The Liquid Laser thinks you're an NTJ because you seemed studious, thoughtful and achievement oriented as a child. I don't see this as evidence that you're an NT. Liquid Laser's method was that of a typical MBTI typologist: if we see that a person is competence oriented and studious, he is an NT. In fact, the definition of an NT or any type for Liquid Laser consists in having a certain set of personality qualities.
Why is this not accurate? How do you want to find a core personality?
I guess your argumentation would be that a person has the possibility to display character traits completely antithetical to his 'true' personality. I agree; however, I think it is more difficult to prove that one aspect is 'true' and another 'false.'
For example, many people think that when I come on Vent and act wild and crazy, I must be an NP or SP because an NJ or SJ just wouldn't be that strange and peculiar. Well, perhaps that is the case, but I think some people believe I behave like that all the time, when I really only do it to relax, after which time, I'm quiet and reflective, hard-working and analytical again. But I need these bursts to sort of regain balance.
Another example is that people think "Oh you are such an emotive person that you must be an F." That could very well be. However, I don't think I can stress how DIFFICULT it was for me to get to that point. And to be honest, in real life, I think people think I'm this warm, fuzzy person who goes around hugging people all the time and jumping on tables and dancing or whatever. *shakes her head* I'm really NOT. Just because I make a joke about doing something strange on Vent or someone's blog doesn't mean I would actually do it. It's just a funny, strange idea that pops into my head and leaves as quickly as it came.
This won't cut it because we frequently display contradictory personality qualities or have qualities that identify with many profile descriptions. We must step away from an action-based and personality based typology and onto the study of the subject that deals with solid tendencies of thought first and foremost.
Agreed, however, how do you cut a person's personality away from action? How do you demonstrate personality except through action or the lack of action? Okay, thoughts and feelings, right! But how do you decide if these thoughts and feelings are 'real' 'unconscious' 'natural tendencies' or learned attributes. Does it even matter? I'm not so sure.
But it would be good if you could demonstrate another way we could do it that would be more effective.
I would say that you are definitely intuitive because since your childhood your nature seemed geared towards reflection rather than action. I hold to this view not because you engaged in reflection, but because even when circumstances did not seem to be particularly reinforcing or reflection, you still engaged in it. Hence, quite likely you had a solidified unconscious tendency to do that.
I would agree. That's the one big problem I have with S-type. Personally, I think it would be way more practical to be an S-type, and I would be more than happy to call myself an S-type. However, I need to take personal preferences out of it and be honest: Do I really display S-type behavior? Sometimes, sure, everyone does. My natural tendency has always been N, though. But I can only prove this through behavioral tendencies, and that does not hold water with you, so I really do not know how to prove it otherwise (i.e. how do you prove an impression?)
I would say that you are extroverted because on this forum you show a tendency to be expressive significantly more than an average introvert does, even when you're not prompted. Again, I see what your true tendency is because it manifests under circumstances where behaving in a way that I think is the most natural to you was not rewarded or reinforced.
This could very well be. However, even today I spend a great majority of my free time alone, with my husband, or with one or two friends. I do not feel comfortable at large parties or get-togethers unless I know that the topic of discussion is one I'm well-versed in.
You weren't particularly sociable because it was almost impossible for you to be sociable in the environment around you.
Well, okay, good point.
I would say Feeling type rather than Thinking because your intellectual interests had little to do with systematic thought.
Analyzing paper structure and grammar has nothing to do with systematic thought? Preparing lessons adequately to take a huge macrocosm and place it to the level others can understand is not systematic thought? Keeping track of all these methods of evaluation, developing them and implementing them and explaining them to others has nothing to do with systematic thought? I'd beg to differ. I'm always analyzing - it's just not apparent to you because I only discuss things I find challenging, not the things that come easily to me. That's why I always talk about people, red tape, and my internal conflicts because THOSE are the things that challenge me, not analyzing and explaining complex grammatical structures.
Your interests primarily gravitated towards languages or Fine arts.
So according to this argument, you think that most people who engage themselves in languages must by definition not be NT? Language is VERY VERY systematic. It's just as systematic as math, only people think that because you do not get one answer for one equation that it is NOT the case. It's amorphous, they think.
As much as we language nerds love to say we hate math, the truth is that they are two peas in a pod. But because you can get away with 'not knowing the formulas and exactness' (e.g. grammar, complex structures, logic) much more easily than math, it can appeal to people who put less emphasis on it.
In addition, math does not exactly facilitate interaction among people, whereas language is the key. However, does that mean that everyone who is interested in languages is interested in interacting with people? Sure, most linguists and language nerds say that because they do not want to rant about the beautiful complexities of each language they learn. That usually gets a blank stare as a reaction, so you learn to package it correctly.
Fact of the matter is: I do not engage in languages because it helps me to speak to more people, or because I can understand cultures or blah blah blah. That's all rhetoric that I love to throw around because it gets smiles and nods and everyone says, "Oh, how astute." The point is, I love it because I'm good at it. Because I get it. It makes sense to me, and it gives me a kick. I never had to study languages. I soaked it up. Imbibed it. And because I was so successful, I enjoyed it.
To this day, I do not see a natural tendency within you to approach ideas in a way that a person of an NT mindset would want to.
Fair enough. Proof?
As for your ambition to display competence, this could be attributed to your upbringing where you felt you had something to prove to your grandparents. Namely that you are deserving of respect and one way to do that is by excelling at activities that you're talented at.
I'm really not sure if my desire to display competence mainly comes from inside or outside. Logically, if it were so based on my circumstances, then I would either STOP doing it now that I am in completely new surroundings or it has been so deeply entrenched that I cannot help but be that way now.
However, I am just as driven, if not more so, now than I was then. Perhaps for the right reasons - not to be the best or whatever, but for myself. I've always been that annoying person who said, "Damn it! 99%! Why didn't I get 100%? What an idiot!" Nowadays, I keep those thoughts to myself because I realize it really annoys the hell out of people and alienates me from them.
It's important to point out that I'm really only like that in those things that I excel in. Otherwise, I am not that anal retentive.
Although Fine Arts (Languages) is primarily an N oriented activity, because it involved scholarly endeavors frequently, it is persuasive that it has developed your Thinking. As a result, you were able to enjoy its benefits without being influenced by it nearly as much as many NT types tended to.
Good point. Possibly valid. Proof?
To be an F type does not mean to be person-focused as Liquid Laser may say. To be an F type means to be focused on emotive valuations or mind-states that refer to other mind-states as either pleasant or unpleasant. For many F people, interacting with other individuals offers satisfactory opportunities to do so. Yet your personal background led you to elect the Fine arts as a substitute for the activity of interacting with people.
Hmm...So then I would ask you to compare how I interact to the world around me with how a T would do so (keeping in mind there are indeed Ts who also interact with the world differently than an INTP would) and explain why you do not see those tendencies in me to disprove the possibility that I could be T, if you are willing to tackle it.
The second thing I would like you to do (if you feel up to it) is to say which type you think most accurately describes my preferences (if not now, then later, when you have the information you need) assuming I am NF.
Thank you once again.