I think you're very hard to type, Night. I can see you as INFJ, but you'd have to be a different kind of INFJ than I am. I'm not even positive that I am an INFJ, so I don't have a lot to stand on. I suppose eNFP or INTJ is still possible as well, but I don't see ENTP at all.
That is, opposed to sticking to one perspective and counting on it to hold up, while building onto the original idea what results from implementing it.
That's N_P opposed to N_J.
You're a T. Not a jerk like me, but you don't hafta be a dick to be.
Additionally, unlike most I__Js, there you have no apparent compulsion to turning the conversation back to your preferred perception.
For example there was this one INFJ I met who, despite my best effort to bring some variety to the conversation, couldn't seem to lift himself from his lodestone idea: All aspects of life suck because it will inevitably end (which he was acutely aware of on every level from micro to macro).
I made several attempts at throwing his idea down including; Life doesn't have to have value to be enjoyable and the notion that with science, we may stumble over a way to preserve ourselves 'til the end of the universe, but he always managed to come up with some way it wouldn't work (usually that it's just too hard, and that people are too weak).
To him, all I was doing was providing more and more ways to ensure to his psychology that life was worthless, because it couldn't have worth (and therefore unenjoyable).
That's Ni for you.
I hate to derail this thread, but I want to address this. It seems like you have exactly the same perception of INJs that I do of INPs. In fact, what you claimed INJs do, is exactly what INPs seem to do that frustrates me.
I always justified this by saying that INPs were judgment dominant, and thus had already made their decision on internal principles (Ti or Fi), and were only flexible about the way they presented this internal system, and about allowing others to disagree as long as they weren't forced to go along with it themselves. It seems to have held for me.
ENPs seem a bit more capable of seeing other perspectives, although they'd rather change the subject than their perspective on it, and it can be hard to get them focused on changing perspectives. Unlike INPs however, they seem to be able to do it easily, even though they still don't seem like they want to.
One thing that all NPs seem prone to, in my experience, is exaggeration in order to make a point.
In other words, what you're describing as Ni is what I would have attributed to dominant Ti or Fi previously. AFAIK, Ni is mostly about looking at a subject from multiple perspectives, although Te or Fe might argue for one perspective.
I suppose I'm curious now... do you think that one of us has mistyped people, that we've both met people who mistyped themselves, or that we've interpreted the same behavior in opposite ways?
