-
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.
so confused about my type
- Thread starter lume
- Start date
reckful
New member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2013
- Messages
- 656
- MBTI Type
- INTJ
- Enneagram
- 5
[MENTION=20043]lume[/MENTION] —
In developing the Myers-Briggs typology, Myers departed from Jung in many ways, both large and small, and it's pretty common to encounter internet forum posters with the perspective that the MBTI, to the extent that it departs from Jung, mostly represents an oversimplified dumbing-down of Jung and/or a misunderstanding of Jung. But I'm here to tell you that the MBTI owes much of its spectacular success to the fact that the great majority of Briggs' and Myers' additions, corrections and other changes were improvements — including appropriate expansions — to Jung's original conceptions of the types.
In any case, there's no denying that one of the results of Myers' changes to Jung is that each of her 16 type descriptions differs (to varying degrees) from Jung's description of the cognitive function (and function-dom) that purportedly corresponds to that type. And if I wanted to pick a single cognitive function where Myers' conception of the corresponding types departed the most from Jung, I'm pretty sure I'd pick introverted sensation.
As Jung saw it — as you may know if you followed [MENTION=6877]Marmotini[/MENTION]'s or [MENTION=7140]brainheart[/MENTION]'s links – Si-doms were awkward, touchy eccentrics, detached from reality, who inhabited "a mythological world, where men, animals, railways, houses, rivers, and mountains appear partly as benevolent deities and partly as malevolent demons." Not only does Jung's portrait bear little resemblance to a typical IS_J, I think anyone not inclined to treat Jung with too much reverence would have to agree that Jung's portrait bears little resemblance to any significantly numerous group of normal-range people who've ever walked the face of the earth.
In describing what he referred to as "the reality-alienating subjectivity of this type," Jung said that an Si-dom "has an illusory conception of reality," and that the relation between the actual physical world and the Si-dom's perceptions of it is "unpredictable and arbitrary." Both because of that and because, in Jung's view, the Si-dom's thinking and feeling functions "are relatively unconscious and, if conscious at all, have at their disposal only the most necessary, banal, everyday means of expression," Jung said that not only is it typical for Si-doms to be unable to really communicate their views to the world in understandable ways — an Si-dom also typically "fares no better in understanding himself."
Jung said the main hope for an Si-dom to be able to communicate his thoughts to others was through art — in which case, although others would then be able to get a better glimpse of the Si-dom's soul, it would also be "strikingly clear" how "irrational" the Si-dom's perspectives were — but, alas, Jung also noted that artistic Si-doms were the exception rather than the rule, with the result that, "as a rule, [the Si-dom] resigns himself to his isolation."
Myers, as you may know, abandoned the vast majority of Jung's strange, collective-unconscious-dominated conception of what Si involved in creating her portraits of IS_Js — based on many years of typing and gathering correlational data with respect to thousands of subjects.
Far from suffering from a "reality-alienating subjectivity" that caused their relation to the real world to be "unpredictable and arbitrary," Myers portrayed IS_Js as among the most down-to-earth and realistic of all the types. She called them the "most practical of the introvert types," and said "they have a complete, realistic, practical respect both for the facts and for whatever responsibilities these facts create. Sensing provides the facts, and after the introverts' characteristic pause for reflection, their judgment accepts the responsibilities."
Far from being uncommunicative eccentrics who more grounded and productive people would be prone to view as (in Jung's words) "the most useless of men," Myers viewed IS_Js as having the kinds of personality characteristics that tend to make them model employees in many respects. To quote the brief capsule descriptions at the myersbriggs.org website:
My parents are both IS_Js, and I've dealt with quite a few others, and I have to say I think Myers' take captures them far better than Jung's. And the thing is, not only am I far from alone in finding that Myers' (and Keirsey's) IS_J — and SJ — descriptions are more accurate (not to mention richer and more insightful) than Jung's, but the people who agree with me (on the accurate part at the least) include every reasonably well-known cognitive functions theorist I've ever read — including Thomson, Berens, Nardi and Quenk.
