INTP or ENTP?

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

Hmmm.. this almost makes me think that it is possible for a person to be XXXX in personality type.

I don't see why not.

 

[Nocapszy]

I don't see why not.

Well it's likely you'll have one more than the other...

Resident Dissonance says he uses Ni and Ti more than his presumed E S/F functions.

How would you write that? INJTP?

Fuck the four letters.

 

[entropie]

*hugging myself*

gn8 you psychatrists xD ♥

 

[SillySapienne]

lol cc...

K... we have numbers for everything right?

We have a picture for every single possible number. The picture doesn't mean the number, we just have a psychic link between the picture " 2 " and the quantity * *.

Type is the same thing. We're just describing what's already there. Just a mental reference. The only people who think type is ridiculous are those who don't understand it.

All variables are accounted for.

lol at Nocap.

Things exist as they are in their purest form, as is, somethings we try to identify and label, sometimes we are waaaaaaaaaayyyyyy off the mark.

I want hugs not numbers !

There, you happy?

G'night.

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

Things exist as they are in their purest form, as is, somethings we try to identify and label, sometimes we are waaaaaaaaaayyyyyy off the mark.

If it's just a label, how can it be off the mark? If I decide to call a shoe a "shoe," how can I be wrong?

 

[Nocapszy]

lol at Nocap.

Things exist as they are in their purest form, as is, somethings we try to identify and label, sometimes we are waaaaaaaaaayyyyyy off the mark.

GrgrrggggGRgrGRrgGr...

You're smarter than this. Get off it for a moment. Step back: Try and figure out what type is.

It's not something. It's made up. Entirely. It's a dictionary. Seriously... type is just a dictionary. Instead of saying idealistic, we say Fi type.

That's extremely oversimplified and you shouldn't base your understanding of typology on that: I'm just trying to illustrate a concept.

 

[Nocapszy]

If it's just a label, how can it be off the mark? If I decide to call a shoe a "shoe," how can I be wrong?

Exactly. It's an arbitrary string of letters compiled to invoke a complicated concept.

It's like a computer program...


CC, what are you 'into'? Like your hobbies etc. What do you know a lot about?

 

[SillySapienne]

If it's just a label, how can it be off the mark? If I decide to call a shoe a "shoe," how can I be wrong?

Labels are secondary pieces of information, they are only important for communication, i.e. so when you happen to call something a shoe, the accuracy of that label relies on whether or not, wait, shit...

Fuck!

Gah, labels are important for communication, period.

 

[SillySapienne]

GrgrrggggGRgrGRrgGr...

You're smarter than this. Get off it for a moment. Step back: Try and figure out what type is.

It's not something. It's made up. Entirely. It's a dictionary. Seriously... type is just a dictionary. Instead of saying idealistic, we say Fi type.

That's extremely oversimplified and you shouldn't base your understanding of typology on that: I'm just trying to illustrate a concept.

Um, something is getting lost here, because you are *not* picking up what I am putting down.

The dictionary falls incredibly short in attempting to identify and define *all* that actually is and exists.

C'mon, Nocap, surely you understand this fact.

 

[Mondo]

I want hugs not numbers !

42.
42 is like a hug

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

Um, something is getting lost here, because you are *not* picking up what I am putting down.

The dictionary falls incredibly short in attempting to identify and define *all* that actually is and exists.

C'mon, Nocap, surely you understand this fact.

I think he's agreeing with you. MBTI doesn't have to define all that exists, it just has to create a large enough net to scoop everyone in. In separates the world into opposites across 4 factors, so yeah, it should catch everyone as long as it makes room for people to land somewhere in the middle. Of course, there are many more ways to describe people, but it's not SUPPOSED to define people across all dimensions. It's useful up to those 4 dimensions, that's about it.

 

[SillySapienne]

I think he's agreeing with you. MBTI doesn't have to define all that exists, it just has to create a large enough net to scoop everyone in. In separates the world into opposites across 4 factors, so yeah, it should catch everyone as long as it makes room for people to land somewhere in the middle. Of course, there are many more ways to describe people, but it's not SUPPOSED to define people across all dimensions. It's useful up to those 4 dimensions, that's about it.

WORD

 

[Orangey]

Hello Zil . I am pretty sure that I'm an INTP, so I'll share my experiences with you for the purpose of comparison.

Throughout school I could never find my niche, so I resorted to turning inward and valuing my alone time, as it was the only time where I could fully invest myself in my interests, as I had no one else to share them with.

I can relate to the "never finding a niche" part. In high school nobody was really interested in anything that I was ever interested in, but I could hardly blame them as I was into things like 3D computer modeling and traditional photography. I would sometimes wish for someone to be able to share them with, but most of the time I was perfectly content just learning and thinking about them myself. In fact, my mindset during that time was such that all social activity represented time taken away from doing what I wanted to do alone.

But when I was much younger, I was not so inward-focused. I would go up and talk to all sorts of strangers (great at taking my parents advice, huh?), and I'd always have like 80 different projects going on based off all my interests...I'd be painting a picture, making up some English notebook for my cousin and dancing around the house being way-too-hyper in front of my mom all in the same day.

My childhood behavior was similar to this. At least that's what my parents tell me. I was apparently obsessed with odd topics such as whales, dinosaurs, dogs, Celtic mythology, and trying to learn the fake languages that Tolkien created guidelines for in several of his works. I was an also an outgoing child, sometimes characterized as "hyper".

I'm wondering if that turning inward throughout high school was not true introversion but rather a detour of sorts? Because now that I'm in college, I find that rather than keeping to myself, I prefer to talk to those around me and make connections with people. I initiate conversations 70% of the time. I still am very socially anxious, and certain situations do drain me - discussions with extremely opinionated people, and discussions about extremely day-to-day topics - but I get depressed faster after too many days with little social contact than I used to. Plus my Fe score is pretty high...not higher than Ne or Ti of course, but it's up there.

In undergrad I found that I was forced to interact more with others around me, if only because I always happened to be around somebody. This was not to my liking, though, and I found nearly all of it to be mentally draining (and especially if I had to talk about mundane things or to people who were very opinionated). I almost never initiated conversations with others, not always because I was anxious or nervous, but sometimes simply because I didn't have the desire to do so. As to feeling depressed without contact, I sometimes felt like I needed to be with or talk to somebody if I'd been alone for too long (we're all human, right?). If I acted on this feeling, though, I would immediately regret it because of the time that I was now obligated to spend with someone instead of with my own stuff. If it weren't for social etiquette, I would have blown off many of the people that I had sought to be with in the first place. It only takes a little social interaction to give me my fill for quite a while.

Anyway, I hope this helps you out a bit. I didn't want to go into the individual functions because my habits may not be a good representative of all Ti/Ne behaviors. However, I am almost certain that I'm an introvert, so perhaps some of this will help you in figuring out your E/I problem.

Good luck .

 

[Nocapszy]

Um, something is getting lost here, because you are *not* picking up what I am putting down.

The dictionary falls incredibly short in attempting to identify and define *all* that actually is and exists.

C'mon, Nocap, surely you understand this fact.

Ugh...

Actually the dictionary defines, quite concisely, everything that exists. All in one word too. The word 'universe'. It's not very precise, but it encapsulates all of existence in its sweep.

We could stop there, but we don't we get a little more precise than that.

Typology covers everything with 8 'words' instead of one. In the universe of healthy psychology, functions are one method of covering all the bases -- they're loosely defined, for the sake of being able to cover every everything. It causes trouble though, because the same looseness also makes room for nebulous understanding. The lines are there, we just can't always see them -- and we don't always want to. This is the stage you are at and seem unwilling to pass.

Type is real, but it's not something.

 

[Nocapszy]

I think he's agreeing with you. MBTI doesn't have to define all that exists, it just has to create a large enough net to scoop everyone in. In separates the world into opposites across 4 factors, so yeah, it should catch everyone as long as it makes room for people to land somewhere in the middle. Of course, there are many more ways to describe people, but it's not SUPPOSED to define people across all dimensions. It's useful up to those 4 dimensions, that's about it.

Thanks.

 

[SillySapienne]

Ugh...

Actually the dictionary defines, quite concisely, everything that exists. All in one word too. The word 'universe'. It's not very precise, but it encapsulates all of existence in its sweep.

No, the dictionary *defines the universe* as being the entirety of all and everything that exists.

The dictionary does not literally define everything that actually exists.

 

[Nocapszy]

The rest is all assumed. Just like in typology. It's not explicitly stated, but it's there. Just like in typology.

 

[SillySapienne]

The rest is all assumed. Just like in typology. It's not explicitly stated, but it's there. Just like in typology.

I put more "faith" in the dictionary than I do in typology if those are even analogous things.

"The rest is all assumed"

That is the most irrelevant statement. What exactly is the rest?

Everything?

And it's assumed?

By whom, or what?

 

[Nocapszy]

Dude what the hell...

You can't reference 'everything' and expect someone to have in mind, each individual object in existence simultaneously. Just like with type, you can't say "Ne" and demand that anyone have full knowledge of all the implications of the given type. There are gaps between knowledge. We can't think of everything...

Type and dictionary are analogous. This is hopeless, you're not even trying to understand.

Nevermind.

 

[SillySapienne]

Nocap, maybe this will help explain my "ignorance".

I don't know shit about typology, I don't.

All I know is that I've taken several tests, multiple times and that I am an ENFP.

And I know that I strongly identify with the ENFP profile, strongly.

Only after I've joined this site have I learned anything about Ne/Ni, and all that typology stuff.

So far, I only relate to and have read up on Ne and Fi.

K

love and hugs, for real.

-CC