Shifting From MBTI to JCF: Why?

[Limit]

Shifting From MBTI to JCF: Why?
by simulatedworld
PersonalityNation.com

So the staff has requested that I write out the full case for abandoning the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and moving forward into a typology approach centered primarily around Jungian Cognitive Functions (or JCF, as we have recently--and affectionately--taken to calling it.)

1) Changes in the meaning and interpretation of MBTI type codes:

I have to say this is a topic that hasn't been addressed too much on internet typology forums, and I want to clear up some of the misconceptions involving terminology and so on by suggesting some standards for how to approach Jungian typology in a modern context, without the irritating bipolar dichotomy system upon which MBTI is founded.

"But wait Sim, if you don't like MBTI, why do you use its four-letter type code labels (ENFP, ISTJ, etc.) all the time?"

Well, dear reader whose future thoughts in response to this not-yet-published article I can apparently predict clairvoyantly, I'm glad you asked that question. First and foremost it's important to understand that modern Jungian typology has assimilated MBTI's type labels in reference to various combinations of Jungian Cognitive Functions, and in modern practice most of the better typologists on forums are using these four-letter codes with no intention of referencing MBTI's type profiles.

I feel like nobody has actually consciously pointed this out, and yet it's vital to understanding what's going on in the online typology forum community today. The fact is, it's simply easier to say "ESTP" than "person who prefers extroverted sensing introverted thinking extroverted feeling introverted intuition."


2) The problem with self-report:

Secondly, MBTI is a self-report instrument, which carries a number of obvious inherent flaws. As I've pointed out any number of times by now, self-report tests don't account for that which the test-taker believes erroneously about himself. They can't be counted on to produce accurate results because Jungian functions are, at their core, metaphorical representations of value systems, methods of navigating an approach to understanding the self and its relationship to the outside world.

If you don't understand a certain sort of perspective, a test that evaluates your understanding of that perspective based on your own biased self-description of your understanding of it is not going to generate any sort of meaningful result.

I'm honestly at a loss for why nobody seems to take this into account. You guys obsess over your cognitive functions tests, your Big 5, your MBTI results, your Socionics tests--as if any of it matters to anything! If we're going to do Jung and his work any sort of justice, we have to recognize that psychological type is simply too complex to be tested by a 20-minute multiple choice questionnaire.


3) Psychological type can't be quantified objectively:

Sorry Te doms, I know it's hard for you to place value on anything that can't be objectively measured, but if that's a deal-breaker for you, then your time would likely be more productively spent on something other than Jungian typology. We're not working with science here; we're working with philosophical metaphors, abstract generalized representations of the various kinds of values and self-images people use to construct their identities. That's a REALLY complicated thing to figure out, and it's not going to be solved by a short survey about whether or not you like to organize your desk.

I heard recently about someone claiming to be INTP in Jungian functions and yet ENTJ in MBTI. That may well be true, but the fact that the person who said it found his MBTI test result significant enough to even bother including it in the description in the first place is, unfortunately, highly representative of the vast overemphasis the online type community places on type test results. No multiple choice questionnaire can accurately test your type because you can't accurately or objectively assess your own understanding of perspectives and mindsets you don't understand, and don't even REALIZE you don't understand because you've never experienced them firsthand.

When I mention Jungian typology to most people who aren't familiar with it, but have heard of the MBTI, it's understandable that they wouldn't be aware of what modern typology has done with MBTI's type labels. That's certainly a reasonable mistake, but it's time that this nomenclature discrepancy be cleared up. "I'm ESFP" simply means "I'm an Se dominant with Fi, Te and Ni as my supporting attitudes", not "I use more S than N/more F than T, etc."


4) Too much focus on what, not why:

While we're on that topic, let's consider what MBTI was designed for. Myers and Briggs attempted to borrow (and grossly oversimplify) Jung's ideas in order to design a quick and easy test to help people get an idea of what career path might fit them best. It asks a series of questions about what you do with your life--that was never Jung's focus. He spent the bulk of his career researching subconscious motivations for human psychological needs and value systems: he was after why we think, feel, and behave the way we do.

For instance, why did I use the Oxford comma there? Did I want to impress you all with my sophisticated English? Did I do it just because I am personally irritated by what I see as bad English? Did I do it because having good English is valued among the people I consider peers on this forum? Did I do it because that's what I've always done so it's comfortable? I could have done it for any number of different reasons, likely a combination of several influences from different functional perspectives. If a type test asked me, "Do you use the Oxford comma?", how would that information tell us anything relevant about my value system without knowing why I use it?

The problem with the "what" over "why" approach is that the same action can mean a million different things under different contexts and coming from different people. Functions can't be directly observed; they have to be inferred by collecting a lot of data on a specific person over a lengthy period and coming to know his most treasured values through personal interaction and in-depth analysis of his motivations and viewpoints.

5) Jung's ideas don't translate coherently into bipolar dichotomies or "sliding scales":

That's not even getting into the myriad problems with the entire concept of using bipolar dichotomies to model personality. I get so tired of seeing people post, "Oh well I used to be a J because I used more J than P, but now I am very borderline on P/J because I do less planning", and this is pretty much all thanks to MBTI. When you don't even acknowledge the difference between Se/Si or Ne/Ni or Te/Ti or Fe/Fi, you're missing the fundamental point of what each of those value systems represents.

Just the other day on PersonalityCafe I saw a post where someone claimed that Lady Gaga used to be an ISFP but has "developed into an NFP" because she's learned to think abstractly. This is exactly the kind of crap I'm talking about. That's what happens when an ISFP grows into tertiary Ni--it doesn't mean she is turning into an INFP!

(On a side note, I've seen a lot of talk recently about how "Ne and Ni are really two sides of the same coin", but I think this is a mistake. I think Ne and Ni contradict each other about the way to deal with abstract perceptions--I think Ne and Si are two sides of the same coin, and this is why the two always accompany each other.)


6) MBTI has created numerous misconceptions and erroneous colloquial definitions of Jungian terms:

Anyway, MBTI is also responsible for the misconception that intro/extroversion is based purely on how much social interaction you do. This couldn't be further from the truth. E/I isn't about being social. T/F isn't about being an emotionless prick or an overly sensitive baby. P/J isn't about being messy or neat, and FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, S/N is not about seeing "details vs. the big picture."

That last one is possibly the worst thing MBTI has done to Jung's ideas, almost single-handedly. No, you don't need to be an N type to "see the big picture." Hell, you don't even need to be an N type to have a strongly developed iNtuitive function! Which leads into yet another problem...


7) MBTI ignores functional imbalances and mistypes those who emphasize tertiary over secondary:

MBTI doesn't account for dominant/tertiary loops, because it assumes that anyone who accents his N function over his S function must be an N type, etc. This one is really pervasive--some hyper-introverted Ni+Ti INFJ with poorly developed Fe shows up and people say, "OMG HE IS MORE T THAN F, HE MUST BE INTJ", which utterly misses the point and does this person a disservice by mistyping him and falsely attributing a Te attitude to someone whose value system has nothing to do with Te.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: INTJ vs. INFJ isn't about "more T vs. more F"; it's about TeFi vs. FeTi. Until you guys learn this, you are just going to keep plowing into the same wall of misunderstandings and erroneous type reads.


8) There is no objective correctness in philosophy:

So how do you type people, then, if you don't know them in depth? Well see, that's the thing--Jungian type can't be quantified and therefore has no objective definition. Jungian types are rather like "genres" of people, in that there's no way to empirically assess them. They only exist as general, collective understandings among people who have studied them, and different people may disagree about a person's type. Neither is objectively right or wrong. That is the nature of the beast. Reading types is something that happens gradually--the more you've done it, the faster and more accurately you can do it. The more information you obtain on a given person, the more likely your type read is to be accurate. If you're experienced with typology, you can snap type a lot of people with relatively high accuracy, but you're still going to be wrong sometimes--first impressions can be misleading, and there's no simple quick fix in the form of an internet quiz that will settle the momentous question of your identity for you.

If you can't deal with that, forget typology and go work on the hard science of mapping out the entirety of human cognition in quantifiable terms--I imagine you'll figure it out by the year 4,000 or so. Good luck!

Until science completely figures out cognition, however, we're going to have to settle for the imprecise and nebulous nature of philosophy and analytical psychology, which depends heavily on subjective interpretation, and thus can't be tested meaningfully with a simple questionnaire. Don't like it? Don't bother with Jung.

9) MBTI creates erroneous assumptions about surface similarities between people of the same type or similar types:

Another of the more irritating problems is that MBTI results in the erroneous assumption that people of the same type all must behave similarly or possess similar surface preferences, religious/political/social beliefs, etc. I've lost count of how many times I've seen, "But he can't be INTJ, because he doesn't remind me of this other INTJ that I know!" or "There's no way he's INFP, because he's way too rude to me to be an F!" or worse yet, "He can't possibly be an S--he's way too smart!"

That doesn't mean they aren't the same type; it means you haven't yet recognized the similarities between their cognitive approaches because you're too busy focusing on virtually meaningless surface differences.


10) MBTI misrepresents types that share all four function attitudes as "complete opposites" when they are nothing of the sort:

Lastly, MBTI is heavily misleading in its portrayal of types that share zero letters as "opposites." Without JCF, it's impossible to see how ESFJ and INTP could be categorized together--they differ on all four dichotomies, so they must be opposites, right?

Wrong. They also share all four functions attitudes {Fe, Ne, Si, Ti}. They'll probably have trouble getting along earlier in life before their functions are differentiated, but once they grow into their full potential they become, in many respects, far more similar to each other than to types that share one, two, or even three of their MBTI letters.

Generally speaking, I still get along vastly better with ISFJs (with whom I share zero letters) than with ENTJs, with whom I share three. If you don't understand JCF, it's impossible to see why, and it's impossible to have any idea what Jung was talking about or what any of this personality typing stuff is actually about if you still stick to a simplistic system designed to tell you all about your deepest personal values based on a 20-minute internet quiz.

Once again, forget what and focus on why. Once you do that, you'll realize the massive inherent problem with type profiles, start to study Jungian Cognitive Functions, figure out your type and others' types for real, and take off the damn training wheels.

~SW

-Source- With Permission from the Original Article Writer

 

[Auburn]

Firstly, thank you Limit for the article. =]

Though none of this is particularly new to this forum. This forum actually is fairly grounded on JCF (or at least within the older members? new members come in with misconceptions due to MBTI all the time >.>) We've had a few 'forum experts' come and go from this place during the years, and it seems the forum goes through cycles of passionately seeking out the clarity within the understanding of cognitive functions, or hating the MBTI for all it's inaccuracies to the point of departing from the theory altogether. I'm not sure where we are now...

PersonalityNation is definitely a lot better about that though. They seem to have a way to quickly diffuse the confusion MBTI causes in new members.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I like how the writer name dropped Socionics even though it acknowledges the problems that were pointed out.

Shifting From MBTI to JCF: Why?
by simulatedworld
PersonalityNation.com

...

10) MBTI misrepresents types that share all four function attitudes as "complete opposites" when they are nothing of the sort:

Lastly, MBTI is heavily misleading in its portrayal of types that share zero letters as "opposites." Without JCF, it's impossible to see how ESFJ and INTP could be categorized together--they differ on all four dichotomies, so they must be opposites, right?

Wrong. They also share all four functions attitudes {Fe, Ne, Si, Ti}. They'll probably have trouble getting along earlier in life before their functions are differentiated, but once they grow into their full potential they become, in many respects, far more similar to each other than to types that share one, two, or even three of their MBTI letters.



~SW

-Source- With Permission from the Original Article Writer

Incorrect.

This is what I mean about arrogance and productivity. The guy is trying to progress but is ignorant of his mistakes.

 

[Limit]

I like how the writer name dropped Socionics even though it acknowledges the problems that were pointed out.



Incorrect.

This is what I mean about arrogance and productivity. The guy is trying to progress but is ignorant of his mistakes.

Hmm, You might want to say WHY it’s incorrect.

I can say your statement is incorrect. Which I think it is.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Why?

He is claiming something that Socionics has already accounted for: that ESFJs and INTPs naturally get along. That we have similar functions and therefore will adapt to each other later in life.

He is being hypocritical by giving out the What in stead of the Why when it comes to types with inversed functions. The rest of the post prompted progress, but here he stopped progress and deduced a conclusion, one based on a misconception, I might add.

 

[Limit]

Why?

He is claiming something that Socionics has already accounted for: that ESFJs and INTPs naturally get along. That we have similar functions and therefore will adapt to each other later in life.

He is being hypocritical by giving out the What in stead of the Why when it comes to types with inversed functions. The rest of the post prompted progress, but here he stopped progress and deduced a conclusion, one based on a misconception, I might add.

