INTP with a developed Fe?

[Bird]

Knowing which one you are can be difficult.

Yes, but as the dominant functions for
the two types at hand, it's the best
way to decide since they both utilize
Fe.

 

[BigApplePi]

I believe ApplePi mentioned the issue in specific relation to the subject at hand, from which, it was shortly transformed into a personal issue. If you will, note that nowhere did I imply it was an unintelligent comment about government, that this was a private forum, or that conversations shouldn't take turns. Many off topic comments can bring insight to the situation. I simply took issue with the fact that it seemed like a personal issue was being brought into a public conversation without being related relevantly to the topic at hand. In other words, took the focus off the op's issue and placed it on someone else, detracting from the conversation. But again, this is detracting from the issue.

Ah it's the beautiful soraya making a brief appearance. Welcome back.

In the realm of developed Fe, it would seem detractions roll off the INTP's back while INFJ's ... may or may not let the jolt bother them.

 

[Jennywocky]

That's actually dead on. Ni is incredibly frustratingly slow and requires an ENORMOUS amount of info. Ni is like an iceberg, 95% of it is below the water/consciousness. You hardly ever see it. You can't function purely on 5% consciousness which is why your other functions are always operating and poking you with questions, constantly ordering and sifting through Ni data. It's not that there's not much Ni there, it's that you don't see it. I don't see anywhere in there where Adymus implied that it is a judgment function. It seems to me like everything in that paragraph said that it is indeed a way of seeing.

That is not how every other Ni person I've met has described it to me, which is why I'm having issues with how the two of you are describing it... although there's a possibility we're just using different language but have the same concept in mind.

The thing with Ni for them is that you don't have to go through all the conscious calculations to come up with a judgment. Yes, more information is always better -- if you have a "connect the dots" with three points versus twenty-five points, which picture do you think will be more accurate? So I don't have an issue with that.

But I think I do have an issue with the insinuation that it would operate like Ti or another judging function. Si does not work that way, and Ni/Si are both Pi functions. Once Si gets primed, it automatically sees things a certain way -- it just 'sees' -- and any judging that naturally comes out occurs through the Je function (Fe or Te) in terms of responding to or enacting the wishes of that vision.

Talk to any Si person, and unless they have had tangible experience with a particular view, they often have a lot of trouble assimilating new contradictory information REGARDLESS of what argument is being used; this is because they SEE things naturally a certain way, and a verbal argument is still denying them what they see as right in front of their faces.

Ni is still a Pi function as well -- but the thing that allows Ni to shift gears is because it doesn't anchor itself to one singular view... it's capable of detecting patterns of truth based on the relationships among data offered it rather than being stuck on the actual data itself. Ni seems far more quick to embrace another POV (or at least accept it as valid) if the pattern of the data is truthful and results in the expected picture, and usually perspectives get chosen based on their usefulness in a given situation (expressed through Te/Fe toolsets) rather than on one being clung to.

No he's not. This is exactly what I said before. It's not like only INTPs collect lots of points of data and rationalize through the connections to see what they get. This behavior is not specific to a type or a particular set of functions. There's no monopoly on that behavior.

I did not say there was. Why is there a binary either/or operating here in your reading of my post? Anyone can do whatever they want, and we can all develop skills with whatever functions we desire to develop. (Isn't this thread called INTPs with Fe? This thread would not even exist if INTPs were stuck being solely Ti+Ne.)

However, the whole premise of MBTI is that people typically fixate/prioritize a few particular patterns, and thus they are "typed." It does not mean the other patterns are beyond them... but because of preference and thus time and energy spend developing those patterns and feeling comfortable within them, they are not as likely to be as nuanced in their use.

If INFJs develop Ti, they still tend to "look different" in the nuances than INTPs who develop Ni even when their behavior starts to approach each other. And it's not something where you can make a concrete, bullet list, it's something that is more "look and feel" if anything. I think it's that the secondary Fe tends to still color the expression of Ti, and that Ti is kind of used by Ni to promote a particular view along an Fe slant. Underneath the MBTI concept, INTPs do the same thing but in regards to Si, Ne, and Ti.

These are the ideals expressed by the MBTI system. No one meets the ideals perfectly. We are all unique. What happens when we talk about type or function use is that we are talking about someone's generalized behavior -- it's "fuzzy data" in that sense, rather than very specific, concrete data. If you're going to challenge how typing works (categorizing people based on generalizations of their behavior patterns), I'm not even sure why we are wasting time discussing MBTI at all. This is how categorization works.

