User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 107

  1. #11
    Reptilian Snuggletron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    10
    Posts
    2,233

    Default

    I use three-letter temperaments. I don't even know if that's allowed but idc.

    EFJ
    IFJ
    ESP
    ITP
    etc...

  2. #12
    i love skylights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 so/sx
    Socionics
    EII Ne
    Posts
    7,835

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangey
    And surely an ENFP is more similar to an ESFP than to an INTP, n'est pas? This is only one tiny step better than Keirsey, but it's still not good.
    Quote Originally Posted by Elfboy
    not sure I agree with this one. I love ESFPs, but I have a very hard time relating to their thought processes.
    i do second elfboy's sentiment. the difference is less in outward behavior and more in thinking style - but the MBTI is about cognitive preference, not outward behavior. INTP's aux Ne makes their thinking seem more similar to ours than dom Se, even though it really looks like ESFP-ENFP should be a close match.

    i personally prefer the perceiving groupings (NJ, NP, SJ, SP), but that may just be because i am perceiving dom myself. i don't really like the EP, IP, EJ, IJ groupings very much because i myself am a pretty introverted extravert.

  3. #13
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by skylights View Post
    i do second elfboy's sentiment. the difference is less in outward behavior and more in thinking style - but the MBTI is about cognitive preference, not outward behavior. INTP's aux Ne makes their thinking seem more similar to ours than dom Se, even though it really looks like ESFP-ENFP should be a close match.
    Hmmm, but why is the INTPs aux Ne and tert Si (which is not even in the same order placement as the ENFPs dom Ne and inferior Si) more important in terms of similarity than the ESFPs aux Fi and tert Te (which are exactly the same as the ENFPs aux Fi and tert Te?) I'd say that the ESFP is more similar to the ENFP in terms of thinking style AND outward behavior than the INTP is to either. And if we cut out similarities in outward appearance altogether, what's to stop us from making the ridiculous claim that ENFPs are really more similar to ISTJs (since they share ALL of their functions)...literally their opposite type...than they are to ESFPs?

    And anyway, this is all kind of irrelevant because similarities in "thinking style" can't be measured by how much any individual feels he/she relates to individuals of other types.

    Quote Originally Posted by skylights View Post
    i personally prefer the perceiving groupings (NJ, NP, SJ, SP), but that may just be because i am perceiving dom myself. i don't really like the EP, IP, EJ, IJ groupings very much because i myself am a pretty introverted extravert.
    Then why not the groupings suggested by the OP? TP/TJ/FP/FJ? Even those are better than the NJ, NP, SJ, SP.
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

  4. #14
    All Natural! All Good!
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    886

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangey View Post
    And if we cut out similarities in outward appearance altogether, what's to stop us from making the ridiculous claim that ENFPs are really more similar to ISTJs (since they share ALL of their functions)...literally their opposite type...than they are to ESFPs?
    I think that if someone's dominant is my inferior (and by extension, v/v), I am less similar to them than if their dominant is the same orientation/type as mine. Eg. an Fi dominant is more like a Ti dominant than a Te dominant, even though they have Te inferior but no Ti. Even disregarding "outward appearance", I think an ENFP is more like an ESFP, b/c they share Pe. I agree with you but not for your reasons, I guess. This goes along with your thought of EP, IP, EJ, IJ groupings. But I'm basing this on similarity of cognition, not outward behaviour.

    On the other hand. An ESTJ is more like an ISTJ than an ENTJ, yes? They share dominant and auxiliary both. Surely that overrides the same orientation/type of dominant requirement.
    Strychnine is all-natural,
    So strychnine is all good.
    It's Godly and righteous,
    So eat it, you should.
    Who are you to refuse nature's will?


    Don't use the multiquote; it was planted by the devil to deceive us.

    Social Role: Asscrack/Piece of Shit/Public Defecator/Spiteful Urinator


    A different type everyday - so no need to type me anymore. But feel free to enjoy the sound of your own asscrack.

  5. #15
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by penny89 View Post
    I think that if someone's dominant is my inferior (and by extension, v/v), I am less similar to them than if their dominant is the same orientation/type as mine. Eg. an Fi dominant is more like a Ti dominant than a Te dominant, even though they have Te inferior but no Ti. Even disregarding "outward appearance", I think an ENFP is more like an ESFP, b/c they share Pe. I agree with you but not for your reasons, I guess. This goes along with your thought of EP, IP, EJ, IJ groupings. But I'm basing this on similarity of cognition, not outward behaviour.
    I think you misunderstood me. I was saying that if we disregard outward appearances and we start saying things like "INTPs are more similar to ENFPs than ESFPs because of shared Ne, even though ESFPs share Fi and Te in the same positions (and, as you mentioned, share dominant Pe)," completely ignoring the position of the functions (or arbitrarily assigning importance to some position sets over others), then you'd be just as justified in saying that ISTJs are more similar to ENFPs than ESFPs.

    Quote Originally Posted by penny89 View Post
    On the other hand. An ESTJ is more like an ISTJ than an ENTJ, yes? They share dominant and auxiliary both. Surely that overrides the same orientation/type of dominant requirement.
    Functionally, yes. Outwardly, no.
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

  6. #16
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    Better yet, I like the interaction styles categorization.
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

  7. #17
    Senior Member INTP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx
    Posts
    7,823

    Default

    well they are normally grouped NT, NF, SJ and SP, because J makes bigger difference to the person on S types than in N types. Se is really different from Si, while Ni and Ne are quite alike, so T/F makes bigger difference on N types.

    imo it depends on the context what type grouping you want to use(using 3 letters might work the best in some situation, sometimes only S/N or T/F is enough, sometimes you want to say the whole type), but if talking generally about types, i think its best to use SJ, SP, NT and NF
    "Where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling."
    — C.G. Jung

    Read

  8. #18
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by INTP View Post
    well they are normally grouped NT, NF, SJ and SP, because J makes bigger difference to the person on S types than in N types. Se is really different from Si, while Ni and Ne are quite alike, so T/F makes bigger difference on N types.

    imo it depends on the context what type grouping you want to use(using 3 letters might work the best in some situation, sometimes only S/N or T/F is enough, sometimes you want to say the whole type), but if talking generally about types, i think its best to use SJ, SP, NT and NF
    Right, so it's best 'cause it's best. How did I miss that important bit of reasoning in my calculations?
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

  9. #19
    Senior Member INTP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx
    Posts
    7,823

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangey View Post
    Right, so it's best 'cause it's best. How did I miss that important bit of reasoning in my calculations?
    lol i dunno, as an Se user you should have been able to see this part: "Se is really different from Si, while Ni and Ne are quite alike, so T/F makes bigger difference on N types."

    or do i need to write a book about it that explains that sentence in more detail so that you understand what it says?
    "Where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling."
    — C.G. Jung

    Read

  10. #20

    Default

    Orangey, I admit that I find the EJ IP IJ EP sorting easier in terms of spotting which groups people belong to when I'm out and about in the real world, because although I don't know their inner workings, it's not hard to identify visible behavior in real life. On a place like this forum that way becomes a lot tougher. I think I like behavioral for narrowing down types when trying to identify others, but I prefer my way for understanding the MBTI as a whole and for understanding head and heart communications. In fact, that might be a good way to describe the pairings I like as I didn't really have a name for it.

    Head and heart communications! I think it works.

    NOTE: Reread thread and something else occured to me. I think this sorting also demonstrates the natural affinities the groups will have. Perhaps they should be blocked rather than listed to reflect natural moth/flame attraction. TJs and FPs, FJs and TPs. Having interacted more with others types on this site has taught me things I would not have discovered in real life. For example I've never dated or befriended an NT in real life (before joining this site, now I have several ) but having interacted with them, I discover I have a HELL of a lot more in common with xxTPs (probably because of function usage) than I do with xxFPs.
    Last edited by iwakar; 04-09-2011 at 08:54 AM. Reason: Note
    "The purpose of life is to be defeated by greater and greater things." - Rainer Maria Rilke

Similar Threads

  1. How do you know the type of your friends/family members?
    By gromit in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 08-25-2014, 05:24 PM
  2. How well do you match the stereotype of your type?
    By Elfboy in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 78
    Last Post: 12-06-2011, 10:05 PM
  3. How do you assess the strength of your Tert and Inf functions?
    By IZthe411 in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 09-22-2010, 10:03 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO