Mistyped TypeCentral Members [Archive] - Page 5

Evan

10-06-2008, 07:49 PM

Does anyone believe my transition to an ENTP is more appropriate than my earlier INTJ label?

Is there a better type you might assign to me?

INFJ for sure.

I find that INFJs and ENTPs can actually be mixed up pretty easily if you look at the Ti/Fe interaction. They're both N doms too.

I honestly see nothing Ne about you, Night. INFJ seems to be a perfect fit. I've been sure of it for months and months (which you know already).

I can only speak for ENFPs, but we do happen to be a pretty self-aware type, it has something to do with that Fi, if you ask me.

Also, Nocap, um, where oh where are you getting your information from?

:huh:

So it all depends on your definition of self-awareness I guess, but I'd say ENFPs are quite self-aware when it comes to what motivates them and how they react to things.

Like ENTPs, they make systems. They just focus more on making systems of "feeling" or "value". A well-developed system (especially since it's rooted in introverted feeling) can be quite helpful in self-analysis.

ENTPs are much less self-aware IMO.

Pfft, "no introverted perception"

Define introverted perception please, and does Fi qualify as introverted perception?

ENFP's interpersonal communication skills are a reflection of their intrapersonal awareness. After all, the more one knows one's self, the more one's able to know others.

I am not discussing any other type besides my own. So no, your assessment of I__Js comes as NO consolation.

Yeah, I agree here too. Introverted perception unconsciously filters perceptions for things that the user likes, so it would work. But Fi serves a similar purpose here (but since perception is extroverted, it sees even more information), and it might even be better because it's conscious, therefore it's easier to see and analyze.

they took er jobs!

Seriously, guys, how was that NOT Ne?

Fucking out of nowhere! I lolled.

Friends of mine think Im ISFP...

Which is the complete opposite of ENTJ..

Whould other peoples opinion of you matter more in describing you?

Because its not what you say or think that matters, its what you actually do that defines you, so other people would be able to define you better would they not ?

You're insanely ENTJ.

Night

10-06-2008, 07:52 PM

INFJ for sure.

I find that INFJs and ENTPs can actually be mixed up pretty easily if you look at the Ti/Fe interaction. They're both N doms too.

I honestly see nothing Ne about you, Night. INFJ seems to be a perfect fit. I've been sure of it for months and months (which you know already).

Thank you for the comprehensive answer.

It's interesting - I find myself fluctuating between both INFJ and ENTP poles, depending on the stability of my external world.

Stress tends to bring about the INxJ, whereas predictability/security generally polishes the ENTP in me.

You're definitely onto something here, dissonance.

InaF3157

10-06-2008, 07:54 PM

And whoever said that NTs weren't immature?

seriously.
~ an immature one who appreciates silly internet screwery.

Evan

10-06-2008, 07:57 PM

Usehername

10-06-2008, 08:01 PM

Thank you for the comprehensive answer.

It's interesting - I find myself fluctuating between both INFJ and ENTP poles, depending on the stability of my external world.

Stress tends to bring about the INxJ, whereas predictability/security generally polishes the ENTP in me.

You're definitely onto something here, dissonance.

If it helps, I can come across as ENTP when I'm feeling perfectly healthy--it's less to do with fully identifying with the ENTP type than it is about me executing my uneven CP order. Ni-Fi as a combo makes me very curious about other individuals, and Te-Fe strengths being very close to each other make me appear NT-unintentionally-harsh mixed with bouncy and spontaneous Ni-Fi-sent through Fe-interaction. Basically, all my ENxx outward projections are responses to the people I'm interacting with, and not my true type.

I also brood with INxJ when I'm unhealthy; I withdraw in unhealthy moments just like I do in very healthy moments.

But at my core, I'm an INTJ.

Maybe take another CP order test.

Lucifer

10-06-2008, 08:07 PM

You're insanely ENTJ.

Really ?

Evan

10-06-2008, 08:16 PM

Really ?

Seems quite apparent.

I doubt anyone on this site would really disagree. Except people that might call you ESTJ as some kind of silly insult.

Haphazard

10-06-2008, 08:26 PM

Good lordy!

What happened here while I was gone? o_O

I mean... eleven pages...

Jeffster

10-06-2008, 08:36 PM

http://i215.photobucket.com/albums/cc28/AveryDena/Nocapszy.jpg

Night

10-06-2008, 08:38 PM

I don't see why people have such a problem with Nocapszy.

He's a smart kid. His method of communication isn't always conventional, but most of what he says is pretty spot-on.

Evan

10-06-2008, 08:40 PM

^He does goad people.

He wants them to get mad; it proves his superiority.

His communication style could use some work if his goal was to get his ideas across. His goal is different, though :)

Mitzy

10-06-2008, 08:40 PM

no its not.

Jack Flak

10-06-2008, 08:42 PM

I don't see why people have such a problem with Nocapszy.
http://images.inmagine.com/168nwm/photodisc/meds008/meds008995.jpg

Uberfuhrer

10-06-2008, 08:43 PM

^I think stress pushes your internal standard (thought processes/unconscious tendencies) further from the external standard, so your intuition might look more introverted (more internally focused) in those times. Without stress, Ni can certainly focus on the environment more (that's what perception does, anyway -- focuses on the environment, turns it into inputs for other cognitive functions), because you aren't as fearful of the external world.

Well, Ni both turns inward (introverts) and looks inward (intuits). So it cannot perceive outward alone. Ni needs inferior Se to feed it with new inspirations to ponder. But unlike the ESxP, the INxJ's sensory experience is never for its own sake, but only as a jumping off point.

On the Ni and auxiliary axis, the INxJ, is not focused on perceiving the environment but rather organizing it with either Te or Fe. In the case of an INTJ, the external world is first confronted with Te which the INTJ somehow organizes so that the cards fall his way. So it's manipulation to befit what Ni has envisioned.

(The ENTP would do the exact opposite -- make the vision known, then back it up with Ti's sound logic afterward so that the project workable.)

As for the INTJ becoming an ENTP, remember Keirsey's roles of the INTJ -- the INTJ would play the secondary role of ENTJ, then INTP, and then when under extreme pressure, the ENTP.

Evan

10-06-2008, 08:48 PM

Well, Ni both turns inward (introverts) and looks inward (intuits). So it cannot perceive outward alone. Ni needs inferior Se to feed it with new inspirations to ponder. But unlike the ESxP, the INxJ's sensory experience is never for its own sake, but only as a jumping off point.

I used to think this is how it worked.

All perception sees the world. Introverted perception has an additional filtering process. Ni sees the world, and narrows it down into ideas that are relevant to the user's thought process/unconscious tendencies. Ne just makes connections with everything it can.

It's true that Intuition is dependent on Sensing, but that goes for Ne and Si, too.

An introverted perceiver looks inward more because inward is more relevant to the internal standard, not because it can't look out.

Jeffster

10-06-2008, 08:59 PM

I don't see why people have such a problem with Nocapszy.

He's a smart kid. His method of communication isn't always conventional, but most of what he says is pretty spot-on.

It's probably just my SKi acting up. Or possibly my PEe. Those shadow functions are deadly.

Uberfuhrer

10-06-2008, 09:01 PM

It's true that Intuition is dependent on Sensing, but that goes for Ne and Si, too.

An example of the Ne and Si axis is being aware of the limits (which Si is aware of) and innovating within them.

Se and Ni axis would probably be in the form of intuitively acting on physical impulses. The unconscious Ni perhaps is what enables Se to be optimistic, and thus carefree, about the consequences.

Si and Ne axis sees things that are new and different (Ne) and seeks to maintain them according to internal proper forms and standards (Si).

Mitzy

10-06-2008, 09:06 PM

am i in math or chemistry class again

ajblaise

10-06-2008, 09:11 PM

for serial! like.. my brain hurts.

Magic Poriferan

10-06-2008, 09:21 PM

I don't see why people have such a problem with Nocapszy.

He's a smart kid. His method of communication isn't always conventional, but most of what he says is pretty spot-on.

He's extremely rude. He is arrogant to the point of counter-productivity and ignorance, often presuming himself to be the best authority possible on anything, with a real distaste for hearing that he is wrong. He seems to have essentially no constructive aim to his arguments. He has a huge tendency to use different forms of ad hominem fallacy. And lastly, he likes to ignore points, and ask questions and then not make use of the answers. A fundamental part of his arguing style is to simply act like you never said any of the things that proved him wrong, even if you quote them over and over again.

Night

10-06-2008, 09:25 PM

Evan

10-06-2008, 09:26 PM

You know, mitzy, you might want to embrace being an ESFP. They basically don't exist on this forum, so it would make you special.

She isn't. Definitely ETP at least.

She's ENTP. She just doesn't care about most of this bullshit. Makes me wonder why I do.

reason

10-06-2008, 09:28 PM

What's my type?

Jack Flak

10-06-2008, 09:28 PM

INTP LEE SHUT UP

Edahn

10-06-2008, 09:28 PM

ajblaise

10-06-2008, 09:32 PM

I haven't read that many of Nocapszy's posts, but... he might be a little dorky internet punk but at least his posts are entertaining. If I see that he's made a post in a thread I'll make a point to read it.

Magic Poriferan

10-06-2008, 09:32 PM

Ironically, these are the reasons I like him.

It's a shame how girls these days always go for the wrong guy.

CaptainChick

10-06-2008, 09:36 PM

Ironically, these are the reasons I like him.
FWIW, I like him too.

Edahn

10-06-2008, 10:06 PM

TIME THE FUCK OUT.

Y'all need to chill with the insults and fluff. The Mitzy-related posts were moved to here (http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/what-s-my-type/9330-mitzycentral-com-split.html). The insults will be deleted.

Edit: link provided.

Nocap

10-06-2008, 10:06 PM

He's extremely rude. He is arrogant to the point of counter-productivity and ignorance, often presuming himself to be the best authority possible on anything, with a real distaste for hearing that he is wrong. He seems to have essentially no constructive aim to his arguments. He has a huge tendency to use different forms of ad hominem fallacy. And lastly, he likes to ignore points, and ask questions and then not make use of the answers. A fundamental part of his arguing style is to simply act like you never said any of the things that proved him wrong, even if you quote them over and over again.

The thing I like about magic is he cooperates. Most of the above is why I'm convinced he's INFJ.

Actually magic, the ad hominem thing is just an aside. I always make damn sure prove that I'm right then mock people.

Calling me ignorant is actually ignorant in and of itself. I think my rudeness has somehow blinded you. You can't not take things personally which blocks you from seeing what I actually have to offer (constructive in your idea of what constructive is or not).

This seems to be a pattern here -- you're not the only one.

As or whether I use the answers to my questions the "right way" (good Ni btw) I deliberately phrase my questions in a way such that whoever I'm asking will inadvertently prove themselves wrong.

That is, I ask a question which appears to be an inquiry of onething, when it is in fact looking for something only related. The idea is to divert attention away from the original argument because in that frame, my quarry often knows what and what not to say to keep their point alive.
Unfortunately for them, I can see the deception, and counter it by distracting them from the original context and then trace it back essentially having them do all the dirty work in proving themselves wrong.

Its nothing but shortsighted, or short tempered to not see how I do this.

entropie

10-07-2008, 12:02 AM

An example of the Ne and Si axis is being aware of the limits (which Si is aware of) and innovating within them.

Se and Ni axis would probably be in the form of intuitively acting on physical impulses. The unconscious Ni perhaps is what enables Se to be optimistic, and thus carefree, about the consequences.

