• 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.

Mistyped TypeCentral Members

Thursday

Earth Exalted
Joined
Mar 14, 2008
Messages
3,960
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
8w9
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
yeah
but Jen is an ESFJ like i'm an INFP
 

nottaprettygal

New member
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
1,641
MBTI Type
INTj
NPG - ISTJ

I certainly don't identify with having obligations and a sense of duty like ISTJs. Also, the dominant function of ISTJs is Introverted Sensing, which generally requires an attention to detail that I do not possess.

Anyway, curious to hear your thoughts unless, of course, you just typed me as an ISTJ because you don't like me. If that's the case, screw off.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Magic Poriferan is not an INTP.

Reasons.

1)It is very clear that he is an Introverted Judger as he professes so. Very clear that he is an Intuitive. (Such claims could be backed up with the material he has posted, though not necessary at this juncture as they are irrelevant to the main point.)

2)He is unlikely to be a dominant Introverted Thinker for the following reasons.
-Does not appear to have a natural aptitude for logic because he frequently makes ostensibly contradictory claims with little effort to correct them. In fact, it seems clear that he hardly notices this.
-His thinking does not flow in an organized fashion. For it is torrential and chaotic. A logical thinker relates his ideas in terms of their logical consistency to each other. Magic does not seem to be doing this. Manifestly lacks internal structure and altogether internal consistency.


Examples.

Point 2: Does not appear to have a natural aptitude for logic because he frequently makes ostensibly contradictory claims with little effort to correct them. In fact, it seems clear that he hardly notices this.

Magic has engaged me in the following dialogue.

http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/nt-rationale/6611-f-mystery-debunked-2.html

In post 198 he states the following.


"Well, BlueWing, it seems more like you're just using every method in the book to convince yourself, and possible even others, that you're right.
That's really not the same as seeking to learn."

Summary: You are just trying to convince yourself that you are right.

In the post to follow, (199), I respond rather sardonically. Oh of course! Obviously my purpose is not to seek after the truth, but after honor of some kind! Hence my point was, convincing yourself that you are right is not important. Convincing others is even less important than convincing yourself. What is truly important is making sure that you know the truth. Approval of others, or any deeply felt personal conviction is not necessary. Truth stands on its own right. A proposition is either true, or it is false, irrespectively of how I or anyone else feels about this. In short, nothing but the truth matters, it is purely impersonal and the human element is irrelevant to this.

Magic responds in post 200.

"I'd be the last person to say that truth was a matter of giving into popular sentiment. That has nothing to do with my point about learnng through the process of debate. It has nothing to do with my point about going too far to confirm your own beliefs."

Summary: Point 1:I never stated that truth has something to do with how people feel about it! Point 2:You should learn through debating! (?..not sure what he meant by this)

I have difficulty seeing how the 2 claims are connected. In the first claim he states that he agrees with my earlier point that truth is purely impersonal and how people feel about this does not matter. Yet in the second point he seems to insinuate that debating, or dialogue with others should help you learn. If he meant that you should consider the ideas of other people, and analyze them to see if they are true, and learn by entertaining ideas of others, accepting other ideas if it becomes clearly they are true (not because other people feel you should accept them), than his 2nd claim is consistent with the first.

Hence, in such a case his point 1 is, truth is purely impersonal, how people feel about it does not matter. His point 2 is, you can still get closer to the truth by discussing ideas with people without embracing what they say only because they feel strongly about what they say.

Now onto the third point.

Point 3: It has nothing to do with my point about going too far to confirm your own beliefs.

Magic states that what he has just said has 'nothing to do' with BlueWing going too far to confirm his biases.

Claim 2 and Claim 3 are slightly inconsistent. In claim 2 Magic exhorts bluewing to listen to others, not necessarily to buy into their claims because of how strongly they feel about them. Listening to others is means to the end of avoiding your own biases by entertaining ideas foreign to yours. Thus, you should learn from discussion with others to avoid the confirmation of your own biases. This is the explicit claim Magic Poriferan makes in point 2.

Yet in his very next sentence, point 3, he renounces this very claim--he states that his earlier assertions had NOTHING to do with BlueWing going too far to confirm his own biases.





He starts his sentence with 'I'm disgusted', as a value judgment. This was said in a context which was supposed to be in the realm of impersonal discussion. One who is in closest affinity with Thinking, or a dominant Thinker would rely on value judgments as means of last resort. Yet Magic is eager to pronounce such statements quickly, even in places where they are not relevant.

We all make value judgments, as well have Feeling within their our psychic economy. The difference between a Thinking type and a Feeling type is that the Thinker is in closer natural affinity with his Thinking than Feeling. He uses Thinking first and most naturally. Feeling least naturally. Very often intense Thinking types, especially in their youth (Magic's profile indicates that he is 19 years of age, therefore in his youth), are not comfortable with direct use of Feeling. Most of us do not develop our inferior function to a sound degree till our late 30s or 40s, this means that we are not naturally comfortable using such a function fluently in early stages of our lives. Especially would not be comfortable enough to use our inferior function as explicitly in the context where the dominant function is highly vouched for. In other words, a natural Thinker in this situation would be uncomfortable making explicit value judgments in Earnestness for many reasons, salient of which is that the situation evokes impersonal judgment most of all which is antithetical to value judgment.

It is clear that I have made value judgments in that thread, yet the difference between mine and that of Magic is that mine were clearly said in jest and were not directly expressed. They were subtle. Magic's proposition is not subtle, it is explicit. 'I am disgusted'.

Thus, in the last 2 points it is insinuated that Magic is unlikely to have Feeling as an inferior function because he uses it explicitly in a context where Feeling is not evoked directly, and his implicit attitude of 'winner/looser' in debate insinuates a preferrence for Extroverted Thinking rather than Introverted.

http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/246100-post201.html

In post 201, I reiterate that truth is an end in itself and how people feel about the truth does not matter. Doing otherwise leads to absurd conclusions, as for example, if a televangelist screams at me 'God exists!' I should not buy his argument only because he feels strongly about it. I should not buy it because he has not given any rationale to support the aforementioned proposition.

Indeed, Magic's claims in the previous posts were not clearly stated and did not follow a clear pattern (one of my initial criticisms of his thought concerning the likelihood of him having a Thinking preferrence). This is why it took me several paragraphs to decipher and summarize his message.

Accordingly, in response to his claim, I merely had to reiterate my earlier proposition that truth is objective and impersonal in its own right as it was close to impossible to respond to Magic'c proposition on the spot. Only now, after much careful reflection I think I have figured out what he was saying, yet it is certainly far from clear what he had in mind.

Again, the reason for this is the lack of logical interrelation between his thoughts. They seem to be disconnected. As again, I draw the reader's attention to my earlier proposition.



"Summary: Point 1:I never stated that truth has something to do with how people feel about it! Point 2:You should learn through debating! (?..not sure what he meant by this)I have difficulty seeing how the 2 claims are connected. In the first claim he states that he agrees with my earlier point that truth is purely impersonal and how people feel about this does not matter. Yet in the second point he seems to insinuate that debating, or dialogue with others should help you learn. "

http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/246098-post200.html

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Magic responds to my post 201 where I reiterate my claim that debating is strictly concerned with the pursuit of truth. One should not be moved by the passions of others in his decision whether he ought or ought not to change his mind. (Hence my televangelist example)

In post 202 he responds.

http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/246106-post202.html


"Yes... That's right. I would not make descisions based on what people like. "

Magic agrees in this statement that we should not make decisions concerning the truth based on what people like.

His next sentence is slightly inconsistent with the previous.

"Most people here have concluded that you have miserably failed to understand what is right. "

What have we here?

In claim 1 magic states that one should not make decisions based concerning the truth based on what people like or dislike. Yet in the following claim he states that most people have concludes that BlueWing has 'miserably failed to understand what is right' or that BlueWing is wrong. (The reader should take note of the choice of words employed by magic. Miserably failed to understand what is 'right', not what is true. Right is in closer affinity with right in terms of moral rectitude than true in terms of a simple problem of logic. Miserably failed is certainly an intensely emotionally loaded terminology misfitting the impersonal environment it is placed in. Again, this goes in support of my earlier claim that a natural Thinking would have his dispassionate faculties evoked in a discussion concerning ethics of epistemology, or what and by what means should a thinker accept as the truth. Yet Magic wastes no time to load his propositions with a value judgment. Once more, here he is very explicit 'miserably failed' about his value judgment, whilst most Thinkers, especially of his age would be rather subtle about their value judgments. Their Feeling faculties would be much less evoked than their Thinking faculties and therefore the former would be overshadowed by the latter. Overshadowed to such a great degree where there simply would not be enough room for such an overt value judgment as 'miserably failed'. A thinker in such a case likely would state that BlueWing's claim was false, or incorrect, or he has arrived at a mistaken notion. He would treat the matter as more impersonal than personal. Yet Magic presents the situation as if BlueWing is on a quest for something of personal significance, something that is not cold and dispassionate as the truth, but something that we are fully emotionally engaged in.)

Thus here we see that the two claims are first of all irrelevant, or for the very least only tangentially relevant, as I remind the reader than in the first claim Magic states that from the standpoint of truth it does not matter how other people feel, yet in the second claim he states that most people have agreed that BlueWing is wrong. Difficult to see the logical connection between the two claims. They are more antithetical to one another rather than in support of one another.

In sentence 3. Magic States

"They too, use reasoning, and critical analysis, and logic to combat you."

This claim is logically connected to his claim 2 indeed. Most people have agreed that you have false beliefs, and they used faculties of critical thought as likely means to the end of arriving at a proposition that you harbor false beliefs. This is not exactly what Magic maintains, yet this is the most efficient way I see to make sense of his proposition.

Thus in claim 2 Magic proposes that people have agreed that BlueWing is 'wrong', and in proposition 3 he states that they were qualified to make such a judgment because they used faculties of critical analysis.

No contradiction immanent in this set.

What do we see as an entailment of claims 2 and 3? People have agreed that you're wrong. They are qualified to make such a judgment, therefore because they are qualified, I insinuate magic shall next state that I should embrace their judgment. (Will Magic make such a claim next in proposition 4, 5 or 6? Lets find out..)

If he would, however, this shall contradict is claims 1.

"Yes... That's right. I would not make descisions based on what people like."

Namely, that, as aforementioned, one should not accept certain propositions as true strictly on behalf of testimony of others. This is the famous informal fallacy of an appeal ot authority. Or believing a proposition because someone of authority has made the claim and not because we see reasons in their own right to believe it true.

Does Magic Poriferan commit the fallacy of an appeal to authority in this case? Lets investigate onto claims 4, 5 and 6.

Proposition 4: "Plurality isn't everything, it's not even much, but it does account for something. " Magic Poriferan.

Summary: Plurality does not mean all. (It is not even everything.) It does not mean much. "Its not even much". But it means something. "but it does account for something"

Okay, what do we say about this?

Magic's main claim in proposition 4 is that plurality means something. This contradicts his claim 1, as I have interpreted it to mean that one should not embrace ideas as the truth based on opinions of others or 'plurality'.

Yet, here Magic insinuates that 'plurality' should play some role in one's decision concerning what he should or should not accept as the truth.

Magic's claim 1 and claim 4 could be rendered consistent, since he did not say that the opinions of others should not play any role in one's decision concerning what is true, he only said that one would not a decision wholly based on what others think. Yet he should still be directly influenced by what others think in this decision to some degree. 'Plurality means something'.

This may exonerate magic from the previous charge of contradiction, yet not from the charge of informal fallacy of appeal to authority. He states that 'plurality must mean something'. Or in other words, to some degree it should directly impact how one thinks. Or in other words, we are to be influenced to whatever degree Magic shall prescribe (not exactly clear how much 'something' is), solely by virtue of 'plurality'. Not independent reasoning. This is a fallacy of an appeal to authority as credence is given to a proposition based on testimony of others and not reasoning.

Lets examine his proposition 4 one more time.

Proposition 4: "Plurality isn't everything, it's not even much, but it does account for something. "

Only the third part of the sentence is necessary to make the point. First two parts 'plurality is not everything, it is not even much' are superfluous. They are emotive expressions rather than terms stated from a linguistically precise standpoint. Isn't 'everything' and 'isn't much' are far from clearly defined terms. Such fuzziness of thinking is not at all indicative of a natural logician equipped with Introverted Thinking as his dominant faculty. This is in allusion to my earlier criticism concerning Magic's lack of clear structure in thought.

Proposition 5: "If a large group of people, including people you know should be skilled with logic and possesing of large educations, tell you that you are wrong, all for the same reasons...you might want to consider that they're right. Just consider it. "

Ah, now that is different! He does not state that only because people say you are wrong, you must assume that you are. You should merely entertain their propositions from a dispassionate angle. It is certainly the case that all ideas should be entertained from a dispassionate angle, irrespectively of where they came from, to say that you should entertain them only because large group of people insist on this is a tacit appeal to authority in its own right. A proposition is either meritorious or not by virtue of itself, the authority it is supported by isnt relevant.

Magic would be exonerated from the fallacy of an appeal to authority if he simply said 'just think about this, and see if it is true', but this is not what he maintained. The driving force behind the necessity to consider the proposition is that it has been vouched for by others. Therefore this insinuates the need to be directly influenced by the will of others. This is inconsistent with Magic's proposition 1.
"Yes... That's right. I would not make descisions based on what people like."


Proposition 6:"Consistency, repetition, plurality... You do understand pragmatic learning, don't you? Empiricism?"

Because many people have repetitively stated a claim, there must be something to what they say. This is an overt informal fallacy of an appeal to authority. In proposition 6 it is stated explicitly that there is something to an idea only because of 'plurality'.

What could he have meant by 'consistency, repitition'. Perhaps because he has mentioned not only 'plurality' but also consistency and repetition, it may not follow that all he is saying in this claim is that if so many people buy it, there must be something to it.

He may easily have meant that by virtue of law of induction, as for example, since so many times when most people said X was the case, they were right. They were right 9 previous times, they will probably be right the 10th time. This claim would have been inductively cogent if he had managed to cite evidence of most people having made a proposition very often in the past and have been correct. It is certainly the case that when most experts agree on a proposition, they are right most of the time. Yet Magic needs to show that the people who have disagreed with BlueWing were experts, or a group of individuals who have in the past made decisions as a group and were right most of the time. Because he has not cited such evidence, the claim is not inductively cogent.

It should be noted however, that it may be prudent to believe that what experts say, when many of them combine to make a decision, as they are usually right. Usually, however, not always. But this is not justifiable in terms of pure reasoning itself. It is an informal fallacy of an appeal to authority because credence is given to a proposition not by virtue of validity or soundness, but by virtue of the proposition having been vouched for by proper authorities. There have been many instances in intellectual history where the majority of experts have been wrong. A striking case in point is Galileo's discovery concerning Laws of gravity which have contravened the Aristotelian dogma endorsed by most scholars of the day. Discovery concerning roundness of earth and rotation of Earth around the sun and not vice versa is another example. Most scholars of the day held for vice versa to be the case.

Breakthroughs in science and philosophy have been made not by virtue of the practical decision that Magic advocates, namely 'experts are right most of the time, so it is wise to listen to them', but by virtue of thinkers having recognized such reasoning as fallacious. They have sought to figure out how the world works on their own endeavor instead of taking the word of the authorities for face value.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The above argument gives us reasons to believe that Magic is not an INTP. The question of what his true type is requires a seperate argument.
 

Rajah

Reigning Bologna Princess
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
1,774
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7
Jesus Christ, BlueWing, will you just admit you're an INTJ already?


And I read through the coherent bits of your Magic Poriferan critique. I don't think those suffice to support your claim.
 

Tallulah

Emerging
Joined
Feb 19, 2008
Messages
6,009
MBTI Type
INTP
I couldn't plow through all of BW's post, but I do think Magic's INTP.
 

LucrativeSid

New member
Joined
Oct 20, 2007
Messages
837
Holy shit, BlueWing. That was very interesting. I liked it! I just can't believe you spent that much time on it. I'm sure that you probably enjoyed doing it, though.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Magic's True type.

In my previous piece I have drawn the reader's attention to how comfortably he uses the Feeling faculty. How easily it is evoked in situations where there seem to be little stimuli for Feeling. This is anathema for a 'Thinking preferrence'. A Thinking type is one who is in closest naturaly affinity with Thinking and in least natural affinity with Feeling. Therefore his Feeling is not easily evoked.

Below I shall offer more reasons to believe that Magic's Feeling is very easily evoked.

http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/130610-post63.html

Here we witness a confrontation between two members. Member B holds that member A has launched an implicit insult. Member responds with an explicit insult.

Magic explains the situation as follows.

AdmiralBabe, I feel I must explain some things.

"His rhetorical questions may have seemed to be rather offensive in the "I thought all black people loved fried chicken" sort of way, but they were open questions never the less. A simple "no" to his silly question would be fine.As absurd as the pretense of his ideas may seem, he is being cordial and constructive about it. Your throwing profanities at someone is not the way to do things"

Thus magic states that it is not clear that the insults were explicit. Yet he does not phrase this as I did, or as a logician would. He is very fuzzy about it and habitually makes his value judgments along the way. 'Rather offensive'. 'would be fine' 'silly questions'.

"If what he was doing really was an attack and an insult, then be the better person. Two wrongs don't make a right. Your response was indeed much more inflammatory than anything he's said, and it could have caused escalation. Don't make matters worse."

The quoted piece above in combination with this one evince a value judgment. He preaches, "two wrongs dont make a right" "Dont make matters worse". He offers his values as guidance.

"I am quite familiar with how a lot of user feels about BlueWing, but don't let it get the better of you and don't let it derail the forum."

Once more, personal advice. Founded on value judgment. Not dispassionate reasoning.

Here we should note that Magic's work is more akin to Introverted Feeling than Extroverted. Noone in the thread suggested such values. Noone was up for conciliation. And certainly the values he preached are not well endorsed by our community at MBTIc. Clearly they are internally derived. He did what he felt was right, irrespectively of the external climate.

http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/226841-post27.html

Recently Kiddo has announced his resignation. Magic Poriferan responds to ridicule of Kiddo as follows.

"Cut it out, people.

On one hand, there's a lot of reasons he might decide to go, so let him go. Don't gaurantee this is going to be one of those annoying situations where the person is permanently half-way out the door. "

A lot of reasons he might decide to go, Magic states, so let him go. Clearly concerned with the individual first and foremost. His value judgments again ran contrary to the forum culture and the environment of the thread. Almost entirely internally grounded.

This post clearly shows he is first and foremost concerned with the welfare of the individual. As in the previous post as well, he was trying to get one of the members involved in the Convocation to arrive at a sense of personal conciliation and harmony with the situation. He made no exhortation to community virtues.

"But secondly, stop insulting him too. Think what you will of him or this topic, I don't see any point in getting all snarky at him. And I know, he was a very snarky person himself, but that doesn't justify anything. Didn't Gandhi tell us tb be the change we want to see in the world? Don't be hyprocrites. "

In a typical Fi fashion, he states that Kiddo may have been a culprit, but no need to grill him. Very well known Fi tendency to try to forgive all and punish as little as possible.

High Ideals again, wholly out of sync with the values of the community and the emotional climate. Internally grounded and first and foremost concerned with the individual and his personal harmony of Feelings.

Manifest Fi.

Is Magic Intuitive? I doubt this claim needs further exposition as this is a truism.

Could he be an ENFP rather than an INFP? Unlikely, our Extroverted Intuitive heroes and heroines of this site such as substitute, CzeCze, CaptainChick and Liquid Laser he lacks the 'knack of the performer'. Does not have the ability to interact with the external environment fluently and effortlessly influence large audiences. Has little interest in becoming adaptable and juggling many interactions and activities, and is lacks what ought to be considered a pedigree of Extroverted Intuition. Natural knack and drive to see the big picture simultaneously and see both sides to a situation. This is not to say that Magic is myopic or lacks the gifts pertaining to seeing the whole board and understanding the perspective of others, this talent is clearly much less expressed in him than in the four aforementioned individuals.

It is also the case that due to his aforementioned lack of a gift of a performer, unlike the 4 aforementioned Extroverted Intuitive figures he has little interest in entertaining the audience or making his message interesting to others. He simply seems to wish to state his personal values (as he did in the previous 2 examples) having no more than 1 person he is talking to understand him. He is not reaching out to a wide audience. As a typical primary Introverted Judger, simply content with living out his values, interaction with the external environment, seems to be of much less inspiration to Magic than to our four afoermentioned characters.

Manifestly, as my first post has evinced, Magic is not a clear communicator. It is often difficult for one to understand what he had in mind. Almost all ENFPs on this board tend to have few struggles making their meaning clear to others.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Further evidence to adduce that Magic Poriferan is a Feeler.

In the aforementioned thread, MP is in discussion with digestthisickness.

"why would you self-comfort if you honestly think everyone else is wrong?

being wrong and not knowing it may as well be being right to that person."

She asks him the following question, why would somebody want self-comfort if they earnestly think they are right. Why do they want approval?

http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/246555-post229.html

Magic responds..

That's not how it works.

"The point here is that the person only reinforces their belief that they are right to seek comfort. Their need for comfort is why they've declared that everyone else is wrong in the first place. It comes out of a fear of failure and compromise. Think of it as a form of cogntive dissonance. "

Basically here he states that objective truth has nothing to do with feeling like you're right. The whole idea of thinking you're right is means to the end of self-comfort. Such a perspective clearly discards the radical T notion that I have endorsed, namely that truth is purely objective and impersonal, has nothing to do with my personal will or the will of anyone else. No matter how great in status or number.

Later in that discussion, when digesthisickness displays a negative reaction to Magic's proposition. He states ' it is only an assumption!'. What fervent love of truth!

Magic starts this thread, as a complaint on why romantic mentality is not valued enough in our society.

http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/relationships/6122-need-love-condemned.html


In the very end, he states the following in red font.
"*I suppose, at this point, it's amazingly obvious that intimacy is my primary instinct*
__________________"

Pursuit of love is his primary value, he proposes. Much of the above post was dedicated to showing how we NEED to love and be loved. Clearly more indicative of a feeling based mindset, simply because he deems for love to be paramount, the most important thing, and something that is purely a 'must' which he supports with great passion and force of personality, not with argument.
 

MacGuffin

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
10,710
MBTI Type
xkcd
Enneagram
9w1
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Well, I'm not going through all that and analyzing it point by point, but I can quickly blow one conclusion out of the water:

We all make value judgments, as well have Feeling within their our psychic economy. The difference between a Thinking type and a Feeling type is that the Thinker is in closer natural affinity with his Thinking than Feeling. He uses Thinking first and most naturally. Feeling least naturally. Very often intense Thinking types, especially in their youth (Magic's profile indicates that he is 19 years of age, therefore in his youth), are not comfortable with direct use of Feeling. Most of us do not develop our inferior function to a sound degree till our late 30s or 40s, this means that we are not naturally comfortable using such a function fluently in early stages of our lives. Especially would not be comfortable enough to use our inferior function as explicitly in the context where the dominant function is highly vouched for. In other words, a natural Thinker in this situation would be uncomfortable making explicit value judgments in Earnestness for many reasons, salient of which is that the situation evokes impersonal judgment most of all which is antithetical to value judgment.
This is exactly wrong. Yes, Thinkers do develop their Feeling abilities as they age. Which is why when they are younger they often lose control of their emotions and a let it short-circuit their thinking side. Magic's reaction is typical of one that has yet to master that side of themselves. Thinkers do not mature from unemotional robots into well-rounded people. They can have explosive tempers and emotional outbursts on par with any Feeler.
 

Geoff

Lallygag Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
5,584
MBTI Type
INXP
I certainly don't identify with having obligations and a sense of duty like ISTJs. Also, the dominant function of ISTJs is Introverted Sensing, which generally requires an attention to detail that I do not possess.

Anyway, curious to hear your thoughts unless, of course, you just typed me as an ISTJ because you don't like me. If that's the case, screw off.

I'd be amazed if you are ISTJ. It's not for any great "intuitive" reason (either by me, or visible in you) but simply because you are nothing like the confirmed three ISTJs I know IRL. It just feels... alien.
 

Magic Poriferan

^He pronks, too!
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
14,081
MBTI Type
Yin
Enneagram
One
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Magic Poriferan is not an INTP.

[yadda, yadda, yadda,]

I'm so torn by a sense of obligation to address this, and a total lack of interest in the actual process of doing it. :dry:
 

Night

Boring old fossil
Joined
Nov 2, 2007
Messages
4,755
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5/8
BlueWing, if nothing else, you present a substantive argument.
I enjoy this about you. It makes the process of deconstruction that much more satisfying.

Thick, like pumpkin guts. Orange fingernails.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Well, I'm not going through all that and analyzing it point by point, but I can quickly blow one conclusion out of the water:


This is exactly wrong. Yes, Thinkers do develop their Feeling abilities as they age. Which is why when they are younger they often lose control of their emotions and a let it short-circuit their thinking side. Magic's reaction is typical of one that has yet to master that side of themselves. Thinkers do not mature from unemotional robots into well-rounded people. They can have explosive tempers and emotional outbursts on par with any Feeler.

You are absolutely right that mature thinkers have more control over their emotions than immature thinkers.

However, we should ask, what happens when a Thinker looses control of his emotions?

In our traditional wisdom we hold that it is usually the woman who is the overly emotional and spins out of control when she has a fit. This is a classical immature Feeler act. Going wild with emotions altogether.

How do immature thinkers behave in relationships with such women? They often are verbally and physically abusive, under the delusion they are being calm and deliberate. They dont entirely loose control. They just let their feelings get the best of them. If you were to ask them why they abused their ex, they'd have a rationale of some kind, when its clear their passions got the best of them.

Yet, if you ask a Feeler or the aforementioned woman, she probably would say she only felt this way.

It is indeed that the case that both the former and the latter loose control over their emotions. The difference between the two is that the former is implicit about this, whilst the latter explicit.

Magic, as a Feeler states, 'I am disgusted'. When I'd feel disgusted or any profoundly negative passion, my reaction could often be depicted as 'temper tantrums encased in intellectual language' as one of my ENFP acquaintances depicted this. The more immature I used to be, the more loss of control I've epxerienced that you described. Yet, make no mistake about it. This is different from the Feeler's loss of control in the regard that it is subtle with pretentions to be purely intellectual, in the case of the latter it is explicit.

I've made this point in my first post.
 
Top