|
|
|
|
|
|
#21 (permalink) | |||
|
The Doctor is IN
Join Date: Apr 2007
Type: INtP
Location: Free at last.
Posts: 14,319
![]() |
Quote:
![]() Well, there are many systems out there that do cover those things. The DISC system, which has been popularized in the corporate environment, for example, seems to follow more of the "Greek humours" model -- D is the assertive (choleric?) type, and so forth. The FFM (Five Factor model) is popular and has some good validation -- it covers Openness, Extroversion Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Agreeability, I think... (PtGatsby can comment more extensively on that test, he seems very familiar with the validation.) This is why different tests do exist. They each cover things from a different perspective, or break down the personality in whichever way is most important at the time, based on what you need to know. So we should avoid the notion that MBTI is the "end all be all" system, it's simply one way of analyzing personality and where it comes from, and I have found it useful in terms of communicating with and interacting with people, but other systems might better explain type. Quote:
Ni + Fe Ni + Te Si + Fe Si + Te Fe + Ni Fe does show up three times, as so does Ni. This simply can be a failing in the MBTI, to be honest. At this stage, to determine your type, you would focus on the individual type description (which one of these five types to you most resonate with?) rather than the Fe function description. You might have Fe and Te functions that are pretty close in strength. I would also think about your childhood -- when you were younger, what were your interests, your strengths, and your weaknesses? Those can help you determine which function you leaned towards. And were you in an environment that encouraged (for good or bad reasons) any of the functions that you now strongly exhibit? Quote:
I wouldn't read too much into your computer knowledge. Yes, you are more liable to find INTx people who know their computer stats, but it's definitely not confined to that type. I've known savvy computer users of almost all types, from ENFJ to ISTJ to INFP to ENTJ, who can quote that sort of data about their system and have an interest in it. (I would probably consider xSFJ females to be the ones to know the least about their system, if I had to guess. Still, even these types of people often work in purchasing or ordering because of temperament, and if they end up acquiring knowledge of systems, then they will notice these details.) |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
#22 (permalink) | |
|
Full Circle
Join Date: May 2007
Type: ENTP
Location: Detroit, Michigan
Posts: 8,534
![]() |
Quote:
Knowledge of more subtle things like informative computer stats could probably equate to looking for hidden meanings in things -- looking beyond the surface. Sensors, without other functions taken into consideration, are less inclined to do that. They tend to collect what's in their environment like a sponge, so to speak, namely because they are more aware with what's going on in the environment. In this way, an Intuitive can be good at details, but their detail orientation tends to be directed toward something which catches their eye. Moreover, an Intuitive is also detailed when it comes to envisioning imaginary constructs or may notice details that don't accord with their personal vision. A Sensor would be more aware of the details of their entire environment.
__________________
"Place quotes in your signature to appear profound."
--Uberfuhrer Last edited by Uberfuhrer; 07-03-2007 at 01:07 AM. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#23 (permalink) |
|
Fragmented Being
Join Date: Jul 2007
Type: InfJ
Location: C:\
Posts: 5,782
![]() |
I guess it's easiest to tell how I process information that I percieve through Ni, but it's harder to tell how I make decisions. I haven't been around people that much (compared to more extraverted people) or made many decisions. Usually what I do is follow a prescribed set of rules or procedures, and then if those don't work, then I just ask someone (or possibly several people) what to do, and then if what they suggest doesn't make me uncomfortable and seems reasonable, then that's what I do.
Most often, I organize the information I gather and present it in a coherent fashion, and then I give it to someone else, have them process it and tell me what they think, and then I consider whether what they said is useful and/or acceptable to me. As far as my strengths, I learned to read at age three, and I was using words like "illiterate" and "stethoscope" at age six, so I've always been rather good with language. However, I used to have to count on my fingers to do math, because I wasn't that good with numbers. Another note is that I learned to use and recognize sarcasm at about that age, but since my teachers didn't like it much, I stopped rather quickly. I also tended to learn exactly what the rules were, and then adhere to them as closely as possible so that I didn't get into trouble, or develop the stigma of being a troublemaker. The weirdest thing I did was that instead of assuming something was okay until I was told that it wasn't, I tended to assume that it wasn't okay, unless I was specifically told by a teacher (not another student) that it was. I'm still very similar to this in many ways. |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|