X's in type make very little sense

[INA]

EP & IJ are annoying because they relay information to you with ALL of those little irrelevancies added in and get sooo irate when you skip over some of them, knowing them to be irrelevant.

IP & EJ are sooo annoying becuase they throw out some information without ever really thinking about it. They don't even consider it. That makes all their conclusions based on information that's full of holes.

What??
Where do you get this from?

 

[Xander]

What??
Where do you get this from?

I'd say personal experience but that sounds self aggradising.

There's a thread about it somewhere I believe it was after the ten thousandth argument with my ENFP buddy where he accused me of not listening and my resulting confusion as I'd been meticulously listening and had mentally made note of all "relevant" information.

Comine that experience with my father's description of how an INTJ thinks, which is basically they take a walk through all the information and come up with their answer whilst walking, and I got to thinking about this pattern.

Would you say it is untrue?

 

[INA]

Wait, do you only mean the NF varieties? My bad. I thought you meant I_Ps, etc. generally . . .
Still, the INFJs I know don't overload me with irrelevant details. Au contraire; sometimes it is like pulling teeth to get them to explain the path to their conclusions.
And ENFJs can have what I call selective superior grasp of external, supporting detail, so I am hesitant to agree that they throw out information without really thinking about it.

 

[Xander]

Wait, do you only mean the NF varieties? My bad. I thought you meant I_Ps, etc. generally . . .
Still, the INFJs I know don't overload me with irrelevant details. Au contraire; sometimes it is like pulling teeth to get them to explain the path to their conclusions.
And ENFJs can have what I call selective superior grasp of external, supporting detail, so I am hesitant to agree that they throw out information without really thinking about it.

No. All varieties.

ESTP missus will tell you how her day went in great detail
ENFP mate will go through large amounts of detail, which I assume is meant just for illustration only to be told off later for "not listening".
ENTJ father will give you only the crux of the matter and will ignore anything he considers irrelevant.
INTJ mate will often pull me up for some "irrelevant" detail which I missed.
INFP friend won't really bother if I "cut things down to size".
ENFJ pal finds it helpful that I cut out the details and get to the point and will do likewise in return.

EJ and IP have the judging function first.
Have you never noticed that you tend to skip things which you consider "irrelevant"?
Have you never been pulled up on missing out things which seemed like details to you but are apparently important in some way?

Oh and last mention, ENTP friend can get lost on some detail, including it where I consider it irrelevant, and objects most strongly when I discard it out of hand.

It's a pattern I've seen... or one I've placed and then matched the data to... never can properly seperate those two

 

[INA]

Then it seems wildly off-base. Take INTP for example. The type description and dominant Ti supported by Ne is counter to throwing out information without really thinking about it. As a matter of fact, it's an INTP trait to withhold conclusions until something has been analyzed. Think first, talk later. So "they don't even consider it" seems odd for a type whose hallmark is analyzing stuff to see how it fits. I can see how they would fail to talk about somehting they don't see as acentral principle to how something ticks, but I disagree that this is because they do not "really consider it". Maybe they considered it too much.

INTJ efficiency dislikes repetitiveness and lack of precision - use of lots of irrelevant, extraneous detail seems counter to that. However, if they have made a connection to something else using their dominant Ni supported by Te, then a "natural implication" or the next step may be all too obvious to them (and therefore worthy of inclusion), while to others this next piece that is so intuitively connected in the view of the INTJ is mere "irrelevant detail". Meanwhile their economy of expression works against explaining why it is that this apparently extraneous detail is in fact relevant.

 

[Gen]

IP & EJ are sooo annoying becuase they throw out some information without ever really thinking about it. They don't even consider it. That makes all their conclusions based on information that's full of holes.

QFT

 

[mlittrell]

In response to both (I realise that's a little offhand but I believe that one statement can be applied equally to both points).

ENFP vs INFP.
Okay so the first two functions are reversed. Big whoop? Well yes because it's less to do with how the functions are arranged and more to do with the differences between the two types.

If you firstly gather information sucking it up like a vacuum and then sort through it to make your ideas then it's probable that you're first function is either S or N. Ergo you're an EP or an IJ.

EP & IJ are annoying because they relay information to you with ALL of those little irrelevancies added in and get sooo irate when you skip over some of them, knowing them to be irrelevant.

IP & EJ are sooo annoying becuase they throw out some information without ever really thinking about it. They don't even consider it. That makes all their conclusions based on information that's full of holes.

uhhh lol

i like the idea of the first function being S or N for that case...then again, i know, for example an ESTJ (Te dominant) who constantly shovels information out with all the irrelevancies. Me, I'm an ENFP (that EP your talking about), and I'm about as vague as you can possibly get (as many ENXP's tend to be).

When I first got into MBTI, I typed myself as an INFP. Over time, I started to realize that I am not an INFP but an ENFP. Thing is, I have many similarites to an INFP. In fact, the way I see INFP's is me when I'm by myself (Fi) and floating around in my own mind, and many of the INFPisms apply to me in that case. The same is true for my ENTP friend.

It just seems to depend on how strong your functions are.

I like the idea though. Good call.

 

[Xander]

Then it seems wildly off-base. Take INTP for example. The type description and dominant Ti supported by Ne is counter to throwing out information without really thinking about it. As a matter of fact, it's an INTP trait to withhold conclusions until something has been analyzed. Think first, talk later. So "they don't even consider it" seems odd for a type whose hallmark is analyzing stuff to see how it fits. I can see how they would fail to talk about somehting they don't see as central principle to how something ticks, but I disagree that this is because they do not "really consider it". Maybe they considered it too much.

INTJ efficiency dislikes repetitiveness and lack of precision - use of lots of irrelevant, extraneous detail seems counter to that. However, if they have made a connection to something else using their dominant Ni supported by Te, then a "natural implication" or the next step may be all too obvious to them (and therefore worthy of inclusion), while to others this next piece that is so intuitively connected in the view of the INTJ is mere "irrelevant detail". Meanwhile their economy of expression works against explaining why it is that this apparently extraneous detail is in fact relevant.

Don't you think that's more J versus P?

INTJs inmy experience do wander through things to establish their point of view, hence how they have prepared arguments about why they didn't take course A or B and chose C overall. What they do is throw out things they find to be irrelevant after they have sucked in the information.. it just looks different cause when an INTJ decides it's irrelevant it gets thrown into the stratosphere (and that's only because they can't be bothered to throw it all the way into the sun to be destroyed ).

INTPs, on the other hand, work more on the principle of "this is correct but I don't believe it to be perfect, ergo I may reconsider later". The thing to watch for is trying to persuade an INTP of a new resolution. It's like pulling teeth. Each piece of information given to them must pass muster with the Ti before the Ne even gets hold of it to see how or if it fits into the larger picture.

QFT

Good thing we don't do that anymore eh?

 

[Xander]

uhhh lol

i like the idea of the first function being S or N for that case...then again, i know, for example an ESTJ (Te dominant) who constantly shovels information out with all the irrelevancies. Me, I'm an ENFP (that EP your talking about), and I'm about as vague as you can possibly get (as many ENXP's tend to be).

Speak to the ESTJ and you'll find lots of reasons why these details are relevant. Of course you'll probably disagree with the reasoning but that's not the point.

Now try the same with an ESTP. Sometimes they have no idea why it's relevant but it's important anyhow...

Most confusing in a relationship

When I first got into MBTI, I typed myself as an INFP. Over time, I started to realize that I am not an INFP but an ENFP. Thing is, I have many similarites to an INFP. In fact, the way I see INFP's is me when I'm by myself (Fi) and floating around in my own mind, and many of the INFPisms apply to me in that case. The same is true for my ENTP friend.

I think that's common. I find lots of similarities with my ENTP friend (I don't have any INTPs to hand ).

It just seems to depend on how strong your functions are.

I think the strength of the preferance does help. A stronger preferance leads to a clearer picture. I'm just not a great believer in people merrily wandering around the types claiming to be more than one. It irritates my definition of preferance. Either you're one or the other, as a whole.

Hell I'm an INTP and yet I can do ENTJ and ESFJ quite well... it doesn't make me an XXXX. I still prefer INTP.

I like the idea though. Good call.

Tanks

 

[INA]

Don't you think that's more J versus P?

INTJs inmy experience do wander through things to establish their point of view, hence how they have prepared arguments about why they didn't take course A or B and chose C overall. What they do is throw out things they find to be irrelevant after they have sucked in the information.. it just looks different cause when an INTJ decides it's irrelevant it gets thrown into the stratosphere (and that's only because they can't be bothered to throw it all the way into the sun to be destroyed )

Don't I think analysis before expression is more J v. P? Not solely, no. INTJ is more forward looking, yes. I agree that INTJs seem to have wandered through to a more conclusive report. But I think that's more a function of the INTP's Ne convincing the INTP "there's more info out there and I'll modify as I get it" rather than an "I didn't think about it, but let me tell you about it" sort of thing.

INTPs, on the other hand, work more on the principle of "this is correct but I don't believe it to be perfect, ergo I may reconsider later". The thing to watch for is trying to persuade an INTP of a new resolution. It's like pulling teeth. Each piece of information given to them must pass muster with the Ti before the Ne even gets hold of it to see how or if it fits into the larger picture.

Exactly! How is it going to pass muster if they "don't even consider it" before they convey it to you? Some things never get off the ground because the INTP already poked holes in it before relaying it to you. It doesn't mean they are stuck with it if they put it out there or that they think that's the final say. In fact, they will continue to refine it even after they've thrown it out there. However, they don't refine by throwing it out there without thinking about it first. That is un-INTP . . . sounds more ENTPish.

 

[Xander]

Don't I think analysis before expression is more J v. P? Not solely, no. INTJ is more forward looking, yes. I agree that INTJs seem to have wandered through to a more conclusive report. But I think that's more a function of the INTP's Ne convincing the INTP "there's more info out there and I'll modify as I get it" rather than an "I didn't think about it, but let me tell you about it" sort of thing.

Exactly! How is it going to pass muster if they "don't even consider it" before they convey it to you? Some things never get off the ground because the INTP already poked holes in it before relaying it to you. It doesn't mean they are stuck with it if they put it out there or that they think that's the final say. In fact, they will continue to refine it even after they've thrown it out there. However, they don't refine by throwing it out there without thinking about it first. That is un-INTP . . . sounds more ENTPish.

I think we're diverging here....

INTP judges before inclusion yeah?
What happens to the stuff marked as wrong?

I've lost count of how much information I've forgotten because it was considered irrelevant. My ISTJ mate recalls it all.

I think that's the crux. IP and EJ remember only that which is proven as correct and forget the rest. Efficient no?

EP and IJ recall what is incorrect so they know not only where to go but also where not to go. Effective no?

Anyhow... for additional detail I've found that IJs and EPs are tops. Even the scatty ESFP I know will relay tons of irrelevancies just to add "flavour".

 

[INA]

Ah . . . by "throwing out info", you meant "disregarding it" and not "suggesting it". Idiomatic expressions FTL.
Now your post makes more sense to me. Yes, INTPs can seem . . . telegraphic for all the info they dismiss as irrelevant/erroneous, rightly or wrongly.

 

[Xander]

Ah . . . by "throwing out info", you meant "disregarding it" and not "suggesting it". Idiomatic expressions FTL.
Now your post makes more sense to me. Yes, INTPs can seem . . . telegraphic for all the info they dismiss as irrelevant/erroneous, rightly or wrongly.

Still not sure we're on the same page here...

When you read through my post do you skip through those pieces you consider to be only written for illustration?

Almost as if you're skim reading and only really stopping to read what you consider to be the important parts?

If so, that's what I mean...

I think...

I'm all confused now....

 

[INA]

Still not sure we're on the same page here...

When you read through my post do you skip through those pieces you consider to be only written for illustration?

Almost as if you're skim reading and only really stopping to read what you consider to be the important parts?

If so, that's what I mean...

I think...

I'm all confused now....

heehee
I am at work . . . I have to skim read here. I think we're partly on the same page, sort of. The language is what threw me. People sometimes say "just throwing that out there", to mean they are "just suggesting/conveying a piece of information." Hence the confusion re my first response to you.
I still don't entirely agree that INTPs "don't even consider it" before discarding the info, since they have to Ti-consider and deem it irrelevant before discarding it. But once they have deemed it irrelevant, yup: out it goes.

 

[mlittrell]

Speak to the ESTJ and you'll find lots of reasons why these details are relevant. Of course you'll probably disagree with the reasoning but that's not the point.

Now try the same with an ESTP. Sometimes they have no idea why it's relevant but it's important anyhow...

Most confusing in a relationship

I think that's common. I find lots of similarities with my ENTP friend (I don't have any INTPs to hand ).

I think the strength of the preferance does help. A stronger preferance leads to a clearer picture. I'm just not a great believer in people merrily wandering around the types claiming to be more than one. It irritates my definition of preferance. Either you're one or the other, as a whole.

Hell I'm an INTP and yet I can do ENTJ and ESFJ quite well... it doesn't make me an XXXX. I still prefer INTP.

Tanks

I just think the difference between say...ISTJ and ESTJ is strength of functions.

That being said, ok I see what your saying now. I'm not completely open to it, but good idea I like the thought process.

 

[mlittrell]

Ah . . . by "throwing out info", you meant "disregarding it" and not "suggesting it". Idiomatic expressions FTL.
Now your post makes more sense to me. Yes, INTPs can seem . . . telegraphic for all the info they dismiss as irrelevant/erroneous, rightly or wrongly.

thats what threw me off, i get what your saying now

good call.

 

[Xander]

heehee
I am at work . . . I have to skim read here. I think we're partly on the same page, sort of. The language is what threw me. People sometimes say "just throwing that out there", to mean they are "just suggesting/conveying a piece of information." Hence the confusion re my first response to you.
I still don't entirely agree that INTPs "don't even consider it" before discarding the info, since they have to Ti-consider and deem it irrelevant before discarding it. But once they have deemed it irrelevant, yup: out it goes.

Part of me thinks "we're on the same page... the details can be sorted out by more precise people" whilst the other side chases for absolute truth.

Oh and I'm also posting from work.. hence the half distracted thinking..

Anyhoo... If Ti analyses it before Ne absorbs it into the larger picture then what happens?

Totally lacking proper structure to my thinking today...

 

[mlittrell]

Part of me thinks "we're on the same page... the details can be sorted out by more precise people" whilst the other side chases for absolute truth.

Oh and I'm also posting from work.. hence the half distracted thinking..

Anyhoo... If Ti analyses it before Ne absorbs it into the larger picture then what happens?

Totally lacking proper structure to my thinking today...

lol it's cool im totally lacking proper structure in my understanding...everyday

 

[INA]

Part of me thinks "we're on the same page... the details can be sorted out by more precise people" whilst the other side chases for absolute truth.

Anyhoo... If Ti analyses it before Ne absorbs it into the larger picture then what happens?

Hmm . . . my guess is that, with linear thinking, the data sometimes get pulled back into the mix . . . albeit in a longer route than would have happened by Ne. Then again, is this longer more linear route therefore more bulletproof? I think so.

What happens when it doesn't get pulled back in? *strokes imaginary beard*

 

[Xander]

lol it's cool im totally lacking proper structure in my understanding...everyday

Ah... how to add random lengths of string to a cats cradle... correctly!!!

A question which boggles scientists even now...

Hmm . . . my guess is that, with linear thinking, the data sometimes get pulled back into the mix . . . albeit in a longer route than would have happened by Ne. Then again, is this longer more linear route therefore more bulletproof? I think so.

What happens when it doesn't get pulled back in? *strokes imaginary beard*

Eh?

Ti analyse information... goes "that's rubbish"... Ne goes "what is?" ... Ti replies "nothing"....
What happen then?

(not sure about circles... producing too many of my own to sort that one out )