Si and Ne axis sees things that are new and different (Ne) and seeks to maintain them according to internal proper forms and standards (Si).

I read your previous post, concerning the work together of Ni and Se and it was great.

But on this one I wanted to add:

Perceiving functions are irrational functions and work passively, so they are hardly a standard to measure the limits within a given situation. Although it is true that Ne can fantasize about relations of objects and bend in that process the physical structure of the object, what then is to be regulated by Si.

But I think, the Si as the lowest function in the enxp is more inclined to internalize the world around him and personalize with things or people. The regulator of Ne, I would say is the Ti or Fi in that case. For Ti sees what follows a linear logic, while Fi sees how there actions affect a theory in its whole or how it changes the different bounds a theory is made of.

I think the Si in the entp to manifest in an awestruck nature. Like for example, "you choosed me, to hold the speech ? Oh I am flattered, I would have never thought that" or "I will never go on airplanes, they are bad" or "You are right, a sane human being does not do such things"..

Altogether a Ni-Se axis is an object of making you a world-loathing egomaniac, who in the worst case changes things, so they fit his idea of it.

While a Ne-Si axis can slowly make you go nuts. And in the end when you figure out that you have to come slower on Ne you start focussing on Si, making you even more nuts, because it is under-developed and it makes you think cars have a soul :)

Edahn

10-07-2008, 05:31 AM

YourLocalJesus - XSFJ. Don't take it as an insult, I've just seen your strengths and think they align better with this type.

CaptainChick

10-07-2008, 06:09 AM

Edahn, don't take offense but you are a total ISFP, will you please come out of the closest already, please?

Terian

10-07-2008, 06:15 AM

I'm totally an ISFJ. What do you say to that?

Edahn

10-07-2008, 07:11 AM

Edahn, don't take offense but you are a total ISFP, will you please come out of the closest already, please?

I I could see. F I could see. P I can definitely see. But S?

Bella

10-07-2008, 07:17 AM

I know next to nothing and even I know he's not an S.
His face is all I.

Bella

10-07-2008, 07:18 AM

^Fundie preaching

ZiL

10-07-2008, 08:46 PM

While a Ne-Si axis can slowly make you go nuts. And in the end when you figure out that you have to come slower on Ne you start focussing on Si, making you even more nuts, because it is under-developed and it makes you think cars have a soul :)

Hmm, so I guess this is what happened to those people who made Thomas the Tank or Herbie, eh?

Magic Poriferan

10-07-2008, 10:34 PM

Edahn, don't take offense but you are a total ISFP, will you please come out of the closest already, please?

Geeze, Edahn. Is there anything you aren't?

Uberfuhrer

10-07-2008, 11:54 PM

Edahn is an ENTP. Ne, Ti, and Fe are all quite apparent.

Anja

10-08-2008, 12:18 AM

I rarely miss reading one of Nocapszy's posts.

Jack Flak

10-08-2008, 12:21 AM

Edahn is an ENTP. Ne, Ti, and Fe are all quite apparent.
You might have something with ENTP. Not sure.

Tallulah

10-08-2008, 12:24 AM

Edahn is an ENTP. Ne, Ti, and Fe are all quite apparent.

He seems ENTP-ish to me, too. And I think he's pretty balanced on the T/F continuum.

Uberfuhrer

10-08-2008, 12:30 AM

You might have something with ENTP. Not sure.

No, I'm not attracted to Edahn in that way.

He seems ENTP-ish to me, too. And I think he's pretty balanced on the T/F continuum.

Well, ENTPs are also tactful because they use their auxiliary Fe. But if you notice, Edahn often uses this sympathy to keep the peace. ENTPs can be very tactful because of this.

Nocap

10-08-2008, 12:34 AM

Well, ENTPs are also tactful because they use their auxiliary Fe. But if you notice, Edahn often uses this sympathy to keep the peace. ENTPs can be very tactful because of this.

So then what am I?

Jack Flak

10-08-2008, 12:36 AM

So then what am I?
Young.

Nocap

10-08-2008, 12:39 AM

I asked Uber for a reason, The Flak.
Type cares very little about age.

It cares very little about... species.

I type plants.

Jack Flak

10-08-2008, 12:41 AM

You're pretty damn ENTP. The Reznor variety.

YouTube - nine inch nails - March Of The Pigs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCjpyPqwXNA)

Jeffster

10-08-2008, 12:41 AM

I asked Uber for a reason, The Flak.
Type cares very little about age.

It cares very little about... species.

I type plants.

Your ISTJ fern is desperate for attention from you!

Why won't you give it the love it needs? :cry:

Uberfuhrer

10-08-2008, 12:44 AM

So then what am I?

An ENTP with less developed Fe.

EDIT: Excuse me, an EMTP with less developed Fe.

Nocap

10-08-2008, 01:33 AM

You're pretty damn ENTP. The Reznor variety.

YouTube - nine inch nails - March Of The Pigs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCjpyPqwXNA)

Interestingly, I'm a musician myself.
Decidedly not the Renzor Variety.

Nocap

10-08-2008, 01:36 AM

An ENTP with less developed Fe.

EDIT: Excuse me, an EMTP with less developed Fe.

I'm disappointed. You missed the sarcasm.

Screw function structures.

Anja

10-08-2008, 01:48 AM

Not to interrupt the typing of Nocapszy. But when you've time will some of you help me consider this?

Someone here with whom I've been in correspondence is making a case for me being more of an INFJ than Pee.

Any ideas on this?

Take it easy on the ego, Dudes! Don't want to cry in public.

colmena

10-08-2008, 10:26 AM

You came off INFP in the past, but now that idiosyncrasy is less apparent.

Had I read only your last 20 or so posts, I'd probably say you were an INFJ.

Thursday

10-08-2008, 10:31 AM

AvereX - edited for stupidity

Anja

10-08-2008, 03:12 PM

You came off INFP in the past, but now that idiosyncrasy is less apparent.

Had I read only your last 20 or so posts, I'd probably say you were an INFJ.

Thanks. Can you give me some examples, colmena?

Edahn

10-08-2008, 03:28 PM

Geeze, Edahn. Is there anything you aren't?

I'm not arrogant.

Eric B

10-08-2008, 07:34 PM

You seem to be the most questioned person here. Ever since the beginning of the thread.

Edahn

10-08-2008, 07:39 PM

Ivy's hard to type too.

disregard

10-08-2008, 07:41 PM

Edahn seems as ENTP as it gets.

Oriented to the outer world (obvious).. black belt in Ti.. tertiary Fe kept handy..

Jack Flak

10-08-2008, 07:42 PM

Brown belt maybe.

Aimahn

10-08-2008, 07:53 PM

Not that I'm necessarily unsure of my type, but could any of you offer any opinions. I ask because I think I'm far past the point of being objective about it myself. I think others opinions would certainly help clear the self fulfilling prophecy thing I have going about it.

Jennifer

10-08-2008, 08:20 PM

He's extremely rude. He is arrogant to the point of counter-productivity and ignorance, often presuming himself to be the best authority possible on anything, with a real distaste for hearing that he is wrong. He seems to have essentially no constructive aim to his arguments. He has a huge tendency to use different forms of ad hominem fallacy. And lastly, he likes to ignore points, and ask questions and then not make use of the answers. A fundamental part of his arguing style is to simply act like you never said any of the things that proved him wrong, even if you quote them over and over again.

Wow, it sounds like you've really kept your eye on him for some time.
(Be careful -- people might say you're in love!)

....Actually, if you meet him in person, that probably would give more context to his behavior here.
(He's just messing with your head.)

[nocaps] does goad people.
He wants them to get mad; it proves his superiority.
His communication style could use some work if his goal was to get his ideas across. His goal is different, though.

:) Yup.

Because its not what you say or think that matters, its what you actually do that defines you, so other people would be able to define you better would they not ?

They definitely can give you a perspective of how you come across to those who can't see your insides.

But I think that it's debatable as to whether we are defined by our words, our thoughts, or our actions. (Maybe that's another thread?)

Nocap

10-08-2008, 08:26 PM

Wow, it sounds like you've really kept your eye on him for some time.
(Be careful -- people might say you're in love!)

....Actually, if you meet him in person, that probably would give more context to his behavior here.
(He's just messing with your head.)
And if she's wrong, our go-arounds will be that much more fun.

:) Yup. Who's the say I don't have more than one?

Jennifer

10-08-2008, 08:36 PM

... Who's the say I don't have more than one?

Go ahead and elucidate.
(or obfuscate. )
(Whichever goal it is. )
(Or both.)

Magic Poriferan

10-08-2008, 10:12 PM

....Actually, if you meet him in person, that probably would give more context to his behavior here.
(He's just messing with your head.)

That's of little relevance to me. Regardless of his cause, I find the resulting conduct aggravating, and I presume that I and most other people here never will meet him in person, so there's no way we can understand better, even if would supposedly be enlightening.

entropie

10-08-2008, 10:14 PM

Never say Never :D

Nocap

10-08-2008, 10:15 PM

Cry somewhere else Porifieran.
The mods are the ones who issue out the relevant infractions.

FDG

10-10-2008, 02:58 PM

FDG = ESTP

I actually used to think for a while that I was ESTP. For a while again, I became undecided, then switched in a definite way towards ENTJ. (you may argue I'm a MBTI ESTP and I may even agree, although I am certain of being ENTj in socionics).

Jack Flak

10-12-2008, 07:17 PM

Magic Poriferan: INFP

Not an illogical fellow, but for lack of better commonly understood terminology: Ruled by Fi.

Thursday

10-12-2008, 07:57 PM

Magic Poriferan: INFP

Not an illogical fellow, but for lack of better commonly understood terminology: Ruled by Fi.

yep

Magic Poriferan

10-12-2008, 08:07 PM

At this point, I'm really curious as to what a person ruled by Ti looks like.

(I can wager that the following elaboration has a high chance of igniting an exchange of semantics that will alter no one's original position.)

Usehername

10-12-2008, 08:26 PM

I actually used to think for a while that I was ESTP. For a while again, I became undecided, then switched in a definite way towards ENTJ. (you may argue I'm a MBTI ESTP and I may even agree, although I am certain of being ENTj in socionics).

:huh:

You know this is a MBTI board, right? And a lot of us don't even have much faith in socionics?

FDG

10-13-2008, 05:45 AM

:huh:

You know this is a MBTI board, right? And a lot of us don't even have much faith in socionics?

Yes, a lot of "us" are wrong.

Nocap

10-13-2008, 06:09 AM

At this point, I'm really curious as to what a person ruled by Ti looks like.Ti people smoke pipes.

Look up Greg Solomon. Also look up Einstein. Proof.

(I can wager that the following elaboration has a high chance of igniting an exchange of semantics that will alter no one's original position.)

Given the types of the people involved, I'd expect nothing else.

Usehername

10-13-2008, 06:20 AM

I actually used to think for a while that I was ESTP. For a while again, I became undecided, then switched in a definite way towards ENTJ. (you may argue I'm a MBTI ESTP and I may even agree, although I am certain of being ENTj in socionics).

Yes, a lot of "us" are wrong.

Whatever dude, you're the guy using misleading symbols on an MBTI site! :devil: :D

Jack Flak

10-13-2008, 05:19 PM

Edahn: ISTJ (Judge Dredd)

Just for the hell of it, I'm going to say "no."

