Which cognitive functions do these phrases represent?

[stephsharik]

And if found within one person, which type would it most likely indicate?


"Everything is a system and with systems in between."

"Do not mess with the system unless absolutely necessary."

"In my mind is a river, a current of thoughts and ideas. I pull them out at will when they are needed. Everything I learn becomes a part of the river."

"I connect dots that others can't."

"My thought process is predominantly subconscious. All of my thinking occurs implicitly, rather than explicitly."

 

[EJCC]

Seems incredibly Ni to me.

 

[1AuroraAngel1]

"The darkness comforts me."

Possibly Fi.

"Everything is a system with systems in-between"

Definitely Te.

"Do not mess with the system unless absolutely necessary"

Probably Te.

"In my mind is a river, a current of thoughts and ideas. I pull them out at will when they are needed. Everything I learn becomes a part of the river."

Ni.

"I connect dots that others can't."

Ni.

"My thought process is predominantly subconscious. All of my thinking occurs implicitly, rather than explicitly."

That's also Ni.

If a person frequently uses Fi,Ni, and Te, They're probably an INTJ (NiTe, Fi is the tertiary function.)

 

[greenfairy]

Seems Ni to me.

 

[hjgbujhghg]

a lot of Ni, much of Te, some Fi

Sounds like an INTJ to me

 

[INTP]

Trying to fit phrases like this to some function is irritating.. because for example the first one, while some Fi user might say that, it can be said by anyone who is fucked up emotionally. If some INTP for example has created some system, he might say that about his system and blablabla. Functions arent about a phrase that someone says

 

[stephsharik]

Trying to fit phrases like this to some function is irritating.. because for example the first one, while some Fi user might say that, it can be said by anyone who is fucked up emotionally. If some INTP for example has created some system, he might say that about his system and blablabla. Functions arent about a phrase that someone says

And what if they're found within the context of a single person who feels that these phrases encompass a lot of their personality?

 

[Jaguar]

If I were to take someone into an art gallery, place them in front of several paintings and ask, "what do you see?" do you think there would be only one right answer?
When someone speaks, you have no proof of the origin of what you are hearing. Did Joe pick it up from Mom? Dad? TV? The net? A pal? A book? A movie?

I think it was Aphrodite-Gone-Awry who once commented in the forum that upon people choosing a type for themselves, (or a type they wish to be), all of a sudden they start using words and phrases they think a particular type would use, rather than speaking naturally. I have witnessed the same. People borrow words and expressions all the time. To start typing people based on individual sentences makes little sense and, frankly, gives new meaning to the expression "missing the forest for the trees."

 

[stephsharik]

If I were to take someone into an art gallery, place them in front of several paintings and ask, "what do you see?" do you think there would be only one right answer?
When someone speaks, you have no proof of the origin of what you are hearing. Did Joe pick it up from Mom? Dad? TV? The net? A pal? A book? A movie?

I think it was Aphrodite-Gone-Awry who once commented in the forum that upon people choosing a type for themselves, (or a type they wish to be), all of a sudden they start using words and phrases they think a particular type would use, rather than speaking naturally. I have witnessed the same. People borrow words and expressions all the time. To start typing people based on individual sentences makes little sense and, frankly, gives new meaning to the expression "missing the forest for the trees."

Random sentences, sure.

But if a carefully constructed phrase accurately represents a facet of a person's temperament, who's to say it cannot be analyzed? And if assigning a label would be too subjective, then perhaps, at least, some labels can be eliminated?

 

[Amalie Muller]

And if found within one person, which type would it most likely indicate?


"The darkness comforts me."

"Everything is a system and with systems in between."

"Do not mess with the system unless absolutely necessary."

"In my mind is a river, a current of thoughts and ideas. I pull them out at will when they are needed. Everything I learn becomes a part of the river."

"I connect dots that others can't."

"My thought process is predominantly subconscious. All of my thinking occurs implicitly, rather than explicitly."

Sentence one: not related to a function.

Sentence two: Thinking, especially dominant Thinking types. But both Ti and Te functions see the world this way.

Sentence three: Si. Also more Te than Ti; TP types generally enjoy tinkering with systems just for the fun of it, and rarely see them as untouchably sacred.

Sentence four: Intuition. Again both Ni and Ne. However, Si also works like this.

Sentence five: Intuition, both Ni and Ne.

Sentence six: a dominant perceiving function. So IJ or EP. This is especially true of the IxxJ types.


It's dumb to guess a type based on this, but I'd say INTJ.

 

[stephsharik]

It's dumb to guess a type based on this, but I'd say INTJ.

So what's an undumb way to figure out a type?

 

[Amalie Muller]

So what's an undumb way to figure out a type?

Read a biography, watch hours of interviews online, meet them in person on numerous occasions...

 

[stephsharik]

Read a biography, watch hours of interviews online, meet them in person on numerous occasions...

Can I bet that you don't take this "What's My Type?" forum very seriously?

 

[Amalie Muller]

Can I bet that you don't take this "What's My Type?" forum very seriously?

How'd ya guess?

 

[Mal12345]

Random sentences, sure.

But if a carefully constructed phrase accurately represents a facet of a person's temperament, who's to say it cannot be analyzed? And if assigning a label would be too subjective, then perhaps, at least, some labels can be eliminated?

So you're saying that [MENTION=195]Jaguar[/MENTION] missed the forest for the trees.

 

[Jaguar]

Read a biography, watch hours of interviews online, meet them in person on numerous occasions...

That's too much work for people. Didn't you know you can tell a person's type simply by knowing how many times they use the word "the" in one hour?

 

[Mal12345]

That's too much work for people. Didn't you know you can tell a person's type simply by knowing how many times they use the word "the" in one hour?

*Liked*

 

[Bush]

That's too much work for people. Didn't you know you can tell a person's type simply by knowing how many times they use the word "the" in one hour?

Well, right. Those who use "the" more than others are referring more often to objects than to people and are thus Thinking types. I thought this was common knowledge.



Oh, and those who do the counting of "the"s are Te types, since they are using an objective measure.

 

[stephsharik]

How'd ya guess?

Would you humor me and at least point me in the right direction?

 

[stephsharik]

Well, right. Those who use "the" more than others are referring more often to objects than to people and are thus Thinking types. I thought this was common knowledge.



Oh, and those who do the counting of "the"s are Te types, since they are using an objective measure.

The President is a person.
A president is a concept.
A person is also an object.
The theory of gravity is neither person nor object.

I don't know...the "The" method is highly suspect. I thought the opposite of "objective" was "subjective" rather than "people", but okay.