Immanuel Kant ~ MBTI, Enneagram, and Socionics Personality Type

Immanuel Kant ~ MBTI, Enneagram, and Socionics Personality Type

Immanuel Kant

Philosopher

e

i

n

s

f

t

p

j

function

ennea

variant

socio

psycho

INTP 10

ISTJ 2

INFJ 2

INTJ 1

1w9 14

5w6 1

sp/so 7

so/sp 1

LII 14

LVEF 2

VLEF 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

h

e

x

a

c

o

public myers-briggs votes

(21/11/26 16:11) Reinek: INTJ

(21/01/02 07:38) Helvetica: INTJ

(20/10/21 00:11) Darkstar: INTP

(20/08/29 23:32) Thyssen: INTJ

(20/05/21 13:08) bibliology: INTJ

(20/01/17 18:54) Jacobus: INTJ

(19/07/06 23:25) Taco110: INTJ

(19/01/01 14:21) kawaii: INTJ

(21/11/28 12:40) Tman: INTJ

(18/12/08 00:41) fg: INTJ

(18/12/07 19:38) LVNA: INTJ

(18/12/07 07:40) edza: INTJ

(18/11/29 02:56) twinpinks: INTP

(18/10/31 21:03) tch: INTJ

(18/08/07 09:36) Zeego: INTJ

(20/01/12 08:39) Diobono: INTJ

(18/06/13 05:48) EON: INTJ

public function votes

(25/07/02 19:47) nicotineseries: INTP

(22/03/24 22:49) Woll Smoth: INTP

(21/11/26 16:12) Reinek: INTP

(21/01/02 07:38) Helvetica: INTP

(20/10/21 00:11) Darkstar: INTP

(20/09/12 13:02) Flower-like: INTP

(20/08/29 23:32) Thyssen: INFJ

(20/01/17 18:54) Jacobus: INTP

(19/07/06 23:25) Taco110: INFJ

(19/04/14 19:50) tman: INTP

(19/02/06 14:29) kawaii: INTJ

(19/01/30 14:10) tch: ISTJ

(18/08/07 09:36) Zeego: INTP

(19/07/23 10:22) Diobono: INTP

(18/06/14 05:21) fg: ISTJ

public enneagram votes

(25/08/07 05:31) nicotineseries: 1w9

(25/08/06 17:58) Woll Smoth: 1w9

(21/01/02 07:38) Helvetica: 1w9

(20/10/21 03:06) Flower-like: 1w9

(20/10/21 00:11) Darkstar: 5w6

(20/08/29 23:32) Thyssen: 1w9

(20/05/21 13:08) bibliology: 1w9

(21/06/30 10:32) Tman: 1w9

(20/01/17 18:54) Jacobus: 1w9

(19/07/06 23:25) Taco110: 1w9

(19/01/01 14:23) kawaii: 1w9

(18/10/31 21:03) tch: 1w9

(18/06/13 05:48) EON: 1w9

(19/07/23 10:17) Diobono: 1w9

(18/05/20 04:55) fg: 1w9

public instinctual variant votes

(21/01/02 07:38) Helvetica: sp/so

(20/10/21 03:06) Flower-like: sp/so

(20/10/21 00:11) Darkstar: so/sp

(20/08/29 23:32) Thyssen: sp/so

(20/05/21 13:08) bibliology: sp/so

(19/09/05 21:02) Tman: sp/so

(19/07/06 23:25) Taco110: sp/so

(18/05/20 04:55) fg: sp/so

public tritype® votes

(25/08/07 05:32) nicotineseries: 152

(25/08/06 17:58) Woll Smoth: 152

(22/04/04 11:49) Tman: 152

(21/01/02 07:38) Helvetica: 152

(20/10/21 00:11) Darkstar: 513

(20/08/29 23:32) Thyssen: 152

(20/01/12 08:46) Diobono: 152

(19/07/06 23:25) Taco110: 152

(19/02/17 23:41) ResoluteSoul: 451

public sociotype votes

(25/08/07 05:31) nicotineseries: LII

(22/03/30 13:27) woll smoth: LII

(21/01/02 07:38) Helvetica: LII

(20/10/21 00:11) Darkstar: LII

(20/08/29 23:32) Thyssen: LII

(20/07/19 07:58) Flower-like: LII

(20/01/19 19:39) zazu: LII

(20/01/17 18:54) Jacobus: LII

(19/07/06 23:25) Taco110: LII

(19/05/06 20:20) Avalonia: LII

(19/07/04 18:59) tman: LII

(19/02/03 16:02) tch: LII

(18/11/13 05:57) echidna1000: LII

(18/05/20 04:55) fg: LII

public psychosophy votes

(20/01/11 10:31) fg: LVEF

(20/01/09 15:24) Diobono: VLEF

(20/02/28 22:42) Tman: LVEF

public hexaco votes

Teru Mikami
Are you intuitive or do you follow the state?

half of mbti and the big 5 have a direct overlap

0
2019-01-29 08:49:41pm (post #5089)

tman INTP 5w4/1w9/4w5 Sx/Sp ILI

And you can figure out cognintion, just look at how a person rights and thinks.

