• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

[MBTI General] ISxPs are not xi and Se

jixmixfix

Permabanned
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
4,278
Let me tell you about my ISFP wife. I guarantee she is ISFP, although she has her J moments, blah blah. Nobody is a pure type. But she is ISFP. Before we were married she took me to 130 mph in a Jetta 2.5. Later she explained that she always wanted to be a race car driver.

There is a crucial element missing from Jixmixfix's hypothesis: the difference between INTENSITY of experience, which turns a singular experience toward more depth, and the EXTENSITY of experience which requires a variety of more shallow experiences.

THAT is the distinction everybody is groping towards on this thread.

I'll leave it as an assignment to determine which one of those two distinctions of attitudes relates to Si and which relates to Se.

I'm saying the Se ISXPs experience is a more focused and detail oriented version than the Se ESXPs experience. The mbti description of Si is different than other descriptions of Si so people who are naturally into MBTI just accept that that TI and Se are what makes up an ISTP for example. TI which is thinking and Se which is sensing are different from each other in that one is thinking and one is sensing. To say that ISXPs use xI as their primary and Se and their secondary compared to Se as their primary and Xi as their secondary in ESXPs is like saying the only difference is one prefers thinking first and the other prefers thinking as the latter and vice versa. Both are still two completely different functions working together with a slightly different preference. The difference between extroversion and introversion is much greater than that in that the sensing is different. It might not be called "Si" but I think that ISXPs could be using a different form of sensing than ESXPs.
 

jixmixfix

Permabanned
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
4,278
You called speed and randominity morons. I'm just trying to figure out why you're so upset about what they said, and you did say that you basically didn't care about their sharing of personal experience.

because they really didn't contribute anything to the discussion other than saying I was ISTJ and they don't agree which is how a rude or mentally challenged person contributes to a discussion.
 

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
because they really didn't contribute anything to the discussion other than saying I was ISTJ and they don't agree which is how a rude or mentally challenged person contributes to a discussion.

Okay.

Since I met you I don't think you're ISTJ. You seem IxTP to me, most likely ISTP, so I don't think you're ISTJ, so I don't have that bias.

But like I understand, like there's some dude on here who is like "u is ESFJ" and it's so ridiculous, it's like...yeah...I was in a relationship with an ESFJ for nearly six years...if I was an ESFJ I'd know it...and so would the ISTJ who talks to me every day since his ex is also an ESFJ...nobody in their right mind thinks I have Fe, at the very very least...we all know I am FP...

So I understand your frustration. HOWEVER, I think both Speed and Randominity are usually thoughtful, intelligent, educated people who post on the forum. Neither of them are morons or trolls.

I think they were just saying they really don't think ISxPs have Si, and if you felt that they do, then you might just be an Si dom yourself. :shrug:
 

jixmixfix

Permabanned
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
4,278
Okay.

Since I met you I don't think you're ISTJ. You seem IxTP to me, most likely ISTP, so I don't think you're ISTJ, so I don't have that bias.

But like I understand, like there's some dude on here who is like "u is ESFJ" and it's so ridiculous, it's like...yeah...I was in a relationship with an ESFJ for nearly six years...if I was an ESFJ I'd know it...and so would the ISTJ who talks to me every day since his ex is also an ESFJ...nobody in their right mind thinks I have Fe, at the very very least...we all know I am FP...

So I understand your frustration. HOWEVER, I think both Speed and Randominity are usually thoughtful, intelligent, educated people who post on the forum. Neither of them are morons or trolls.

I think they were just saying they really don't think ISxPs have Si, and if you felt that they do, then you might just be an Si dom yourself. :shrug:

\I don't really care if someone disagrees or agrees or thinks I'm ISTJ, what bothers me are the accusations made without any backup.
 

Speed Gavroche

Whisky Old & Women Young
Joined
Oct 20, 2008
Messages
5,152
MBTI Type
EsTP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
My feeling is that you are too much I, or not enough P, that's why you feel like an Si user. Does'nt matter if you agree with that or not.
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I'm saying the Se ISXPs experience is a more focused and detail oriented version than the Se ESXPs experience. The mbti description of Si is different than other descriptions of Si so people who are naturally into MBTI just accept that that TI and Se are what makes up an ISTP for example. TI which is thinking and Se which is sensing are different from each other in that one is thinking and one is sensing. To say that ISXPs use xI as their primary and Se and their secondary compared to Se as their primary and Xi as their secondary in ESXPs is like saying the only difference is one prefers thinking first and the other prefers thinking as the latter and vice versa. Both are still two completely different functions working together with a slightly different preference. The difference between extroversion and introversion is much greater than that in that the sensing is different. It might not be called "Si" but I think that ISXPs could be using a different form of sensing than ESXPs.

