Proxy's a Fraud

[Lobstrich]

@Lobstrich: The photo was what first made me suspect you were an F,

Again.. I don't believe you can judge a persons psychology based on how that person looks.

but the way you speak in all your posts confirms this fact beyond a doubt. Most of your claims are founded in your beliefs and values. Just read them, and notice how often you say something along the lines of, "I believe this" or "This is morally wrong" or "I see it this way".

Notice how I said "I don't believe" I'll explain to you why I always have "I think" - "I believe" - "In my opinion" in my posts. I simply want to make sure to point out what I'm about to say is nothing but my opinion and not a fact. I do this because It annoys me when other people say things as if they are a fact when.

EDIT: Also; ALL (and this is not something I believe. This is a fact) people can do is state what they believe. There's no such thing as 100% objective. So by your logic we are all NFs.


Either way, because I have opinions I'm an F? That again (again) makes no sense to me.

There is no reason Fs can't as logical as Ts; they just use different evidence to support their claims

And there's no way T's can't "believe" and/or think this or that is morally wrong. I don't remember when I actually pinned anyone on what I think is morally right or wrong though. I rarely do that as morals are subjective.

I'd like to point out that I've never tested as anything but INTP. I actually got 100% I even though 100% is impossible, I obviously got that because there are only so many questions. But you get my point. My entire existence is based around N and T. I question everything. Not that SFs don't question. But there's never a definitive answer. I always have one more question. When I read the 'biography' of the INTP I thought "Is this a biography on INTP or me?!" Because it fit so incredibly well to how I am. My oldest friend whom I've known for About 12 years read the the 'biography' as well. He thought almost every point in the text fit me.

My point is that I respect your opinion and your right to believe what I am. But I frankly disagree with you because you simply don't know anything about me. It's easy for all of us to type people over the internet, on a forum. I could sit and type people all day as well. But I prefer to let people be the type they think they are. In words of the 'Myers Briggs rules' - "Only oneself can't type, oneself" We don't know what goes on inside each others heads. Hence we cannot type each other. Well sure, we can. But if the person we're typing does not agree, we can't really argue with it.

2nd EDIT: I realise I'm getting a little defensive. I'm just tired of people typing other people. Well not people typing. But people typing other people and then putting what they've typed onto them.

 

[PhoenixofVindemiatrix]

Notice how I said "I don't believe" I'll explain to you why I always have "I think" - "I believe" - "In my opinion" in my posts. I simply want to make sure to point out what I'm about to say is nothing but my opinion and not a fact. I do this because It annoys me when other people say things as if they are a fact when.

And there's no way T's can't "believe" and/or think this or that is morally wrong. I don't remember when I actually pinned anyone on what I think is morally right or wrong though. I rarely do that as morals are subjective.

Yes, I understand. I think this just means you're a P type.

Either way, because I have opinions I'm an F? That again (again) makes no sense to me.

No, that's not how it works. I think you're an F because you initially react to things based on how you feel about them.

 

[Lobstrich]

No, that's not how it works. I think you're an F because you initially react to things based on how you feel about them.

And you know I do this, how?

 

[PhoenixofVindemiatrix]

And you know I do this, how?

You are doing it right now.

 

[Bird]

Lobstrich is ESFp. He thinks he's INTp because that's his socionics dual and thus his idealised type form, to the point of effectively adopting it himself to become his own other.

+1

You are doing it right now.

+1

 

[Lobstrich]

You are doing it right now.

How?

We all react to things based on how we feel about them. I don't see why my way of reacting is special.

 

[Lobstrich]

+1




+1

Contribution!

 

[PhoenixofVindemiatrix]

How?

We all react to things based on how we feel about them. I don't see why my way of reacting is special.

Thinking types initially react based on more objective reason.

 

[Lobstrich]

Thinking types initially react based on more objective reason.

I still don't understand what you're saying. I need an example? How do I react "F'ey"? How would you react "T'ey"?

EDIT: Again. I also don't see how I'm immediately F when I do something you consider F. It's simply not possible to do anything F when you're T and vice versa?
2nd EDIT: Nevermind. You think I'm another type than what I am, that's fine. You keep giving me vague and shallow replies that I can't really use. So let's just "agree to disagree".
Unless of course you want to be more elaborate and if you were to acknowlegde (And consider when putting your typing onto me) that we've only spoken for an hour in total, over the internet, even; That in, you might be wrong seeing that I've known myself for 19 years and would be the best candidate to know what's going on in my head.

 

[PhoenixofVindemiatrix]

I still don't understand what you're saying. I need an example? How do I react "F'ey"? How would you react "T'ey"?

Your systems of thought are more values-based than logic-based. You take views on issues based on how you feel about them, not based strictly on what would be logically reasonable or consistent.

Also, T types rarely react so emotionally. They tend to be cool and level-headed.

EDIT: Again. I also don't see how I'm immediately F when I do something you consider F. It's simply not possible to do anything F when you're T and vice versa?

You are correct. It is possible for any type to emulate any other type, at least to some extent. However, I am judging you based on how you normally act, not based on how you acted in any one situation.

 

[Lobstrich]

Your systems of thought are more values-based than logic-based. You take views on issues based on how you feel about them, not based strictly on what would be logically reasonable or consistent. .

I still don't see where I've brought in my values? And I still don't see how you know my thoughts.

Also, T types rarely react so emotionally. They tend to be cool and level-headed..

Were you not the one who said that Fs were not always "touchy feely"??
And when have I not been "cool and level-headed" in this conversation? "so emotionally" Sounds like I've been lashing out from the start, swearing and 'caps-locking'
The only thing that annoys me is that you think you know me better than I know myself.

You are correct. It is possible for any type to emulate any other type, at least to some extent. However, I am judging you based on how you normally act, not based on how you acted in any one situation.

I was not talking about "emulating" and "faking F/T" I'm talking about you saying that what I do is F therefore I am F. It makes no sense. I might as well be T and in this case, I'm more F..
You're basically saying that It's either or. You're 100% F or 100% T. Because I do F stuff I'm F, period.


Anyway, refer to the "2nd EDIT" in my last post. It's getting on my nerves that you're putting you're typing of me, onto me. As if you know me better than myself. As if you just know the type I am. Especially when you bring vague arguements such as my picture. I apologize for not looking emo/dark enough for you to think I'm T.. Lol. Oh no, I busted myself. I'm reacted, and not staying cool. Must be F. (Am I even more F now since I'm saying what I just said? You know, reacting so much that I make 'jokes' like I just did.. Inception MBTI I guess)

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Just say that Phoenix is right and this won't end in tears.

 

[Stoic Beverage]

Just say that Phoenix is right and this won't end in tears.

But it's so much more interesting when there are tears!

 

[Lobstrich]

Just say that Phoenix is right

That's exactly it. he/she is acting as if he/she is right. And that's on of the only two things that genuinly pisses me off. When someone says his or hers opinion, as if it is the truth.
So even though I know you're just trying to save it (Not that saving is needed. I'm not mad just annoyed) I'll not say he/she is right. Because I don't think he/she is.

and this won't end in tears.

Tears?


EDIT: Just noticed your quote. Do you like Fight Club? It's always been my favourite movie! As cult as it is I've never met anyone else who's liked it, which surprised me a bit.

 

[Black Rose]

I disagree with the premise of this thread

proxy acts nothing like me

 

[Lobstrich]

I disagree with the premise of this thread

proxy acts nothing like me

Shoo! Don't rerail the thread!

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

EDIT: Just noticed your quote. Do you like Fight Club? It's always been my favourite movie! As cult as it is I've never met anyone else who's liked it, which surprised me a bit.

Love the book. Movie was good too. Had a huge crush on the character Marla.

 

[PhoenixofVindemiatrix]

That's exactly it. he/she is acting as if he/she is right. And that's on of the only two things that genuinly pisses me off. When someone says his or hers opinion, as if it is the truth.
So even though I know you're just trying to save it (Not that saving is needed. I'm not mad just annoyed) I'll not say he/she is right. Because I don't think he/she is.

