I wasn't the SP with the limited Ni you were talking about?
That part specifically yes, I was talking about you. But I didn't say weak Ni, I just said Ni. You added that yourself.
You observe an actors emulating behaviour of a particular type and match it up to an abstraction. It is the exact same thing as everyone else is doing... Functions were derived from behaviour.
As far as you using the "system", you are not using the MBTI approach. MBTI uses no function derived questions to determine type. Functions are only assumed from behaviour - which of course is the point. There is a reason why the functional tests are not used anywhere anytime - they don't work (although the reason for this is different).
I'd say "have you worked with an INTJ", but I know that'd be useless. Functionally, however, it doesn't make much difference - what you wrote reads like a horoscope. Most people solve problems in a very similar manner (the "answer came to me", or "I saw this and it made me think").
Only problem is that it's missing most of the tossed around definitions (
here)... and stuff like the curiousity, the open mindedness, the big picture... well, just about everything. That is, compared to the Ni view of having the information "inside of us, waiting to be found"... same goes for Ti and Te.
The key points of his character (the points that emphasise his nature) are all functionally correct for an INTJ (read: the behaviour that led to the conclusion that there must be functions are exhibited by him...).
Most of the above is wrong, if not bullshit, or small minded.
Functions aren't some objective measurement - they are assumed based on common behaviours. When someone says "he is just like very INTJ I know" they are deducing a collective amount of behaviours that associate to the functions - exactly the same as you are doing, just with actual experience rather than an abstraction.
If that's what they're doing, then they're fucking idiots, but I doubt seriously that you can speak for them, and be correct, since no one else even brought up functions 'til I did.
You keep mentioning abstractions as if they're a bad thing. The functions are defined, by abstraction. That's how it works. Otherwise everyone would have their own definition. If we did that with language, then no one would have a clue what anyone was talking about. That's why we have dictionaries. Are you against the use of dictionaries?
There has to be an abstract definition for these functions, or else ENTP to one person might mean ISFP to someone else. Ti has a rigid definition, as defined by its name; if you really contemplate the words themselves and what they mean with the assigned attitude, it makes a lot of sense.
These 'abstractions' are designed to be the trainrails for people to use - a template, nothing more. They're rigid, so type doesn't have to be. Otherwise there would literally only be sixteen distinguishable personas, and I have to tell you, I've never once met two people who act exactly the same.
It's not about the four letters. Those are decided by the functions someone uses. When someone is answering the test, it's supposed to be asking them 'what functions do you use' in a way such that they don't have to know the names of them to answer accurately. Then it GIVES them a type, which, yes, is the way to infer what functions a person uses.
It all boils down to individual behavior though. You can be a J and act more 'P' than someone else. NFJs often test as Ps because the normal association of P and J is understood to be the difference between organized and messy. That's not the case with NFJs. Some of them are organized, some of them aren't.
Keeping this in mind, we have to remember that you can go for a holistic approach, and guess type, or you can actually FIGURE IT OUT, without giving them the test mentally, or asking them to take it, by looking at what they do.
)
- so I didn't know if you were actually my "heroine".
