Type Me: Inconsistent

An Offer I Could Not Refuse

A recent post by Ana Sitnina of Encyclopedia Socionika to the World Socionics Society FaceBook group to which I belong offered to type me (or others) at no charge. I quickly responded with questions about the procedure, which involved:

  • Downloading a questionnaire
  • Videotaping myself as I answered the 41 (actually 42) questions
  • Uploading my video to YouTube with relevant links to the group making the offer
  • Posting the link to my video back on FaceBook
  • Waiting for the results

Never one to refuse an offer which could result in greater self-understanding, I taped the video that evening and provided the appropriate links. Then I waited with bated breath for the analysis.

A(nother) Result I did Not Expect


Shawna Fenner InterviewAfter several days I received the report on my results on FaceBook. Click here to read the report. Here is a link to my video on YouTube, which provided the basis for the analysis.

Since I type myself (and have elsewhere been typed) as EII (Ethical Intuitive Integrator), I was surprised to see myself typed as SEI (Sensory Ethical Integrator).


I can make sense of some of the aspects of the interview which created the impression of high Fe. For instance, I found the process of answering questions from a list–with no interaction–both awkward and amusing, so I laughed a lot while making the video. Nevertheless, I remain unconvinced that I am a sensory type (although Si would be slightly more likely than Se). I also apparently displayed alpha quadra values in the video, whereas in “real life” I consistently identify with delta quadra values.

Ms. Sitnina inquired about my previous typing, so I told her I believe I am an EII. In addition, I shared a link to my blog post detailing my experience with previous typing interviews. She responded:

Thank you for your time and answers =) I have looked at the link – I find it interesting that first Jack’s typing was Si-lead.

I understand how easy it can be to see lead Fi – in the beginning we were thinking ESI, as you do produce a lot of Fi and it’s clearly very strong. There is also, for us, a very noticeable Se, so EII was ruled out. As we proceeded with the video, it became clearer that Fe is still preferred ethics, despite a major Fi input, and also that Se is something you don’t value, despite being good and confident at it. The preference of Si over Se was also very clear, even with two sensorics present. Also instances of NeTi ruled out ESI completely. But because of both ethics and both sensorics present, it wasn’t a very straightforward one = )

My response to Ms. Sitnina’s first point is that Si lead was the element about which Jack was least certain in my first interview with him. I agree that Fi is strong for me, but I also value it. That would not be the case for an SEI. Fe is pretty strong for me as well, but I do not value it. Ms. Sitnina is correct that I do not value Se.  In addition, I also do not enjoy using it.


I am not certain whether I should attribute these typing discrepancies to different analytical systems (schools of socionics), typing procedure (interview vs. questionnaire), or socionists. Perhaps my own “performance inconsistencies” are the cause. In any case, I conclude that the “best fit” socionics type for me still is Ethical Intuitive Integrator…at least for now.

Enneagram Typing: My Next Stop

Naturally I could not limit myself to the MBTI, Socionics, and Neuro-PQ! Next on my list of typology subjects to explore in greater depth was my enneagram typing.

Trying Typing with Online Tests

Over a few months’ time I took a number of online assessments of my type. There was never a problem identifying my main enneagram type. Without a doubt I am a One. I was almost positive that I was a 1w2. Figuring out the tritype and instinctual variant was a bit more problematic. I wavered between 2w1 and 4w5 for my heart center; and was all over the map on the third element, the head center. In no particular temporal order, tests I took yielded the following results (with correct typing highlighted):

Enneagram Test Results

As can clearly be seen, trying to type oneself with online tests produces results which are neither accurate nor consistent. What to do? I discovered that there are people who do enneagram typing via personal interview.


Trying Typing with Personal Interview

Ennneagram DiagramIt just so happened that I was already familiar (on Twitter and Facebook) with someone who does enneagram typing. Indeed, I had watched on YouTube as Kat Passionate typed Jack Oliver Aaron of the World Socionics Society. What did I have to lose? My head center preference (5, 6, or 7) was testing all over the place, aside from being consistently among my lowest scores. So, I arranged with Kat for an interview at True Generations.

Early in April 2020 we did the interview through a Facebook Messenger audio call. I really enjoyed speaking with Kat, who is warm and enthusiastic. As an interesting side note, she suffers from fibromyalgia–as I do–and we were able to share some thoughts on that as well as my enneagram tritype. After a lengthy discussion of my attitudes and behavior, we reached a viable conclusion as to my enneagram type: 1w2 2w1 6w5 sx/so.

As a follow-up to the interview, Kat shared a number of resources that helped me understand my type, tritype, and instinctual variant better. I am very glad to have settled on a typing that I feel is accurate for me.

