Orangey's Type Post-500 Post Count?

[Sniffles]

Well I guess IDK made most of my points for me. Much of what you described sounded very much like the INTJs I've known.

And yes Orangey, INFJs have a more relaxed sense of organization and planning. Whether this is due to Fe per se, I can't say; but this is a major characteristic of INFJs.

I can certainly say in my case I'm far more organized in my workplace than in my private life. At work, it's not uncommon for co-workers to copy off my paperwork since I more thoroughly keep records of what's happening. I also keep better track of my tools and set up routines to improve work performance.

Yet in my home life, pfft.....please don't even ask about that.

 

[Sniffles]

I'll also add that your interest in ideological structualism seems more compatible with the nature of Te than with Ti.

 

[Orangey]

I'll also add that your interest in ideological structualism seems more compatible with the nature of Te than with Ti.

That's interesting...want to say more about why? What do you think is particularly Te (and not Ti) about it?

 

[Sniffles]

That's interesting...want to say more about why? What do you think is particularly Te (and not Ti) about it?

Well according to my understanding, Te is more about putting logic to practical use; while Ti is more about contemplating logical ideas. Hence the major difference between INTPs and INTJs.

A similar distinction can be said to exist in regards to the nature of philosophy and ideology.

Eric Voegelin sums it pretty nicely:

"Philosophy springs from the love of being; it is man's loving endeavor to perceive the order of being and attune himself to it. Gnosis desires dominion over being; in order to seize control of being the gnostic constructs his system. The building of systems is a gnostic form of reasoning, not a philosophical one."
--Science, Politics and Gnosticism pg. 30

He uses the term Gnosis as opposed to ideology per se, but his argument is that the ideology is built upon a Gnostic-like mentality.

So based upon this and a few other factors, is why I say this.

Although, I don't wish to imply that such mentalities are only found among certain types. Heck I knew one INTP who was literally obsessed with these sorts of topics.

Hope this makes better sense now.

 

[Orangey]

Well according to my understanding, Te is more about putting logic to practical use; while Ti is more about contemplating logical ideas. Hence the major difference between INTPs and INTJs.

A similar distinction can be said to exist in regards to the nature of philosophy and ideology.

Eric Voegelin sums it pretty nicely:


He uses the term Gnosis as opposed to ideology per se, but his argument is that the ideology is built upon a Gnostic-like mentality.

So based upon this and a few other factors, is why I say this.

Although, I don't wish to imply that such mentalities are only found among certain types. Heck I knew one INTP who was literally obsessed with these sorts of topics.

Hope this makes better sense now.

Ah, I get it. That's an interesting perspective. So Te = gnosis or ideology and Ti = philosophy.

And yeah, I understand that you didn't mean to say that people with those function preferences would necessarily be more inclined towards one or the other endeavor. You are talking about the nature of those things themselves, and how they resemble behaviors ascribed to those functions.

Thanks.

 

[Sniffles]

I've just never really seen you engage in too many philosophical discussions.

 

[Simplexity]

I'd definitely say that your recent comments about procrastination and disorder, if not tainted by your typology knowledge of INTJs, are surprsingly in line with my observations of them. Eerily so. I was legitimately about to phrase how they acted using basically the same emphasis on points as you did.

 

[Eileen]

I think you're INXJ, leaning towards INTJ. You argue like an INTJ.

 

[01011010]

I think you point out weight from a negative perspective more than most individuals. I read that was more typical of INTJs and INFJs. Inferior Se. It's nothing solid, but something no one else has pointed out yet.

If your INTJ, it's to your credit that your a seemingly well balanced one.

 

[Glycerine]

It's kind of funny how all the people that voted you as INTJ are INFJ.

 

[Salomé]

I voted INTJ.
Your first list is very INTP, but your later bulleted lists read INTJ. I'd already decided on your type before reading this post, based on knowledge of your forum interaction style.

 

[Orangey]

Thanks for the replies everyone. I'm going to bump this thread because....yes, you guessed it, I like talking about myself to strangers over the internet (especially after a most stressful week).

I've just never really seen you engage in too many philosophical discussions.

I was just talking to someone about this. I have a few classmates that really like theory for its own sake (although in my field, theory is really really stupid). I always tell them that I refuse to read Lacan, for instance. Or Zizek. Or Deleuze (ask Samuel DeMazarin). Well, I don't refuse, but it does take a lot out of me when I do. I am naturally resistant to that type of high (or low, depending on your perspective) theory.

I enjoy certain areas of philosophy though, like logic. I just got done with an incredibly hard class on proof theory (which I ended up auditing...didn't have to do the paper or presentation thank god).

I'd definitely say that your recent comments about procrastination and disorder, if not tainted by your typology knowledge of INTJs, are surprsingly in line with my observations of them. Eerily so. I was legitimately about to phrase how they acted using basically the same emphasis on points as you did.

Well I actually never really considered INTJ as a possibility until now because of the procrastination thing. I didn't think they were a big procrastination type...and I am a big procrastination type.

I just got done writing two twenty page papers and a couple short six page papers over the course of three days. As a result I haven't slept for nearly two days. Not a good idea.

I think you're INXJ, leaning towards INTJ. You argue like an INTJ.

Does arguing like an INTJ involve the whole linear structure idea? I am fairly famous for my overuse of numerical signposts in papers. Not sure if that means anything.

I think you point out weight from a negative perspective more than most individuals. I read that was more typical of INTJs and INFJs. Inferior Se. It's nothing solid, but something no one else has pointed out yet.

If your INTJ, it's to your credit that your a seemingly well balanced one.

Thanks for the post. I'm not sure what you mean by the negative thing, but I appreciate your input .

I voted INTJ.
Your first list is very INTP, but your later bulleted lists read INTJ. I'd already decided on your type before reading this post, based on knowledge of your forum interaction style.

Thanks for responding. I still think both lists apply to me equally well. What would be ideal is to consider them both at the same time to form a kind of composite picture. But I guess you already did based on my forum behavior.

One thing I notice is that many of the INTJs on this board have perfected the one or two line response method. I believe that I'm a bit wordier than that.


The thing that gets me about the INTJs is that on a lot of type descriptions, it says that the way to spot the difference between an INTP and an INTJ is that the latter is more confident. I don't consider myself an especially confident person...especially not socially. I get really confident if I know what I'm talking about, or am absolutely sure that I'm right; but this is something that is true of anybody and everybody regardless of type.

Anyway, I appreciate the participation.

 

[Sniffles]

Orangey, you have my sympathies in regards to having a stressful week. This week was incrediblely nerve-wrecking to me as well.

I was just talking to someone about this. I have a few classmates that really like theory for its own sake (although in my field, theory is really really stupid). I always tell them that I refuse to read Lacan, for instance. Or Zizek. Or Deleuze (ask Samuel DeMazarin). Well, I don't refuse, but it does take a lot out of me when I do. I am naturally resistant to that type of high (or low, depending on your perspective) theory.

I certainly agree that reading many of these people can take alot out of you; especially Zizek.

Personally what interests me is philosophy related to the human condition - Humanism, Existentialism, Personalism, whatever the hell you wish to call it.

I enjoy certain areas of philosophy though, like logic. I just got done with an incredibly hard class on proof theory (which I ended up auditing...didn't have to do the paper or presentation thank god).

Well I have a love-hate relationship to Logic. Call it an INFJ thing.

 

[Salomé]

Thanks for responding. I still think both lists apply to me equally well. What would be ideal is to consider them both at the same time to form a kind of composite picture. But I guess you already did based on my forum behavior.

One thing I notice is that many of the INTJs on this board have perfected the one or two line response method. I believe that I'm a bit wordier than that.

I would turn that around. I think the INTPs are less wordy but more prolific. We're often just too lazy to explain ourselves properly. But we do like to have the last word.

The thing that gets me about the INTJs is that on a lot of type descriptions, it says that the way to spot the difference between an INTP and an INTJ is that the latter is more confident. I don't consider myself an especially confident person...especially not socially. I get really confident if I know what I'm talking about, or am absolutely sure that I'm right; but this is something that is true of anybody and everybody regardless of type.

Anyway, I appreciate the participation.

How many introverts would describe themselves as socially confident? I wouldn't take that into consideration, IIWY. The fact that you are/can be absolutely sure about anything, says J to me.

 

[ajblaise]

Orangey, are you any closer to a conclusion? If not, you might be a P after all.

 

[disregard]

Orangey, are you any closer to a conclusion? If not, you might be a P after all.

Why?

 

[ajblaise]

Why?

The whole J/P "have matters settled"/"keep decisions open" thing..

 

[disregard]

So Js don't value accuracy and truth as much as Ps, you're asserting..?

 

[Salomé]

Why?

So Js don't value accuracy and truth as much as Ps, you're asserting..?

I thought you were an INTJ?

 

[disregard]

Your smilies and questions haven't answered my question.