Lenore Thomson notes that Sensation gives all S-doms "an appreciation for objective facts and circumstances, as perceived by the senses, [and] excellent powers of observation"; and she says Si-doms "count on established facts and concrete results" and particularly excel at "accumulat[ing] information — names, dates, numbers, statistics, references, guidelines, and so forth," and that Si "prompts [them] to reconcile [their] new impressions with the ones [they've] already stored." She also notes that Si-doms "consider it a point of honor to discharge their responsibilities, to be on time, and to keep their word"; and are "reassured by a defined place in a larger group." They "make it their business to know how things are supposed to work ... and they're concerned that others take these operating standards seriously as well." So Thomson's Si-doms are basically Myers' IS_Js, not Jung's Si-doms.
Linda Berens (who also makes use of Keirsey's SJ descriptions in her multifaceted approach) and Dario Nardi also describe Si-doms in ways that are essentially consistent with Myers and inconsistent with Jung. Berens explains that sensing — for Se-doms and Si-doms both — "is a process of becoming aware of sensory information and often involves responding to that sensory information without any judgment or evaluation of it. ... In the Sensing process, the focus is on the actual experience, the facts and the data."
Here's an "ISTJ snapshot" from Berens and Nardi: "Theme is planning and monitoring, ensuring predictable quality. Thorough, systematic, and careful. See discrepancies, omissions and pitfalls. Talents lie in administrating and regulating. Dependable, realistic, and sensible. Want to conserve the resources of the organization, group, family, or culture and persevere toward that goal. Thrive on planning ahead and being prepared. Like helping others through their roles as parent, supervisor, teammate, and community volunteer."
Similarly, Naomi Quenk explains: "Introverted sensing types are careful and orderly in their attention to facts and details. They are thorough and conscientious in fulfilling their responsibilities. ... They are typically seen as well grounded in reality, trustworthy, and dedicated to preserving traditional values and time-honored institutions. With their focus on the reality of the present, they trust the evidence of their senses, and rely on carefully accumuated past and present evidence to support their conclusions and planned courses of action. ... They tend to take a skeptical, critical attitude to information that has not been verified by the senses and are likely to distrust people who are careless about facts, sloppy about details, and favor imagination and novelty over accuracy and solid substantiation."
Again, Quenk's Si-doms are basically Myers' IS_Js. In terms of the relationship of an Si-dom to sensory data and reality in general, Quenk's conception of introverted sensation — like Myers' and Thomson's and Berens' and Nardi's — comes closer to resembling the opposite of Jung's Si-dom than matching Jung's conception.
And again, as you may know, Thomson, Quenk, Berens and Nardi are the most well-known MBTI theorists whose approaches are centered more around the cognitive functions than the dichotomies. I assume it goes without saying that all the well-known authors who follow the MBTI's dichotomy-centric approach (like Keirsey and Kroeger & Thuesen) offer IS_J profiles that match Myers' IS_J descriptions far more than Jung's Si-dom description, so I'll spare you quotations from them.
So I'd certainly agree with [MENTION=7140]brainheart[/MENTION] that "Jung's description of Si ... is so, so different than the MBTI ones!" What's hard for me to understand is why he and [MENTION=6877]Marmotini[/MENTION] would think it made any sense for you to be reading Jung's description.
And by that I mean I'd find it hard to understand even if it sounded like you were an IS_J. Given that you really don't sound like an IS_J, it's even harder for me to understand.
Jung broke with Freud in large part because he thought Freud wanted him (and others) to treat Freud's theories as a kind of religion, rather than having an appropriately sceptical and open-minded scientific attitude toward them. If Jung was still around and became aware that, 90 years after Psychological Types was published, somebody was ignoring all the improvements that had been made to his original ideas by Myers and others and was trying to type themselves based on the function descriptions in Psychological Types, I really don't think he'd approve.
Anyway... in my earlier post, I pointed you to a couple of tests, and you took the first one (the official MBTI) and came out INFP, as I'd expected (with F being the only borderline score), but it looks like you haven't (yet, at least) taken the second test — which, as I explained, will both score you on the Big Five dimension that doesn't have a corresponding MBTI dimension and also offer a potentially useful "second opinion" on your MBTI preferences.
Feel free to ignore me but, if you'd potentially be interested in taking the Big Five test and posting your results, I'd be more than happy to continue giving you type input — particularly on your T/F preference (if it turns out that's the one that the most uncertain).
In developing the Myers-Briggs typology, Myers departed from Jung in many ways, both large and small, and it's pretty common to encounter internet forum posters with the perspective that the MBTI, to the extent that it departs from Jung, mostly represents an oversimplified dumbing-down of Jung and/or a misunderstanding of Jung. But I'm here to tell you that the MBTI owes much of its spectacular success to the fact that the great majority of Briggs' and Myers' additions, corrections and other changes were improvements — including appropriate expansions — to Jung's original conceptions of the types.
In any case, there's no denying that one of the results of Myers' changes to Jung is that each of her 16 type descriptions differs (to varying degrees) from Jung's description of the cognitive function (and function-dom) that purportedly corresponds to that type. And if I wanted to pick a single cognitive function where Myers' conception of the corresponding types departed the most from Jung, I'm pretty sure I'd pick introverted sensation.
As Jung saw it — as you may know if you followed [MENTION=6877]Marmotini[/MENTION]'s or [MENTION=7140]brainheart[/MENTION]'s links – Si-doms were awkward, touchy eccentrics, detached from reality, who inhabited "a mythological world, where men, animals, railways, houses, rivers, and mountains appear partly as benevolent deities and partly as malevolent demons." Not only does Jung's portrait bear little resemblance to a typical IS_J, I think anyone not inclined to treat Jung with too much reverence would have to agree that Jung's portrait bears little resemblance to any significantly numerous group of normal-range people who've ever walked the face of the earth.
In describing what he referred to as "the reality-alienating subjectivity of this type," Jung said that an Si-dom "has an illusory conception of reality," and that the relation between the actual physical world and the Si-dom's perceptions of it is "unpredictable and arbitrary." Both because of that and because, in Jung's view, the Si-dom's thinking and feeling functions "are relatively unconscious and, if conscious at all, have at their disposal only the most necessary, banal, everyday means of expression," Jung said that not only is it typical for Si-doms to be unable to really communicate their views to the world in understandable ways — an Si-dom also typically "fares no better in understanding himself."
Jung said the main hope for an Si-dom to be able to communicate his thoughts to others was through art — in which case, although others would then be able to get a better glimpse of the Si-dom's soul, it would also be "strikingly clear" how "irrational" the Si-dom's perspectives were — but, alas, Jung also noted that artistic Si-doms were the exception rather than the rule, with the result that, "as a rule, [the Si-dom] resigns himself to his isolation."
Myers, as you may know, abandoned the vast majority of Jung's strange, collective-unconscious-dominated conception of what Si involved in creating her portraits of IS_Js — based on many years of typing and gathering correlational data with respect to thousands of subjects.
Far from suffering from a "reality-alienating subjectivity" that caused their relation to the real world to be "unpredictable and arbitrary," Myers portrayed IS_Js as among the most down-to-earth and realistic of all the types. She called them the "most practical of the introvert types," and said "they have a complete, realistic, practical respect both for the facts and for whatever responsibilities these facts create. Sensing provides the facts, and after the introverts' characteristic pause for reflection, their judgment accepts the responsibilities."
Far from being uncommunicative eccentrics who more grounded and productive people would be prone to view as (in Jung's words) "the most useless of men," Myers viewed IS_Js as having the kinds of personality characteristics that tend to make them model employees in many respects. To quote the brief capsule descriptions at the myersbriggs.org website:
My parents are both IS_Js, and I've dealt with quite a few others, and I have to say I think Myers' take captures them far better than Jung's. And the thing is, not only am I far from alone in finding that Myers' (and Keirsey's) IS_J — and SJ — descriptions are more accurate (not to mention richer and more insightful) than Jung's, but the people who agree with me (on the accurate part at the least) include every reasonably well-known cognitive functions theorist I've ever read — including Thomson, Berens, Nardi and Quenk.
Lenore Thomson notes that Sensation gives all S-doms "an appreciation for objective facts and circumstances, as perceived by the senses, [and] excellent powers of observation"; and she says Si-doms "count on established facts and concrete results" and particularly excel at "accumulat[ing] information — names, dates, numbers, statistics, references, guidelines, and so forth," and that Si "prompts [them] to reconcile [their] new impressions with the ones [they've] already stored." She also notes that Si-doms "consider it a point of honor to discharge their responsibilities, to be on time, and to keep their word"; and are "reassured by a defined place in a larger group." They "make it their business to know how things are supposed to work ... and they're concerned that others take these operating standards seriously as well." So Thomson's Si-doms are basically Myers' IS_Js, not Jung's Si-doms.
Linda Berens (who also makes use of Keirsey's SJ descriptions in her multifaceted approach) and Dario Nardi also describe Si-doms in ways that are essentially consistent with Myers and inconsistent with Jung. Berens explains that sensing — for Se-doms and Si-doms both — "is a process of becoming aware of sensory information and often involves responding to that sensory information without any judgment or evaluation of it. ... In the Sensing process, the focus is on the actual experience, the facts and the data."
Here's an "ISTJ snapshot" from Berens and Nardi: "Theme is planning and monitoring, ensuring predictable quality. Thorough, systematic, and careful. See discrepancies, omissions and pitfalls. Talents lie in administrating and regulating. Dependable, realistic, and sensible. Want to conserve the resources of the organization, group, family, or culture and persevere toward that goal. Thrive on planning ahead and being prepared. Like helping others through their roles as parent, supervisor, teammate, and community volunteer."
Similarly, Naomi Quenk explains: "Introverted sensing types are careful and orderly in their attention to facts and details. They are thorough and conscientious in fulfilling their responsibilities. ... They are typically seen as well grounded in reality, trustworthy, and dedicated to preserving traditional values and time-honored institutions. With their focus on the reality of the present, they trust the evidence of their senses, and rely on carefully accumuated past and present evidence to support their conclusions and planned courses of action. ... They tend to take a skeptical, critical attitude to information that has not been verified by the senses and are likely to distrust people who are careless about facts, sloppy about details, and favor imagination and novelty over accuracy and solid substantiation."
Again, Quenk's Si-doms are basically Myers' IS_Js. In terms of the relationship of an Si-dom to sensory data and reality in general, Quenk's conception of introverted sensation — like Myers' and Thomson's and Berens' and Nardi's — comes closer to resembling the opposite of Jung's Si-dom than matching Jung's conception.
And again, as you may know, Thomson, Quenk, Berens and Nardi are the most well-known MBTI theorists whose approaches are centered more around the cognitive functions than the dichotomies. I assume it goes without saying that all the well-known authors who follow the MBTI's dichotomy-centric approach (like Keirsey and Kroeger & Thuesen) offer IS_J profiles that match Myers' IS_J descriptions far more than Jung's Si-dom description, so I'll spare you quotations from them.
So I'd certainly agree with [MENTION=7140]brainheart[/MENTION] that "Jung's description of Si ... is so, so different than the MBTI ones!" What's hard for me to understand is why he and [MENTION=6877]Marmotini[/MENTION] would think it made any sense for you to be reading Jung's description.
And by that I mean I'd find it hard to understand even if it sounded like you were an IS_J. Given that you really don't sound like an IS_J, it's even harder for me to understand.
Jung broke with Freud in large part because he thought Freud wanted him (and others) to treat Freud's theories as a kind of religion, rather than having an appropriately sceptical and open-minded scientific attitude toward them. If Jung was still around and became aware that, 90 years after Psychological Types was published, somebody was ignoring all the improvements that had been made to his original ideas by Myers and others and was trying to type themselves based on the function descriptions in Psychological Types, I really don't think he'd approve.
Anyway... in my earlier post, I pointed you to a couple of tests, and you took the first one (the official MBTI) and came out INFP, as I'd expected (with F being the only borderline score), but it looks like you haven't (yet, at least) taken the second test — which, as I explained, will both score you on the Big Five dimension that doesn't have a corresponding MBTI dimension and also offer a potentially useful "second opinion" on your MBTI preferences.
Feel free to ignore me but, if you'd potentially be interested in taking the Big Five test and posting your results, I'd be more than happy to continue giving you type input — particularly on your T/F preference (if it turns out that's the one that the most uncertain).
B
brainheart
Guest
[MENTION=18736]reckful[/MENTION],
I disagree with how you define Jung's Introverted Sensing. That's not how I interpret it at all. I see it more as a subjective sensing which creates deeper connotations with sensory objects, especially of comfort or distaste. For this reason Si doms like what they are accustomed to because their sensing is one of a sort of routine- I liked coffee yesterday morning so I will like coffee again tomorrow. I like sitting in this chair at this restaurant so the next time I come here I'll sit in this chair again. I will zone out into my fantasy world where no one can bother me and I feel ok.
I think this goes along quite well with MBTI's definition of ISXJs, especially Thomson's. (She talks about Si doms being kind of quirky eccentrics who like to collect random things. I think of her definition and I think of people who go on Antiques Roadshow or people who have blogs where they show all of their typewriters they collected.) MBTI, Jung, and Thomson all describe my ISTJ father well.
More than anything, I think Si equals a belief that what worked in the past will work in the present and in the future. For this reason, Si types tend to put faith in doing well in school, following the rules, going by the book, learning from those who went before them. And that's what I was going by when I said [MENTION=20043]lume[/MENTION] seemed ISXJ to me. She may not be, but that's the impression I got. Maybe INFP enneagram nines/ones are like that
Now that said... I think there is a bit of a discrepancy between Jung's descriptions and other MBTI type descriptions. For example, I read Jung and related more to introverted intuition than to introverted feeling, but I also think that's because in his introverted feeling description he mentions more of a behavior than something deeper. Other descriptions flesh it out a bit better and add the component of internal subjective values. In certain ways, yes, Jung's descriptions are a starting point, and I'm realizing that now. But I also like how he is a bit more free/ less extroverted thinking heavy in his approach of the types. They feel more big picture and less precise. And in that way I think it's important to look holistically at the person and what different people have written and not get too nitpicky. I know it can be tempting to get all or nothing about this stuff (I just went through that recently) but I don't think it's going to give you the correct results.
So [MENTION=20043]lume[/MENTION], I would say take the MBTI tests. Take the cognitive function test. Watch videos of people who are different types and see if you relate. Read as much as you can. Think big picture and eventually you'll probably figure it out. And when all is said and done, you'll probably return to the type you got on your first mbti test, which is what I'm doing. (Same type as I had when I took the test at the age of sixteen.)
I disagree with how you define Jung's Introverted Sensing. That's not how I interpret it at all. I see it more as a subjective sensing which creates deeper connotations with sensory objects, especially of comfort or distaste. For this reason Si doms like what they are accustomed to because their sensing is one of a sort of routine- I liked coffee yesterday morning so I will like coffee again tomorrow. I like sitting in this chair at this restaurant so the next time I come here I'll sit in this chair again. I will zone out into my fantasy world where no one can bother me and I feel ok.
I think this goes along quite well with MBTI's definition of ISXJs, especially Thomson's. (She talks about Si doms being kind of quirky eccentrics who like to collect random things. I think of her definition and I think of people who go on Antiques Roadshow or people who have blogs where they show all of their typewriters they collected.) MBTI, Jung, and Thomson all describe my ISTJ father well.
More than anything, I think Si equals a belief that what worked in the past will work in the present and in the future. For this reason, Si types tend to put faith in doing well in school, following the rules, going by the book, learning from those who went before them. And that's what I was going by when I said [MENTION=20043]lume[/MENTION] seemed ISXJ to me. She may not be, but that's the impression I got. Maybe INFP enneagram nines/ones are like that
Now that said... I think there is a bit of a discrepancy between Jung's descriptions and other MBTI type descriptions. For example, I read Jung and related more to introverted intuition than to introverted feeling, but I also think that's because in his introverted feeling description he mentions more of a behavior than something deeper. Other descriptions flesh it out a bit better and add the component of internal subjective values. In certain ways, yes, Jung's descriptions are a starting point, and I'm realizing that now. But I also like how he is a bit more free/ less extroverted thinking heavy in his approach of the types. They feel more big picture and less precise. And in that way I think it's important to look holistically at the person and what different people have written and not get too nitpicky. I know it can be tempting to get all or nothing about this stuff (I just went through that recently) but I don't think it's going to give you the correct results.
So [MENTION=20043]lume[/MENTION], I would say take the MBTI tests. Take the cognitive function test. Watch videos of people who are different types and see if you relate. Read as much as you can. Think big picture and eventually you'll probably figure it out. And when all is said and done, you'll probably return to the type you got on your first mbti test, which is what I'm doing. (Same type as I had when I took the test at the age of sixteen.)
reckful
New member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2013
- Messages
- 656
- MBTI Type
- INTJ
- Enneagram
- 5
I wouldn't say I offered up a definition of Si of my own and, as you may know, I'm more of a dichotomy-centric guy myself.
I just noted that, if you read Myers', Thomson's, Berens', Nardi's and Quenk's portraits of IS_Js, you'll find a tremendous amount of common ground and, if you read Jung's Si-dom portrait, you'll find a description that bears little resemblance to (and, indeed, is more like the opposite of) those modern portraits.
PimpinMcBoltage
New member
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2012
- Messages
- 155
- Enneagram
- 8
[MENTION=20043]lume[/MENTION]
Are you more of the type of person who is quick to judge, but is withholding on telling what an object is or are you quick to point out what something is, but generally has trouble deciding if it's agreeable/valuable or not.
This might not be very helpful, but if you have an answer to this question then you can narrow it down easier.
Are you more of the type of person who is quick to judge, but is withholding on telling what an object is or are you quick to point out what something is, but generally has trouble deciding if it's agreeable/valuable or not.
This might not be very helpful, but if you have an answer to this question then you can narrow it down easier.
Thalassa
Permabanned
- Joined
- May 3, 2009
- Messages
- 25,183
- MBTI Type
- ISFP
- Enneagram
- 6w7
- Instinctual Variant
- sx
[MENTION=18736]reckful[/MENTION]
I don't think you understand Si. Do you actually pay attention to the psychology of SJs, or just observe what they do with Je?
SJs, especially Si doms, continually strive to recreate the sensory reality that makes them happiest. This is extremely individual, and borders on the non sensical in some SJs, hence strange attachment to particular appearances and rituals, for their own sake.
Keirsey didn't understand SJs entirely. Partly because he didn't like them much, and partly because of his own tertiary Si as an INTP stupidly boxing SJs in to one particular culture: what he experienced himself growing up in white 20th century middle America.
I don't think you understand Si. Do you actually pay attention to the psychology of SJs, or just observe what they do with Je?
SJs, especially Si doms, continually strive to recreate the sensory reality that makes them happiest. This is extremely individual, and borders on the non sensical in some SJs, hence strange attachment to particular appearances and rituals, for their own sake.
Keirsey didn't understand SJs entirely. Partly because he didn't like them much, and partly because of his own tertiary Si as an INTP stupidly boxing SJs in to one particular culture: what he experienced himself growing up in white 20th century middle America.
reckful
New member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2013
- Messages
- 656
- MBTI Type
- INTJ
- Enneagram
- 5
I couldn't help noticing that your post really didn't address the substance of mine. Do you think that not only Myers and Keirsey and I, but also (as I pointed out) Thomson, Berens, Nardi, Quenk and every other reasonably well-regarded MBTI theorist, fail to understand Si? Because none of their SJ portraits bear any significant resemblance to Jung's, and that was my point.
As for Keirsey "not liking [SJs] much": here's what he said in Please Understand Me II:
Keirsey said:
Thalassa
Permabanned
- Joined
- May 3, 2009
- Messages
- 25,183
- MBTI Type
- ISFP
- Enneagram
- 6w7
- Instinctual Variant
- sx
Lol. I have read PUMII (I own it) and have frequently attended a Keirsey forum. You are also flat out WRONG about Beebe and Thomson not resembling Jung, they are two of the best Jungian theorists.
It's YOU that doesn't understand Si. Youare failing to grasp the essence of the function and need the box.
He doesn't care for them, and his son is annoyed by SPs.
reckful
New member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2013
- Messages
- 656
- MBTI Type
- INTJ
- Enneagram
- 5
As you know, I didn't say anything about Thomson "not resembling Jung" in any overall sense. I said her description of IS_Js (specifically) — parts of which I quoted — bears little resemblance to Jung's portrait of those poor "reality-alienated" Si-doms whose "unpredictable and arbitrary" grip on the facts, combined with their characteristic inability to either make themselves understood or understand themselves, tends to render them (from the standpoint of practical contributions) among the "most useless of men."
And, as I assume you also know, there's really no good faith case to be made to the contrary.
As for Beebe: I never mentioned Beebe. Based on my admittedly limited exposure to his writings, I'd say life is too short to spend time reading Beebe.
Thalassa
Permabanned
- Joined
- May 3, 2009
- Messages
- 25,183
- MBTI Type
- ISFP
- Enneagram
- 6w7
- Instinctual Variant
- sx
We are just going to see a parade of people claiming she is INFP, despite her clear worship of order and promptness and early responsibility, because, well, people here in outrageous numbers think everyone on the internet who feels different or rejected is clearly an N.
I sat and watched numerous people call JTG ENTP and ISTP because they just couldn't fathom a vengeful ISxJ with a sense of humor, despite his clear preference for Si,both to himself, to me and even to Lexicon and Giggly.
Thalassa
Permabanned
- Joined
- May 3, 2009
- Messages
- 25,183
- MBTI Type
- ISFP
- Enneagram
- 6w7
- Instinctual Variant
- sx
They are reality alienated because of being subjective perceiving dominant introverts. JTG used to say to me that it annoyed him when I talked about new roads because he had already a clear idea of his own road.
I suggest you spend time with an intelligent SJ who also happens to have reasonably high verbal skills, so they can explain to you why their sensory reality is subjective. As if it's not plainly obvious from all those SJs who won't eat rice because they grew up eating potatoes.
Im done with you. You are simply not understanding Si. Most of the introverted functions are difficult to grasp, but none so much with the bias against it as Si.
EDIT: Don't take the rice example literally to apply to all SJs....its a symbol of shutting out objective sensory reality versus recreation of subjective sensory experience.
reckful
New member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2013
- Messages
- 656
- MBTI Type
- INTJ
- Enneagram
- 5
Well, as a parting gift, I can't resist linking you to this somewhat lengthy INTJforum post explaining why I'm a "dichotomies guy."
Links in INTJforum posts don't work if you're not a member, so here are replacements for the two links in that post:
You have nothing to lose but your type dynamics!
PimpinMcBoltage
New member
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2012
- Messages
- 155
- Enneagram
- 8
So being a Si dom is about being a stoner, but without the weed. Fits ISxP descriptions pretty well.
Thalassa
Permabanned
- Joined
- May 3, 2009
- Messages
- 25,183
- MBTI Type
- ISFP
- Enneagram
- 6w7
- Instinctual Variant
- sx
Um no. Some one who makes the too high a little lower and the too low a little higher is more anal retentive than stoner.
My fondest wish is that people who claim to be interested in personality theory would at least pretend to have actually read Jung.
B
brainheart
Guest
It's interesting because the ISXJs I've known are some of the quirkiest people out there. I can definitely see how they would often feel different or rejected.
Mal12345
Permabanned
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2011
- Messages
- 14,532
- MBTI Type
- IxTP
- Enneagram
- 5w4
- Instinctual Variant
- sx/sp
Yes.
Julius_Van_Der_Beak
Up the Wolves
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2008
- Messages
- 19,623
- MBTI Type
- INTP
- Enneagram
- 5w6
- Instinctual Variant
- sp/so
I like ISxJs.
thank you for the long response, i made the big five test
Extroversion |||| 18%
Orderliness |||||||||||||||| 70%
Emotional Stability |||||| 26%
Accommodation |||||||||| 34%
Inquisitiveness |||||||||||||||| 64%
When I discovered MBTI i always thought about me being a thinker but i thought that couldnt be because im so sensitive. and i dont know maybe thats all random now but i can remember, when i was a child i were really helpful and nice and i behaved more extroverted. and it changed when i was 12 or something because i was emotionally hurt so badly by my father that i completely shut down and i became unsure of myself and shy as fuck. and i really became cold and always kept my distance. Maybe what I could mention is that i was in therapy because of depression and there i got told that im probably a thinker. but is it possible to be a sweet, warm and friendly kid who is a thinker as a teenager? i just mention my childhood so often because thats what i can really remember, now im just a little bit messed up and i soemtimes cant really tell what i am like, altough i often have this feelinng of writing completely unordered stuff and everyones just like "youre so organised and youre writing very well"
maybe thats all just useless rambling that no one can understand, im so sorry
reckful
New member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2013
- Messages
- 656
- MBTI Type
- INTJ
- Enneagram
- 5
I'm involved in a few too many type-me threads at the moment (not just at TC), but I'll be back to this one at some point in the near future.
Just quickly for the moment: You scored INFP on the official MBTI, with T/F being the only score that was really borderline. Your Big Five score corresponds to Limbic (strongly Limbic) INTJ, but I'm still leaning INF for you.
I'm more in-the-middle on J/P than I originally was, though. I'd pick INFP and INFJ as the two likeliest candidates.
And I haven't ruled out T, but I've often noted that I think it's not uncommon for INFs (male and female both) to test as INTs, at least partly because many of the F choices on typical MBTI tests (including the official test) are choices that are more likely to appeal to SFs and EFs than INFs — and I think that's probably more true of female INFs than male INFs. I think male F's are often aware that they differ from cultural male stereotypes in ways that make them more "F-ish" than average whereas, by contrast, I think INF women (and maybe especially INFJ women) who compare themselves to cultural female stereotypes (not to mention the majority of actual women) are reasonably likely to think of themselves as more T-ish than those "feeler" women (EFs, SFs and, especially, ESFs). So, against that background, I'm inclined to see your F score on the official MBTI — combined with your general sense that F fits you better — as a pretty good F indicator.
I don't think you're an INTJ, so... if you're a T, that would lean me more to the P side, and if you're a J, that would increase my lean to the F side. So my third-most-likely choice for you at this point would be INTP.
I put online profile roundups for the four IF types in my first post in the thread, and the next spoiler has INTP and INTJ roundups, just in case you want to look at those.
As I said in that first post, one possible way to give prospective type-me contributors more information to go on is to read through some profiles of the two (or three) types you consider the most likely and post about anything in them that provokes a notably strong "that's me" or "that's not me" reaction.
Finally (for now), if you're interested in quite a lot of input from me on J/P, you'll find it in the spoiler in this post.
Similar threads
