User Tag List

First 12345 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 42

Thread: What's my Type?

  1. #21
    Protocol Droid Athenian200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    8,828

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Costrin View Post
    Fact: peoples reactions to the idea of N/S is not N/S itself.
    I suppose so... but it's really hard to dismiss them when I consider S/N. Especially when they're very clear.

    Well, I guess I need to work on my objectivity. Sigh.

    Just disregard everything I've said. I don't know what I'm doing.

  2. #22
    Magical BlackCat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ESFP
    Enneagram
    9w8 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    7,002

    Default

    Okay, fine.

    Quote Originally Posted by Athenian200 View Post
    They would want their path in life defined, but they wouldn't seek to define it in their own terms. They'd want it defined by others, AFAIK. Also, sensors tend to think visually and/or in terms of action, rather than verbally. He clearly has a primarily verbal/linguistic mindframe and way of relating to life.
    I honestly don't understand this... You're basically suggesting that sensors aren't even individual, that they go in life based on what everyone wants them to be like. You're not a sensor, so I don't understand how you can "know" that sensors think visually or in terms of action. These are character traits, not personality traits.

    Yes, anyone could introspect. I've seen some of the xSFPs on here do so with things that were really important to them. But it's not something they do as consistently as Kai does. His also doesn't start with details, but starts with the concept and then fits details into it. With SFPs I see the opposite happening... the details are placed out, and then a pattern forms.
    So you're saying a sensor couldn't simply think about a concept without details? WHAT?

    Well, it's not so much the exact process of sensing, so much as what it represents. It has come to represent the mundane, traditional way of thinking, those who don't examine life and just live. N essentially means that you seek to "see past" the mundane way and find your own path. S means you're content to accept what you've been taught, examine life in those terms, and follow the beaten trail. In all honesty, Ss are probably better for society, while Ns are better as individuals. If that makes any sense.
    Incorrect definitions. Totally... Totally wrong.

    But you can see how that concept might arise out of the difference between relying on tangible details, and relying on overall patterns, right? I don't know how accurate it is, but that's how N/S is basically interpreted.
    Interpretation =/= what it actually means. There is a HUGE sensor bias here, and I can understand why you have incorrect definitions if you're taking from what you've read here (biased information).

    I admit that I don't know how they should be interpreted, I just know that that's how they are interpreted. This could be an oversight on my part.
    Find your own definition, meet some sensors, they are out there (those that are deep). But first find a reliable definition and build on that.

    It seems like you're basically saying intuitives are "higher up" human beings, that we are more evolved, that just isn't the case.
    () 9w8-3w4-7w6 tritype.

    sCueI (primary Inquisition)

  3. #23
    Protocol Droid Athenian200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    8,828

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackCat View Post
    I honestly don't understand this... You're basically suggesting that sensors aren't even individual, that they go in life based on what everyone wants them to be like.
    I am? Well, that doesn't sound right. Sigh, I guess I haven't quite gotten over all those old conversations with SolitaryWalker yet. He was my friend for quite a while and influenced my thinking quite a bit, but I eventually saw flaws in his ideas. Let's discard that one.
    You're not a sensor, so I don't understand how you can "know" that sensors think visually or in terms of action. These are character traits, not personality traits.
    Well, it's just based on a simple theory. Language is an abstraction. Sensors think in terms of sensed details. So it makes more sense for Sensors to react in the moment based on unfiltered processing from their senses (Kinesthetic or Visual), than to put a filter in place and process things in terms of language. I assume that the slower, more indirect reactions of a predominantly verbal, language-based processing are what create the majority of Intuitive quirks and clumsiness in the physical world.

    I could be wrong, though.
    So you're saying a sensor couldn't simply think about a concept without details? WHAT?
    Yes, of course they could, but it seems to me that they would be less likely to think about a concept without details.

    Interpretation =/= what it actually means. There is a HUGE sensor bias here, and I can understand why you have incorrect definitions if you're taking from what you've read here (biased information).
    Yes, you're probably right.
    Find your own definition, meet some sensors, they are out there (those that are deep). But first find a reliable definition and build on that.
    I already know the "official" definitions, but there's always so much pressure to accept that there's more to the concept than those, and I got ridiculed as imperceptive when I tried to insist on sticking to the official definitions. So I went ahead and... well, you know.
    It seems like you're basically saying intuitives are "higher up" human beings, that we are more evolved, that just isn't the case.
    Oh, not at all. I can see how it would come across that way. What I really meant is that Intuitives are more "mental/verbal" people and Sensors are more "physical/action" people. Both of those traits are integral parts of being human, it's that Intuitives and Sensors supposedly favor different halves of their humanity more.

    This is, again, completely subjective... and I don't know where it comes from, so I'll discard that, too.

  4. #24
    Magical BlackCat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ESFP
    Enneagram
    9w8 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    7,002

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Athenian200 View Post
    Sigh, I guess I haven't quite gotten over all those old conversations with SolitaryWalker yet. He was my friend for quite a while and influenced my thinking quite a bit, but I eventually saw flaws in his ideas. Let's discard that one.
    This is your problem, no wonder a lot of your views are ridiculous.
    () 9w8-3w4-7w6 tritype.

    sCueI (primary Inquisition)

  5. #25
    Senior Member professor goodstain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7~7
    Socionics
    IEE
    Posts
    1,785

    Default

    After reading those first couple posts i gotta say...at the very least, they have Si organized by J all over them. The theories that interest you do lean a bit in the SJ realm. If you are around 20, you are likely an ISFJ. If you are around 40, you are likely an ESFP. However, this is all speculation on my behalf. I do hate to type someone in the second person. Si>Fe due to the ongoing building of retrospect at any givin point in time of the writings.
    everyone uses every function about evenly. take NE for example. if there are those who don't use it much, then why are there such massive amounts of people constantly flowing through Wallmart with 20 items or less?

  6. #26
    Protocol Droid Athenian200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    8,828

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackCat View Post
    This is your problem, no wonder a lot of your views are ridiculous.
    I know, I know. I wish I could fix my brain from what he did to it. It's been screwing with my perception of typology for a while now.

    Why did I have to listen to him?

  7. #27
    Senior Member Snow Turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,335

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Athenian200 View Post
    Who's been questioning it?

    You should know that you're the only ISFJ on here that I really "get." Kind of sad to realize you might not be one. I really thought I was getting better at understanding SJs.
    No worries. I'm still of the belief I'm ISFJ. It was more for the person that thought otherwise. My interest in psychology and philosophy is an applied interest. I'm interested in these theories because I can utilise them to accomplish things, for example: Sophilism opens my mind to the idea that most things can never really be disproven and that people will forever be operating on faith, even if it's for the most basic things in life. Things like utilitarianism/hedonism and existentialism led me to understand that I essentially create my own life path, assuming god does not exist and it's a basic framework for my ethics/morals and ultimately behaviour. The fact that I have no interest in biology but the theories, is potentially because I don't feel as if there is much to be gained from it. The details by themselves aren't useful, they are there to build a framework/system/fact/theory that I can then apply for myself.

    For that matter... has Kai taken the function tests yet?
    Yes. I have but of course they might be biased. I had alot of averages but overall this was my impression of myself.

    Back in Jan 2007 - Course when I first started MBTI I was an ISXX because I felt cold etc. Limited understanding of MBTI.

    (Fi) (44.5)
    (Si) (36.3)
    (Te) (31.1)
    (Fe) (30.1)
    (Se) (27.3)
    (Ne) (25.3)
    (Ti) (23.1)
    (Ni) (21.9)

    Then it became:

    introverted Sensing (Si) (41.9)
    extraverted Feeling (Fe) (35.8)
    introverted Feeling (Fi) 35.6)

    introverted Thinking (Ti) (28.4)
    extraverted Thinking (Te) (27.5)
    introverted Intuiting (Ni) (26.4)

    extraverted Sensing (Se) (22.6)
    extraverted Intuiting (Ne) (21.4)

    Present time:
    New cognitive test

    Fi - 16 Si - 16
    Fe- 10 Ti - 8
    Te- 7 Ni - 6
    Se- 2 Ne- 0

    old cognitive test
    Si - 43
    Fi - 36 Ti - 34
    Fe - 32
    Ni - 27 Te - 26
    Ne - 19 Se - 19

    My own interpretion of functions without testing is Si followed by Fe, Ti, Fi followed by Ni and Te. Se and Ne are my worst functions. But to reitterate, I may be biased in all of this.

  8. #28
    Senior Member Snow Turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,335

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lauren Ashley View Post
    ISFJ.
    To the point.

    Quote Originally Posted by professor goodstain View Post
    After reading those first couple posts i gotta say...at the very least, they have Si organized by J all over them. The theories that interest you do lean a bit in the SJ realm. If you are around 20, you are likely an ISFJ. If you are around 40, you are likely an ESFP. However, this is all speculation on my behalf. I do hate to type someone in the second person. Si>Fe due to the ongoing building of retrospect at any givin point in time of the writings.
    Yep I'm 20. Where's the Si in my original posts, do you mind pointing it so I can confirm?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sentura View Post
    there's definitely some SP lodged in there. that poem about music? i'd accept you as an ISFP. you're highly emotional, your S doesn't seem very strong and you have an intuitive tertiary that seems to peek out every now and again. it could argued whether it's Fi or Fe, but i think it's highly unlikely that you have a dominant S that you seem to almost not use at all.
    What do you think? I do believe that I have a fair amount of Fi, but whether it's the same as an FP might be debatable.

  9. #29
    Protocol Droid Athenian200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    8,828

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kai View Post
    No worries. I'm still of the belief I'm ISFJ. It was more for the person that thought otherwise. My interest in psychology and philosophy is an applied interest. I'm interested in these theories because I can utilise them to accomplish things, for example: Sophilism opens my mind to the idea that most things can never really be disproven and that people will forever be operating on faith, even if it's for the most basic things in life. Things like utilitarianism/hedonism and existentialism led me to understand that I essentially create my own life path, assuming god does not exist and it's a basic framework for my ethics/morals and ultimately behaviour. The fact that I have no interest in biology but the theories, is potentially because I don't feel as if there is much to be gained from it. The details by themselves aren't useful, they are there to build a framework/system/fact/theory that I can then apply for myself.
    Well... some of what you're saying seems more J than S, but I can see why you might say that. It's interesting that you think details by themselves aren't useful, but the framework/system that gets built is more important. I would have thought an S perspective was that the details were more important than the results of the framework/system. Huh.


    Yes. I have but of course they might be biased. I had alot of averages but overall this was my impression of myself.

    Back in Jan 2007 - Course when I first started MBTI I was an ISXX because I felt cold etc. Limited understanding of MBTI.

    (Fi) (44.5)
    (Si) (36.3)
    (Te) (31.1)
    (Fe) (30.1)
    (Se) (27.3)
    (Ne) (25.3)
    (Ti) (23.1)
    (Ni) (21.9)

    Then it became:

    introverted Sensing (Si) (41.9)
    extraverted Feeling (Fe) (35.8)
    introverted Feeling (Fi) 35.6)

    introverted Thinking (Ti) (28.4)
    extraverted Thinking (Te) (27.5)
    introverted Intuiting (Ni) (26.4)

    extraverted Sensing (Se) (22.6)
    extraverted Intuiting (Ne) (21.4)

    Present time:
    New cognitive test

    Fi - 16 Si - 16
    Fe- 10 Ti - 8
    Te- 7 Ni - 6
    Se- 2 Ne- 0

    old cognitive test
    Si - 43
    Fi - 36 Ti - 34
    Fe - 32
    Ni - 27 Te - 26
    Ne - 19 Se - 19

    My own interpretion of functions without testing is Si followed by Fe, Ti, Fi followed by Ni and Te. Se and Ne are my worst functions. But to reitterate, I may be biased in all of this.
    Don't worry, we're all biased. I kind of doubt there's a coherent pattern in MBTI anyway, and that the whole thing is subject to confirmation bias more than actual patterns. There's absolutely nothing in it that can be measured objectively, because no apparent skills, abilities, or traits are specifically tied to functions. It's not like scanning your brain with an fMRI to see which areas light up, or measuring weight/height. Only reason I keep messing with it is the community, and the hope that I might stumble onto a way of interpreting it that ties it to something and allows it to be measured more clearly.

    That said... it seems like you're definitely IxFx. Probably ISFJ, but ISFP and INFJ are also possible. You should be careful with the Si result, because several of my friends have agreed that even NJs are likely to get a high Si score and low Ni score, due to certain J traits being thrown into Si, and Ni being described in a way that describes more how Ni looks from the outside, than how it seems to someone who uses it on a regular basis.

    Generally speaking, though, the accepted way to test for type around here is simply go with whatever type you feel most represents your self-concept, do your best to rationalize it, and then run it by the community along with a couple descriptions of yourself. As long as there's no major red flag that makes the majority of people go "no way in heck are you that type," that's your type. At least until we find a more measurable way of typing people.

    Just in case you're curious, the major red flags on your S (among those who even try to use standards and don't just look for reasons to believe you're whatever type you imply you are) are probably:

    • Interest in philosophy/psychology
    • Analytical skills
    • Ability to pick up on puns and other forms of humor
    • Rejection of conservative religious beliefs and political values
    • Questioning of authority and desire to find your own way


    Now, I'm going to tell you right now that those are horrible standards that make absolutely NO sense, from what my own analysis tells me. But for whatever reason, this is how people seem to decide on S/N. It makes no sense, but... there it is. And sadly, it influences my own typing, because I'm half afraid that it's relevant and I'm just not seeing it. To be frank with you, I almost never consider S as a typing for someone I like unless they really seem to want an S typing.

    The fact is, I'm done with standards. From now on, I'm just going try and type people based on how I think they want to be seen. Standards are unfair, subjective, and make no sense. In fact, I'm not even going to type people, because I know I'll be influenced by the standards. So to be fair, I'm going to quit participating in typing. I'm so sick of choking on the biases I've picked up from my time here...

  10. #30
    Senior Member Snow Turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,335

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Athenian200 View Post
    Well... some of what you're saying seems more J than S, but I can see why you might say that. It's interesting that you think details by themselves aren't useful, but the framework/system that gets built is more important. I would have thought an S perspective was that the details were more important than the results of the framework/system. Huh.
    Please note: Even if I'm saying "we" - I'm always talking about my own experiences because I can never know for certain that this is what it's like for other sensors or any other individual. I prefer not to assume things, I can guess but the other person will ultimately have a better insight than me regarding themselves as long as they are mentally sound.

    You're not wrong. The details are important to sensors, because we build our frameworks and system with these things. It's where the whole linear thing might come into play. Considering that sensors are constantly being described as practical orientated, it does not really make sense that they only deal with facts if you think about it. Facts stand alone don't have practical value, but they can be useful in a game of trivia.

    There's one contradiction with the typical S/N systems. You sort of have to question and understand the reason sensors look towards details. I'm not saying that you can't. It's just that being a intuitive, you are more likely to focus on your own type and defend things thrown in your direction, than concentrate on the problems that exist elsewhere. Exception being if you are defending on the behalf of a close sensor friend.

    It reminds me of a conversation I had a long time ago with an INFP on INFPgc chatroom. Me and another ISFJ were being accused of being rigid, not wanting to change, shooting down their plans etc. However if they looked at it from our perspective, they would quickly see that we're not against change but unneccessary change. This is true for the ISTJs as well. We essentially operate on the motto: "If it's not broken, don't try and fix it" and "If you are going to change the system, provide me with good justification."

    Think about it this way: Does it seem so unusual as an idea that an ISFJ might adapt to their partners needs, changing their frameworks because they believe that it will improve things?

    That's basically one of the biggest problems with claims about sensors. Some of them aren't backed up with reasoning, it's just accepted that we do engage in this behaviour without fully understanding or explaining the reason we do it. The whole stereotype that sensors have no reasoning for their actions, they just do things, but I can definitely tell you along with other ISTJs that this is untrue. I assume it's true for SPs as well.

    How do people operate without reasoning anyway? There's always some motivation behind actions. Most people would agree that people seek meaning for their actions, otherwise we would be in a state of apathy. For some this is religion, for others it'd be creating meaning for ourselves.

    Don't worry, we're all biased. I kind of doubt there's a coherent pattern in MBTI anyway, and that the whole thing is subject to confirmation bias more than actual patterns. There's absolutely nothing in it that can be measured objectively, because no apparent skills, abilities, or traits are specifically tied to functions. It's not like scanning your brain with an fMRI to see which areas light up, or measuring weight/height. Only reason I keep messing with it is the community, and the hope that I might stumble onto a way of interpreting it that ties it to something and allows it to be measured more clearly.
    Yep. Therefore it's best to take the MBTI model with a pinch of salt and use it as a basic model and then refine it with real life experiences, while trying to maintain being objective as possible when doing so.

    That said... it seems like you're definitely IxFx. Probably ISFJ, but ISFP and INFJ are also possible. You should be careful with the Si result, because several of my friends have agreed that even NJs are likely to get a high Si score and low Ni score, due to certain J traits being thrown into Si, and Ni being described in a way that describes more how Ni looks from the outside, than how it seems to someone who uses it on a regular basis.
    When I first came to MBTI I thought I was an ISXX because I had totally rejected intuition within me, because I do not see myself as a creative nor imaginative individual. Having been with an INFJ friend, I could see that while there was many similarities, there was also lots of differences and she concluded the same. She also wanted to become a writer, I'm not so good with words.

    Regarding Si and Ni. It's interesting to hear about your friends experiences, do you mind elaborating a little more on that? Otherwise I could be an ISFP, except there's the major problem that I identify Ne as my weakest function. Brainstorming and going off tangent is difficult for me. I've tried improving Ne by engaging in the whole Seaside - Ocean - Dolphins etc, but you would quickly realise that I'm always operating within a framework than allowing myself to go into something completely unrelated to the original point.

    There's also the fact that I do identify much with Se as a function. In fact until recently I had a fair amount of bias for SPs as I essentially associated it with hedonism. That coupled with some experiences with unstable SPs basically made them out to be rather... dubious. But I've always known that this is just prejudice. One thing that interests me most about psychology is actually how susceptible we are to bias created from self-defensive mechanisms, as it's something I aim to reduce within myself.

    Thankfully I met a wonderful ESFP who happens to be a christian. Personally I think her religion provides her with a sense of stability and ethical positions like "To be kind to people etc". It's wonderful as she is so kind and quirky at the same time, somebody who is willing to accept people as long as they are reasonably within christian morals. So in some ways that has dismissed my prejudice against ESFPs.

    Generally speaking, though, the accepted way to test for type around here is simply go with whatever type you feel most represents your self-concept, do your best to rationalize it, and then run it by the community along with a couple descriptions of yourself. As long as there's no major red flag that makes the majority of people go "no way in heck are you that type," that's your type. At least until we find a more measurable way of typing people.

    Just in case you're curious, the major red flags on your S (among those who even try to use standards and don't just look for reasons to believe you're whatever type you imply you are) are probably:
    • Interest in philosophy/psychology - I've explained why I am interested earlier on.
    • Analytical skills - This for me is Ti.
    • Ability to pick up on puns and other forms of humor - The British is known for sarcasm. But I've never heard of this as a S/N standard. ^^'


    • Rejection of conservative religious beliefs and political values. - See the part where I was explaining about ho
    • Questioning of authority and desire to find your own way
    There are lots of things that I keep and lots of things I've rejected based on whether I view them as truth. I explaind earlier in this post about how SJs react to change in beliefs and values. However in practice I'm more willing to conform unless I view there as being an obvious major problem with society.

    Just to give a little background on how I have potentially come to create my model of reality in bullet points.

    - Rejection from school at early age.
    - Development of perfectionism in order to be accepted.
    - Refusal of falling to peer-pressure to engage in 'immoral acts'
    - Social Anxiety producing shyness. Don't fit with 'mainstream' crowds.
    - Observance of negative treatment towards outcasts.
    - Stronger development of protection for the underdogs.
    - Development of moral relativism. Remaining neutral in arguements.
    [Why do people bully? Why did they persecute people for believing the world was round in the past? etc]
    - Decision to find my own system of what is truth.


    This is the framework that I have adopted and it can hold true for other sensors. You could also say that I was influenced by a close INFJ friend during my adolescent years (13-19).

    I've changed a few times for example: I used to think that shopping and small talk is superficial, but then I met an ISFP who loves shopping and clothing, and I could never describe her as shallow. Regarding that of small talk, I discovered that topics that aren't interesting to me as usually deemed as small talk. But it's extremely possible for some one to go into lots of depth with shopping etc. Someone mentioned small talk as being a method of exchanging greetings/acknowledgement of the other person rather than conversation and I think that's extremely true.

    The fact is, I'm done with standards. From now on, I'm just going try and type people based on how I think they want to be seen. Standards are unfair, subjective, and make no sense. In fact, I'm not even going to type people, because I know I'll be influenced by the standards. So to be fair, I'm going to quit participating in typing. I'm so sick of choking on the biases I've picked up from my time here...
    Aww It's all good! You do usually make insightful posts, for example that one about the limitations of MBTI. For me personally I find it best to operate in a scientific method way when dealing with the theory and to ensure that my foundation is correct as logic can prove anything.

    My parents personally hate that I do this, but I use extreme examples to counter a theory being 100% correct and thus it needs refining. Another example: I operate on the belief that function ordering is not rigid and fluid, however the first two functions along with the inferior are usually good indicators of type. Then BlackCat came along and pwned me by telling me that his inferior is actually well developed.

    Oh dear post count 444: Not good for the chinese...

Similar Threads

  1. So what's my type ?
    By entropie in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 10-08-2008, 11:58 PM
  2. So what is my type ?
    By entropie in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 09-16-2008, 04:27 AM
  3. What's My Type?
    By MuraKoji in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 05-16-2008, 09:07 AM
  4. Results are here. What's my type?
    By UnitOfPopulation in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 01-27-2008, 09:46 AM
  5. What's my type,
    By Tigerlily in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 11-09-2007, 02:26 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO