Do I know my self or not?

[Brontosaurie]

i don't think most intuitives "create stories about everything" in their heads. that's probably just a self-gratifying way of describing it, making it sound supernatural, fantastic, oracular.

intuition is a perception of the general attributes and conceptual analogies, not a process of being bombarded with an inner narrative desperate to make sense of every present moment. i don't have Ni but i sincerely doubt that it's preoccupied with concrete things like "stories".

(@Paladin-X)

 

[Ink]

Is that written somewhere? I have never heard that.

An introvert is usually more introverted earlier than later in life, thus using the dominant introverted function along with the tertiary introverted function, vice versa for extraverts... There are big individual variations of course, but in QTs case he seems to have much more well-developed introverted functions than extroverted

 

[Paladin-X]

i don't think most intuitives "create stories about everything" in their heads. that's probably just a self-gratifying way of describing it, making it sound supernatural, fantastic, oracular.

intuition is a perception of the general attributes and conceptual analogies, not a process of being bombarded with an inner narrative desperate to make sense of every present moment. i don't have Ni but i sincerely doubt that it's preoccupied with concrete things like "stories".

(@Paladin-X)

No, but they make inferences about things that are not literally there, like your assumption that I said most intuitives "create stories about everything". You appear to be inferring a generalization that I did not make.

Furthermore, she does not have an understanding of MBTI and is a very practical person. I strongly doubt that she was trying to create a mystical impression of her perception. Perhaps you can explain why you would leap to that conclusion?

Having spent a lot of time with NF types, I find that many are very much story driven. Maybe they don't all form their thoughts into stories, but some definitely do. One INFJ described his thought process as a narration of his life as it was happening. My girlfriend uses abstract mental imagery to form stories about whatever she is thinking about. Several xNFPs I know seemed to be enthralled by stories either in books, soap operas, listening very intently to people, video games, etc. One INFP friend described his thought process as movie-based, specifically cartoonish like anime. It's easy to make judgments off of surface level explanations, but I do not know how to confer experiential understanding otherwise.

The realization for me was that intuitives seem to have abstract and/or inferred impressions of concrete reality. As where I usually see things literally as they are and I have to use reasoning gain that same understanding.

 

[Montresor]

I feel so bad about myself after reading all of your ISTP identifiers. Is this really the way you see your bigger, stronger, smarter cousins?

I hate to swim against the current but the guy isn't fucking ISTP or I'm not fucking ISTP because I can tell very very easily that he and I are different. Too different to be the same type.

I mean, there's INTPs here, there's ISTPs here, there's INFJs here, there's ENTPs here, there's INTJs ... not everybody who is one type comes across the same way so please don't boil my argument down to this preliminary assumption.

The guy does not pay attention to detail. AT ALL. Can't anybody SEE that? He is 100% big picture, doesn't care about details. It shames me that you ALL want to type him as ISTP.

@QuickTwist you keep trying to drop the thread, and I know you don't really like me, but seriously ... you started this thread to figure out your type maybe you should continue the line of thought until all avenues have been exhausted?

 

[Paladin-X]

The guy does not pay attention to detail. AT ALL. Can't anybody SEE that? He is 100% big picture, doesn't care about details. It shames me that you ALL want to type him as ISTP.

In a forum where most people don't pay attention to detail, why do you think they would notice that detail? :P

I wouldn't say 'all' type him as ISTP. I have no idea what type he is. I am just sharing my understanding of things. Not that you were specifically addressing me or anything.

 

[Brontosaurie]

No, but they make inferences about things that are not literally there, like your assumption that I said most intuitives "create stories about everything". You appear to be inferring a generalization that I did not make.

Furthermore, she does not have an understanding of MBTI and is a very practical person. I strongly doubt that she was trying to create a mystical impression of her perception. Perhaps you can explain why you would leap to that conclusion?

Having spent a lot of time with NF types, I find that many are very much story driven. Maybe they don't all form their thoughts into stories, but some definitely do. One INFJ described his thought process as a narration of his life as it was happening. My girlfriend uses abstract mental imagery to form stories about whatever she is thinking about. Several xNFPs I know seemed to be enthralled by stories either in books, soap operas, listening very intently to people, video games, etc. One INFP friend described his thought process as movie-based, specifically cartoonish like anime. It's easy to make judgments off of surface level explanations, but I do not know how to confer experiential understanding otherwise.

The realization for me was that intuitives seem to have abstract and/or inferred impressions of concrete reality. As where I usually see things literally as they are and I have to use reasoning gain that same understanding.

fair enough you didn't generalize. but it was implied somehow as you put forth the anecdote in the manner of something with explanatory power.

the conclusion was based on previous experience with people who say similar stuff.

i still think the examples you relate seem like very poor, biased and frankly boring depictions of intuition. hope i'm not offending you.

the notion of abstraction and inference provides a better definition, but then you can ask whether perception without abstraction and inference is possible. i say nope; perception requires it to be worthwhile because of our limited sensory, computational and conscious bandwidths. whenever you perceive, say, a ball rather than a slew of undifferentiated qualia you've parttaken in abstraction and inference. eerily, N vs. S appears to be a question of intelligence and cognitive capacity rather than a preferential one, as it deals with amount of something necessary and desirable rather than a choice between two separate things. i would like to be corrected on this though. and don't take it that i'm calling you a dumb sensor. the criticism is aimed at typology, not sensors.

 

[Paladin-X]

fair enough you didn't generalize. but it was implied somehow as you put forth the anecdote in the manner of something with explanatory power.

That is fair. But again, that is your impression. I am sharing my realizations; my experience. I was not trying to sway or convey with explanatory power. My intention was to provide a perspective and allow the OP to form his own opinions.

the conclusion was based on previous experience with people who say similar stuff.

Ok, but is that based on your impression? Or do you know for a fact that they were trying to use flowery mysticism to falsely convey their perception?

NOTE: The point that I am driving at here is not to prove you wrong, but to say that I think you are making an assumption. Whether that assumption is accurate or not, is irrelevant.

i still think the examples you relate seem like very poor, biased and frankly boring depictions of intuition. hope i'm not offending you.

I am a little offended, to be perfectly honest. Mostly because I don't understand how it is relevant other than for you to say that you don't like my 'explanation'. :P Can you please elaborate on why you think it is poor? Biased? Boring? They are all subjective and impressionistic words.

The reason why I keep pointing that out, is not to be a douche, I just want you to see that you present arguments based on opinion and your own perception, not on fact. (And I mean fact as in what actually exists, not as is in a scientific fact); or at the very least try to understand my perspective (which as an aside, I think might be related to Ni). And the reason why I point that out, is because I am trying to demonstrate to you, the difference between S vs N (at least Se vs N, because Si is heavily impressionistic too :S).

the notion of abstraction and inference provides a better definition, but then you can ask whether perception without abstraction and inference is possible. i say nope; perception requires it to be worthwhile because of our limited sensory, computational and conscious bandwidths. whenever you perceive a ball rather than a slew of qualia you've parttaken in abstraction and inference. eerily, N vs. S appears to be a question of intelligence and cognitive capacity rather than a preferential one. i would like to be corrected on this though.

I think you are over-thinking the meaning of S vs N and confusing it with literal meanings (now I am making assumptions :P). Sensation and Intuition are labels and should not be confused with how the mind literally and fundamentally interprets sensory signals.

I respectfully disagree that intelligence is a factor of discernment between Sensation and Intuition. Perhaps we should open up this debate in another thread and not detract further from the OP's original intention.

 

[Ink]

I feel so bad about myself after reading all of your ISTP identifiers. Is this really the way you see your bigger, stronger, smarter cousins?

I hate to swim against the current but the guy isn't fucking ISTP or I'm not fucking ISTP because I can tell very very easily that he and I are different. Too different to be the same type.

I mean, there's INTPs here, there's ISTPs here, there's INFJs here, there's ENTPs here, there's INTJs ... not everybody who is one type comes across the same way so please don't boil my argument down to this preliminary assumption.

The guy does not pay attention to detail. AT ALL. Can't anybody SEE that? He is 100% big picture, doesn't care about details. It shames me that you ALL want to type him as ISTP.

@QuickTwist you keep trying to drop the thread, and I know you don't really like me, but seriously ... you started this thread to figure out your type maybe you should continue the line of thought until all avenues have been exhausted?

Just fyi... I'd type you as INTP

edit: You speak like someone with a concrete inner world and an abstract outer world

 

[Brontosaurie]

That is fair. But again, that is your impression. I am sharing my realizations; my experience. I was not trying to sway or convey with explanatory power. My intention was to provide a perspective and allow the OP to form his own opinions.




Ok, but is that based on your impression? Or do you know for a fact that they were trying to use flowery mysticism to falsely convey their perception?

NOTE: The point that I am driving at here is not to prove you wrong, but to say that I think you are making an assumption. Whether that assumption is accurate or not, is irrelevant.




I am a little offended, to be perfectly honest. Mostly because I don't understand how it is relevant other than for you to say that you don't like my 'explanation'. :P Can you please elaborate on why you think it is poor? Biased? Boring? They are all subjective and impressionistic words.

The reason why I keep pointing that out, is not to be a douche, I just want you to see that you present arguments based on opinion and your own perception, not on fact. (And I mean fact as in what actually exists, not as is in a scientific fact); or at the very least try to understand my perspective (which as an aside, I think might be related to Ni). And the reason why I point that out, is because I am trying to demonstrate to you, the difference between S vs N (at least Se vs N, because Si is heavily impressionistic too :S).



I think you are over-thinking the meaning of S vs N and confusing it with literal meanings (now I am making assumptions :P). Sensation and Intuition are labels and should not be confused with how the mind literally and fundamentally interprets sensory signals.

I respectfully disagree that intelligence is a factor of discernment between Sensation and Intuition. Perhaps we should open up this debate in another thread and not detract further from the OP's original intention.

well perhaps, being an N, i view everything as attempts to explain Da Big Truth and thus criticize accordingly.

i don't know for sure if they were actively trying to impress, or even if they were directed by a subconscious need to impress.

disregarding accuracy i willingly admit to having made assumptions. i think assumption is unavoidable but that is another matter.

what i disliked was not your explanation per se but the connection with some shallow self-reports from intuitives. again, assuming these are there to support your view. the self-reports are boring and poor to me because they are rather concrete despite attempting to describe the abstract. biased they are through the concrete cultural associations that still, to me, imply a desire to impress which distorts the validity of their accounts.

i may be overthinking N vs. S but most typology sources view cognitive functions as essentially distinct, i.e. specific neural processes, albeit unexplored. some of them view the functions as behavioral cathegories instead, but in any case it's a bit problematic to have a personality variable so easily equated with intelligence, don't you think? after all personality psychology strives to recognize variation as complementary and neutral.

that is actually a very good idea for a thread. this issue is pretty much the core of jungian typology imo.

 

[Paladin-X]

well perhaps, being an N, i view everything as attempts to explain Da Big Truth and thus criticize accordingly.

i don't know for sure if they were actively trying to impress, or even if they were directed by a subconscious need to impress.

disregarding accuracy i willingly admit to having made assumptions. i think assumption is unavoidable but that is another matter.

what i disliked was not your explanation per se but the connection with some shallow self-reports from intuitives. again, assuming these are there to support your view. the self-reports are boring and poor to me because they are rather concrete despite attempting to describe the abstract. biased they are through the concrete cultural associations that still, to me, imply a desire to impress which distorts the validity of their accounts.

i may be overthinking N vs. S but most typology sources view cognitive functions as essentially distinct, i.e. specific neural processes, albeit unexplored. some of them view the functions as behavioral cathegories instead, but in any case it's a bit problematic to have a personality variable so easily equated with intelligence, don't you think? after all personality psychology strives to recognize variation as complementary and neutral.

that is actually a very good idea for a thread. this issue is pretty much the core of jungian typology imo.

Fair points, good sir! Thank you. I appreciate your honesty and perspective. Your reasoning makes sense to me now.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Fair points, good sir! Thank you. I appreciate your honesty and perspective. Your reasoning makes sense to me now.

i was expecting a scathing reply. this is a relief.

right back at you also.

can you be arsed to make that thread? cause i can't right now.

 

[QuickTwist]

I don't think you are INTP.

Your style reminds me of a friends who I've always assumed was ISTP, but I could easily be wrong in this respect.

1) You have low self monitoring. You post ad libitum, creating threads willynilly.

Seems to be true enough but I don't really know what you mean by silly nilly; I do put thought into threads I make.

2) You don't seem intrinsically motivated to learn, but prefer to have other people present their arguments which you can then process.

This may or may not be true about me I don't know, however, learning is something all types can learn to enjoy so I fail to make the connection as to why this would make me ISTP.

3) You are argumentative, but also blunt and dismissive.

Hahaha... again though, I don't know how this would make me ISTP

The way in which you present yourself suggests to me that you're not interested in collaboration or a mutual exchange of information, but a transfer of information from them to you. You are result oriented (in the context of discussion on forums). You don't volunteer information unless you are looking for someone to turn it into a conclusion for you, which you then judge based on what you consider to be logical or accurate. From what I understand of the INTP atmosphere here, an INTP would give as much detail as possible in a prepackaged synopsis that predicts and addresses the needs of other analysts, whereas you seem to continuously add information as the discussion progresses.

A lot of times I have already made a conclusion by the time I add anything so no, I don't neccessarily always probe so I can make a conclusion based on what other people say. Sometimes I feel if a specific thing that was said needs more attention I will try (mostly unsuccessfully) to get people to talk about that idea and elaborate as seen in the AA thread example that was mentioned earlier.

I'm no good at typing, so I tend to phrase things in terms of other psychological constructs. I mean no offence by anything I say, though from what I understand, none should be taken. I am just some guy on the internet who doesn't actually know you. My conclusion that you are not INTP is based entirely on my own understanding of what INTPish behaviour is, not any textbook understanding of typology.

No big deal that you can't type me. Heck, I can'teven type my self.

Is that written somewhere? I have never heard that.

LOL. I noticed that too.

I feel so bad about myself after reading all of your ISTP identifiers. Is this really the way you see your bigger, stronger, smarter cousins?

What a peculiar responce.

I hate to swim against the current but the guy isn't fucking ISTP or I'm not fucking ISTP because I can tell very very easily that he and I are different. Too different to be the same type.

I mean, there's INTPs here, there's ISTPs here, there's INFJs here, there's ENTPs here, there's INTJs ... not everybody who is one type comes across the same way so please don't boil my argument down to this preliminary assumption.

The guy does not pay attention to detail. AT ALL. Can't anybody SEE that? He is 100% big picture, doesn't care about details. It shames me that you ALL want to type him as ISTP.

This is a big reason I have difficulty typing myself as an S regardless of what others say about me.

@QuickTwist you keep trying to drop the thread, and I know you don't really like me, but seriously ... you started this thread to figure out your type maybe you should continue the line of thought until all avenues have been exhausted?

I'm afaid at this point in the thread I am not going to get much help in typing myself by people that both know what ther are talking about and care about typing me. When the thread starts to turn into people saying "I'm right you're wrong" I believe that is when the thread dies... most of the time.

 

[Reluctantly]

In hindsight this thread was probably a bad idea.

And welcome to every typing thread on typology forums. You now know how every thread will eventually pan out.

 

[Hadoblado]

I don't think you are INTP.

Your style reminds me of a friends who I've always assumed was ISTP, but I could easily be wrong in this respect.

1) You have low self monitoring. You post ad libitum, creating threads willynilly.

Seems to be true enough but I don't really know what you mean by silly nilly; I do put thought into threads I make.

"Where it the top of page button?"

2) You don't seem intrinsically motivated to learn, but prefer to have other people present their arguments which you can then process.

This may or may not be true about me I don't know, however, learning is something all types can learn to enjoy so I fail to make the connection as to why this would make me ISTP.

I should have put 'intrinsic' in bold. I'm also not making the assertion that you are ISTP, only that I think it unlikely that you are INTP. At the start of my post I did liken you to someone I believe to be an ISTP, but the rest of my post focuses on the differences between your behaviour and what I perceive as INTPish behaviour. I have not clue which one of the other 15 types you are!

3) You are argumentative, but also blunt and dismissive.

Hahaha... again though, I don't know how this would make me ISTP

As above. Blunt dismissal seems uncharacteristic of Ne users.

 

[The Introvert]

As above. Blunt dismissal seems uncharacteristic of Ne users.

This I can attest to. I'm Ni-dom and blunt dismissal is generally my most often used form of denial.
(Always backed up with ample evidence, of course)

 

[Obsidian]

I'm changing my vote, based mainly on studying the eyes of the guy in the video. ISTP, INFJ, or ENFJ. Still not sure.

 

[Paladin-X]

@QuickTwist, I came across this article that might be helpful: http://www.bestfittype.com/Articles/how_to_tell_iNtuiting.cfm

 

[QuickTwist]

MBTI® Results are not equal to "True Type" - Since these Artisans-SPs have resonated to some of the descriptors for iNtuiting and reported themselves as "N" on the MBTI®, is it possible we have then reinforced "fuzzy" descriptions by assuming we were observing the behavior and words of someone with a preference for "N"? Also, it is well-established that the SN and JP scales are intercorrelated with those reporting preferences for S also reporting preferences for J and N preferences correlated with P preferences. Is the iNtuiting "preference" an artifact of the instrument?
In our experience, these individuals verify _S_P as their "true type" when we use the clear definitions based on Jung's Psychological Types as in the above matrix, Understanding Yourself and Others, An Introduction to Temperament, the Temperament Targets, Temperament Self-Discovery Descriptions and Alan Brownsword's Type Descriptions.

It was a good article but now I am even more unsure. I was leaning towards ISTP for a while and was strating to try and identify with that type but alas, this new information of what Ne/Se is has confused the bejesus out of me and now I am leaning more toward Ne.

 

[QuickTwist]

@Everyone, BTW I already know your not giving me enough credit as to how much I have thought about this.

 

[QuickTwist]

The one thing I have leared through this whole experience is to not take it so seriously.

[Edit] v No related threads. *Shrug*

 

[Obsidian]

[SPs] like brainstorming and coming up with variations on a theme, until the process goes on and on and on and gets too far away from reality. Those who prefer extraverted iNtuiting are increasingly excited by the ideas sparked in the process regardless of how far abstracted from reality.

I think this is basically false. Ne is about looking at possibilities based on what is around you. Going deeper and deeper into far-fetched possibilities is not demonstrative of Ne.

 

[QuickTwist]

They didn't even form their hypothesis into an if then statement. Some of what they said has some merit though.

Basisically the general idea is that SPs can be typed as Ns because of the way they can make connections to different things which I think sounds reasonable.

 

[Paladin-X]

I think this is basically false. Ne is about looking at possibilities based on what is around you. Going deeper and deeper into far-fetched possibilities is not demonstrative of Ne.

I don't think they mean far-fetched; they mean abstracting from concrete reality. For example: talking about something concrete like movies, then the conversation evolves into abstract theories.

 

[QuickTwist]

I don't think they mean far-fetched; they mean abstracting from concrete reality. For example: talking about something concrete like movies, then the conversation evolves into abstract theories.

That is really an interesting point although I see it more as how people relate to each other rather than their inherant traits. From what I can tell, with my limited understanding, it feels like this can describe both individuals with S characteristics and those who have N characteristics.

I'm still lost as to what I am and the more I take a closer look at it the more I see it is not an exact science; preferance could be to blame, not behaviors.

 

[QuickTwist]

Someone posted a link to a cognative function test that I had actually already done befor and I would like to share my results for anyone who cares enough to look at them.

Your Cognitive Functions:
Introverted Thinking (Ti) |||||||||||||||||||||| 10.38
Introverted Intuition (Ni) |||||||||||||||||||||| 10.255
Extroverted Intuition (Ne) ||||||||||||||||||||| 9.88
Extroverted Thinking (Te) |||||||||||| 5.39
Extroverted Sensation (Se) ||||||||| 3.57
Introverted Feeling (Fi) |||||||| 3.39
Extroverted Feeling (Fe) |||| 1.22
Introverted Sensation (Si) || -0.23

Your Extroverted Intuition (Ne) is very developed.
Your Introverted Intuition (Ni) is very developed.
Your Introverted Thinking (Ti) is very developed.
Your Extroverted Sensation (Se) is moderate.
Your Extroverted Thinking (Te) is moderate.
Your Introverted Feeling (Fi) is moderate.
Your Introverted Sensation (Si) is low.
Your Extroverted Feeling (Fe) is low.

Based on your cognitive functions, your type is most likely:
Most Likely: INTP
or Second Possibility: INTJ
or Third Possibility: ENTP


Your cognitive functions are, in order of development:
Ti - Ni - Ne - Te - Se - Fi - Fe - Si

Here are some quick descriptions of your functions, in order of preference:

The Introverted Thinking (Ti) function is used when an individual analyzes something, breaks it apart, and categorizes and defines its elements. This is the foundation of logical thinking. Ti is crucial in identifying logical inconsistencies and putting together logical arguments. Those with strong Ti usually have an ability to remain objective even when it may bother others.

The Introverted Intuition (Ni) function implicitly recognizes that one term can have multiple meanings, and allows the individual to disconnect themselves from the concept of 'objective truth'. This allows those with strong Ni to 'rewire' the connections that form a concept and test it from new and unique angles. This is why the Ni dominant types are often called analysts: they can pull apart an idea and test each individual piece to see how it changes the whole.

The Extroverted Intuition (Ne) function is oriented toward generating new possibilities. Ne is all about brainstorming - imagining a variety of possible outcomes and considering them all to be possibly true. Ne is associated with new ideas and innovative breakthroughs.

The Extroverted Thinking (Te) function imposes our own order on the world around us. Te structures the world in logical ways, ranging from the physical world (your desk, your office, etc) to concepts (creating 'flow charts' of ideas in your mind.)

The Extroverted Sensation (Se) function is associated with a vivid perception of the world, taking into account details that others may miss. Se is about being closely tuned to the world around you, and that usually translates into following 'gut impulses' and taking great pleasure in physical action. Those with weak Se may sometimes feel 'disconnected' from the world around them.

The Introverted Feeling (Fi) function attempts to find meaning in the world. In this sense, 'feeling' doesn't necessarily mean 'emotions' - it refers to the subjective and subtle sense of value within a situation. It is often associated with gut reactions about the fairness or goodness of an interaction. Those with strong Fi usually care less about objective facts and more about what's fair or right.

The Extroverted Feeling (Fe) function is used when an individual acts in a considerate way to the feelings and beliefs of the people around them. Those with strong Fe can easily empathize with other people and is the most likely to be a 'people person.' Those with weak Fe may find themselves offending people unintentionally.

The Introverted Sensation (Si) function compares past events with current events. Si is associated with vivid memory recall and a reliance on experiential learning. Those with strong Si often prefer to take a 'hands on approach'. On the other hand, those with weak Si often do not benefit from interacting in that way.

I know its a subective test and I almost was doing it as a joke but it does reflect what I have been thinking about.

 

[Montresor]

hmm. guess I was totally totally wrong about ISTJ.

Looks like you're some awesome hybrid INTP/INTJ animal, bred in a lab, for ultimate spreadsheet construction/theoretical deconstruction.

 

[QuickTwist]

My thoughts on my type now are that it really doesn't matter; typology is so subjective that it can be nearly impossible to type certain individuals.

I believe I have characteristics of both heavy S and heavy N and don't know exactly which dominates my thinking.

I love to figure out problems that follow the same rules and I also love to talk about the ins and outs of something complicated even if it is familiar to me. I dislike small talk and I hate repeating myself but find myself talking about the weather when there is nothing else to say. I am not good at predicting things but I am very good at estimation.

Oh well. What can you do? I will probably never know what my type is and at this point I don't really care.

And to all those who had something negative or patronizing to say my suggestion to you would be to get a life and not get mixed up in someone else's drama.

 

[Chad]

My thoughts on my type now are that it really doesn't matter; typology is so subjective that it can be nearly impossible to type certain individuals.

I believe I have characteristics of both heavy S and heavy N and don't know exactly which dominates my thinking.

I love to figure out problems that follow the same rules and I also love to talk about the ins and outs of something complicated even if it is familiar to me. I dislike small talk and I hate repeating myself but find myself talking about the weather when there is nothing else to say. I am not good at predicting things but I am very good at estimation.

Oh well. What can you do? I will probably never know what my type is and at this point I don't really care.

And to all those who had something negative or patronizing to say my suggestion to you would be to get a life and not get mixed up in someone else's drama.

I have to agree with you assessment of MBTI. I have a similar problem with the I/E dichotomy. While I have discussed this many times I am still not closer to understanding rather I am an I or E.

For the most part it makes me want to distance myself form MBTI and stick with Jung who believed that I and E where extremes and most people couldn't be classified as either. This make since to me as I have many of the traits of both.

However, like many have suggested the problem with this is that if I am nether I or E. Then the whole cognitive function system is worthless. The problem with this is I am not ready to say this is so. I still see worth in that system. Therefore and I am a stalemate with myself. I wish to understand this concept deeper so that I can unlock its mysteries.

 

[QuickTwist]

Pop-psychology at its poppiest? The world may never know.

 

[Chad]

My problem with reaching your conclusion is that I have seen valid indicators. Not all the indicators are valid however, there are enough valid indicators in the descriptions I have read of INTP and ENTP that I have to admit that they are actually hitting on something. However, this is very different then saying that the theory is completely figured out and all/any of the objective pricks on this forum or anywhere have it figured out.

The reason it is so subjective is because everyone believes they have it figured out and no one agrees on what it is.

The reality is there is some truth behind the theory but very few if anyone really understands the why it works.

 

[Ink]

I have to agree with you assessment of MBTI. I have a similar problem with the I/E dichotomy. While I have discussed this many times I am still not closer to understanding rather I am an I or E.

For the most part it makes me want to distance myself form MBTI and stick with Jung who believed that I and E where extremes and most people couldn't be classified as either. This make since to me as I have many of the traits of both.

However, like many have suggested the problem with this is that if I am nether I or E. Then the whole cognitive function system is worthless. The problem with this is I am not ready to say this is so. I still see worth in that system. Therefore and I am a stalemate with myself. I wish to understand this concept deeper so that I can unlock its mysteries.

Remember that life circumstances often forces people to develop their weaker functions, so just because you act like an extrovert a lot it doesn't necessarily mean they're your "strongest" functions. I do think the E and I dichotomy is mostly useless and limiting and that you should just focus on the functional stacks, if you can relate to their order etc

 

[QuickTwist]

My problem with reaching your conclusion is that I have seen valid indicators. Not all the indicators are valid however, there are enough valid indicators in the descriptions I have read of INTP and ENTP that I have to admit that they are actually hitting on something. However, this is very different then saying that the theory is completely figured out and all/any of the objective pricks on this forum or anywhere have it figured out.

The reason it is so subjective is because everyone believes they have it figured out and no one agrees on what it is.

The reality is there is some truth behind the theory but very few if anyone really understands the why it works.

Hey Chad, is this anything like how simple Darwin thought a cell was and then after years of different inventions, research and observance we finally figured out what a cell was? (I doubt it.)

I'm going to stop myself from going on a rant and just say the idea that any given persons personality has to be polarized just shows how people observe something, get an idea and run with it until there is no allowance for exceptions to the rule. The funny thing is that once it catches on, you end up with a bunch of people who can't think for themselves and they take the idea hook line and sinker.

 

[Chad]

Hey Chad, is this anything like how simple Darwin thought a cell was and then after years of different inventions, research and observance we finally figured out what a cell was? (I doubt it.)

I'm going to stop myself from going on a rant and just say the idea that any given persons personality has to be polarized just shows how people observe something, get an idea and run with it until there is no allowance for exceptions to the rule. The funny thing is that once it catches on, you end up with a bunch of people who can't think for themselves and they take the idea hook line and sinker.

I mostly agree with this.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Do I know my self or not?

No. You're actually a bird.

 

[Chad]

No. You're actually a bird.

What kind of bird?

 

[Chad]

What kind of bird?

Personally, I always wanted to be a penguin.

 

[QuickTwist]

Birds are for the birds.

 

[QuickTwist]

I have a problem. I tend to not have a very good grip on reality so when I do find reality it usually feels so basic it is surreal. I have a lot of trouble thinking in simple terms. I am not saying I am a genius because clearly I am not but I do catch certain things that other people find to be arbitrary and I think they have a pattern or sequence. Also my best friend IRL says with my thinking process I usually make leaps and bounds rather then then small logical steps.

If you have ever had trouble understanding a post by me this is why.

What does this say about my type?

 

[Chad]

I have a problem. I tend to not have a very good grip on reality so when I do find reality it usually feels so basic it is surreal. I have a lot of trouble thinking in simple terms. I am not saying I am a genius because clearly I am not but I do catch certain things that other people find to be arbitrary and I think they have a pattern or sequence. Also my best friend IRL says with my thinking process I usually make leaps and bounds rather then then small logical steps.

If you have ever had trouble understanding a post by me this is why.

What does this say about my type?

I don't know but I can relate.

 

[TheScornedReflex]

You are so ISFJ! That's a objective fact .

 

[cheese]

No. You're actually a bird.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pyuFfKPCvY

Their humour may come across a little weird and contrived at first (took me a while to warm up to them) but once you get a feel for it, it can be pretty great.

[Their Academy Award Movie Trailer is more accessible, and also fantastic.]

 

[QuickTwist]

You are so ISFJ! That's a objective fact .

Thank you for pointing out the obvious. Clearly. If only I would have seen it earlier!

 

[QuickTwist]

Anyone rethinking my type? Any more info would be appreciated. I have concluded that I am INTP with a Enneagram personality of 3w4 but am open to other possibilities.