I never claimed that I was right. I told you what type I believed you were, and proceeded to justify my opinion. I apologize if I came across as obstinate, but I never tried to force my beliefs on others. I was just defending them.

 

[Lobstrich]

@ Phoenix - I've read up on ENFP and I have some quotes from the different sites.

"Friends are what life is about to ENFPs" Right.. I have 1 person who I'd consider a friend. The guy I mentioned, we've known each other for 12 years. But I still don't really feel "close" to him. I actually feel like we're slipping apart and always have been.

"They're constantly aware and somewhat fearful of losing touch with themselves" I don't even know what this means.. I never did. "losing touch with myself"???

"An ENFP needs to focus on following through with their projects" Lol.. Right. I have 30 games I've played for 1-5 hours. I have a guitar I've played for 2 hours. I have Warhammer (figures you glue and paint. It's a tabletop game) for well over a thousand euros (at least) which is unpainted and probably never will be painted. I have at least 20 books I've never read. I have a million tabs on my internet browser that I "intend" to read. I've bought several courses for a language I still only know how to say "how are you?" in. Etc...

"Most ENFPs have great people skills" I really don't. Most people find me annoying.

"They are genuinely warm and interested in people" In the people I don't know, yes. People from countries I've never been in. Their culture, history and customs. I'm not really "warm" Though. I've been asked on several occasions why I always look so angry. I looked this way because that's my default facial expression. My face was "default" because I did not want to speak with those I was with, because I was not "interested" in them or what they had to say.

"ENFPs almost always have a strong need to be liked" If I did. I'd try a lot harder to be liked.

"Sometimes, especially at a younger age, an ENFP will tend to be "gushy" and insincere, and generally "overdo" in an effort to win acceptance" Lol...

"ENFPs who have not learned to follow through may have a difficult time remaining happy in marital relationships" I never intend to get married.

"ENFPs are basically happy people" I'm happy 20% of the time. I'm not depressed though. I'm just not happy.

I really don't know why you could continue to insist on me being ENFP...

 

[Lobstrich]

Love the book. Movie was good too. Had a huge crush on the character Marla.

Never read the book, I don't read a lot. You had a crush on Marla? Lol. I thought she was repulsive, at least in the movie.

 

[Jelly Rev]

ENFP trying to use Ti.....hides underground

 

[Cegorach]

I'm not going to be particularly helpful in regards to typing since typological discussions such as this always dissolve into misunderstandings and I don't want to get into defending an assertion, but there are a few things that should be addressed in regards to the situation rather than the typing itself.


First of all, they're using an entirely different system than you (Lobstrich).
MBTI is not being discussed on this thread because many people consider it a perversion and misunderstanding of Jung's theory at best and an entirely incorrect approach to actual mental phenomenon at worst.

Beyond that and because of that, a lot of your justifications aren't particularly relevant to the situation at hand. Saying a test typed you as "INTP" is not something even MBTI itself takes seriously UNLESS we're referring to their official test, in which case they still call it a probability assessment. Anybody on this forum could make a test exactly like the sorts floating around on The Internet and they would be no more or less valid.

Because of the fact that they're not arguing in MBTI terms, the entire following argument (in the spoiler) is not relevant to the debate. They are not claiming you are any of these stereotypes when they say you're ENFP, they're claiming you have a specific mental configuration, that you use unique inputs in your mental equations, not that you do any particular behavior or have any particular belief, EVEN if they use particular behaviors to show you how you're fitting some prominent features in many individuals of whatever type they claim you are. But doing so would just be to give proof via probability since the functions themselves are inaccessible in a direct, empirical way (not taking Pod'lair's claims into account for this).

Spoiler

@ Phoenix - I've read up on ENFP and I have some quotes from the different sites.

"Friends are what life is about to ENFPs" Right.. I have 1 person who I'd consider a friend. The guy I mentioned, we've known each other for 12 years. But I still don't really feel "close" to him. I actually feel like we're slipping apart and always have been.

"They're constantly aware and somewhat fearful of losing touch with themselves" I don't even know what this means.. I never did. "losing touch with myself"???

"An ENFP needs to focus on following through with their projects" Lol.. Right. I have 30 games I've played for 1-5 hours. I have a guitar I've played for 2 hours. I have Warhammer (figures you glue and paint. It's a tabletop game) for well over a thousand euros (at least) which is unpainted and probably never will be painted. I have at least 20 books I've never read. I have a million tabs on my internet browser that I "intend" to read. I've bought several courses for a language I still only know how to say "how are you?" in. Etc...

"Most ENFPs have great people skills" I really don't. Most people find me annoying.

"They are genuinely warm and interested in people" In the people I don't know, yes. People from countries I've never been in. Their culture, history and customs. I'm not really "warm" Though. I've been asked on several occasions why I always look so angry. I looked this way because that's my default facial expression. My face was "default" because I did not want to speak with those I was with, because I was not "interested" in them or what they had to say.

"ENFPs almost always have a strong need to be liked" If I did. I'd try a lot harder to be liked.

"Sometimes, especially at a younger age, an ENFP will tend to be "gushy" and insincere, and generally "overdo" in an effort to win acceptance" Lol...

"ENFPs who have not learned to follow through may have a difficult time remaining happy in marital relationships" I never intend to get married.

"ENFPs are basically happy people" I'm happy 20% of the time. I'm not depressed though. I'm just not happy.

I really don't know why you could continue to insist on me being ENFP...

Now, you're not even aware of what functions are let alone any theory beyond surface MBTI (which only exists as an attempt to identify the functions in observable ways), so regardless of how much you know about yourself it's impossible for you to claim you are able to use this system better than others are (though that doesn't make them correct necessarily).

In words of the 'Myers Briggs rules' - "Only oneself can't type, oneself"

I want to point out here that these don't mean anything, they're a result of a Isabel Myers' desire to allow people to choose to believe whatever they want about themselves even if it was in opposition to furthering discussion or truth.
There's no reason such rules should be respected.

- - - - - - -​

That said, I've considered Lobstrich a higher hierarchy Fi user for over a year. I was leaning more towards Fi Dominant than Ne Dominant, though either is plausible.

P.S: I would suggest using terminology such as 'NeFi' to represent the type you speak of when you're speaking of an ENFP and not referring to MBTI stereotypes, just to avoid confusion.

 

[Oblivious]

Can we get back to accosting Proxy with dinosaur shaped dildos now?

 

[AlisaD]

Can we get back to accosting Proxy with dinosaur shaped dildos now?

+1
That's what we're all here for anyway
.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Can we get back to accosting Proxy with dinosaur shaped dildos now?

What is with people and wanting to violate me?

 

[pjoa09]

EDIT: Just noticed your quote. Do you like Fight Club? It's always been my favourite movie! As cult as it is I've never met anyone else who's liked it, which surprised me a bit.

Seems like you live in the desert with sidewinders and bobcats.

You can even see in IMDB Top 200 Movies and you will see its very close to the top.

I smell just a little Fi as well. If you go by dissecting every letter in can seem that way. You could even be INTJ. But there is a hint of Fi in the air.

Don't want to offend. I am just saying.

 

[AlisaD]

What is with people and wanting to violate me?

You just give out that kind of a vibe.
Also, Phoenix told us you like it.

 

[Lobstrich]

I'm not going to be particularly helpful in regards to typing since typological discussions such as this always dissolve into misunderstandings and I don't want to get into defending an assertion, but there are a few things that should be addressed in regards to the situation rather than the typing itself.

Yet you ended up taking Phoenix' side. And thus typing. I don't care "what sides" anyone's on. Just pointing out your contradicting yourself.

First of all, they're using an entirely different system than you (Lobstrich).

