xxTP. Help solve xx.

[Turniphead]

The first time I took an MBTI test was probably 7 or 8 years ago. For the past 5 or so years I've used typology extensively as a tool to analyze myself and others. As much as I sometimes wish I didn't give typology any weight it has influence on my life, in positive and negative ways.

Anyway, because of my background with using typology I no longer feel like I have an unbiased perspective on my own type and am looking for outside perspective to ask questions that I wouldn't ask myself. (Also, my understanding of MBTI means that any test/tool of self typing is useless, in that I can manipulate the results very easily).

Most of the time I have thought of myself as being INTP, but at times ISTP, ENTP, and INFJ(only a couple times) have come up.

Lately I've been suspecting ENTP, as I'm coming to terms with having very real Social Anxiety Disorder. I suspect that it's altered my perceptions of how introverted I really am.
"Oh, it's ok if I'm anxious around strangers, and have a tiny social circle, I'm introverted!".

There are also a few things that stand out as being non INTP; my appreciation of visual arts, extreme sports, and lack of writing skills, as well as feeling like a lot of people on this forum go into far more depth with their interests/knowledge base, and that I skim the surface of things.

I know I don't post in depth on this forum enough for people to have enough info to type me...

So ask hard questions that I would probably avoid asking myself?

 

[QuickTwist]

Have you considered PTSD? That what a joke.

Honestly, if you don't know your type by now you never will if what you are saying is true and you have researched your type fully. Maybe... later.

 

[Turniphead]

Haha,

Yah, it might be true about not ever knowing. But, In all this time I've not really had much outside perspective on it, so I thought I might try that.

 

[QuickTwist]

You want my honest opinion? Typing is for the birds. Find something else to identify yourself with.

 

[Turniphead]

I like birds!

What would you suggest as an alternative?

 

[Steven Gerrard]

Compared to most people here, I definetly skim the surface of things as well.

I'm just tired these days.

Sounds like you want to be an INTP and might be.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Hello Turniphead,
Regarding the MBTI illusion:
I will ask a few questions that in my intuition might help me then make a few typings.
First I will state that you are looking for a way to affirm your behaviour? To box yourself? Would you choose to behave otherwise having someone convince you you are INTP and not ENTP. Is there some hidden desire to be fully typed and revealed? Don't you agree that you might behave differently as in Socionics having mixed cognitive functions?

Regarding the inside of MBTI, in XXTP the main problem would be N/S dichtomy, later when N is confirmed ENTP/INTP is very similar and the main problem would be Ti and Si usage.
Are you focused on the present? If focused do you rely more on things that you sense or on your interpretations and possibilities that this sensual input enables?
Do you come up with your own creations that you later explain in relation to yourself and later to the world?
Are you more concerned with self preservation or with attention and acceptance other people may give you?

 

[Ninety-Fourth]

Typing is for the birds.

How come typing is for birds? They don't have hands, their legs are too short to cross the entire keyboard, and their wingtips are too soft to hold the Shift key down securely. Birds would make awful typists.

 

[Duxwing]

Your enjoyment of extreme sports and the physical arts indicates Se, and if you are an extroverted TP who uses Se, then you are an ESTP.

-Duxwing

 

[QuickTwist]

@Ninety-Fourth, for the birds is an expression meaning it is good for those who act on a more basic level.

 

[Pizzabeak]

What if he understood what the expression is used for and was just joking around so to speak? Could have been criticizing the idiom in that it might not be the most immediately illustrative although it does make sense when confronted by it. Well I guess birds are more basic on a level but then you could replace them with 'deer', 'elk', maybe even 'squirrel' 'dog' or 'cat', which I think I may have actually heard before

Then, typing can be for your certain accused people... Obviously someone who had just been introduced to it will be on a different level than someone who had studied it long enough to come to a certain conclusion concerning the nigh uselessness of typing, if someone wants to argue in favor of that actually being the case. I'm assuming an ultra intelligent person would take one look at the typing theory and dismiss it then, without even experiencing the deets.

 

[QuickTwist]

Perhaps.

 

[Turniphead]

Sounds like you want to be an INTP and might be.

I think the type I'm most attracted to in a general sense is ENTP.

Hello Turniphead,
Regarding the MBTI illusion:
I will ask a few questions that in my intuition might help me then make a few typings.
First I will state that you are looking for a way to affirm your behaviour? To box yourself? Would you choose to behave otherwise having someone convince you you are INTP and not ENTP. Is there some hidden desire to be fully typed and revealed? Don't you agree that you might behave differently as in Socionics having mixed cognitive functions?

I don't know enough about Socionics, something about it seemed off. But yes I do want to affirm my behaviour I guess. And yes my behaviour might be altered if I see myself through a different "box".(I'm currently trying this anyway just for fun)

However, I often use typology to understand the behaviours of others, and their motivations. If I don't know what my own type is, the comparisons I'm making are going to be much less accurate.

Regarding the inside of MBTI, in XXTP the main problem would be N/S dichtomy, later when N is confirmed ENTP/INTP is very similar and the main problem would be Ti and Si usage.
Are you focused on the present? If focused do you rely more on things that you sense or on your interpretations and possibilities that this sensual input enables?
Do you come up with your own creations that you later explain in relation to yourself and later to the world?
Are you more concerned with self preservation or with attention and acceptance other people may give you?

Focused on the near future usually. Day, week, sometimes month. Usually not longer than that. If I'm doing something physical like riding a bike, I'm more focused on the present, although not completely.

"do you rely more on things that you sense or on your interpretations and possibilities that this sensual input enables?"

I know you are asking S vs N, so because I'm more attracted to N I would say possibilities. But really I have no idea, and would say I don't rely on either?

My own creations in what context? I would say yes, but I'm uncertain of the question.

I'm concerned with both self preservation and attention/acceptance.

Your enjoyment of extreme sports and the physical arts indicates Se, and if you are an extroverted TP who uses Se, then you are an ESTP.

-Duxwing

Yah, I just don't connect with ESTP profiles at all really.

"Se types love novel sensations, physical thrills, and material comforts. They are “sensation-seekers,” relishing novel experiences and the thrill of action."

"Se also contributes to ESTPs’ love of sports, food, sex, and physical action."

- I Dislike watching team sports, but can enjoy playing them on rare occasions/when I was younger.
- Food is ok. But I hate that I have to eat it, and wish there was an optional "full meal" pill
- Sex is good, but get's boring.
- Physical action can be good, only when I know exactly what will be involved. I'm always "looking before I leap".

If I use Se, I think it would probably be either tertiary, or inferior.

 

[Turniphead]

Yah, I'm pretty sure Ninety-Fourth was joking. I thought it was amusing anyway.

 

[Turniphead]

Actually, hmm... Maybe I should just Identify with functions instead of types.

Identify with(in no particular order):

Ti, Si, Se, Ne, Fe

And not:

Fi, Te, Ni

 

[Turniphead]

Oh, I also identify with Enneagram 5w4, sometimes 7.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Oh, I also identify with Enneagram 5w4, sometimes 7.

Quad posting. Ne .
What do you create?
How would you explain this:

A conceptual analysis is something like the definition of a word. However, unlike a standard dictionary definition (which may list examples or talk about related terms as well), a completely correct analysis of a concept in terms of others seems like it should have exactly the same meaning as the original concept. Thus, in order to be correct, the analysis should be able to be used in any context where the original concept is used, without changing the meaning of the discussion in context. Conceptual analyses of this sort are a major goal of analytic philosophy.
However, if such an analysis is to be useful, it should be informative. That is, it should tell us something we don't already know (or at least, something one can imagine someone might not already know). But it seems that no conceptual analysis can both meet the requirement of correctness and of informativeness, on these understandings of the requirements.
To see why, consider a potential simple analysis:
(1) For all x, x is a brother if and only if x is a male sibling
One can say that (1) is correct because the expression “brother” represents the same concept as the expression “male sibling,” and (1) seems to be informative because the two expressions are not identical. And if (1) is truly correct, then “brother” and “male sibling” must be interchangeable:
(2) For all x, x is a brother if and only if x is a brother
Yet it is obvious that (2) is not informative, so either (1) is not informative, or the two expressions used in (1) are not interchangeable (because they change an informative analysis into an uninformative one) so (1) is not actually correct. In other words, if the analysis is correct and informative, then (1) and (2) must be essentially equal, but this is not true because (2) is not informative. Therefore, it seems an analysis cannot be both correct and informative at the same time.

One of your posts:

I prefer conversation in person(one on one). Especially with people who are on a similar wavelength.

When I write things, I'm always going back and correcting myself. This makes for slow going and high energy use. It's easier to talk quickly and keep up with my thoughts.

Even while writing this short answer,
this is how many thought I had: --------
vs
how many thoughts I expressed: --

Although I may also have some psychological blocks from childhood when it comes to writing. Not sure.

If accurate, not projected, Ne and Ti.
I would lean to introversion here.
As for now you are evaluated as I/ENTP or INTP.

 

[Turniphead]

Quad posting. Ne .
What do you create?

In general? I take in the world/art/etc, and then alter it into what I find interesting/tasteful/feel like at the moment.

This takes the form of whatever my current obsession is. From visual art to playing in a sandbox, making towers out rocks/whatever is in front of me, music, programming, whatever. "Stealing" bits and pieces of other peoples ideas and altering them for my own purposes.

I enjoy creating the most when it involves improvising. The more surprise and discovery there is along the way, the longer I will stay interested.

How would you explain this:

Spoiler

A conceptual analysis is something like the definition of a word. However, unlike a standard dictionary definition (which may list examples or talk about related terms as well), a completely correct analysis of a concept in terms of others seems like it should have exactly the same meaning as the original concept. Thus, in order to be correct, the analysis should be able to be used in any context where the original concept is used, without changing the meaning of the discussion in context. Conceptual analyses of this sort are a major goal of analytic philosophy.
However, if such an analysis is to be useful, it should be informative. That is, it should tell us something we don't already know (or at least, something one can imagine someone might not already know). But it seems that no conceptual analysis can both meet the requirement of correctness and of informativeness, on these understandings of the requirements.
To see why, consider a potential simple analysis:
(1) For all x, x is a brother if and only if x is a male sibling
One can say that (1) is correct because the expression “brother” represents the same concept as the expression “male sibling,” and (1) seems to be informative because the two expressions are not identical. And if (1) is truly correct, then “brother” and “male sibling” must be interchangeable:
(2) For all x, x is a brother if and only if x is a brother
Yet it is obvious that (2) is not informative, so either (1) is not informative, or the two expressions used in (1) are not interchangeable (because they change an informative analysis into an uninformative one) so (1) is not actually correct. In other words, if the analysis is correct and informative, then (1) and (2) must be essentially equal, but this is not true because (2) is not informative. Therefore, it seems an analysis cannot be both correct and informative at the same time.

I would relate it to an idea that I came across a few years ago:

Language is a tool, it is not the truth itself.

Sometimes I have gotten hung up on universal accuracy while trying to figure out a "problem". I find the above idea useful to bypass that need for accuracy in some contexts.

One of your posts:

If accurate, not projected, Ne and Ti.
I would lean to introversion here.
As for now you are evaluated as I/ENTP or INTP.

Yah that post is pretty accurate. I think another part of my dislike for writing comes from never actually being certain of my opinions. I can see many different perspectives and don't know which one to pick to represent "my own perspective". Sometimes I feel like I am just an empty vessel, being filled up by whatever ideas I take in. Often those things are contradictory.