Thoughts on my type version 2.0

[greenfairy]

K. Notice the edit, to get the whole thought. I edit my posts a lot. Plzthnx.

And thanks for the responses.

I wasn't aware I was shoving it down anyone's throat. Is that how people feel? I'm just really paranoid and think people will think badly of me if I choose the wrong type. Especially if I make a bunch of posts explaining things from that type's perspective, my paranoid self expects people to be secretly thinking I'm entirely wrong or illogical or wanting to be something and failing. Or something. So is this entirely incorrect? I'm just paranoid? I'm kind of new to the forum.

 

[greenfairy]

I've decided I'm 5 w 4, sx/sp.


Sexual |||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 86%
Social |||||||||||||||||||||||| 74%
Self Preservation |||||||||||||||||||||||| 78%

 

[Mal12345]

I've decided I'm 5 w 4, sx/sp.

Welcome to the club!

 

[greenfairy]

I'm a little new to this part though, so I was wondering if it is common to be strong in all of them? I would think above 70% is strong. Definitely Sx though.

 

[Mal12345]

I'm a little new to this part though, so I was wondering if it is common to be strong in all of them? I would think above 70% is strong. Definitely Sx though.

Have you looked over the descriptions at ocean-moonshine?

 

[RaptorWizard]

WTF 50% of voters selected INFP!!?? Of course, that could change if more people vote.

 

[greenfairy]

WTF 50% of voters selected INFP!!?? Of course, that could change if more people vote.

Haha. Yes, appearances are confusing. After this thread I can understand how I could appear that way on the surface; but these sorts of threads (with ambiguous or confused people) are designed to get into the subtle differences between the types which a lot of people haven't thought about.

My latest view is that not only do people have tri-types, but people can change type, and ultimately it's not all that important. We just are who we are. (Not that the searching and analyzing isn't fun.)

 

[EntangledLight]

Haha. Yes, appearances are confusing. After this thread I can understand how I could appear that way on the surface; but these sorts of threads (with ambiguous or confused people) are designed to get into the subtle differences between the types which a lot of people haven't thought about.

My latest view is that not only do people have tri-types, but people can change type, and ultimately it's not all that important. We just are who we are. (Not that the searching and analyzing isn't fun.)

I've thought this (the part about changing type).

Just thinking about how i have been throughout my life, it seems as if there is a point within a circle that is more of an unchanging base, and from that base lines extend that partition segments of the circle that are unique representations (since they begin with that initial base of "me") that are almost cycled through in my own stages of development... so, it's almost like i can pin-point certain ages and recognize what would amount to a different type behaviorally--but there's the crux--supposedly these catagories aren't based off of behaviors, or are supposed to be something so deeply ingrained they are unable to change...

But, i think people are too fluid for any of these labels to be accurate past, say, describing what would amount to a fraction of ourselves (which only shows a fraction of the picture).

 

[greenfairy]

I've thought this (the part about changing type).

Just thinking about how i have been throughout my life, it seems as if there is a point within a circle that is more of an unchanging base, and from that base lines extend that partition segments of the circle that are unique representations (since they begin with that initial base of "me") that are almost cycled through in my own stages of development... so, it's almost like i can pin-point certain ages and recognize what would amount to a different type behaviorally--but there's the crux--supposedly these catagories aren't based off of behaviors, or are supposed to be something so deeply ingrained they are unable to change...

But, i think people are too fluid for any of these labels to be accurate past, say, describing what would amount to a fraction of ourselves (which only shows a fraction of the picture).

I totally agree!

New fun exercise: see if I can identify parts of myself which have always been true, an unchanging base.

Hm...(and focusing on positive things, because negative ones will change)
-love of adventure
-love of glamour
-(sx dom things)
-ambition
-sensitivity to other people (a tricky one, but I believe Fe, and takes many forms depending on how healthy it is), as in: being able to get inside other people's heads, being very responsive, identifying myself by the parts which reflect other people, being conscious of how I am perceived
-fairly social
-easily distracted alternating with hyper focused
-super analytical
-super curious, obsessively searching for answers, truth seeking
-radically honest
-care about other people and living things
-connection to the physical as my grounding in reality and happiness (like what I've said about needing positive physical experiences to be happy; although it's only half of it- having a knowledge of truth both intellectual and spiritual is the other half of happiness, and is unconditional).
-love of humor and wit; being dry, silly, snarky, and mischievous
-wanting to preserve my inner child
-valuing health and fitness
-never giving up on something I really want, belief in constant new beginnings and transformation
-very energetic
-having a sense of duty and a desire to be well behaved, but at the same time thinking for myself
-very independent
-inventive, innovative, and resourceful
-playful
-fiercely defend the people and things I care about, usually with argument (but at the same time wanting to see the big picture)
-one with nature
-push myself and work hard
-enthusiastic
-optimistic
-like to help people solve their problems, and like to have people help me solve my problems
-enjoy sharing knowledge and communicating complex concepts in ways normal people can understand
-open minded and like diversity