0
2019-01-29 07:58:30pm (post #5087)

tman INTP 5w4/1w9/4w5 Sx/Sp ILI

If you want something based of behavior, go with something testable like the big 5

0
2019-01-29 07:52:11pm (post #5086)

strawberry crisis enfp 7

oh god finally. i might have 100 emails now

0
2019-01-26 11:50:48pm (post #5053)

strawberry crisis enfp 7

hello test is this working

0
2019-01-26 11:50:25pm (post #5052)

Jacobus INFJ 4w5 EIE

thank you strawberry, very cool

0
2019-01-26 11:43:10pm (post #5030)

tman INTP 5w4/1w9/4w5 Sx/Sp ILI

The problem is without the congitive fuctions the Myres briggs is a crap system.

0
2019-01-26 10:37:27pm (post #4938)

strawberry crisis enfp 7

There's this notion floating around with Myers-Briggs that wants the four-letter types to mean something so much more than what they really represent, and it's all about the way brains function or the deeper, invariable side of personality. The original theorists liked talking about their theory as though it were a be-all-end-all solution to defining personality and imposed rules that logically don't make much sense to uphold now, but we can still use the framework they provided us and apply it in ways that can still be perfectly within reason.

The "cognitive functions" kind of romanticize the fixedness with which Myers et al. referred to her own theory as occasionally, and it started creating distinctions that people wouldn't really be able to realistically distinguish: behavior and true personality suddenly find themselves divorced from each other, and everything is already laid out in a way that's "indefinite and variable," but it does a good job of obscuring that by layering it with thoughts presented as hunches, pure intuition, feelings, and all that jazz. It's non-falsifiable in a very frustrating way, I think, just because of that.

I think that's the wrong way to look at all this as a "no-functions" philosophy. It's more just like Myers-Briggs is one thing, and cognitive functions are another thing. They overlap to the point where people very often confuse the two things together, and it's really only ever in name: cognitive function types share names with Myers-Briggs types and it makes people think that Myers-Briggs has to do with the cognitive functions and vice versa.

Who really knows how people's minds function? I think the enamoring thing about the cognitive functions is that it proposes that it has answers, but it doesn't really provide them itself—it's all just made up by anyone as they go.

You can take it or leave it, but anything that's really Myers-Briggs branded tends to be more so based on observable behavior than "how a person's mind functions." It's not really consistent, though. MBTI I/E is very behavioral, but T/F is gauged more abstractly. I find that the more behaviorally-based questions work better in studies and are easier to define personality preferences in, but everything kind of meshes together in the end. I feel like it's unfair to separate behavior and "true mental preferences" because everything we do is a product of our heads. And I think because we can at least access the behavioral side of our personalities more easily, we don't need to guess so much. I think that's the nice thing about Myers-Briggs: it's certainly prone to move around a lot, but it's very accessible.

Any typology system that tries to hint at mental workings and the like is generally deceptive in its presentation and is probably akin to something like a "complicated-sounding guess to describe simple things we do," and I feel like that does a disservice to how truly complicated our brains are.

I don't know how deep you are into the functions stuff, but something I'd encourage is looking at typology as a set of incomplete frameworks that try to describe something that's honestly too complicated to boil down into distinct categories. Maybe one system incorporates ideas that another one completely overlooks, or maybe another system accounts for a factor that isn't often looked at. It's all valuable in a sense because they frame things in different ways, but I'm personally kind of bored with how samey they are at this stage. Like where's the system that talks about different social environments and how you engage with them?

0
2019-01-23 11:29:21pm (post #4782)

Jacobus INFJ 4w5 EIE

Both Jung and Myers saw him as an ITP. Along with Aquinas and Descartes, he's probably the clearest example of an Introverted Thinking type there is.

The biggest flaw in the no-functions philosophy that dominates this site is that it ultimately makes MBTI types indefinite and variable. Behavior does not always reflect personality or, more importantly, the way a person's mind functions. Just because a person has a strict schedule does not necessarily make them a J, just because a person is an extreme individualist does not make them a P, and so forth.

2
2019-01-23 06:30:40pm (post #4779)

LVNA

I feel that response really brings in a question about the nature of introversion. Kant seems like he was very introverted to me, but that he brought his internal ideals in line with a squarely social outlook about human life and used that to create situations he felt comfortable in...a tranquil dinner party with friends where everything went along the lines of a specific plan etc. if anything that would just seem to show a difference between J and P, where his J allowed him to find ways to become more social. But does that really make him less I or just an introvert who found it easy to meld into certain social contexts because of his quite rigid but clear thoughts and ideas about the world? his cognitive introversion still seems strong to me is the gist and I wouldn't be surprised if he still came across as pretty I even if behaviorally he created and adapted to a more E world. The stimulus for that action seems pretty internal with him, not like someone who wants to access and influence the world strongly (think the LSI stereotype) who has to be more E because they derive their sense of self more from that world and how they are entangled in it.

0
2018-12-07 07:38:13pm (post #4178)

edza ENTJ 8w7 SLE

He's been described as being sociable. I don't think he's a strong I anyway. Much closer to ENTJ than INTP or ISTJ or whatever.

0
2018-12-07 07:42:35am (post #4176)

allm8 ???? dunno ???

More like Immanuel CUNT krkrkrkr

1
2018-08-12 05:27:29am (post #2794)

*related entries*
Socrates Philosopher
Charles Taylor Philosopher
Mircea Eliade Philosopher
Jacques Derrida Philosopher
Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi Philosopher
Murray Bookchin Philosopher
Hypatia Philosopher
Paul Ehrlich Author
9wb Regular Enneagram
Jean-Paul Sartre Philosopher
2wb Regular Enneagram
Beta Quadra Socionics Small Groups