"I'm saying the Se ISXPs experience is a more focused and detail oriented version than the Se ESXPs experience." What do you mean by this vs. that "experience"?
 

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
I think their back up is that if you are making these claims about Si then you may be Si dom yourself, which in MBTI is ISTJ.

It's not an unreasonable thought.
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I think their back up is that if you are making these claims about Si then you may be Si dom yourself, which in MBTI is ISTJ.

It's not an unreasonable thought.

Only in the sense that ad hominem is not a formal logical fallacy. It is, however, an informal fallacy.
 

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
How is it ad hominem to say "well if this is your experience, then maybe you are this"?
 

jixmixfix

Permabanned
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
4,278
I think their back up is that if you are making these claims about Si then you may be Si dom yourself, which in MBTI is ISTJ.

It's not an unreasonable thought.

If you ever studied logical fallacy's in school which I have, you would understand that the claim made about me is a "personal attack" and not a proper logical argument.
 

jixmixfix

Permabanned
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
4,278
My feeling is that you are too much I, or not enough P, that's why you feel like an Si user. Does'nt matter if you agree with that or not.

Again another personal attack without a proper logical argument this douche right here is what I like to call a moron. Don't worry your "feelings" here matter to all of us.
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
If you ever studied logical fallacy's in school which I have, you would understand that the claim made about me is a "personal attack" and not a proper logical argument.

Personal attack is one kind of ad hominem. The kind I'm thinking about is more like a red herring intended to drag the conversation away into a discussion about you instead of the argument you presented.
 

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
What the...I don't even...

He's questioning that you might experience these things yourself because of this or that. HOW IS THAT A PERSONAL ATTACK?

He's questioning your theory based in his own experience and what yours might be (I do the same thing!) ...sooo...I'm not sure what's going on here that is making you so mad?
 

jixmixfix

Permabanned
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
4,278
Personal attack is one kind of ad hominem. The kind I'm thinking about is more like a red herring intended to drag the conversation away into a discussion about you instead of the argument you presented.

It's been a bit of both.
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
How is it ad hominem to say "well if this is your experience, then maybe you are this"?

I can't learn about the ISXP type, or Keirsey's thoughts about Jung and the MBTI, while focusing only on Jix's real or alleged personality traits. And it's ad hominem by definition, because it's obviously addressed "to the man" who made the OP, and not "to the argument per se."
 

jixmixfix

Permabanned
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
4,278
What the...I don't even...

He's questioning that you might experience these things yourself because of this or that. HOW IS THAT A PERSONAL ATTACK?

He's questioning your theory based in his own experience and what yours might be (I do the same thing!) ...sooo...I'm not sure what's going on here that is making you so mad?

LOL your actually serious about this that's what's funny.
 

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
But they want to know where he's getting this (I do too) and the automatic assumption I usually make is because of the person's personal experience, or their personal bias...you know like "you're an ESFJ because you think my sleazy ways of being sleazy are sleazy" ...people make a lot of assumptions about type because of their own personal experience.

I agree that we must look to Jung...I'm really not as much of a fan of Keirsey...and definitely not Socionics...and it's also important to clarify which theory jixmixfix is going by because I think it's safe to say we're disagreeing with him on a Jungian or MBTI basis, while he may very well be arguing Socionics.

So if it isn't his personal experience, where is he getting this? And what definition of Si is he using? Because Si is not a more stable version of Se, and Aleksei and I listed out quotes from Jung on Se and Si, and also jixmixfix seems to think the functions operate seperately, in a vaccuum, while in truth they work together in tandem, as someone already said (I believe it was MDP and/or Sir Cockburn).
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
But they want to know where he's getting this (I do too) and the automatic assumption I usually make is because of the person's personal experience, or their personal bias...you know like "you're an ESFJ because you think my sleazy ways of being sleazy are sleazy" ...people make a lot of assumptions about type because of their own personal experience.

I agree that we must look to Jung...I'm really not as much of a fan of Keirsey...and definitely not Socionics...and it's also important to clarify which theory jixmixfix is going by because I think it's safe to say we're disagreeing with him on a Jungian or MBTI basis, while he may very well be arguing Socionics.

I have a novel idea for you. Disagree with him on a RATIONAL basis, rather than on an ideological or personal basis.
 
Top