User Tag List

12 Last

Results 1 to 10 of 11

  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Posts
    7

    Wink Can someone please help type me?

    Hey, Id be interested in learning what personality type you think I am, based on my cognitive functions


    Here's some info about me to help you out.

    1. I often think about what career I may pursue in the future. Considering I'm doing a bachelor of psychological science, my career options are quite open. With further training, I could get into plenty of different fields (e.g teaching, looking at animal psych in zoos, forensics or move on to postgraduate psych degree). I'm worried that I may lose direction/purpose from not knowing what I want to do in the future. I kinda been like that since maybe 13 (maybe earlier).

    2. Growing up I used to be the weird kid who didn't have a group of friends who actually liked me until I was 13. I didn't look after myself because I had low self esteem. I was very shy too and my crippling social anxiety definitely made me appear more introverted than I actually was. Though I still had a lot of friends/acquaintances in high school.
    A couple years later, I'm a lot better now. Have a chill job that doesn't stress me out (like my last job). My uni degree is going well (though still unsure of what I'm going to do in the future). I've still got a wide circle of friends/acquaintances that I hang out with, usually for drinking, sleepovers, parties etc.


    3. Hobbies include shopping, drinking with friends, badminton ( when I can be bothered haha) but mostly staying in and watching Netflix or videogaming.

    4. I can "slide up and down the scale" of introversion and extroversion. I'm pretty bubbly and outgoing with my closer friends, I'm more reserved with new people but I warm up easily.

    5. I've tried swimming, badminton, taekwondo and gym in the past. Surfed once and loved it. Tennis isn't too bad either. But yeah I have struggled to stay committed to do these things as a routine. And just I've listed all these things doesn't mean I'm good at them im ok at swimming and badminton, the rest im really bad at Also, though I like these things, I'm kinda lazy and don't do these things.. like ever

    6. My ENFP mum I get along with pretty well. Though I do get annoyed when she asks questions like, "what's the meaning of life? why are we here?", like nobody ever knows the answer to this. I don't like pondering these things without having the facts, otherwise it just feels like a useless waste of time. I only like to ponder and think about issues that have practical application to it, otherwise yeah I see this time as useless. If someone were to reply, "to follow your passions in life", this kind of language just makes me really uncomfortable.

    7. I am in tune with other's feelings/ I can pick up the vibe from a room. But I do not feel comfortable talking about feelings. I hate crying in front of people. I definitely use humour to joke about my life/ insecurities.

    8. I like to consider issues from different perspectives before I form an opinion on it. There's this website called procon, where theres a bunch of controversial topics and it lists pros and cons for each topic. I like the idea of debating and it's something I'd like to try and get into.

    9.I have a very vivid imagination, can daydream alone on occasion (but not too often).

    10. Im not very observant. I can miss details/ things going on around me. I believe I look more at the big-picture .

    11. My ISTJ dad is very practical and stubborn. He's alright when you want to have a logical conversation, but he does lack intelligence and does not like going out of his comfort zone. The conversations we have are pretty much the same everyday, he buys the same food, does the same thing, so he can be a little boring at times. I struggle with routine and prefer to have some variety.

    12. In the past, I've been bad at conflict, but I'm working on being more direct and standing up for myself more often.

    13. Sometimes I like to think about 'improving" personality tests (like myer briggs) and if there was a more accurate
    way of measuring someone's cognitive functions and their order of functioning. or I could see myself helping zoo animals find sources of enrichment to help them utilise their physical, mental and problem solving capabilities. And another idea being improving the standards people in prison receive (I got this from watching Orange is the new Black ) --- but yeah this one kinda ties in with #1 as ideas for career aspirations.

    14. Im not a strong believer in faith and religion, I lean more towards science.

    15.When I'm stressed, ill try and make sure I'm super prepared (e.g for a presentation) or I feel crap about the past the mistakes ive made or how I didn't look after myself etc (#2) or I may feel pressured to conform to society's expectations (e.g getting married and having kids during your 20s) . Im only 20 but I really don't want kids. To be frank, I don't understand why people want kids... why can't people just live with their partners without having kids? All I see in a kid is a huge responsibility and getting sleepless nights and not going out anymore. And people say, "yeah but they're family though" , but you've still got your partner as your family. I also bottle emotions, overeat and self loathe when stressed, then the next couple days later, I feel chill.

    16. Im very messy and disorganised

    17. Friends would describe me as friendly, bubbly, fun, silly, bit dumb at times, usually chill, prone to anxious outbursts
    I only show friends that nice, bubbly side to me. I don't usually discuss my career aspirations or my desire for self development/ improvement (these are more internal).

    18. I consider myself more theoretical than practical. I can write a paper on social conformity or capitalism or Sigmund Freud and do pretty well... but if you were to tell me to build something and give me specific detailed instructions on how to do it, I probably couldn't do it

    19. I don't like following orders. Im quite stubborn I guess. I don't like following if I can find an easier way to do something, so ill probably question people about this.

    20. I am a ravenclaw/ slytherin (though I do idolise slytherin a little more) . I value the love of learning ravenclaw has. I also like the ambitious slytherin side too. I know slytherin get a bad rep for being manipulative, but I like to think of manipulation as a neutral term, it can be good and bad, depending on how its used..

    Anyway, that's enough. Would someone be able to give a detailed explanation of what cognitive functions are at play here? And what type I am .
    Ask any questions if you have any but please don't direct me to a personality quiz (im quite distrusting of these tests).

    What do you guys think?

    Cheers

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    -
    Socionics
    - None
    Posts
    426

    Default

    It is usually a XXXP behavior who doesn't plan and go with the flow. My ISTP sister often change her mind after saying something. She often open a discussion topic without prior preface, she often broadcasted a news that she just read/heard to me, assuming I am interested in listening to it without inquiring in advance whether I want to hear that. They will face a problem with XXXJ because of that tendency to change their mind rather easily after confirming something that they are going to do only to cancel it near the deadline. My mother says that what she craves is other listen to her opinion.
    Their word are hard to be held. They can easily make up their mind.
    An ESFP.
    Extroverted sensation-introverted feeler usually have some psychological aptitude in sports like what you are. Some of them may be a professional sportsman also.
    The introverted judging will be helpful with a reflex movement, a movement of the body without prior plan.
    A suitable career will be an artist, television journalist, a teacher/lecturer, if you have a degree in psychology and want to apply the knowledge into practice, consider a head hunter, a real estate broker also a good career.
    You are also interested in psychology that you decided to take a degree in that field. If you like to study psychology in psychological sense like Freud, Jung, it will be good to develop the Te-Ni.

    It is hard to type sensors based on their writing, since they frequently do not naturally express themselves in writing. Extroverted sensors though writing will be best if they tell others about their own stories.
    Last edited by typologyenthusiast; 09-22-2019 at 11:34 PM.

  3. #3
    Senior Member reckful's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    658

    Default

    Your OP says you want to be typed based on your cognitive functions, so I've waited a couple days to make a post in this thread.

    Just so you know, the forum-famous type model that says that INTJs are Ni-Te-Fi-Se, and INTPs are Ti-Ne-Si-Fe — and ZOMG, INTJs and INTPs have no functions in common! — is the Harold Grant function stack, and besides being inconsistent with both Jung and Myers, it's never been endorsed by the official MBTI folks. And for good reason, since unlike the respectable districts of the MBTI, the Grant function stack has no substantial body of evidence behind it — and should probably be considered all but disproven at this point.

    More generally, above and beyond the specific stack issues, the faux-Jungian "cognitive functions" themselves represent what James Reynierse — in a series of articles in the journal published by the official MBTI folks — has rightly called a "category mistake."

    Believe it or not, it's the dichotomies, and not the "cognitive functions," that are, and always have been, what's real about the MBTI — and if you're open to some deprogramming in that department, I'd recommend that you take a look at these three posts:

    The Real MBTI Model
    The bogosity of the "tandems"
    The dichotomy-centric history of the MBTI

    (The third post replaces the old INTJforum link at the end of the first post.)

    Just based on your OP, I've got a pretty strong IN lean, and a weaker INTP lean. In case you'd be interested — and only if you're interested — in a boatload of type-me-related input from me, you'll find it in a 10-post series that starts here. Those posts include a separate section on each of the four MBTI dimensions, roundups of online profiles for each of the 16 types, and a brief intro to Neuroticism — not to mention a provocative discussion of that perennial puzzler, "can I haz INTx?"

  4. #4
    alchemist Legion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,981

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reckful View Post
    the Grant function stack has no substantial body of evidence behind it — and should probably be considered all but disproven at this point.
    I'll say again what I've said already. I have quite clearly been able to see function sequences in my writing, and thought processes, so to me it's essentially proven (but with some complicating factors).

    For anyone not aware of the myriad times I've mentioned it, that means that my writing and thought processes tend to shift into different modes, in the order (usually) of Ni-Fe-Ti-Se-Ne-Fi-Te-Si.
    the lone star flies alone

  5. #5
    Senior Member reckful's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    658

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Legion View Post
    I'll say again what I've said already. I have quite clearly been able to see function sequences in my writing, and thought processes, so to me it's essentially proven (but with some complicating factors).

    For anyone not aware of the myriad times I've mentioned it, that means that my writing and thought processes tend to shift into different modes, in the order (usually) of Ni-Fe-Ti-Se-Ne-Fi-Te-Si.
    And for umpteen years, scores of believers in zodiac-based types have claimed to "quite clearly be able to see" (to use your words) the many aspects of personality that, e.g., Capricorns have in common.

    Are you comfortable in their company, Legion?

    And the reason I think believers in the "tertiary Si" of INFPs belong in the same company as believers in the zodiac is that in over 50 years of MBTI data-gathering, correlating the types with everything under the sun — internal and external both, and including countless aspects of personality as separately measured by lots of other established personality instruments — the correlational patterns associated with Harold Grant's "function axes" have never shown up in any non-random number of data pools.

    Believe it or not, nobody's ever found a single blessed Si-vs.-Se thing where the SJs and NPs favored Si and the SPs and NJs favored Se.

    And nobody's ever found a single blessed Ni-vs.-Ne thing where the NJs and SPs favored Ni and the NPs and SJs favored Ne.

    And nobody's ever found a single blessed Fi-vs.-Fe thing where the FPs and TJs favored Fi and the FJs and TPs favored Fe.

    And nobody's ever found a single blessed Ti-vs.-Te thing where the TPs and FJs favored Ti and the TJs and FPs favored Te.

    And at this point, I think we can be pretty confident that nobody ever will find any of those things, because those "tandem"-based groupings are natives of the same mythical realm as the unicorns and the munchkins — and the Capricorns.

  6. #6
    alchemist Legion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,981

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reckful View Post
    And for umpteen years, scores of believers in zodiac-based types have claimed to "quite clearly be able to see" (to use your words) the many aspects of personality that, e.g., Capricorns have in common.

    Are you comfortable in their company, Legion?

    And the reason I think believers in the "tertiary Si" of INFPs belong in the same company as believers in the zodiac is that in over 50 years of MBTI data-gathering, correlating the types with everything under the sun — internal and external both, and including countless aspects of personality as separately measured by lots of other established personality instruments — the correlational patterns associated with Harold Grant's "function axes" have never shown up in any non-random number of data pools.

    Believe it or not, nobody's ever found a single blessed Si-vs.-Se thing where the SJs and NPs favored Si and the SPs and NJs favored Se.

    And nobody's ever found a single blessed Ni-vs.-Ne thing where the NJs and SPs favored Ni and the NPs and SJs favored Ne.

    And nobody's ever found a single blessed Fi-vs.-Fe thing where the FPs and TJs favored Fi and the FJs and TPs favored Fe.

    And nobody's ever found a single blessed Ti-vs.-Te thing where the TPs and FJs favored Ti and the TJs and FPs favored Te.

    And at this point, I think we can be pretty confident that nobody ever will find any of those things, because those "tandem"-based groupings are natives of the same mythical realm as the unicorns and the munchkins — and the Capricorns.
    Those studies base things on test scores. Test scores are not that good and no where near all there is to type.

    You don't know everything about typology. You can call me delusional all you want, and refuse to believe it until there's "proof in the data!!!" but you're wrong, and when it is shown in the data that you were wrong, you'll know that you could have been right if you had just listened and not thought your own personal survey of the data was somehow a proof of what was (or in your opinion, was not) there.

    Seriously, your approach is highly limited, and you would do well to acknowledge that what you're saying is just one way of looking at things, and that others can look at things and see something totally different than what you're seeing. But so far you're just repeating the same limited perspective over and over, without acknowledging other approaches.

    --

    There is such a thing as perception, and yes the conclusions drawn from perception can be erroneous, but if you're going to point to error as a conclusive demonstration that perception cannot be trusted, then nothing you say about the data can be trusted either, because that's your take on it. But your demonstration was not at all conclusive, and if I'm being honest about the insight I believe I've drawn, I can in fact make conclusive statements about the nature - at least in part - of type.

    If you make an honest attempt to try and see the manifestation of functions, it's possible that you'll be able to see it too. But I'm not demanding that you do that, you're welcome to camp out in your little corner of the typology world. What I would like is for you to have more insight in recognising that the arguments you've come up with are not actually foolproof, and do not demonstrate what you're saying they do. Just... be more open-minded, be more... accepting of truths that you don't understand.

    Oh, and for the record, I suspect that astrology actually does have a fair degree of truth to it, though I haven't investigated the topic much. Other people forming opinions on a shaky basis doesn't mean that I've done so as well.

    You're undermining the very venture of truth-seeking by suggesting that it's not something that can be comprehended directly. I suppose mathematical proofs are meaningless too, because even though many mathematicians thought the logic was solid, other people believe in astrology, so the proof is irrelevant, and we just can't know. Unless there's a study showing it, though of course we'll forget that interpreting a study to determine what it is saying also requires being able to "see" what it is suggesting.

    --

    And in case I get called out for hypocrisy, here's a little scenario:

    Say two people are looking for something to see if it's real.

    Person A searches in area 1 and doesn't find it. Person B searches in area 2 and finds it.

    If one person didn't find it, and another found it, is it real?

    --

    A: "I searched and didn't find it, it's not real."
    B: "I searched and found it, so it is real."
    A: "But other people said they found something and it turned out that they didn't."
    B: "But other people still said they found something and really did. You can come to area 2 and see it if you want."
    A: "No, I've already looked in area 1 and it wasn't there, and area 2 is going to take too much effort to get to. I doubt it's even there."
    B: "Well, you can't know that unless you look where it is, but just wait, when others come, they'll tell you all about it..."
    the lone star flies alone

  7. #7
    Senior Member reckful's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    658

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Legion View Post
    If you make an honest attempt to try and see the manifestation of functions, it's possible that you'll be able to see it too. But I'm not demanding that you do that, you're welcome to camp out in your little corner of the typology world.
    Yikes. Talk about white is black and black is white.

    I'm not the one basing my assertions on a "little corner of the typology world." That would be you, Legion, telling us that you believe in the tertiary Ti of INFJs because you've "quite clearly been able to see [it] in my writing, and thought processes, so to me it's essentially proven."

    And on the other hand, I'm basing my assertions not on any perception of mine, but on the fact that not a single HaroldGrantian anywhere has ever come up with any respectable body of correlational data that shows that TJs and FPs both tend to exhibit one or more aspects of personality that tend not to show up in TPs and FJs (or vice versa), or that SJs and NPs both tend to exhibit one or more aspects of personality that tend not to show up in SPs and NJs (or vice versa).