And which system might that be? Pod'Lair? If that's the case I'm now even more sure that I'm an INTP because Pod'Lair is like religion to. (That is.. Somehting I don't think is possible)

MBTI is not being discussed on this thread because many people consider it a perversion and misunderstanding of Jung's theory at best and an entirely incorrect approach to actual mental phenomenon at worst.

But we're talking about INTP and ENFP. Are we not talking about MBTI then??

Beyond that and because of that, a lot of your justifications aren't particularly relevant to the situation at hand. Saying a test typed you as "INTP" is not something even MBTI itself takes seriously UNLESS we're referring to their official test, in which case they still call it a probability assessment. My justifications?? I'm not sure what you mean. I'm not trying to justify anything.

Anybody on this forum could make a test exactly like the sorts floating around on The Internet and they would be no more or less valid.

But it'd be more valid if I were to take the "official test"?
Also.. How are yours and Phoenix' typing more accurate than whatever test I've taken? What if I hadn't taken a test? What if I just read up on INTP and thought "Hmm.. This really fits me" What if I read 2 lines on each of the letters and then decided to type myself? In the end, like I've said a at least 10 times by now. I know myself better than you do. It is impossible for you be 100% what type I am because you do not know exactly what I'm thinking. Say I claimed to be "ESFJ" and you went "No, you're an INTP" I could completely disregard what you're saying because you're only looking at me. You're not in me.

Because of the fact that they're not arguing in MBTI terms, the entire following argument (in the spoiler) is not relevant to the debate. They are not claiming you are any of these stereotypes when they say you're ENFP, they're claiming you have a specific mental configuration, that you use unique inputs in your mental equations, not that you do any particular behavior or have any particular belief, EVEN if they use particular behaviors to show you how you're fitting some prominent features in many individuals of whatever type they claim you are. But doing so would just be to give proof via probability since the functions themselves are inaccessible in a direct, empirical way (not taking Pod'lair's claims into account for this).

I again, am confused by you saying "They are not speaking MBTI" When they use INTP and ENFP. That is to my understanding MBTI. I know typology was 'invented' before MBTI but INTP and ENFP are 'invented' by MBTI, no?
But yes. I know that being an ENFP or INTP does not necessarily make you into a person with predefined opinions and behaviour. You don't even have to get along with people people of mutual type.
I still think that my quote is relevant because when I read up on ENFP I could relate to almost non of it. But when I read up on INTP I could relate to almost all of it.

Now, you're not even aware of what functions are let alone any theory beyond surface MBTI (which only exists as an attempt to identify the functions in observable ways), so regardless of how much you know about yourself it's impossible for you to claim you are able to use this system better than others are (though that doesn't make them correct necessarily).

So because I do not use the proper terminology and because I've not read up on MBTI for 3 years, my opinion and what I have to say is just irrelevant? Right.. You're saying that a person who's not read up on MBTI does not know him/herself

And regardless of how much you know about MBTI it's impossible for you to claim you know what type I am. It is however possible for you to throw out what type you think I am. What I'm arguing is not so much what type I am. Because I think and will continue to think that I am an INTP. Unless you give me a link to whatever type you think I am, a link that will make me go "Wow.. This fits even more than INTP" Which I doubt you will. But I'll gladly read it if you do find such a link.
But what I'm arguing is the way which you and Phoenix are putting your typing onto me. You're have this "I'm right" attitude. Which is like I mentioned something that really ticks me off.
Uops, there I went again and talked about somehting 'f'ey' instead of something objective. You're right, I must be an ENFP.

I want to point out here that these don't mean anything, they're a result of a Isabel Myers' desire to allow people to choose to believe whatever they want about themselves even if it was in opposition to furthering discussion or truth.
There's no reason such rules should be respected.

They don't mean anything? They are rules made by the person who 'made' MBTI. It's like saying that it's fine to pick up the ball in a football match, because there's no reason such rules should be respected.

I'm not saying that you just can't pick up the ball. But if you do. You're no longer playing football. You're playing a new game.

Which brings me to this; If you and Phoenix are not "respecting" this rule you're essentially "playing another game" a game in which I'm an ENFP. The game I'm playing I'm an INTP.

- - - - - - -​

That said, I've considered Lobstrich a higher hierarchy Fi user for over a year. I was leaning more towards Fi Dominant than Ne Dominant, though either is plausible.

Exactly. Either is plausible. But you insist that you're take on it, is the truth.. Because I don't have (or use) the proper terminology.
"higher hierarchy Fi" This I don't understand. higher heriarchy? As in I'm very 'F'ey' or I'm past the "feelings" of F hence I don't do the whole family thing I explained to Phoenix, etc.? I don't know exactly what you mean by higher hierarchy.

P.S: I would suggest using terminology such as 'NeFi' to represent the type you speak of when you're speaking of an ENFP and not referring to MBTI stereotypes, just to avoid confusion.

Avoid confusion? You keep saying that we're not discussing MBTI. But the second someone mentions INTP, ENFP, INTJ, ESTJ etc. You're discussing MBTI.

 

[Lobstrich]

Seems like you live in the desert with sidewinders and bobcats.

I live on a small island, think the total population is around 40-50k.

You can even see in IMDB Top 200 Movies and you will see its very close to the top.

Yes, which is what I meant by "as cult as it is" and "which surprised me"

I smell just a little Fi as well. If you go by dissecting every letter in can seem that way. You could even be INTJ. But there is a hint of Fi in the air.

A little Fi. Okay. So my question now is, the second you "smell a little" Fi. I immediately am Fi?
Could it not be that what you, Phoenix and Cego are "smelling" is my F?
Other INTPs use the F they have in another way. The F I have and the one that you guys are seeing. Is the F I have.

Spoiler

I stopped the mini-wall because I could hear it was getting a little cryptic, lol. Is it understandable?

Don't want to offend. I am just saying.

Offend? I'm not offended by Phoenix and Cego thinking I am something other than INTP, because I am INTP and I know myself better than them and you.
What got me annoyed with Phoenix was the forcefulness of which his/her typing of me was just put on. As if the typing he/she did was correct, period. Like I've mentioned several times; When people porray their opinions as if they are facts. That's what annoyed me, not that you have an opinion. We all do.


Do I smell Fi? We must all be Fi, since all we say is based on what we think. Sure we can choose to bring arguements that are more subjective and arguements that are more objective. But even if we choose the latter ones. We still choose them because we "think" they are right and because we "think" they a better.

 

[Lobstrich]

ENFP trying to use Ti.....hides underground

Who?

 

[Lobstrich]

I never claimed that I was right. I told you what type I believed you were, and proceeded to justify my opinion. I apologize if I came across as obstinate, but I never tried to force my beliefs on others. I was just defending them.

You never claimed you weren't right either.
One does not have to claim to be right to have a "I'm right" attitude though. I thought you had this attitude because of statements like "The fact that you do this, proofs you're this beyond a doubt"

Also, you never actually told me what type you believed I was. In the very beginning you sort of asked what type I was. "ENFP?" and then when I disagreed did not continue from asking to what you "believed" I am. You went to what I am.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Quick lobstrich, hide in here http://intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=11011

Claim that INTP is externally defined, not internally, so these allegations are void.

 

[Lobstrich]

Quick lobstrich, hide in here http://intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=11011

I'll take a look.

Claim that INTP is externally defined, not internally, so these allegations are void.

I don't remember saying those words.

 

[Cegorach]

Yet you ended up taking Phoenix' side. And thus typing. I don't care "what sides" anyone's on. Just pointing out your contradicting yourself.

I didn't assert anything, much like I said I wouldn't.
That doesn't mean I won't tell Phoenix that I agree with her typing to some degree, just that I'm not going to make any attempt to force you into accepting this belief.

You're merely being defensive here. There was no contradiction.

And which system might that be? Pod'Lair? If that's the case I'm now even more sure that I'm an INTP because Pod'Lair is like religion to. (That is.. Somehting I don't think is possible)

No, I have argued against aspects of Pod'lair on multiple occasions in the past.
I'm not at all closed-minded towards it, but they need to present a lot more proof, not of how they read people and what they see, but how that relates to what they claim it relates to.

Have you not read anything on typology beyond taking tests?

I'm not particularly intent on laying out the entire history here, but there are resources all over the forum to learn about this sort of stuff.

If you're interested: Online Typology Resources

The only resources missing from there are Socionics, which you could ask EyeSeeCold about if you're interested.

But we're talking about INTP and ENFP. Are we not talking about MBTI then??

This is a major problem with a lot of these discussions which causes a lot of confusion for all parties involved, everybody is speaking a different language, using different theories that are mostly related in terminology and their attempts to define a similar phenomenon.

• Phoenix is (probably) using a hybrid of Jungian Cognitive Functions and integrating her minor understanding of Pod'lair into it as well as some modifications from experience.
  
  
• Artsu (assuming he was serious) is using Socionics, a little of Skywalker's theory, and parts of what he understands of Pod'lair, along with personal experience on the subject. (as far as I'm aware)
  
  
• I'm using my own theories which used Jungian Cognitive Functions as a starting point but which don't much resemble them any more, it's less about answering every question as much as questioning every answer and providing alternatives that are more logically consistent.
  
  
• And you are using MBTI.

The last paragraph of my last post was meant to explain this, but you seem to have chosen to have taken it personally instead.

You'll notice after the break in my post I switch from addressing you to talking about you in the third person, meaning I was no longer directly speaking to you.

My justifications?? I'm not sure what you mean. I'm not trying to justify anything.

You are justifying your belief that you are an INTP and are not an ENFP.
If you weren't justifying anything you wouldn't be presenting argumentation against Phoenix, which you clearly are.

I admit I could have worded it a tiny bit better, but I think it should be clear enough to understand without diving into semantics.

But it'd be more valid if I were to take the "official test"?
Also.. How are yours and Phoenix' typing more accurate than whatever test I've taken? What if I hadn't taken a test? What if I just read up on INTP and thought "Hmm.. This really fits me" What if I read 2 lines on each of the letters and then decided to type myself? In the end, like I've said a at least 10 times by now. I know myself better than you do. It is impossible for you be 100% what type I am because you do not know exactly what I'm thinking. Say I claimed to be "ESFJ" and you went "No, you're an INTP" I could completely disregard what you're saying because you're only looking at me. You're not in me.

It would be more valid to an MBTI practitioner if you were to take the official test, most of the rest of us consider it as irrelevant as the MBTI theory itself.

The people who write the tests you've taken are usually very poorly read on typology and tend to overgeneralize or not put much thought into how the questions may be interpreted (in fact, I doubt writing an accurate typology test is even possible).
I'll leave it up to Phoenix to defend her own accuracy, but I assure you that despite my reservations towards joining in making claims towards anybody I have studied the topic quite extensively.

However, I'm only claiming I likely have more knowledge than those who generally make tests, which increases my ability to grasp many relevant concepts from multiple angles to develop an evolved understanding.
It doesn't mean I'm always correct and it tends to take a lot of observation before anybody can fine tune their ability to read others.
It will never be 100%, nor has anybody claimed such a thing.

Again, you're being defensive.

- - - - -​

It doesn't matter how well you know yourself unless you understand how to use the system that you're placing yourself into. You can't claim you're INTP unless you understand what INTP is, which you are not even close to doing.

I again, am confused by you saying "They are not speaking MBTI" When they use INTP and ENFP. That is to my understanding MBTI. I know typology was 'invented' before MBTI but INTP and ENFP are 'invented' by MBTI, no?
But yes. I know that being an ENFP or INTP does not necessarily make you into a person with predefined opinions and behaviour. You don't even have to get along with people people of mutual type.
I still think that my quote is relevant because when I read up on ENFP I could relate to almost non of it. But when I read up on INTP I could relate to almost all of it.

Much of the core theory of MBTI was borrowed from another theory, Carl Jung's, those terms are often borrowed as placeholders to refer to similar natural phenomenon in other typological models, but not intended to refer to the exact same thing.
It's why I was saying those of us not speaking in MBTI terms should refer to the types by their higher hierarchy functions, such as TiNe for INTP, to avoid confusion.

The MBTI type descriptions are not what Phoenix or anybody else is typing you with, so using them as argumentation against their claims doesn't make any sense.

So because I do not use the proper terminology and because I've not read up on MBTI for 3 years, my opinion and what I have to say is just irrelevant? Right.. You're saying that a person who's not read up on MBTI does not know him/herself

And regardless of how much you know about MBTI it's impossible for you to claim you know what type I am. It is however possible for you to throw out what type you think I am. What I'm arguing is not so much what type I am. Because I think and will continue to think that I am an INTP. Unless you give me a link to whatever type you think I am, a link that will make me go "Wow.. This fits even more than INTP" Which I doubt you will. But I'll gladly read it if you do find such a link.

You may be INTP based on MBTI, we just see that theory as incorrect and we don't care what it types you as. It was developed from misunderstanding and attempting to popularize Jung's work, it's a poor attempt at simplifying something complex; like telling people that evolution is as simple as animals "changing" when they need to.

As I said earlier, you need the understanding to use the tools you have, no matter how much knowledge you may have on the subject of yourself if you don't understand the system of which you are classifying yourself with, then you can't claim to have a correct typing within it. (and even then, people make mistakes, it's why a lot of people end up retyping themselves long after they discover typology)
It does not mean we are correct, but it means it's unlikely you will be.

But what I'm arguing is the way which you and Phoenix are putting your typing onto me. You're have this "I'm right" attitude. Which is like I mentioned something that really ticks me off.
Uops, there I went again and talked about somehting 'f'ey' instead of something objective. You're right, I must be an ENFP.

Mostly it's just you projecting and getting defensive over percieved slights, I've seen you argue before and I understand you will deny this, but I barely even mentioned your type except to point out that I agreed you were probably a higher hierarchy Fi user.

They don't mean anything? They are rules made by the person who 'made' MBTI. It's like saying that it's fine to pick up the ball in a football match, because there's no reason such rules should be respected.

I'm not saying that you just can't pick up the ball. But if you do. You're no longer playing football. You're playing a new game.

Which brings me to this; If you and Phoenix are not "respecting" this rule you're essentially "playing another game" a game in which I'm an ENFP. The game I'm playing I'm an INTP.

Yes, that's the entire point. We're not playing the same game. If you had read my post a lot more carefully you would realize that's entirely why I got involved, to state that there was confusion in this debate and that it would get nowhere unless it was cleared up.

On the other hand, even if you are using a typology it doesn't mean every single claim in it has to be followed by the book. For example, if I decided I found the manner in which Pod'lair defined its function particularly accurate it doesn't mean I have to either agree with everything they say or scrap their entire theory. I can pick and choose. And those "rules" of MBTI are referred to as 'MBTI Ethics', they do not contribute to accurate typing and hence can be ignored, even were I an MBTI proponent.

Exactly. Either is plausible. But you insist that you're take on it, is the truth.. Because I don't have (or use) the proper terminology.
"higher hierarchy Fi" This I don't understand. higher heriarchy? As in I'm very 'F'ey' or I'm past the "feelings" of F hence I don't do the whole family thing I explained to Phoenix, etc.? I don't know exactly what you mean by higher hierarchy.

Higher Hierarchy Fi means you have Fi in either Dominant or Auxiliary positioning within your cognitive hierarchy.
The types that have Fi in such a manner are INFP/ISFP/ENFP/ESFP.

Fi Dominants are INFP or ISFP and Ne Dominants are ENFP or ENTP. However, based on the subject of discussion it becomes clear that I'm referring to ENFP when I state Ne Dominant is plausible.

What I'm saying in my last post is that I think you're FiNe (INFP equivalent), but I'm agreeing that there is an argument to be had for NeFi, even if I doubt it is your actual type.

To go further, FiNe (INFP) have the cognitive hierarchy configuration of Fi-Ne-Si-Te while ENFPs have the cognitive hierarchy configuration of Ne-Fi-Te-Si.

There are way too many contributing factors with how the functions interact to explain in one post, especially if I intended to cover multiple theories, so you'll have to read up the rest on your own.

- - - - -​

Keep in mind that when somebody says "I believe Lobstrich is 'x'" they're not speaking to you, they're speaking about you, which means that you need to address it not as an accusation, but as a statement of opinion. I've seen you make this mistake a lot with people.

Avoid confusion? You keep saying that we're not discussing MBTI. But the second someone mentions INTP, ENFP, INTJ, ESTJ etc. You're discussing MBTI.

Nothing of the sort was said. I wasn't referring to You with that post, I was using the general "you", which meant that what it stated applied to anybody it applied to.

It didn't apply to you since you are using MBTI, so you can just ignore it.

 

[Cegorach]

Quick lobstrich, hide in here http://intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=11011

Claim that INTP is externally defined, not internally, so these allegations are void.

Definitely a fair proposition, as an alternative theory.

But it's just adding another "Game" to the table, which could complicate things further.

In all honesty, until typology becomes a science it's rather pointless to argue over somebodies type with any sort of confidence. The real debate is between theories.

 

[Lobstrich]

Definitely a fair proposition, as an alternative theory.

But it's just adding another "Game" to the table, which could complicate things further.

In all honesty, until typology becomes a science it's rather pointless to argue over somebodies type with any sort of confidence. The real debate is between theories.

EXACTLY! (Yes, caps lock is necessary)
So why is it you act as if yours and Phoenix' typing is correct, while mine is not?

Spoiler

Going to read your longer post now. Just saw this little one first.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Yes, it's pointless for this forum's sake to argue over people's type. What we can do, however, is argue as to whether people's behaviour lives up to the ideals of the type, which means any type can contribute if they do it within the right confines.

 

[Minuend]

I find it entertaining.

in a good way. ceg is actually posting o_o

 

[Cegorach]

Yes, it's pointless for this forum's sake to argue over people's type. What we can do, however, is argue as to whether people's behaviour lives up to the ideals of the type, which means any type can contribute if they do it within the right confines.

Well, I hardly have any desire to tell people what they can and can't debate, be that an individual's type or not, I just think it'll lead to circular arguments.

I'm not honestly too interested in the ideals of any type so much as discovering the fundamental realities of typology, but yeah, it could lead to some interesting discoveries if that's what people are interested in debating.

 

[Lobstrich]

I didn't assert anything, much like I said I wouldn't.
That doesn't mean I won't tell Phoenix that I agree with her typing to some degree, just that I'm not going to make any attempt to force you into accepting this belief.

You're merely being defensive here. There was no contradiction.

Well, I think you were being contradicting. You said you wouldn't type.. You typed.

No, I have argued against aspects of Pod'lair on multiple occasions in the past.
I'm not at all closed-minded towards it, but they need to present a lot more proof, not of how they read people and what they see, but how that relates to what they claim it relates to.

I agree.

Have you not read anything on typology beyond taking tests?

I have. Not the whole "Ni" "Fe" thing. Just what the single letters are and what they do, so to speak.

If you're interested: Online Typology Resources

The only resources missing from there are Socionics, which you could ask EyeSeeCold about if you're interested.

I'll take a look.

This is a major problem with a lot of these discussions which causes a lot of confusion for all parties involved, everybody is speaking a different language, using different theories that are mostly related in terminology and their attempts to define a similar phenomenon.

• Phoenix is (probably) using a hybrid of Jungian Cognitive Functions and integrating her minor understanding of Pod'lair into it as well as some modifications from experience.
• Artsu (assuming he was serious) is using Socionics, a little of Skywalker's theory, and parts of what he understands of Pod'lair, along with personal experience on the subject. (as far as I'm aware)
• I'm using my own theories which used Jungian Cognitive Functions as a starting point but which don't much resemble them any more, it's less about answering every question as much as questioning every answer and providing alternatives that are more logically consistent.
• And you are using MBTI.

This is exactly what I mean! So why is it that you guys are acting as if I simply am ENFP? And that my typing (MBTI) of me being INTP is incorrect? We are playing a different "game" In your game I'm whatever it is you think I am (what is it you think I am anyway?) And same goes for Phoenix' and Artsus game. In your games I'm not INTP but I am in mine. Despite the fact that we're playing different games, you're putting the rules of your games onto my game when you call me an ENFP and not INTP, which I am in my game.

I'm not sure if that makes any sense, I've not slept for many hours and I could tell it was (again) getting a little cryptic.

The last paragraph of my last post was meant to explain this, but you seem to have chosen to have taken it personally instead.

I must have misunderstood you then. Because I've not taken anything personally.

You'll notice after the break in my post I switch from addressing you to talking about you in the third person, meaning I was no longer directly speaking to you.

I didn't notice that, no. Which is my bad.

You are justifying your belief that you are an INTP and are not an ENFP.

Right. And you're justifying the contrary. So how does that make my justifications any less relevant than yours?

If you weren't justifying anything you wouldn't be presenting argumentation against Phoenix, which you clearly are.

True. But isn't Phoenix presenting argumentation for what he/she is saying? I don't see how my "justification" is any different.

I admit I could have worded it a tiny bit better, but I think it should be clear enough to understand without diving into semantics.

Well apparently it wasn't

It would be more valid to an MBTI practitioner if you were to take the official test, most of the rest of us consider it as irrelevant as the MBTI theory itself.

Well there we go. So what is your point in mentioning the official test?

The people who write the tests you've taken are usually very poorly read on typology and tend to overgeneralize or not put much thought into how the questions may be interpreted (in fact, I doubt writing an accurate typology test is even possible).

But you don't know if the test I took was made by people who do not know a lot. Besides. You do not play the MBTI game. So how can you judge their knowledge? Their playing MBTI and might be perfectly 'wise' on the topic. In fact, they might know even more about than you (even though you claim the opposite) because you're not playing the game they are playing.

You're basically judging the rules of football form a golf perspective.

I'll leave it up to Phoenix to defend her own accuracy, but I assure you that despite my reservations towards joining in making claims towards anybody I have studied the topic quite extensively.

I don't doubt you've studied the topic.

However, I'm only claiming I likely have more knowledge than those who generally make tests, which increases my ability to grasp many relevant concepts from multiple angles to develop an evolved understanding.
It doesn't mean I'm always correct and it tends to take a lot of observation before anybody can fine tune their ability to read others.
It will never be 100%, nor has anybody claimed such a thing.

No, nobody has claimed it was or ever will be 100% but you've claimed that I am an ENFP. However the percentage of your typing is, you've claimed me to be ENFP.

Again, you're being defensive.

I honestly don't see how I am.

- - - - -​

It doesn't matter how well you know yourself unless you understand how to use the system that you're placing yourself into. You can't claim you're INTP unless you understand what INTP is, which you are not even close to doing.

It does matter how well I know myself. I tested as an INTP and read up on what an INTP is and I thought it fit me. There's not much more to it.

I'm not close to know what an INTP is? Why is that? Again, you're playing golf, I'm playing football. How can you say I know nothing (and therefore should accept the typing of those superior) about football when you don't play football? You play golf.. When I start playing your game. Then you can disregard the typing I've done of myself and say "You're not an INTP"

The MBTI type descriptions are not what Phoenix or anybody else is typing you with, so using them as argumentation against their claims doesn't make any sense.

It does to me. I read up on ENFP I can't see myself in it. And that's where it ends for me. So it's perfectly alright to use it as argumentation. It's football. When you play golf, then I guess it is not.. But I don't play golf..