Hold on, this is a Jungian Cognitive Functions vs MBTI, and you’re throwing in Socionics? I’m aware of the quadrants in the Socionics Model, but I’m wondering how you can mix these two? Maybe you should do a Socionics VS JCF

I don’t think he was hypocritical. He explains WHY in what you quoted. Exactly what why are you asking to be solved?

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Hold on, this is a Jungian Cognitive Functions vs MBTI, and you’re throwing in Socionics? I’m aware of the quadrants in the Socionics Model, but I’m wondering how you can mix these two? Maybe you should do a Socionics VS JCF

Yes I know it is a JCF perspective, but the writer is still using MBTI's function order, therefore it is still a MBTI related matter and can be refuted by Socionics.

I don’t think he was hypocritical. He explains WHY in what you quoted. Exactly what why are you asking to be solved?

I'm not asking anything. He is advocating the Why while assuming the What.

 

[Fukyo]

He is advocating the Why while assuming the What.

This has been my impression from reading the writings of this author too, namely in how functions are described, where more attention is paid to the manifestation of the function than the interplay of functions that could have produced the same effect.

 

[Limit]

Firstly, thank you Limit for the article. =]

Though none of this is particularly new to this forum. This forum actually is fairly grounded on JCF (or at least within the older members? new members come in with misconceptions due to MBTI all the time >.>) We've had a few 'forum experts' come and go from this place during the years, and it seems the forum goes through cycles of passionately seeking out the clarity within the understanding of cognitive functions, or hating the MBTI for all it's inaccuracies to the point of departing from the theory altogether. I'm not sure where we are now...

PersonalityNation is definitely a lot better about that though. They seem to have a way to quickly diffuse the confusion MBTI causes in new members.

I actually noticed this. This is the first forum, so far, that I’ve been to that seems pretty well versed in multiple typologies. The sticky at the top is priceless.

 

[Adymus]

10) MBTI misrepresents types that share all four function attitudes as "complete opposites" when they are nothing of the sort:

Lastly, MBTI is heavily misleading in its portrayal of types that share zero letters as "opposites." Without JCF, it's impossible to see how ESFJ and INTP could be categorized together--they differ on all four dichotomies, so they must be opposites, right?

Wrong. They also share all four functions attitudes {Fe, Ne, Si, Ti}. They'll probably have trouble getting along earlier in life before their functions are differentiated, but once they grow into their full potential they become, in many respects, far more similar to each other than to types that share one, two, or even three of their MBTI letters.

Generally speaking, I still get along vastly better with ISFJs (with whom I share zero letters) than with ENTJs, with whom I share three. If you don't understand JCF, it's impossible to see why, and it's impossible to have any idea what Jung was talking about or what any of this personality typing stuff is actually about if you still stick to a simplistic system designed to tell you all about your deepest personal values based on a 20-minute internet quiz.

Once again, forget what and focus on why. Once you do that, you'll realize the massive inherent problem with type profiles, start to study Jungian Cognitive Functions, figure out your type and others' types for real, and take off the damn training wheels.

~SW

-Source- With Permission from the Original Article Writer

While I support the premise of his position on MBTI sucking balls, there are a lot of things this SW guy does not quite get, one of them being that he does not quite understand what it means to develop lower functions.

What he is referring to as a misconception on MBTI's part in the quote above, is actually more right than his correction.

While it is true that when two "opposite" types are not well developed, there differences will be much more striking, as their dominant functions are in polar opposition with the other's dominant, and they will have less awareness and understanding of their own lower functions which leads them to being dismissive or resentful when seeing these functions expressed in other people, or the world.

But still, even when very well matured, this relationship between two Polar types does not change very much, and here is why:

There will always be an inherent Will to Shine, in all types. This means that everyone will have an inherent will to excel in producing the materials of their own Dominant function. Lower functions are not only heavily painted by the functions above them, they all exist as subordinates to the functions above them, and ultimately to the dominant function. In other words, an INTPs Fe is not equal to an ESFJs Fe, it is not even close and it will never be. When I say that the two are not equal, I am not referring to their skill level of use, or frequency of use, I am referring to the way the use and understand their own functions. Cognitive function exist in a heirarchy, and the lower functions are best understood from the position or perspective of the functions above it. For an INTP Fe is used as a tool to making stronger Ti discernment and as a way to express and implement those descendants, and an INTPs Fe as a whole is understood from the position of a dominant Ti. And for an ESFJ Ti is used as a tool for Calibrating and perfecting their Dominant Fe's ability to make harmonious and conducive communities.

This guy seems to be suggesting that when types are well developed, their functions just melt into an Amorphous stew that resembles every type that has the same four conscious functions as they do. That is not actually the case, and when types are well developed, they do become much more adaptable and understanding of other types, but they never lose their hierarchy or their will to shine, and their functionality and what they value as important will always be about their dominant function first.

Even when an INTP believes other INTPs should be more in touch with their Fe, it is not because their Fe is vetoing their own Ti. On the contrary, it is because they have learned that Fe can actually allow their Ti to make stronger and more accurate discernments when Fe is applied, and they see other INTP's Ti as making weak judgement calls because they are being overly dismissive and suppressive of their Fe, and missing out on what it can offer. Your Dominant function is only as strong as your weakest link.

So while well developed INTPs and ESFJs might learn to respect each other as necessary parts of humanity, they will still be best kept apart. Because in order for an INTP to shine, an ESFJ must Diminish, and for an ESFJ to shine, an INTP must diminish, the two will still have difficulty shining at what they produce in close quarters. It is not like they will mind, because a well developed INTP will still probably be bored by a well developed ESFJ, and a well developed ESFJ will still probably think the INTP is too cold and kind of a weirdo.

EDIT: Also the idea that INTPs and ENTJs don't get along is complete bullshit, it is actually just the opposite, they understand each other better than any other types. The idea that Te is the "opposite" of Ti is fucking retarded and John Beebe should be shot for making that up. But I don't feel like typing anymore so I won't get into that.

 

[Jennywocky]

Oh no! Sim is proliferating again!

 

[InvisibleJim]

Oh no! Sim is proliferating again!

You know ENTPs are always doubleteaming the internet Jenny. They are akin to a hideous fungal bloom that threatens to overwhelm us all.

Even when an INTP believes other INTPs should be more in touch with their Fe, it is not because their Fe is vetoing their own Ti. On the contrary, it is because they have learned that Fe can actually allow their Ti to make stronger and more accurate discernments when Fe is applied, and they see other INTP's Ti as making weak judgement calls because they are being overly dismissive and suppressive of their Fe, and missing out on what it can offer. Your Dominant function is only as strong as your weakest link.

Out of interest and in a similar vien what would your opinion be on dominant tertiary looping and personality disorders?

I find the theory unsustainable; for example, for the INTP Ti-Si would loop 'blocking' all external influence as a consequence of 'skipping' Ne; however, my personal belief is that people have a tendency to rest on their comfortable attitude; although the individual feels the discussion is intense they don't absorb new information into the conscious (towards Ti); infact that Si 'leads' Ne and Ne becomes the nitpick with the Si keeping the internal monologue flexible which is an unusual scenario for the more usually Ji bound INTP.

I don't think we should entirely throw Beebe into the bin; I do sympathise with his description of the 'opponents' and whatnot, but it may be more my internal monologue finding consensus than true fact finding.

Regardless of these facts I think the core message of the author that MBTI (can be) a poor testing implement is quite relevant and there is an important distinction issue regarding how the MBTI dichotomies can be easily confused as 'this is how I must behave in future' as behavioural dichotomies by those who don't understand the basis, which can in some cases become a paralysing personality impediment rather than the person simply showing naturally what they are to themselves.

Yes, I must agree and concede that identifying your cognitive function is much more important a message to many budding typology enthusiasts than relying on the medium of unbenchmarked and momentarily anomalous testing

 

[Limit]

I think you misinterpreted what he was saying as though he was implying that INTP will = ESFJ.

I agree with most of what you’re saying though, and I find it interesting how you think INTP and ENTJ is the best, when clearly it’s ENTP and INTJ :-P

 

[InvisibleJim]

I think you misinterpreted what he was saying as though he was implying that INTP will = ESFJ.

I agree with most of what you’re saying though, and I find it interesting how you think INTP and ENTJ is the best, when clearly it’s ENTP and INTJ :-P

Limit, you sicken me sometimes.

Yeah okay; I love you really.

But yes, it is well established that dominant intuits can be a hit or a miss off the bat as can dominant thinkers.

Hang on a minute... I totally missed this on the first pass:

Yes I know it is a JCF perspective, but the writer is still using MBTI's function order, therefore it is still a MBTI related matter and can be refuted by Socionics.

Oranges are not Apples.

 

[simulatedworld]

While I support the premise of his position on MBTI sucking balls, there are a lot of things this SW guy does not quite get, one of them being that he does not quite understand what it means to develop lower functions.

Really? Why don't you tell me all about Si and Fe? I would love to hear your advice on developing them.

What he is referring to as a misconception on MBTI's part in the quote above, is actually more right than his correction.

Not even close. You'll see why below.

While it is true that when two "opposite" types are not well developed, there differences will be much more striking, as their dominant functions are in polar opposition with the other's dominant, and they will have less awareness and understanding of their own lower functions which leads them to being dismissive or resentful when seeing these functions expressed in other people, or the world.

But still, even when very well matured, this relationship between two Polar types does not change very much, and here is why:

I like the first paragraph here, but your last sentence is way off. If you've never developed a close relationship with an SFJ you probably won't see why, but the amount we can learn from them (and they from us) is staggering. We just don't really realize it until we grow up enough to appreciate what they have to teach us (and vice versa.)

There will always be an inherent Will to Shine, in all types. This means that everyone will have an inherent will to excel in producing the materials of their own Dominant function. Lower functions are not only heavily painted by the functions above them, they all exist as subordinates to the functions above them, and ultimately to the dominant function. In other words, an INTPs Fe is not equal to an ESFJs Fe, it is not even close and it will never be. When I say that the two are not equal, I am not referring to their skill level of use, or frequency of use, I am referring to the way the use and understand their own functions. Cognitive function exist in a heirarchy, and the lower functions are best understood from the position or perspective of the functions above it. For an INTP Fe is used as a tool to making stronger Ti discernment and as a way to express and implement those descendants, and an INTPs Fe as a whole is understood from the position of a dominant Ti. And for an ESFJ Ti is used as a tool for Calibrating and perfecting their Dominant Fe's ability to make harmonious and conducive communities.

This doesn't refute anything I've said. Obviously even a highly balanced INTP will not compare to ESFJs in his command of Fe, but that is not what I said.

I very much agree about INTPs using Ti to derive that Fe makes a lot more sense than they tend to assume earlier in life, though. It's not so much that the INTP grows to have Fe equal to an ESFJ, but rather that he learns to appreciate the value in Fe enough to start paying close attention to what he can learn from the ESFJ, and begin applying it in his own life as well.

I have one INTP friend who describes typology as simply, "A way to highlight what you can learn from others." I think this is an excellent description.

This guy seems to be suggesting that when types are well developed, their functions just melt into an Amorphous stew that resembles every type that has the same four conscious functions as they do. That is not actually the case, and when types are well developed, they do become much more adaptable and understanding of other types, but they never lose their hierarchy or their will to shine, and their functionality and what they value as important will always be about their dominant function first.

I'm assuming nothing of the sort! That's absolutely not what I said. In a perfectly ideal world given infinite time to progress, mature, and balance, yes--theoretically all NTPs and SFJs would ultimately converge in the same place.

Since our lives do not possess infinite length, however, we never really get all the way to that center point of perfect developmental balance. But we do learn to recognize that our so-called "opposite" types actually have all of our functional attitudes, and as we grow and mature, the similarities become increasingly pronounced and the differences increasingly ignored.

That is all I meant--not that INTP and ESFJ will become exactly the same person. There's nowhere near enough development time in any human lifetime for that kind of ego dissociation to come full circle and reach total balance.

The main point here isn't really even the Fe ability itself; it's simply the awareness of the value in continuing to improve that ability.

Young NTPs are threatened by SFJs because they think their goal should be to make themselves perfect TiNe models. They don't understand that SiFe is part of them too, and thus, people who emphasize those attitudes primarily above all others continually remind the young NTP of his own deficiencies.

The true sign of maturity is when the INTP comes to realize how valuable Si and Fe actually are, and to accept them as important parts of himself to which he should grant more attention than he'd perhaps previously thought necessary.

It's not about matching the SFJs pound-for-pound in SiFe ability; it's simply about recognizing that their perspective has tremendous value that you can (and should) apply to your own life more often. It's about learning to realize that "doesn't think just like me" =/= "stupid."

Even when an INTP believes other INTPs should be more in touch with their Fe, it is not because their Fe is vetoing their own Ti. On the contrary, it is because they have learned that Fe can actually allow their Ti to make stronger and more accurate discernments when Fe is applied, and they see other INTP's Ti as making weak judgement calls because they are being overly dismissive and suppressive of their Fe, and missing out on what it can offer. Your Dominant function is only as strong as your weakest link.

