extroversion, which are more commonly equated with the degree of gregariousness in the type community.
http://aptinternational.org/assets/jptvol65_1105_apti.pdf
I actually didn’t limit myself to Jung. I purposely didn’t put the authors in, but each one is indeed from a unique author
It’s not so much “hearsay” as it is interpretations of interpretations. I just looked over the sources. There’s not one DIRECTLY from the source. I can discuss MBTI with Pat Wyman (http://www.patwyman3keys.com/aboutpat.htm/) who wrote books about MBTI, and I can tell you that she doesn’t know crap
This reminds me of Dr. Nardio. He’s no doubt a very educated Professor and his Jungian Test is one of the bests (few out there), but you even tell by his questions that he doesn’t have a clear understanding of the functions. A lot of his questions that are “Ti” categorized are mixed with other functions (along with all the other ones).
So yes, I see sources and I see some good informations, but LEARNING THE DEFINITIONS I BROUGHT TO THE TABLE IS REALLY GOING TO HELP WITH THE MISTYPES.
marahwhhwahrahrararaha
Last edited: