User Tag List

Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 71

Thread: My Type?

  1. #11
    alchemist Array Legion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,712

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mal12345 View Post
    It turns out that I didn't understand parts of the description properly (confused by a lack of formatting to distinguish things you wrote versus other statements), so I took a harder look at it.

    You're the 6-4-9 tritype, the "seeker." More specifically, 6w5-9w1-4w5, with 6w5 as your main type. You seem like a counterphobic 6. Your stated goal to be a good person is the clincher that distinguishes 6 over 5.
    Yeah I definitely should have formatted it, not sure why I didn't. Oh well.

    But yeah that's the same tritype I picked for myself. I'll have to look more into the phobic counterphobic thing. What stands out to you as me being counterphobic?

    Personally I think I'm more likely phobic. I'm really not confrontational like an 8 is. I haven't had too much trouble with authority. The main time I am confrontational is when I am extremely paranoid, otherwise I am mostly passive.

    Thanks for your help btw

  2. #12
    Senior Member Array Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ni
    Posts
    13,071

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Legion View Post
    Yeah I definitely should have formatted it, not sure why I didn't. Oh well.

    But yeah that's the same tritype I picked for myself. I'll have to look more into the phobic counterphobic thing. What stands out to you as me being counterphobic?

    Personally I think I'm more likely phobic. I'm really not confrontational like an 8 is. I haven't had too much trouble with authority. The main time I am confrontational is when I am extremely paranoid, otherwise I am mostly passive.

    Thanks for your help btw
    Let's go with phobic 6w5 then, as there was little evidence otherwise to decide between the two. As for MBTI, ISTJ seems to fit you best. This doesn't mean you don't use other functions, of course. I have a personality inventory that ranks your MBTI types, and not just functions as JCF tests do.
    "But you forget that there is one value that is greater than all others: human freedom. Because no matter how perfectly you set the world up for humanity, they will always rebel simply to exert their own selves. You cannot win."

  3. #13
    alchemist Array Legion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,712

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mal12345 View Post
    Let's go with phobic 6w5 then, as there was little evidence otherwise to decide between the two. As for MBTI, ISTJ seems to fit you best. This doesn't mean you don't use other functions, of course. I have a personality inventory that ranks your MBTI types, and not just functions as JCF tests do.
    Yes, I'm quite definitely an ISTJ.

    I'd like to hear more about this personality inventory?

  4. #14
    alchemist Array Legion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,712

    Default

    What's your type?

    It's a secret

    What colour do you like?

    BLACK LIKE MY SOUL

    What is your favourite personality?

    I like turtles

    Where can you find clams?

    Inside oysters

    • Are you fascinated by wooden planks?



    There is only one Plank!!!

    Do people make you fascinated by boats?

    No, boats make me fascinated by people.

    Does the number 9 resemble the number 6?

    Yes, if you flip 180 degrees you end up walking back to where you came from, probably because you forgot something or realised you had to be somewhere else instead. Also, the stars shine brightly in clusters, whence cometh thee from o frozen one?

    How are elastic bands made?

    4 people are tired of rock and metal music and want to create a new genre with a bit more tension.

    Do you step on the floor tiles only being able to step on the one's that fit into the pattern in your mind?

    Haha.... yeahh

    Do you take your finger and make sure it does not meet a lamp post and only go over it using your field of vision as the picture?
    Sometimes, but not all the time. I have had moments where I totally do that.
    1. If you put a pig in an airplane does that mean that pigs can fly?


    Only if the plane takes off.

    Did you ever remember the 5th of November?

    REVOLUSHAAAAAN

  5. #15
    alchemist Array Legion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,712

    Default

    I am one of the most quiet people you will ever meet. Get me on some philosophical subject and I may spin ideas around, get me on a subject I am knowledgeable about and I will talk a lot about it so long as you know your stuff too. But mostly, I just listen (perhaps not too well, it's hard to listen too long without an idea popping into my mind which distracts me, or I may think of something to say in response to something said, so I am half just waiting to say it). I don't do too much to fit into society or further my position of influence. I don't dress nicely or keep up to date with what is going on in the popular world.

    I have a tendency to procrastinate. A lot. I always have the nagging feeling that I should be doing something productive, but I just don't end up doing much. I leave things to the last minute, but I don't feel a burst of energy at that time, but simply become more focused. I would like to maintain a high level of focus at all time, and to fill my time with things that further me as a person.

    I am often described as nice, and rarely as selfish. I deeply believe that one should act for the benefit of everything that exists, not yourself, but I suspect that the two go more hand in hand than some egomaniacs would like to think. I don't really act too much on my compassion though, in that I don't spend too much time helping people, though I am totally willing, but don't know what to do or lack the confidence to do it. My manners aren't great, and I don't really adhere to social graces.

    I am a deep thinker. I often think about the nature of what is good - how one should live, which is to make the most of life and further the progression of humanity away from destruction and towards transcendence. I am open to new ideas and new experience, but again, keeping in line with the previous items, I don't tend to really engage in many new behaviours, instead sticking to my comfort zone.

    Overall, this paints the picture of a person more engaged in reflection than in action. Someone with the desire to move forward but lacking the drive.

    The only clear factor here is introversion, in my opinion. Other factors are in a state of limbo, waiting for me to make the leap into living.

  6. #16
    alchemist Array Legion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,712

    Default

    @reckful I'm moving the discussion to this thread, so I don't fill too much of someone else's thread with stuff about me...

    Quote Originally Posted by reckful View Post
    I can't really speak to why several people you know think you're an IST, but I'd note that it's pretty common, in my experience, for N's at MBTI forums to get told they're S's by people who arrive at their conclusions by way of the kind of bad function-based analysis that I rant about in some of the posts I've already linked you to.

    The rest of this post has sources of more reckful characterizations of N, F, IN, NF, etc. that could help clarify why I think INF's a better match for you than IST — but please note that I'm a hardcore T myself, and you should only look at any of this stuff to the extent that you're motivated to do it for your own selfish reasons.

    If you're interested in reading an "introduction to S & N" I put together a while back (with quotes from Myers and Keirsey), it's in the first spoiler in this post.

    You can find quite a bit of input from me on T/F in this post and this post.

    There's a metric ass ton of J/P input from me in the spoiler in this PerC post.

    A-a-and if you're truly a glutton for punishment, I did long, multi-post type-me analyses of two TC INFs in the following threads, and they've got quite a lot of additional discussion by me of what I think INs and NFs and INFs and INFJs and etc. tend to be like.


    Finally, in case they're useful to you, I've put online profile roundups for the eight introverted types in the spoiler below.

    Well, only one of the people who typed me as S knew a good amount about the functions. The rest were just going by a more dichotomy based understanding, albeit not a well developed understanding, as they did not know the system too well. My S appearance can be inferred from, for example, someone who described me as not being "speculative". I don't tend towards speculation, I tend to focus on what I know and I will only say that. I might speculate in posts on here, probably still not to a large extent, but that's more because on here I don't really care, and my speculations are probably mostly silly and wrong.

    From my perspective, it seems that you might be missing my S qualities because you don't look at functions, though I would think that even still it should be apparent that I am an S. I relate strongly to Si in that I perceive the world through my previous experience with it. I see things as having an air of familiarity, which brings to mind my previous experience with whatever I am focusing on. I also tend to "take note" of the things that I experience, storing it away for future reference. I am not really extrapolating some grand meaning from my experiences, I am just taking note of it as-is. Then, after I have stored a lot of information, there will at times come "condensation points" where certain facts from my experience stand out as the relevant points. This is akin to an Ni "a-ha moment", but is more like "reviewing the past to find what is reliable".

    I also believe I have a strong use of Te. For example, I form a view of the world based on what people say to me and what I read. I am not forming a view in this way of what is good and proper and worth believing in, I am only trying to gauge how it is that the world works, how things relate to one another. I also direct my thinking towards objects, I think, such as being focused on factors such as time and the steps involved in completing a task. And I think the way I explain things tends to be more empirical, and not on what things are essentially to concepts in themselves. I wouldn't say I really engage much in critical thinking, rather I weigh up the external judgements to decide what I think makes the most sense.

    Now I know that saying I have Si and Te only means to you that I am an "SJ and TJ", and if that is how you will interpret it, so be it.

    I am sifting through your links and I will post more things about me as I relate:

    As for how I view other people: I do tend to see people with more material interests, such as fashion or sports or cars, as being somewhat shallow, and I could not engage in discussions of this sort. However, I found when I changed high school to go to a selective school, that I felt somewhat out of place among many of the people there, who I felt were so much smarter than me with all their book-reading and varied experiences and just how they would talk about things. I did feel quite simple minded in comparison.

    I think I focus on the "real" world, and the "abstract" world, but really it makes more sense to me to be mostly involved in the real world, and it seems true of me. The stuff that goes through my head is often things that I have experienced or read, and I will sort of try to make sense of this and learn a lesson from it, or form my ideas around it. I am generally very aware of what is going on around me, and can easily follow tangible events. Discussions of abstract things, however, often leave me feeling lost. I am a highly observant person, and though I have been described as imaginative, I don't think that I clearly am. In fact, to be in a state of seeking inspiration, and focusing on inspiration and the expense of observation, sounds almost like the definition of psychosis to me. That sounds to me like interpreting things you experience as fitting into whatever ideas are going through your head, probably at the expense of reliable evidence-based theory testing, which is a loss of touch with reality indicative of psychosis, and being inspired, if the inspiration is too intense, could easily lead to feelings of grandiosity. However, as a sensor, and an Si user at that, I am probably focusing too much on relating these ideas back to my own experience, and not really understanding what the ideas are actually saying.

    Also, I do not feel bored and unhappy with jobs that involve doing the same thing over and over. In fact, I enjoy knowing exactly what I am expected to do at any given time, and if I can run on auto-pilot while doing a job while I go over things in my head, then that is great. If you give me a job where it is not obvious what I must do, I freeze up.

    As for J vs P:
    - I do relate to having responsibilities weigh down on me until I get them done
    - I am deliberate and frugal (but my frugality is lessened by the fact that I like to enjoy myself, so I spend a lot on things like tobacco, alcohol and take away food). I used to be way more frugal than I am now.
    - I often will make decisions based on reasoning such as "well, if this doesn't work out, I can always switch to my other option"
    - I am often late to things, because I tend to plan things so I get there just on time, and with variance and setbacks, this means being late a lot. I have not learnt my lesson.
    - I am a procrastinator, but as you've said, this isn't even a relevant thing in deciding J vs P
    - I'm not a big planner really
    - I am modest. I do tend towards a "this is what I think attitude" but on the other hand do have a lot of confidence that certain things I think are correct, and will treat it that way until I change my mind down the track. (for this aspect of J vs P, how am I coming across to you as I write this message?)
    - I can be a bit impulsive with groceries, but not that impulsive. If there is something I like that is on special I will probably buy it. But, like, usually it is something I would have bought anyway, but I am a bit cheap so I only buy it if it's on special. I can relate both to the idea of the universe "sending you a message" to do something, but also with the universe "pulling a fast one". It depends on the situation.

    NEO-PI-R factors:
    - Competence: I'm not sure about this one. I definitely lack confidence, so I do tend to feel unable to cope with the demands of life or a task, though I tend to surprise myself with my ability.
    - Order: I am not that focused on order. My room is quite messy. But still, it is a sort of organised mess where things do have their place. Like, papers all over the desk, and clothes in a pile on the floor, and CDs in piles on the shelf. I reckon I have a tendency towards order, I just do things really half-arsed.
    - Dutifulness: yeah, I can see myself being governed by conscience. I often feel that I have to do something, that I am just obligated to do it, or if I don't do it, who will?
    - Achievement striving: well, in high school I achieved highly without putting in an effort. Now I still don't put in an effort, and I only do enough to get by. Sure, it would be nice to, you know, actually put in the hard yards now so I will have a better future, but I would rather lie in bed.
    - Self-discipline: I have a hard time beginning tasks. I also tend to slack off right when the task is almost finished. I often get side-tracked.
    - Deliberation: this one fits me the best, though I have usually seen this associated with introversion. I am very cautious, I take time in my responses. Sometimes something will come to mind and I will say it, either not even considering whether I should, or quickly deciding "screw it, I'll just say it even if it's wrong". This is more the exception than the rule, however.

    Ok, this is all for now.

    I will just say though, that I am almost certainly not an N or an F (I didn't really address F vs T in this post, but I guess I will a bit later). There is the fact that all the people who know me (and have offered an opinion) think I am an S (6 or 7 people in total). I have also mostly thought I was an S for the past few years, and the things I read tend to reinforce this view.

    J vs P I am not so sure about. I think I come across as being more down the middle here. I say I am an ISTJ/ISTp based on having the Si-Te functions as primary-secondary. So if I do come across as being one or the other, or if there are other ways of determining J vs P, I could be persuaded here.

  7. #17
    alchemist Array Legion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,712

    Default

    As for F vs T:
    "the ability to make decisions personally, based on shared values and relationships" - I don't know about this one, I can't really see how it would fit me. I don't really base decisions on shared values or relationships.
    "an interest in how people feel" - um, to an extent maybe. I more care about what people think.
    "a reliance on consensus, morality, mercy and loyalty" - yeah this one is pretty accurate I guess. I care a lot about morality such as loyalty and honesty.
    "a commitment to social obligation, empathy, and responsibility to others" - not sure what this means, would an example be how I do something because it is expected of me? I don't know how empathetic I am, probably not very.
    "the ability to anticipate people's needs and reactions" - no, I don't really have this ability
    "an interest in human relationships and the values they illustrate" - idk, a lot of my interest in relationships comes from Typology
    "a good sense of body language and vocal intonation — how something useful was said and why" - I'm bad with reading body language, I think I'm alright at tone of voice.

    Now it sounds like, to some extent, a feeler is someone who places higher value on emotion. Do I think emotions are important? Yes. I see intensity of emotion as generally being a good thing, though I also think that perhaps it is better to minimise emotions. I am unsure. Do I think that feelings tend to mean something? Usually, I will think that my feelings are an indicator of something, but I will also realise that it is possible that I am seeing a connection that is not there and using cognitive errors when I do that. So I see feelings as maybe meaning something, but only maybe. I think I relate to what you say about emotion being something that just happens to me.

    Both of those posts only really spoke about what F is, they didn't mention T really, except to say basically that T is absence of F.

    However, I'm definitely not someone who can read or influence the emotions of others well, nor am I too in touch with my own emotions. Nor am I very relationship focused.

  8. #18
    Senior Member Array reckful's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    512

    Default

    [1 of 3]

    I've now read quite a few of your TC posts, and this triple-post is mostly a roundup of some of them with type-related commentary.

    I previously linked you to a couple of posts of mine (one and two) with T/F input, and you've obviously looked at them. Here's a bit of supplemental recycled reckful on the issue of INFs mistyping as INTs:

    Of the four MBTI dimensions, T/F is the dimension where I'm least satisfied with the standard ways MBTI sources tend to describe the essence of the dimension, so I think there may be a greater possibility with T/F than with the other three dimensions that someone might end up with mixed or in-the-middle results, or otherwise confused, even though they really have a significant preference. Besides being somewhat entangled with male/female, I think T/F may well turn out to be two or more personality dimensions somewhat incorrectly rolled into one — with the result that, to a substantially greater degree than the other three MBTI dimensions, it may be fairly common for someone to be, in effect, a T (and even a fairly strong T) with respect to certain T/F facets and an F (and even a fairly strong F) with respect to certain other T/F facets.

    I think it's not uncommon for INFs 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 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).

    I also think the T-ward skew tends to be somewhat greater for INFJs than INFPs. In any case, it's certainly been my experience that it's considerably more common for an INFJ (male or female) to mistype as INTJ (and later conclude they're really INFJ) than vice versa. I think that, in some ways, it's fair to say that INFJs are both the "least F" of the F's and the "least NF" of the NFs.

    As a supplemental note, and just in case you're a glutton for punishment, this l-o-n-g "T/F's a mess" post (at PerC) has a lot of further explanation of why I think T/F may be a tangled dimension where, at least for some people, it may not be realistic to think they can end up positioning themselves in a single location along anything like a unified spectrum.

    Another potential complicating factor when it comes to MBTI typing is that, as you probably know, there's a well-established fifth temperament dimension that isn't included in the Myers-Briggs typology and is often referred to as "neuroticism" (although it isn't a psychological disorder). The Big Five/SLOAN typology labels it Emotional Stability and refers to the two poles as Calm and Limbic. Being Limbic on that dimension tends to be associated with, among other things, anxiety/worry-proneness; emotional sensitivity/volatility; proneness to annoyance/irritation; self-consciousness; and (sometimes) depression. I'm Limbic, and it makes me less of a cucumber than some of my fellow INTJs, and it sounds to me like you're Limbic as well. And it can sometimes muddy the waters for somebody trying to figure out their T/F preference.

    If you're interested, the Big Five test I generally point people to is this similarminds Big Five/SLOAN test, which will (purport to) type you on the Emotional Stability dimension — in addition to the four Big Five dimensions with substantial MBTI correlations. And I've put some more information about the Big Five and that similarminds test in the spoiler.


    And here's a link to the Big Five Inventory, which is both (1) one of the most academically well-regarded Big Five tests and (2) only 44 questions!

    In case you end up taking either of the tests I've linked to, I'd be curious to see your scores, but only take them if you really want to for your own purposes.

    We now move to the post round-up...

    Quote Originally Posted by Legion View Post
    I like to troll, joke around, pretend to have an opinion I don't and have fun keeping up the act.

    My problem is when trolling turns into bullying. If your trolling is actually being hurtful, please refrain...
    I'd say trolling is more characteristic of P's than J's, with TP's being the most prone, and FP's more sensitive to not being hurtful.

    Quote Originally Posted by Legion View Post
    Being a bit trollish can, in my opinion, be good for making friends and flirting. It shows the more playful side of me, my sense of humour.

    I'm a bit blind to the negative effects I guess.

    I guess though, I don't like it when people fuck with me by lying, but I like to think when I do it it's in good fun
    Being "a bit blind to the negative effects" is a more likely T weakness than F.

    Quote Originally Posted by Legion View Post
    I was convinced when I first heard of MBTI that I was an intuitive. I just couldn't grasp my head around it...

    So, I thought INTP. Then INFJ. Then I played around with ISTP, ENTP, INFP, INTJ, ISFP, ISFJ until I finally arrived at ISTJ.

    But my main mistype is the INTP. I think this is because we have multiple strong types, and INTP happens to be my second type.
    As you'll see, I think your "main mistype" is INTP partly because you're an IN.

    Quote Originally Posted by Legion View Post
    I've been told my drawings look like something out of Jung's Red Book. I have Jung's Red Book, but I stillll haven't looked through it.

    I'm good with music and like to make up calming melodies on the spot, usually using specific forms for the melody. I write a bit of my own music, but I can't help but feel that a lot of what I make is modifications on aesthetics I've enjoyed from elsewhere. Though, some of the stuff I play does sound very unique and unlike anything else I've heard.

    I write poetry and short philosophical writings, which are often quite imaginative, at least imo. I've been told I write well for an ISTJ :P
    Writing music — and particularly music that's "unique and unlike anything else I've heard" — is significantly more characteristic of INs than ISs, as is writing poetry and "philosophical writings" (particularly if they're "quite imaginative").

    Quote Originally Posted by Legion View Post
    God as the eternal source from which all creation springs and lives through. I wouldn't even begin to comprehend what it means to say such a thing exists. I believe that the source can be known by every particle and every wave, as that which allows it to exist, its requisite. And all existence, from this universe to those that have no meaningful existence to this universe, all exist through this source. Due to the fractal nature of creation, we can see the echo of God in all things, and through meditation on this we transcend to higher levels of understanding.
    If this is how ISTs talk about the nature of existence, how do you think INFs talk about it?

    Fractal nature of creation indeed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Legion View Post
    Idk I don't really relate to any ISTJ descriptions. I don't think it matters if you don't fit it.
    It doesn't matter if you "don't really relate to any" of your supposed type's descriptions if it doesn't matter if you're correctly typed or not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Legion View Post
    ENFP, INFP, ENTP
    This was your answer to the question, "Which MBTI type do you get along most in real life?" And it's a pretty unlikely answer for an IST.

    Myers and Keirsey had somewhat different perspectives when it came to the most meaningful way to group the 16 types, but one thing they both agreed on is that, when it comes to relating to other people, S/N is the dichotomy that makes the biggest difference. Somebody who's an N is likely to find that most of the people who feel like "kindred spirits" are fellow N's.

    Quote Originally Posted by Legion View Post
    I'm ISTJ, and the majority of girls to show interest in me have been ENFP.
    Quote Originally Posted by Legion View Post
    All I know is that ENFPs seem drawn to me (and I to them), and I've seen a similar pattern with other people I know, though not widespread enough to form a conclusion on in itself.
    See previous comment. Keirsey believed in "complementary opposite" attractions, and Myers stressed that, although "birds of a feather" marriages were the most common, there also appeared to be something to the "opposites attract" notion. But both Myers and Keirsey stressed that matching on S/N appeared to be the most important match for compatibility purposes.

    Never say never, of course, and there are unquestionably romantic relationships involving every possible MBTI pairing — but as a typical matter, ENFPs are not not not attracted to ISTJs. If one or two ENFPs had shown an interest in you at some point, that would be one thing, but the fact that "the majority of girls to show interest" have been ENFP is worth N points.

    SJs often complain about the fact that MBTI descriptions have a tendency to portray them as the most predictable/boring/conventional types, but it's not like there's nothing to that notion (relatively speaking) — and as among the other types, I think it's fair to say that the NFPs are among the types most likely to view SJs in those terms.

    And similarly, in the "Those with no romantic partner... do you have a specific type in mind for a romance?" thread, you said...

    Quote Originally Posted by Legion View Post
    I tend to be most attracted to NFs, not saying I wouldn't have a partner who wasn't NF, just that so far that's been the trend.
    --------------------------------------------------

    Quote Originally Posted by Legion View Post
    To me, it follows a long line of obsessions. Starting with ninja turtles, dinosaurs, pokemon, digimon, to philosophy and metal. With metal I would map out all the different sub-genres, and how they relate to each other and I wanted to know what it was that defined each genre. Then comes typology. It's just so easy to become obsessed with. It's a neat little system, but it takes so long to understand properly and you're always refining your knowledge the more you read.

    So, for me it's a combination of an analytical mind and an addictive/obsessive personality.
    That's from the thread, "What draws different types to MBTI, Enneagram, Instinct etc..." And it's an intellectual IN's reply, not a practical, down-to-earth IS's reply.

    Quote Originally Posted by Legion View Post
    I personally spend so much time absorbed in Jungian typology that I guess it could be called a religion.
    Quote Originally Posted by Legion View Post
    I've dealt with addictions and obsessions. Addictions to such things as weed, alcohol, tobacco, energy drinks, poker. Obsessions with things such as MBTI.
    It's an MBTI community cliché (and for good reason) that the typical experience people have when they try to introduce the MBTI to S's is that they have little to no interest in being tested or learning about "personality types."

    Needless to say, personality type is about tendencies and probabilities, and you should virtually never say never, and there are unquestionably a fair number of S's with some interest in personality. But the more extreme (and/or non-sensible) somebody's manifestation of a type-related characteristic is, the less likely it generally is that they're on the opposite side of the relevant dimension. Somebody who "spends so much time absorbed in Jungian typology that ... it could be called a religion" — and, more generally, is prone to "obsessions" with "things such as MBTI" (i.e., philosophical and/or theoretical and/or psychological stuff) — is not very likely to be an S.

    Quote Originally Posted by Legion View Post
    I only take life too seriously in the sense of brooding over the past at times, I laugh all the time even when I probably shouldn't. ...

    I am insanely indecisive.
    As you may remember from my J/P roundup, I think it sometimes makes more sense to look to J/P (or any other type-related preference) to explain why someone's more likely to err in one direction than another. Someone who's viewed as temperamentally inclined to take things too seriously is somewhat more likely to be a J, and someone who's more likely to laugh when he "probably shouldn't" than not laugh when he should is somewhat more likely to be a P.

    And similarly, if someone describes themselves as generally "indecisive," that's worth a P point, and if somebody describes themselves as "insanely" indecisive, that's arguably worth two or three P points.

    Quote Originally Posted by Legion View Post
    I was told by an ex that her relationship with me was the only one that didn't really have gender roles.
    The men most likely to manifest traditional "gender roles"? ST men. The least likely? NF men.

    Quote Originally Posted by Legion View Post
    I generally prefer friendship with females. But I think I've had feelings for all my female friends at one time or another.
    Significantly more characteristic of N's than S's, methinks. Threads at INTJforum have made it pretty clear that, when it comes to friendship (as opposed to SOs), male INTJs have a significant tendency to prefer female company and female INTJs have a significant tendency to prefer male company.

    Quote Originally Posted by Legion View Post
    Intelligent, spiritual. Driven to advance the self and world to transcendence.
    This was your response to the question, "What would your ideal wife be like?" And honest to freaking god, Legion, if this is an IST response, what do you think an INF response would sound like — and on the other side, what types are the vast numbers of men who'd be very unlikely to answer the question that way?

    Quote Originally Posted by Legion View Post
    I will kill mosquitoes and flies.

    I am very uncomfortable with hurting another in any way, whether it be physical or emotional.

    I also become overwhelmed if anyone does something for the sake of hurting me.
    Pretty much anyone who isn't a sociopath experiences at least some discomfort from hurting others, but I'd say this post is worth an F point or two.

    Quote Originally Posted by Legion View Post
    Alternating between Jung, Crowley, the Tao Te Ching, statistics notes, and I'm meant to be starting a novel called The Book of Chaos. But really I don't read much, I just wish I did. So I get through a small section then want to go to sleep.
    Honest to freaking god, Legion, if this is an IST reading list, what do you think an INF reading list looks like? (Does that question have a familiar ring? )

    Quote Originally Posted by Legion View Post
    I'll have to keep reflecting on this, but some stuff I thought of the other night:

    Ideal self:
    - works towards goals
    - builds community with others
    - confident, secure
    - wise, rational
    - acts in line with what is felt to be right
    - connected with the world
    - knows what is wanted, strives for it
    - is able to direct others
    - has powerful ideas
    - feels powerful emotions, is not controlled by them
    - makes discoveries, in the mind and the world
    - future minded, but atst strongly in the present
    - lives a life of PURPOSE
    As among ST, SF, NT and NF, I'd say NF is definitely the best match for the particular mix in that "ideal self" list.

    Quote Originally Posted by Legion View Post
    I like this. I was starting to work on a cognitive function based model of language processing the other day and this seems like it will be useful.
    As a hobby activity — no lie! — Mystery Type Subject 387 has recently embarked on a "cognitive function based model of language processing."

    More likely an S guy or an N guy? Hmmm. Can I think about that and get back to you?

    Quote Originally Posted by Legion View Post
    I am very quiet, always getting comments as such, and can only really talk at length on particular subjects, or subject which require a certain kind of philosophical analysis. The subjects I am most drawn to are mathematics, philosophy, certain aspects of psychology. Science is ok, but I don't really like doing the experiments - I'm generally not a very hands on person, though I can be quite crafty.
    N points.

    Quote Originally Posted by Legion View Post
    I am at the same time generous and stingy - I will give to others as though it makes no difference whether I have something or they, but I will tend to not spend much and spend cheaply where I can. When interacting with others, I try to be warm, laughing at others jokes, giving a look of concern where it is due, and trying to make sure things run smoothly (except when something is done in good humour).
    F points.

    Quote Originally Posted by Legion View Post
    I wasn't meaning to describe it as INTP, and if I do see myself this way, then I saw myself this way before learning about MBTI, as I first scored INTP on the tests I took. What in particular makes it INTP? I can see it in the first main paragraph of what I wrote. I see myself as somewhat of a philosopher.

    Perhaps INTP is my "subjective" type (what I see myself as), and ISTJ is my "objective" type (what I really am)?
    ...
    However, one thing that makes me think there really is INTP in my psyche, is that, when I was hanging out with an INTP, I noticed that a lot of what he says would seem pretty much like what I was thinking at the time.
    Viewing yourself as a "philosopher" is worth an N point or two, as is finding that you're something of a brain-twin with an INTP (assuming he was correctly typed).

    And as far as "subjective" type vs. "objective" type is concerned, I already gave you a quote from the MBTI Manual about the proper ("shoes off") frame of mind for taking the official MBTI.

    I often describe the MBTI preferences — at least in terms of many of their aspects — as "temperament tugs." In cases where you're conflicted and one side of the conflict is more the "gut level" or "natural inclination" you and the other side is a more rational/calculating side of you that, to some degree, wants to rein in (or thinks you should rein in) your more natural inclinations for the sake of external results or for any other reason, your MBTI preference is more likely to correspond to your natural inclination.

  9. #19
    Senior Member Array reckful's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    512

    Default

    [2 of 3]

    Quote Originally Posted by Legion View Post
    I can see ISTJ 9 for myself. Yet, I can also see INTP 5. I am 95% confident that I am a 9, but 5 was always one of my highest scores, if not the highest.

    I often get comments about how calm I am, and that I have a calming presence on others. I definitely avoid self assertion, and I will quickly back away from a lot of arguments if I don't think it will really help things. I have been described as "Jesus"-like in my attempts to calm down arguments that are going on. I am "democratic" and most highly value 9, 6, 3 and 2 traits. When going through the most stressing period of my life thus far, I became very suspicious of others, and saw my successes and built up images crumbling away. However, this last part can be explained without typology.

    edit: Maybe we have an MBTI tritype corresponding to the enneagram one?

    So my type would go something like: ISTJ 9 > INTP 5 > IxFP 4

    Only I think it makes more sense to have 4 MBTI types, not 3.
    Quote Originally Posted by Legion View Post
    Need help with enneagram.

    I have 5w6 and 9w1 in my tritype, pretty certain. But I'm not sure which is the dominant.

    I'm somewhat of an intellectual, basing my self-concept around my philosophies and mathematical abilities. ...

    I'm not very assertive, a decent mediator, I tend to keep the peace rather than cause conflict, and I feel somewhat sick if a conflict is unavoidable due to someone stubbornly asking me to do something. ...

    I think I would like to be 9w1, but am probably 5w6. ...

    I see myself as somewhat generous, people-pleasing, helpful.

    I am somewhat success focused, and feel shame when I don't perform at my best.

    I see myself as a unique person, and would probably use this as one of the first adjectives to describe myself.

    I'm leaning towards 4w5.
    As you probably know, E5 and E4 are substantially more characteristic of N's than S's.

    Describing yourself as "an intellectual, basing my self-concept around my philosophies and mathematical abilities" sounds much more like an N talking than an S talking.

    The fact that you've been described as "Jesus-like in my attempts to calm down arguments" is a significantly better fit for INF than INT (and ditto for ISF > IST). Have you ever heard Jesus typed as an IST?

    Similarly, feeling sick in the face of conflict is significantly more characteristic of F's than T's.

    And viewing yourself as "somewhat generous, people-pleasing, helpful," besides being more characteristic of F's than T's, is also probably less characteristic of INTs (in particular) than any of the other N types.

    Seeing yourself as "unique," and saying that would be "one of the first adjectives to describe myself," is classic E4, as you know, and quintesentially NF in MBTI terms. And what "quintessentially NF" means is that NFs are the most likely types to view themselves in those terms, but also (1) that an N is more likely than an S to view themselves in those terms, (2) that an F is more likely than a T to view themselves in those terms, and (3) that an ST is the least likely type to view themselves in those terms.

    Quote Originally Posted by Legion View Post
    Filled out this questionnaire for my enneagram type (and tritype and instinct stacking). ...

    Others have said I am quiet, intelligent, modest, compliant, calm, lazy, thinker and overthinker, depressed, not domineering, worldy, earthly, wise, a nice and good person, organised and dependable, a good listener.

    I think I am intelligent in certain areas but pretty useless in other ways. I suck at things at first but once I get good at it I don't easily forget it and I can do things with it few others can. I think I am a good person, perhaps not so much by my actions but my intentions. I have a fairly low self esteem and tend to not see myself as deserving of happiness.
    Others viewing you as a "thinker and overthinker" reflects the fact that you're an IN substantially more than it suggests T over F.

    Low self esteem is somewhat more characteristic of P's than J's. As you know from my previously-linked J/P roundup, one of the six facets of the Big Five equivalent of a J preference on the NEO-PI-R is Competence, and here's part of McCrae & Costa's description: "This facet refers to the sense that one is capable, sensible, prudent, and effective. High scorers on this scale feel well prepared to deal with life. Of all the Conscientiousness facet scales, competence is most highly associated with self-esteem and internal locus of control. Low scorers have a lower opinion of their abilities and admit that they are often unprepared and inept."

    As previously noted, a tendency to suffer from "obsessions" with "things such as MBTI" is much more characteristic of N's than S's.

    Quote Originally Posted by Legion View Post
    6. Which types do you identify with most?...

    I currently relate most to type 6. I have a lot of anxiety and I am a loyal and dependable person, and when I become neurotic I am very paranoid and conspiratorial. I am having a hard time however seeing how I focus on "security", but I probably do.

    I also relate to type 5. I am very reserved and have a hard time expressing emotions. I am quite dark and intellectual with my interests. I don't like to be intruded upon. I think 5s however would have less of an interest with friendships, and perhaps be more knowledgeable than I am

    I also relate to type 9. I often have a high sense of calm, I have trouble with self-knowledge and standing up for myself. I am very lazy and very modest. I don't think I'm a particularly loving person however, compared to others.

    I relate somewhat to type 1 through being overly hard on myself for making mistakes and for my moral visions, and also to type 4 for my tendency to become inwardly emotional and my self-identity as being someone unique. However I am not organised like a 1 and I am not -that- emotional or self-reflective like a 4.

    7. Which types are least like you?...

    I relate least to 7 and 8. I am not much of a party person like a 7, but on the other hand I do tend to use escape to cope with my anxieties. And I am not at all assertive, however I do seem to have an aggressive side which comes out occassionally.

    I don't quite relate to 2 or 3. I see both of these types as quite manipulative and I couldn't manipulate someone if my life depended on it. I don't particularly serve others, even if I do see the needs of others as equally important to my own. I do strive for success and get quite upset when I perceive myself as having not been successful.
    None of your explanation for why you "relate" to "type 6" is inconsistent with an IN (and especially an INF) who's significantly above-average in neuroticism. The Enneagram associates "anxiety" with certain Enneagram types (including 5 and 6, but not 4), but the fact is that any MBTI type can be neurotic (in Big Five terms), and the statistics indicate that an INF is no less likely to exhibit anxiety/neuroticism issues than an ISF. And on the other hand, the fact that you're "having a hard time ... seeing how I focus on 'security'" is a meaningful non-E6 indicator, and would be more characteristic of an NJ than an SJ, and also more characteristic of an NP than an NJ.

    As for why you relate to type 5, the fact that you're "quite ... intellectual with my interests" is, again, a good N indicator — and I'd also say that describing your interests as "dark" is maybe somewhat more characteristic of INPs than INJs. And the fact that you see yourself as having more "interest with friendships" than a typical E5 is worth an F point or two.

    As among the IN types, I'd say feeling like you "couldn't manipulate someone if my life depended on it" is most characteristic of INFPs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Legion View Post
    8. They claim enneagram type is a hidden love need. What are your attitudes toward finding love?

    Ever since I was a young child I have been very interested in girls. Since I can remember, I would fantasise about situations where I would be with a girl, often taking a protective role. I wish to find someone who will complete me and become my everything. I want someone who will help me grow and in turn I will help them to grow. I want someone who will accept me as I am, because they realise that how I am is not how I always will be but is rather a starting point that I can develop from and be all that I can be.
    Keirsey stressed that the NFs were the most storybook-romantic types, and I agree. Especially for a male, your wish to "find someone who will complete me and become my everything" is significantly more characteristic of INF than INT, and the focus on helping each other grow is also more quintessentially NF than NT.

    I think it's fair to say that, of all the types, male INTs are the most aloof, and the least likely to be described as having their lives revolve around their relationships. It's not that INTs don't love their mates; but their mates aren't likely to be their "everything" — even in their fantasies.

    Quote Originally Posted by Legion View Post
    10. Determine your ego ideal. ...

    Which of the following ideals resonate with you the most, and why? Rank them.


    - to strive to become/behave like a good person:

    I see being good as the primary purpose of life

    - to be devoted and loyal to a person or cause:

    I wish to find that one person to be utterly devoted to. I wish to find a belief system that I can truly believe in and use to guide me.

    - to be knowlegeable:

    I wish to learn all I can and teach this to others

    - to be sensitive, original, unique, and creative:

    I see myself as having creative talents and I wish to unleash my creativity and create something which is truly me

    - to be loving and benevolent:

    I wish to see everything as good because it is part of the greater whole, and love in turn generates love

    - to be "okay", having it together:

    I wish to manage my illnesses better

    - to be a loveable person:

    I don't mind how most people see me, as long as someone sees me for how I am and loves me for it

    - to be powerful, strong, unassailable:

    I wish to be able to take on conflicts head on and make my views know, but I would rather be seen as easy-going but not someone people can take advantage of

    - to be accomplished and successful:

    I more wish to do good rather than to be successful for its own sake
    Describing "being good" as the "primary purpose of life" — and saying "I wish to see everything as good because it is part of the greater whole, and love in turn generates love" — are worth F points.

    The drive to "learn all I can" is quintessentially IN — and not T > F.

    The emphasis on creativity is significantly more characteristic of N's than S's (more here), and the way you worded it — "I see myself as having creative talents and I wish to unleash my creativity and create something which is truly me" — has a little more of an INF flavor than an INT flavor.

    Quote Originally Posted by Legion View Post
    I am often described as nice, and rarely as selfish. I deeply believe that one should act for the benefit of everything that exists, not yourself, but I suspect that the two go more hand in hand than some egomaniacs would like to think. I don't really act too much on my compassion though, in that I don't spend too much time helping people, though I am totally willing, but don't know what to do or lack the confidence to do it. My manners aren't great, and I don't really adhere to social graces.

    Overall, this paints the picture of a person more engaged in reflection than in action. Someone with the desire to move forward but lacking the drive.

    The only clear factor here is introversion, in my opinion. Other factors are in a state of limbo, waiting for me to make the leap into living.
    Quote Originally Posted by Legion View Post
    I don't particularly serve others, even if I do see the needs of others as equally important to my own.
    On helping people and serving others (as well as some other INF vs. INT issues), here's a substantial slab of recycled reckful from another TC type-me thread:

    In your last post, you said, "All feelers have something in common, but an introverted feeler doesn't use his feelings the same way as extroverted feeler does." As you know, I have my doubts about whether Fe vs. Fi (at least as they're slotted in the most popular functions model) is the best way to frame this issue, but I couldn't agree more that some types of F's are "feelers" in a way that others definitely aren't.

    You've said that one of the reasons you've wondered about whether INFP really fits you is "I have a hard time to relate to how caring and nice and sensitive natures xNFPs seem to be. I don't see myself like that at all. I am sensitive, but I don't know if in the way of being a feeler. I can't imagine myself being in some caring position, or nurture others."

    Well... first of all, it's important not to lose sight of the fact that at least half the population is made up of F's. [According to this source,] the official MBTI folks are apparently now estimating that, whereas 43.4% of men are F's, only 24.4% of women are T's — which suggests that something like 60% of the population may be F's. But in any case, even if you just assume that around half of people are F's, has it been your experience that around half of the population is made up of people who are notably "caring and nice and sensitive" and prone to "nurture others"? No? I didn't think so.

    I've been participating in type-me threads for four years now (mostly at INTJforum) and, in my experience, it's not uncommon for INFs to test as INTs. ...

    In particular, it seems to be pretty common for INFs (female or male) to question their F preference because of what they see as their relative lack (compared to some of the other F types) in terms of things like outwardly-directed emotional warmth and active helping/service behavior. And I think introversion and an N preference can each make some contribution to what an INF may view as that kind of "lack of F." I think an N preference tends to be associated with a significant degree of what you might call emotional detachment. Myers referred to SFs — rather than the F's in general — as the "sympathetic and friendly types." And Jung went on and on about introverts' fraught relationship with their emotional side. "Both [extraverts and introverts] are capable of enthusiasm," he explained. "What fills the extravert's heart flows out of his mouth, but the enthusiasm of the introvert is the very thing that seals his lips."

    I'd say all the INs (INFs and INTs both) share at least some significant potential to be the kind of people who will more often feel deeply and meaningfully stirred by aesthetic experiences than by their day-to-day interactions with others. And I think it's reasonably characteristic of an INFP for their F preference to be more prone to take the form of a drive to somehow "serve humanity" or "make the world a better place" than a service-to-others streak directed at the people they're interacting with on a day-to-day basis. I'd say passionate involvement in, e.g., environmental or other progressive causes is pretty characteristic of INFPs. And an INFP artist's desire for self-expression is reasonably likely to include at least some sense that the people who read her novels or poetry or whatever and are exposed to her perspective will be enlightened or otherwise have their lives improved.

    And I'd also say that there's no question that an INFP — and especially an INFP with no family responsibilities — can end up being a fairly self-absorbed person (and you've described yourself as "more self-absorbed than sacrificing"). Not selfish in the sense of being unfair to others or wanting more than her share or otherwise violating the golden rule, but self-absorbed in the sense that, consistent with some of the NF descriptions in my last post, her goals of self-discovery, self-improvement, self-expansion, experiencing life "in the full," etc. are her central focus, rather than any kind of service-to-others drive.

    It's also not uncommon to find INFs questioning their F (as you have) because they see themselves as more logical and analytical than they think "feelers" tend to be. (You said, " I am too ... rational to be a feeling type.") But the notion that F's are people who just let their emotions (or some non-logical "feeling function") make their decisions for them is one that doesn't even apply that well to ESFs, and certainly doesn't fit INFs well. All four of the IN types (INTs and INFs both) tend to be notably analytical (including a significant degree of analytical detachment from their emotions), and to bring logic into play when they're making important decisions. All other things being equal, an INF is more likely than an INT to feel like her emotions are significant and may have something important to tell her, but the devoted scrutiny an INF gives to her emotions is likely to include a healthy dose of critical analysis, rather than just blind acceptance.

    In a couple of posts, you've mentioned that you "relate well to Ti" — but, notwithstanding the most popular cognitive functions model, the fact is that most INs, partly for the reasons I've just described (their highly analytical natures), tend to feel like they relate pretty well to substantial parts of typical Ti descriptions. As one collection of evidence, and as further discussed in [the spoiler in this post,] INTJs are supposed to be Te types but there's a 350-post thread at INTJforum that shows that, when INTJs take Nardi's keys2cognition functions test, they get high Te scores and high Ti scores — and Te really isn't substantially favored over Ti.

    Quote Originally Posted by Legion View Post
    I am a deep thinker. I often think about the nature of what is good - how one should live, which is to make the most of life and further the progression of humanity away from destruction and towards transcendence.
    Yeah, baby. Further the progression of humanity towards transcendence is, like, the typical IST's mantra.

    Quote Originally Posted by Legion View Post
    I relate strongly to Si in that I perceive the world through my previous experience with it. I see things as having an air of familiarity, which brings to mind my previous experience with whatever I am focusing on. I also tend to "take note" of the things that I experience, storing it away for future reference. I am not really extrapolating some grand meaning from my experiences, I am just taking note of it as-is. Then, after I have stored a lot of information, there will at times come "condensation points" where certain facts from my experience stand out as the relevant points. This is akin to an Ni "a-ha moment", but is more like "reviewing the past to find what is reliable".

    I also believe I have a strong use of Te. For example, I form a view of the world based on what people say to me and what I read. I am not forming a view in this way of what is good and proper and worth believing in, I am only trying to gauge how it is that the world works, how things relate to one another. I also direct my thinking towards objects, I think, such as being focused on factors such as time and the steps involved in completing a task. ...

    I think I focus on the "real" world, and the "abstract" world, but really it makes more sense to me to be mostly involved in the real world, and it seems true of me. The stuff that goes through my head is often things that I have experienced or read, and I will sort of try to make sense of this and learn a lesson from it, or form my ideas around it. I am generally very aware of what is going on around me, and can easily follow tangible events. Discussions of abstract things, however, often leave me feeling lost. I am a highly observant person, and though I have been described as imaginative, I don't think that I clearly am. In fact, to be in a state of seeking inspiration, and focusing on inspiration and the expense of observation, sounds almost like the definition of psychosis to me. That sounds to me like interpreting things you experience as fitting into whatever ideas are going through your head, probably at the expense of reliable evidence-based theory testing, which is a loss of touch with reality indicative of psychosis, and being inspired, if the inspiration is too intense, could easily lead to feelings of grandiosity.
    Earth to Legion! Earth to Legion! If I may ask you to "perceive the world through your previous experience of it" for a moment...

    According to offical MBTI statistics, S's appear to outnumber N's by about a two-to-one margin, buuut that still means that something like 30% of the population is made up of N's. Has it really been your "previous experience" of the world that something like 30% of people don't tend to "take note of the things they experience, [and] store it away for future reference," but instead "focus on inspiration at the expense of observation" to the point that the resulting "loss of touch with reality" is anything like "indicative of psychosis"?

    I was recently involved in the type-me thread of a pretty clear J at INTJforum, but he viewed his J/P preference as unclear partly because, as he explained, "I also understand that I can't control every single thing happening in this world," and that "I can't exert my will on everything around me," and he said he was "open to the idea that something external and unplanned might screw everything up." And I explained to him that he was thinking in terms of a cartoonishly extreme version of J, and that if he treated P-ish tendencies the same way, he'd likely have a considerably stronger no-way-that's-me reaction than he had to his exaggerated versions of J-ish tendencies.

    And it seems to me that that's what you've done to N. You understand that you're considerably more "philosophical" than the average Joe, and "quite imaginative," and that your reading list tends toward the likes of Jung (including his more esoteric stuff) and Crowley and the Tao Te Ching, and that your conception of the world includes important slots for "transcendance" and the "fractal nature of creation," and so on, but somehow you've managed to convince yourself that people with an N preference are people whose temperamental skew in the direction of immateriality-over-reality is so extreme that they barely "take note" of the actual world.

    And speaking as a well-grounded (if I do say so myself) and yet strong N INTJ, I'm here to tell you that you're really straw-manning the nature of an N preference. And that I don't spend most of my time "extrapolating some grand meaning from my experiences."

    There are undoubtedly people who are more "philosophical" and "imaginative" and "creative" than you, but are you among the more philosophical/imaginative/creative 30% of the population? Yes, you are. And I don't think it's a close call, really.

  10. #20
    Senior Member Array reckful's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    512

    Default

    [3 of 3]

    Quote Originally Posted by Legion View Post
    Also, I do not feel bored and unhappy with jobs that involve doing the same thing over and over. In fact, I enjoy knowing exactly what I am expected to do at any given time, and if I can run on auto-pilot while doing a job while I go over things in my head, then that is great.
    And here I think you're really misinterpreting what it means for an average S to be more likely than an average N to be content with a job that basically involves doing the same thing (something they're already good at) over and over, rather than being at least semi-regularly faced with new challenges and/or the need to expand their existing skill-set and/or to come up with new ideas/approaches/products.

    You say you favor jobs that involve "the same thing over and over," but your explanation reflects a cynical attitude on your part that your job is not going to be something you're particularly interested in or passionate about — and therefore you'd prefer that it be a mindless job so that your mind is freed up to think about non-job-related things that actually interest you while your body (on "autopilot") takes care of the job-related tasks.

    If you instead imagine that you're forced to choose a job that really calls for your full mental attention (no thinking about Jungian typology or fractal dynamics while you work), I expect you belong in the 30% of the population whose ideal job along those lines would be one that involved more imagination/creativity and/or intellectual problem-solving, rather than one where each week's tasks were essentially identical to the week before's, and creativity (or expanding your knowledge or skill-set) was rarely on the agenda.

    Quote Originally Posted by Legion View Post
    As for J vs P:

    - I do relate to having responsibilities weigh down on me until I get them done

    - I am deliberate and frugal (but my frugality is lessened by the fact that I like to enjoy myself, so I spend a lot on things like tobacco, alcohol and take away food). I used to be way more frugal than I am now.

    - I often will make decisions based on reasoning such as "well, if this doesn't work out, I can always switch to my other option"

    - I am often late to things, because I tend to plan things so I get there just on time, and with variance and setbacks, this means being late a lot. I have not learnt my lesson.

    - I am a procrastinator, but as you've said, this isn't even a relevant thing in deciding J vs P

    - I'm not a big planner really

    - I am modest. I do tend towards a "this is what I think attitude" but on the other hand do have a lot of confidence that certain things I think are correct, and will treat it that way until I change my mind down the track. (for this aspect of J vs P, how am I coming across to you as I write this message?)

    - I can be a bit impulsive with groceries, but not that impulsive. If there is something I like that is on special I will probably buy it. But, like, usually it is something I would have bought anyway, but I am a bit cheap so I only buy it if it's on special. I can relate both to the idea of the universe "sending you a message" to do something, but also with the universe "pulling a fast one". It depends on the situation.

    NEO-PI-R factors:

    - Competence: I'm not sure about this one. I definitely lack confidence, so I do tend to feel unable to cope with the demands of life or a task, though I tend to surprise myself with my ability.

    - Order: I am not that focused on order. My room is quite messy. But still, it is a sort of organised mess where things do have their place. Like, papers all over the desk, and clothes in a pile on the floor, and CDs in piles on the shelf. I reckon I have a tendency towards order, I just do things really half-arsed.

    - Dutifulness: yeah, I can see myself being governed by conscience. I often feel that I have to do something, that I am just obligated to do it, or if I don't do it, who will?

    - Achievement striving: well, in high school I achieved highly without putting in an effort. Now I still don't put in an effort, and I only do enough to get by. Sure, it would be nice to, you know, actually put in the hard yards now so I will have a better future, but I would rather lie in bed.

    - Self-discipline: I have a hard time beginning tasks. I also tend to slack off right when the task is almost finished. I often get side-tracked.

    - Deliberation: this one fits me the best, though I have usually seen this associated with introversion. I am very cautious, I take time in my responses. Sometimes something will come to mind and I will say it, either not even considering whether I should, or quickly deciding "screw it, I'll just say it even if it's wrong". This is more the exception than the rule, however.
    ...
    J vs P I am not so sure about. I think I come across as being more down the middle here.
    I wouldn't say I have a strong lean for you one way or the other on J/P. Maybe a mild J lean, but I suspect that, whichever preference you have, it may be pretty close to the borderline. And I'm not one to rule out the "X" (effectively in-the-middle) possibility on any of the MBTI dimensions, and if you're interested, you can read more about that in this post, this post, and the two posts linked to at the very end of that second post.

    Quote Originally Posted by Legion View Post
    As for F vs T:

    "the ability to make decisions personally, based on shared values and relationships" - I don't know about this one, I can't really see how it would fit me. I don't really base decisions on shared values or relationships.

    "an interest in how people feel" - um, to an extent maybe. I more care about what people think.

    "a reliance on consensus, morality, mercy and loyalty" - yeah this one is pretty accurate I guess. I care a lot about morality such as loyalty and honesty.

    "a commitment to social obligation, empathy, and responsibility to others" - not sure what this means, would an example be how I do something because it is expected of me? I don't know how empathetic I am, probably not very.

    "the ability to anticipate people's needs and reactions" - no, I don't really have this ability

    "an interest in human relationships and the values they illustrate" - idk, a lot of my interest in relationships comes from Typology

    "a good sense of body language and vocal intonation — how something useful was said and why" - I'm bad with reading body language, I think I'm alright at tone of voice.

    Now it sounds like, to some extent, a feeler is someone who places higher value on emotion. Do I think emotions are important? Yes. I see intensity of emotion as generally being a good thing, though I also think that perhaps it is better to minimise emotions. I am unsure. Do I think that feelings tend to mean something? Usually, I will think that my feelings are an indicator of something, but I will also realise that it is possible that I am seeing a connection that is not there and using cognitive errors when I do that. So I see feelings as maybe meaning something, but only maybe. I think I relate to what you say about emotion being something that just happens to me.

    Both of those posts only really spoke about what F is, they didn't mention T really, except to say basically that T is absence of F.

    However, I'm definitely not someone who can read or influence the emotions of others well, nor am I too in touch with my own emotions. Nor am I very relationship focused.
    I'm not a big Thomson fan, and mainly pointed to her T/F table just as a way of showing that even the more function-centric modern MBTI theorists had moved quite a ways from Jung's framing of T/F as essentially involving two separate "cognitive functions" that people used to make judgments and decisions, with T more "logical" and F involving some kind of alternative, not-very-well-described emotional-yet-"rational" function that F's mostly looked to instead of logic and T's didn't really use much — and that modern T/F descriptions more often revolve around a set of people/relationship-oriented concerns that make those modern MBTI descriptions more consistent with the corresponding Big Five factor (which McCrae & Costa describe as "primarily a dimension of interpersonal tendencies") than Jung's original T/F framing was.

    And most importantly, and as previously discussed earlier in this post, the way an F preference is likely to manifest in an INFP, for example, is substantially different from the way it's likely to manifest in an ESFJ when it comes to things like being a "people person" (in various ways), having a service-to-others streak, tending to adopt "group values," and etc. As one example, and as previously noted, an INFP may well be the likeliest type to end up fitting the "self-absorbed artist" label, in which case you're talking about an F whose "people" orientation manifests partly in an interest in self-exploration and self-expression, and partly in an interest in sharing their perspectives with others through their art (and being appreciated/validated by their audience).

    And consistent with my earlier discussion of why INFs have a tendency to mistype as INTs, I'd say the F side of Thomson's table is likely to be a better fit for a typical EF and/or SF than a typical INF — and that would go double for a guy who describes himself as "more introverted than anyone I've ever met."

    Similarly, an introvert — and particularly a relatively extreme introvert (whether IT or IF) — is not going to tend to be "relationship focused" in the way that an extravert tends to be.

    Quote Originally Posted by Legion View Post
    I just took this test [Step I MBTI], and I scored INFJ (I'm an ISTJ - ISTx by dichotomies and Si dominant by functions). What I did get from this test, is I quite clearly align with J types.

    I thought the "which word from each pair appeals to you most?" questions were kinda vague as to what exactly I was meant to be basing my decision on. Was it meant to be a word which fit how I act, or just which idea I liked the best? (I took the right test, yeah?)
    After I gave you a quote from the MBTI Manual about the right frame of mind for taking the MBTI, you said...

    Quote Originally Posted by Legion View Post
    I actually switched between "mulling it over" and going with my "gut reaction" halfway through the first list of appeal questions, and when I switched into gut reaction mode, I went straight for the N/F options.
    And again, I think that's because you're almost certainly an N, and probably an F.

    Quote Originally Posted by Legion View Post
    And Si sees the world as more of a picture, with Si the viewer. Things are more bland, and instead Si is focused on its own state of being, being influenced by the external situation but also seeing it as somewhat unreal.
    Quote Originally Posted by Legion View Post
    I think the easiest way to show how the two versions of Si refer to the same thing would be to start with a more basic description and then extend it in alternate directions and show how the properties given all somewhat stem from the same phenomenon. Si is how stimuli evoke an inner sensation in the individual.

    Though, I'm not saying either description is really accurate, and you may find through such a comparison that various things said about Si simply don't follow.
    Quote Originally Posted by Legion View Post
    Hmm... to me it's like an "aesthetic", in the sense of being like the tone of something. This aesthetic is innate, and many things will evoke the same aesthetic complex, and thus have an air of similarity. And maybe there is something in the environment stopping the aesthetic from feeling complete, so then that thing will seem out of place.
    I suspect that one reason you may think SJ would be a better match for you than it really is is that you've bought into one or more aspects of "Si" characterizations that are based too closely on Jung's original conception of introverted sensation. So I've put some recycled reckful on that issue (just posted at PerC) in the next spoiler.


    Quote Originally Posted by Legion View Post
    When I first analysed my type beyond test scores, I was able to tell that I was IxxJ, though I had no idea which functions I had at the top. In fact, my terrible understanding led me to believe I was INFJ (y'know, intelligent and a nice person, must be N and F. Somehow I could relate to Ni and somewhat Fe back then, now I know Ni is something different, and I don't relate AT ALL to Fe).
    As far as not relating AT ALL to Fe... the spoiler in this recent post is devoted to an explanation of why INFJs, in particular, are quite likely to find that they don't relate to several aspects of personality that are commonly found in "Fe" descriptions.

    And it's maybe worth noting that it's been my experience that all four IN types tend to favor Fi over Fe when they take Nardi's cognitive functions test (a discussion of which I've already linked you to).

    Quote Originally Posted by Legion View Post
    Now, I'm someone who likes to confuse my imagination with reality, and when I interpret social situations through the lens of MBTI, rather simply taking note of the social situation itself, I have committed a fallacy. I am using a model to change how I see reality, rather than using reality to change how I see a model. This is a problem. The problem would exist even if MBTI had no accuracy whatsoever. But it's an even stronger problem when MBTI seems on its own terms to be true (in a sense). Who knows?
    I've already noted that it often makes more sense to look to type-related preferences to explain why someone is more likely to err in one direction than another.

    When "imagination" (or theory) and "reality" oppose each other to one degree or other, it's quintessentially N to have a temperamental tendency to err in the direction of favoring the theory and resisting contrary facts, and quintessentially S to have a temperamental tendency to be overly focused on "just the facts, ma'am" at the expense of theoretical explanations and possibilities.

    But again, you need to resist straw-manning a typical N as a guy who's off in imaginative lalaland, paying little attention to the real world, and having little concern with whether his theories have anything much to do with the real world. The majority of scientists are N's, and a typical scientist is very much concerned with the extent to which their theories actually relate to reality — in come cases just in terms of being true (in the sense of consistent with the evidence), but it other cases in terms of also wanting to be doing work that ends up serving a useful purpose in the world.

    And for your final quote... here was your post in the "Favorite Lyrics" thread:

    Quote Originally Posted by Legion View Post
    While we may believe
    our world - our reality
    to be that is - is but one
    manifestation of the essence

    Other planes lie beyond the reach
    of normal sense and common roads
    But they are no less real
    than what we see or touch or feel

    Denied by the blind church
    'cause these are not the words of God
    - the same God that burnt the
    knowing
    Yeah, mama. If that's what an IST's favorite lyrics look like, what do you think an INF's favorite lyrics tend to look like?

    Anyway... in conclusion (thank God, eh?)... I've got a significant F lean, although a mild T wouldn't shock me, and a milder J lean, but a mild P definitely wouldn't surprise me.

    But I really can't see you as anything other than an IN type, and I'm confident Crowley would agree — assuming we had a radio device capable of reaching his altitude in the philosophical ether...


Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Maybe I'm wrong about my type?
    By alicia91 in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 158
    Last Post: 02-20-2008, 06:35 AM
  2. Do You Doubt My Type?
    By FFF in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 02-12-2008, 12:30 AM
  3. My type: Comments and inquiries welcome.
    By Athenian200 in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 66
    Last Post: 01-16-2008, 01:28 PM
  4. Theory About My Type
    By Ezra in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-16-2007, 09:45 PM
  5. What's my type,
    By Tigerlily in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 11-09-2007, 02:26 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •