Js who think they are P

[Jaguar]

If you want to restrict yourself based on some abstract theory designed to divide people into 4-letter codes, knock yourself out.

+1

 

[INTJMom]

It just came to me that an unhealthy J can view themselves as their P counter type. They have this image of who they think they are and they believe it to an extent that they try to be someone they are not.

One thing that drove this was the folly of thinking men thread. How a type can believe themselves to be objective when they are really subjective. They will then always feel inferior because their pride and ego keeps getting hurt because they are truly subjective. What happens is they block their perception to objective data and in the process help them believe they are objective people furthering the idea that they are objective. Hence why J types have perception as either tertiary and inferior.

ok, to try and get discussion I will stop before digging to much deeper.

My 19 y o son has a friend who is ISTx. When I was asking him questions, he thought he was a P, but after thinking about it for a day, I think his behavior has been a lot more J in the past.

The tricky part is that he thinks he is flexible and doesn't need to plan ahead of time, but when he talks, he definitely has a straight line of thought... decisions pre-made... The jury's still out on that one, but I'm thinking he's a J not a P.

The trouble is that ISTJs are very relationship oriented, so he might be being flexible for the sake of relationship, when in fact, he'd prefer to have it decided ahead of time. I think my son and their 2 other close friends are all Ps... so that would have an influence.

He might turn out to be a P... he just doesn't seem quite that casual... or as playful as the others.

 

[Ghost of the dead horse]

If you want to restrict yourself based on some abstract theory designed to divide people into 4-letter codes, knock yourself out.

I say the same to people who want to disprove the type designation I have at any one time*. As if a person without a life-long stable type wasn't a person at all, or something

*2 types expressed in here during the last 2 years. That's a lot, yes, it's more than 1!

 

[Matthew_Z]

I swear I got my INTP license legitimately.

 

[Moiety]

I can tell you that I think Fi can make judgements based on logic, but its more of a subconcious judgement. An Fi types goes on "this feels right".

Hmm I don't know if I agree with that. But Ti is my third strongest function. I think it is also dependent on whether Fi is your dominant or auxiliary. Fi for me is much more conscious than Ne which feels subconscious. I have more trouble analyzing my Ne than my Fi but for an INFP that might be different.

While your points here are fine, none of them contradict what I said and my original point still stands. Point being, FPs seemto overestimate their own logical abilities because they mistake personal feelings for logic--I didn't say anything about TPs and their ability to use or not use logic. I don't see many TPs claiming to be extremely in touch with their emotions; most of us acknowledge our weakness in this area--and yet, FPs still seem to think they're highly proficient in both emotional and logical thought, which most aren't.

I can't say I agree with you. I don't see that many FPs claiming to be great at logic. I could maybe see many not acknowledging the importance of logic...but only in the same way some TPs don't acknowledge the importance of feelings.

NFPs in particular are bound to go to great lengths to explain the reasons why they believe in and value what they do. Maybe that is what you interpret as overestimating their logic capabilities. But I don't think most do at all.

 

[simulatedworld]

If you want to restrict yourself based on some abstract theory designed to divide people into 4-letter codes, knock yourself out.

Abstract theories are, by definition, not rigidly restrictive, because they are abstract. None of this is empirical by any means; it's all just a thought exercise for the sake of expanding perspectives. When interpreted the way it's intended, it's very open to many different possibilities.

Besides that, though, that's what INFPs always say when their individuality feels threatened.

 

[Jaguar]

When interpreted the way it's intended, it's very open to many different possibilities.

that's what INFPs always say when their individuality feels threatened.

Sentence #2 contradicts sentence #1.

If it's "open to many different possibilities" you wouldn't then say in your very next sentence: "That's what INFPs ALWAYS say."
Clearly, you have a restrictive viewpoint of INFPs.

 

[simulatedworld]

Sentence #2 contradicts sentence #1.

If it's "open to many different possibilities" you wouldn't then say in your very next sentence: "That's what INFPs ALWAYS say."
Clearly, you have a restrictive viewpoint of INFPs.

Can't you read Fe smiley language?

It's a joke! :hi:

 

[Poki]

Abstract theories are, by definition, not rigidly restrictive, because they are abstract. None of this is empirical by any means; it's all just a thought exercise for the sake of expanding perspectives. When interpreted the way it's intended, it's very open to many different possibilities.

Besides that, though, that's what INFPs always say when their individuality feels threatened.

The more I understand MBTI and dig the more I understand it and the more accurate it becomes. The key is that you must understand it yourself using external perception. Its not something that can be described using descriptions. It is based on concepts not detail or data. It is supported by what we do, but you must be able to pull out the concept and throw away all the internal and external perception that goes with it because that is the data, that drives the judgements.

 

[Jaguar]

Can't you read Fe smiley language?

It's a joke!

Not buying it, Sim. You have a long history of contradicting yourself in this forum.
Here's more of your restrictive nonsense:

FPs seemto overestimate their own logical abilities because they mistake personal feelings for logic

Do you enjoy making up shit about people, or what?

Anyone with a modicum of intelligence would know better than to make sweeping claims about so many different types of people like you do.
I'm going to start calling you: Archie-fucking-Bunker.

 

[simulatedworld]

Not buying it, Sim. You have a long history of contradicting yourself in this forum.
Here's more of your restrictive nonsense:

No seriously, it was a joke. That's what the was for. You can get away with slightly more insulting jokes with Fs if you use emoticons; I don't understand it either but it apparently works.

Also NTPs use self-contradiction as a form of humor at times. It gets us into messes sometimes, though, because people won't believe we were actually joking...which is even more hilarious!

EDIT: Actually I've seen NTJs do it, too...note this Edgar example from Amargith's signature:

I am a caring, nurturing, supportive altruist... and all the rest of you are fucking ingrates. Also, harden the fuck up.

I could respond by saying, "GOSH EDGAR, I DON'T THINK A SUPPORTIVE ALTRUIST WOULD USE SUCH ABUSIVE LANGUAGE, CLEARLY YOU HAVE NO CONSISTENCY OF THOUGHT!"

But then I'd be completely missing the point, wouldn't I? He knows about the contradiction and that's where the humor comes from, get it? The emoticon at the end in my post implies this; you can think of it as saying, "Haha, I know this doesn't quite follow with what I just said, but I'm saying it anyway for humor value because there's some grain of truth to it even if it's not literally 100% true in all cases!"

Srsly, ask some FJs; they are experts at emoticon placement.

Do you enjoy making up shit about people, or what?

Anyone with a modicum of intelligence would know better than to make sweeping claims about so many different types of people like you do.
I'm going to start calling you: Archie-fucking-Bunker.

Look man, I think I'm done correcting threads where you [mis]interpret everything I say and the motivation behind it. Call me whatever you want.

You need to stop taking Ne generalizations literally. You sure do stay on the surface a lot for somebody who claims to be such a deep explorer.

As long as we're going with nicknames, for you, I choose:

It's this charming little children's book where the title character takes everything way too literally. (For instance, someone says, "Let's hit the road!" and she picks up a stick and starts literally striking the road! It's comedy gold!)

The only difference is that she doesn't realize she's doing this, but you do and continue to do so just to be annoying!

Nonetheless it's a cute nickname though.

 

[NewEra]

Haha, you two are hilarious.

 

[Jaguar]

No seriously, it was a joke.

If I post 20 words to you, I get 2000 back.
My new nickname for you is: "Rambling Boy."

 

[simulatedworld]

LORD I WAS BORN A RAMBLIN' MAAAAANNNN

Come on Amelia,

Don't you like word play?

All work and no play makes Amelia a dull boy.

 

[Jaguar]

Clearly that poor girl is showing disappointment with the size of your cock.

 

[simulatedworld]

lol @ Se

 

[Edgar]

I could respond by saying, "GOSH EDGAR, I DON'T THINK A SUPPORTIVE ALTRUIST WOULD USE SUCH ABUSIVE LANGUAGE, CLEARLY YOU HAVE NO CONSISTENCY OF THOUGHT!"

The only consistent thoughts I have involve my undying love for Emma Watson.

 

[simulatedworld]

Hey now, there's another thread on just that topic blowing up at this very moment, and I have a feeling it could use some of your uniquely sensitive touch.

 

[Poki]

Jag vs Sim ->


Dont make me have to step in, I dont fight fair {hide behind my back}

 

[Thalassa]

HANK HILL!!!!




While your points here are fine, none of them contradict what I said and my original point still stands. Point being, FPs seem to overestimate their own logical abilities because they mistake personal feelings for logic--I didn't say anything about TPs and their ability to use or not use logic. I don't see many TPs claiming to be extremely in touch with their emotions; most of us acknowledge our weakness in this area--and yet, FPs still seem to think they're highly proficient in both emotional and logical thought, which most aren't.

FPs have Fi strength with a weaker use of Te. Therefore we probably do apply our ethics with a certain amount of logic to the actual external world.

We aren't masters of logic - but honestly I ascribe that to NTJs more than anyone. We aren't complete failures at it, either. I did quite well when I studied pure logic in my college maths. That doesn't mean that I think I have extremely wonderfully strong logic, because I don't, but we're not as deficient at it as you would like to imply.

How do you describe an NFP with a degree in higher maths or science? They don't have a good grasp of logic? O rly?