That's about all I can think of for now. Doesn't jump out as any particular type, but has elements of all of them. I think I'm on to something with the closet extrovert thing.


I'm curious about what yours might be, or what you had in mind, [MENTION=16005]EntangledLight[/MENTION].

 

[greenfairy]

Have you looked over the descriptions at ocean-moonshine?

Just did. 5 sx/sp is very accurate, but 5 sx/so is also very accurate. So is a little less developed, but only because my social skills are still growing, so in the end the second 2 will probably be about equal. In the general descriptions of sx/sp vs. sx/so, sx/so looked a lot more accurate. So I guess both for now, not that it matters. 5w4 sx is pretty descriptive.

 

[EntangledLight]

[MENTION=15773]greenfairy[/MENTION]

alright:

for my life, it's been a cycle of three different mentalities that lead in the same pattern.

1) more open to experience, but also naive/immature compared to the others cycles

2) the naivety/immaturity is replaced by a more cynical attitude; i feel that i'm much more aware of the world around me, specifically the social side; i have in the past found it much easier to climb "social ladders" while in this mindset and the climbing wasn't a conscious/"i want to do this" action, it was just something that precipitated naturally from this mindset.

3) the 2nd was followed by depression and a general closing off from the social side of things, seeing them as having no real depth, almost like being 11 years old and realizing that my life is mimicking that of a 40 year old man who has worked so hard for a make believe reality of social constructs. and from this, it's almost like all three phases integrate for a short period and i feel much more like myself, like i'm not being pulled in any other direction but that the sense of direction is starting within and leading out.

i see each as a general action needed in order to create a foundation for the next to work upon, in order so that the newest action can again create a foundation for the third, and at the end of the third, it's like all three perspectives have been formed into one. but at this point, i still have almost 0 life experience and so the cycle is needed again. at each stage, the mentality fits the over all schema, but this time there is more to work with since it's happened before--almost like going through stage 1 but at the advanced level of a 2nd degree. (what's interesting is that i've seen astrology stuff that indicated life cycles such as these; i'm not sure how much i buy into all of that, but then again, i can't say either way since i know so little about it).

within these cycles, i don't think anyone would say that i'm a different person, but there are differences that are apparent. if someone were to only know me by a certain time frame and were then asked to MBTI-type me, and then to do the same with another time frame, i don't think they'd necessarily match (although, most people type by behavior so i doubt they'd ever get a good, long term consensus on anyone, which kind of defeats the purpose of me saying all of this if the jungian functions are so far ingrained and are actually such smaller parts of us that it is possible to not change type with a change in behavior over the years).

so basically, what i see is the same pattern but just becoming more and more rich, more and more refined as i get older (rich and refined in regards to myself, not others). this is something that i try to pay attention to more so than anything else in the hopes of not repeating the same mistakes, or not letting myself get wrapped into a frame of mind that i've found non-helpful/detrimental in the past.

*side note for clarification/i'm going to repeat myself : the naive/open mindset is almost like information gathering, the more aware/productive self the side that ventures out and creates mistakes to learn, the withdrawn part is the self-reflection and reconciliation of those mistakes so that i can take the multi-step process and combine it into one mini-life-lesson.

... i think .

 

[greenfairy]

Interesting.

 

[MacGuffin]

Still a Feeler.

 

[greenfairy]

Still a Feeler.

Yeah whatever. You don't know me.

 

[greenfairy]

My point is that you don't have "extra things". You don't even have the basics!

Allow me to illustrate:
Post #207 is a good example of INTP posting style.
Post #203 (amongst others) is a good example of the opposite of INTP posting style.

Hope this helps.

(I still don't think it really matters, but seriously, don't tell us how great your Ti is and then come up with this shite, or you'll just be ripped to shreds. It's not that it's impossible for an INFP to have well-developed Ti (see OrangeAppled for a good example) it's just that you're not one of them.)

Oh I'm not saying my Ti is great. My Fi isn't that great either, I assure you. Maybe I make value based assumptions, or live my life in a vaguely Fi way, but I'm really not great at it. I'm really bad at being sensitive and comforting. And every time ethics and morality comes up I don't really have the patience to argue about it, and I just end up saying it's all relative and not really relevant. Probably my Ni or Ne is. I don't know that any of my functions could be described as great. Both my Fe and Te are effing terrible at times. My Si misremembers things. My Se is really good at identifying beautiful things, but sucks at paying attention to things I need to pay attention to. It's more the combination of them that gives me moments of greatness.

 

[greenfairy]

Every one of your rationales is based on subjective internal values and feelings. How much more evidence do you need unless you're determined to be delusional.

Consider the processes to be coping strategies. Your dom function is your lead strategy where the aux is to supplement the dom. In your case it's Fi or internal values with subjective emotional responses attuned to internal values. Ne bounces around to augment and in your response to me, your Ne has grabbed a boatload of shit and tied it all together to bring about your above synthesis of what I've stated. Uncertain if you can see the difference between what I've previously stated and your perception of what was stated.

I'm just not very aware of my personal subjective values and feelings. Can you point out to me specific instances of these affecting my rationales? I guess you could point to my beliefs about embracing the gender binary as being useful if it makes you feel good. But I didn't think that way of thinking made up most of my rationales in every subject. I tend to discuss feeling type subjects on here, so of course feeling is relevant. I use symbolism and categorization a lot. And I haven't really expressed much emotional response in my time on here. It may look like it, but it's usually just sarcasm or enthusiasm. I don't really understand Fi, as people just say it has to do with values and feelings and I think values are relative, morals are largely irrelevant, and feelings aren't usually important. So from my own perspective I can hardly conclude I'm Fi dominant unless we use more criteria.

I mean, there are things I like and things I care about, but this is true of everyone. I don't like caring all the time. It's tiring. So most of the time I avoid it and just do things I like with people and things I like. And I think about things.

 

[copperfish17]

You're going to hate to hear this, but I'll say it anyway.

I've read through this thread (yes, the entire thing) and am pretty much convinced you're NOT an INTP. I'm having a very hard time believing you are a Ti-dominant... despite how well you think le INTP descriptions fit you. I'm not saying that you aren't the things the INTP descriptions make you out to be (i.e. a rational person), but IMO comparing oneself to generalized descriptions on the interwebs to see if any of them "fit" isn't the best way to go about typing yourself.

Also, you seem to have a very strange (read: IMO inaccurate and biased) perception of F-ness. For one thing, a "Feeling" preference doesn't automatically make one illogical/irrational/easily swayed by emotions. That's F-stereotyping for you. Additionally, I'm guessing that you don't understand the cognitive functions very well. You may have a surface-level understanding of them, but not an in-depth one, IMO.

FYI, my guess on your type would be INFP. I think I see Fi and Te in you.

I don't mean to offend you at all with this post, and would be interested in talking this out w/you--that is, if you're interested.

 

[digesthisickness]

Why does it seem to bother you so much for anyone to think you may be a F?

This isn't an accusation, btw, but an attempt at an answer in order to get more data. When someone says any type with the letter F in it, what's your first thought regarding why it bothers you? Please be honest.

 

[Salomé]

Oh I'm not saying my Ti is great. My Fi isn't that great either, I assure you. Maybe I make value based assumptions, or live my life in a vaguely Fi way, but I'm really not great at it. I'm really bad at being sensitive and comforting. And every time ethics and morality comes up I don't really have the patience to argue about it, and I just end up saying it's all relative and not really relevant. Probably my Ni or Ne is. I don't know that any of my functions could be described as great. Both my Fe and Te are effing terrible at times. My Si misremembers things. My Se is really good at identifying beautiful things, but sucks at paying attention to things I need to pay attention to. It's more the combination of them that gives me moments of greatness.

You misuse logic horribly. It's genuinely painful to read.

Do you have OCD? You mentioned being obsessed with this stuff (which doesn't seem like an exaggeration). Sometimes you come across a bit manic. If you have any kind of mental disorder, type becomes irrelevant, and can even be unhelpful.

 

[Anew Leaf]

Yeah whatever. You don't know me.

And another great example of not being a t type. This seems to be coming quite the pattern.