I want no bias here...

[existence]

Well, after reading through the above 14 pages(!) I am voting for ISTP. (See description below.)

Wow you have some patience, that was really not necessary but thanks

I will repeat what highlander said, I relate to some of your descriptions of yourself and I'm also an INTJ. The parts I don't relate to are probably the difference between my 5w6 and your 8 (guessing here and highlander's 6 has some similar traits, not sure on wing).

Can I ask why you type Ti-dom (LII-Ti) in socionics?

[MENTION=8936]highlander[/MENTION] said he didn't relate to this part (bolded): "I have a similar feeling also when I've got through a real thorough detail oriented analysis of details and experiences and as a consequence can see how things work together, I see the main principles, the logical links establishing structure, determining the degree of relevancy for everything, all of it allowing me to make judgments very easily and quickly."

How about you with that?

He called that Ti.. and yeah, well, this is basically what goes on in my head, what I highlighted above.

Reading what you've written, you seem to agree with ISTP (in parts but not necessarily as a whole).
You also sound more S then N to me, and there is something about your question asking (why, more info, clarification, etc.) that seems more S to me.
Given how hard it seems for you to find something to settle on, you are probably borderline on at least one part, as you mentioned after taking the test (J with a lot of P).
Can you live with this?

Yep borderline on the J/P. Just trying to make sense of all this in the context of the MBTI system. I'm ok with Ti-dom and with Se-aux too but seems like I have something going on that the ISTP's don't relate to, either that, or misunderstanding due to different word usages (at least in part that seems to be the problem heh).

ISTP's are realistic and reserved, preferring to focus on things they can do with their hands. They are interested in how things work and finding practical solutions to problems. They are adventurous risk-takers, and enjoy living in the moment and physical pursuits. They like challenges and are independently minded, willing to go around the rules to get things done. They can be emotionally detached and socially indifferent, but loyal to the people they care about.

Where I don't relate is, I'm not comfortable with saying that I just do things with my hands. I can do this too but I do more than that... For the things that aren't simple hands-on daily tasks / problems to solve, I have an understanding in my head that's distinctly removed, not directly physical and that's what I go by. I do need the physical to apply it to, I'm definitely not as removed as INTP's are. With these things, there is a hardware or a process that's out there in the world, that's what I analyse first and that's what I apply my understanding onto when I act. (I do also wonder if this is my connection to 5 in enneagram.) Does this make sense? I don't relate to the craftsman label overall even though I can do those simple hands-on things too and sure I can enjoy figuring out how to fix something that's broken.

The rest works!, except that I can easily be engaged socially if someone/people draw me in.

 

[highlander]

One thing I have seen is that people who prefer Ti tend to think it's important to get the thinking right. People who prefer Te don't care so much about that. They are more about results or outcomes.

 

[Smilephantomhive]

Where I don't relate is, I'm not comfortable with saying that I just do things with my hands. I can do this too but I do more than that... For the things that aren't simple hands-on daily tasks / problems to solve, I have an understanding in my head that's distinctly removed, not directly physical and that's what I go by. I do need the physical to apply it to, I'm definitely not as removed as INTP's are. With these things, there is a hardware or a process that's out there in the world, that's what I analyse first and that's what I apply my understanding onto when I act. (I do also wonder if this is my connection to 5 in enneagram.) Does this make sense? I don't relate to the craftsman label overall even though I can do those simple hands-on things too and sure I can enjoy figuring out how to fix something that's broken.

The rest works!, except that I can easily be engaged socially if someone/people draw me in.

That is probably Ti which would be your dominant function if you're ISTP.

ISTP is probably correct.

 

[existence]

One thing I have seen is that people who prefer Ti tend to think it's important to get the thinking right. People who prefer Te don't care so much about that. They are more about results or outcomes.

Yeah it's very important in addition to being goal oriented. I'm at my best if I have a good understanding and I got to my goal too

That is probably Ti which would be your dominant function if you're ISTP.

ISTP is probably correct.

Thanks for the input

 

[ChocolateMoose123]

I think you want to be ISTP. So be that.

I still think INTx. Why? Because I know you will ask...the way you describe goals. Your descriptions of your thought process on this is important and stands out as foreign. In fact, some of your descriptions I don't relate to at all. Now, we are different people. Sure, but it is an overall vibe I'm getting.

I get a very NT vibe from you. They way you are analyzing this. The way the thread reads, etc. The fact it is going on 15 pages. The way you are breaking things down. Asking for concrete details. It is very Ti/Ne. Anyway, I know you may want more clarification but I'm not sure I can do that to your satisfaction.

Either way, be the type you see yourself. Start the journey.

EDIT: throughout this thread I see you searching for certainty. Yes, you want to know your type but I'm not talking about that. You want certainty with nuance. Looking at the same thing through different angles. Again, this reminds me of Ti/Ne. Why Ti/Ne rather than Ti/Se?

It is in the mental analysis. I don't know if this is relevant but certainty isn't something on my radar. I don't need to know how I know. I just know what I know.

Ugh. That was not eloquent. But I mean, I think you need to know "how" you know based on this thread. You want every rock unturned and then dig the ground under that rock. That seems very Ti/Ne to me.

So I'm going to say InTp. High Si.

 

[existence]

I think you want to be ISTP. So be that.

OK first..I do very much appreciate you adding your input but I'd like to clarify some things with you, OK?


So. No - please do not assume things about me and especially my motivations without verifying first. I hate that sort of stuff. This isn't personally against you but yes, I hate it.

You got the motivation very very wrong here. I'm perfectly open to being some other MBTI type because something in the ISTP descriptions just fundamentally bothers me. It's that P thing. I know I said I'm rather adaptable in immediate concrete situations as long as I can directly see the concrete options and do not have to brainstorm beyond what I actually see - but I otherwise do not perceive myself as an MBTI P.

Another important thing is, what I find sorely lacking in the ISTP description is any preference for Ni whatsoever. Even though ISTP's supposedly prefer it. No? So yes, I figure that my J-ness comes from Ni. I'm not entirely sure on this though.

I still think INTx. Why? Because I know you will ask...the way you describe goals. Your descriptions of your thought process on this is important and stands out as foreign. In fact, some of your descriptions I don't relate to at all. Now, we are different people. Sure, but it is an overall vibe I'm getting.

Yes I find that I don't relate to the ISTP vibe though I can only go by descriptions and a few people posting on the forum such as you or Poki

I get a very NT vibe from you. They way you are analyzing this. The way the thread reads, etc. The fact it is going on 15 pages. The way you are breaking things down. Asking for concrete details. It is very Ti/Ne. Anyway, I know you may want more clarification but I'm not sure I can do that to your satisfaction.

Lol I'm not sure that this being 15 pages has anything to do with N/S. That seems like a rather weak and unreliable correlation so let's ignore it.

If I ask for concrete details, why is that N over S? I'm honestly curious about your explanation of this.

Also, the goal orientation, INTP's don't really have it, do they? They are still P types. So INTP does not fit any better than ISTP.

Also it does not fit because I'm not into Ne. The real INTP's I know -I know a couple from real life- think of things in a way that I find is really cool in terms of how I cannot bring myself to do it. The Ne non-sequiturs and vagueness are otherwise very annoying but I can appreciate their ability in brainstorming for possibilities in problem solving. My way of problem solving is very different, I'm singularly focused, I look for the one solution and I either see it or I do not, I don't look for possibilities. No lateral thinking, I'm convergent instead. If I don't see the solution right away, I will have to get more details and analyse more or wait for an insight over time that comes from the unconscious. I also literally interpret what I see, the details, everything, they exist "as is", INTP's seem to go beyond that.

Either way, be the type you see yourself. Start the journey.

No, I can't do anything with such an idea of "be the type you see yourself". I will pick the type based on an objective interpretation of relevant data, no more no less.

EDIT: throughout this thread I see you searching for certainty. Yes, you want to know your type but I'm not talking about that. You want certainty with nuance. Looking at the same thing through different angles. Again, this reminds me of Ti/Ne. Why Ti/Ne rather than Ti/Se?

INTP does not strike me as a type that's really into certainty. That would fundamentally go against Ne's openness.

I'm not looking at this through different angles. I don't know where you got that impression from. In my mind I have a pretty flat logical picture. It cannot be turned through different angles.

What you may see as looking at the same thing through different angles is not so, what I do is just collecting more details for analysis. It's not angles.

It is in the mental analysis. I don't know if this is relevant but certainty isn't something on my radar. I don't need to know how I know. I just know what I know.

Well, sure, I like certainty but again, I don't see how that's correlated with INTP whatsoever.

Ugh. That was not eloquent. But I mean, I think you need to know "how" you know based on this thread. You want every rock unturned and then dig the ground under that rock. That seems very Ti/Ne to me.

I don't know what you mean by "how". Yes I'm a thorough person but this isn't Ti/Ne specific, again a crappy correlation if it's even correlated. Do note that I don't care about weak correlations, at all.

So I'm going to say InTp. High Si.

I can't relate to NP-ness. I relate to that even less than to ISTP. I can relate to SP-ness somewhat but not to NP-ness. Do you really see me as random and "out-there" as NP's are?! I would not like to assume the INTP typing just by the idea of having high Si or whatever unless that truly makes sense but so far it does not. It does not make sense because one of the few things I understand for sure is that I don't do Ne like Ne types do. Do I really seem to be doing it with ease, to you?

 

[ChocolateMoose123]

I'm starting to think this is a troll thread. It is very strange.

 

[Poki]

OK first..I do very much appreciate you adding your input but I'd like to clarify some things with you, OK?


So. No - please do not assume things about me and especially my motivations without verifying first. I hate that sort of stuff. This isn't personally against you but yes, I hate it.

You got the motivation very very wrong here. I'm perfectly open to being some other MBTI type because something in the ISTP descriptions just fundamentally bothers me. It's that P thing. I know I said I'm rather adaptable in immediate concrete situations as long as I can directly see the concrete options and do not have to brainstorm beyond what I actually see - but I otherwise do not perceive myself as an MBTI P.

Another important thing is, what I find sorely lacking in the ISTP description is any preference for Ni whatsoever. Even though ISTP's supposedly prefer it. No? So yes, I figure that my J-ness comes from Ni. I'm not entirely sure on this though.




Yes I find that I don't relate to the ISTP vibe though I can only go by descriptions and a few people posting on the forum such as you or Poki




Lol I'm not sure that this being 15 pages has anything to do with N/S. That seems like a rather weak and unreliable correlation so let's ignore it.

If I ask for concrete details, why is that N over S? I'm honestly curious about your explanation of this.

Also, the goal orientation, INTP's don't really have it, do they? They are still P types. So INTP does not fit any better than ISTP.

Also it does not fit because I'm not into Ne. The real INTP's I know -I know a couple from real life- think of things in a way that I find is really cool in terms of how I cannot bring myself to do it. The Ne non-sequiturs and vagueness are otherwise very annoying but I can appreciate their ability in brainstorming for possibilities in problem solving. My way of problem solving is very different, I'm singularly focused, I look for the one solution and I either see it or I do not, I don't look for possibilities. No lateral thinking, I'm convergent instead. If I don't see the solution right away, I will have to get more details and analyse more or wait for an insight over time that comes from the unconscious. I also literally interpret what I see, the details, everything, they exist "as is", INTP's seem to go beyond that.




No, I can't do anything with such an idea of "be the type you see yourself". I will pick the type based on an objective interpretation of relevant data, no more no less.




INTP does not strike me as a type that's really into certainty. That would fundamentally go against Ne's openness.

I'm not looking at this through different angles. I don't know where you got that impression from. In my mind I have a pretty flat logical picture. It cannot be turned through different angles.

What you may see as looking at the same thing through different angles is not so, what I do is just collecting more details for analysis. It's not angles.




Well, sure, I like certainty but again, I don't see how that's correlated with INTP whatsoever.




I don't know what you mean by "how". Yes I'm a thorough person but this isn't Ti/Ne specific, again a crappy correlation if it's even correlated. Do note that I don't care about weak correlations, at all.




I can't relate to NP-ness. I relate to that even less than to ISTP. I can relate to SP-ness somewhat but not to NP-ness. Do you really see me as random and "out-there" as NP's are?! I would not like to assume the INTP typing just by the idea of having high Si or whatever unless that truly makes sense but so far it does not. It does not make sense because one of the few things I understand for sure is that I don't do Ne like Ne types do. Do I really seem to be doing it with ease, to you?

I agree with MDP, you seem off though ever so slightly. Your words sat ISTP, interactions say something else. I hold interactions more relevant then words.

 

[existence]

I'm starting to think this is a troll thread. It is very strange.

I'd appreciate it if you clarified those points in my post above instead of accusing me without any basis for it. Wtf.

Again, really thanks for trying to help but I really don't like this accusation. Please believe me on genuinely wanting to understand more.


Btw, I wanted to post, I was thinking about, do you relate to what I said: "I have a similar feeling also when I've got through a real thorough detail oriented analysis of details and experiences and as a consequence can see how things work together, I see the main principles, the logical links establishing structure, determining the degree of relevancy for everything, all of it allowing me to make judgments very easily and quickly."

Especially the bolded?

 

[existence]

I agree with MDP, you seem off though ever so slightly. Your words sat ISTP, interactions say something else. I hold interactions more relevant then words.

How do you perceive those interactions?

I agree that I'm analysing really deep but I don't think that I do any randomness like Ne, if you perceive anything like that, let me know.

I don't think my words say stereotypical ISTP either, because I do think I have that J side too.

 

[Poki]

How do you perceive those interactions?

I agree that I'm analysing really deep but I don't think that I do any randomness like Ne, if you perceive anything like that, let me know.

I don't think my words say stereotypical ISTP either, because I do think I have that J side too.

Ne is not complete randomness. But you are not dom Ne. You do not bounce fast enough mentally. Ne is more about correlation then randomness. Human brains are just as good as computers with randomness, we suck at it. Actually I believe randomness is a human derived concept to define a pattern we havnt figured out yet.

You require to much validation from others, you ask to much for others to prove what they say, you keep going back to "let's just assume I am dom Ti".

From all my interactions with Ti doms it's usually a sharing of information we then processes it internally and we share more. We don't say prove it or ask and then judge their answers. We ask why do you say that and then process it internally. We are less likely to "judge" and "prove", we process and analyze.

Deep analysis to me is strictly pulling out information, you have an external judging side that is much stronger. Informational analysis vs comparative analysis. This isn't my style of deep analysis. This is surface level comparison.

 

[existence]

Ne is not complete randomness. But you are not dom Ne. You do not bounce fast enough mentally.

I agree.

Ne is more about correlation then randomness.

Yes. And what do I do, I keep ignoring weak correlations that high Ne users thrive on.

You require to much validation from others, you ask to much for others to prove what they say, you keep going back to "let's just assume I am dom Ti".

You misunderstood my intentions - I'm not asking for validation of myself from others. What I'm looking for is to see how others see me as that is part of my analysis.

From all my interactions with Ti doms it's usually a sharing of information we then processes it internally and we share more. We don't say prove it or ask and then judge their answers. We ask why do you say that and then process it internally. We are less likely to "judge" and "prove", we process and analyze.

I do that exactly: I ask "why do you say that", "what do you mean by it" to see the why and then I process internally. I didn't share a lot of my resulting conclusions here if you notice. I only do that periodically.

I do argue too when I disagree or when it does not yet make sense and I need more clarification.

Ti is a judging function so it does judge and wants objective proof. If you define "judge" and "prove" as strictly a Je thing, sure feel free to do so.

Deep analysis to me is strictly pulling out information, you have an external judging side that is much stronger. Informational analysis vs comparative analysis. This isn't my style of deep analysis. This is surface level comparison.

What do you mean by "informational analysis"?

Btw no, I don't like to just stay on the surface, I go deeper, just because you have an impression from a few words it doesn't mean you see everything going on in my head. Especially because, as I said, I do most of my thinking internally in between these posts conversing with you all. Don't get me wrong, I'm interested in what you see but it doesn't mean I'm going to accept everything if it's guesses on my internal processing that conflict with what I've observed of my own mind's processing.

Do you relate to this: "I have a similar feeling also when I've got through a real thorough detail oriented analysis of details and experiences and as a consequence can see how things work together, I see the main principles, the logical links establishing structure, determining the degree of relevancy for everything, all of it allowing me to make judgments very easily and quickly." ?

External judging side... so what do you mean by that, do you see me as INTJ? ISTJ?

 

[Poki]

I actually got more impulsive in some things in the last couple of years. (I'm a bit past 25.) Overall I think it's the same or slightly more impulsive than before.

So I fit ISTP pattern there more than ISTJ. I don't think I'll grow up, heh.

I have the carefree part too and it makes sense from experience when you say Ti only partially controls the Se aux. :=)

Basically, I have to have the J and P too.

So like, I have to work for some long term goal everyday or I'll get restless. And I also have to have the carefree shit too. :shrug

Check out this site: Rethinking Judging & Perceiving in IPs & IJs

The IP description REALLY FITS me VERY WELL. Wow.

Except for: "IPs are sometimes said to lack follow-through or staying power"

I do work hard on keeping my follow-through. It requires -seemingly constant- checking of myself. But I guess I like the challenge of it.

IP doesn't fit me that great, IJ is WAY off. I don't need closure in the sense that it portrays. I always have closure, but it's not a definitive closure, it's a fuzzy closure that actually closes off the unknown with the fact that I need more data. Closure to me is not a decision, closure is a difinitive understanding. And knowing that I don't know is a pretty definitive understanding.

 

[Poki]

I agree.




Yes. And what do I do, I keep ignoring weak correlations that high Ne users thrive on.




You misunderstood my intentions - I'm not asking for validation of myself from others. What I'm looking for is to see how others see me as that is part of my analysis.




I do that exactly: I ask "why do you say that", "what do you mean by it" to see the why and then I process internally. I didn't share a lot of my resulting conclusions here if you notice. I only do that periodically.

I do argue too when I disagree or when it does not yet make sense and I need more clarification.

Ti is a judging function so it does judge and wants objective proof. If you define "judge" and "prove" as strictly a Je thing, sure feel free to do so.




What do you mean by "informational analysis"?

Btw no, I don't like to just stay on the surface, I go deeper, just because you have an impression from a few words it doesn't mean you see everything going on in my head. Especially because, as I said, I do most of my thinking internally in between these posts conversing with you all. Don't get me wrong, I'm interested in what you see but it doesn't mean I'm going to accept everything if it's guesses on my internal processing that conflict with what I've observed of my own mind's processing.

Do you relate to this: "I have a similar feeling also when I've got through a real thorough detail oriented analysis of details and experiences and as a consequence can see how things work together, I see the main principles, the logical links establishing structure, determining the degree of relevancy for everything, all of it allowing me to make judgments very easily and quickly." ?

External judging side... so what do you mean by that, do you see me as INTJ? ISTJ?

I don't see you as INTJ at all. Your interactions are way off from INTJ. You don't match the judgemental INTJ or the "thinking" INTJ type. If you watch on here you can see 2 types of INTJs, one is very emotionaly based and the other is very thinker based. You don't match either. To grounded or both.

Informational analysis focuses more on processing info with less comparisons. When I type people I still don't do a comparative analysis. You keep comparing yourself with the theory. I don't really do that much, the type works itself out over time as I learn about both. So as I learn about mbti and I learn about a person the type just reveals itself. I don't ever do a comparative analysis unless someone specifically asks and then it's still a hit or miss for me. I focus solely on the information, if it hasn't revealed itself I need more info and just dig and dig and dig until the answer resolves itself in the background. I am simply building a framework of everything.

I didn't say what your intentions were. I said that's what you do...as in action wise. I am referring to what you do externally, not internally. It just seems very different then what I am used to with ISTPs. Different then ESTPs.

 

[estorm]

Can I ask why you type Ti-dom (LII-Ti) in socionics?

This Socionics Types: LII-INTj fits me more than this Socionics Types: ILI-INTp.

highlander said he didn't relate to this part (bolded): "I have a similar feeling also when I've got through a real thorough detail oriented analysis of details and experiences and as a consequence can see how things work together, I see the main principles, the logical links establishing structure, determining the degree of relevancy for everything, all of it allowing me to make judgments very easily and quickly."

How about you with that?

I relate to the whole quote, bolded included.

Yep borderline on the J/P. Just trying to make sense of all this in the context of the MBTI system. I'm ok with Ti-dom and with Se-aux too but seems like I have something going on that the ISTP's don't relate to, either that, or misunderstanding due to different word usages (at least in part that seems to be the problem heh).

Where I don't relate is, I'm not comfortable with saying that I just do things with my hands. I can do this too but I do more than that... For the things that aren't simple hands-on daily tasks / problems to solve, I have an understanding in my head that's distinctly removed, not directly physical and that's what I go by. I do need the physical to apply it to, I'm definitely not as removed as INTP's are. With these things, there is a hardware or a process that's out there in the world, that's what I analyse first and that's what I apply my understanding onto when I act. (I do also wonder if this is my connection to 5 in enneagram.) Does this make sense? I don't relate to the craftsman label overall even though I can do those simple hands-on things too and sure I can enjoy figuring out how to fix something that's broken.

The rest works!, except that I can easily be engaged socially if someone/people draw me in.

I go back to the idea that just because some parts don’t fit it doesn’t mean that it’s not your type. I wouldn’t expect any description (unless you write it yourself!) to fit perfectly. Some bits will be off. That’s okay because the system by nature is generalizing to fit most of the description to most people of that type most of the time.

Trying blurring your eyes (so to speak) and see if you can find a combination of types that works, as is done with borderline aspects.

I don't like to just stay on the surface, I go deeper, just because you have an impression from a few words it doesn't mean you see everything going on in my head. Especially because, as I said, I do most of my thinking internally in between these posts conversing with you all.

Given all the input and from your comment above your internal thinking, I'd like to hear more about what your current/tentative conclusions/guesses are now about what type you are.

Given that you are probably borderline something which leads to a blend of descriptions, which of these descriptions are closest for you? jungian-types Note that if you can pick the top two or three (and even rank them by most close), then the rest of us will have a clearer sense of your input.

I guess it may also help to hear whether you are still trying to type yourself or if you are trying to see how different aspects of your type show up in you (or both/neither).

 

[ChocolateMoose123]

I'd appreciate it if you clarified those points in my post above instead of accusing me without any basis for it. Wtf.

Again, really thanks for trying to help but I really don't like this accusation. Please believe me on genuinely wanting to understand more.


Btw, I wanted to post, I was thinking about, do you relate to what I said: "I have a similar feeling also when I've got through a real thorough detail oriented analysis of details and experiences and as a consequence can see how things work together, I see the main principles, the logical links establishing structure, determining the degree of relevancy for everything, all of it allowing me to make judgments very easily and quickly."

Especially the bolded?

Ok. I'm going to flip the script here because it isn't working. Defining how I view that statement will no doubt increase questioning from you, rather than give you an understanding of self. Which is why we are all here.

So, why don't you tell us how the bolded is expressed in you? I would like to hear from you a concrete example of how you have acted and thought on a given situation where this statement applies as a truth to you.

 

[existence]

IP doesn't fit me that great, IJ is WAY off. I don't need closure in the sense that it portrays. I always have closure, but it's not a definitive closure, it's a fuzzy closure that actually closes off the unknown with the fact that I need more data. Closure to me is not a decision, closure is a difinitive understanding. And knowing that I don't know is a pretty definitive understanding.

Yeah for me it depends on the topic.
If it's a thing to actually do, I have a final decision unless circumstances change in a way that I find it relevant to change the decision but I can also miss reevaluating in this fashion.
If it's a topic to understand then I may have a final conclusion or I may not, it depends on how complex it is. In the latter case I have the so called fuzzy closure as you describe it

I don't see you as INTJ at all. Your interactions are way off from INTJ. You don't match the judgemental INTJ or the "thinking" INTJ type. If you watch on here you can see 2 types of INTJs, one is very emotionaly based and the other is very thinker based. You don't match either. To grounded or both.

OK that makes sense - then what types do you still have in the ring?

Informational analysis focuses more on processing info with less comparisons. When I type people I still don't do a comparative analysis. You keep comparing yourself with the theory. I don't really do that much, the type works itself out over time as I learn about both. So as I learn about mbti and I learn about a person the type just reveals itself. I don't ever do a comparative analysis unless someone specifically asks and then it's still a hit or miss for me. I focus solely on the information, if it hasn't revealed itself I need more info and just dig and dig and dig until the answer resolves itself in the background. I am simply building a framework of everything.

Good observation, I do compare like that - it's part of gaining the understanding. I also do the digging. I relate very much to building a framework of everything

I didn't say what your intentions were. I said that's what you do...as in action wise. I am referring to what you do externally, not internally. It just seems very different then what I am used to with ISTPs. Different then ESTPs.

Gotcha


Can you say anything on this "I have a similar feeling also when I've got through a real thorough detail oriented analysis of details and experiences and as a consequence can see how things work together, I see the main principles, the logical links establishing structure, determining the degree of relevancy for everything, all of it allowing me to make judgments very easily and quickly." ?

 

[ChocolateMoose123]

You misunderstood my intentions - I'm not asking for validation of myself from others. What I'm looking for is to see how others see me as that is part of my analysis.

If someone explains how others see you, you seem very adamant about what is correct or incorrect in their assumptions/vibes/opinions, etc. Which is fine. But then you don't build on that known information. You keep rejecting what doesn't "fit" with how you see yourself. Ok..... If that is the case, then you know what you are better than you are letting on. It just keeps going around in a circle. This is what is very strange and why I said it reads like a troll thread.

Ti is a judging function so it does judge and wants objective proof. If you define "judge" and "prove" as strictly a Je thing, sure feel free to do so.

Ti doesn't judge in the way you are describing or "want objective proof." in the way you are describing. This is not pure Ti. Pure Ti wants facts, raw material to work with. If you are building a house, it is the frame. It's neutral. It just wants to acquire and collect more and more material for framing.

Proof and judgement of those facts and data is formulated using other functions. It is another matter. To keep with the house analogy (i.e. In what style do you prefer your house? Ne/Se. What color is this room going to be?) etc

This is why I think you, to be perfectly honest here, have an image of what these things mean and that image is not accurate. We can be here all day trying to build definitions around how you see things, but point blank - it ain't right. Something is not right.

 

[existence]

This Socionics Types: LII-INTj fits me more than this Socionics Types: ILI-INTp.

Oh..but you don't mind typing as a Ni and Te type in MBTI?

I relate to the whole quote, bolded included.

OK

I go back to the idea that just because some parts don’t fit it doesn’t mean that it’s not your type. I wouldn’t expect any description (unless you write it yourself!) to fit perfectly. Some bits will be off. That’s okay because the system by nature is generalizing to fit most of the description to most people of that type most of the time.

Trying blurring your eyes (so to speak) and see if you can find a combination of types that works, as is done with borderline aspects.

Yeah I don't expect it all to fit but if the ISTPs seem too different in some way especially if they themselves see a difference -as I'm not at a full understanding with MBTI yet- then that seems signficant to me. Just not sure what's "off"..

The idea on combining types isn't really what I'm looking for but of course if it turns out that the system as I understand it right now needs to be transcended, I will do that, though I would still not want to do it by just combining stereotypes. We seem to have a difference in perspective here but no problem with that.

Given all the input and from your comment above your internal thinking, I'd like to hear more about what your current/tentative conclusions/guesses are now about what type you are.

What I can tell you is, I'm sure about IxTx and I'm sure that I think differently than types with strong Ne. If we consider all the 8 functions, I can relate to Ti, Ni, Si, Se, Te. The rest are usually really off my radar =)

Given that you are probably borderline something which leads to a blend of descriptions, which of these descriptions are closest for you? jungian-types Note that if you can pick the top two or three (and even rank them by most close), then the rest of us will have a clearer sense of your input.

Cool site. OK I relate to the ISTP and the ISTJ ones the most. A bit to INTJ and INTP due to the IxTx but to a lesser degree.

It will be shorter if I show the parts that don't match. With ISTP, I already said that I'm not just hands-on and I'm not completely indifferent socially. With ISTJ, I'm a more independent person than what's described there, I'm not submissive and I don't need a calm environment all the time. With INTJ, I don't think that long range all the time. With INTP, I'm not creative like that though I do have my own view of things.

I realize that what I reject from these descriptions are in part just stereotypes. What does seem relevant to type is that I don't need all the calm stability like Si-dom's do, I don't have the Ne creativity, and not enough Ni long term thinking, but with ISTP I don't see how what I rejected goes beyond superficial stereotypical aspects.

I guess it may also help to hear whether you are still trying to type yourself or if you are trying to see how different aspects of your type show up in you (or both/neither).

Well the way I experience myself is Ti + Se mainly, really, sometimes with the other functions as listed above. So I'm trying to see how I relate to ISTPs. So I'm open to hearing more on all this, including my type. I'm not trying to be ISTP if it's actually cognitively different from me for whatever reason but I will want to know the reason.

 

[existence]

Ok. I'm going to flip the script here because it isn't working. Defining how I view that statement will no doubt increase questioning from you, rather than give you an understanding of self. Which is why we are all here.

You are making assumptions about what I will be doing without first checking with me before making your decision as to what you will do - this is a problem for me. I would prefer it if you first checked in with me and remain open until then. You are being quite J right now.

If it helps, I can promise I won't ask anything about the quote further beyond what you say about how you relate to that quote of mine. Right now it sounds like you do not relate to that quote much, including the bolded, but if I am wrong, let me know.

So, why don't you tell us how the bolded is expressed in you? I would like to hear from you a concrete example of how you have acted and thought on a given situation where this statement applies as a truth to you.

OK. Example is training theory in sport. I collected information, from reading, from observation of my own training, from observation of other people's training, etc. I analysed the details over time then when I had a good enough framework I could see a pretty large picture of how things logically belonged or did not belong, what followed from what else logically, what was logically relevant in concrete situations e.g. when evaluating someone and writing a training plan for them, or when going and doing repeats in a specific workout or how to treat an impending injury or if someone voiced their ideas on how to do training. Etc. Overall I was going for optimization of the training process and a deep comprehensive framework for understanding.

If someone explains how others see you, you seem very adamant about what is correct or incorrect in their assumptions/vibes/opinions, etc. Which is fine. But then you don't build on that known information. You keep rejecting what doesn't "fit" with how you see yourself. Ok..... If that is the case, then you know what you are better than you are letting on. It just keeps going around in a circle. This is what is very strange and why I said it reads like a troll thread.

No, this is your perception while missing parts. I do build on it as soon as I'm able to reach conclusions. You miss how I don't simply reject what doesn't seem to fit right away, I actually asked you questions for clarification, I remained open to hear out your side, but instead of replying, you suddenly decided to just call it trolling. I don't really see that as fair, tbh.

Ti doesn't judge in the way you are describing or "want objective proof." in the way you are describing. This is not pure Ti. Pure Ti wants facts, raw material to work with. If you are building a house, it is the frame. It's neutral. It just wants to acquire and collect more and more material for framing.

You are working with more than just facts yourself - you interpret the facts. Such as above.

Yes I want objective facts, I don't know where you see me as different from that. Just because I don't always immediately agree with what you think it does not mean I am not impartial as much as possible.

Proof and judgement of those facts and data is formulated using other functions. It is another matter. To keep with the house analogy (i.e. In what style do you prefer your house? Ne/Se. What color is this room going to be?) etc

I don't understand this idea of Ti not being a judging function...Poki said the same as you and I don't really follow what you mean by Ti not judging the facts when it builds its framework. How else can it build the framework if not by logically judging.

This is why I think you, to be perfectly honest here, have an image of what these things mean and that image is not accurate. We can be here all day trying to build definitions around how you see things, but point blank - it ain't right. Something is not right.

No I'm ok with hearing your own definitions and framework.

I don't know what's "off".