Help Night!

[Works]

No idea, Night. I'd peg you as an NT above an NF though.

 

[Economica]

Voted. Now I'm wondering why I ever thought you were INTJ.

 

[Night]

Voted. Now I'm wondering why I ever thought you were INTJ.

Can you explain further?

 

[Nocapszy]

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.



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.

My first instinct is to say that you've mistyped those Js as Ps. IN_Js... I've rarely seen any of them experience compulsion to do the same J things like an ESTJ. Stuff like cleaning the desk or their room or whatever.
If your Ni doesn't coincide in some way with theirs, there's bound to be frustration. They'll seem like they're trying to change the subject, but really, they're just looking to see more deeply into their home-made perspective/idea.
That's Ni.
Ne wants instead to see the impact their idea has. This means forgetting the original idea for a moment, and observing everything surrounding it.
Relevant to an IN_P, they are likely to come back to the same thing over a period of time, but typically they'll drop it once they've had some bit of satisfaction -- a puzzle solved/friend made/wrong righted, and once they have it may never bother them again.

It's also likely the IN_Ps you're talking about were trying to assess something that was impossible to observe. That is, it had to be figured purely on their Introverted judgement. It's really hard, and some things just plain can't be solved that way. Sometimes you need to have something to look at (which is when the IN_P will start asking questions, and might look the same as the IN_J at least regarding conversation).

Using this method you've got to search for singularity of judgement as opposed to singularity of perception.
I'm still thinking on how to put my method for figuring which is which into words.

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.

My problem with rhetoric like this is that it completely strips the meaning from these words. They have too many interpretations.
Type theorists have gone and turned typology into astrology. It's more marketable that way, and if we have really nice vague wording -- wording just familiar enough to make us think we know what we're talking about, but just vague enough that it's really just a bunch of hot air -- people are more likely to buy into it on concept and then buy into the books and tests.

Fuck Meyers Briggs and any other idiot who's got any profit to make off this.

I figured out a long time ago that where money is, learning isn't.


That's my way of saying "there's nothing in the above worth responding to"

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.

All Ns do that. Y'ever heard an ENTJ try to get someone to do something? They'll try to make it sound as if not only their life, but the very fabric of the universe is relying on some you eating the pit of a cherry.

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.

That's backwards. Subject judgement is singular focus, ergo one thing is to be decided on, while trying to see from every angle all at once. Look at ESTP for example: They'll notice every damned thing in the room in a matter of seconds. They'll remember it too. And then later someone asks them where they set their beer down, and they can say "Oh you put it in the other room under the table next to the stuffed animal and the empty plate."
The point of Extraverted Perception is keeping track of everything in the environment for Introverted Judgement to work out its problems.

Then we look at ENTP. Broadscope intuition would see as many perspectives as possible to figure out one single problem. Of course it takes in that information anyway, which comes in handy when Ti needs to figure something out, it has the resources available. The best and most innovative physicists are NTPs (most type-ists will say they're all INTP, but those are just the ones who have the diligence to write it all down)

Singular focus perception would rather pick one, and then look as far down the road as possible into and after that one.

An IN_P couldn't do that, unless they continuously act on their intuitions, and even then, it's still not introverted perception, because they're not tracking it all in their head beforehand as if it were the only way things can/should be (this, often being the spoken -- genuine or not -- creed of an N_J), they're seeing all around them at once, and then deciding from there.

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?

If by one of us you mean you, then I'd say it's possible.
It's not your fault really...
You're J, meaning your Judgements attach to externally derived metrics. If your sources use lame wording, you're stuck with that assessment. Je doesn't do well to come up with its own way of wording a concept.
In conjunction with the poor availability of worthwhile material, it's no wonder there's such confusion with what Ni and Ji are and do.

 

[Haphazard]

Haha...thanks, Hap.

INTJ ?

Not really. All I'm saying is that on personality sites, there are a certain number of assumptions that go with the INTJ type. Pretty much, "I'm intelligent, I'm introverted, I want to take over the world, and I'm somewhat of a prick because of that."

So, if that describes you, or if you'd like that do describe you, by all means, be an INTJ. If you don't want that to describe you, choose something different.

 

[Night]

So, if that describes you, or if you'd like that do describe you, by all means, be an INTJ. If you don't want that to describe you, choose something different.

I can sympathize with this general stance, but I guess I'm looking for theoretical exploration of an MBTI position.

 

[Economica]

Can you explain further?

I can try, but it's very vibe-oriented (not that my vibes seem to be working very well these days! ).

First, I agree with practically everything that the people who are calling INFJ are saying.

Second, you're like overflowing with both Fe and evidence that you prefer Ti in this thread. E.g.:

[To Nocapzy] I envy your depth of comprehension on Type and its practical relationship to externalities.

You and I have had many, many conversations -- enough to fill a book, I'd reckon. This, alongside your obvious mastery of Type theory make it difficult to overlook/appropriately summarize the importance of your analysis...

(...)

Thank you, toonia.

Ever since our early interactions on INTPc, I've always felt a strong connection to the way you deconstruct/clarify your thinking. (Interesting -- I authored this before seeing your next post...

...Just reaffirms further my proximity/comfort with your general intellectual approach, toonia)

Thanks, dude. Means a lot.

I think you hit on a great point, cascademn.

Your use of Fe may be formal, but your instinct to use it is just too strong for an INTJ, and other Ni-Ti driven INFJs like toonia and Athenian200 are also formal in their use of Fe.

Also, I reiterate:

Are there any members who prefer Te in BlueWing/SolitaryWalker's social group...?

Plus, I remembered why my original acceptance of you as an INTJ was so strong. Methinks you had some contagion from INTPc when you first arrived that you needed to shake that threw off my reading. (And of course, I was anything but objective at the time. ) Because of it, I mostly considered INTJ vs. INTP and thought I recognized you as Ni dominant, or more accurately, not Ti dominant.

That's my ex post rationalization anyway.

 

[Athenian200]

My first instinct is to say that you've mistyped those Js as Ps. IN_Js... I've rarely seen any of them experience compulsion to do the same J things like an ESTJ. Stuff like cleaning the desk or their room or whatever.
If your Ni doesn't coincide in some way with theirs, there's bound to be frustration. They'll seem like they're trying to change the subject, but really, they're just looking to see more deeply into their home-made perspective/idea.
That's Ni.
Ne wants instead to see the impact their idea has. This means forgetting the original idea for a moment, and observing everything surrounding it.
Relevant to an IN_P, they are likely to come back to the same thing over a period of time, but typically they'll drop it once they've had some bit of satisfaction -- a puzzle solved/friend made/wrong righted, and once they have it may never bother them again.

It's also likely the IN_Ps you're talking about were trying to assess something that was impossible to observe. That is, it had to be figured purely on their Introverted judgement. It's really hard, and some things just plain can't be solved that way. Sometimes you need to have something to look at (which is when the IN_P will start asking questions, and might look the same as the IN_J at least regarding conversation).

Using this method you've got to search for singularity of judgement as opposed to singularity of perception.
I'm still thinking on how to put my method for figuring which is which into words.

I'm very confused now. What you seem to be saying is that Ne chooses an idea based on whether it creates the same kind of impact on others as what they had in mind, rather than how closely it resembles what they had in mind?

My problem with rhetoric like this is that it completely strips the meaning from these words. They have too many interpretations.
Type theorists have gone and turned typology into astrology. It's more marketable that way, and if we have really nice vague wording -- wording just familiar enough to make us think we know what we're talking about, but just vague enough that it's really just a bunch of hot air -- people are more likely to buy into it on concept and then buy into the books and tests.

Fuck Meyers Briggs and any other idiot who's got any profit to make off this.

I figured out a long time ago that where money is, learning isn't.


That's my way of saying "there's nothing in the above worth responding to"

Well, that thought had occurred to me. It did seem to have enough interpretations that anyone could potentially justify seeing themselves as any type. The question is, though, that if we don't listen to Myers-Briggs on this subject, whom should we take our ideas from? Whose definitions and frameworks do we use? Without definitions and frameworks, all we're left with is the vague idea of a personality system that categorizes people, which leaves behind nothing we can use.

All Ns do that. Y'ever heard an ENTJ try to get someone to do something? They'll try to make it sound as if not only their life, but the very fabric of the universe is relying on some you eating the pit of a cherry.

I suppose they do. I guess NPs just tend to use such obviously exaggerated extremes that it stands out more and doesn't seem realistic.

That's backwards. Subject judgement is singular focus, ergo one thing is to be decided on, while trying to see from every angle all at once. Look at ESTP for example: They'll notice every damned thing in the room in a matter of seconds. They'll remember it too. And then later someone asks them where they set their beer down, and they can say "Oh you put it in the other room under the table next to the stuffed animal and the empty plate."
The point of Extraverted Perception is keeping track of everything in the environment for Introverted Judgement to work out its problems.

Huh. What's interesting about me, is that if someone asked me that question, I wouldn't be able to tell you that verbally, might even say "I don't know," but would start to wander in the direction of the object and find it rather quickly... even though I can't get a picture of it in my mind or tell you where it is until I'm looking right at it.

Then we look at ENTP. Broadscope intuition would see as many perspectives as possible to figure out one single problem. Of course it takes in that information anyway, which comes in handy when Ti needs to figure something out, it has the resources available. The best and most innovative physicists are NTPs (most type-ists will say they're all INTP, but those are just the ones who have the diligence to write it all down)

Okay... I can see that for ENTPs, but not INTPs. INTPs seem to do something more like what you describe below:

Singular focus perception would rather pick one, and then look as far down the road as possible into and after that one.

An IN_P couldn't do that, unless they continuously act on their intuitions, and even then, it's still not introverted perception, because they're not tracking it all in their head beforehand as if it were the only way things can/should be (this, often being the spoken -- genuine or not -- creed of an N_J), they're seeing all around them at once, and then deciding from there.

Oh, gosh. This is exactly what I see INPs as doing, once again, although they keep changing the way they present it or flexing on things that aren't essential to the main idea.

If by one of us you mean you, then I'd say it's possible.
It's not your fault really...
You're J, meaning your Judgements attach to externally derived metrics. If your sources use lame wording, you're stuck with that assessment. Je doesn't do well to come up with its own way of wording a concept.
In conjunction with the poor availability of worthwhile material, it's no wonder there's such confusion with what Ni and Ji are and do.

Well, I did mean me, potentially. It could also have meant both of us. You seem to have shown me pretty clearly that you have the same perception of INJs that I do of INPs. You're beginning to make me think that Jack Flak might have had a point about functions.

Come to think of it, I've seen a few INJs who acted like you described... and a few INPs who acted more like I expected INJs to act, though I tended to assume they were mistyped. I guess the question is, how I am supposed to discern which makes more sense? The whole thing seems so chaotic and up in the air that you could justify any perspective... to the point that I've pretty much given up and decided that MBTI is just a theoretical toy that I play with out of boredom rather than something I take seriously.

 

[Night]

Plus, I remembered why my original acceptance of you as an INTJ was so strong. Methinks you had some contagion from INTPc when you first arrived that you needed to shake that threw off my reading. (And of course, I was anything but objective at the time. ) Because of it, I mostly considered INTJ vs. INTP and thought I recognized you as Ni dominant, or more accurately, not Ti dominant.

I remember that!

You (we) were pretty rude.

 

[Thursday]

Hey Night, what do you think aboot your ENFJ as a person ?

 

[Night]

Hey Night, what do you think aboot your ENFJ as a person ?

Provocative question, Thursday.

She's a far better human being than I'll ever be. I try to mirror many of my compassionate tendencies against her general example.

 

[Thursday]

Provocative question, Thursday.

Fe

She's a far better human being than I'll ever be.

Ni

I try to mirror many of my compassionate tendencies against her general example.
Fe

yeah ?

 

[Night]

Interesting point.

 

[Economica]

I remember that!

You (we) were pretty rude.

Oops, I forgot the Fe!

Yeah, sorry about that.

 

[Jeffster]

Did you add ISTP to the poll after I voted, or did I have a "sensotard moment"?

 

[Night]

Did you add ISTP to the poll after I voted, or did I have a "sensotard moment"?

No -- I added it for you.

I didn't want to overlook possibility. You made a legitimate point.

 

[cascadeco]

Just a random aside - don't go to the 'You know you're an INFJ...' thread to get a feel on whether you're INFJ or not [not that you would, as half of it's tongue-in-cheek anyway - but there's a lot that could be read between the lines too]. I relate to very little that's written in there....

 

[Virtual ghost]

Something tells me that Night will be even more confused after this is over..

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

Just a random aside - don't go to the 'You know you're an INFJ...' thread to get a feel on whether you're INFJ or not [not that you would, as half of it's tongue-in-cheek anyway - but there's a lot that could be read between the lines too]. I relate to very little that's written in there....

Ha, I agree.

There seems to be some underlying conflict (at least in my mind) whether it is the T/F dominants or the N/S dominants that are more opinionated from a single perspective. I was reading earlier in this thread that Ni dominants hold to one perspective and weave new information into it. For a long time now my reading was that Ni (and Ne) is what views an issue from multiple angles. This is because iNtuition is about big picture thinking and making many connections, not only linear connections. The big picture continually unfolds over time like putting a puzzle together. If you are closed to one assumption from the start, how can you ever finish the puzzle because it is destined to deviate from one's initial assumptions to some degree.

There does not seem to be consistent agreement on what constitutes an opinionated type from what I have been able to gather. I wonder if that ends up being a behavioral attribute like cleaning your room, degree of politeness, or having a temper that are conditioned and don't reveal much about "why" a person exhibits those behaviors from a cognitive processing perspective. I should try to check which the literature supports. What further confuses things is that people who identify as F/T dominant are easily as single minded as those who identify as N/S dominant in online discussions. So is it that F/T dominants are single minded, but expressed it in a multifaceted manner and N/S dominants are multiple-perspective at their core, but express it in a single-minded manner? Or is there an additional axis that isn't explored in MBTI that causes some individuals of all types to be headstrong and opinionated and some individuals of all types to be open and multiple-perspective based?

This seems to be one of the core issues in discussing Night's type.

 

[Nocapszy]

I'm very confused now. What you seem to be saying is that Ne chooses an idea based on whether it creates the same kind of impact on others as what they had in mind, rather than how closely it resembles what they had in mind?

Ne doesn't choose anything. It's not sentient.
What it does is to observe the impact of action (based on a hunch or an idea or something) and then gathers, and forms a new idea.

Okay... I can see that for ENTPs, but not INTPs. INTPs seem to do something more like what you describe below:

If you don't see it for INTP then something has gone wrong.
ENTP and INTP use the same functions.
ENTP will notice things, and when a problem comes up, they'll fix it based on their information, where INTP will sooner find a problem, and then turn to intuition to find the information.

At the end of the day, they both did the same thing.

Oh, gosh. This is exactly what I see INPs as doing, once again, although they keep changing the way they present it or flexing on things that aren't essential to the main idea.

Clearly you're misinterpreting what I'm saying.
I could tell by the first paragraph.

What looks like Ti to you is obviously Ni.

Well, I did mean me, potentially. It could also have meant both of us. You seem to have shown me pretty clearly that you have the same perception of INJs that I do of INPs. You're beginning to make me think that Jack Flak might have had a point about functions.

Here's pair of other ideas:
THe writers are wording things poorly, so when it comes down to the test, Flak noticed those writers were wrong, but instead of blaming it on the writers, he just blew off the entire theory of functions.

The second:
The reader doesn't really understand what they're reading thereby making false calculations.

Think of it this way: If on a math test, the teacher wrote "5+4=?" but the kid had dyslexia, he'd read "5?+4=" and would have no idea how to make enough sense of the equation to get the right answer.

That's what's happening.