And my main point of the above is that (1) typing can occur from pattern recognition, rather than some explicit list of bullet points which I think is a faulty way of typing someone [similar to how the many reasons people use to detect that someone is "lying" is a bunch of bunk as well, it's all about patterns and deviations from them], (2) MBTI main types TEND to express themselves in a few general patterns... not just one pattern, but a few recognizable ones, statistically, and (3) everyone is unique, and any time we are putting people in categories, that is a generalization issue ... we are tossing some of the rough-edge unique data to make people more uniform. That is a standard practice in science as well as countless other disciplines; we categorize things based on similarities in their patterns. For some reason, I'm perceiving there is a complaint about this, or some fear that valid data (rather than data extraneous to the system in question) is being ditched.

 

[Adymus]

Same here, dude. If you want to start laying claim to "experience" and how you seemingly have had more than me, well, I've been active on a number of MBTI forums for the last five years and have moderated one for close to four, and probably have somewhere with the range of 30-35K posts on MBTI forums, at least half about MBTI issues. I'm not saying what I am saying without having at least as much or likely more experience than the majority of people on these forums. I also have quite a number of INFJ friends, some of whom have wondered if they were INTPs, and happen to have very strong Ti tertiaries.

Years of experience does not mean very much in MBTI, considering whole system is flawed. So if I come over with the need to correct your understanding, your experience in MBTI is completely irrelevant, the correction needs to happen, and I am going to demonstrate that through out this post.

But I never really liked the "typing" threads, whether it's for particular members or celebrities. It's a lot like people cherry-picking certain details out of the haystack to support their predetermined view of someone... and it also ignores the fact that MBTI is a theoretical system that is being applied to the data rather than completely generated from the data, so people won't necessarily fit within the rules.

You're ahead of many others, I'll give you that.

That's not actually what a majority of INJ's have told me, albeit some of them being INTJs. I specifically have had some very intelligent INJs describe their view of Ne vs Ni, and correct me on the matter in the areas where they felt I was off. The most typical description I have received from INJs is that Ni is a "connect the dots" picture, where you look at the data in front of you and you automatically see the rest without having to connect the dots. It's a way of seeing, not of rationalizing... otherwise it would be a judgment function.

What you describe is an INJ without much Ni, and lots of Ti -- you're determining what data should be where using a Ti process.

I will consider the possibility that your total picture of things might change with the more data you get.. but now you are specifically describing a Ti+Ne process! That's exactly what ITPs do, in order to develop the big picture... collect lots of points of data and rationalize through the connections to see what we get.

Then they are either not INJs, or you misunderstood what they meant, or they just don't understand what they are doing very well. If your friends are describing the process as "we see the data, and then we 'just know' the rest" then they probably don't have a very good grasp on what they are doing, because nothing in the mind just comes out of nowhere and there is always a reason why they took the direction that they took. You are buying too much into MBTI the idea that P's take in as much information as possible before making a decision (which is not true at all), and J's just make decisions without taking in very much information(which is not true at all.)
I never said they are rationalizing anything at all, although they technically are to some degree. The functions are all connected, it is not possible to use any of them in isolation, so anytime Ni is being used Fe or Te is being abstracted into it. Furthermore, the Ni worldview is a map built from the synthesis of many experiences (Se) with principles (Ti) or impressions (Fi) depending on if the Ni dom uses Ti or Fi.
So what I described is not at all judgment, being in a state of taking in information is not judgment, although there is technically the abstraction of judgment coming in with it.

Ni is always growing, it is very fluid and dynamic. It does not just compile on more components like Si does, but it is constantly changing how these components are aligned at how it views the whole picture. Ni seeks to understand more of the unknown, and when it does so, it invariably will come across new phenomena, information, and possibilities that did not align with its view of the world, so it will shift its perspectives to view the whole map in such a way where all known possibilities are included while removing any paradoxes. That said, there is going to be a process of having to take in new information and then changing how they viewed the world, but by you logic, that doesn't happen, they just keep making assumptions and think they already know everything.

The fact that there are Ni doms on this forum that ask me questions, Soraya being one of them, negates your argument that they always know their answers.

Ti-Ne on the other hand leads with discernment, so it actually starts by taking a position. It will start by understanding the dynamic principles behind how a new phenomenon works, this is Ti's principle understanding, once this position is maintained then we start getting creative. Ne will make abstractions of this new principle and even start cross-contextualizing it with others that share similar patterns, which gives us a higher understanding of how it works and what its implications are.

Yes, I'm well aware of that. Each type has a number of "typical patterns" that tend to describe them. There could also be more unique blends/cases that don't typically show up, but it doesn't mean that one cannot probably look at each type and note 3-5 "typical configurations" or patterns that occur within that functional framework.

The problem with MBTI, is that their "typical patterns" are pretty damn far off from the unlimited number or variations that actually exist. The only way to actually have any accuracy is to not definine configurations based on "typical patterns" at all.

Please. This is YOUR overemphasis of detail that is attributing ideas to me that I do not actually hold. You are misreading me.

Go to my prior paragraph -- there DOES tend to be a "few basic configurations" within each MBTI type that are represented ... but you still have to look at the unique person. I'm an INTP with atypically high Ni. You are preaching to the choir and trying to read me as some sort of exacting SJ type here, which I'm not. I am not talking about using particular details as "clear-cut" identifiers of type, a procedure I find faulty. Sorry if I somehow misstated myself, I'm just kind of surprised by your read of me.

No Jenny, I am not misreading you for the same reason why I am not misreading anyone who practices MBTI if I said this exact same thing to them. No matter what, as long as you are using this theory, you are defining everything based on the principles "These people act like X, and These people act like Y". You have no choice in the matter, that is just how the entire theory works. Maybe you are a little more loose with your boundries and line drawing, which is respectable, but you are still drawing lines.

When Garmgarf said I don't practice MBTI, he was not talking about JCE or something else like that (they have the same flaw anyway.)
He was talking about Pod'Lair.

When you set boundaries for how your configurations are supposed to act, then you are limiting yourself from understanding the possibility of what happens when they don't act within your boundaries. Because according to the logic of the model you are using, if someone does not act like X then they logically must be Y, and that is just not true at all. So with MBTI, Socionics, or JCE, there really is no possibility of being well developed, stress locked, or poorly developed because even if you were, you would act differently from the expected paradigm of your type, and thus fitted into a different box.

In Pod'lair we do not read people based on set boundaries/boxes, all we need are physical manifestations which are natural to their Cognitive configuration, cannot be learned, and cannot be faked. And it is not just a theoretical system like MBTI is, everything can be physically verified.

Thank you for the advice. However, I'm already well aware of the typical flaws in rationality and especially within MBTI typing, and I'm still saying that types usually express themselves within a few particular instinctive patterns. (Do you understand what I mean by this? It means it's not concrete data points that automatically expose a type, it's the relationships between the typical data points of a person -- the principles of their behavior, the broad patterns, and how they relate.)

The problem is that you still only think it is just a few instinctive patterns, you have not opened up to the infinite amount of Unknown unknowns that you, Jung, Isabelle Meyers, Socionics guy, or Kiersey did not see coming.

Also, the fact that you think you are an INTP with Ni shows that you don't really know yourself* or what you are actually doing. If you are an INTP, then you do not use Ni at a conscious level, it would be redundant anyway, there is no need for it. If you do in fact have Ni then you are not an INTP, and if you are an INTP then you don't have Ni. There would be no way to type or read people at all if everyone was just a random mixture of cognitive functions. There is a structure and logic to how they work, and it is not just your top eight things that you think sound like you.

*Don't think of that as an attack or insult, humans are really not meant to be capable or reading themselves accurately anyway. That is the problem with MBTI, JCE, or anything that is not Pod'Lair, when you have a choice in the matter, you have a certain need for the answers to be what you value. And when you need the answers to be something, then you are blinded from the truth.

These patterns still have to be examined and confirmed just to make sure the pattern is not being misread, but it's not a lot different than when the police cycle through those mugshots and certain faces can be categorized as having similar (even if not exact) relationships between the designated points of the face used for identification. If we would be unable to do this with MBTI, then it's almost a waste to even bother with the system; these systems basically describe patterns that we see which one we most align with.

I hope that explains my thinking/approach far better than my shorter post did earlier.

As a practitioner of an infinitely superior system, I am going to tell you right now, MBTI is a waste to use as a system.

 

[Adymus]

Re: INTPs with simulated INFJ?

Fair enough.

I am not getting a point across. My concern is that an INTP may be mistaken for an INFJ under certain circumstances. Is this true? It is not uncommon to make the wrong classification of oneself and others. I am looking for clarification and rectification. What about this?

1. The Ni appearance is really Ti-Si
2. The Se appearance is really Ne-Fe
3. The Fe is Fe for that special area and is modestly depleting
4. The Ti is Ti for that special area and is energizing

Okay Pi, do you remember an argument you and I had about a year ago?
You were saying that if an INTP is showing ESFJ behavior, couldn't they be confused for an ESFJ?