I know the "game" is getting a little overused. But consistently get the feeling that you're judging the rules of football and my football skills based on golf... And that, makes no sense.

You may be INTP based on MBTI, we just see that theory as incorrect and we don't care what it types you as. It was developed from misunderstanding and attempting to popularize Jung's work, it's a poor attempt at simplifying something complex; like telling people that evolution is as simple as animals "changing" when they need to.

I agree with this. But what you fail to acknowledge is that I am not past MBTI.. So it literally just stops there. You said it yourself I might be an INTP based MBTI. I'm playing MBTI, so I'm an INTP.
The only thing I'm arguing is that you guys are not playing MBTI yet you force your typing onto me and claim that my typing is incorrect while it is not. My typing is perfectly alright. Why? Because I'm playing MBTI.

As I said earlier, you need the understanding to use the tools you have, no matter how much knowledge you may have on the subject of yourself if you don't understand the system of which you are classifying yourself with, then you can't claim to have a correct typing within it. (and even then, people make mistakes, it's why a lot of people end up retyping themselves long after they discover typology)
It does not mean we are correct, but it means it's unlikely you will be.

I completely agree with you. But you're again, failing to see that I'm not past MBTI. I used MBTI to type myself, I read up on 'biographies' on INTPs (written from MBTI perspective) and it fits. I can claim to be INTP because I do understand the tools. I know what I is, I know what N is and T, and P.

Do I need to be a carpenter to use a hammer?

Mostly it's just you projecting and getting defensive over percieved slights

I'm not sure I understand this, so I'd rather not reply to this. I've already misunderstood you twice.

I've seen you argue before and I understand you will deny this, but I barely even mentioned your type except to point out that I agreed you were probably a higher hierarchy Fi user.

Yes, I've seen myself argue. And I've "grown" a lot, (believe it or not) as cheesy as it sounds, by being on this forum. Look back on some of my first post in a thread I made called "Psychiatrist" I couldn't stop laughing at myself. Read that and I'll agree with you calling me defensive, lol.

What will I deny? That you barely mentioned my type? How could I deny that? It's true what I said. But what I've argued from the beginning is not so much that you don't think I'm an INTP it's that you think you're correct, while I'm not.
And you'd probably be right if we were both playing golf.. But we're not.

Yes, that's the entire point. We're not playing the same game. If you had read my post a lot more carefully you would realize that's entirely why I got involved, to state that there was confusion in this debate and that it would get nowhere unless it was cleared up.

I know you were trying to clear up confusion. But why did you then continue? All that was necessary was to say "You know.. You and Phoenix are not playing the same game, they don't mean anything.

On the other hand, even if you are using a typology it doesn't mean every single claim in it has to be followed by the book. For example, if I decided I found the manner in which Pod'lair defined its function particularly accurate it doesn't mean I have to either agree with everything they say or scrap their entire theory. I can pick and choose. And those "rules" of MBTI are referred to as 'MBTI Ethics', they do not contribute to accurate typing and hence can be ignored, even were I an MBTI proponent.

I don't agree with this. You are again saying that it's okay to pick up a ball in football and then claim the goal you make, to be legal. But it's not, you're playing football.

Like I said before; I'm not saying that you can't or shouldn't change the rules or "pick and choose" but the second you do. You're playing a different game and cannot judge those who continue to play the same game.

Higher Hierarchy Fi means you have Fi in either Dominant or Auxiliary positioning within your cognitive hierarchy.
The types that have Fi in such a manner are INFP/ISFP/ENFP/ESFP.

Fi Dominants are INFP or ISFP and Ne Dominants are ENFP or ENTP. However, based on the subject of discussion it becomes clear that I'm referring to ENFP when I state Ne Dominant is plausible.

What I'm saying in my last post is that I think you're FiNe (INFP equivalent), but I'm agreeing that there is an argument to be had for NeFi, even if I doubt it is your actual type.

To go further, FiNe (INFP) have the cognitive hierarchy configuration of Fi-Ne-Si-Te while ENFPs have the cognitive hierarchy configuration of Ne-Fi-Te-Si.

There are way too many contributing factors with how the functions interact to explain in one post, especially if I intended to cover multiple theories, so you'll have to read up the rest on your own.

Interesting (honestly) But all I can reply is that I know I'm not ENFP or INFP. I might be in your game but I don't play your game.

Spoiler

I know the "game" is getting a little tedious. But it's essentially the only thing I'm arguing. That you think I'm INFP or ENFP while I don't.


Also, I am genuinly interested what you wrote so if you want, I'd like if you could explain why you think I'm an INFP or ENFP and why I'm not an INTP. And I don't mean explain as in "Because you use NiFe" -- I need you to give me examples of where I do this and how I react etc.

And it wouldn't be a problem in a PM (assuming you can be bothered) Since your typing of me is a little to off-topic. But whatever suits your fancy, or how it goes.

- - - - -​

Keep in mind that when somebody says "I believe Lobstrich is 'x'" they're not speaking to you, they're speaking about you, which means that you need to address it not as an accusation, but as a statement of opinion. I've seen you make this mistake a lot with people

I think you misunderstand me then. Because I never started to argue this topic because I was feeling attacked, because I was feeling my "INTPness" was being taken from me. I was arguing because you were playing golf while I was not.

And I know I sometimes take things as if they are spoken to me. But in my opinion whatever we say is what we say. You can't twist and turn everything. If you say "I believe X is Y" Then you said you believe X is Y, period.

As objective as we like to be it's impossible to be entirely objective. All we say is subjective. We can however choose to say things more objectively or choose arguments that are more objective. But in the end we choose those objective things, subjectively.

I'd also like if you could give me example of where you think I made this "mistake" in the PM about your typing of me. Again, if you want, of course. I'm just curious.

Nothing of the sort was said. I wasn't referring to You with that post, I was using the general "you", which meant that what it stated applied to anybody it applied to.

It didn't apply to you since you are using MBTI, so you can just ignore it.

Well there we go, my bad I guess. =)


EDIT: I really hate multi quoting.. It's so fucking tedious.

 

[xbox]

Proxy. They're coming.













They're here.

 

[Cegorach]

Try to approach this post as me explaining why there are misunderstandings in relation to the topic.

Well, I think you were being contradicting. You said you wouldn't type.. You typed.

Reread my first post, I never said I wouldn't type you. I said I wouldn't be very helpful in figuring out your type because I didn't intend to argue it.

This is exactly what I mean! So why is it that you guys are acting as if I simply am ENFP? And that my typing (MBTI) of me being INTP is incorrect? We are playing a different "game" In your game I'm whatever it is you think I am (what is it you think I am anyway?) And same goes for Phoenix' and Artsus game. In your games I'm not INTP but I am in mine. Despite the fact that we're playing different games, you're putting the rules of your games onto my game when you call me an ENFP and not INTP, which I am in my game.

I'm not sure if that makes any sense, I've not slept for many hours and I could tell it was (again) getting a little cryptic.

I have a belief that I have developed through observing you over time, I'm not forcing it on you.


The only reason your game is not relevant here is because the entire debate started based on what Phoenix claimed, which set the groundwork for the topic of argumentation, which is based in her game. You can disagree with it, definitely, and I can see how you may have misunderstood that she wasn't arguing in MBTI terms. But continuing arguing based on your understanding without respect for what she is claiming is just going to cause more confusion.

Right. And you're justifying the contrary. So how does that make my justifications any less relevant than yours?

You said you weren't justifying anything and I argued that you were, which you seem to agree with now.

However, my point in my first post was that because her original claim was that you were ENFP within her typological model that trying to prove those claims wrong with MBTI won't work. If you had claimed she was ENTJ by MBTI standards then I would be explaining the same thing to her about how she either had to argue the theory as incorrect in itself or argue within MBTI terms in order to argue the typing incorrect. It would be no more useful in that situation were she to continue making arguments against your MBTI claims with her Model than it is for you to make arguments against her Model with MBTI.

