Which is the True Opposite?

[redacted]

i don't really believe in strict function order either.

nocap and gabe, you guys have such negative views of each other. from my perspective, you're both experts. besides bluewing, you guys get functions better than almost anyone else here (i like to think of myself as close, too)

but i do think, gabe, that nocap doesn't use Si very much. he's seems much more P than you.

P and J is a spectrum; an ENTP with very strong P would probably use Se and Fi a lot. but an ENTP with very low P would probably use Fe and Si more. the function order you use, gabe, assumes that P/J is binary.

 

[Nocapszy]

He asks for it. Seriously. Read what he wrote.

 

[redacted]

believe me, i see it.

you guys both goad each other. and you both are low self-monitors.

 

[Nocapszy]

Don't try to talk me down n00b. I'm going to be immature and say that in every single thread, he starts it. I only goad back. I would just fucking blast him, which he usually deserves, but I'll get kicked off.

 

[redacted]

^ this is why i never say anything about it to you

 

[Nocapszy]

'Cause I'm going to tell you you're wrong?

I do that anyway. You know why.

Hey jerkoff - get on aim.

 

[heart]

Well, I didn't foresee this thread turning out like this. I wouldn't have bothered.

 

[Nocapszy]

You got several answers though -- shouldn't that suffice for now?

 

[redacted]

'Cause I'm going to tell you you're wrong?

I do that anyway. You know why.

Hey jerkoff - get on aim.

no, cuz you won't admit when you're wrong, lol.

 

[Nocapszy]

I never am.

Why would I say something's true if it's not?

 

[Wandering]

You guys are derailing this thread.

Whether you believe in a strict function order or not is irrelevant, once you've made your point. The OP *assumes* this strict function order, so that's where the discussion should start off. If you want to discuss *whether* this function order is realistic or not, may I suggest you open your own thread and stop derailing this one?

 

[alcea rosea]

In response to Gabe's post in the other opposite thread and for the sake of enlightening conversations:

So for INFP, as example, which is the true oppposite?

First off here is INFP
Fi Ne Si Te

I hope I got that right, please let me know if I didn't.

I think the theory of first 4 functions is ok. So then I would say your shadow would be the one who Ti Se Ni Fe = ISTP which is kind of funny because I have thougt that the opposite personality would be defintiely the E version of I and vice versa. But the P refers in introverts the second function so the E opposite of you would be then ESTP because your primary function is J and ESTP's P. ....??? Now I got even myself

 

[Mort Belfry]

Is there such thing as a true opposite? It's easy to see in binary cases like up/down, black/white, left/right but when you're talking about sixteen different types is there ever an objective opposite?

It's easy to see how ESTJ, ENFJ and ISTP are opposite to INFP in terms of function order, but then they all have similarities to an INFP that the others don't. Maybe ISTJ is your opposite because it is dominant your tertiary and auxilary your inferior. Maybe ISFP is your opposite because despite sharing your dominant it extraverts in the opposite function or conversly maybe it's the INTP who shares your auxilary but has a contradicitory introversion. Maybe it's the ENFP because they invert your two first functions and with enough imagination other arguments could be constructed to say the same about ISFJ, INFJ, INTJ, ESTP, ESFP, ENTP, ESFJ and ENTJ. If it is a sixteen type system do all types need an opposite? If they did would it then be possible to arrange all other types from most opposite to least opposite to your own despite the inherent contradiction?

 

[Nocapszy]

You guys are derailing this thread.

Whether you believe in a strict function order or not is irrelevant, once you've made your point. The OP *assumes* this strict function order, so that's where the discussion should start off. If you want to discuss *whether* this function order is realistic or not, may I suggest you open your own thread and stop derailing this one?

I suggest you open your mind and jump off the recent anti-thread-derailment bandwagon.

It's relevant, because if we're searching for the true opposite, every factor counts. Including the shadow side -- if it exists. But it doesn't, which was my point. So now the answer won't be skewed by silly traditional unproven, and really.... untrue mbti rules.

 

[Carebear]

It's never happened.

I've seen much more Ti. Especially in ENFPs.

I'll admit I don't believe in the traditional function order. It's a bunch of bull.

Consider this:
INFPs don't favor Fi most, but they favor introverted judgement most. Feeling just happens to be their best. Just like they like to keep their secondary function as an extraverted perception. INFP is, of course going to, most often, use the intuiting version of extraverted perception -- or else they'd be an ISFP, of course -- but I've seen a lot greater Se than Si in INFPs also.

I've examined myself and found that I 'frequent' Se much more commonly than I do Si. I use Ni more than Si as well, but Se is used more than Ni and Si. Because introverted perception isn't easy for me. Especially not sensing.

Si... basically doesn't exist in me. I'm sure it's in here somewhere...
Ask dissonance or DD. DD actually has frequently commented on my (and her own heh) almost annoying lack of introverted sensing.

Maybe I should make this into another thread.

I agree with much of this (even if my Ni is way higher than my Se, so obviously I don't see it as "rules" as much as probability.) Fi and Ti for instance are both very similar in approach even if their focus is very different. Same can be said for Ne/Se, Fe/Te and perhaps Ni/Si. Why wouldn't it be easier for a Fi dominant person to use Ti than Te? Unless it's not really as much about skill of using the functions as interest (IOW that focus is more important than approach)?

 

[Wandering]

Why wouldn't it be easier for a Fi dominant person to use Ti than Te?

Precisely because Ti is in direct competition with Fi, because they are so similar yet so different. They both operate the same way, but they disagree on the bases that should be used (values for Fi, principles for Ti) and on the object of the focus (people for Fi, ideas for Ti, to caricature). So when one is Dominant, it will naturally tend to reject the other to the outer limits, because they both want to play with the same toys but they can't agree on anything else.

Te, on the other hand, wants to play in a totally different sandbox than Fi, and with different toys. So Fi doesn't care.

Of course, this is just the THEORY - but then the theory IS what this thread is supposed to be about.

 

[Carebear]

Precisely because Ti is in direct competition with Fi, because they are so similar yet so different. They both operate the same way, but they disagree on the bases that should be used (values for Fi, principles for Ti) and on the object of the focus (people for Fi, ideas for Ti, to caricature). So when one is Dominant, it will naturally tend to reject the other to the outer limits, because they both want to play with the same toys but they can't agree on anything else.

Te, on the other hand, wants to play in a totally different sandbox than Fi, and with different toys. So Fi doesn't care.

Of course, this is just the THEORY - but then the theory IS what this thread is supposed to be about.

Ok, I see your point. Focus is more important than familiarity with approach in your eyes. Could be, but it doesn't always seem to fit. Personally I alternate between the two. Of course Fi is in command, but whenever I perceive that it's not the best tool for sorting through something, I switch to Ti and use it with relative ease. Then again I can also switch to Fe if the situation demands it and use it fairly well. Not so for Te. I suck at it. The same relationship exists for the P functions. If Ne doesn't work, I can do Se and Ni fairly well, but not Si. So what am I trying to say? Hm.. not sure... perhaps that it seems to me that switching to functions with either an unfamiliar approach or an unfamiliar focus can be easier than switching to functions with both unfamiliar focus and approach.

 

[Nocapszy]

Precisely because Ti is in direct competition with Fi, because they are so similar yet so different. They both operate the same way, but they disagree on the bases that should be used (values for Fi, principles for Ti) and on the object of the focus (people for Fi, ideas for Ti, to caricature). So when one is Dominant, it will naturally tend to reject the other to the outer limits, because they both want to play with the same toys but they can't agree on anything else.

Te, on the other hand, wants to play in a totally different sandbox than Fi, and with different toys. So Fi doesn't care.

Of course, this is just the THEORY - but then the theory IS what this thread is supposed to be about.

Oh how I love platitudes... :rolli:

How does that make sense?

Te is in another "sandbox" because it's part of another personality.

Ti and Fi don't always get along, but they can. Using the same method, but different definitive rigors is no more plausible than inviting some other kid to play with your toys.

If you truly understood the nature of Ti and Fi, you'd see how they could alternate in a person.

Extroverted judgement altogether could be thrown out.

Actually, Te is in more conflict with Fi, because Fi's natural disposition is a quiet emotional one. It would be troubling, for an Fi dominant to become overtly critical. It's a contrast to their values and inclinations.

Just like it's a bother for an INTP, who's typical response to nearly anything is to rationalize it, for them to need to comfort people, especially in the face of providing poorly structured guidance. Fe goes more against Ti than Fi does, because at least he doesn't have to announce his affection.

 

[Wandering]

Oh how I love platitudes... :rolli:

How does that make sense?

If you truly understood the nature of Ti and Fi,

Bye bye Nocapszy :hi: !!

 

[Gabe]

Oh how I love platitudes... :rolli:

How does that make sense?

Te is in another "sandbox" because it's part of another personality.

Ti and Fi don't always get along, but they can. Using the same method, but different definitive rigors is no more plausible than inviting some other kid to play with your toys.

If you truly understood the nature of Ti and Fi, you'd see how they could alternate in a person.

Extroverted judgement altogether could be thrown out.

Actually, Te is in more conflict with Fi, because Fi's natural disposition is a quiet emotional one. It would be troubling, for an Fi dominant to become overtly critical. It's a contrast to their values and inclinations.

Just like it's a bother for an INTP, who's typical response to nearly anything is to rationalize it, for them to need to comfort people, especially in the face of providing poorly structured guidance. Fe goes more against Ti than Fi does, because at least he doesn't have to announce his affection.

No, he doesn't have to 'announce his affection', but many INTPs (for whatever reason) DO use compliments in thier speech, whether it's to get you to listen or just to be nice. Think of the psychiatrist in the end of Beautiful mind. That's a Ti personality. Without Fe, no one would care about Ti excepta few academes, it would just be some boring, arbritrary thing.

Oh, and introverted feeling types: the MBTI is a product of Isabel Myers' (INFP) extraverted thinking. It seems to me that extraverted thinking is almost naturally connected to introverted feeling. Laws are based on values, and extraverted thinking types often have very primitive attachments to a few of those values. Being critical is how you fight for your values.