This is a fantastic point that gets at what I was trying to say.

So while well developed INTPs and ESFJs might learn to respect each other as necessary parts of humanity, they will still be best kept apart. Because in order for an INTP to shine, an ESFJ must Diminish, and for an ESFJ to shine, an INTP must diminish, the two will still have difficulty shining at what they produce in close quarters. It is not like they will mind, because a well developed INTP will still probably be bored by a well developed ESFJ, and a well developed ESFJ will still probably think the INTP is too cold and kind of a weirdo.

Nooooo, they will not be "best kept apart." That's only true if they're too childish to accept and embrace the less natural parts of their personalities and truly become well-rounded people.

Truly mature INTPs and ESFJs will respect and appreciate each other enough to divide their time together between activities and discussions that allow both types to have their time to shine.

To say that a well-developed INTP is bored by a well-developed ESFJ or vice versa is absolutely ludicrous. On the contrary--a well-developed INTP is simply an INTP who has realized just how much he still has to learn from well-developed ESFJs, and thus he will find them substantially more fascinating (and more worthy of respect and adulation) than will a poorly developed INTP.

Whenever I hear "wahhhh SFJs are stupid and boring" from a young NTP, it's an immediate sign that he's too poorly developed to understand what is so interesting, fascinating and valuable about the SFJ perspective. He doesn't yet realize that everything SFJs are good at is part of him too, and that he's only holding back his own development by denying it or pretending he shouldn't learn from it.

EDIT: Also the idea that INTPs and ENTJs don't get along is complete bullshit, it is actually just the opposite, they understand each other better than any other types. The idea that Te is the "opposite" of Ti is fucking retarded and John Beebe should be shot for making that up. But I don't feel like typing anymore so I won't get into that.

Quite the opposite, actually--INTPs and ENTJs share zero function attitudes and thus disagree completely on the nature of how Thinking standards should be derived. Ti derives structural reasoning from an internal, subjective standard; Te derives it from an external, objective standard, and thus the two fundamentally disagree on the most crucial of philosophical decisions for Thinking types: "From what standard should I derive my logic?"

John Beebe didn't make up that idea and I don't like him anymore than you do. Beebe insists that Ti and Fe are opposites, not Ti and Te. He doesn't realize that Ti and Fe are really part of the same larger process.

But Ti and Te? Nope, sorry--incompatible. INTPs and ENTJs absolutely do not in any way "understand each other better than anyone else"--I don't see any basis for such a claim at all. (This doesn't mean that Ti and Te types can't learn to get along--they can, but they will always have to work around the difficult communication barrier that arises from their opposing ideas on where logic should originate.)

Have you read Psychological Types? Ti and Te are, in fact, polar opposites. That idea comes straight from C.G. Jung himself, not John Beebe!

Both T functions deal with impersonal structural reasoning, but they approach it from perfectly opposite directions.

As we say on Per-N,

TiFe = My thoughts; our values.
FiTe = My values; our thoughts.

Ti is far, far more related to and compatible with Fe than it is with Te. The functions don't exist in isolation--only in pairs. Using only one half of the pair misses half of the full picture.

But each pair has another pair that totally contradicts it. Ti and Fe can and do coexist within the same individual when developed well--they provide a sense of balance and more complete understanding. But Ti and Te cannot and never will exist in the same individual because they provide conflicting axioms upon which to build one's worldview.

If you think you understand ENTJs better than everyone else, you probably don't really grasp what Te is enough to see why it so grossly contradicts your entire worldview. They may get along well with you and even like you, but they're still going to go home and complain to their INTJ buddies that "That silly NTP doesn't understand TeFi (or NiSe) at all!"

 

[simulatedworld]

I like how the writer name dropped Socionics even though it acknowledges the problems that were pointed out.



Incorrect.

This is what I mean about arrogance and productivity. The guy is trying to progress but is ignorant of his mistakes.

You seem to be debating merely the definition in terms of how each type is labeled. I made no reference to Socionics here because I think it's really terrible.

If you want to argue about whether TiNeSiFe should be labeled INTP or INTj, go for it, but that's not the issue I'm addressing here.

If it makes my article more palatable for you, go ahead and replace "INTP" and "ESFJ" with "TiNeSiFe" and "FeSiNeTi" in the above quoted selections.

The rest of us will be getting back to the topic at hand now.

P.S.,

I am not ignorant of my "mistakes" (Ti) so much as highly cognizant of the effects my examples and explanations will have on the ability of my readers to garner something meaningful from my work (Ne.)

If you're referring to the fact that "INTP" is associated with the function order "TiNeSiFe" in the first place, then yes, that does derive originally from MBTI, but it's long since outgrown its starting place and it's now a standard concept in modern JCF, quite independently of what MBTI has to say.

Socionics doesn't really refute this idea either, so much as just label it differently. There's really not even a discrepancy here at all; it's just an arbitrary labeling difference. You can call TiNeSiFe people "INTP" or you can call them "INTj", whichever you prefer--it doesn't actually change the content of the ideas, and thus no real difference actually exists besides labeling preferences.

Yes I know it is a JCF perspective, but the writer is still using MBTI's function order, therefore it is still a MBTI related matter and can be refuted by Socionics.

I despise MBTI and the only thing my theories have in common with it is use of the four-letter type codes. Modern JCF theory has borrowed those codes (ISFP, ENTJ, etc.) from MBTI simply because they are easier and more convenient than FiSeNiTe, TeNiSeFi, etc.

The only thing Socionics could potentially be used to refute here is the definitions of the functions themselves, but those come straight from Jung and are unrelated to MBTI. (Personally, I find it quite obvious from reading Jung's work that Socionics completely and utterly butchers his ideas about the meaning of each function, but I guess that's a discussion for another day.)

I'm not asking anything. He is advocating the Why while assuming the What.

Not really, no. I don't assume anything about the What, because my theories are unrelated to the What. Sometimes I share my particular experiences with certain people of each function mindset (which is my Si experience filtering through Ne in order to make the ideas more easily palatable for others), but the core of my theory is still based squarely on the Why.

When I give examples that describe the What, they are not intended to be universal and they are rarely if ever true of 100% of people characterized by the associated mindset. They're just common examples that help the average person figure out the patterns more easily for himself (Ne) by relating them to his own real experiences (using Ne to appeal to the reader's Si/Ni.)

Note that I do not define types according to the What. I define them according to the Why, and then use my personal experiences with the What to help generate supporting examples.

That's a far cry from "assuming the What."

This has been my impression from reading the writings of this author too, namely in how functions are described, where more attention is paid to the manifestation of the function than the interplay of functions that could have produced the same effect.

Presumably this can be chalked up to an Ne vs. Ti dominant preference difference between ENTPs and INTPs.

I have the same problem with SolitaryWalker (with whom most people in the online typology community are familiar.) He likes my ideas generally, but complains with the caveat that I focus more than he would like on describing common outward manifestations of the functions.

It's probably the case that Ne is better at picking up patterns in the outward manifestations, while Ti is better at grasping the complete theoretical concepts represented by each individual function.

One is more technically correct (the latter, Ti); the other is far more useful in terms of advocating new ideas and bringing new people on board with them (the former, Ne.)

Part of Ne is being willing to fudge or simplify concepts in order to keep your audience interested--to keep the content related to something they understand. If you can make some kind of connection or generalization that even kinda sorta makes the significance click for the audience, that's preferable to completely losing them by droning on and on about esoteric theory and just forgetting completely what level of understanding your audience does or does not possess.

When Ne is given the dominant role (as in my case), phrasing the concepts in a way that seems interesting and fascinating to the greatest number of other people becomes the prime directive. When Ti is given the dominant role (as in SolitaryWalker's), absolute theoretical correctness trumps all.

Which of the two do you think will contribute more to the spread and development of these ideas? It doesn't matter how theoretically perfect you are if you can't make it make sense to anyone else.

 

[Deridaburi]

EDIT: Also the idea that INTPs and ENTJs don't get along is complete bullshit, it is actually just the opposite, they understand each other better than any other types. The idea that Te is the "opposite" of Ti is fucking retarded and John Beebe should be shot for making that up. But I don't feel like typing anymore so I won't get into that.

Agreed, subjectively I see eye to eye with an ENTJ friend of mine more than most people that I have met, even those that have declared themselves INTPs.

 

[Adymus]

This doesn't refute anything I've said. Obviously even a highly balanced INTP will not compare to ESFJs in his command of Fe, but that is not what I said.

And that is not what I said either.

I very much agree about INTPs using Ti to derive that Fe makes a lot more sense than they tend to assume earlier in life, though. It's not so much that the INTP grows to have Fe equal to an ESFJ, but rather that he learns to appreciate the value in Fe enough to start paying close attention to what he can learn from the ESFJ, and begin applying it in his own life as well.

I have one INTP friend who describes typology as simply, "A way to highlight what you can learn from others." I think this is an excellent description.

Again, I never said that is what you were claiming. Although I disagree with the energy relationship you are describing between these two types. I'll go more into that below.

I'm assuming nothing of the sort! That's absolutely not what I said. In a perfectly ideal world given infinite time to progress, mature, and balance, yes--theoretically all NTPs and SFJs would ultimately converge in the same place.

Since our lives do not possess infinite length, however, we never really get all the way to that center point of perfect developmental balance. But we do learn to recognize that our so-called "opposite" types actually have all of our functional attitudes, and as we grow and mature, the similarities become increasingly pronounced and the differences increasingly ignored.

That is all I meant--not that INTP and ESFJ will become exactly the same person. There's nowhere near enough development time in any human lifetime for that kind of ego dissociation to come full circle and reach total balance.

Okay right here is one of the main parts that you and I are really not seeing eye to eye on, although there are several. So you are not assuming that all types ultimately converge in the same place, but for the wrong reasons. Personality types will never become perfectly balanced, not because we do not have an unlimited amount of time to develop, but because we are not actually designed to be perfectly balanced. No matter how well developed you are, there is a biological pathway to how our functions are accessed, this is the hierarchy of our cognitive functions. Furthermore we are designed to be a collective production line. Every one of us gains most of our energy from the use and validation of our dominant functions, and even when we access our lower functions, we are doing it to refine, perfect, and express the materials that came from our dominant function. We do not develop functions to become more understanding of the people around us, that is just one of its benefits, we do it to do our job better, and our job is to excel at producing the materials of our Dominant functions. No matter how developed and mature you are, you will always get your energy from the stimulation of you your dominant function, lower functions will always be best accessed in your hierarchy, and the lower functions will always maintain a lower position of priority than your dominant function. That is not perfect balance.

The main point here isn't really even the Fe ability itself; it's simply the awareness of the value in continuing to improve that ability.

I am aware that this is about recognizing the value of Fe, and not entirely about the ability to use Fe well. But you should understand that this recognition addresses many factors, and not just how well developed you are.

Nooooo, they will not be "best kept apart." That's only true if they're too childish to accept and embrace the less natural parts of their personalities and truly become well-rounded people.

Truly mature INTPs and ESFJs will respect and appreciate each other enough to divide their time together between activities and discussions that allow both types to have their time to shine.

To say that a well-developed INTP is bored by a well-developed ESFJ or vice versa is absolutely ludicrous. On the contrary--a well-developed INTP is simply an INTP who has realized just how much he still has to learn from well-developed ESFJs, and thus he will find them substantially more fascinating (and more worthy of respect and adulation) than will a poorly developed INTP.

Whenever I hear "wahhhh SFJs are stupid and boring" from a young NTP, it's an immediate sign that he's too poorly developed to understand what is so interesting, fascinating and valuable about the SFJ perspective. He doesn't yet realize that everything SFJs are good at is part of him too, and that he's only holding back his own development by denying it or pretending he shouldn't learn from it.

The biggest factor that you and many many others are completely missing is my response to this quote: The energy relationships that exist between types. The most energizing force for an INTP is to have their Ti stimulated, and to have the materials or their Ti validated. The same concept goes for the ESFJ, it is to have their Fe stimulated and to have their heroic endeavors (which is how they see their Fe use) validated. Your dominant function is an endless fountain of gifts that we cannot help but produce. They simply flow out of us, not because we want to, not because we "like doing it", but because it is our oxygen, and to halt our dominant function's production is to halt all production. When our dominant function is given work or an opportunity to shine, it is filled with energy and the heroic drive to power all of the lower functions below it. This never changes no matter how developed you are.

Now then, there are many environmental energies from people or things that will cause one to attempt to access one's Tertiary or Inferior functions out of hierarchical order. In every single case this will be seen as an impingement, draining one of energy, and will be surpressive of one's higher functions. The greatest extent being from modulation from an inferior function, and to a lesser extent from the tertiary. When these lower functions are accessed on the terms of the higher functions, they will be accessed with more ease, confidence of use, and to access the out of order is the opposite, and possible even with resentment.

I explain this to you so I can get to my main point, this does not change when you develop your lower functions. Because a well developed INTP does not turn you into an ESFJ, and I don't think you quite understand what I mean when I say this. I am not talking about how well you use Fe, not at all, I am talking about what you are energized by. No matter how well developed an your Inferior function is, it will always be your most energy draining and impinging function, and to have it pulled on or accessed outside of your hierarchy will always come with difficulty and fatigue, because we are designed to access these functions in a pathway that begins at the dominant function. This never changes no matter how developed you are. A well developed INTP is not stimulated by Fe, they get their energy from Ti, and Fe will always be surpressing to this Ti. No matter how well developed either types are, their endless fountain of materials and heroic gifts will be the gifts of their dominant functions, and whether you like it or not, the gifts of an ESFJ are just not stimulating for an INTP, and the gifts of an INTP are just not stimulating for an ESFJ. In fact it is just the opposite, the gifts that the ESFJ strive to produce will always impinge on the INTP, and the same goes for the other way around. This is why an ESFJ is actually one of the worst candidates to help an INTP develop their lower functions. Because the way that the ESFJ will want the INTP and vice versa to access their lower functions will be out of their hierarchical order, thus the relationship is surpressive, and not inspirational.

With maturity, the two types might learn to respect each other, and even appreciate each other, but they will not be energized by each other, and that simply will not change no matter how you slice it. This segues perfectly to my next point, because the ENTJ is actually the perfect candidate to help an INTP access their lower functions. Let's read on!

Quite the opposite, actually--INTPs and ENTJs share zero function attitudes and thus disagree completely on the nature of how Thinking standards should be derived. Ti derives structural reasoning from an internal, subjective standard; Te derives it from an external, objective standard, and thus the two fundamentally disagree on the most crucial of philosophical decisions for Thinking types: "From what standard should I derive my logic?"

Sharing no function attitudes is completely irrelevant to the energy relationships between two types. Ti and Te speak the same "language", as I like to call it, the language of Logic-based discernment. You see, my Ti and your Ti does not actually give a shit how a person came to their conclusion. My Ti recognizes logic as strong and valuable, so if you can present your position in a logically sound form, my Ti will think you are a bad ass no matter if you are a Te user or Ti user. Logic is logic is logic, and as an INTP I place value in the ability to be clear headed and make sound discernment, there is another type that values this exact same thing, they are called ENTJs. Nobody gives a shit where logic is derived, all that matters is how strong is it.

John Beebe didn't make up that idea and I don't like him anymore than you do. Beebe insists that Ti and Fe are opposites, not Ti and Te. He doesn't realize that Ti and Fe are really part of the same larger process.

And I would argue that you do not see that this principle extends to Ti and Te also being a part of this larger process. It is all Non-duality, it is all one process, even if you cannot see it for yourself. You see, without Te, Ti cannot exist. To put it into a metaphor, Te is the rules of the game, and Ti is the player of the game. Without the Rules there is no game, and without the player there is no point. Te actually needs to Ti, and it works the other way around. You see, Ti cannot begin to work on discerning what works or what doesn't work, or what is weak or strong if there is no criteria for what decides what is or is not successful, Ti needs mission parameters, rules of the game if you will. Ti's job is to find perfection, the strongest position, and it cannot do this if there is no criteria for perfection, Te is what give Ti this criteria. Similarly Ti is what determines what principles work and do not work on a situational basis, Te would not exist if there was not a system of principles that causes certain things to be effective or ineffective. It is through this dynamic of principles that Te can build parameters in which goals are set or decided, and it cannot be done without them.
Any ENTJ worth a damn will quickly recognize that it is crucial to their success that they keep lots of Ti near by. You know why? Because it is an ENTJs ultimate goal in life to create strong, effective, and efficient workflows, and it is an INTP's most givable gift to willingly produce and present the perfection of systems, finding what is strong and what is weak in models, when their are strong and when they are weak, and then presenting them so their discernment can be applied and understood. When this Ti is applied to an ENTJs workflow, every cog and component in that workflow become stronger, more effective, and more effecient, creating a solid water tight workflow that is not only implemented well it actually works well in reality as opposed to is supposed to work.
When an ENTJ applies Ti, their frameworks and models become stronger, and when that happens they can defeat crush the models of other ENTJs who didn't apply Ti. And if I know my ENTJs, I know they love crushing models with their own.

This is what it takes an ENTJ to truly appreciate the genious of an INTP, because an INTP actually sees the world in a way that is very different, yet exactly the same as the ENTJ. We both come from a position that values what is logically strong above all else. Don't forget, for an ENTJ, that Te is their world, it is their baby, and if an INTP can not only competently perfect their baby, but also get off on doing it too, then this INTP creature is clearly god's gift to mankind, they will think.
That is only the half of it, that is only how an INTP improves and inspires the ENTJs, now let's see how it works the other way, shall we?

Expression and implementation is the biggest problem for an INTP... It's that damn Fe inferior. Coming up with strong positions and sound understanding of priciples is the easy part, the hard part comes to an INTP when it comes time to actually apply our understandings and do something with them. With an Fe inferior, the world of dynamics, implementation, and pushing forward with agendas is a very unfamiliar place, not to meantion it is difficult for us to reach on command.

Wait... what? The ENTJs eat implementation and expression for breakfast? You don't say...

When an INTP actually does come forward to push with their Fe and express what they have found to be the strongest and most precise position, the ENTJ will want to come out and defend this position, because they will recognize it as the strongest idea in play. They will want to use this position as a foundation and launch point for implementation, because when new principles are understood, they can always be applied right after.

This also goes into what I said above, that the ENTJ and INTP can help each other reach their lower functions, and here is why:

The INTPs and ENTJ both energize each other, they both reccognize each other's gifts (materials of their dominant functions) as something that is both interesting and important/Heroic. This does three things: A.) it provides both types with energy, 2.) it validates both of their gifts, giving them a greater sense of purpose and making them want to produce more, and again gives them more energy, 3.) It inspires them to reach the far sides of their psyche, when they recognize that they are doing essentially the same thing, but in extremely unfamiliar ways. Meaning the INTP excels in strong personal discernment, an area that is held by Fi for an ENTJ, and very unfamiliar for them, and an ENTJ excels in moving through and manipulating external dynamics, an area that is held by Fe for an INTP, and very unfamiliar for them as well.

An ENTJ inspires to reach out and express their Ti's discernment, and they will be doings so with Fe, and an INTP inspires the ENTJ to feel strongly about what they have accomplished, and does so with Fi.

The main principle behind cognitive function inspiration, is that it causes functions to produce more work, more rapidly, and with more energy behind it. At best the energy relationship that your INTP+ESFJ shares is a spark, but between an INTP and ENTJ is potentially an explosion.

But Ti and Te? Nope, sorry--incompatible. INTPs and ENTJs absolutely do not in any way "understand each other better than anyone else"--I don't see any basis for such a claim at all. (This doesn't mean that Ti and Te types can't learn to get along--they can, but they will always have to work around the difficult communication barrier that arises from their opposing ideas on where logic should originate.)

Nope? That is your argument? Well then, I just gave you a basis for my claim, it is a fucking doosy but it is rock solid.

One of my best friends in an INTJ, and he is also a game designer. He does not even understand JCE or MBTI, or any other typology model, but by nature, pure natural law, he surrounds himself with Ne and Ti, INTPs and ENTPs.

Wanna know why?

Because when an INTP and ENTP test his games, our Ne comes up with lots of cools stuff that can also be in his game, and our Ti comes up with prescriptions for what is working well and not so well in his games. Our Ne is expanding the Ni of his game, giving him more possibilities to make the game more interesting, and our Ti is making the Te of the game stronger, making it do what it is supposed to do better.

Again, he did not set this up on purpose, he merely realized it by nature, because the natural law of Te to ti and Ne to Ni inspiration speaks for itself.

Have you read Psychological Types? Ti and Te are, in fact, polar opposites. That idea comes straight from C.G. Jung himself, not John Beebe!

Both T functions deal with impersonal structural reasoning, but they approach it from perfectly opposite directions.

As we say on Per-N,

TiFe = My thoughts; our values.
FiTe = My values; our thoughts.

Ti is far, far more related to and compatible with Fe than it is with Te. The functions don't exist in isolation--only in pairs. Using only one half of the pair misses half of the full picture.

But each pair has another pair that totally contradicts it. Ti and Fe can and do coexist within the same individual when developed well--they provide a sense of balance and more complete understanding. But Ti and Te cannot and never will exist in the same individual because they provide conflicting axioms upon which to build one's worldview.

If you think you understand ENTJs better than everyone else, you probably don't really grasp what Te is enough to see why it so grossly contradicts your entire worldview. They may get along well with you and even like you, but they're still going to go home and complain to their INTJ buddies that "That silly NTP doesn't understand TeFi (or NiSe) at all!"

Do you know what the problem with your understanding is?

You value the theory more than you value the phenomenon. The reason I know (that's right, KNOW, not believe) that my understanding of the dynamic between types like ENTJ+INTP, or INTJ+ENTP, or other inspirationals is based in reality. I can physically (not figuratively) see these energy relationships taking place, and I could even point them out to you when they are occurring in front of us. Personality type is a phenomenon that exists in reality, and when we make a theory out of this phenomenon the goal is to capture and explain it as accurately as possible. I can do a great job explaining the principles behind the phenomenon just fine, but that is not what makes them true, as we all know as sound explanation is not equal to truth. What makes them true is the fact that they are actually happening in reality.

It does not matter what Jung said, Jung was wrong.

Yeah, I said it, and I will say it again. If Jung missed out on this crucial dynamic and misinterpreted it, then he was wrong, and his status as an authority is irrelevant. What you are doing is you are allowing the theory to blind you from the phenomenon. You should be basing your theory on reality, not basing your reality on the theory. You ridiculed me about not being as familiar with exactly what Jung said earliar, and I will openly admit, I am actually not that familiar with very much of Jungs work (although yes I have read psychological types.) The fact is, I don't need to be. Because the natural phenomenon will exist no matter what, and my understanding did not come from someone else's theory painting my reality, it came from my reality painting my understanding, where it should for you too if you actually want to have an accurate understanding of this topic.

So there.

 

[InvisibleJim]

I'm sorry Adymus, but I think you are stating a lot of things that are obvious and that we all agree on. I'm not really sure what your complaint is.

I was always of the opinion that if the theory doesn't match the practical scenario then improve; it doesn't mean that best route is to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[Jennywocky]

You know ENTPs are always doubleteaming the internet Jenny. They are akin to a hideous fungal bloom that threatens to overwhelm us all.

Are they poisonous to humanity, or are they edible enough that I can put them on a spinach salad and digest them nicely over the course of an evening?


(more srsly, I'm still trying to read the rest. Adymus really added to thread length and digestion time.)

 

[GarmGarf]

(more srsly, I'm still trying to read the rest. Adymus really added to thread length and digestion time.)

Wouldn't expect any less.


But to back up Adymus, even when in belief that I was an INTP (for reference, I am an INFJ), I've found that I had an affinity towards ENFPs. I stated that "they were my favourite type to have as friends". I also had some sort of affinity towards INFJs, but it was different; kind of a mystical admiration (remember, at the time I believed I was an INTP; perhaps my unconscious mind was attempting to discover itself).

Anyways, I talk about some of this stuff sometimes to my friends, and one of them was like "there is no way that you have so many friends of the same type", when I said that I thought many of the people in one of my "groups of friends" may be ENFPs (actually, one of them, who I thought was an ENFP, might actually be an INFJ; I'll have to properly read him).


I have a question, Adymus: I understand how, say INTJs, would find ENTPs inspiring, but would it not be true that INTJs would in fact "get" other INTJs more than they would ENTPs? Maybe INTJs would "get" ENTPs more than ENTJs; maybe the degree to which an INTJ would "get" another INTJ more than the degree to which they'd get an ENTP could be very low (say, 1% difference).

I can understand that an INTJ maybe would find an ENTP (and even INTP or ENFP) much more inspiring than another INTJ, and that an INTJ and ENTP would compliment each other in terms of roles & etc that would more than compensate for that little difference of "getting" another INTJ more, but does that difference not in fact exist?

 

[Auburn]

*agrees with adymus*

Yes, I can definitely see the affinity of the Ti-Te relationship. My best friend for many years was an INTJ and we were constant video/card game rivals. I found it fascinating that in arranging his deck/team he'd go about it very differently than I, but somehow in the end we still ended up breaking even. It was just plain ridiculous how hair-thin the victories were sometimes.

And in another friendship with an ENTJ, we were able to crack a game farther than anyone had done. I used Ti to understand the principles in which a game was programmed, and then we exposed the flaws in the game and basically tore it to shreds - without the help of an external device - walking over any landscape, through doors, manipulating it however we liked. (yea, I know. all non-geeks are going "okay....so?" by now. but we did it without a tutorial. hell, we were the ones writing tutorials online for others.)

But as for Jung, I think to say something so general as "Jung was wrong" is a complete inaccuracy if you're just disagreeing with a particular dynamic he described. He was not completely wrong, but neither would I expect the originator of anything to be completely correct. The first draft is always sketchy, and then refined later by others unto perfection. That does not make all his work void.

Every single concept stands on it's own grounds, and should be examined separate from the originator. If Jung as a person/human had a worldview that didn't mirror reality at 100% (who the hell does?) then take what he was right about, and discard what he was wrong about. No need to re-invent the wheel, as they say.



P.S.

I have the exact same question as GarmGraf. With these friends, I have the most fun with and feel energized with them, but if I sit down to talk deeply with them, I start to see a lot of differences in how we see reality - which ultimately creates a barrier to how well I can truly "identify" with them. Granted identifying with someone is not necessary to be inspired by them, but I wouldn't say ENTJs "get" INTPs the most. Instead, I would maybe say that ENTJs "appreciate" the existence and gifts of INTPs more than any other type.(?) Something bad always happens when I talk to Adymus... >>

 

[Adymus]

I'm sorry Adymus, but I think you are stating a lot of things that are obvious and that we all agree on. I'm not really sure what your complaint is.

I was always of the opinion that if the theory doesn't match the practical scenario then improve; it doesn't mean that best route is to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Who is we?

I would not have spoken up in the first place if I felt "we" were in agreement. I certainly don't think SW would have made the trip here from Personalitynation-land if he felt I was agreeing with his initial point.

Look, I'm an INTP, accuracy is always srs bsns to me, if one calculation is wrong then all calculations based on that calculation are going to be wrong. Throwing the baby out with the bath water, in my opinion would be for completely different reasons. In short, those reasons being because an entire paradigm shift is neccesary to see things as they are. Even though you guys denounce MBTI, it left a lot of bad habits behind, and I can still see you guys typing people based on flawed prejudices and stereotype. Even though you are going to deny that you do, I can see this happening. And it is not you, it is because your theory permits this, and more accurately because you have no choice, it is all a guessing game to you guys. So from my perspective, correcting one or two things does not solve the problem because those mistakes were founded on many fundamental flaws. And if I am going to spend that much time correcting so many components in one model, why not just use a better model? Which I have, so yeah, I'll just be throwing this baby out now.

Edit: Don't get me wrong, I actually liked 90% of what has been said by SW in the OP, that is a hell of a lot more than I usually find myself agreeing with in this arena. However, I take perfectionism to a cosmic level, and getting one calculation wrong could mean the difference between success and failure, and that is just something I can't be at peace with. To a Ti dom, there is no good enough, if something has the capacity to be perfected, then we will accept nothing less than perfection.

Auburn, I was not actually saying Jung was wrong about everything, obviously he had a profound insight into the natural law behind this. I was merely disenchanting the attempted appeal to authority SW was placing on me. Furthermore, there is a LOT that Jung missed, so thinking that he is the end all authority on typology would be making a huge mistake.

 

[Adymus]

I have a question, Adymus: I understand how, say INTJs, would find ENTPs inspiring, but would it not be true that INTJs would in fact "get" other INTJs more than they would ENTPs? Maybe INTJs would "get" ENTPs more than ENTJs; maybe the degree to which an INTJ would "get" another INTJ more than the degree to which they'd get an ENTP could be very low (say, 1% difference).

I can understand that an INTJ maybe would find an ENTP (and even INTP or ENFP) much more inspiring than another INTJ, and that an INTJ and ENTP would compliment each other in terms of roles & etc that would more than compensate for that little difference of "getting" another INTJ more, but does that difference not in fact exist?

Yes this is true too. Same types do get each other in the sense that they are recognizing another person that is living the same story as they are. but with each comes a different kind of "getting each other", because with the two inspirational types, it is more than that, they are living the missing half of each others stories. While the same types are on parallel roads, inspirationals on a the the same roads.

 

[Deridaburi]

I like the first paragraph here, but your last sentence is way off. If you've never developed a close relationship with an SFJ you probably won't see why, but the amount we can learn from them (and they from us) is staggering. We just don't really realize it until we grow up enough to appreciate what they have to teach us (and vice versa.)

The basis of this argument seems to imply Ad Hominem, it is part of the theory it self, which makes it complicated. I wonder if/how it would be possible to argue that theory without implying Ad Hominem.

This is where you say "Alright, enough from the peanut gallery".

 

[InvisibleJim]

Who is we?

I would not have spoken up in the first place if I felt "we" were in agreement. I certainly don't think SW would have made the trip here from Personalitynation-land if he felt I was agreeing with his initial point.

Quite simple my good man; what you did was take something that had little or nothing directly to do with anything posted in the OP and claim that SW was an idiot because he didn't address it.

As an extroverted perceiver and thus being quite sensitive to external opinion it was always going to be the case that SW would be destined to reply in a negative way to attempt to restore credibility even if it was not neccessary; because, in actual fact from reading SW's posts elsewhere he agrees with your position; you simply assumed that he does not and I don't know where you got your evidence from because he didn't actually discuss the points you raised.

For example: 'we' would be everyone who has posted in this thread and we would agree that dominant intuitives or dominant thinkers 'jive together' and various other combinations for various other reasons.

These articles follow the traditional balance of productivity where you can have two out three: time x length x accuracy.

Everyone has an individual balance and there is little to be gained by criticising that balance by pointing at a 'slight difference that you don't agree with' on reference 12, page 20, paragraph 2 (/end sarcasm).

A little wiggle room and tolerance is good for the soul. Although obviously if something is blatantly wrong I'm the first to jump on someone's back and start complaining.

I was encouraged to hear that you agreed with most of the post; I'm often discouraged by the loose 'I use Si to find problems and then turn on my Se to dance' viewpoints of journeyman typologists that makes me cringe. I think at some point someone ran around writing 'behavioural mishmashed with cognitive' archetypes and no-one called them on it. Perhaps I should blame Keirsey, but he was unlikely to have been the first.

I would be interested if you could put the time aside to write some detailed typology articles; I feel that the advancement of typology is well served by people doing so and it has a net positive benefit to the typology community as a whole. Unfortunately as an INTJ I haven't wrote any INTP focused articles. I don't have enough personal experience to feel that I can give the deserved and correct respect to the INTP mindset.

 

[simulatedworld]

And that is not what I said either.


Again, I never said that is what you were claiming. Although I disagree with the energy relationship you are describing between these two types. I'll go more into that below.



Okay right here is one of the main parts that you and I are really not seeing eye to eye on, although there are several. So you are not assuming that all types ultimately converge in the same place, but for the wrong reasons. Personality types will never become perfectly balanced, not because we do not have an unlimited amount of time to develop, but because we are not actually designed to be perfectly balanced. No matter how well developed you are, there is a biological pathway to how our functions are accessed, this is the hierarchy of our cognitive functions. Furthermore we are designed to be a collective production line. Every one of us gains most of our energy from the use and validation of our dominant functions, and even when we access our lower functions, we are doing it to refine, perfect, and express the materials that came from our dominant function. We do not develop functions to become more understanding of the people around us, that is just one of its benefits, we do it to do our job better, and our job is to excel at producing the materials of our Dominant functions. No matter how developed and mature you are, you will always get your energy from the stimulation of you your dominant function, lower functions will always be best accessed in your hierarchy, and the lower functions will always maintain a lower position of priority than your dominant function. That is not perfect balance.

We're not actually "designed" to be anything. We're just products of natural selection.

The thing I believe you're missing here is that the weaker functions derive from the stronger ones. Yes, having Ti stimulated is the most exciting and fulfilling thing for an INTP, but learning to appreciate the weaker functions is something that is invariably understood through the lens of Ti!

So learning to appreciate Ne/Si/Fe more, for an INTP, will stimulate his Ti by giving him new ways to think about creating a more complete internal understanding of the causal principles of the universe. He will always understand everything most naturally in terms of Ti, but why do you assume that studying Ne/Si/Fe requires him to stop using Ti?

It doesn't! Those attitudes simply derive from Ti for the INTP and end up rounding out and giving his Ti more things to think about. It's not, "Oh I am going to shut off my Ti so that I can study Fe now"; it's, "Oh I am going to stretch my Ti so that I can understand how Fe actually makes a lot of sense in Ti terms, once I get enough experience with it to really understand it."

And so hanging out with well-balanced ESFJs will provide a huge amount of Ti stimulation, because it lets the INTP find more new and exciting applications for Ti, by applying it to understanding the value in attitudes and value systems which are less familiar.

You don't have to stop using Ti to start learning about the other functions...quite the opposite, in fact.

I am aware that this is about recognizing the value of Fe, and not entirely about the ability to use Fe well. But you should understand that this recognition addresses many factors, and not just how well developed you are.

It also addresses how well-developed the SFJs you are dealing with are. If they're not well-balanced, then it can be awfully hard to have productive relationships with them.

The biggest factor that you and many many others are completely missing is my response to this quote: The energy relationships that exist between types. The most energizing force for an INTP is to have their Ti stimulated, and to have the materials or their Ti validated. The same concept goes for the ESFJ, it is to have their Fe stimulated and to have their heroic endeavors (which is how they see their Fe use) validated. Your dominant function is an endless fountain of gifts that we cannot help but produce. They simply flow out of us, not because we want to, not because we "like doing it", but because it is our oxygen, and to halt our dominant function's production is to halt all production. When our dominant function is given work or an opportunity to shine, it is filled with energy and the heroic drive to power all of the lower functions below it. This never changes no matter how developed you are.

This whole paragraph is predicated on the erroneous assumption that learning more Ne/Si/Fe from other types requires temporarily blocking out Ti, or ceasing to do what is naturally most stimulating to you.

It's not about turning off Ti; it's about realizing that Ne/Si/Fe actually provide incredibly fascinating and stimulating new ways to continue stretching and improving Ti itself...that is what makes SFJs so fascinating from an NTP standpoint.

Now then, there are many environmental energies from people or things that will cause one to attempt to access one's Tertiary or Inferior functions out of hierarchical order. In every single case this will be seen as an impingement, draining one of energy, and will be surpressive of one's higher functions. The greatest extent being from modulation from an inferior function, and to a lesser extent from the tertiary. When these lower functions are accessed on the terms of the higher functions, they will be accessed with more ease, confidence of use, and to access the out of order is the opposite, and possible even with resentment.

The functions don't exist in isolation. They are all part of one bigger process. Improving the tertiary/inferior is not suppressive of the higher functions. Part of maturation is learning to recognize that all of your functions can and should work together as one smooth and well-oiled machine instead of being threatened or annoyed by the weaker ones.

For an NTP, Si derives from Ne; Fe derives from Ti. It's just a matter of building enough experience and perspective to see why for yourself. Once you learn to do this, the weaker functions will no longer seem like taxing chores, but like infinitely interesting explorations of new Ti/Ne terrain.

I explain this to you so I can get to my main point, this does not change when you develop your lower functions. Because a well developed INTP does not turn you into an ESFJ, and I don't think you quite understand what I mean when I say this. I am not talking about how well you use Fe, not at all, I am talking about what you are energized by. No matter how well developed an your Inferior function is, it will always be your most energy draining and impinging function, and to have it pulled on or accessed outside of your hierarchy will always come with difficulty and fatigue, because we are designed to access these functions in a pathway that begins at the dominant function. This never changes no matter how developed you are. A well developed INTP is not stimulated by Fe, they get their energy from Ti, and Fe will always be surpressing to this Ti. No matter how well developed either types are, their endless fountain of materials and heroic gifts will be the gifts of their dominant functions, and whether you like it or not, the gifts of an ESFJ are just not stimulating for an INTP, and the gifts of an INTP are just not stimulating for an ESFJ. In fact it is just the opposite, the gifts that the ESFJ strive to produce will always impinge on the INTP, and the same goes for the other way around. This is why an ESFJ is actually one of the worst candidates to help an INTP develop their lower functions. Because the way that the ESFJ will want the INTP and vice versa to access their lower functions will be out of their hierarchical order, thus the relationship is surpressive, and not inspirational.

Ti doesn't require suppression of Fe or vice versa! People who say this invariably suck at their weaker functions. Ti and Fe are part of the same whole.

Ti *does* require suppressing Te and Fi, however, which is why they are not part of the same cognitive function hierarchy. The point here is to become comfortable with your complete and whole self and stop viewing your less pronounced attitudes as foreign or alien or in conflict with your primary ones.

tbh it just sounds like you are having a lot of trouble with Fe development and so you've made an erroneous assumption that it's unnatural for you. It may be difficult for you, but look at INTPs in their 50s and beyond: some of them have extraordinary command of Fe. You don't learn to push yourself into painful or difficult territory; you learn why that territory is actually far more comfortable and familiar than you realize thus far.

With maturity, the two types might learn to respect each other, and even appreciate each other, but they will not be energized by each other, and that simply will not change no matter how you slice it. This segues perfectly to my next point, because the ENTJ is actually the perfect candidate to help an INTP access their lower functions. Let's read on!

Have you ever developed a truly deep, close relationship with a well-balanced SFJ?

Didn't think so. If you had you wouldn't still be calling them boring and unstimulating--they're anything but. You just need to learn why their strengths can actually be understood and applied in terms of Ti, and can teach you a lot without requiring you to shift your focus too far away from that which is most comfortable to you.

You've developed closer relationships with NTJs than with SFJs because they share some shallow surface characteristics with you--i.e., a more impersonal/logical focus, more interest in analysis and abstract theory, etc. etc. You are noting surface similarities but missing the deeper picture in terms of underlying motivations, and thus you still don't understand how to relate to SFJs. You think you're relating deeply to NTJs, but you're not--you just get along better with them because:

A) They have similar surface interests a lot of the time, and
B) You don't understand SFJs or your weaker functions enough to recognize why they are, on a deep level, far more similar to you than NTJs will ever be.

You don't really seem to realize how deeply the way they view these topics differs from the fundamental axioms of your outlook. "We both like math and card games" is not a deep relationship; it's just a shallow surface similarity.

This is exactly why MBTI is awful--it focuses on surface similarities and actions instead of underlying psychological needs and motivations, and you've made exactly the same mistake.

Sharing no function attitudes is completely irrelevant to the energy relationships between two types. Ti and Te speak the same "language", as I like to call it, the language of Logic-based discernment. You see, my Ti and your Ti does not actually give a shit how a person came to their conclusion. My Ti recognizes logic as strong and valuable, so if you can present your position in a logically sound form, my Ti will think you are a bad ass no matter if you are a Te user or Ti user. Logic is logic is logic, and as an INTP I place value in the ability to be clear headed and make sound discernment, there is another type that values this exact same thing, they are called ENTJs. Nobody gives a shit where logic is derived, all that matters is how strong is it.

This is all horribly inaccurate. I suggest rereading Psychological Types if you don't think anyone gives a shit where logic derives from.

That is the crux of the difference between Te and Ti. If you think NTJs are conceptualizing logic and structure the same way you are, you're sorely mistaken. They just happen to have similar surface interests--but that doesn't really mean a lot in the grand scheme of things.

If you had a deeper understanding of Si/Fe, you'd be able to find a lot more common interests with SFJs, and you'd find that they can teach you a tremendous amount about your areas of interest and vice versa. You probably just don't really ever give them an opportunity to do this because it requires stretching too far out of what you assume is your natural cognitive territory.

With a little shift in perspective, you'll begin to see that your natural cognitive territory extends in a lot of directions you haven't yet given much consideration.

And I would argue that you do not see that this principle extends to Ti and Te also being a part of this larger process. It is all Non-duality, it is all one process, even if you cannot see it for yourself. You see, without Te, Ti cannot exist. To put it into a metaphor, Te is the rules of the game, and Ti is the player of the game. Without the Rules there is no game, and without the player there is no point. Te actually needs to Ti, and it works the other way around. You see, Ti cannot begin to work on discerning what works or what doesn't work, or what is weak or strong if there is no criteria for what decides what is or is not successful, Ti needs mission parameters, rules of the game if you will. Ti's job is to find perfection, the strongest position, and it cannot do this if there is no criteria for perfection, Te is what give Ti this criteria. Similarly Ti is what determines what principles work and do not work on a situational basis, Te would not exist if there was not a system of principles that causes certain things to be effective or ineffective. It is through this dynamic of principles that Te can build parameters in which goals are set or decided, and it cannot be done without them.

Oh boy, the old "Ti and Te are two sides of the same coin" argument. Yeah this one is going around type forums and literature like the plague, but it couldn't be more wrong. What you need to figure out is that Ti and Fe are two sides of the same coin, two parts of the same integral whole. There are two judgment philosophies: TiFe and FiTe. Ti and Te are so radically different in so many fundamental ways that you haven't even begun to recognize yet, and here you assume they are similar simply because you have NTJ friends and no SFJ friends.

Surface similarities and common interests =/= true cognitive similarity. You just aren't comfortable enough with SiFe yet to recognize how much SFJs have to offer you, and you've never developed deep enough relationships with your NTJ buddies to see how vastly they really differ from you.

Goals and parameters can be set and defined through Fe just as well as Te. In fact, balanced Fe goals and parameters appeal much more highly to Ti than do Te goals and parameters, because Fe and Ti are ultimately the same thing.

TiFe derives logic from the self, and ethics from the collective.
FiTe derives ethics from the self, and logic from the collective.

Any ENTJ worth a damn will quickly recognize that it is crucial to their success that they keep lots of Ti near by.

lol no, not really. ENTJs don't value Ti on a fundamental level. They can learn to get along with Ti types through communication skills, but ultimately the internal Ji compass they're looking at for subjective value judgments is based squarely on Fi, not Ti. They derive ethics subjectively and logic objectively: you do the opposite.

You know why? Because it is an ENTJs ultimate goal in life to create strong, effective, and efficient workflows, and it is an INTP's most givable gift to willingly produce and present the perfection of systems, finding what is strong and what is weak in models, when their are strong and when they are weak, and then presenting them so their discernment can be applied and understood. When this Ti is applied to an ENTJs workflow, every cog and component in that workflow become stronger, more effective, and more effecient, creating a solid water tight workflow that is not only implemented well it actually works well in reality as opposed to is supposed to work.
When an ENTJ applies Ti, their frameworks and models become stronger, and when that happens they can defeat crush the models of other ENTJs who didn't apply Ti. And if I know my ENTJs, I know they love crushing models with their own.

ENTJs don't apply Ti because it contradicts their basic worldview. You have some reading to do, my friend.

ENTJs crush the models of other ENTJs who didn't apply Fi, not Ti. Te and Fi balance each other out as the user gradually recognizes that they are part of the same whole process.

Te tells them to derive logic from an externalized, collective, objective standard. "What do the experts say is logical and efficient? What source outside of me should I place my trust in to tell me what is logical?"

This combines with Fi to help them derive ethics from an internal, subjective standard. "What do my personal values, feelings and ethics tell me is inherently moral or immoral, independently of any external views or ideas?"

For TiFe types, though, this process is inverted: Ti asks, "What does my internal understanding of natural reasoning tell me is inherently logical and consistent, independent of what any external influence says?"

And Fe chimes in: "What do the people I consider myself emotionally connected to say about what is ethical and moral? What external standard apart from myself should I trust to help me decide what constitutes objectively ethical behavior?"

This is what it takes an ENTJ to truly appreciate the genious of an INTP, because an INTP actually sees the world in a way that is very different, yet exactly the same as the ENTJ. We both come from a position that values what is logically strong above all else. Don't forget, for an ENTJ, that Te is their world, it is their baby, and if an INTP can not only competently perfect their baby, but also get off on doing it too, then this INTP creature is clearly god's gift to mankind, they will think.
That is only the half of it, that is only how an INTP improves and inspires the ENTJs, now let's see how it works the other way, shall we?

This is just horribly inaccurate; ENTJs rarely appreciate "the true genius" of an INTP, because their Te, their "baby", as you put it, completely contradicts everything Ti believes about how the self and its relationship to the outer world should be understood.

Ti doesn't complete Te's worldview; Te users just recognize that they can derive some objective benefit from some of your ideas. That's a far cry from fully and completely identifying with the way your understanding works. They're not doing that, and don't let them fool you into thinking they are.

If you can get one of your ENTJ friends to honestly and openly criticize what he thinks your faults are, you'll invariably find that he'll point straight at your focus on subjective logic and objective ethics.

Since TeFi types derive logic objectively and ethics subjectively, they will almost always point to this difference as the biggest problem with FeTi types, even if they don't realize that's what their criticisms reduce to. That doesn't stop a smart ENTJ from recognizing that his goals can benefit from working with you, but it doesn't mean he truly grasps or appreciates the core of your value system and outlook.

Expression and implementation is the biggest problem for an INTP... It's that damn Fe inferior. Coming up with strong positions and sound understanding of priciples is the easy part, the hard part comes to an INTP when it comes time to actually apply our understandings and do something with them. With an Fe inferior, the world of dynamics, implementation, and pushing forward with agendas is a very unfamiliar place, not to meantion it is difficult for us to reach on command.

Sure, until you learn that Fe is really just another facet of Ti, and then it all just kind of falls into place.

Wait... what? The ENTJs eat implementation and expression for breakfast? You don't say...

ENTJs eat implementation for breakfast, but the way they implement ideas is based on different fundamental axioms about the self and the external world than you. They may learn to work with you, but don't let that make you think they fully identify or agree with the way you conceptualize yourself and the world around you.

Hint about Te: It does whatever it needs to do to get the goal completed. If that means biting their tongue about all the things they think your worldview gets wrong, then they'll do that, as long as it promotes efficient productivity.

If you really understood SFJs you'd recognize that, when they and you are both well-balanced, their Fe actually helps apply your Ti prerogatives to externalized goals in ways that are far more consistent with both their principles and yours.

You probably just don't know any well-balanced SFJs, so you don't have the experiential basis to derive this just yet.

When an INTP actually does come forward to push with their Fe and express what they have found to be the strongest and most precise position, the ENTJ will want to come out and defend this position, because they will recognize it as the strongest idea in play. They will want to use this position as a foundation and launch point for implementation, because when new principles are understood, they can always be applied right after.

Uhhhh, no. ENTJs don't defend Fe. ENTJs despise Fe because Fi finds it shallow and ridiculous to allow any external influence to affect their personal moral identities. FiTe = My values, our thoughts.

This also goes into what I said above, that the ENTJ and INTP can help each other reach their lower functions, and here is why:

The INTPs and ENTJ both energize each other, they both reccognize each other's gifts (materials of their dominant functions) as something that is both interesting and important/Heroic. This does three things: A.) it provides both types with energy, 2.) it validates both of their gifts, giving them a greater sense of purpose and making them want to produce more, and again gives them more energy, 3.) It inspires them to reach the far sides of their psyche, when they recognize that they are doing essentially the same thing, but in extremely unfamiliar ways. Meaning the INTP excels in strong personal discernment, an area that is held by Fi for an ENTJ, and very unfamiliar for them, and an ENTJ excels in moving through and manipulating external dynamics, an area that is held by Fe for an INTP, and very unfamiliar for them as well.

The ENTJ recognizes your gifts, sure. And he also recognizes how he can use them to further his own goals. That doesn't mean he agrees or identifies with your worldview, just that you can provide some kind of utility to him, so he'll take the opportunity.

I suggest that you have some deep conversation with your ENTJ friends regarding the differences in your fundamental worldviews, in the way you derive logic and ethics. You may find some shocking differences that you hadn't anticipated or considered.

An ENTJ inspires to reach out and express their Ti's discernment, and they will be doings so with Fe, and an INTP inspires the ENTJ to feel strongly about what they have accomplished, and does so with Fi.

ENTJs don't have Ti; any introverted judgment you see coming from them is based squarely in Fi. They don't do anything with Fe; any extroverted judgment you see coming from them is based squarely on Te.

You may be trying to teach them some sort of TiFe ideals, but they're still going to take those ideas, spin them around in Fi and then end up applying them externally in a Te way. You don't seem to understand the basic philosophical differences in worldviews between TeFi and FeTi--but you really should read up on it if you want to complete your understanding of this topic.

Again I will ask, have you read Psychological Types?

The main principle behind cognitive function inspiration, is that it causes functions to produce more work, more rapidly, and with more energy behind it. At best the energy relationship that your INTP+ESFJ shares is a spark, but between an INTP and ENTJ is potentially an explosion.

Not nearly as amazing an explosion as INTP+ESFJ, assuming both are mature and well-balanced enough to handle each other.

You've mistaken surface similarities and common interests for true cognitive identification, which I'm afraid is a very grave mistake, indeed.

I'm not saying you should stop being friends with your ENTJ buddies--there's definitely a lot of value in having ENTJ friends. But you've convinced yourself they really understand/identify with/complete you, when in reality their private philosophical views contradict yours in a number of ways that would likely make you very uncomfortable if they shared all of them with you.

Nope? That is your argument? Well then, I just gave you a basis for my claim, it is a fucking doosy but it is rock solid.

One of my best friends in an INTJ, and he is also a game designer. He does not even understand JCE or MBTI, or any other typology model, but by nature, pure natural law, he surrounds himself with Ne and Ti, INTPs and ENTPs.

Wanna know why?

Because when an INTP and ENTP test his games, our Ne comes up with lots of cools stuff that can also be in his game, and our Ti comes up with prescriptions for what is working well and not so well in his games. Our Ne is expanding the Ni of his game, giving him more possibilities to make the game more interesting, and our Ti is making the Te of the game stronger, making it do what it is supposed to do better.

Again, he did not set this up on purpose, he merely realized it by nature, because the natural law of Te to ti and Ne to Ni inspiration speaks for itself.

lol, this happens because:

A) Neither of you is confident or competent enough in your weaker functions to appreciate the types that are actually more similar to you than each other, and
B) You have similar surface interests and you think this constitutes a deep level of cognitive similarity, but it doesn't.

Just like the ENTJ, if an INTJ sees that he can garner useful applications toward his goals from interacting with you, then he will. But he won't like or agree with the ideas your worldview is founded upon, and if you think he does then he's done a great job of simply avoiding issues which may cause disagreement with you.

After all, causing disagreement with you might get in the way of the external goals he's identified as the primary reason for interacting with you. And Te certainly wouldn't want that, now would it?

Do you know what the problem with your understanding is?

You value the theory more than you value the phenomenon.

rofl @ INTP telling ENTP he relies too much on theory and too little on real experience.

Who do you think you're talking to? I'm an Ne dominant; we predicate our entire lives on generating as many real experiences as possible so that we can derive the most complete understanding through the experience itself.

It seems apparent to me from this discussion that my real experience with typological differences (including my several very robust and substantial relationships with SFJs in my life) dwarfs yours.

I also have some pretty good relationships with NTJs, but they don't really compare to the depth of my identification with the well-balanced SFJs because ultimately, our worldviews are simply based on completely different axioms.

I play cards games and computer games with NTJs too, and I've worked on creative projects with them as well. They can certainly be productive in that regard, but it sounds to me as if you simply have never developed a deep enough relationship with any of them (or with any SFJs) to know the difference between "we have some common interests and surface similarities" and "our cognitive hierarchies actually operate on fundamentally similar premises."

Don't tell me about "real experience"--ENTPs are the ones out there having the real experiences that INTPs spend their whole days theorizing about in their basements. I've typed more people than you've probably met in your entire life.

The reason I know (that's right, KNOW, not believe) that my understanding of the dynamic between types like ENTJ+INTP, or INTJ+ENTP, or other inspirationals is based in reality. I can physically (not figuratively) see these energy relationships taking place, and I could even point them out to you when they are occurring in front of us. Personality type is a phenomenon that exists in reality, and when we make a theory out of this phenomenon the goal is to capture and explain it as accurately as possible. I can do a great job explaining the principles behind the phenomenon just fine, but that is not what makes them true, as we all know as sound explanation is not equal to truth. What makes them true is the fact that they are actually happening in reality.

Really? Cause I have a feeling the reason you "know" this to be the case is that you lack the experiential breadth of relationships with enough different types of people to really have a solid basis for comparison here.

Come back and talk to me when you've developed a deeply personal relationship with an SFJ, and maybe I'll take your claims a little more seriously. Until then I'm forced to assume you simply lack the experience to know what you're talking about.

It's hysterical to me that an INTP is telling an ENTP to let go of the pure theory and focus on the external realities around him. We're the ones who teach you that. Where do you think I derived the majority of my type theories? It certainly wasn't from reading books--it was from meeting and interacting with a great many different people in a great many different contexts.

Nothing substitutes for real experience--you just don't have enough of it yet to see why mine trumps yours.

It does not matter what Jung said, Jung was wrong.

Yeah, I said it, and I will say it again. If Jung missed out on this crucial dynamic and misinterpreted it, then he was wrong, and his status as an authority is irrelevant. What you are doing is you are allowing the theory to blind you from the phenomenon. You should be basing your theory on reality, not basing your reality on the theory. You ridiculed me about not being as familiar with exactly what Jung said earliar, and I will openly admit, I am actually not that familiar with very much of Jungs work (although yes I have read psychological types.) The fact is, I don't need to be. Because the natural phenomenon will exist no matter what, and my understanding did not come from someone else's theory painting my reality, it came from my reality painting my understanding, where it should for you too if you actually want to have an accurate understanding of this topic.

So there.

I didn't really even claim that Jung was an authority. It's my personal opinion in my extensive experience with knowing, typing and interacting with hundreds of people of all different types that Fe and Ti (as well as TeFi, NeSi and SeNi) are all two sides of the same pair.

I would suggest considering that most ENTPs probably have more direct experiential basis from which to derive this sort of typological idea than you do--especially ENTPs as experienced in typology as I am.

You may not know me, but I'm kind of a big deal in online typology circles. I've definitely read all of the source material on this topic, but that's by no means the primary method by which I derive typological ideas. This is coming straight from my personal experiences, and I've had enough relationships with enough different people (including several extremely deep, interesting, fascinating and challenging relationships with SFJs) to know that you're way off base in most of your claims here.

So there.

 

[GarmGarf]

Simulatedworld, would you be willing to give Adymus a short video of yourself?

 

[Fukyo]

I like where this thread is going.

 

[Limit]

LOL this shit is fun, isn’t it?

 

[Dreamweaver]

I hope I didn't miss anything because I've been skimming mostly...

So, kkkk, the focus here seems to be interpersonal relationships?

One is arguing that due to the shared energies (T N S F for INTP and ENTJ) there will be a natural connection of mutual understanding which has a unique feel to it because both types share the same order.

The other one argues that due to the shared functions (Ne Ti Fe Si for ENTP and ISFJ) there will be a similar connection erupting once both types have put work behind developing all of their tendencies (functions).

That's fine and dandy and I could probably throw in some personal ideas about this as well backed up by a quick theory, but that's not the most relevant point here. Because realistically we end up having unique bonds with a variety of people anyhow, depending on our openness and decisions.

What matters is the clear distinction between the fact that both simulatedworld and Adymus are advocating different ideas only to say a similar thing.

simulatedworld is advocating people need to find reason in developing their type as a whole without applying biases that are too general and so eliminating, which is a good point: never dismiss people based on a one sided judgment because you're just going to come off rigid and close minded and you may retard yourself this way.

Adymus is advocating people need to develop understanding in people's original and/or most fundamental energies (how very symbolic of you, Ti! no sarcasm btw)... And apparently, to also find connections based off those energies that you can be made aware of. It reminds me of yin yang sex for some reason. Whereas simulatedworld reminds me of haters turning into lovers. But anyways:

Both obviously care about FINDING WAYS OF HOW TO CONNECT TO PEOPLE ON VARIOUS LEVELS but they just tackle it from another point of view.

Both are equally relevant in terms of increasing deeper sorts of connections/potential understanding through frameworks of understanding which transcend our egotistical desires or limitations.

Yet we cannot fully separate ourselves from our ego when forming bonds which is why these discussions about "SO WHICH ONE IS THE BEST OTHER HALF TO MY EGO?" are occurring persistently, in the same way Lady Gaga sings about her Alejandro, hurray...



Seriously guys, this is getting funny, but I'mma love it anyhow.
*feels the connection*

 

[terraxceles]

I just came online to say...

But to back up Adymus, even when in belief that I was an INTP (for reference, I am an INFJ), I've found that I had an affinity towards ENFPs. I stated that "they were my favourite type to have as friends". I also had some sort of affinity towards INFJs, but it was different; kind of a mystical admiration (remember, at the time I believed I was an INTP; perhaps my unconscious mind was attempting to discover itself).

I agree with this/Adymus. I get along with ENFPs more than any other type and prefer them as friends rather than, say, ESTPs (whom I find incredibly frustrating and unrewarding).

My INFP friend also loves ENFJs and finds dominant Fe extremely inspiring.

That is all.

*poof*

 

[Deridaburi]

Regardless of who is right or wrong, or if there is a write or wrong, I should have no say in the matter...

Really? Cause I have a feeling the reason you "know" this to be the case is that you lack the experiential breadth of relationships with enough different types of people to really have a solid basis for comparison here.

Come back and talk to me when you've developed a deeply personal relationship with an SFJ, and maybe I'll take your claims a little more seriously. Until then I'm forced to assume you simply lack the experience to know what you're talking about.

It's hysterical to me that an INTP is telling an ENTP to let go of the pure theory and focus on the external realities around him. We're the ones who teach you that. Where do you think I derived the majority of my type theories? It certainly wasn't from reading books--it was from meeting and interacting with a great many different people in a great many different contexts.

Nothing substitutes for real experience--you just don't have enough of it yet to see why mine trumps yours.

This seems to be Ad Hominem again.

You may not know me, but I'm kind of a big deal in online typology circles. I've definitely read all of the source material on this topic, but that's by no means the primary method by which I derive typological ideas. This is coming straight from my personal experiences, and I've had enough relationships with enough different people (including several extremely deep, interesting, fascinating and challenging relationships with SFJs) to know that you're way off base in most of your claims here.

Is this an appeal to one's own authority?

Assuming that you are correct, it would make sense that it would be possible to effectively argue your case without committing logical fallacies. It seems as though you are simply stating this as an auto-win button and that would be counter intuitive. Even so it is not required to be an experienced debater to be experienced at typology.

For example if there was a proffessor and a student, and they had a debate about some irrelevant issue. No matter how wrong the student is, would it not be curious if the professor had said "I have been an expert in this field for a very long time now, and I'm kind of a big deal in these classrooms. You do not have the experience to argue about this irrelevant issue"?

 

[Dreamweaver]

I can actually justify both simulatedworld's and Adymus' theory.

Adymus
----------
When I grew up as a teenager, most of my most interesting bonds were with my fellow Ni users (INFJ) or with Ne doms (ENFP, ENTP) - more in particular, I had some noteworthy interaction with a number of ENTP's thus far, even if it's short lived as hell.

simulatedworld
-------------------
Ever since the ages of 11-12, there is a girl to whom I referred to as my best friend and she is an ESFP which is the opposite of me, INTJ. We have always had the most intimate, explosive bond imaginable and people couldn't even understand why we are friends to begin with. We still remain close today, even if we don't see each other for a long time or if we don't share specific interests. Our lifestyles don't seem to mind... And we are supportive to each others development.

Other
-------
I tend to befriend INTP's easily as well (NTP) and I value them so much.
The same goes for ESTP's (ESP) to a certain degree.

...

Aside from that, there are some SJ's and NFP's around me whom I interact with on a regular basis... I dare say SJ's are complementing to me as well and NFP's remind me of my own sensitivity.

Just saying, one could continue to find patterns anywhere... But is that the most important point ?? I don't think it is. It's somewhat irrelevant to our individual development, lol and merely offers one of a thousand potential frameworks to ease our curious minds with by referring to obvious yet vague connection points.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Ever heard of "right for the wrong reasons"?

You guys are building up skyscraper walls which could be described in Socionics with Motels.

 

[simulatedworld]

Regardless of who is right or wrong, or if there is a write or wrong, I should have no say in the matter...



This seems to be Ad Hominem again.



Is this an appeal to one's own authority?

Assuming that you are correct, it would make sense that it would be possible to effectively argue your case without committing logical fallacies. It seems as though you are simply stating this as an auto-win button and that would be counter intuitive. Even so it is not required to be an experienced debater to be experienced at typology.

For example if there was a proffessor and a student, and they had a debate about some irrelevant issue. No matter how wrong the student is, would it not be curious if the professor had said "I have been an expert in this field for a very long time now, and I'm kind of a big deal in these classrooms. You do not have the experience to argue about this irrelevant issue"?

omg <3 Ti doms

It basically comes down to the fact that I'm good enough at this that I don't even care if I commit logical fallacies in certain situations, because the resultant negative opinions certain INTPs will develop of me don't even matter to me in the slightest.

btw, your last paragraph effectively translates to, "Te is stupid because Ti is the best." Give it some thought if you don't see why.

I just came online to say...

I agree with this/Adymus. I get along with ENFPs more than any other type and prefer them as friends rather than, say, ESTPs (whom I find incredibly frustrating and unrewarding).

My INFP friend also loves ENFJs and finds dominant Fe extremely inspiring.

That is all.

*poof*

I see about three possible explanations for this:

1) Your INFP friend doesn't understand typology enough to know who is and is not an ENFJ,

2) Your INFP friend doesn't understand typology enough to grasp the philosophical differences between Fe and Fi, or

3) Your INFP friend understands typology well enough to recognize that even though s/he disagrees with the fundamental basis of Fe philosophy, s/he can still learn from it (which would be very impressive.)

I'm kinda gonna put my money on #1 and/or #2 though. Just sayin', most people who think they know about typology are utterly clueless.

Also, regarding you and ESTPs--you probably just haven't met any well-balanced ones. Don't assume the whole type is frustrating and unrewarding until you've met some that are actually good examples.

Most people of all types are really poorly balanced and have no idea that there's any value in any perspectives besides their dominant (and to a lesser extent, auxiliary) functions.