True. But isn't Phoenix presenting argumentation for what he/she is saying? I don't see how my "justification" is any different.

It's simply a matter of not going off topic. Your justifications are not addressing her accusations.

Well there we go. So what is your point in mentioning the official test?

I was explaining in MBTI terms what is considered valid in regards to accurate typing.

But you don't know if the test I took was made by people who do not know a lot. Besides. You do not play the MBTI game. So how can you judge their knowledge? Their playing MBTI and might be perfectly 'wise' on the topic. In fact, they might know even more about than you (even though you claim the opposite) because you're not playing the game they are playing.

You're basically judging the rules of football form a golf perspective.

I understand the MBTI game adequately enough and have read a lot of material regarding it, I just don't believe it to be accurate. There's no need for me to believe it or practice it to understand the theory behind it.

I am not speaking about every last one of the test makers, but they are more often than not very educated on it, due to that I'm making an argument based in probability.

No, nobody has claimed it was or ever will be 100% but you've claimed that I am an ENFP. However the percentage of your typing is, you've claimed me to be ENFP.


I honestly don't see how I am.

I didn't actually claim you were ENFP, I said I believed you were INFP but could understand potential reasoning behind ENFP.

I mentioned that nobody was claiming we were 100% certain only because you said: "It is impossible for you be 100% what type I am because you do not know exactly what I'm thinking."

It does matter how well I know myself. I tested as an INTP and read up on what an INTP is and I thought it fit me. There's not much more to it.

If you were arguing against an assertion in regards to MBTI I would agree, but because the claim was not originally against that it becomes important that you understand the thing you are claiming you are not and argue against it.

It's like any other ambiguous term.
For example, Jew, if somebody claims a Jew is ethnically a Jew and they start arguing that they are not a religious Jew then the argument has already become meaningless because that was never what the original assertion implied.

I'm not close to know what an INTP is? Why is that? Again, you're playing golf, I'm playing football. How can you say I know nothing (and therefore should accept the typing of those superior) about football when you don't play football? You play golf.. When I start playing your game. Then you can disregard the typing I've done of myself and say "You're not an INTP"

I only mean you're not close to knowing what INTP is in relation to the assertion itself, which was not about MBTI. You can't say you are not what you don't yet understand.

The "game" being played is only relevant in relation to the assertion that sets the topic of debate, if you claimed I was something by MBTI standards I have to argue in MBTI terms if I wish to challenge your claim. I can fully understand why you didn't realize what she was talking about, but you must see why continuing to argue based on different criteria is not going to work, regardless of which model you adhere to.

I agree with this. But what you fail to acknowledge is that I am not past MBTI.. So it literally just stops there. You said it yourself I might be an INTP based MBTI. I'm playing MBTI, so I'm an INTP.
The only thing I'm arguing is that you guys are not playing MBTI yet you force your typing onto me and claim that my typing is incorrect while it is not. My typing is perfectly alright. Why? Because I'm playing MBTI.

I'm not failing to acknowledge this, I'm merely saying that you're not challenging her claim. The entire argument is getting lost amongst ambiguous terminology.

The thing that needs to be argued here is whether MBTI or her theory are superior, because that's the real issue in the typing. Both theories are attempting to identify the same phenomenon, so whether or not they are different "games" they are not mutually compatible and only one theory is likely to end up being correct.

They're not mutually compatible in a similar way to how it would be if there was an argument between two models over whether the Earth was the center of the solar system or the Sun was, and one random individual seemed to think both models should should be allowed their own opinion and that both could be accepted simultaneously, when the truth is clearly in one or the other.

I completely agree with you. But you're again, failing to see that I'm not past MBTI. I used MBTI to type myself, I read up on 'biographies' on INTPs (written from MBTI perspective) and it fits. I can claim to be INTP because I do understand the tools. I know what I is, I know what N is and T, and P.

Do I need to be a carpenter to use a hammer?

Explain to me what you think N, T and P are according to MBTI, please.

Even MBTI uses functions, by the way. The biographies are attempts to show generalized behavior that is common to certain function configurations so that people can easily type themselves, it however is not actually what any type IS.

I'm not sure I understand this, so I'd rather not reply to this. I've already misunderstood you twice.

So long as you're making an effort to understand me and treat what I'm saying as objectively as possible then it's fine if you misunderstand a few things.

Yes, I've seen myself argue. And I've "grown" a lot, (believe it or not) as cheesy as it sounds, by being on this forum. Look back on some of my first post in a thread I made called "Psychiatrist" I couldn't stop laughing at myself. Read that and I'll agree with you calling me defensive, lol.

What will I deny? That you barely mentioned my type? How could I deny that? It's true what I said. But what I've argued from the beginning is not so much that you don't think I'm an INTP it's that you think you're correct, while I'm not.
And you'd probably be right if we were both playing golf.. But we're not.

It was poorly worded on my part. A minor grammar mistake which changed how what I said was interpreted. I meant that you would deny that you were getting defensive over percieved slights.

I know you were trying to clear up confusion. But why did you then continue? All that was necessary was to say "You know.. You and Phoenix are not playing the same game, they don't mean anything.

Considering how much effort it's taking to elaborate this... I assume that would have not have been an adequate explanation.

Me saying you were an Fi Dom was just me agreeing with Phoenix, not particularly necessary, but not something I thought would be a big deal either.

I don't agree with this. You are again saying that it's okay to pick up a ball in football and then claim the goal you make, to be legal. But it's not, you're playing football.

Like I said before; I'm not saying that you can't or shouldn't change the rules or "pick and choose" but the second you do. You're playing a different game and cannot judge those who continue to play the same game.

This is not a game like football which is defined by its rules, this is more akin to discovery of scientific principles which are defined by the objective reality we access through our perceptions and interpretations.

Imagine if several different people very roughly set aside rules for how to do a heart transplant, the operation is not defined by the rules any of those groups make, it's defined by objective reality, what ultimately allows the heart to be successfully transplanted. So if you observe that certain principles don't work then you reject those, and if you observe that others do work then you accept those; you don't continue following rules that don't function simply because they're in the rulebook of the theory you subscribe to.

Interesting (honestly) But all I can reply is that I know I'm not ENFP or INFP. I might be in your game but I don't play your game.

Spoiler

I know the "game" is getting a little tedious. But it's essentially the only thing I'm arguing. That you think I'm INFP or ENFP while I don't.


Also, I am genuinly interested what you wrote so if you want, I'd like if you could explain why you think I'm an INFP or ENFP and why I'm not an INTP. And I don't mean explain as in "Because you use NiFe" -- I need you to give me examples of where I do this and how I react etc.

And it wouldn't be a problem in a PM (assuming you can be bothered) Since your typing of me is a little to off-topic. But whatever suits your fancy, or how it goes.

It was an careless comment on my part to agree with you having Fi.
Sorry, but, I don't argue or explain typology with people any more. (except in explaining how it can better be argued by other people) I'm not even convinced by any model of typology entirely and find it a tedious task to attempt to lay out an explanation without every single concept I present being misinterpreted or taken to an extreme. If it's a real natural phenomenon then it'll eventually be discovered with or without me, it's too much effort to be bothered with without any manner of empirical proof.

I think you misunderstand me then. Because I never started to argue this topic because I was feeling attacked, because I was feeling my "INTPness" was being taken from me. I was arguing because you were playing golf while I was not.

I'm pretty certain I was the one who brought up the distinction of multiple theories at play, and I'm also pretty certain you were arguing before you realized that she wasn't using MBTI. So you must have had a different reason to argue before my last post.

And I know I sometimes take things as if they are spoken to me. But in my opinion whatever we say is what we say. You can't twist and turn everything. If you say "I believe X is Y" Then you said you believe X is Y, period.

I'm not sure why it matters.

Is it really such a big deal that I agree with Phoenix that you have Fi?
I'm not arguing along with her, I don't care if you choose to believe it or not because I see little tangible benefit to such, nor do I think it'll cause you or anybody else any harm.

The only reason it should matter what I think about you is if I were trying to push it onto you, which I'm not, I see no reason to concern myself with it.

As objective as we like to be it's impossible to be entirely objective. All we say is subjective. We can however choose to say things more objectively or choose arguments that are more objective. But in the end we choose those objective things, subjectively.

It is true, though I've seen this same point taken to an extreme to justify pretty much any position the individual wants to believe. So I'm cautious towards it being used in argument too much because it's often an ill understood point.

I'd also like if you could give me example of where you think I made this "mistake" in the PM about your typing of me. Again, if you want, of course. I'm just curious.

It's sort of poor of me to assert something and then not present proof when asked, but hopefully you understand the amount of effort it would take to search through your 1186 posts in order to prove some minor point. I'm going to have to drop it, because I don't have the time to spend doing that.

 

[Lobstrich]

The only reason your game is not relevant here is because the entire debate started based on what Phoenix claimed, which set the groundwork for the topic of argumentation, which is based in her game. You can disagree with it, definitely, and I can see how you may have misunderstood that she wasn't arguing in MBTI terms. But continuing arguing based on your understanding without respect for what she is claiming is just going to cause more confusion.

I'll reply to this for now, It's late and I've not slept for a very long time so I honestly can't be bothered with another damn mutli post.

So yes, I completely agree. My bad, I suppose. We started arguing "golf" so I can't really bring in football. But in the end, I had to "justify" the type I think myself to be so it's impossible for me not to talk football as I have never played golf and I don't even know the rules of it.
My point is that this whole debate has become redundant in the light of the entire debate being about golf when I only know (and have only debated) football.

Like I said though, I'll reply to the rest of your post at some point. I want to get across points like you saying that you brought up sports so I must have had some other "motivation" for arguing.

I'd still really like to hear why you think I'm an INFP. Because if there's one thing I never thought myself to be... It's an INFP. So I'd really really (I rarely use the same word twice!) like hear why you think so.

 

[Puffy]

Basically, Lobstrich, imagine you picked up a magazine and on pg. 3 it had a "personality quiz". You answer 30 - 50 generalised questions and you are given a description. The description is vague enough that most people who get it can agree with a few of the points and think "bingo, that's me."

MBTI is basically astrology, same deal. Personality is far too complex to be uncovered by what is basically an abstract, or perhaps a blurb description. Your dismissal of ENFP on the basis of the test description is irrational in this context. Though let me make this plain - I am not saying you are an ENFP, just picking up on a few things you have said.

The only thing I really wanted to write is regarding the whole "you're not me, only I can read me" stance. You also have your own body, would you care to tell a biologist that they can't interpret your body because that right is reserved exclusively for you? It really is the same thing with personality, I don't think we know much about ourselves - it is that exploration which even inspired Jung.

If personality should become science, there will be personality experts who can tell you more about yourself than you can. In the end, by treating the test as reliable, you are already doing this, implying that the test-writers have the ability to describe you. Cegorach has done much more research into personality than you, why is s/he not able to also describe what s/he sees?

Personally, I think you're too caught up on what "F" is as a stereotype that you are not able to see the F functions as they more likely are. I am an INFJ, but the F in isolation means nothing, it is a part of a complete configuration that only makes sense as a functioning whole. My writing is not as logically "whole" as say Words or Eyeseecold, but I am cool-headed and perfectly capable of clear and deep thought...

 

[pjoa09]

I live on a small island, think the total population is around 40-50k.


Yes, which is what I meant by "as cult as it is" and "which surprised me"

A little Fi. Okay. So my question now is, the second you "smell a little" Fi. I immediately am Fi?
Could it not be that what you, Phoenix and Cego are "smelling" is my F?
Other INTPs use the F they have in another way. The F I have and the one that you guys are seeing. Is the F I have.

Spoiler

I stopped the mini-wall because I could hear it was getting a little cryptic, lol. Is it understandable?

Offend? I'm not offended by Phoenix and Cego thinking I am something other than INTP, because I am INTP and I know myself better than them and you.
What got me annoyed with Phoenix was the forcefulness of which his/her typing of me was just put on. As if the typing he/she did was correct, period. Like I've mentioned several times; When people porray their opinions as if they are facts. That's what annoyed me, not that you have an opinion. We all do.


Do I smell Fi? We must all be Fi, since all we say is based on what we think. Sure we can choose to bring arguements that are more subjective and arguements that are more objective. But even if we choose the latter ones. We still choose them because we "think" they are right and because we "think" they a better.

Makes sense, tiny island.


Fi as in adhered to certain values. Stuck to own guns. You come in with an idea in the debate and you plan on winning the debate with that idea. Really Te and Fi there.

They may use Fe. I use Fe! but you seem rather 'internally harmonious'.

Shark smells blood he doesn't question if its really blood or wine. I 'smell' Fi I just point it. I am not a shark so to speak but no harm done anyway.

On the other hand Phoenix might be a bit of a 'shark'. Determined to rip open whatever is causing the waters to be a bit red.

 

[Cegorach]

I'll reply to this for now, It's late and I've not slept for a very long time so I honestly can't be bothered with another damn mutli post.

Feel free to ignore anything that you no longer feel is an issue or that doesn't need further elaboration, if it's not an issue I'm not looking for validation of having been correct.

So yes, I completely agree. My bad, I suppose. We started arguing "golf" so I can't really bring in football. But in the end, I had to "justify" the type I think myself to be so it's impossible for me not to talk football as I have never played golf and I don't even know the rules of it.
My point is that this whole debate has become redundant in the light of the entire debate being about golf when I only know (and have only debated) football.

True, but I'd say it'd be better to mention that you aren't able to address her position and perhaps ask for an explanation of how her model works. You don't really have to be convinced by it and I don't think too many people take the typings thrown around here very seriously, so it's easy to ignore too.

Like I said though, I'll reply to the rest of your post at some point. I want to get across points like you saying that you brought up sports so I must have had some other "motivation" for arguing.

I'll elaborate what I can about that right now.

I didn't mean I brought up the sports analogy, that was you, but I was the one who explained to you that you were the only one using MBTI, so it's difficult to imagine that this quote is accurate:

Spoiler

I think you misunderstand me then. Because I never started to argue this topic because I was feeling attacked, because I was feeling my "INTPness" was being taken from me. I was arguing because you were playing golf while I was not.

It wasn't until my post just before the quoted one that that issue was cleared up, so how you were defending yourself from us all playing different "games" before you realized we even were is a little baffling.

I'd still really like to hear why you think I'm an INFP. Because if there's one thing I never thought myself to be... It's an INFP. So I'd really really (I rarely use the same word twice!) like hear why you think so.

I'd rather you ignored what I said or just assume I'm incorrect, I'm pretty adamant about not wanting to get into explaining typological theory in depth to anybody.

 

[Oblivious]

So Ceg, what's my type. I don't care about typology, I am just curious what you think.

 

[Fukyo]

omg! Ceg type me too...

 

[Minuend]

Poor ceg, he will have his arms full.

It would be interesting having a thread where everyone who liked could give their analysis of anyone. Who cares whether it was accurate as long as people gave reasons for their assumption. Would probably have some interesting perspectives on people. And our self-obsession would be satisfied.

I won't start such a thread because I have way too little knowledge on the topic. I don't have time to upgrade it until after Christmas I think.

 

[Puffy]

Poor ceg, he will have his arms full.

It would be interesting having a thread where everyone who liked could give their analysis of anyone. Who cares whether it was accurate as long as people gave reasons for their assumption. Would probably have some interesting perspectives on people. And our self-obsession would be satisfied.

I won't start such a thread because I have way too little knowledge on the topic. I don't have time to upgrade it until after Christmas I think.

+1