FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

This page includes not only recurring questions and ideas in messages, but also common reactions and probable doubts. I’ll put a series of basics here at the top of the page, as an introduction. The question-answer section starts after that.

SOME SHORT-FORM BASICS

☆ Typology is not a competition, a weapon, a pastime, a curiosity or a joke.

☆ The types are not a hierarchy of value/worth.
☆ There are no “good/bad”, “better/worse” or “superior/inferior” types.
☆ The types are not a catalog of stigmas, imperfections or flaws.
☆ Your type is not something to be proud or ashamed of.
☆ Your type doesn’t make you “superior” or “inferior” to anyone.
☆ The idea of “favorite” type[s] is nonsense because the variation inside each one is huge.

☆ The types are not 16 different states, personas, or characters to play.
☆ You can’t choose, corner, or turn off your type.
☆ You can’t “secretly be”, “mimic” or “channel” another type.
☆ There is no “different type inside” each type.
☆ Your “moral conscience” is not [in] another type.

☆ You only have one type, and it doesn’t change, but you can change a lot inside your type.
☆ Your type is not a problem, a persona/role, an aesthetic, a set of tools, a permit, a label or a meme.
☆ Your type is not your psychological or emotional state.
☆ Your type is not what you admire or what you want to do/be or how you want to be seen.
☆ Your type is not your train of thought, or the way you define or feel about yourself.
☆ Your type is like a psychological compass to help you with your self-knowledge.

☆ The reality of the types is not about different “systems” or “theories”.
☆ The reality of types is rooted in human biology, and it works as a species-wide survival strategy.
☆ The reality of types is something that you discover, like the number of protons in each element.
☆ There are correct and incorrect definitions of the letters and the functions (most are incorrect).
☆ The famous “systems” (mainstream MBTI, 16p, Socionics, OPS, CPT, CT, etc) are just some of the many ways of misunderstanding this.
☆ The prevalence of misconceptions about functions and types means that most people are mistyped.

☆ The “eiei/ieie” order is incorrect (and things like “loops” or “jumpers” don’t exist).
☆ Extraversion can’t be the auxiliary of introversion, or vice versa.
☆ In reality each type has 2 conscious functions in one attitude, and 2 unconscious ones in the other.
☆ All Judgers have a judging dominant function, and all Perceivers have a perceiving one.
☆ The letters are not abbreviations of function sets. They have meaning in themselves.
☆ Both the letters and the correct functions have to fit in every typing.

☆ There are no “good/bad” or “better/worse” letters or functions.
☆ The functions are not invented or arbitrary, they are fundamental aspects of reality.
☆ The functions are not curses, problems, weaknesses or flaws.
☆ The functions are not different kinds of Thinking.
☆ The functions are not equivalent to attention, memory, emotion, creativity, weirdness, imagination, religiousness, planning, tradition or willpower (for example).

☆ Don’t take or trust any kind of “type” or “function” test.
☆ Visual typing is meaningless because identical twins can have different psychologial types.
☆ There are no shortcuts for typing correctly.
☆ You have to learn about all these things, and then you can try typing yourself (and others).
☆ A correct typing can take years, and there might be a few mistypes along the way.

☆ The rarity of your type is meaningless.
☆ Rare doesn’t mean “better”, and common doesn’t mean “worse”.
☆ There are more than 100 million people of the “rarest” type (whichever that is).
☆ Your type doesn’t make you unique, it’s shared by millions of people (that’s why it is a type).
☆ Your type doesn’t make you not-unique. Everybody has their own individual differences.
☆ The important thing about your type is not if it’s rare, but if it’s true.

FAQs

➤ Who are you?
➤ What is your MBTI type?
➤ Why do you write so weird?
➤ What’s the meaning of the square brackets [ ] ?
➤ Can I use your work somewhere else?

➤ {insert random criticism}

➤ I want to understand everything in five minutes or less.
➤ There are a lot of posts here, where do I begin?

➤ What is this all about?
➤ What are the real cognitive functions?
➤ Who cares what Jung said? His ideas are antiquated.
➤ Jung was interested in the occult and stuff like that.

➤ The MBTI is not scientific.
➤ The eiei/ieie order works just fine for me.
➤ If eeii/iiee is the correct order, why can’t I find it anywhere else?

➤ What are your sources?
➤ How did you find out these things?
➤ Where can I read what Jung wrote about types?
➤ Do you recommend reading anything apart from Jung?

➤ I am a teenager and I want to know my type.
➤ How do I type myself?
➤ Can my type change?

➤ What’s the difference between type {X} and type {Y}?
➤ How does {Y} function manifest in {Z} type?

➤ The temperament correlation doesn’t work
➤ Why did you type this person as an {X}?

Who are you?
You can call me Akhromant (ˈækrəˌmənt). It’s a made-up and symbolic word that mixes Latin and Greek: a (= without/absence of) + khrōma (= color) + ant (= a person or thing that performs/brings, an agent) = akhromant = n. an agent that performs without color or brings absence of color. It’s something that I’ve done many times with my pictures, but it also has other meanings. There’s some more information in the about page.

What is your MBTI type?
I don’t talk about that. Take a look at the second paragraph of the first point in post #12, the middle section of post #120, and the Anonymity section in the about page.

Why do you write so weird?
English is not my first language. Also, I’m describing things from a perspective that you might have never heard before.

What’s the meaning of the square brackets [ ] ?
It’s basically “or”. For example: instead of “he or she” I usually write [s]he. It’s a way of generating multiple meanings without writing too much.

Can I use your work somewhere else?
You can use, link, display, copy, print and translate any content from this blog anywhere you like. Just don’t sell it, and try to include some kind of credit if it’s reasonably appropriate, so other people know where to find more.

{insert random criticism}
If you see something here that doesn’t feel right to you, perhaps even some “big problem” that somehow “invalidates everything else”, that’s because you don’t really understand it, you just found something that was corrected or clarified in a later post, you are exaggerating the importance of some minor confusion/mistake, imagining it, and/or assuming I’m saying things that I haven’t actually said. Most “objections” come simply from an inability to see what this is about, many times due to (or fed by) the person being too invested (personally, intellectually, “identity”(persona)-wise, etc) in shallow but complex deep-sounding “systems”, or in their need to feel “smarter” in a purely conceptual (not psychological or practical) sense. Other obstacles are the limitations of language (this topic is full of barely describable things, the possibilities and situations are extremely varied, and many concepts are mixed and interconnected in ways that make it really hard to give easy, simple or even consistent explanations), and the false images that people generate about others (including their intentions, which sometimes are just projection).

I want to understand everything in five minutes or less.
Sorry, you can’t. You need to spend a lot of time reading and thinking and discarding what you thought you knew. And by “a lot” I mean days, months, or maybe years.

There are a lot of posts here, where do I begin?
You can start with these: post #01, post #13, post #19, post #15, post #17, post #25, post #24, post #31, post #58, post #59, post #87, post #120, post #140, post #150, post #154 and post #173. You can actually start anywhere, but that could be a good summary of the main ideas.

What is this all about?
Sometimes I write about other things, but the main topic of the blog is the correct way in which the MBTI types (and other things) match the psychic functions that Carl Jung described in his book Psychological Types (1921). A brief summary of the result could be the table in post #01. Note that this isn’t an “invention”, or “just another system”.

What are the real cognitive functions?
They are not the common things that most people [want to] associate with them, like memory, emotions or imagination. They are deeper than that. Their essence is explained in post #17, and expanded in post #87. You can also read post #15, post #39, post #140, and of course, Chapter X of Jung’s Psychological Types. More links here.

Who cares what Jung said? His ideas are antiquated.
No, they aren’t. In fact, they are always present because they refer to universal psychological factors. In case you think that only the latest “theories” are “valid”, be careful because that way, by definition, you never reach anything real and you are always believing in falsehoods. Of course, Jung wasn’t infallible. He was starting with all this, and we know that (at least) he first identified feeling with extraversion and thinking with introversion, he made some typing mistakes, and he also had problems recognizing his own auxiliary, so certain errors might have stayed with him for quite some time. Two of them would be the mention of images with intuition (actually coming from [g]Si), and the addition of meaning to thinking (either referring to “what is” in a weird way, or mixing his Ti1+Ni2). Still, some quotes indicate that he more or less knew the difference (point 18 here, for example). Jung said a huge amount of things, and he wasn’t always consistent, sometimes making contradictory statements. He named and described some elements exclusively from the perspective of his own type, ignoring that it would be very different, confusing, or even inapplicable for others. He can get way too conceptual, complicating things and being too abstract, making very long detours, explaining lots of intermediate ideas that don’t end up being there in practice, etc. All that can make understanding really difficult, and it means that you can’t stay too close or exclusively to what he wrote. You need more angles, and the capacity of seeing these things for yourself.

Jung was interested in the occult and stuff like that.
So what. He was interested in lots of things as manifestations of deeper psychological workings and characteristics. If you want to understand how people think but you purposefully ignore certain subjects you are obviously doing a really bad job.

The MBTI is not scientific.
Yes, it is. It’s the eiei/ieie function order that’s not “scientific”. See post #13 and post #19 and the links included there.

The eiei/ieie order works just fine for me.
That’s because a) you are not actually referring to the real cognitive functions (even though you think you are), but to pairs of letters instead (NP is what you call “Ne”, for example, while the real Ne is something different that you don’t know), or b) you are mistyping everybody and can’t see the inconsistencies or the problems that you generate. See for example post #13, post #25, post #38, post #58, post #59, post #154, post #173, and point 5.3 in post #17.

If eeii/iiee is the correct order, why can’t I find it anywhere else?
You can, but it’s not easy. See post #01f and post #01g, and the last paragraph of post #13. Check also post #173. And be aware that some people out there might say that they “follow” or “agree with” eeii/iiee, but they actually don’t, because they use incorrect definitions of the functions and/or incorrect correlations between letters and functions (like those who say that “INFJ” is “Ni-Ti-Fe-Se”, for example, which is like saying that a feeling+judging type is a thinking+perceiving type).

What are your sources?
This question is designed to divert the attention from what’s being said to the supposed “validity” of the “source”. Then we are no longer talking about psychology or typology. But anyway. This is not “my system”, “my model”, “my own thing”, “my theory”, or even “my understanding”, but my checking, discovering, accumulation and explanation of the facts. That explanation combines different sources when the correlations make sense and they are observable in reality (two examples are the temperaments and the court cards). Some things fit better than others, simply because this is a very complicated issue and the variations inside the same type are huge, but the idea is to bring the good stuff together to get a better picture of the whole, of the global landscape and its actual coordinates. It’s funny because I’m pretty sure the same people who accuse me of “inventing” things are completely unaware of the literal fabrications, distortions, and psychological blindness of those who they consider the “experts”, which probably include many of the self-mistyped “system authors”. Those are the people actually doing (and selling) “their own thing”, totally separated from Jung’s work and the reality of the functions and the types. But as usual, people have it all backwards. In any case, remember that just because something isn’t anywhere else, doesn’t mean it isn’t true, and just because many people keep repeating it, doesn’t mean it isn’t false.

How did you find out these things?
I’ve always been interested in the topic of psychological types. When I came across the MBTI (around 2008) I read Jung’s descriptions and I tried to match them with the letters, but I kept getting the impression that there was some kind of inconsistency, something didn’t fit. Then I found reckful’s posts (he writes as reddshoes on reddit), and everything finally clicked: the real function order is e-e-i-i for Extraverts and i-i-e-e for Introverts, with a judging dominant for all Judgers and a perceiving dominant for all Perceivers. I explain this in point 1.3 of my first post. Also here.

Where can I read what Jung wrote about types?
You can read Chapter X of Psychological Types here, and there’s a 1976 version of the entire book in pdf format here, for example. You can also check The Undiscovered Self (1957) and the section “The Problem Of Types” in Man And His Symbols (1964).

Do you recommend reading anything apart from Jung?
Not really. There are always problems with other authors’ take on the types, so even if I tell you about some of them you have to be very careful, they might be mistaken in some crucial things. There are a couple of posts about this: post #47 and post #47a.

I am a teenager and I want to know my type.
You can try, but I don’t recommend it to anyone under 18, and even that is very often too soon. It’s not only that the younger you are the more likely it is that you’re going to mistype (that’s almost guaranteed), but also that many people can’t really see themselves clearly, or benefit from knowing their type until much later (their 20s, 30s, etc), so in many cases it’s only going to be a confusing and frustrating waste of time. Remember that you shouldn’t type yourself just to identify with a[nother] label, or with some [false] stereotype, or because it’s fun, or because your friends are doing it. This is a very serious thing, very personal and private. And don’t worry, your type isn’t going anywhere. In fact, not knowing it is definitely better than identifying with the wrong one.

How do I type myself?
Typing can be extremely difficult, it might take a lot of time and include several mistypes along the way. It’s a very serious matter. You have to read many posts, carefully and probably several times, until you understand things for yourself. But this is tricky because most people are too used to famous misconceptions, so many terms might sound familiar when they really aren’t. The general idea is to identify your 4 letters first, and then make sure that the functions also match. You have to start from scratch, don’t assume anything and don’t discard types. Remember that knowing your true type, whatever it is, is going to make you more intelligent, never less, because it’s self-knowledge, and that always opens the mind of the person in amazing ways. There are lots of posts that can be helpful. You can go through this selection in order: post #11, post #12, post #13, post #14, post #20, post #69, post #84, post #150, and then post #15, post #17, post #24, post #31, post #87, post #122, post #131 and post #140. Read also the MBTI Lists and the MBTI Tables, and any other thing that sounds interesting. Then you have to check the posts about mistypes, because they are very common. Some recommendations: post #58, post #59, post #120, post #136, post #158 and post #166. When you have a result consider if you could see yourself in the corresponding group of the MBTI Typings page. Then let some time pass (days, months, years), and reexamine things again after a while.

Can my type change?
Your type doesn’t change (see the last paragraph in post #70). What might change is a) your particular focus/movement within the intricacies of your individual psychology, or b) the scope of your consciousness or self-awareness. Both might feel like a change of type. Option b) feels like that because you are actually recognizing your true one better. Option a) is the most common, and it can take different forms, for example changes in interests/desires, or getting intoxicated with your self-image (= persona, which can be based on your [supposed] type if you take it as a character to play), or turning to your unconscious, which might lead you to identify with it, that is: not recognizing what you’re really doing, mistaking interest for ability, mistaking addiction for control or confidence (or even “destiny”), etc. So you have to be careful because an apparent “improvement” can actually be a source of problems: just because it’s a change, doesn’t mean it’s for the better.

What’s the difference between type {X} and type {Y}?
First: the letters that they don’t share. For example: the difference between ENFP and ESFJ includes EN vs ES, NF vs SF, FP vs FJ, EP vs EJ, and NP vs SJ. You can check the differences section, the tables (including those in post #14, post #20, post #84 and post #150), the lists, the posts about temperament, the people and characters in the typings page, etc. These posts can also be useful: post #52, post #53, post #55 and post #56. Second: the function differences. Not only the proper/ghost discrepancies, but also the difference in locations (when some or all proper functions are shared). Here you can check post #87, post #140, some of the tables and lists (those with function references), and many posts in the functions section, of course.

How does {Y} function manifest in {Z} type?
You have to remember that one specific function in one specific location always implies another 3 functions, and also 3 letters. For example: Ti3 implies Fe2, gTe3, gFi2, and EFP. In a sense, that “implies” can be read as “is the same as”, because the effects of one go with the effects of the others. Maybe you can separate them at the conceptual level, but not so much in practice. So you can use that whenever you wonder about this kind of thing. Then you also have post #140, where you can combine the function and location keywords to get a general idea of what they all mean. Keep in mind that this blog is not about me explaining every detail (see post #40). I have been writing lots of posts so that you can use them as reference and find the answers for yourself. That’s how the blog works. More related posts: post #24, post #31, post #35, post #51, post #82 and post #87. Also MBTI List 15, MBTI List 19 and MBTI List 20. See what those texts mean for any type and function that you want to explore. That is: work with them. Replace the words, see what happens. Take your time, read again, think again, and read other posts as well, they can also be useful.

The temperament correlation doesn’t work
It actually works really well. Take Berens’ Interaction Styles as primary temperament, and the four Keirsey groups as secondary: In-Charge (EST+ENJ) = Choleric/·, Get-Things-Going (ESF+ENP) = Sanguine/·, Chart-The-Course (IST+INJ) = Melancholic/·, Behind-The-Scenes (ISF+INP) = Phlegmatic/·. Rationals (NT) = ·/Choleric, Artisans (SP) = ·/Sanguine, Guardians (SJ) = ·/Melancholic, Idealists (NF) = ·/Phlegmatic. As a simple summary you can just use MBTI List 21 or the second sentence in this table. If the correlation doesn’t seem right that’s a problem of definition, mistypes, and/or the effect of other factors that might give the person the appearance of a different temperament. For example: a high degree of willpower can make someone appear as “sanguine” or “choleric”, being depressed can be mistaken for “melancholic”, etc. There’s also the problem of emotions. No one has the monopoly on being angry, sad, happy, etc. Temperament is not emotional exclusivity. People who are not choleric can get angry just the same, for example, because choleric doesn’t mean angry, it means decisive, direct, demanding, etc. There are choleric people who very rarely get angry. And every type can get angry for different reasons. Perhaps choleric ones are more prone to anger, but that’s a different thing. People who are not sanguine can be happy, those who aren’t melancholic can get sad, too, and those who are not phlegmatic can observe things and situations.

Why did you type this person as an {X}?
That’s how everything fits best. You have to know the person quite well, internally, not historically or “biographically”. You have to get inside him/her and see what [s]he was/is really about. Then you need a wide range of examples in your mind, distributed along the dichotomy lines, so you can compare. With that, maybe you can answer the question yourself. Go through the tables, the lists, the differences, the typing and function posts, etc, and see how the majority of the corresponding descriptions apply to that person better than those of the other types. For example: how come Jim Morrison is an ESTP? Because most of ESTP, EP, ET, ES, SP, ST, TP, ETP, ESP, EST, Se1//Ni4 and Te2-Fi3 things describe him better than the rest, and not only that, of course, but also things inside the previous posts, too, for example in this summary.