Try meeting a few well-balanced ESTPs and see you feel about them then. They're not all testosterone-fueled adrenaline junkie ogres, I promise. <3

Ever heard of "right for the wrong reasons"?

You guys are building up skyscraper walls which could be described in Socionics with Motels.

If those motels are built on flimsy foundations that totally misinterpret the spirit of construction itself, then I'll take the skyscrapers, thanks.

I can actually justify both simulatedworld's and Adymus' theory.

Of course you can--you're an Ni dominant. You can justify whatever you want to.

Simulatedworld, would you be willing to give Adymus a short video of yourself?

There's one on personalitynation here:

http://www.personalitynation.com/open-mic/1037-video-questionnaire-extraordinaire-11.html#post9728



P.S.,

For everybody who's busy misinterpreting everything in my posts here--

I never claimed that you can't be friends with or admire people who don't share your function attitudes. In fact, being able to do so is an important part of type maturation.

But I did say that you won't ever fundamentally identify with those people on as deep a level as you will with people who share your function attitudes, and they won't teach you as much as well-balanced people of your so-called "opposite" types.

The path to personal development lies in the auxiliary first, and then the tertiary and inferior functions: If you want to learn about these, go to the people who know them best.

 

[Fukyo]

You may not know me, but I'm kind of a big deal in online typology circles.

Is this an appeal to one's own authority?

Fricking LOL

Actually he was only, a "big deal" on TypologyCentral and that was for his aggressive douchebag arguing style, which is pretty evident here.

and that's just an extremely sleazy way of trying to assert your supposed expertise.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

If those motels are built on flimsy foundations that totally misinterpret the spirit of construction itself, then I'll take the skyscrapers, thanks.

From my motel I can see the whole structure while you guys can't have your whole skyscraper in view and it's likely to topple. While making these walls of text no doubt the perspective has been changed and the original point lost.

You go against Socionics, yet I can see right through you guys' arguments.

 

[simulatedworld]

haters gonna hate. whatevs. not my loss if you guys wanna hold back your own understanding.

Fricking LOL

Actually he was only, a "big deal" on TypologyCentral and that was for his aggressive douchebag arguing style, which is pretty evident here.

and that's just an extremely sleazy way of trying to assert your supposed expertise.

I guess you haven't heard of www.personalitynation.com yet.

Or of www.personalitycafe.com, where I have advanced knowledge badges and people routinely request my advice.

I guess you also didn't catch the part where, in addition to being an argumentative douchebag, I made a number of substantial advancements and contributions to type theory during my time on type-c.

Catch up with the times, bro.

From my motel I can see the whole structure while you guys can't have your whole skyscraper in view and it's likely to topple. While making these walls of text no doubt the perspective has been changed and the original point lost.

You go against Socionics, yet I can see right through you guys' arguments.

Socionics thinks it can read types based on facial structure, for fuck's sake.

 

[Dreamweaver]

You go against Socionics, yet I can see right through you guys' arguments.

Both of them are currently subtly trying to claim that one sort of relationship is superior to the next, based on "a" theory with "some" sort of premise (so called degree of mutual understanding) poured in a structure. Socionics has another one of "those" theories.

IMO it's all a bunch of exaggerated reductionism, but I still support the fact that theories can enhance our understanding in intra- and interpersonal relationships.
I just don't support the whole "relationship x is BETTER than relationship y" in any way. Each relationship differs both theoretically and personally anyhow and it's up to the individual to judge, ultimately, and to decide where to stick it.

 

[Fukyo]

haters gonna hate. whatevs. not my loss if you guys wanna hold back your own understanding.




I guess you haven't heard of www.personalitynation.com yet.

Or of www.personalitycafe.com, where I have advanced knowledge badges and people routinely request my advice.

I guess you also didn't catch the part where, in addition to being an argumentative douchebag, I made a number of substantial advancements and contributions to type theory during my time on type-c.

Catch up with the times, bro.

Too bad being presumptuous doesn't also make you correct. I lurk on probably all Jungian typology forums, and am well familiarized with what goes around in the community.

As for Personality Cafe, and being asked for advice, most people in the community are painfully ignorant of typology and will listen to anyone if they just sound like they know what they're talking about and assert themselves with confidence...so yeah, not much to brag about.

I do think you have educated a few people and pointed them in the right direction, but your material is no news to those who have studied typology.

 

[Auburn]

There's one on personalitynation here:

http://www.personalitynation.com/open-mic/1037-video-questionnaire-extraordinaire-11.html#post9728

For those who don't have access:

Spoiler

YouTube - simulatedworld's type video

Part 2
​

YouTube - simulatedworld's type video, con't.

 

[terraxceles]

I see about three possible explanations for this:

1) Your INFP friend doesn't understand typology enough to know who is and is not an ENFJ,

2) Your INFP friend doesn't understand typology enough to grasp the philosophical differences between Fe and Fi, or

3) Your INFP friend understands typology well enough to recognize that even though s/he disagrees with the fundamental basis of Fe philosophy, s/he can still learn from it (which would be very impressive.)

I'm kinda gonna put my money on #1 and/or #2 though. Just sayin', most people who think they know about typology are utterly clueless.

The ENFJ is a mutual friend. I know both well enough to have typed them correctly, which I have gone back and confirmed several times and had them take the test afterward to confirm my findings. The INFP is slightly more enthusiastic about function theory, but still does not base relationships on type, which would be ridiculous.

We both discuss typology extensively and our favourite pastime is typing people we both know. Of course, we could both be very wrong in our assessments, but we could also be very much correct. So either us both, and many people on this forum, have no idea what we're talking about, or perhaps you're too narrow-minded to see there may be alternatives to your precious theories.

Just saying.

Also, regarding you and ESTPs--you probably just haven't met any well-balanced ones. Don't assume the whole type is frustrating and unrewarding until you've met some that are actually good examples.

Most people of all types are really poorly balanced and have no idea that there's any value in any perspectives besides their dominant (and to a lesser extent, auxiliary) functions.

Try meeting a few well-balanced ESTPs and see you feel about them then. They're not all testosterone-fueled adrenaline junkie ogres, I promise. <3

You're right, I haven't. And I never implied the entire type is frustrating. I was only speaking with regard to what I've experienced so far in life, which seems to be congruent with Adymus's post.

You may be right, I don't have nearly enough expertise or experience to counter this point. However, ENFPs, for me, are indeed "inspirers". I have my Ni validated while simultaneously being gently pushed to make use of my Se more. Aside from other INFJs I know, no other type-friendship is more rewarding.

I have known ESTPs, but not close enough to know if there are any benefits to be gained from them. From the superficial, it's all misunderstandings and both of us boring the hell out of each other.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Socionics thinks it can read types based on facial structure, for fuck's sake.

Strawman fallacy. VI is not fundamental Socionics, nor is it accepted as 100% accurate by the mainstream Socionists.

Both of them are currently subtly trying to claim that one sort of relationship is superior to the next, based on "a" theory with "some" sort of premise (so called degree of mutual understanding) poured in a structure. Socionics has another one of "those" theories.

Augusta has been criticized for over-hyping Duality, there are a few Socionists(and many followers) who realize that there is nothing really special besides a similarity in communication styles and a complementary approach to life.

IMO it's all a bunch of exaggerated reductionism, but I still support the fact that theories can enhance our understanding in intra- and interpersonal relationships.
I just don't support the whole "relationship x is BETTER than relationship y" in any way. Each relationship differs both theoretically and personally anyhow and it's up to the individual to judge, ultimately, and to decide where to stick it.

Agreed, although there are certain objective qualities to these relationships that you can't ignore.

 

[Anthile]

haters gonna hate. whatevs. not my loss if you guys wanna hold back your own understanding.




I guess you haven't heard of www.personalitynation.com yet.

Or of www.personalitycafe.com, where I have advanced knowledge badges and people routinely request my advice.

I guess you also didn't catch the part where, in addition to being an argumentative douchebag, I made a number of substantial advancements and contributions to type theory during my time on type-c.

Catch up with the times, bro.




Socionics thinks it can read types based on facial structure, for fuck's sake.

http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Unwarranted_Self-Importance

 

[Dreamweaver]

1) Augusta has been criticized for over-hyping Duality, there are a few Socionists(and many followers) who realize that there is nothing really special besides a similarity in communication styles and a complementary approach to life.

2) Agreed, although there are certain objective qualities to these relationships that you can't ignore.

1) Good, good.

2) I agree, which is why I am interested in people oriented theories in the first place!
Yet the more I look at it from a distance, the more I notice most of what's being said is somewhat "obvious" once one cares to describe what one can perceive plus based on common knowledge/history...
But, as I enjoy systematical thinking and watching connections, I remain a bit of a type tracker.

 

[Bird]

Adymus, you should feel really flattered
that simulatedworld felt the need to join
the forum just in an attempt to tear apart
your statements.


So sweet and nice (:


I think somebody was offended.

 

[simulatedworld]

http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Unwarranted_Self-Importance

lol.

Ne likes to exaggerate and blow things out of proportion in order to get people's attention and make a spectacle.

It's probably safe to assume that ~50% of things ENTPs say are bullshit and/or heavily exaggerated.

I, for instance, always exaggerate everything 1000% of the time.

Adymus, you should feel really flattered
that simulatedworld felt the need to join
the forum just in an attempt to tear apart
your statements.


So sweet and nice (:


I think somebody was offended.

Well, actually I think Adymus has a lot of good ideas and is on a much higher level in regards to typology than most people I've encountered on the internet.

If I thought his ideas were all worthless I just wouldn't have bothered.

But, hint for you: The ultimate purpose here is progression of ideas. Sometimes being inflammatory invites more discussion and creates more progress. ^_^

Strawman fallacy. VI is not fundamental Socionics, nor is it accepted as 100% accurate by the mainstream Socionists.

Interesting. I would like to read up more on mainstream Socionics, since apparently I have not encountered very good sources in the past.

Could you recommend some material that you think is representative of mainstream Socionics?

The ENFJ is a mutual friend. I know both well enough to have typed them correctly, which I have gone back and confirmed several times and had them take the test afterward to confirm my findings. The INFP is slightly more enthusiastic about function theory, but still does not base relationships on type, which would be ridiculous.

Indeed--that's one of the major issues I have with what I've read about Socionics.

We both discuss typology extensively and our favourite pastime is typing people we both know. Of course, we could both be very wrong in our assessments, but we could also be very much correct. So either us both, and many people on this forum, have no idea what we're talking about, or perhaps you're too narrow-minded to see there may be alternatives to your precious theories.

Just saying.

Cool! It sounds like you're probably pretty good. We could use more people like you on www.personalitynation.com; I do hope you'll consider signing up.

You're right, I haven't. And I never implied the entire type is frustrating. I was only speaking with regard to what I've experienced so far in life, which seems to be congruent with Adymus's post.

Fair enough; unfortunately, many people encounter a few bad examples of a particular type and write off the whole type as simply epitomizing whatever negative characteristics are commonly associated with that type and not really giving them a fair chance. I guess you haven't done that here; my mistake.

You may be right, I don't have nearly enough expertise or experience to counter this point. However, ENFPs, for me, are indeed "inspirers". I have my Ni validated while simultaneously being gently pushed to make use of my Se more. Aside from other INFJs I know, no other type-friendship is more rewarding.

I really enjoy ENFPs in general, too. I find that the more I learn, the more I enjoy all types and want to learn more about each of them. Every type has a lot of strengths and a lot of weaknesses that we can all learn from, regardless of our own types.

I have known ESTPs, but not close enough to know if there are any benefits to be gained from them. From the superficial, it's all misunderstandings and both of us boring the hell out of each other.

I do hope that you'll some day have a chance to meet and interact with some intelligent and well-balanced ESTPs. We have a couple on personalitynation--if you have a chance to surf over there, check out diphenhydramine and vanwinchester.

Both of them are ESTPs, and both are quite insightful and worth knowing, if my opinion counts for anything (which it might not.)

Hope to see you around.



----------------------


One last suggestion before I head out:

You guys should consider spending more time on forums that are not dedicated solely to one particular type. They're mostly just big festering cesspools of people with the same perspectives reinforcing each other's repetitive ideas and never really encountering much new or challenging information.

But I will say that, at least, you guys are not nearly as bad about this as INTPcentral.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

You guys should consider spending more time on forums that are not dedicated solely to one particular type. They're mostly just big festering cesspools of people with the same perspectives reinforcing each other's repetitive ideas and never really encountering much new or challenging information.

But I will say that, at least, you guys are not nearly as bad about this as INTPcentral.

So then, would you agree to spend some time @the16types?

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Interesting. I would like to read up more on mainstream Socionics, since apparently I have not encountered very good sources in the past.

Could you recommend some material that you think is representative of mainstream Socionics?

Besides WikiSocion of course,
http://socionics.us/intro.shtml
http://socionics.ws/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page
http://socionic.ru/
http://socionics.org/