The Ideal Way to Find Your Mind Axes Map (Typing Yourself in Mind Axes)

While typology may use personality tests or skilled typists to help you deduce your type, Mind Axes considers it better for you to take the course of typing yourself. The cognitive fluidity that the system stands for is too unpredictable for an outsider to deduce, which is why it is advised for the individual to understand the axes, and then describe themselves using the system instead of expecting a magically deduced description of themselves from it. 

The three primary steps of figuring out your own Mind Axes cognitive map would be as follows:

Understand the System: It's ideal for you to understand what the system stands for, and what ideas govern the two axes. Besides the axes themselves, it's also essential to understand the three different states: Balanced, Quite, and Extreme. Read all the important articles to grasp the core ideas.

Know and Trust Yourself: There's no one who'd figure out the complexities of your cognition better than yourself. It's recommended to be honest to oneself and to relate with the qualitative preferences accordingly. Weigh in the different contexts and your approach to them, as well as how much these contexts relate to your identity. The goal is to find out a mapped image of your cognition, which serves the system's purpose of describing yourself with it. 

Consult the Theorists: If you find yourselves having any confusion regarding Mind Axes, contact the theorists of the system right away. They should not be contacted about typing you, but rather about explaining the system to you. You can contact the Mind Axes theorists by joining our Discord Server, which is linked in the sidebar. 

Important Articles to Check (besides the main descriptions): 

Contexts and Fluidity - Toro

Summary of Intent and Structure - Toro

Why Mind Axes Says No to Typing Others:

Mind Axes' stance against the rigid measures used by typology makes it harness a different approach to the idea of typing oneself. Even the flexibility is traced back to specifically constituted mechanisms that one can't escape. The stacking of elements and functions is formulated as if all of them symmetrically oppose one another in various ways. 

The premise of almost all typology tends to analyze a reterritorialized group of elements and traits. An individual relating with a bunch of these traits is then boxed inside what's called a type. This *typology magic* then brings to you a bunch of other defined traits that are supposed to compliment everything else. This would be more functional only if these highly defined types had further depth, and were at least millions in quantity.

Getting typed by professional/skilled typists in various typology systems has become quite common among those who seek to know the systems better or want to validate their self-typing. Even a personality test can be taken as such since it mostly attempts to deduce through presumptuous questions that have very little to do with what the core idea of the element they're representing may have to do. The relativity is barely utilized too. Common manifestations of a function or element are seen as the absolute indication of a person fitting the function/element. Such can also be seen with an individual being typed by a skilled typist. 

The bottom line is that: In typology, the type tries to describe you based on a few traits you relate with. Whereas in Mind Axes, you describe yourself by using the types, with contexts and fluidity taken into account. Even though there are qualitative preferences that may indicate one's position to another person (for example, if someone is not curious about new ideas, it's not possible for them to mainly be extremely lateral), the traits that you manifest could be related to quite an amount of underlying contexts that may or may not reason with your identity, or that you could have possibly arrived at conclusions that seem some way through methods that suit the opposite way. This is why the best person to type you in Mind Axes is yourself, provided you've understood the system well enough.