Society functions best when people feel protected and life is predictable. We elect officials to design rules with these ends in mind because each individual can't be trusted to make the correct decision to further these ends. Even though you think you can make a better decision in dire circumstances -- better in the sense that it promotes safety or predictability -- allowing you to make that decision would permit others to violate the law in circumstances they consider "dire." Not only can't we trust people to make good decisions, there is no clear definition of what "dire" means. To adopt a position that individuals should be allowed to violate the law in "dire" circumstances would, in the long run, result in less predictability and less safety, even though the intent to to maximize these factors. Therefore, the position is inconsistent and flawed.

Edahn

10-13-2008, 05:26 PM

I AM THE LAW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jennifer

10-13-2008, 05:31 PM

That's of little relevance to me. Regardless of his cause, I find the resulting conduct aggravating, and I presume that I and most other people here never will meet him in person, so there's no way we can understand better, even if would supposedly be enlightening.

Hmm.
Fi says, "I personally don't like it" as the final judgment.
Ti stands outside and at worst says the behavior isn't effective, or isn't rational, or is inconsistent.

disregard

10-13-2008, 06:30 PM

Magic Poriferan: INFP

Not an illogical fellow, but for lack of better commonly understood terminology: Ruled by Fi.

Who are you to tell him what type he is?

It's none of your business.

Nocap

10-13-2008, 06:50 PM

It is his business.
The business of giving him the business.
He deserves the business.

Jack Flak

10-13-2008, 06:50 PM

Who are you to tell him what type he is?

It's none of your business.
LOL! That's what this thread is for! You're pulling my leg, aren't you.

entropie

10-13-2008, 06:51 PM

Pull a finger :D

Little Linguist

10-13-2008, 06:53 PM

Hahaha. Well this thread made me laugh and smile, so it was worth the read....

Magic Poriferan

10-13-2008, 06:53 PM

Hmm.
Fi says, "I personally don't like it" as the final judgment.
Ti stands outside and at worst says the behavior isn't effective, or isn't rational, or is inconsistent.

I've already done that plenty of times. It seems everyone overlooks all of my points regarding the rationale of proper social interaction.

This also opens up the problem of quantification again. So one thing represents Ti, and another represents Fi, but what amount of these thing must be presented to qualify someone as a Feeler or a Thinker?

For instance, if a Thinker only used Ti as you describe, then no Thinker would ever have a concept of "flaming" or "trolling" as a violation. The more interesting thing is that they could conclude that something is unsound, but the conclusion would be of no relevence since they would be incapable of having an opinion that conclusion.

Now, since people obviously don't work this way, where is the line drawn? I certainly do what is attributed Ti, constantly. The case for me being a Feeler has never so much been the absence of Ti processes, but the highlighting of the presence of what are allegedly Fi processes in my behavior. So what do we make of this?

Do I use more Fi than Ti? I would argue that this assertion is simply not true. Is my over-all point guided by Fi or Ti? I do not know, because that's harder to locate. I would argue, however, that every human being is guided by Feeling. Thinking does not provide motivation, by definition. So this would really be an useful measure for distinguishing people. Then things are further complicated by context. For example, there are some topics in which nearly everyone comes across like a Feeler, because the focus of the topic itself does not demand much Thinking. So anyone that bothers to post in it is likely to express Feelings, like a farewell thread. So what does one make of all of these things when determining type?

And what of the dichotomies? Is it possible that I apply more Thinking and Feeling than most people? I have to say that most attempts to prove that I am a Feeler have actually done more to make me doubt the validity of the entire MBTI.

Magic Poriferan

10-13-2008, 06:54 PM

Who are you to tell him what type he is?

It's none of your business.

LOL! That's what this thread is for! You're pulling my leg, aren't you.

Indeed. Perhaps you should stage a protest of this entire thread, disregard. It is principally built around something you dislike.

disregard

10-13-2008, 06:56 PM

What an awful thread.

I did.

But it's greater than this thread.. I am against people typing other people when it isn't asked for in general. Not just in this thread. Everywhere. It should be outlawed!

entropie

10-13-2008, 06:58 PM

MBTI has no validity, as there is no validity in Newton' physics.

There will never be validity, there will only be compromise and that is what makes the journey count, not the answers

Jack Flak

10-13-2008, 06:58 PM

It goes something like this, Magic:

T: IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
F: IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

Magic Poriferan

10-13-2008, 07:17 PM

It goes something like this, Magic:

T: IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
F: IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

That one fell a little flat...

That being said, it does remind me of testing increments, and every test I've ever taken has made me a T. So, testing is out of the question.

Jack Flak

10-13-2008, 07:17 PM

Tests are so 90s.

entropie

10-13-2008, 07:19 PM

I gonna make a T or F test tomorrow, Sekt oder Selters, we have to find clarity :D

Evan

10-13-2008, 07:24 PM

How do you make a T vs. F test?

Sounds like a challenge.

entropie

10-13-2008, 07:25 PM

How do you make a T vs. F test?

Sounds like a challenge.

You know me, I wont take it serious :D.

But if you provide the knowledge, I realize it in technical ways and look for advertisement sponsors and then we gonna make some money with it :D

Jennifer

10-13-2008, 07:27 PM

I've already done that plenty of times. It seems everyone overlooks all of my points regarding the rationale of proper social interaction.

Are you assuming your points are being overlooked just because we're not paying attention?

I just found it sort of ironic that, regardless of your type, much of your protests against being Fi seem to be driven by Fi-style concerns.

Do with that what you want.

This also opens up the problem of quantification again. So one thing represents Ti, and another represents Fi, but what amount of these thing must be presented to qualify someone as a Feeler or a Thinker?

To me, it's relational, not a hard quantification.

For instance, if a Thinker only used Ti as you describe, then no Thinker would ever have a concept of "flaming" or "trolling" as a violation.

Clarification:
1. I haven't usually logged in [recently] on this issue of your type. That's because I was just collecting data points.
2. When the balance swung over and the conversation happened to bring it up, I mentioned it.
3. Thus, I'm not talking about isolated events, I'm talking about a general aura of behavior surrounding your approach to situations. Use Ti all you want, there's no law against it.

As another point, Ti's also can be flamers and violators. But for other reasons than perhaps what the other-function-heavy people might have for their trolling behavior. So again, when taken in conjunction, it's possible to distinguish.

Now, since people obviously don't work this way, where is the line drawn? I certainly do what is attributed Ti, constantly.

You do?
Um... okay.

The case for me being a Feeler has never so much been the absence of Ti processes, but the highlighting of the presence of what are allegedly Fi processes in my behavior. So what do we make of this?

It would probably depending on the relationship between lots of variables in how you interact with others online.

Do I use more Fi than Ti? I would argue that this assertion is simply not true.

All right. You may argue, go ahead. ;)

I would argue, however, that every human being is guided by Feeling. Thinking does not provide motivation, by definition.

True.

TP's end up being quite passive in nature if they are not constantly being stimulated by the environment. FPs seem more driven internally by comparison.

What does this have to do with you, though?
Is your logic here, "Everyone shows F behavior regardless of being T/F -> Thus, my behavior that shows F is not indicative of being F?"
That's not much of a logic statement.
It's just a "reasonable doubt" strategy.

Interestingly, I think T's (like I said above) end up being more passive than F's when it comes to having no information to evaluate; where they have to make personal decisions or ones that are not "objective," they tend to sit and twiddle.

So again, you can still use that as data points in comparing T vs F archetypal behavior.

So this would really be an useful measure for distinguishing people. Then things are further complicated by context. For example, there are some topics in which nearly everyone comes across like a Feeler, because the focus of the topic itself does not demand much Thinking. So anyone that bothers to post in it is likely to express Feelings, like a farewell thread. So what does one make of all of these things when determining type?

You're talking in such broad generalizations that you're not committing to any hard detail here. It's an effective strategy to obfuscate the issue but it doesn't resolve anything.

I think people need to take "context" of a discussion as part of determining what's motivating a person and why they behave they way they do. But (1) context is just ONE aspect to be considered and (2) there are still nuances that play themselves out in when someone's showing T (for example) as a primary versus a tertiary and so on.

And what of the dichotomies? Is it possible that I apply more Thinking and Feeling than most people? I have to say that most attempts to prove that I am a Feeler have actually done more to make me doubt the validity of the entire MBTI.

Can't you see what you just said seems far more F than T?
"I don't agree with you; therefore, the whole theory must be wrong."
That is a pretty large leap.

I know I would never invalidate an entire system based on simply how it categorized ME.

Do you think that could be one T vs F difference? Probably not on its own... but taking in conjunction with other points? I don't know.

(I'll give you the N -- you hinged this whole comment on the possibilities rather than a derived conclusion, giving it the weight of an entire argument when it's not an argument at all -- sort of like the closing argument for a lawyer gunning for the "reasonable doubt" strategy. That's typical N at work.)

In any case, if you're a T, you're running off inferior F right now.
If you're an F, then your response is indicative of F.

(And no, I don't really care what type you are -- you simply said a lot of things in your post that I thought were worth rebutting in terms of how to approach typing.)

That being said, it does remind me of testing increments, and every test I've ever taken has made me a T. So, testing is out of the question.

Guess it's a wrap, then. :)

Evan

10-13-2008, 07:31 PM

I definitely think Magic is a Ti/Fe user. Either INTP or INFJ, but he obviously has more information than I...

entropie

10-13-2008, 07:32 PM

Maybe he is the long lost infp, who actually has a brain

Ouh now I really gotta go :D

entropie

10-13-2008, 07:37 PM

But to speak again. Have you ever thought about a INFJ or INTJ tag @magic ?

You seem to be very fond in using professional words and technical terms, I never even heard of. That feeling I have around INTJ or INFJ most of the time.

Disclaimer: I dont analyze your style here, for I dont know nothing about you. :D

Magic Poriferan

10-13-2008, 08:03 PM

Are you assuming your points are being overlooked just because we're not paying attention?

I'm assuming they are being overlooked. I don't know why.

I just found it sort of ironic that, regardless of your type, much of your protests against being Fi seem to be driven by Fi-style concerns.

Do with that what you want.

What are those concerns?

To me, it's relational, not a hard quantification.

So I am Feeler if I am in a crowd of people that use more Thinking than me? I'm not sure if that is what you are saying. If it is, it still begs the question of how we determined these comparisons. How does one know that I am more or less Thinking than someone else?

Clarification:
1. I haven't usually logged in [recently] on this issue of your type. That's because I was just collecting data points.
2. When the balance swung over and the conversation happened to bring it up, I mentioned it.
3. Thus, I'm not talking about isolated events, I'm talking about a general aura of behavior surrounding your approach to situations. Use Ti all you want, there's no law against it.

I don't what this means. What is an aura? And what about using Ti being a crime?

As another point, Ti's also can be flamers and violators. But for other reasons than perhaps what the other-function-heavy people might have for their trolling behavior. So again, when taken in conjunction, it's possible to distinguish.

My point was specifically refering to the concept of a human being that uses one function only, without it's counter-part. My theory is that someone who only uses Ti would not have a concept of violations, because violation of the rules of conduct is concept inherently based around something being good or bad.

You do?
Um... okay.

That implies doubt.

All right. You may argue, go ahead. ;)

My expressions of peresonal sentiment are generally matched point for point with a logicl argument. In my considerations, I try to frame what I want within the scope of what I know is realistically feasible. I would say that I at least match my Feeling with an equal degree of Thinking.

True.

TP's end up being quite passive in nature if they are not constantly being stimulated by the environment. FPs seem more driven internally by comparison.

What does this have to do with you, though?
Is your logic here, "Everyone shows F behavior regardless of being T/F -> Thus, my behavior that shows F is not indicative of being F?"
That's not much of a logic statement.
It's just a "reasonable doubt" strategy.