    You suggest that "test scores" may be to blame for the lack of HaroldGrantian correlations, because they're "not that good" — but scores on the MBTI have been good enough to not only provide the basis for countless (often dramatic) correlations with all four dichotomies, but also provide the basis for significant correlations with virtually every two-dichotomy combination.

    SJs have things in common, and so do NPs. But they're different things. And in fact, if the SJs are the foursome with the strongest tendency of any particular kind (resistance to change, say), you can reliably expect that flipping both preferences will get you to the foursome with the opposite tendency (in this example, hunger for change).

    If we all sense and intuit, and if, when they're in sensing mode, SJs and NPs both favor introverted sensing —as distinguished from the Se-favoring types (SPs and NJs) — then where oh where are the data pools where which kind of sensing you favor is the primary influence on the correlations, and the SJs and NPs are on one side of the spectrum, and the SPs and NJs are on the other?

    They're nowhere, Legion. And they're always going to be nowhere.

    If there was any significant validity to the HaroldGrantian function axes, its followers would have a lot more solid supporting evidence to point to at this point than the testimony of forum posters who say you just have to trust me, man, I can see those patterns in my writing.

  8. #8
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    23

    Default

    Poor OP just wanted to know her type and got the full load of functions vs dichotomies instead On that topic, cognitive functions and especially the idea of a fixed function stack seems to have little to no evidence to support that model. The only way to still support the function model is to question the testing method, which does happen quite frequently here. The alternative is to "study the functions", which may result in installing a perception filter into your brain, which scans all thoughts and behavior for compatibility with a specific function.
    However, from a different perspective, the functions seem to work quite well for a lot of MBTI enthusiasts. WHile test results are typically still off, the overall pattern fits quite well into the dichotomous result, and for them the conclusion that functions=type is indeed correct. A part of the reason why I'm sceptical is that function tests don't seem to get any pattern that is similar to a Grant or Beebe stack, and things generally don't make much sense. However dichotomies don't do a great job either, as I'm close to the middle in 3 of the scales.

    Back to OP: My impression is quite different from both of reckful and typologyenthusiast. I mostly see balanced introversion/extroversion, a small preference for concrete results over abstraction, a slight preferene for thinking over feeling, you really don't talk about people, relationships or emotions at all, beside of the stuff you do with your friends. J/P is also at a good balance, you're spontaneous but you also have plans for the future and you don't really seem disorganized. My guess is ESTj, but I recommend to also look at ESTP, ISTJ and ISTP, and overall you seem to have a well balanced personality without strong tendencies towards either side. Functions wise, there may be some Te, Si influence and a strong tertiary Ne

  9. #9
    Happy 2020! Vendrah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    MBTI
    XNFP
    Enneagram
    9w1
    Posts
    297

    Default

    DISCLAIMER: This is going to be a long post about theorical Jung, but its a worthy one. It will get way less audience than it deserves sadly...

    Im going to be off topic here, but I promise Ill make a compensation for the OP by typing into another post. Please MODs, dont move my post or either move my post with all @Legion and @reckful posts altogether.
    I was reading Chapter X, I believe, from CG Jung book, from this online source:
    Classics in the History of Psychology -- Jung (1921/1923) Chapter 10

    I slept and this thread come in my mind and I couldnt help but hunt it. I was thinking about this discussion of @reckful and @Legion, but its not about the discussion itself, but how this discussion is done. I am going to talk about it, although it doesnt seem that I do talk about that from a beggining.
    From where I start?
    Jung I-E and J-P.
    As I covered in this post:
    ["Experiment"] What´s your MBTI and cognitive functions preferences?
    (post #50 in case the link doesnt go right to my post)
    Jung I-E, the I-E used in cognitive functions, doesnt correlate with MBTI I-E.
    Jung I-E is quite complicated and widely discussed in whole Jung's work, its really impossible to resume it without losing it traits. However, as a brief resume of my own, Jung switches between using the word extraverted with objective and introverted with subjective. The E in Jung is greater understood, considering its disconnection with MBTI E, as an objective attitude, while the I in Jung is greater understood as subjective attitude. Its better understood and resume as wikipedia meaning for objective and subjectivity:
    - Objectivity (philosophy), the property of being independent from perception.
    - Subjectivity, a subject's personal perspective, feelings, beliefs, desires or discovery, as opposed to those made from an independent, objective, point of view.

    Jung resuming himself from other chapters are on the spoiler, in case you reader (or could I say the reader? When I say you reader, Im being subjective with you reading me, while when I say the reader Im objective towards you) needs to get this more deeply.

    Jung Objective (extraverted) Type description towards the consciousness


    Jung Subjective (introverted) Type description towards the consciousness


    Jung subjectiveness and objectiveness is a dichotomy dimension on its own. Do you have objective data on your own to prove that? In scientific rigorous, no, but I dont have anything against it too. I only have the modest experiment topic on that, that indicates that, but it is not rigorous enough. So, this is me being a little subjective on my theory, and many could complain about this. But Jung subjectiveness (Jung I) and objectiveness (Jung E) doesnt correlate with any other MBTI dichotomy dimensions (actually, there is very likely one or two slightly undesirable interferences which Im not going to talk about in this post, anyone can ask me later about that). Its a dimension on its own

    Im phrasing here in a way that the reader can follow any or none cognitive function stack, it doesnt matter if you follow Ni-Fe-Ti-Se or Ni-Fi-Fe-Te or none of that, just INFJ. One could say, although "But a Ni-dom is always subjective, because Ni is a subjective function". Thats correct only if the subject personality is a pure type.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jung
    In the foregoing descriptions I have no desire to give my readers the impression that such pure types occur at all frequently in actual practice.[Right at the start of 11. The Principal and Auxiliary Functions]
    Jung pure types arent realistic - Jung states that. Thats why being a Ni-dom doesnt auto-imply at being subjective. As I phrased here, I wish that you understand this concept can be seem as a dichotomy on its own (and Im oscilating between refering to you as 'you' or 'the reader' hoping that you catch the subjectivity and objectivity pattern in my communication). You dont need to work towards cognitive functions, although the reader could use one of my own formulas to understand it (Jung I/E which is S/O, subjective/objective, would be measured by the sum of the subjective/introverted cognitive functions minus the sum of objective/extroverted cognitive functions).

    Having this cleared up, lets go to the second part: Jung J/P. Although I didnt have any measure of it, Jung J/P seems to be different than MBTI J/P. I asked about that yesterday:
    Jung J/P (rational/irrational) versus MBTI J/P: Do they even correlate?
    Jung J/P is conceived as rational/irrational. There are rational types, and these are Jung judgers, and there are irrational types, and these are Jung perceveirs. Jung does not address rational/irrational directly on that chapter. It is important to first note that Jung rational/irrational is different than wikipedia and common rational/irrational. Jung irrational is not about being emotive, while Jung rational is not about being rational opposed to emoctions. Jung rational/irrational doesnt correlate at all with emotions. Common sense irrationality is described as being bad, Jung irrationality is just a matter of preference. In a short resume, for Jung, a rational type is a person which guides him/herself with a judging cognitive function (Fe, Fi, Te, Ti), if a pure type. If not a pure type, a long discussion can start, but mainly should, at least in my opinion, follow the formula (Fe+Fi+Te+Ti>Ne+Ni+Se+Si). However, we can state that on a dichotomy sense, which is the point of view which I prefer the reader to follow, that a rational person does decisions towards the T/F MBTI dimension, while the irrational person does decisions towards MBTI N/S dimension. I dindt oscilate between rational/irrational towards this subject because it would be confusing, but here are text examples:
    - In my own perception, Fi is kind of a confusing and mythical cognitive function. Sometimes it seems to judge people, while sometimes it seems to clearly forgive them with compassion. It sounds to me so confusing in this point, what is Fi exactly? [this is irrational form of text, oscilating between subjective in the first line, objective in the second and subjective on the third line]
    - To Jung perspective frame, Fi is a judging function, while for Myers perspection frame, Fi is a perceveing function. In this point, this feels confusing and may confuse to anyone reading the concepts. Considering these theorical frames, what is FI exactly [this is the rational form of text, being objective in the first line, subjective in the second line, and coming back to objective on the third line]

    Just in case you reader (mixed subjective and objectivity here on purpose) havent noticed, Fi is a perceveing judging function. Its perceveing on Myers and judging (rational) on Jung.
    So, just remembering, try to understand, at least for now, as rational/irrational and objective/subjective as independent dichotomys on their own and not a manifestation of cognitive functions. If you use that view, the text of Jung becomes quite different. Jung use this dichotomy to create a 4 type categorization: The extraverted (objective) rationals, the extraverted (subjective) irrationals, introverted (subjective) rationals, introverted (subjective) irrationals. Jung describes all these 4 categories as a recapitulation: He first describes two pure types first, and then recapitulates the two together by connecting them using one of these 4 categories. Im going to pick my own yin and yang here (in no bad/good meaning of yin and yang). My yin is an extraverted(objective) rational, while my yang is an introverted(subjective) irrational. Im going to put the description of these two categories without spoilers, and the other two ones inside the spoilers.

    5. Recapitulation of Extraverted Rational Types

    I term the two preceding types rational or judging types because they are characterized by the supremacy of the reasoning and the judging functions. It is a general distinguishing mark of both types that their life is, to a [p. 453] large extent, subordinated to reasoning judgment. But we must not overlook the point, whether by 'reasoning' we are referring to the standpoint of the individual's subjective psychology, or to the standpoint of the observer, who perceives and judges from without. For such an observer could easily arrive at an opposite judgment, especially if he has a merely intuitive apprehension of the behaviour of the observed, and judges accordingly. In its totality, the life of this type is never dependent upon reasoning judgment alone; it is influenced in almost equal degree by unconscious irrationality. If observation is restricted to behaviour, without any concern for the domestic interior of the individual's consciousness, one may get an even stronger impression of the irrational and accidental character of certain unconscious manifestations in the individual's behaviour than of the reasonableness of his conscious purposes and motivations. I, therefore, base my judgment upon what the individual feels to be his conscious psychology. But I am prepared to grant that we may equally well entertain a precisely opposite conception of such a psychology, and present it accordingly. I am also convinced that, had I myself chanced to possess a different individual psychology, I should have described the rational types in the reversed way, from the standpoint of the unconscious-as irrational, therefore. This circumstance aggravates the difficulty of a lucid presentation of psychological matters to a degree not to be underestimated, and immeasurably increases the possibility of misunderstandings. The discussions which develop from these misunderstandings are, as a rule, quite hopeless, since the real issue is never joined, each side speaking, as it were, in a different tongue. Such experience is merely one reason the more for basing my presentation upon the subjective conscious psychology of the individual, since there, at least, one has a definite objective footing, which completely [p. 454] drops away the moment we try to ground psychological principles upon the unconscious. For the observed, in this case, could undertake no kind of co-operation, because there is nothing of which he is not more informed than his own unconscious. The judgment would entirely devolve upon the observer -- a certain guarantee that its basis would be his own individual psychology, which would infallibly be imposed upon the observed. To my mind, this is the case in the psychologies both of Freud and of Adler. The individual is completely at the mercy of the arbitrary discretion of his observing critic -- which can never be the case when the conscious psychology of the observed is accepted as the basis. After all, he is the only competent judge, since he alone knows his own motives.

    The reasonableness that characterizes the conscious management of life in both these types, involves a conscious exclusion of the accidental and non-rational. Reasoning judgment, in such a psychology, represents a power that coerces the untidy and accidental things of life into definite forms; such at least is its aim. Thus, on the one hand, a definite choice is made among the possibilities of life, since only the rational choice is consciously accepted; but, on the other hand, the independence and influence of those psychic functions which perceive life's happenings are essentially restricted. This limitation of sensation and intuition is, of course, not absolute. These functions exist, for they are universal; but their products are subject to the choice of the reasoning judgment. It is not the absolute strength of sensation, for instance, which turns the scales in the motivation of action, but judgment, Thus, in a certain sense, the perceiving-functions share the same fate as feeling in the case of the first type, or thinking in that of the second. They are relatively repressed, and therefore in an inferior state of differentiation. This circumstance gives a particular stamp to the unconscious [p. 455] of both our types; what such men do consciously and intentionally accords with reason (their reason of course), but what happens to them corresponds either with infantile, primitive sensations, or with similarly archaic intuitions. I will try to make clear what I mean by these latter concepts in the sections that follow. At all events, that which happens to this type is irrational (from their own standpoint of course). Now, since there are vast numbers of men whose lives consist in what happens to them more than in actions resulting from reasoned intention, it might conceivably happen, that such a man, after careful analysis, would describe both our types as irrational. We must grant him, however, that only too often a man's unconscious makes a far stronger impression upon one than his conscious, and that his actions often have considerably more weight and meaning than his reasoned motivations.

    The rationality of both types is orientated objectively, and depends upon objective data. Their reasonableness corresponds with what passes as reasonable from the collective standpoint. Subjectively they consider nothing rational save what is generally considered as such. But reason is also very largely subjective and individual. In our case this share is repressed -- increasingly so, in fact, the more the significance of the object is exalted, Both the subject and subjective reason, therefore, are always threatened with repression and, when it descends, they fall under the tyranny of the unconscious, which in this case possesses most unpleasant qualities. We have already spoken of its thinking. But, in addition, there are primitive sensations, which reveal themselves in compulsive forms, as, for instance, an abnormal compulsive pleasure seeking in every conceivable direction ; there are also primitive intuitions, which can become a positive torture to the individuals concerned, not to mention their entourage. Everything disagreeable and painful, everything disgusting, [p. 456] ugly, and evil is scented out or suspected, and these as a rule only correspond with half-truths, than which nothing is more calculated to create misunderstandings of the most poisonous kind. The powerful influence of the opposing unconscious contents necessarily brings about a frequent interruption of the rational conscious government, namely, a striking subservience to the element of chance, so that, either by virtue of their sensational value or unconscious significance, accidental happenings acquire a compelling influence.

    10. Recapitulation of Introverted Irrational Types

    The two types just depicted are almost inaccessible to external judgment. Because they are introverted and have in consequence a somewhat meagre capacity or willingness for expression, they offer but a frail handle for a telling criticism. Since their main activity is directed within, nothing is outwardly visible but reserve, secretiveness, lack of sympathy, or uncertainty, and an apparently groundless perplexity. When anything does come to the surface, it usually consists in indirect manifestations of inferior and relatively unconscious functions. Manifestations of such a nature naturally excite a certain environmental prejudice against these types. Accordingly they are mostly underestimated, or at least misunderstood. To the same degree as they fail to understand themselves -- because they very largely lack judgment -- they are also powerless to understand why they are so constantly undervalued by public opinion. They cannot see that their outward-going expression is, as a matter of fact, also of an inferior character. Their vision is enchanted by the abundance of subjective events. What happens there is so captivating, and of such inexhaustible attraction, that they do not appreciate the fact that their habitual communications to their circle express very, little of that real experience in which they themselves are, as it were, caught up. The fragmentary and, as a rule, quite episodic character of their communications make too great a demand upon the understanding and good will of their circle; furthermore, their mode of expression lacks that flowing warmth to the object which alone can have convincing force. On the contrary, these types show very often a brusque, repelling demeanour towards the outer world, although of this they are quite unaware, and have not the least intention of showing it. We shall form a [p. 512] fairer judgment of such men and grant them a greater indulgence, when we begin to realize how hard it is to translate into intelligible language what is perceived within. Yet this indulgence must not be so liberal as to exempt them altogether from the necessity of such expression. This could be only detrimental for such types. Fate itself prepares for them, perhaps even more than for other men, overwhelming external difficulties, which have a very sobering effect upon the intoxication of the inner vision. But frequently only an intense personal need can wring from them a human expression.

    From an extraverted and rationalistic standpoint, such types are indeed the most fruitless of men. But, viewed from a higher standpoint, such men are living evidence of the fact that this rich and varied world with its overflowing and intoxicating life is not purely external, but also exists within. These types are admittedly one sided demonstrations of Nature, but they are an educational experience for the man who refuses to be blinded by the intellectual mode of the day. In their own way, men with such an attitude are educators and promoters of culture. Their life teaches more than their words. From their lives, and not the least from what is just their greatest fault, viz. their incommunicability, we may understand one of the greatest errors of our civilization, that is, the superstitious belief in statement and presentation, the immoderate overprizing of instruction by means of word and method. A child certainly allows himself to be impressed by the grand talk of its parents. But is it really imagined that the child is thereby educated? Actually it is the parents' lives that educate the child -- what they add thereto by word and gesture at best serves only to confuse him. The same holds good for the teacher. But we have such a belief in method that, if only the method be good, the practice of it seems to hallow the teacher. An inferior [p. 513] man is never. a good teacher. But he can conceal his injurious inferiority, which secretly poisons the pupil, behind an excellent method or, an equally brilliant intellectual capacity. Naturally the pupil of riper years desires nothing better than the knowledge of useful methods, because he is already defeated by the general attitude, which believes in the victorious method. He has already learnt that the emptiest head, correctly echoing a method, is the best pupil. His whole environment not only urges but exemplifies the doctrine that all success and happiness are external, and that only the right method is needed to attain the haven of one's desires. Or is the life of his religious instructor likely to demonstrate that happiness which radiates from the treasure of the inner vision? The irrational introverted types are certainly no instructors of a more complete humanity. They lack reason and the ethics of reason, but their lives teach the other possibility, in which our civilization is so deplorably wanting.





    What happens in my first looking at my own registred stats is that, although there is generally a clear preference on Jung subjectiveness and objectiveness, people are usually ambivalent on the rational/irrational. And there are even Jung reasons for that, but Im already being way too long so I wont explain that. So, usually we dont see extremes, so its kind of difficult seeing these dimensions and all this theorical thing at real life at a first glance. Except here, in this special topic, where you can see these dimensions clashing each other beautifully. Reckful is my yin at his way of communication: He is the objective rational. Legion is my yang: Subjective irrational at communication. (communication is E in MBTI, although some MBTI texts doesnt recognize writing texts and discussing on text as a E activity).
    Im tired since it has been more than an hour im writing this. Because of that Im not going to fully point out everything on their discussion, I could do a complete analysis, but Ill fruitpick parts and try to show the big picture here.

    It would be even more beautiful if Reckful and Legion were from the exactly same type, they share 3 dimensions (as today Reckful type is INTJ as written down on his own avatar and Legion type is INFJ), I wish it was four. Reckful rationality in communication come mainly from T dimension (prefering an objective approach instead of a subjective approach on Thinking. Its Thinking only, not T/F dimension). Legion irrationality(dont understand irrationality as a bad or offense, but with the same neutrality of Jung definitions) come mainly from N dimension (prefering a subjective approach instead of an objective approach on iNtuition). That is because, rationality has to come from MBTI T/F dimension while irrationality has to come from MBTI N/S dimension. If Reckful "was a F", his (both are males, I hope) ratinality would come from F while if Legion "was a T", irrationaly would still be coming from intuition.

    How do I know that Reckful is my yin and Legion is my Yang? Well, at this point you reader should already noticed. Try re-reading their discussion after you read me from this point, and all of the pattern should be visible (correction: Reckful is mostly objective rational while Legion is mostly subjective irrational. There is one passage that Legion is objective rational. Things arent that black and white and thats why its complicated and this discussion here is one of the most black and white on these two dimensions thats why my fascination here). But if is still unclear, its time for fruitpicking:

    Reckful: "And for good reason, since unlike the respectable districts of the MBTI, the Grant function stack has no substantial body of evidence behind it — and should probably be considered all but disproven at this point."
    Legion (right after): "I have quite clearly been able to see function sequences in my writing, and thought processes, so to me it's essentially proven (but with some complicating factors)."
    CG Jung: "The former is orientated by the objective data; the latter reserves a view, which is, as it were, interposed between himself and the objective fact."
    Jung quote come when he is describing the extraverted type, and this is how Reckful objectiveness and Legion subjectiveness clash and conflict between each other.

    Reckful: "And for umpteen years, scores of believers in zodiac-based types have claimed to "quite clearly be able to see" (to use your words) the many aspects of personality that, e.g., Capricorns have in common."
    CG Jung: "From an extraverted and rationalistic standpoint, such types are indeed the most fruitless of men."
    In somewhere I remember but couldnt find, CG Jung talks about the objectiveness rejection to other subjectiveness point of view.

    Reckful: "And the reason I think believers in the "tertiary Si" of INFPs belong in the same company as believers in the zodiac is that in over 50 years of MBTI data-gathering, correlating the types with everything under the sun"
    CG Jung: "I term the two preceding types [pure Fe and Te doms] rational or judging types because they are characterized by the supremacy of the reasoning and the judging functions. It is a general distinguishing mark of both types that their life is, to a [p. 453] large extent, subordinated to reasoning judgment."

    Reckful: "the correlational patterns associated with Harold Grant's "function axes" have never shown up in any non-random number of data pools."
    CG Jung: "The rationality of both types [pure Fe and Te doms] is orientated objectively, and depends upon objective data. Their reasonableness corresponds with what passes as reasonable from the collective standpoint. Subjectively they consider nothing rational save what is generally considered as such."

    Legion: "But so far you're just repeating the same limited perspective over and over, without acknowledging other approaches.
    "
    Me: Both of you are!

    Legion: "There is such a thing as perception, and yes the conclusions drawn from perception can be erroneous, but if you're going to point to error as a conclusive demonstration that perception cannot be trusted, then nothing you say about the data can be trusted either, because that's your take on it."
    Me: In the then nothing you say... Jung states something as that but I lost that quote on the sea of text.

    Legion: "If you make an honest attempt to try and see the manifestation of functions, it's possible that you'll be able to see it too. (...) You're undermining the very venture of truth-seeking"
    CG Jung: "Introverted consciousness doubtless views the external conditions, but it selects the subjective determinants as the decisive ones. The type is guided, therefore, by that factor of perception and cognition which represents the receiving subjective disposition to the sense stimulus. (...) The world exists not merely in itself, but also as it appears to me. (...) Their vision is enchanted by the abundance of subjective events. What happens there is so captivating..."
    Me: Subjective venture of truth-seeking is based on personal experiences, whereas objective venture of truth-seeking is based on data (or correlational data on this case). The attempt to try and see so you will be able to see it too, is guided through perception, meaning that its irrational (Jung concept of irrational, which has nothing to do with being sentimental!)

    Legion: "Say two people are looking for something to see if it's real.

    Person A searches in area 1 and doesn't find it. Person B searches in area 2 and finds it.

    If one person didn't find it, and another found it, is it real?"
    Me: I could find a hundred Jung quotes to this one. This is the entire manifestation of subjectiveness, and Im not saying that is good or bad.

    Reckful: "And on the other hand, I'm basing my assertions not on any perception of mine, but on the fact that not a single HaroldGrantian anywhere has ever come up with any respectable body of correlational data that shows that TJs and FPs both tend to exhibit one or more aspects of personality that tend not to show up in TPs and FJs (or vice versa), or that SJs and NPs both tend to exhibit one or more aspects of personality that tend not to show up in SPs and NJs (or vice versa)."
    CG Jung: " Never, therefore, does he expect to find any absolute factors in his own inner life, since the only ones he knows are outside himself. (...) His entire consciousness looks outwards to the world, because the important and decisive determination always comes to him from without. "
    Me: Perception-of-mine (irrational-of-subjective) versus facts-of-theworld (rational-of-objective) is the whole thing beautifully going on here.

    Reckful: "They're nowhere, Legion. And they're always going to be nowhere."
    Me: They are nowhere on the facts-of-theworld, but they do exist in the subjective perception (of Legion, and he is inviting you to explore that; Im not stating that you should take, you know). I just quoted that to make a complement on my last comment.

    And finally:
    Reckful: "its followers would have a lot more solid supporting evidence to point to at this point than the testimony of forum posters who say you just have to trust me, man, I can see those patterns in my writing."
    Me: Solid supporting (solid=rational, supporting=objective) versus 'those patterns in my writing' (subjective).

    Mr 3788 (@noname3788) is way more neutral. For example:
    3788: "The only way to still support the function model is to question the testing method, which does happen quite frequently here. [objective-rational phrase] The alternative is to "study the functions", which may result in installing a perception filter into your brain, which scans all thoughts and behavior for compatibility with a specific function. [subjective-irrational phrase"

    Finally, after a little bit more than two hours, I have my final saying.
    This knowledge really can help us understand each other - as MBTI somehow do it. I love that, how much you can understand someone using these concepts, understanding why legion or reckful act like that, state like that. I like this mutual understanding and I hope you reader catch that. Its good when we understand others.. Im tired and I cant really do the right words on this final passage, but this understanding is as beautiful as it is, I just dont have words. And I really like this knowledge, and I hope you reader is being able to fly beyond all this chaos with me, like a spyplane flighting stealthly above in the middle of a war, to peacefully fly over understanding almost everything (ok, i still got some doubts, and there are the interferences which I didnt talk about).

    PS: I am a lot like reckful on my communication (from my last two cognitive function tests I am neither objective nor subjective, but I have been consistently being prefer rational over irrational), however I am a lot open on my views too. I already re-arranged things not only in my own but in a loose way to support someone to subjectively have a Grant Stack at the same time that people, usually, objectively dont.

  10. #10
    Senior Member draon9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    MBTI
    Enfj
    Enneagram
    7w8 so
    Socionics
    EIE Ni
    Posts
    1,048

    Default

    Youre an istp ti subtype
    Do as you please we are as gods

Similar Threads

  1. Please help type me. I can't figure it out at all
    By Kitcatkitcat in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 12-02-2016, 01:43 AM
  2. Please help type me!!!
    By strychnine in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 64
    Last Post: 04-17-2016, 06:03 PM
  3. Can someone please help determine my Type?
    By PancakeMix in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 04-11-2014, 11:26 PM
  4. Can you please help type me?
    By SparklingShadow in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-20-2012, 09:48 AM
  5. First post- please help type me!
    By Annuit Coeptis in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 04-21-2008, 03:58 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
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO