ajblaise
Minister of Propagandhi
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2008
- Messages
- 7,914
- MBTI Type
- INTP
How absolutely silly of you to say. Such a creature does not exist.
Mmmm you're probably right.
How absolutely silly of you to say. Such a creature does not exist.
Mmmm you're probably right.
Does this mean I can't be INFJ anymore?
I am. Llewellyn backs me up on that.
Uh oh. I don't know why you couldn't be INFJ anymore...
I'm watching the Jung movies only now (I'm starting the fourth).
It's true even an INFJ (as far as I know) can be thinking a lot of the time, but it doesn't seem to be all the time.
It would be most characteristic of an INTJ to be thinking all the time, which I'm now sure Jung was.
As to an INFP, she comes across as more considerate than an INFJ (but spare me, I've known/do know only one of each), more conscientious, more quiet (the latter certainly not always). Though in temperament an INFP is less stable and predictable, in what she says she is a lot more stable and predictable.
I'll be more blunt for the NFJs. What exactly is thinking?
No one thinks all of the time.It's true even an INFJ (as far as I know) can be thinking a lot of the time, but it doesn't seem to be all the time.
Why would an INTJ "think" more than, say, an INTP?It would be most characteristic of an INTJ to be thinking all the time, which I'm now sure Jung was.
I think () it should be obvious to you why you shouldn't use one individual (that may or may not be correctly typed) to come to conclusions about a whole type.As to an INFP, she comes across as more considerate than an INFJ (but spare me, I've known/do know only one of each), more conscientious, more quiet (the latter certainly not always). Though in temperament an INFP is less stable and predictable, in what she says she is a lot more stable and predictable.
The act of delving into something else. So, actually like mining...
Time is a product of our thinking. Way, I'm INTP again.No one thinks all of the time.
Honestly, because I read so somewhere.Why would an INTJ "think" more than, say, an INTP?
Did I suggest otherwise?I think () it should be obvious to you why you shouldn't use one individual (that may or may not be correctly typed) to come to conclusions about a whole type.
Ok, about the into part it might be Ni, but for the structural part (also the most inner part of that) it's then Ti.Isn't this Ni? (Someone please correct me if it's not)
According to MBTT, INTP has Ti as their dominant function, where an INTJ has Ni. So an INTP would "think" more.Honestly, because I read so somewhere.
An INTP would probably generally seem to be more interested in (excitement by) reality.
...Just noticed that you're European. Were you referring to "she" as in actual people, or "she" as in "theoretical INFJ/P female?"Did I suggest otherwise?
Ok, about the into part it might be Ni, but for the structural part (also the most inner part of that) it's then Ti.
...I agreeI, erm, intuit that intuition has some mighty fine chops. Ni synthesizes imperative sureties at a level others barely even know exists.
Hey, does that mean INFJs are the least idealising of the Idealists?
According to some descriptions INTJs are in their head more.According to MBTT, INTP has Ti as their dominant function, where an INTJ has Ni. So an INTP would "think" more.
I thought I'd use she as general, indeed, but the reason so because the one INFP I know is female....Just noticed that you're European. Were you referring to "she" as in actual people, or "she" as in "theoretical INFJ/P female?"
Okay. So then why would Jung be INTJ over INTP, if Ti is the "thinking" function (not that I believe him to be INTP, but just curious)?
INJs, by virtue of being in the Ni, will do a poopload more processing than falls strictly under the MBTI heading of "thinking". Thus I am for example relatively content to have my type be labelled the least rational of the rationals, because I, erm, intuit that intuition has some mighty fine chops. Ni synthesizes imperative sureties at a level others barely even know exists. Booyah, thinkers. In your face!
Hey, does that mean INFJs are the least idealising of the Idealists?
INJs, by virtue of being in the Ni, will do a poopload more processing than falls strictly under the MBTI heading of "thinking". Thus I am for example relatively content to have my type be labelled the least rational of the rationals, because I, erm, intuit that intuition has some mighty fine chops. Ni synthesizes imperative sureties at a level others barely even know exists. Booyah, thinkers. In your face!
And this processing might require a lof of thinking (Te) of Fe-ing, to get it anywhere. And also the Ni sureties may be sureties, but still have to be evaluated by a rationalizing function (F or T).
Where are these descriptions? "In your head," doesn't have to mean "thinking" in the MBTI sense, btw.According to some descriptions INTJs are in their head more.
Okay...so what I said previously: one individual does not speak for an entire type.I thought I'd use she as general, indeed, but the reason so because the one INFP I know is female.
So your whole point about "thinking," that really has little to do with why you've typed Jung as INTJ? It's really because he reminds you of ISTJs? Well can't argue with that...moving right alongBecause he behaves like ISTJs I know (e.g. my father); this type of modesty, and 'good cause', a.o. And that points to INTJ.
kalach, i don't think we injs (or any type) are as completely one way street as you seem to think. in my experience Fe or Te can overrule Ni or take the reins at times (and in a healthy way), Ni just has to get better at letting go and accepting not-knowing. Ni has a great understanding of the past but predict as it might, the future isn't yet written. and i think we over-rely on our first function bc we are afraid of letting these things clash and accepting a new way of viewing ourselves.
I think this is really a great sentence.Ni has a great understanding of the past but predict as it might, the future isn't yet written. and i think we over-rely on our first function bc we are afraid of letting these things clash and accepting a new way of viewing ourselves.