My argument then was that an INTP is never truly showing ESFJ behavior, and if you think that is ESFJ behavior you are seeing in them then you have erroneously ascribed a certain behavior archetype to an entire type. I am going to tell you the same thing now as I did back then, because this is basically the exact same argument.


Yes, an INTP can be mistaken for an INFJ, but that is because you don't know what you are doing.

The only way you can mistake an INTP for an INFJ, is if you are basing your understanding off of misconceptions. The reason so many INFJs are are being mistaken for INTPs is not because they are acting like INTPs, it is because both INFJ and INTP behavior has been poorly defined and misunderstood.

There is never a time when any type is not acting like their own type, it is literally not possible to act like anything other than what you are. If you think they are acting like a different type, then it is because you are holding a very limited paradigm of how each type is supposed to act.

 

[BigApplePi]

Re: INTPs with simulated INFJ?

I most definitely remember that "argument" about ESFJ.

Question 1: Am I correct you believe each of the 16 personality types is distinct and separate? If so, where are they defined? Your post on Cognitive Functions Cognitive Functions only describes their characteristics which can be appear in other types. Does only Pod'lair well define them or does it? Pod'lair I take it excels in sensory interpretation. Is there a writeup in words for those who don't have access to Pod'lair?

Question 2: Does an INTP (Ti,Ne,Si,Fe) have none of these? Te,Ni,Se,Fi?
In your language, do you call the "shadow functions of an INTP Si and Fe?

Okay Pi, do you remember an argument you and I had about a year ago?
You were saying that if an INTP is showing ESFJ behavior, couldn't they be confused for an ESFJ?

My argument then was that an INTP is never truly showing ESFJ behavior, and if you think that is ESFJ behavior you are seeing in them then you have erroneously ascribed a certain behavior archetype to an entire type. I am going to tell you the same thing now as I did back then, because this is basically the exact same argument.

Yes, an INTP can be mistaken for an INFJ, but that is because you don't know what you are doing.

The only way you can mistake an INTP for an INFJ, is if you are basing your understanding off of misconceptions.

I agree. Now we get to a point I've overlooked. I am talking about the ordinary person, like me. Experts may be able to accurately type, but not the ordinary person. We live in a large world and such erroneous judgments go on all the time. What I'm after is a try at technical language explaining the error. (Example of technical language is at the end.)

The reason so many INFJs are are being mistaken for INTPs is not because they are acting like INTPs, it is because both INFJ and INTP behavior has been poorly defined and misunderstood.

There is never a time when any type is not acting like their own type, it is literally not possible to act like anything other than what you are. If you think they are acting like a different type, then it is because you are holding a very limited paradigm of how each type is supposed to act.

If I go along with that, can you answer this: Is the misjudging of an INTP as INFJ because "1. The Ni is not Ni at all, but really is Ti-Si"?

 

[crippli]

What is the origin of Fe? Is it a tool to secure security and belonging? To battle fear? And/or as efficaciousness to progress(human destination)?



Fe is to me basically a need to confirm, or a need to have others confirm to you. Or the opposites of these. I see Fe as a clutch for an intp. A paradox. I don't think heavy Fe users are INTPs. I would consider the INTP to be mostly indifferent to Fe, and instead observe and recognize that Fe is in play. Or in dire need, a plea for help.

 

[BigApplePi]

INTP talking Personlity Theory

Personality Theory. After reading Adymus and Jennywocky, I pose this overall theory.

There is the personality theory out there that there are 16 personality types possessing four prominent cognitive functions. The one favored by Adymus is centered around sensual (Si to INTPs; Se to some others) interpretation. The one experienced by Jennywocky uses the language of MBTI.

Each theory can be described in words, but this has yet to be demonstrated satisfactorily. Nevertheless existent words contain or should contain a descriptive center. This center radiates outward with possibilities illustrating variation on the theme. Whether two centers representing two personality descriptions radiate and intersect with overlapping characteristics remains to be seen.

MBTI has been described as having these three dimensions:

1. Introversion/ extroversion = i/e
2. Thinking/ Feeling/ Sensing/ Intuition = TFSN
3. Each of #2 affect the personality as either energizing or enervating
There are no other dimensions.

Each of the TFSN's compete with each other for prominence. Each personality type orders them as to tendency for display. That is, each individual TFSN tends for each personality to display in a fixed energy order, but that need not be the rule.

Think of an atom with four electron orbits. The outer orbit does most of the interacting, but on occasion an electron shifts position from an inner orbit to an outer.

As an example, there is Fe = extroverted feeling. Fe, when it is exhibited, is experienced at any one of four levels of energy. The experience at any one of these is different both internally and for the observer.

In as much as Pod'lair uses external sensual input as a tool, it is direct and has claimed relatively constant observational results. It has a measure of accuracy.

The MBTI requires both internal (self) observation and external (other's view of the persona) making judgments difficult. MBTI is said to be more "fuzzy" than Pod'lair. However while Pod'lair claims accuracy, MBTI can claim communicability depending on the social medium.

 

[Adymus]

Re: INTP talking Personlity Theory

MBTI can claim communicability depending on the social medium.

So can Pod'Lair, it is a full and separate theory with full lexicon of terms and principles.

Unfortunately I can only use so many with you people without having to go on tangents explaining what everything means, and why they mean that.

 

[BigApplePi]

Re: INTP talking Personlity Theory

So can Pod'Lair, it is a full and separate theory with full lexicon of terms and principles.

Unfortunately I can only use so many with you people without having to go on tangents explaining what everything means, and why they mean that.

If there is no refutation of the details I have posted, I will assume what I have said is correct until I hear otherwise. Am I to assume you understood what I said?

Pod'Lair does not communicate to the general public until it is better known. Good luck to it. Any improvements on something so important as how to characterize people is important.

 

[Adymus]

Re: INTPs with simulated INFJ?

I most definitely remember that "argument" about ESFJ.

Question 1: Am I correct you believe each of the 16 personality types is distinct and separate? If so, where are they defined? Your post on Cognitive Functions Cognitive Functions only describes their characteristics which can be appear in other types. Does only Pod'lair well define them or does it? Pod'lair I take it excels in sensory interpretation. Is there a writeup in words for those who don't have access to Pod'lair?

My whole point has always been that as soon as you try to define any of the cognitive configurations based on behavior alone, you go wrong. Because first of all, when you take development, culture, gender, lifestyle, and other factors into consideration, you will undoubtedly get contradictions if you try to just make a single set criteria. This is the flaw of Mbti/socionic/JCF/etc, they draw behavioral lines around each cognitive configuration, so the possibility of them behaving outside of these set lines and still being the same configuration are suppressed.

So you can technically make descriptions, but they will have to be super vague and nonspecific, referring only to how their cognitive function hierarchy works in that order, if you actually want any of them to be accurate and applicable to all of the possible models. It cannot just be "If you like doing X you must be Y"
True accuracy can only be attained from detaching from your assumptions/prejudice of how they are supposed to act and live their lives.

Question 2: Does an INTP (Ti,Ne,Si,Fe) have none of these? Te,Ni,Se,Fi?
In your language, do you call the "shadow functions of an INTP Si and Fe?

They do not have conscious access to any of them. Technically everyone has all eight, but you will never be able to access an unconscious function in the same way that a person with conscious use of that function could. So the short answer would just be a simple no.

I agree. Now we get to a point I've overlooked. I am talking about the ordinary person, like me. Experts may be able to accurately type, but not the ordinary person. We live in a large world and such erroneous judgments go on all the time. What I'm after is a try at technical language explaining the error. (Example of technical language is at the end.)
If I go along with that, can you answer this: Is the misjudging of an INTP as INFJ because "1. The Ni is not Ni at all, but really is Ti-Si"?

Why do you think everyone is going to think exactly the same way? Who knows why they are making errors. Chances are, it is not going to be an INTP being confused for an INFJ, it will probably be the other way around. That is really because a lot of things, for one, MBTI gives people this idea that being a feeler means you make all decisions off of pure emotion and nothing else. Another is that if you enjoy the sciences and the discovery of knowledge you must be a T, and if you like airy fairy touchy feely stuff you must be an F.

So if an INTP is being confused for an INFJ... who the fuck knows why. It depends what who is being confused, and what erroneous assumptions are causing them to make this error. There is no solid universal answer to that question.

 

[Adymus]

Re: INTP talking Personlity Theory

If there is no refutation of the details I have posted, I will assume what I have said is correct until I hear otherwise. Am I to assume you understood what I said?

Pod'Lair does not communicate to the general public until it is better known. Good luck to it. Any improvements on something so important as how to characterize people is important.

So your point is that its advantage is that it is more popular...


*Eyes fall out from rolling so hard*

 

[crippli]

Re: INTPs with simulated INFJ?

Another is that if you enjoy the sciences and the discovery of knowledge you must be a T, and if you like airy fairy touchy feely stuff you must be an F.

I don''t agree with this either. I consider type theory to belong in the latter group. But I don't think this is indicative of being F. I consider it more indicative how I view the airy fairy touchy feely stuff. And I also presume you can't avoid relativity in all of this. So that even just on different forums the types will be redefined. INTP on intpc is something else then on TC and something else again on here. The problem seems to be attempted objectivity on subjectivity.

If one can't accurately work out the equation to describe to problem, you will not get an accurate result.

/ I don't know about this pod'Lair that is being referenced. Will have to look up that.

 

[BigApplePi]

Re: INTPs with simulated INFJ?

My whole point has always been that as soon as you try to define any of the cognitive configurations based on behavior alone, you go wrong. Because first of all, when you take development, culture, gender, lifestyle, and other factors into consideration, you will undoubtedly get contradictions if you try to just make a single set criteria. This is the flaw of Mbti/socionic/JCF/etc, they draw behavioral lines around each cognitive configuration, so the possibility of them behaving outside of these set lines and still being the same configuration are suppressed.

So you can technically make descriptions, but they will have to be super vague and nonspecific, referring only to how their cognitive function hierarchy works in that order, if you actually want any of them to be accurate and applicable to all of the possible models. It cannot just be "If you like doing X you must be Y"
True accuracy can only be attained from detaching from your assumptions/prejudice of how they are supposed to act and live their lives.

I agree it is hard to hold all the extraneous variables constant. Those variables such as gender and culture can blur distinctions. Nevertheless we try. It's like an alien observing our planet. He wants to define "dog" and sees a Pekingese and a Great Dane. He can't believe both are dogs. DNA would clinch the test.

They do not have conscious access to any of them. Technically everyone has all eight, but you will never be able to access an unconscious function in the same way that a person with conscious use of that function could. So the short answer would just be a simple no.

Hold on. There are two questions here. One is about Te,Ni,Se,Fi. I agree those are unconscious. But Si and Fe are not. They can be quite conscious for an INTP.

Why do you think everyone is going to think exactly the same way? Who knows why they are making errors. Chances are, it is not going to be an INTP being confused for an INFJ, it will probably be the other way around. That is really because a lot of things, for one, MBTI gives people this idea that being a feeler means you make all decisions off of pure emotion and nothing else. Another is that if you enjoy the sciences and the discovery of knowledge you must be a T, and if you like airy fairy touchy feely stuff you must be an F.

So if an INTP is being confused for an INFJ... who the fuck knows why. It depends what who is being confused, and what erroneous assumptions are causing them to make this error. There is no solid universal answer to that question.

I'm not interested in all those other errors. I'm interest in only one. I have a reason for this. The reason is to get at language even if imprecise. Let me be as specific as I can and if that's not good enough, I will try to fix it. Here is the scenario:

You are observing this weird guy by the name of Joe for the 1st time. You can't see him as he is behind a screen. You don't know he is ZAI'NYY/ INTP tested by Pod'Lair/ MBTI experts. He shows extreme enthusiasm for some topic to you. It appears he's trying to convince you the topic has validity, is true and is good for you. You don't know his personality type but because a pistol is being held to your head, you have to make an MBTI guess. You guess he is using Ni Fe because he appears to be judgmental and is all over the place with what appears to you as intuitive possibilities. Later you are told he is INTP and that this was his pet theory he has studied and knows a lot about. He was just excited at meeting you and had to blab. Was this Fe-Si-Ti-Ne rather than what you thought at first was Ni Fe Ti Se? You are, after all, Adymus, allowed to make errors under duress.

 

[BigApplePi]

Re: INTP talking Personlity Theory

So your point is that its advantage is that it is more popular...


*Eyes fall out from rolling so hard*

Didn't say, "more popular." I said, "better known."

Glass is more popular than diamond and is better known. That doesn't mean diamond is the lessor of the two.

Insert eyeballs.

 

[Adymus]

Re: INTPs with simulated INFJ?

Hold on. There are two questions here. One is about Te,Ni,Se,Fi. I agree those are unconscious. But Si and Fe are not. They can be quite conscious for an INTP.
I'm not interested in all those other errors. I'm interest in only one.

The top four functions are conscious functions, I have said this many times in threads that you have read.

I'm not answering the rest of that. If you are going ignore what I have repeated several times then I don't have anything left to say.

 

[soraya]

Hey Pi: Unfortunately (haha or maybe fortunately for you) my work situation severely limits my access to the internet. I wish I could contribute more here but it's pretty dependent on when I'm allowed to have internet and when I'm not.

although there's a possibility we're just using different language but have the same concept in mind.

More than a possibility. I think you're dead on here. One of the most frustrating things about Ni is that there are so many ways of saying it and none of them are adequate. Arg! frustrating!

you don't have to go through all the conscious calculations to come up with a judgment.

Totally agree with you here.

But I think I do have an issue with the insinuation that it would operate like Ti or another judging function.

This isn't what I'm saying, though I probably did express it poorly, which would lead to confusion of course. sorry bout that. I am saying that all functions operate differently. I'm saying that it is possible for different functions to come to the same conclusion. For example, you look at a map which has a particular destination. The map shows many ways to get there. 5 people each take a different path. Every path is different, but ultimately it is possible, though not necessary, that all 5 end up at the same destination. Basically, I get really frustrated when anyone says something like "only XXXX type displays this behavior/draws this conclusion/thinks X thought so that's how you know what type you are." From my way of looking at things, behaviors and conclusions are not functions, they are the products of the use of functions. They are the destinations while the functions are the paths.

I know an ISFJ. On several occasions we have drawn the same conclusion that person X was a creeper. Some people look at that and go "Oh, she must be an N! How else would she know that dude is creepy?" In fact, what she really did was use her Si to draw on past experiences of creepy people in the past and recognize those same patterns in person X. So I was trying to say that the end result is not necessarily as important as analyzing the way in which once came to that result. I hope I explained myself better there.

Haha, oh believe me! I have had plenty of (read as "too much") experience with really rigid Si being used and argued till I was blue in the face all to no avail because they hadn't experienced what I was talking about. It drives me insane.

Ni is still a Pi function as well -- but the thing that allows Ni to shift gears is because it doesn't anchor itself to one singular view... it's capable of detecting patterns of truth based on the relationships among data offered it rather than being stuck on the actual data itself. Ni seems far more quick to embrace another POV (or at least accept it as valid) if the pattern of the data is truthful and results in the expected picture, and usually perspectives get chosen based on their usefulness in a given situation (expressed through Te/Fe toolsets) rather than on one being clung to.

This is really nice...like really really well stated.

Nah, I'm not implying that it is either/or, that's just my Te trying to gather and narrow down possibilities so that my Ni can stop shifting views. Creating either/or scenarios helps it to filter and organize stuff, it doesn't actually reflect my particular view on anything.

Of course different functions do create somewhat distinct behavior patterns or it would be impossible to type anybody. And, of course we all do adopt different patterns at certain times and in certain situations.

Totally agree with you on what you're saying about INFJ Ti and INTP Ti. That's exactly what I was trying to say but you put it a lot better and more succinctly.

Still not sure what you mean by the next paragraph. Of course we categorize people based on generalizations of their behavior. I don't think I said anything contrary to that. I'm saying that (and this is in no way a response to you. It was a response to this conversation in general) you do have to look at how that behavior is arrived at in order to get an accurate type... I mean, two people can both like apple juice and, sure, that lets us create a general group of people liking apple juice, but a lot of times why they like it can tell us a lot more about them than the simple fact that they like it. And I'm not suggesting bullet points at all. Of course general groups, pattern recognition, categorization is what allows us to begin any inquiry process. Without it we would be completely lost. I'm not disputing that. What I'm disputing (and again it's not you it's just a trend I see on a lot of typing threads) is that a lot of people are content to see a pattern that resembles them and just accept it without looking at why they display that pattern.

 

[Bird]

Adymus, I respect everything that
you're saying there's just one thing
I'm curious about, if you're talking
about pod'lair theories and what is
being discussed at hand is MBTI,
how is what you're saying relevant?

 

[BigApplePi]

Hey Pi: Unfortunately (haha or maybe fortunately for you) my work situation severely limits my access to the internet. I wish I could contribute more here but it's pretty dependent on when I'm allowed to have internet and when I'm not.

I'm here to solve your problems soraya. Come on over and I will let you have full use of the internet. Bring your snowshoes.

 

[BigApplePi]

INTP with an undeveloped Fe?

Adymus. I wonder if we both could use some Fe development. I for one could.

 

[Adymus]

Adymus, I respect everything that
you're saying there's just one thing
I'm curious about, if you're talking
about pod'lair theories and what is
being discussed at hand is MBTI,
how is what you're saying relevant?

Because Both Pod'Lair are MBTI are attempting to accurately capture the same natural phenomenon. When I say phenomenon, I want you to detach from the definitions and assumptions of the 16 MBTI types, and just think of them as 16 distinct patterns that are naturally occurring in human beings.

Pod'lair has managed to capture these 16 distinct patterns with more clarity, accuracy, and understanding. That is why it is relevant.

 

[Adymus]

Re: INTP with an undeveloped Fe?

Adymus. I wonder if we both could use some Fe development. I for one could.

We all could Pi... Even the INFJs here could.

 

[Jennywocky]

Fe's an interesting tool... it's not just used to build bridges but also to burn them, using the common Fe lexicon. (Great example is the "southern etiquette" language... where someone can say something where the words themselves are actually polite, but the whole thing is immediately understood as a criticism/slur. There is a lot packed within a little phrase in different contexts.) It is used to express commitments/relationships, whether positively or negative, and can act as glue to hold things together or a wall to keep them apart.

It's not the emotions being expressed are necessarily even spontaneous; it can also be the one chooses to express themselves in ways that align with certain emotions, in order to achieve a desired go. (So "sounding mad" doesn't necessarily mean one is mad, one is just conveying the idea that one should appropriately be mad and signaling to the other person that their behavior has crossed the line, even if the Fe user doesn't particularly feel angry. Same thing with "sounding happy." The Fe user's emotions can be all whack, but they feel ultimately that it is appropriate to be happy for someone regardless, or are committed to being happy for them, so they express themselves in a happier way.)

I think people just tend to see it as one or the other... but it's far more versatile.

 

[myexplodingcat]

I suppose Ti and Fe don't go on simultaneously. That's fine. If a type favors Ti, suppose for the sake of argument 5% is given to Fe. Then if one really develops their Ti, one will automatically allow for more Fe.

Example: One is upset because they haven't studied something. "Upset" is not a very good control of emotions. It's embarrassing to talk to others about or if talked about it's not a matter of pride. Undeveloped Fe.

Then they go ahead and study. This changes everything. They have a measured mastery. There may be some anxiety about the topic, but since one has learned more they can use their new confidence to talk to others or take a test. A better Fe.

Ah, like when in Master of Orion II, when you upgrade your guns, the lower-grade ones take up more space and you can add new stuff. * nod nod *

 

[fduniho]

Intp suppresses Fe. So I don't see how an intp can develop Fe without a lot of effort.

Some INTPs suppress Fe, but it is not inherent in being an INTP that you will suppress Fe. Being an INTP mainly means that you will develop your functions in the order of Ti, Ne, Si, and Fe. This means that for any INTP there are certain common relative differences between the development of the functions, but there are no absolute differences. So, it is possible within the framework of being an INTP, to have your Fe more developed than some FJ. What will determine whether you are an INTP is not how your Fe is developed compared to somone else's but only how your Fe is developed compared to your other functions.

To make an analogy, I am an extreme right-hander, because my left forearm is missing its radius. I can do much more with my right hand than I can with my left. But because I'm also missing thumbs on both hands, my right hand is still less capable than the right hands of most left-handed people. So the average left-hander has more use of his right hand than I have of mine, but since handedness is not determined by differences between people, but only by the differences between how the same person uses each hand, I still count as a right-hander while someone who may have more use of his right hand than I have may count as a left-hander. Being an INTP is like being right-handed or left-handed. It is not how you compare with others but only how your functions compare with each other.

In my own case, I can be aware of my Fe and make use of it. I'm presently getting into watching romantic Korean dramas on hulu.com and dramafever.com, and I can allow myself to get caught up in the emotionalism of a drama. But my Ti remains more creative, more productive, and more useful than my Fe. My Fe colors how I enjoy my leisure, but my Ti accomplishes things I can point to and be proud of, such as Game Courier. In contrast to me, there are probably Fe-oriented poets and artists who color their leisure with Ti, perhaps preferring mysteries to romances. One other difference between my use of Ti and Fe is that Fe remains more of a vulnerability than Ti. I may be strongly aware of my feelings at times, but it doesn't always help me.

 

[louiesgonnadie]

Okay this thread just sparked a huge internal debate on whether I am INTP or INFJ.

The "Scrubs" scenarios I can relate to in a way; I always daydream about hypothetical situations and how they may play out.

I also sometimes get random gut feelings or thoughts that pop in my head and I can't explain them very well unless I explain them in my head first (or imagine explaining them to someone)

I've always thought I was Ti-dom just because I needed to understand how something worked in order to understand everything related to it, but WOW, these Ni perspectives on this thread....not fully understanding of it but I understand it better.

It is hard for me to distinguish Ti-doms from Ni-doms, though, they have similarities and are both very internal.

And yes, I was led to this thread since I felt like I had a better developed inferior-Fe than the typical INTP. Another reason why I am starting to strongly consider INFJ.

This should be one hell of a ride...
*reaches out for cheddar cheese popcorn*
*realizes he forgot taco seasoning* FUCK