Those are interesting, but it's hard for me to see myself in those... I'm not dismissing your descriptions, but I'm slightly confused. If anyone would care to compare their perception of my personality to those descriptions, I'd be grateful because it's hard for me to see my general characteristics (rather than my specific behaviors) clearly, and not look at these descriptions in relation to what I've already heard about functions...
They don't fit descriptions of people who use those functions that I've heard from others, although they do match with the official descriptions to a considerable degree.
For instance, other people's descriptions of Si imply a strong sense of right/wrong and unyielding nature (which is your Fi description), and a habit of comparing things to an ideal situation, and being overconfident and unable to explain their reasoning (which is your Ni description).
However, official MBTI descriptions are closer to your interpretation of Si.
Now I'm unsure how to decide which is more valuable/true. I haven't met enough people who use different functions, nor have I had a way to determine with any degree of certainty what functions people are using (as functions are rarely if ever associated with specific behaviors rather than interpreted traits that cannot be verified).
Well, Si uses previous experience to do have this value of right and wrong and be overconfident and unable to explain reasoning. The values are ingrained in the libraries and the libraries are inherently subjective and gives the appearance of conclusions from nowhere. My understanding is that the difference between Si and Ni is that Si draws from idealizing the past to create a picture of what should be, and Ni draws a picture of an idealized future to create a picture of what should be. Si and Ni are more similar than people give credit for, but I didn't want to crowd the pictures.
The corresponding types are all pretty similar. (as in Ne and Se, Fi and Ti, etc) but it's not usually described as such and more described as the way I decided to do it because I was bored. Ne and Se are both very similar, but while Se works with what's actually there, Ne immediately explodes with what's there and why. Si would say 'that's not how it was before,' and Ni would say 'that doesn't belong!'
Because Ni and Si go ahead and decide and attach stigma to things, they're more likely to be subjective -- however, because they are able to see a straight line from what is there to what should be there, they have a much easier time being easily decisive, which makes someone a "J" and not a "P". "J" and "P" aren't functions, but it does mean that Ni or Si are one of the dominant/auxillary functions.
Originally Posted by aeon
Given that it is a judging function, I found the Fe descriptor to be off the mark.
To be honest, I had no idea what I was doing when I did Fe.
Well, I know that Fe is 'harmonizing' while Te is 'directing.' That's about it.
Nice work... this reminded me of the skill/perk descriptors in Fallout. Certainly you have talent as showcased above, and I do wish I had some of that myself. Very creative, although the descriptions (understandably so for a boredom-doodle) seem little more than regurgitations of existing ones.
2. The cartoons look great as embodiments of the functions (especially Se; you really nailed that one).
3. The descriptions are accurate and easy to understand.
4. The collections of functions for INTP and INTJ made me laugh because they are so true.
In summation: You should write and illustrate a guide to MBTI using that style. Kids can understand it, and adults will be amused by it.
I seriously think that your work here would be worth good money. Do consider capitalizing on it.
(I would buy a copy.)