What type is the most independent and why?

[Speed Gavroche]

2 questions:

1 How Fi is independent? Does'nt Fi implies to be dependent of what the Fi user values?

2 How would you define the word "independent"?

I'd say the most independent types are INTJ>ISTP>ESTP>INTP>ENTP>ENTJ>INFP>ISFP>ESFP>INFJ>ENFJ>ENFP>ISTJ>ESTJ>ESFJ>ISFJ more or less in that order.

 

[KDude]

Fi is dependent on values but that's kind of stretching the meaning of dependency in this context. I was under the impression that dependency here meant in reference to making decisions that are necessarily mindful of other people. Which would not be Fi. Fi is the most likely function to tell people to go fuck themselves, if necessary. Just to put it in lamen's terms at least (Fi is not always telling people that or anything ). It's introverted judging, and can thrive without reference to friends, social norms, what you or your mom think is right, or caring to even justify itself with a logical explanation either. That isn't to say I think it's the most independent, once you line all functions up... but you will find a streak of independence in every SFP or NFP.

 

[highlander]

And we haven't even heard from the ISTPs yet. They're probably off doing their own thing,

I would think so

 

[Craft]

"Though a single word cannot possibly describe any type, the word independence gives a thematic thrust to the overall drive of the INTJ.

Ni

Clearly this is the force that motivates them. If they could, they would wish independence upon everyone.

Ni + Te.

This drive for independence can conflict with the INTJ's need to control his or her immediate surroundings.

Ni + Te.

So, colleagues and subordinates must recognize that wile independence is the ultimate goal, it is to be meted out as the INTJ deems appropriate."

Ni + Te.

Would you agree that Extraverted Judgment functions are the most "dependent" functions? Would you agree that specifically Extraverted Feeling IS the most "dependent" function? On average, Will an ExFJ work better than an ExTJ alone? Will ExxJ's work better alone than ExxP's?

If you agree that Je is the most dependent on "people stimuli", then certainly Ji is the least dependent on "people stimuli".

If Je and Ji are extremes then in the middle lies Ni and Ne.

Therefore:

Independence(+):

Ti +10
Fi +7.5
Ni + 5
Si + 2.5

Independence(-):

Ne - 2.5
Se - 5
Te - 7.5
Fe - 10

From this you have to consider the Dom(+-5) and Aux(+-2.5) functions of each type so it's this:

INTP(10), ISTP(7.5)=INFP(7.5), ISFP(5)=ENTP(5), ESTP(2.5) = ENFP(2.5), ESFP(0) = INTJ(0), ISTJ(-2.5) = INFJ(-2.5), ISFJ(-5) = ENTJ(-5), ESTJ(-7.5) = ENFJ (-7.5), ESFJ(-10)

...at least based on my understanding. Realistically, I think nurture would overwhelm nature.

 

[INTPness]

2 questions:

1 How Fi is independent? Does'nt Fi implies to be dependent of what the Fi user values?

2 How would you define the word "independent"?

I'd say the most independent types are INTJ>ISTP>ESTP>INTP>ENTP>ENTJ>INFP>ISFP>ESFP>INFJ>ENFJ>ENFP>ISTJ>ESTJ>ESFJ>ISFJ more or less in that order.

I'm FAR more "independent" than any ESxP's I've ever known. They want interaction - they actually try to draw me out of my shell and make me less independent than I am. They don't understand my level of independence at all. A lot of INTP's (and probably other INxx's) could stay inside their residence for weeks on end, without every leaving and be perfectly happy doing so. ESTP's have a much different kind of independence than this. But, as far as just "leave me alone, I've got this on my own, don't need your help or your input", I'd say INTP's are far more independent than any extroverted type.

 

[INTPness]

S is not being with the "masses"... haha..

Sure it is. S's are 75-80% of the population. To the N's of the world (the minority by a margin of 3 to 1, or 4 to 1), S's are absolutely the "masses". Don't take it as a put down, it's just a fact. There's a lot more of you than there are of me.

It's simply preferring to experience the sensory world (and as far as i'm concerned, there are not other optional worlds at the moment).

Sounds like you are minimalizing the skills of N's. We live in the same world as you do (and we aren't trying to convince anyone of alien life on another planet), but we view things differently than you guys, that's all. We know that the sensory world is important (we don't deny that), but it's not the only thing. We don't have to see, touch, taste, feel, or hear something in order to know that it's there. We read between the lines, we understand very quickly the mood, the aura, the atmosphere, and what is happening around us based on those types of things. We can walk into a room of people we've never seen before and know right away that something really strange is going on, or that people are uncomfortable, or that there is danger in the air. This example has been used time and time again, but I'll use it again. Sensors only know that a cop is a mile ahead of them clocking people on his radar gun if they see the cop, or if they hear the radar detector on their dashboard beep. Intuitives just know that "something seems fishy" and we slow down. Then when we pass the cop, we know why we had that feeling. I don't expect you to fully understand it, being that you put so much stock in the sensory world, but ask just about any intuitive and they'll probably agree, more or less.

Another way of looking at it is this: sensors do things all the time and I can watch them or listen to what they say and immediately know what their intentions are. They say something and I know their motive. I don't just listen to what they physically said, but I also read "underneath" what they said. Why would they say something like that? Ohhhh, they're trying to hide what happened last week and so they're covering it up. Blah, blah, blah. We don't just see the simple words. That's only the first layer. There's so much more to it when someone talks or acts. We are able to make those connections - connecting the dots and seeing the patterns of "why" things are happening the way they are in the world or in people.

So, same world, but different skills. Believe it.

 

[StephMC]

^ :rolli: It sounds like you're minimalizing the skills of S's and glorifying the skills of Ns. S's have their own form of "intuition" (not necessarily in the Jungian sense). ISxPs, for example, have characteristic "hunches" they follow. Fi users (not N users in general), are characterized as "often getting a 'gut feeling' of how good or bad something is and easily detect how someone's behavior is phony."

I often feel people mistake what's "N" for other functions. This is just one example. The bottom line is that there are sucky iNtuitors out there and sucky Sensors (Meaning they suck at using their dominant functions). And vice versa. Not all Ns fit the glorified description above. It's all a matter of how an individual uses their own particular functions. That's why just grouping "Ss as the masses" sometimes sounds derogatory.

 

[StephMC]

Oh, and didn't mean to throw off the thread. Anyways, INTs, ISPs and ENTPs seem like the more independent types, in my opinion.

 

[Robopop]

2 questions:

1 How Fi is independent? Does'nt Fi implies to be dependent of what the Fi user values?

2 How would you define the word "independent"?

I'd say the most independent types are INTJ>ISTP>ESTP>INTP>ENTP>ENTJ>INFP>ISFP>ESFP>INFJ>ENFJ>ENFP>ISTJ>ESTJ>ESFJ>ISFJ more or less in that order.

Could you please explain how a ESTP is more "independent" than a INTP?
Wouldn't introverts BY DEFINITION by more independent than extroverts, extroverts have all these other desirable attributes like charisma and now they have independence too? I highly doubt extroverts really want the bad side of indepedence that extreme introverts have to deal with.

I know everybody has their different ideas on what it means to be independent, but shouldn't a person less reliant on other people be more independent, this would favor introverts over extroverts. N and T would also favor independence though so some people might consider an ENTP for example to be more independent than an ISFJ. So could S, F, and maybe even J cancel out introversion?

 

[Craft]

^ :rolli: It sounds like you're minimalizing the skills of S's and glorifying the skills of Ns. S's have their own form of "intuition" (not necessarily in the Jungian sense). ISxPs, for example, have characteristic "hunches" they follow. Fi users (not N users in general), are characterized as "often getting a 'gut feeling' of how good or bad something is and easily detect how someone's behavior is phony."

I often feel people mistake what's "N" for other functions. This is just one example. The bottom line is that there are sucky iNtuitors out there and sucky Sensors (Meaning they suck at using their dominant functions). And vice versa. Not all Ns fit the glorified description above. It's all a matter of how an individual uses their own particular functions. That's why just grouping "Ss as the masses" sometimes sounds derogatory.

it's just stimulation. "N's" have S functions and "S's" have N functions. It doesn't mean that N's are truly "OMG! PSYCHIC!!", it means they like thinking about a certain type of information. (I know an ISTP with a really good Ni(predicting) function. What I have not met is a dumb N.) Though preference does create certain advantages and disadvantages.

"Hunches" are not an "N" thing. Ne or Ni is is more elaborate than that as it DOES have information and that information is not just from thin air.

Everyone has hunches. Usually, they're just logical fallacies.

 

[StephMC]

it's just stimulation. "N's" have S functions and "S's" have N functions. It doesn't mean that N's are truly "OMG! PSYCHIC!!", it means they like thinking about a certain type of information. (I know an ISTP with a really good Ni(predicting) function. What I have not met is a dumb N.)

Never implied dumb, just that I have met Ns that suck at using their own intuition. A particular friend almost always gets things wrong and puts herself through a lot of torment because of it. In addition I've heard her saying she was going to marry each and every one of her 30 or so boyfriends. These people are few and far between, but they do exist.

"Hunches" are not an "N" thing. Ne or Ni is is more elaborate than that as it DOES have information and that information is not just from thin air.

Everyone has hunches. Usually, they're just logical fallacies.

I made a point to say Ss have their own type of intuition, not necessarily in the Jungian sense.

 

[Robopop]

it's just stimulation. "N's" have S functions and "S's" have N functions. It doesn't mean that N's are truly "OMG! PSYCHIC!!", it means they like thinking about a certain type of information. (I know an ISTP with a really good Ni(predicting) function. What I have not met is a dumb N.) Though preference does create certain advantages and disadvantages.

"Hunches" are not an "N" thing. Ne or Ni is is more elaborate than that as it DOES have information and not just from thin air.

Everyone has hunches. Usually, they're just logical fallacies.

Yeah I know it is not that simple especially when you just look at one dimension like introversion. People have all these facets that are dynamic and it is better to look at the whole system in this aspect. In typology these cognitive functions work in concert with each other so you probably wouldn't get a accurate view of a type just by focusing on one function.

 

[StephMC]

Yeah I know it is not that simple especially when you just look at one dimension like introversion. People have all these facets that are dynamic and it is better to look at the whole system in this aspect. In typology these cognitive functions work in concert with each other so you probably wouldn't get a accurate view of a type just by focusing on one function.

Yes! That's exactly my point. It's all about the combination, not just the one function. That would make someone 2-dimensional, anyways.

 

[Robopop]

I made a point to say Ss have their own type of intuition, not necessarily in the Jungian sense.

I think an Se user would have good instincts in the present situation, isn't this a type of intuition?

 

[Craft]

I think an Se user would have good instincts in the present situation

That instinct(innate behavioral pattern) IS Se.

isn't this a type of intuition?

In english yeah but not in Jungian. Jungian Intuition =/= English Intuition.

 

[StephMC]

I think an Se user would have good instincts in the present situation, isn't this a type of intuition?

Yeah, definitely. I would almost venture to say each function has their own appearance of intuition (Again.. not in the Jungian sense). Fe-users, for instance, always seem to know how to make someone comfortable and Te-users somehow always make things magically come together. Although there's no real point to talk about intuition outside of the Jungian sense on a typology forum other than when people confuse Jungian intuition as any and all forms of the real definition of intuition. So that's all I'll say about the matter so I don't keep throwing off the thread

 

[Glycerine]

My Si is somewhat weak and sputtering, but I do lean on it frequently. I generally use it in support to the other three functions, especially Te (searching for evidence) and Fi (pleasant memories -- frequently some random word or a sound will evoke a song I like, which I presume is Fi + Ne + Si at work).

You should totally meet my XSTJ brother. He values family traditions but for the most part, he's pretty nonconformist and an independent thinker... you would be quite surprised.

 

[Andy]

I see you guys want all the nice parts of independence and not, say, the asexuality and the closed-mindedness.

Now that made me laugh.

 

[KDude]

Sure it is. S's are 75-80% of the population.:

You raise the bar of independence to literal out of this world levels, to the point that you would call anyone who interacts on a sensory level the "masses".

They are not the "masses". The world that exists, that we all live in, the one I'm posting this message from, determines why they are that way: The entire universe as far we know it is sensory. It's not that they are masses - they just live in the real world. There's a lot of variation between them though that it'd be inaccurate to call them the masses.

I would grant that you would be more independent..like Dr. Manhattan or some shit..but you need to realize that you're so detached that even other independently minded people, like ISPs, can't even relate to that.

 

[Craft]

Now that made me laugh.

Lovely, it was an excellent post w/ an excellent point.

You raise the bar of independence to literal out of this world levels, to the point that you would call anyone who interacts on a sensory level the "masses".

I think there are 60% Se/Si's (Aux/Dom)'s and 40% Ni/Ne (Aux/Dom)'s. The "masses" are therefore a mix of both.

They are not the "masses". The world that exists, that we all live in, the one I'm posting this message from, determines why they are that way: The entire universe as far we know it is sensory. It's not that they are masses - they just live in the real world. There's a lot of variation between them though that it'd be inaccurate to call them the masses.

Ideas exist in this real world. Everyone *does* ideas and everyone *does* details.

I would grant that you would be more independent..like Dr. Manhattan or some shit..but you need to realize that you're so detached that even other independently minded people, like ISPs, can't even relate to that.

I hate Dr. Manhattan.