It has to do with me, because people keep debating my type, so I'm trying to understand the process of distinguishing types for that purpose. My argument is somewhat like the one you just put forward. I am more specific though. I'm saying that being guided by a desire does not prove anyone is an F, because it is assumed to be true about all human beings, thus there is no distinction. Something supposedly F in nature that is more specific, or invidual, is necessary to prove that I am a Feeler. My argument does not in anyway prove that I am not Feeler, it only takes the particular issues of being guided by Feelings off of the table, because we all are.

Interestingly, I think T's (like I said above) end up being more passive than F's when it comes to having no information to evaluate; where they have to make personal decisions or ones that are not "objective," they tend to sit and twiddle.

So again, you can still use that as data points in comparing T vs F archetypal behavior.

Then this is simply a case of behavior not being apparent behind the forum, because I am very prone to analysis paralysis when I don't feel I fully grasp a situation. this would make me like a TP then. But more on topic, passive or not, even a person's choice of being passive is guided by Feeling based assessments.

You're talking in such broad generalizations that you're not committing to any hard detail here. It's an effective strategy to obfuscate the issue but it doesn't resolve anything.

I'm refering to a human being, doing what human beings do in life, in the kinds of situations human beings end up in. If that is too broad a generalization for the system, then the system has failed to serve its purpose as I understand it. I've long been curious about this question, and I think it is valid and important. How do the types account for peoples' reactions to different contexts?

I think people need to take "context" of a discussion as part of determining what's motivating a person and why they behave they way they do. But (1) context is just ONE aspect to be considered and (2) there are still nuances that play themselves out in when someone's showing T (for example) as a primary versus a tertiary and so on.

Yes, context is only a smaller part of it, but still a very important part. You can say that some things will be clearly F or T in how someone is handling the context of a situation, but just how complicated and nuanced does this get? This starts reaching dimensions like that of the nature/nurture debate. There end up being so many factors and filters that no one is capable of acheiving a level of certainty that has any application.

Can't you see what you just said seems far more F than T?
"I don't agree with you; therefore, the whole theory must be wrong."
That is a pretty large leap.

That is not what I said, but I can certainly see how that might appear rather F when anyone says that.

I know I would never invalidate an entire system based on simply how it categorized ME.

Not what I said.

It's not because people are questioning my type that I doubt the whole system. It is because in the process of arguing about my type, they end up reaching for so many different points, and making so many different assertions that are not necessarily the same as what I or what others have asserted about the system, that it leads me to asking a lot of the questions I've asked here. The fact that I feel the need to ask all of these questions, and do not get clear answers, gives me cause to doubt the strength of the entire system. So, to simplify that, the discussion of my type usaually serves as a catalyst for all kinds of issues that highlight the weakness of the MBTI.

Do you think that could be one T vs F difference? Probably not on its own... but taking in conjunction with other points? I don't know.

It might be, when someone does it.

(I'll give you the N -- you hinged this whole comment on the possibilities rather than a derived conclusion, giving it the weight of an entire argument when it's not an argument at all -- sort of like the closing argument for a lawyer gunning for the "reasonable doubt" strategy. That's typical N at work.)

I am running beyond reasonable doubt, I'm running probable doubt. Much of what I have said, like I already explained, does not disprove that I am an F. What it does do, is call into question everything that's being said to prove that I am an F. So we're back to start again. Perhaps part of your mistake is that you don't follow what my motivation is. I'm not trying to prove that I am a T at this particular point. I'm trying to figure out how any of you know anything about this. Hence my doubts about the whole system.

In any case, if you're a T, you're running off inferior F right now.
If you're an F, then your response is indicative of F.

I'm still not gathering your bases for this decree. It may have something to do with your previously incorrect intepretations of my motives and logic, though. I think about four of the things I responded to was based on your misunderstanding of why I'm doubting the system. And your intepretation of it certainly seem like something an irrational Feeler might do.

(And no, I don't really care what type you are -- you simply said a lot of things in your post that I thought were worth rebutting in terms of how to approach typing.)

I don't care that you don't care what my type is. I'm trying to understand your reasoning, regardless of how much you feel about it.

Guess it's a wrap, then. :)

That's optimistic of you.

Jennifer

10-13-2008, 08:09 PM

MP, thanks for your response;I want to think through it, and my computer connection at home won't be up until at least Wednesday, so any momentary silence on my part is based mostly on those factors...

Edahn

10-13-2008, 08:38 PM

How do you make a T vs. F test?

Sounds like a challenge.

1. Are you a T or an F? (circle one)

T ... F

Edahn

10-13-2008, 08:41 PM

If I had to brand Magic, I would go with "sensitive INTP," but I wouldn't go F. When I read his posts (usually by accident, or when someone reports them) his arguments are presented logically and he seems to know how to divide his feelings about things from the argument at hand. Granted, I've really only read a handful of posts, but that's my impression.

entropie

10-13-2008, 08:42 PM

1. Are you a T or an F? (circle one)

T ... F

your x is longing for the i, isn't it ? xD

Edahn

10-13-2008, 08:47 PM

your x is longing for the i, isn't it ? xD

My ex was rather self-involved, but I haven't spoken to her in years.

...

Click me!

entropie

10-13-2008, 08:48 PM

My ex was rather self-involved, but I haven't spoken to her in years.

...

badum, chhh! :nerd:

Nah, nah, that's a good one :D

Magic Poriferan

10-13-2008, 09:10 PM

When I read his posts (usually by accident, or when someone reports them) his arguments are presented logically and he seems to know how to divide his feelings about things from the argument at hand.

Reported? I've never been warned or infracted. :thinking:

I guess what's funny is that most of the time people would bother reporting me would probably be the times that I am most showing my supposed status as an F. So if I seem like a Thinker then...

But there's another interesting point. Dividing feelings and the argument at hand. What does this tell us about someone's type? Should someone who is not a Feeler simply not involve their Feelings, or can they still have them but seperate them?

Tallulah

10-13-2008, 09:22 PM

entropie

10-13-2008, 09:28 PM

"sensitive entp" , wow that sounds great. Just makes no sense, but it really sounds great :D

Edahn

10-13-2008, 09:33 PM

Reported? I've never been warned or infracted. :thinking:

I guess what's funny is that most of the time people would bother reporting me would probably be the times that I am most showing my supposed status as an F. So if I seem like a Thinker then...

Yeah...that was a joke. (Or was it?)

But there's another interesting point. Dividing feelings and the argument at hand. What does this tell us about someone's type? Should someone who is not a Feeler simply not involve their Feelings, or can they still have them but seperate them?

I think of T as a need for consistency and order. Feelings play a role in the big picture because if you really dig down into arguments, you'll eventually find a value system that's based on feelings, even if it's disguised as some kind of "principle." Being able to identify when feelings and arbitrary values are being summoned in an argument is the sign of a strong intuitive thinker. The display of those emotions is another matter which to me speaks more to emotional maturity than to type.

Tallulah

10-13-2008, 09:39 PM

"sensitive entp" , wow that sounds great. Just makes no sense, but it really sounds great :D

That's because those don't exist, silly. :newwink:

booyalab

10-13-2008, 09:40 PM

I think of T as a need for consistency and order. Feelings play a role in the big picture because if you really dig down into arguments, you'll eventually find a value system that's based on feelings, even if it's disguised as some kind of "principle."

Just to be clear, are you saying that every argument alludes to a value system or every argument is based on feelings? Those are completely different things to me and the first one sounds much more plausible.

Edahn

10-13-2008, 09:42 PM

Magic Poriferan

10-13-2008, 10:05 PM

Just to be clear, are you saying that every argument alludes to a value system or every argument is based on feelings? Those are completely different things to me and the first one sounds much more plausible.

The first one.

Definitely the first one. I'm not sure how anyone would make a decent argument saying otherwise.

Nocap

10-13-2008, 10:26 PM

Poriferan, take it from an expert: You're an F.
Or don't take it. I don't care.
Your acceptance/awareness of it doesn't change the fact that you are.

Jeffster

10-13-2008, 10:30 PM

Poriferan, take it from an expert: You're an F.
Or don't take it. I don't care.
Your acceptance/awareness of it doesn't change the fact that you are.

So, am I an F, Nocap ol buddy?

:wubbie::hug::blush::steam::cry::hi:

Nocap

10-13-2008, 10:31 PM

YOUR MOM IS AN F! j/k

Magic Poriferan

10-13-2008, 10:34 PM

Poriferan, take it from an expert: You're an F.

Oh? I don't seem to recall any point when Jennifer explicitly labeled me with a single type. :D

Jeffster

10-13-2008, 10:36 PM

YOUR MOM IS AN F! j/k

OMG YER RIGHT!!

Nocap

10-13-2008, 10:36 PM

Implicitly son.

And she's not the expert I'm talking about.
And I'd like to make it explicitly apparent that I don't approve of your cheekiness.

Dwigie

10-13-2008, 11:20 PM

Hm, things are tense around here. Again one of these good ol' T F problems.
Oh well, since I'm slightly unsure of my type I'll give it a shot:
- Type Dwigie :)

entropie

10-13-2008, 11:39 PM

Oh? I don't seem to recall any point when Jennifer explicitly labeled me with a single type. :D

Jennifer is no expert, noone is

Eric B

10-14-2008, 01:44 AM

Now, since people obviously don't work this way, where is the line drawn? I certainly do what is attributed Ti, constantly. The case for me being a Feeler has never so much been the absence of Ti processes, but the highlighting of the presence of what are allegedly Fi processes in my behavior. So what do we make of this?

Do I use more Fi than Ti? I would argue that this assertion is simply not true. Is my over-all point guided by Fi or Ti? I do not know, because that's harder to locate. I would argue, however, that every human being is guided by Feeling. Thinking does not provide motivation, by definition. So this would really be an useful measure for distinguishing people. Then things are further complicated by context. For example, there are some topics in which nearly everyone comes across like a Feeler, because the focus of the topic itself does not demand much Thinking. So anyone that bothers to post in it is likely to express Feelings, like a farewell thread. So what does one make of all of these things when determining type?

And what of the dichotomies? Is it possible that I apply more Thinking and Feeling than most people? I have to say that most attempts to prove that I am a Feeler have actually done more to make me doubt the validity of the entire MBTI.

Say, have you ever taken the Cognitive Processes test? I don't remember seeing one by you? You're a lot like me (Playing with the different theories, and can be sensitive when dealing with other people; though you seem to go a bit beyond me, like the criticism of Nocapsy, though this would seem to me more like a projective Fe than necessarily Fi). Some people insisted that I was F, but the CP test showed where I do have stronger F (both attitudes) than most INTP's, for whom Fe is the weakest, and Fi midway. (There are even debates over on INTPc as to whether Fe should be the 8th, rather than Fi). That's why I say that the strengths can vary, but the roles will fall into the Beebe archetype model. I even had elfinchilde over at the Pudding break it down, and it fit perfectly!

So it would be interesting to see how you score on the CP test.

Magic Poriferan

10-14-2008, 02:37 AM

Eric, I did take the CP test before. Multiple times in fact. It does show me as having very high Fi, and I've mentioned this before, but overall, I still have more Thinking than Feeling, and of all the Thinking types out there, my pattern comes the closest to INTP (or so it said).

Jack Flak

10-14-2008, 02:42 AM

Do you look down on INFPs as your misguided little brothers and sisters?

colmena

10-14-2008, 02:44 AM

Do you look down on INFPs as your misguided little brothers and sisters?

And from where do you look, Jack?

Jack Flak

10-14-2008, 02:44 AM

And from where do you look, Jack?
LOL. Ssshhh! You're gonna F up the test.

Magic Poriferan

10-14-2008, 02:49 AM

Do you look down on INFPs as your misguided little brothers and sisters?

Why would you think that?

...Okay, yeah that was a question in response to a question. I think the answer is no. I've admittedly had many frustrating experiences with INFPs, though, and it probably doesn't help that my mother is one of them. Me and my brothers have sometimes joked about the characteristic mistakes and weaknesses of INFPs, which are at once so amusing, but so troubling. That being said, I think I get along with INFPs more than most types, and while they are flawed in their own way, they are merited in their own way as well. So is every other type. In general, I tend to think there isn't much grounds for trying to create a linear pecking order among types, like BlueWing does.

Jack Flak

10-14-2008, 02:50 AM

colmena

10-14-2008, 02:52 AM

LOL. Ssshhh! You're gonna F up the test.

Prey do tell, Jack. Rarely do I hear self assessment from you that isn't retrospective.

Jack Flak

10-14-2008, 02:53 AM

I did tell!

Magic Poriferan

10-14-2008, 02:55 AM

You're INFP then imo.

The INTP/INFP dynamic is that each sees the other as "Doing it wrong" whenever making a decision. There's an inherent disrespect, which is unavoidable if both people are being themselves. Each puts the other on a slightly lower level.

There is no linear pecking order, but there are characteristic relations between types.

So you're saying that because I didn't spend that post putting INFPs down, I must be an INFP myself?

I don't see INTPs as doing things wrong either. Now what? If INFPs and INTPs regard each other as ineffective, misguided, or just error prone, but I regard neither type as those things, what does that make me?

(over all, I have to disagree anyway, as I doubt the interaction between types has such a simplistically predictable nature).

Jack Flak

10-14-2008, 02:56 AM

If you see neither as misguided, you could be INFJ.

ajblaise

10-14-2008, 02:58 AM

If you think you have certain strong F traits but also identify with INTPs more, why not settle with the INxP label?

Magic Poriferan

10-14-2008, 02:59 AM

If you see neither as misguided, you could be INFJ.

Hah. Well I saw that one coming. Funny how as soon as people step outside of INxP, they always want to say I'm an INFJ. Though I remember that some time before it became trendy to start calling me an F, a handful of people kept suggesting that I was actually INTJ.

Magic Poriferan

10-14-2008, 03:01 AM

If you think you have certain strong F traits but also identify with INTPs more, why not settle with the INxP label?

I've put that idea forward before. I just kind of think that's silly. Besides, I'm not uncertain about my type, which is what that implies. Instead I'd a simple for specifically indicating that I know that I am balanced on that continuum. I never did conclude that I was too Feeling to be a T, though.

Jack Flak

10-14-2008, 03:02 AM

Hah. Well I saw that one coming.
That's just your Ni acting up, lol.
Funny how as soon as people step outside of INxP, they always want to say I'm an INFJ. Though I remember that some time before it became trendy to start calling me an F, a handful of people kept suggesting that I was actually INTJ.
Could be INTJ too, I suppose, but I do get the Feeling-Judgment vibe (The reason I suggested INFP to begin with).

Haphazard

10-14-2008, 03:03 AM

Let's just say MP is an ESFP.

That should adequately bewilder any newcomers. What do you think?

whatever

10-14-2008, 03:05 AM

Holy shit- the sponge has spawned PAGES while I was away! :shock:

I'd say that Mr. Spongie is rather well balanced, but he gets compared to some of the more extreme members here and they assume that he is in "the other camp".

Balance is a good thing- it just confuses those who seem to prefer it all black and white.

:)

Magic Poriferan

10-14-2008, 03:05 AM

Could be INTJ too, I suppose, but I do get the Feeling-Judgment vibe (The reason I suggested INFP to begin with).

INFJ implies far too much Fe. I am more likely an INFP than an INFJ.

Let's just say MP is an ESFP.

That should adequately bewilder any newcomers. What do you think?

If I wanted to do something like that, I would have thrown off this label a long time ago. I think I'd have more fun with it than that, too.

Jack Flak

10-14-2008, 03:07 AM

If you're sure of INTP, so be it. If you're not sure, I recommend analyzing your feelings on other INTPs and INFPs further, and if you're either, you may find that you "don't get" one type more than the other, making you the other.

erm

10-14-2008, 03:10 AM

Jack Flak

10-14-2008, 03:14 AM

You're an INFP.
I know! *cries endlessly* I've been waiting! Waiting so long to come clean! *bawling*

erm

10-14-2008, 03:21 AM

I know! *cries endlessly* I've been waiting! Waiting so long to come clean! *bawling*

Mocking it won't make it go away.

Jack Flak

10-14-2008, 03:22 AM

Mocking it won't make it go away.
:cry: Hugs please? :hug:

Orangey

10-14-2008, 03:22 AM

Wait, so why is it exactly that so many people here think that Magic Poriferan is an NF of some sort? I feel like I'm missing something.

erm

10-14-2008, 03:25 AM

:cry: Hugs please? :hug:

:hug:

Don't let it eat you up inside.
Unless you're into that kind of thing.

Wait, so why is it exactly that so many people here think that Magic Poriferan is an NF of some sort? I feel like I'm missing something.

S/He's one of the precious few people who still takes MBTI seriously. Trolling gold.

01011010

10-14-2008, 03:50 AM

S/He's one of the precious few people who still takes MBTI seriously. Trolling gold.

Don't make assumptions about Magic's thoughts and motivations.

whatever

10-14-2008, 03:52 AM

S/He's one of the precious few people who still takes MBTI seriously. Trolling gold.

which brings up one of life's great questions, I guess: Are you a troll?

:devil:

Nocap

10-14-2008, 04:06 AM

I've put that idea forward before. I just kind of think that's silly. Besides, I'm not uncertain about my type, which is what that implies. Instead I'd a simple for specifically indicating that I know that I am balanced on that continuum. I never did conclude that I was too Feeling to be a T, though.

But what about to be a T dominant?

The no you say to INFJ because of Fe is a crock.

Your complaints against me, alone are enough to prove high Fe.
More than one INFJ mistakes their intuiting for Thinking.
Dissatisfaction over irresponsibility is almost never the stance of a TP. In fact they're the ones typically responsible for it.

No disliking irresponsibility -- disliking hiding things, fearful aversion to veil trickery and deceit, regardless of intention is more an FJ habit. Having weak extraverted perception they have much difficulty keeping themselves aware of much situational nuance. Introverted perception keeps them aware (if only onconaciously) of this weak spot. Experience teaches them that this can make them vulnerable, and exploitation of this is marked, by action oriented Feeling as a hateful attack.

Those TPs who say they're upset by conspiracy or non-constructive behavior are probably either tricking themselves, or have come under recent hardship (tangible setbacks as opposed to annoyance) as a result of either.

erm

10-14-2008, 04:20 AM

Don't make assumptions about Magic's thoughts and motivations.

That's the assumption you focused on?

You F!

Orangey

10-14-2008, 04:22 AM

That's the assumption you focused on?

You F!

??

Magic Poriferan

10-14-2008, 04:28 AM

Your complaints against me, alone are enough to prove high Fe.

Hmmm... Some of them are that you are rude or disruptive. guess those are supposed to be Fe? I'm not sure why they can't be Fi. I also make about just as many complaints that you don't make sense and fail to apply logic properly. I think your immense ego (probably as well as other things) interferes with your ability to be objective or rational.

So take your pick. Neither my T nor my F can make much out of you.

More than one INFJ mistakes their intuiting for Thinking.
Dissatisfaction over irresponsibility is almost never the stance of a TP. In fact they're the ones typically responsible for it.

Is that so? Why does that have to be the case?

No disliking irresponsibility -- disliking hiding things, fearful aversion to veil trickery and deceit, regardless of intention is more an FJ habit. Having weak extraverted perception they have much difficulty keeping themselves aware of much situational nuance.

I'm hardly unaware of nuances. I also find your point about drawing conclusions regardless of intention to be very odd. It seems characteristically F to care about intentions. I'm more interested in consequences than cause or intent, but that strikes me as being more of a T thing.

The funny thing is that either way, these concerns, as concerns, must require an element of Feeling anyway, no matter which you pick.

Introverted perception keeps them aware (if only onconaciously) of this weak spot. Experience teaches them that this can make them vulnerable, and exploitation of this is marked, by action oriented Feeling as a hateful attack.

Hateful attacks... You're an FJ, huh? Oh, I know, you are going to say that you don't care enough to really be expressing hatred when you attack people. But I can't know that you're telling the truth, though. Likewise, you can't know what the motivation is behind my criticism. If I were just going on appearances though, you seem like you're bubbling with emotional rage all the time, regardless of what you say. The point is that neither of us can know what emotional makeup is behind the other, so we are not in position to draw conclusions on such premises.

Those TPs who say they're upset by conspiracy or non-constructive behavior are probably either tricking themselves, or have come under recent hardship (tangible setbacks as opposed to annoyance) as a result of either.

One of the overall problems with your thinking is it relies far too much on the concept that people do not know themselves. So much self-trickery, and sub-conscience. The end result is that you strip people of the position to assess themselves. But the who can assess them? Somehow we're all supposed to believe that you can, but I have no idea what would make you a better authority on what's going on in peoples' heads than those people themselves. People do trick themselves, but when they do that, you aren't really any better at figuring it out than they are.

01011010

10-14-2008, 04:58 AM

That's the assumption you focused on?

You F!

Thank you. That's the most complimentary statement you could make in regards to me. Please tell my gf the good news. :D

Nocap

10-14-2008, 05:30 AM

Hmmm... Some of them are that you are rude or disruptive. guess those are supposed to be Fe? I'm not sure why they can't be Fi. They can. But they never are. I also make about just as many complaints that you don't make sense and fail to apply logic properly. No TP would. Not a real one. Any Ti would notice, or at least suspect that it was either deliberate (as often it is, which I among numerous others have attempted to make you aware) or was not a real fallacy. Of course, and F would make that mistake.

Expressing myself unconventionally doesn't quite count as failed logic.
Pay more attention. Especially to semantics and and etymology.

I think your immense ego (probably as well as other things) interferes with your ability to be objective or rational.Exactly where do you suspect my ego came from?
I'm not really good at anything except being objective and rational.

Your complaints would be more accurately directed at my non-compliance with your requests to comprehensively elaborate.

My ego only gets in the way of that.
I urge you to reexamine my character. You've truly got me figured all wrong.

Is that so? Why does that have to be the case? It doesn't. And I didn't say it does.
Who's the one being illogical?

This is what I'm talking about. You're not paying enough attention to what I say. I've said this before, and I'll say it again. I choose my words very carefully. I employ modifiers for a reason. Please observe them and appeal to their importance.

'Til then, it doesn't matter how logical you are, or think you are. If you're not dealing with the whole situation, T is useless.

I'm hardly unaware of nuances. As I outlined above, that's clearly not true. Your continued ignorance of my careful precision in word choice is inalienable proof. I also find your point about drawing conclusions regardless of intention to be very odd. It seems characteristically F to care about intentions. Not that it matters pertaining to the argument at hand, but you're not entirely wrong -- Feeling is interested in a person's intentions. But Feeling is not solely interested in one's intentions. The resulting actions, and their means (in this case, a person's intention) have to be pure else they be condemned, even if only covertly.

I'm more interested in consequences than cause or intentThe result of extraverted judgement, not necessarily T or F but that strikes me as being more of a T thing. Wrong.

The funny thing is that either way, these concerns, as concerns, must require an element of Feeling anyway, no matter which you pick. No they don't and how's that funny?

Hateful attacks... You're an FJ, huh? Hey -- pay attention. The FJ perceives deceit or non-cooperation, or even overt hostility as a hateful attack.
My point was that they're not, or at least, don't have to be. The Fj is misled, just as you obviously are.

Oh, I know, you are going to say that you don't care enough to really be expressing hatred when you attack people. But I can't know that you're telling the truth, though. Likewise, you can't know what the motivation is behind my criticism. If I were just going on appearances though, you seem like you're bubbling with emotional rage all the time, regardless of what you say. The point is that neither of us can know what emotional makeup is behind the other, so we are not in position to draw conclusions on such premises. This all can be ignored as it's expounding rebuttal to a misperceived point.

One of the overall problems with your thinking is it relies far too much on the concept that people do not know themselves. Know what son? People fucking suck at it. Not just me.

So much self-trickery, and sub-conscience. The end result is that you strip people of the position to assess themselves. But the who can assess them? Someone else. Jason can't observe himself objectively because Jason is too busy thinking about how he wants to be. The two merge, and make for distorted understanding of reality. I choose to abstain from too much elaboration on my own intentions/desires/problems etc. because I don't know them. I know I don't know them, because I catch myself defying what I assumed to be my rules as often as I do following them.

I can only suspect that everyone else is the same way, since I catch them telling me fewer quasi-values than I watch them break.

Somehow we're all supposed to believe that you can, but I have no idea what would make you a better authority on what's going on in peoples' heads than those people themselves. Your problem is that you have no faith at all in unconscious work.
I've got a suicidal relative who'd serve as a supreme extreme example of the inability a human has to consciously grapple his unconscious.

People do trick themselves, but when they do that, you aren't really any better at figuring it out than they are.False, but not necessarily because I'm better mentally equipped. Only because I'm less focused on being comfortable, and more focused on being right.

Lying to one's self allows the individual to do what they want, even if it goes against their 'moral code' and still feel good about themselves.

Magic Poriferan

10-14-2008, 06:21 AM

They can. But they never are. No TP would. Not a real one. Any Ti would notice, or at least suspect that it was either deliberate (as often it is, which I among numerous others have attempted to make you aware) or was not a real fallacy. Of course, and F would make that mistake.

I have considered it as possibly deliberate, though not absolutely. Anyhow, your point is odd, since you seem to be saying that only F wouldn't be able to suspect that you were being deliberate, and I don't know why that would be the case.

Expressing myself unconventionally doesn't quite count as failed logic.
Pay more attention. Especially to semantics and and etymology.

You're wrong about that. No matter what your intentions are, if you say something that is not logically cogent, then it is not logically cogent. It may very well have been your intent to say something that does not follow the conventions of logic, but your intent does not change the cogency of the statement itself.

Exactly where do you suspect my ego came from?
I'm not really good at anything except being objective and rational.

Your complaints would be more accurately directed at my non-compliance with your requests to comprehensively elaborate.

My ego only gets in the way of that.
I urge you to reexamine my character. You've truly got me figured all wrong.

That would simply make you what is conventionally called a troll or a flamer, which is hardly something I haven't considered. My overall point about you is that it is damned one way or the other. you're an illogical, irrational mess, or you are someone that indulgences in being negative and problematic. As I said, neither my T nor my F can make anything good out of you. One makes you fail on logical grounds, the other makes you fail on ethical grounds. You are bound to fail.

It doesn't. And I didn't say it does.
Who's the one being illogical?

This is what I'm talking about. You're not paying enough attention to what I say. I've said this before, and I'll say it again. I choose my words very carefully. I employ modifiers for a reason. Please observe them and appeal to their importance.

'Til then, it doesn't matter how logical you are, or think you are. If you're not dealing with the whole situation, T is useless.

"more than one", "almost never", "typically". Yes, precisely speaking, you did not say it has to be the case. You did not use absolutes, you used quantifiers. I didn't precisely reflect that fact in my question, and you caught me on it. Aren't you cute? But if you weren't evasive and nitpicky, you probably would have ignored that and gotten to the point that you must have clearly known I was looking for. Or are you failing to perceive my motives? :D It comes back to the "irrational or a troll" dichotomy once again.

As I outlined above, that's clearly not true. Your continued ignorance of my careful precision in word choice is inalienable proof.

As I've said, you've gotten that wrong.

Not that it matters pertaining to the argument at hand, but you're not entirely wrong -- Feeling is interested in a person's intentions. But Feeling is not solely interested in one's intentions. The resulting actions, and their means (in this case, a person's intention) have to be pure else they be condemned, even if only covertly.

The result of extraverted judgement, not necessarily T or F Wrong.

[QUOTE=Nocapszy;360074]
No they don't and how's that funny?

Concerns do require the use of Feeling. You have to have at least some very primal basis of good/bad values to be concerned about anything. Those values could involved pain and pleasure, or propagating ones seed, but the point is that concerns have to come back to a motive. Motives require Feeling. A creature truly, 100% of Feeling would have no motive.

It's funny because I like little factors that throw everything else aside or upside down.

Hey -- pay attention. The FJ perceives deceit or non-cooperation, or even overt hostility as a hateful attack.
My point was that they're not, or at least, don't have to be. The Fj is misled, just as you obviously are.

I still don't see where I come in here. I'm assuming this is supposed to be describing my tendencies after all. I don't care if you are hateful or not. I haven't been trying to calculate your worth based on what I suspect your feelings are. Maybe they're hateful, maybe they're not. Even if you are just impersonally amusing yourself, the effect of what you do is never really any good (maybe once or twice I recall you making a worthwhile post). Hatred or no hatred, I clearly see problems in your actions, regardless of your feelings.
Again, this consequence over intent, and again, is a problem with you either being irrational or troll.

This all can be ignored as it's expounding rebuttal to a misperceived point.

Well, actually, if you were more astute or concerned (which ever it is with you), you would notice there is content there relevant to the follwing points.

Someone else. Jason can't observe himself objectively because Jason is too busy thinking about how he wants to be. The two merge, and make for distorted understanding of reality. I choose to abstain from too much elaboration on my own intentions/desires/problems etc. because I don't know them. I know I don't know them, because I catch myself defying what I assumed to be my rules as often as I do following them.

I can only suspect that everyone else is the same way, since I catch them telling me fewer quasi-values than I watch them break.

Peoples' reasoning is originated within their minds. No one outside can see it any better than the person that's originating those thoughts. If the originator can't see it, that's bad news, because it means nobody is seeing it. I believe in denial more than I believe in complex sub-conscious actions.

Your problem is that you have no faith at all in unconscious work.
I've got a suicidal relative who'd serve as a supreme extreme example of the inability a human has to consciously grapple his unconscious.

Perhaps. I'm not an expert on this (and neither are you, presumably), but again I'd say that I believe more in denial, which is different from sub-consciousness.

False, but not necessarily because I'm better mentally equipped. Only because I'm less focused on being comfortable, and more focused on being right.

Lying to one's self allows the individual to do what they want, even if it goes against their 'moral code' and still feel good about themselves.

It's plausible that you are lying to youself just as much when you make these assessments. To make a minor change, you are more focused on wanting to be right. So, you will lie to yourself for your motives, just as much as they will lie to themselves for their motives. You will see all of the obvious evidence that you know what's going on in the other person's head. You'll see it because you believe it. You want to believe you know how peoples' minds work. Your assessment of others can be just as easily clouded by your own desire.

Nocap

10-14-2008, 06:45 AM

It's obvious you're not reading.

Damned F...

Magic Poriferan

10-14-2008, 06:46 AM

It's obvious you're not reading.

Damned F...

Cop-out. :coffee:

Nocap

10-14-2008, 06:50 AM

Jeez and you're calling me a troll.

Magic Poriferan

10-14-2008, 06:51 AM

Jeez and you're calling me a troll.

The concept of reciprocation has interesting effects. :)

Edahn

10-14-2008, 01:35 PM

http://www.t-shirthumor.com/Merchant2/graphics/fullsize/stfu_lg.gif

Jen

10-14-2008, 01:37 PM

^ Seriously. I didn't even bother reading it all the exchange was so childish.

When I originally started this thread it mattered to me what my "type" was, but now I have become less interested in that and more into how I can improve my life and those around me by the choices I make.

Nocap

10-14-2008, 01:58 PM

I have considered it as possibly deliberate, though not absolutely. Anyhow, your point is odd, since you seem to be saying that only F wouldn't be able to suspect that you were being deliberate, and I don't know why that would be the case.

You're wrong about that. No matter what your intentions are, if you say something that is not logically cogent, then it is not logically cogent.Textbooks don't always explain things in a logically cogent way either.
They're also rarely wrong.
Ya don't have to explain things logically to be right. You only have to explain things logically to garner the respect of people who, if worthy of respect, would be able to piece things together without logical cogency.

That would simply make you what is conventionally called a troll or a flamerNothing in the quoted section points at all toward being a troll. I spoke only about how the arrogance (as you like to call it) keeps me from bothering to explain things to you.
If you think that's a troll, then look up troll 'cause you don't know what it is.

which is hardly something I haven't considered. What the hell is this? You really ought to read a few of your posts kid...
Reading things like this, seeing the clumsy, frivolous use of words suggests (and this is a habit of yours -- not an isolated event) that you're not paying a great deal of attention to what you're saying.

My overall point about you Well this isn't about me, is it? is that it is damned one way or the other. you're an illogical, irrational mess Who never seems to get the answer wrong... or you are someone that indulgences in being negative and problematic. As I said, neither my T nor my F can make anything good out of you. One makes you fail on logical grounds, the other makes you fail on ethical grounds. You are bound to fail.
The only failure here is yours. That you can't pull together my sentiments into a logical whole, is only your problem.
Listen to me very carefully.
Remember the ego you mentioned earlier? I'll confess to it being mostly real. I'm conceited to where I have little interest in explaining things to where the commoner can comprehend. They own their misunderstanding. Not me.
Actually using poor logic on the other hand, is not the same.
I get the right answer, because the world works by logical rules, and I'm highly adroit in finding and following them.

To explain, is not to understand. Understanding can be isolated from explanation.

"more than one", "almost never", "typically". Yes, precisely speaking, you did not say it has to be the case. You did not use absolutes, you used quantifiers. I didn't precisely reflect that fact in my question, and you caught me on it. Aren't you cute? But if you weren't evasive and nitpicky I'm not being evasive. I'm not really being any more nitpicky than anyone ought to be.
The problem here is that you're being obtuse. Your abuse of English as I mentioned above, and combined with your evident distaste for proper use points out clearly that you've made it a habit to ignore important details. This obviously skews your perception of the big picture. I even doubt that you can understand anyone anymore because as bad a problem as this seems to be with you I find it impossible to believe that any analysis you might make would be undoubtedly flawed as the result of poor information collection. Again, these are not isolated events -- I pointed out to major faux pas in a single post.

you probably would have ignored that and gotten to the point that you must have clearly known I was looking for Well, let's take a look at the question you asked, and then my response:

Is that so? Why does that have to be the case?
It doesn't. And I didn't say it does.
Now, clearly, you didn't have a point. You asked a question. Why does that have to be the case? Perhaps you meant that as a rhetorical question, instead stating that it doesn't. If it was the latter, then my response was to agree with you. The likelihood you had any other intention ranges from stretch to lie.

As I've said, you've gotten that wrong. No I haven't. I now redirect you to the points above where I clearly point out where you fail to correctly address my linguistic acumen. Which does, regardless of your willingness to believe it, substantially alter the big picture.
There's a huge range of different between, most of the time, and all of the time.

Concerns do require the use of Feeling. You have to have at least some very primal basis of good/bad values to be concerned about anything. Which makes it nature -- not judgement; not Feeling.
Those values could involved pain and pleasure, or propagating ones seed, but the point is that concerns have to come back to a motive. Motives require Feeling. None of this matters...
And if it is true, then it has no pertinence to whether you're an F or a T, unless you forgot to say "by the way, I have less motivation than most people" which isn't unbelievable given your history of leaving out or ignoring important factors.

I might get to the rest later.

Magic Poriferan

10-14-2008, 06:02 PM

http://www.t-shirthumor.com/Merchant2/graphics/fullsize/stfu_lg.gif

Oh, fine.

Edahn

10-14-2008, 10:34 PM

Katchen - INFP

(See http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/welcomes-introductions/9645-katzchen.html)

:newwink:

Aimahn

10-14-2008, 11:55 PM

Since you guys seem to love arguing type.

would you care to invest some of your energy on determining my type?

Magic Poriferan

10-14-2008, 11:58 PM

Since you guys seem to love arguing type.

would you care to invest some of your energy on determining my type?

I don't know very much about you.

Haphazard

10-15-2008, 12:38 AM

Since you guys seem to love arguing type.

would you care to invest some of your energy on determining my type?

Don't bother, I've tried to get them to do that. It doesn't work.

They only do it to people who don't want it, like MP. You gotta play hard to get.

entropie

10-15-2008, 12:41 AM

I must admit, I have no idea what to say now

disregard

10-15-2008, 01:02 AM

*whispers in Aimahn's ear* You have to act like you're comfortable and confident in your type for people to "help" you with that.

:D

Aimahn

10-15-2008, 01:22 AM

Jack Flak

10-15-2008, 01:49 AM

Hahah. You're probably right. Or maybe I just need to go on a rampage and just start the most emotion fueled threads, and get personally offended when people argue with me so I can get my T questioned.

Thats how it usually goes right?
Maybe.

But it seems the people who ask for a retype aren't the ones who act like another type very often. I've been accused of several other types, sometimes obviously in fun, but sometimes seriously (ENTP, ISTP mostly). I don't take much offense, because I'm better at the study than those who doubt me, lol.

Aimahn

10-15-2008, 02:19 AM

lol admittedly I just wanted to get an argument/discussion going. I don't really doubt my INTP diagnosis.

Magic Poriferan

10-15-2008, 02:21 AM

lol admittedly I just wanted to get an argument/discussion going. I don't really doubt my INTP diagnosis.

TROLL!

Dwigie

10-15-2008, 02:25 AM

lol admittedly I just wanted to get an argument/discussion going. I don't really doubt my INTP diagnosis.
:laugh:, I kind of do...:ninja:

Aimahn

10-15-2008, 02:28 AM

I'll have you know I am the most rational, cool headed, detached, intellectually superior being who laughs in the face of feelings.

Magic Poriferan

10-15-2008, 02:36 AM

I'll have you know I am the most rational, cool headed, detached, intellectually superior being who laughs in the face of feelings.

Laughs in the face of Feelings? Laughter? This is a clear indication of emotions! Further more, your attempt to grand-stand about your position as a Thinker is a clear indication of emotional vulnerability, a fear of being inadiquate that you handle by trying to persaude others with a projection of self-importance. Typical Feeling driven neurosis.

Also, you must have had a reason to wake up at some point, as well as a reason to locate yourself in front of a computer, and use it, for at least the purpose of coming to this forum, where you have written out messages. Such impetus could only be caused by Feelings. This means you must have Feelings within you, which means you are by necessity a Feeler.

disregard

10-15-2008, 02:38 AM

Quite, quite.

katzchen

10-15-2008, 02:44 AM

Katchen - INFP

(See http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/welcomes-introductions/9645-katzchen.html)

:newwink:

...very funny... :dry:

(:alttongue:)

Jack Flak

10-15-2008, 02:50 AM

That's quite a hefty amout of Feeling justification, MP. Yep, we Ts know the difference, mmhmm...

whatever

10-15-2008, 06:49 PM

IlyaK is an ESTJ, not an ENTJ.

A more linear thought pattern is evident in his posts (even if they are off topic).

:)

Jack Flak

10-15-2008, 06:50 PM

IlyaK is an ESTJ, not an ENTJ.

A more linear thought pattern is evident in his posts (even if they are off topic).

:)
Disagree.

whatever

10-15-2008, 06:53 PM

proof?

Jack Flak

10-15-2008, 06:55 PM

proof?
Where's yours?

He thinks outside the box, doesn't care who agrees, has a big picture view, etc.

whatever

10-15-2008, 06:58 PM

Where's yours?

He thinks outside the box, doesn't care who agrees, has a big picture view, etc.

Te, Si... the beleif in what was- the traditional past view as opposed to trying to create something new.

Reusing the old without first dusting it off as opposed to synthesis.

Jack Flak

10-15-2008, 07:02 PM

I was under the impression that nuclear holocaust was something new.

whatever

10-15-2008, 07:06 PM

I was under the impression that nuclear holocaust was something new.

not to General LeMay... or many others in his vein!

The thought is quite popular in my SJ hometown, tbh.

Jack Flak

10-15-2008, 07:07 PM

Okay, I admire your perserverance. I still disagree though...Good luck convincing IlyaK.

Night

10-15-2008, 07:07 PM

I presume you two are referring to interpretations of posts like this (http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/politics-history-current-events/9353-terrorists-have-won-4.html#post351441)?

whatever

10-15-2008, 07:09 PM

:yes: indeed!

and nobody convinces IlyaK and his ESTJ certitude of ANYTHING!

Nocap

10-15-2008, 08:53 PM

They only do it to people who don't want it, like MP.
Yeah.
The very OP was trollery using this as a veil.

katzchen

10-16-2008, 04:46 PM

Katchen - INFP

(See http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/welcomes-introductions/9645-katzchen.html)

:newwink:

No seriously, why?

Edahn

10-16-2008, 05:08 PM

No seriously, why?

Based on what you said in your intro thread about being in touch with your surroundings and not being like the other NTs.

Why don't we start a What's My Muthafuckin' Type? thread and ask people. Lots of those threads were split out of this one. Then you can outline how you think you're different from the INTPs over in that place and we can definitely put you into a new crammed box. :yes:

Jack Flak

10-16-2008, 05:14 PM

Maybe katzchen is young. Too young to be cold and hard. Those were the days.

katzchen

10-16-2008, 06:01 PM

Based on what you said in your intro thread about being in touch with your surroundings and not being like the other NTs.

Maybe. Being in touch with my surroundings could be an S thing too though, right?

Why don't we start a What's My Muthafuckin' Type? thread and ask people. Lots of those threads were split out of this one. Then you can outline how you think you're different from the INTPs over in that place and we can definitely put you into a new crammed box. :yes:

That might be a good idea...

Maybe katzchen is young. Too young to be cold and hard. Those were the days.

Are all NT's cold and hard? Some are pretty goofy.

Edahn

10-16-2008, 06:22 PM

Maybe. Being in touch with my surroundings could be an S thing too though, right?

Sure!

MBTI makes no sense!

Jack Flak

10-16-2008, 06:24 PM

Are all NT's cold and hard? Some are pretty goofy.
Cold, hard, goofy, all true.

Evan

10-16-2008, 08:16 PM

I presume you two are referring to interpretations of posts like this (http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/politics-history-current-events/9353-terrorists-have-won-4.html#post351441)?

:yes: indeed!

and nobody convinces IlyaK and his ESTJ certitude of ANYTHING!

That post could definitely be Ni fueled. (It sounds Ni over Si, that's for sure.)

Thursday

10-26-2008, 08:27 PM

Night - INTJ -> ENTP ; INFJ <--- using his Ti like Victor and wildcat, but his Fe like no other.

NOTE : "no other" is not a forum member - but if it was, it would be an Fi something

Jack Flak

11-04-2008, 01:41 AM

BlueWing: ISTJ. My new function system has given me tricks I never dreamed of.

You generally have to have world-smashing Intuition to understand Nocapszy, just as you must have similar Sensing capabilites to finish a BlueWing post.

We can work under the assumption that Bluewing is ISTJ...

Yeah, I was just thinking that, in your system, he'd be an ISTJ.

In mine, however, he'd be an INTP with extreme introversion.

It begs the question: What type is BlueWing really, and how do we know?

And yes, I was using my system. It's amazing.

*ponders* At least a Thinking Primary type under my system, and definitely an Introvert. So, ISTJ or INTJ.

It's extremely ironic that BlueWing's unreal knowledge of MBTI function theory is probably why he mistyped himself.

Add: I think I will work under the assumption that BlueWing is ISTJ until further notice, due to his concern with the ability to perceive intent in Nocapszy's posts. I invite the audience to join me.

ThatGirl

11-04-2008, 01:46 AM

BlueWing: ISTJ. My new function system has given me tricks I never dreamed of.

I'd say IXTJ

Bella

11-04-2008, 01:48 AM

We welcome you with open arms, Bluewing.

*offers chip and dip*

ThatGirl

11-04-2008, 01:50 AM

bella INTJ

Jack Flak

11-04-2008, 01:51 AM

bella INTJ
Bella is definitely ISTJ. There will be no further debate.

Bella

11-04-2008, 01:51 AM

bella INTJ

*faints*

Aimahn

11-04-2008, 01:52 AM

Flack ESFJ. His posts give others too much of a warm fuzzy feeling. He's all about the peace too.

Haphazard

11-04-2008, 01:52 AM

Flack ESFJ. His posts give others too much of a warm fuzzy feeling. He's all about the peace too.

Nah, he's more of an ESTJ.

Uberfuhrer

11-04-2008, 01:53 AM

No you have to have Ti to comprehend posts. Ti is intellectual interpretation and seeing variables to make a conclusion.

N technically has very little to do with interpreting things -- you need a judgment function to interpret because it's a rational process. It simply involves perceiving what isn't there -- it's visionary perception.

ThatGirl

11-04-2008, 01:54 AM

Flack ESFJ. His posts give others too much of a warm fuzzy feeling. He's all about the peace too.

Thats typical INTP, for some reason

.....superficially

Edgar

11-04-2008, 01:54 AM

Flack ESFJ. His posts give others too much of a warm fuzzy feeling. He's all about the peace too.

It's true. There are a lot of ESFJs masquerading as NTs over here.
Me, for example.

SolitaryWalker

11-04-2008, 01:59 AM

I already told yall! My type is not INTJ! Not ISTJ!

But ESTJ!

Haphazard

11-04-2008, 02:01 AM

I already told yall! My type is not INTJ! Not ISTJ!

But ESTJ!

So he confesses!

ThatGirl

11-04-2008, 02:03 AM

I already told yall! My type is not INTJ! Not ISTJ!

But ESTJ!

Nope

Jack Flak

11-04-2008, 02:04 AM

Hmm, so ISTJ in your system is Ti-Se.

I claim I am Ti-Ne.

Hmm, Ti-Se tends not to be interested in discussing complex ideas. Certainly would not bother elaborating them in tedious detail.

You seem to be confusing S detail (attention to concrete, physical detail, like for example noticing a small scratch on your car) and conceptual detail. Conceptual detail is most notable among Ti-Ne mathematicians and logicians. They often take over a 100 steps to complete their proof. It is also notable among philosophers, as we see there are many books written by Ti-Ne philosophers (such as Aristotle, Hegel, and William James) that are over 500 pages long.

The ideas in those books are founded on a few axioms, which they explain very thoroughly. Thus there is detail to logical nuance.

Clearly, the work of thinkers with a dominant Intuition is different in this regard, they do not devote nearly as much time to explaining the nuance of their reasoning.

Generally all of us tend to focus on things that capture our interest. So, Ts, especially INTPs (Introverted Thinking is the quintissence of Thinking or logical reasoning, and logic is by its nature abstract, therefore Ti-Ne is more in line with logical reasoning than Ti-SE), are fascinated with the nuance of logical reasoning.

Thus, the reason my posts are this tedious is because I outline my reasoning in detail. That is in closest affinity with Ti-Ne for reasons stated above. Ti-Se would be interested in a different kind of detail. Detail that pertain to the concrete, physical world. They are generally concerned with analysis of what can be observed with their 5 senses, for this reason Ti-Se are distinctly represented among mechanics.

Ti-Se as you describe it implies ISTP, but these functions don't directly correlate to my system. If you would like to learn the mechanics of my alternate function system, read at least the OP of this thread. http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/mbti-enneagram-other-personality-matrices/10345-jack-flak-s-function-system-adventure.html There was and is, however, much discussion beyond the OP in which more was defined in posts, as I'm not an excellent essayist.

ISTJ under my system has Thinking for the Primary function, and Sensing for the support function. Direction of these functions is undefined. My reasoning for typing you as ISTJ includes the assessment that you commonly acquire facts and relay them, but do not generally relay the results of strong Intuition as I define it.

SolitaryWalker

11-04-2008, 02:33 AM

Ti-Se as you describe it implies ISTP, but these functions don't directly correlate to my system. If you would like to learn the mechanics of my alternate function system, read at least the OP of this thread. http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/mbti-enneagram-other-personality-matrices/10345-jack-flak-s-function-system-adventure.html There was and is, however, much discussion beyond the OP in which more was defined in posts, as I'm not an excellent essayist.

ISTJ under my system has Thinking for the Primary function, and Sensing for the support function. Direction of these functions is undefined. My reasoning for typing you as ISTJ includes the assessment that you commonly acquire facts and relay them, but do not generally relay the results of strong Intuition as I define it.

It is implausible to maintain that direction is irrelevant. If you are to say I am a dominant Thinking type and also an Introverted type, you are inevitably marrying Introversion and Thinking. Therefore direction is necessarily defined, thus this is an explicit contradiction in your system.

One's respect for logical reasoning (as denoted by the dominant Thinking faculy) leads one to respect the facts. This is the case because logical reasoning often evinces inaccurate information in the form of contradictions. For this reason logicians are interested not only in logical validity, but also in the truth of their premises. In order to acquire true premises, one must be in tune with the facts.

Therefore, this shows that affinity with the Sensing faculty is not the only thing that could inspire one to respect the facts.

Jack Flak

11-04-2008, 02:40 AM

It is implausible to maintain that direction is irrelevant. If you are to say I am a dominant Thinking type and also an Introverted type, you are inevitably marrying Introversion and Thinking. Therefore direction is necessarily defined, thus this is an explicit contradiction in your system.
It's complicated. Introversion affects the use of Thinking. To explicitly define how, though, would mean at least occasional incorrectness. I've gone into this in the linked thread. Orangey's posts are excellent, and she's a better writer than I.

One's respect for logical reasoning (as denoted by the dominant Thinking faculy) leads one to respect the facts. This is the case because logical reasoning often evinces inaccurate information in the form of contradictions. For this reason logicians are interested not only in logical validity, but also in the truth of their premises. In order to acquire true premises, one must be in tune with the facts. ^The Thinking Primary's religion is logical processing of data.

Therefore, this shows that affinity with the Sensing faculty is not the only thing that could inspire one to respect the facts.Sensing does that, though even Sensing Primaries have powers of Intuition in "reserve."

From another thread:

Intelligible means possible to understand.

Some of his statements are impossible to understand without obvious modifications of our techniques of communication. Therefore some of his statements are unintelligible.

This is a very ISTJ post, and I could find countless other examples. I now know why I didn't understand your motivation before, working under the assumption that you were INTP. Now I understand it. You are extremely logical, and intelligent, but much more concerned with Thinking than Intution, and much more concerned with hard data than new possibilities. Everyone uses the Intuition function, of course, but it's only a "reserve" function in the case of the ISTJ.

SolitaryWalker

11-04-2008, 02:47 AM

It's complicated. Introversion affects the use of Thinking. To explicitly define how, though, would mean at least occasional incorrectness. I've gone into this in the linked thread. Orangey's posts are excellent, and she's a better writer than I.

^The Thinking Primary's religion is logical processing of data.

Sensing does that, though even Sensing Primaries have powers of Intuition in "reserve."

From another thread:

This is a very ISTJ post, and I could find countless other examples. I now know why I didn't understand your motivation before, working under the assumption that you were INTP. Now I understand it. You are extremely logical, and intelligent, but much more concerned with Thinking than Intution, and much more concerned with hard data than new possibilities. Everyone uses the Intuition function, of course, but it's only a "reserve" function in the case of the ISTJ.

It is true that Intuition is of ancillary importance in the case of a dominant Thinking type, which you call the ITJ.

The difference between ISTJ (Ti-Se) and INTJ (Ti-Ne) is that in the case of the former Intuition is used to support concrete, sensorial observations. That is exactly the case in the scenario of a mechanic that I have mentioned earlier.

In the case of the INTJ, Intuition is used directly to support logical analysis. That is what I do, I do look for new possibilities and ideas (otherwise I would not be interested in theory) in order to find a way to properly analyze subjects that I am interested in.

Thus, the main difference between the ISTJ and the INTJ is that the former tends not to be much interested in abstract ideas, yet the latter is.

If an ISTJ (Ti-Se) was a philosopher or a scientist, he would not want to deal with abstractions like typology. Instead he would want to concern himself with ideas that one could study without heavy reliance on imagination. For example, he would want to rely very heavily on empirical investigation, he would want to avoid complex chains of reasoning, as they require a heavy reliance on imagination.

I rely very heavily on complex chains of reasoning.

entropie

11-04-2008, 02:50 AM

did someone say, new idea ?

Jack Flak

11-04-2008, 02:51 AM

Thus, the main difference between the ISTJ and the INTJ is that the former tends not to be much interested in abstract ideas, yet the latter is.
Yes and no. Many ISTJs are fully interested in studying abstract concepts, theories. The more intelligent you are, the more likely this becomes, and you are obviously extremely intelligent. It is the preference for the tried and true as opposed to going out on a limb, and the preference for concrete data which leads me to type you as ISTJ.

entropie

11-04-2008, 02:52 AM

well that is a new idea

SolitaryWalker

11-04-2008, 02:53 AM

Yes and no. Many ISTJs are fully interested in studying abstract concepts, theories. The more intelligent you are, the more likely this becomes, and you are obviously extremely intelligent. It is the preference for the tried and true as opposed to going out on a limb, and the preference for concrete data which leads me to type you as ISTJ.

Our lower functions (3rd and fourth) are those that we are less comfortable with.

In order to be intelligent, you must be competent at the use of Intuition.

An intelligent ISTJ will be competent at the use of Intuition. However, it is not his natural preference. Thus, he will use his intelligence to focus on studies where he is not forced to behave in a way contrary to his natural preferences. Namely, he would study subjects that do not require a heavy reliance on Intuition.

entropie

11-04-2008, 02:55 AM

Namely, he would study subjects that do not require a heavy reliance on Intuition.

That was your death sentence :D

Jack Flak

11-04-2008, 02:58 AM

Our lower functions (3rd and fourth) are those that we are less comfortable with.
True, even under my system.

In order to be intelligent, you must be competent at the use of Intuition.
Regarding IQ, indeed. But there are types of what I would call effective intelligence which don't require much Intuition.

An intelligent ISTJ will be competent at the use of Intuition. However, it is not his natural preference.
Precisely, and your natural preferences are Thinking first, Sensing second, with Intuition and Feeling in reserve. If you are ISTJ, which if possible to prove, I would bet real money on at the moment.
Thus, he will use his intelligence to focus on studies where he is not forced to behave in a way contrary to his natural preferences. Namely, he would study subjects that do not require a heavy reliance on Intuition.
I think this is technically incorrect. The healthy mind of a person with a high IQ will naturally be interested in complex subjects.

SolitaryWalker

11-04-2008, 03:06 AM

Regarding IQ, indeed. But there are types of what I would call effective intelligence which don't require much Intuition..

True, but irrelevant because the intelligence we have in question is the kind that you claim I have, namely the intelligence that enables one to understand complex, abstract systems.

I think this is technically incorrect. The healthy mind of a person with a high IQ will naturally be interested in complex subjects.

That is true, however, the natural preferrence for what can be observed through the senses over what is not as easily observed through the senses will be clear.

Hence, if I was an ISTJ, my preference for the empirical method over that of rationalism (heavy reliance on abstract chains of reasoning ) would be obvious.

Thus, in summary, a smart ISTJ would have a strong Intuition, therefore he would excel at all intellectual endeavors, those that prescribe an empirical method, and those that prescribe the method of rationalism, however, he clearly would prefer the former over the latter.

Haphazard

11-04-2008, 03:08 AM

BlueWing is pure T.

He just doesn't have room for a perceiving function in that noggin of his.

entropie

11-04-2008, 03:09 AM

1:1

Jack Flak

11-04-2008, 03:09 AM

Hence, if I was an ISTJ, my preference for the empirical method over that of rationalism (heavy reliance on abstract chains of reasoning ) would be obvious.
I disagree. Your intelligence grants you the gift of using logic with ease, but you still prefer concrete data and/or accepted theory and/or observation and/or the literal to new theory and/or perception and/or the figurative. Prefer. It isn't cut and dry. You don't toss Intuition by the wayside.

entropie

11-04-2008, 03:10 AM

2:1

SolitaryWalker

11-04-2008, 03:16 AM

I disagree. Your intelligence grants you the gift of using logic with ease, but you still prefer concrete data and/or accepted theory and/or observation and/or the literal to new theory and/or perception and/or the figurative. Prefer. It isn't cut and dry. You don't toss Intuition by the wayside.

The statement that I prefer to rely on theories of others as opposed to attempting to conjure theories of my own is false.

Read Principles of Typology, especially the last chapter where I criticize Keirsey and Thomson heavily. The axioms of typology that I have established were also a result of my own thinking. I have arrived at such axioms as a result of my inquiry into Jungian typology. This led me to expound on his views (this means that I have propounded ideas that you will not find in the Psychological Types) and I have corrected a few minor errors that Jung has allowed in his system.

Such critical analysis and innovation of thought, I believe has reflected in my writings of the profiles, many of the ideas I have propounded there will not be discovered in other profiles.

Jung has already laid down the foundations of typology and many of his ideas have been discussed by other authors already. Therefore, all I can do is simply correct their errors and proceed further down the path that they have taken before me.

Or in other words, all the basic typological concepts have already been discovered. No matter how original of a thinker you are, you will not discover many, if any at all, new paths. However, you can come up with new ideas regarding the paths that have been discovered by others before, which is exactly what I have done.