My Neuro-PQ

What Is Neuro-PQ?

Someone on Twitter mentioned taking an online test designed to measure one’s Neuro-PQ, or Neurological Personality Quotient. It was designed by Dario Nardi. According to the test site,

This questionnaire helps determine how you use 23 different regions of your brain! It is based on neuroscience research and the author’s actual brain imaging results of hundreds of people.

Each region of your brain helps you do various concrete and abstract tasks. By completing the NeuroPQ, you will get a profile of which tasks you tend to excel at or that engage you. The result is a unique visual portrait of your brain.

Who could resist such an interesting test? Not me! I actually took the Neuro-PQ twice. The first time, I did not follow the proper instructions for specifying email address and payment information, so I did not think I would get my results. The next time, I followed directions. Both times I got the results, which differed slightly from one another.

What Were My Neuro-PQ Scores?

Test results are emailed and come in the form of a 12-page PDF document, which explains the primary functions of various areas of the brain and analyzes the respondent’s answers to determine her strengths (and weaknesses). Two of these were particularly interesting to me:

My strengths seem to be compatible with my MBTI and Socionics typing. For that matter, my weaknesses also seem to make sense. What does not make as much sense is the placement of specific skills in particular areas of the brain, if Lenore Thomson’s placement of the eight cognitive functions is correct (see “Structure in Typology“). I definitely will have to give this more thought.

Structure in Typology

Exploring Thomson’s Typology Structure

Structure in typology began to interest me back in January when I was reading the book Personality Type: An Owner’s Manual by Lenore Thomson. Of particular interest to me was the chapter “Personality Types Are Also Brain Types.” In it Ms. Thomson stated that PET scans placed each cognitive function in a specific area of the brain:

  • Front of Left Brain: Extraverted Thinking, Extraverted Feeling
  • Back of Left Brain: Introverted Sensation, Introverted Intuition
  • Front of Right Brain: Extraverted Intuition, Extraverted Sensation
  • Back of Right Brain: Introverted Feeling, Introverted Thinking

Also surprising to me was that Ms. Thomson identified the Tertiary and Inferior functions as the weakest of all eight cognitive functions. After the Dominant and Secondary functions, she places two “alternatives” that reside on the same side of the brain. Following those are two “double agents” located on the other side of the brain, where the Tertiary and Inferior functions are located. For me, as an INFJ in the MBTI system, Thomson identified the following as my “type lasagna”:

  • Dominant: Introverted Intuition (Left Brain)
  • Secondary: Extraverted Feeling (Left Brain)
  • Left-Brain Alternatives: Introverted Sensation, Extraverted Thinking
  • Right-Brain Double Agents: Introverted Feeling, Extraverted Intuition
  • Tertiary: Introverted Thinking (Right Brain)
  • Inferior: Extraverted Sensation (Right Brain)

Contrasting C. S. Joseph’s Typology Structure

In contrast to Thomson’s model was one with which I was somewhat more familiar at that time. This was C. S. Joseph’s “four sides of the mind.” Although I am not an expert his his typology, I have viewed a number of his YouTube videos. He assigns a different personality type to each side of the mind. For an INFJ like me, these sides of the mind are:

  • Ego: INFJ = Ni Fe Ti Se (see Dominant + Secondary above)
  • Unconscious: ENFP = Ne Fi Te Si (see Right-Brain Double Agents above)
  • Subconscious: ESTP = Se Ti Fe Ni (see Inferior + Tertiary above)
  • Superego: ISTJ = Si Te Fi Ne (see Left-Brain Alternatives above)

Remembering Something about MBTI Typology Structure

While pondering these discrepancies, I was struck by a sudden memory of something I had noticed when skimming through a portion of the MBTI Manual (3rd ed.). In that system, the Secondary, Tertiary, and Inferior functions all have the opposite orientation to the Dominant. Therefore, an INFJ would have:

  • Dominant: Introverted Intuition
  • Auxiliary (Secondary): Extraverted Feeling
  • Tertiary: Extraverted Thinking
  • Inferior: Extraverted Sensation

Because this differed from other MBTI-related systems I had encountered, I started to wonder: how are different typologies structured? I should note that my focus was solely on typology structure. As a result, I did not consider the various ways in which cognitive functions or information metabolism elements are defined.

Developing My Structural Analysis

Recently I became quite interested in Socionics. Consequently, I decided to start my analysis with Model A. In that system, my type is EII (Ethical Intuitive Integrator). In addition to the systems I have already mentioned, I also looked at Beebe‘s and Socionics Model J. After working on my diagram for a couple of weeks, I ended up with this:

Structure in Typology for teh EII