• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Temperament by Inclusion, Control and Affection

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Yes, my previous username was DisneyGeek. I think I have said ISTJ for a majority of the time, but at some point I was floating around other ideas, most notably ISFP.

Essentially I identify with all of the IS__ types more than other tyes.

Yeah, I could definitely see myself as a blended type, though I was mostly speaking in terms of pure types. Looking back at the descriptions, I am changing my mind a bit from earlier (I didn't re-examine the descriptions). In control, I am definitely phlegmatic or a phlegmatic blend (not sure which because the blends are all so similar), not pure melancholy.

I still stand by supine (or supine-phlegmatic as you've stated) in inclusion aside from the one sentence on being relationship-oriented. I wonder if maybe the thing that is conflating things is that I am likely a melancholy in affection. I know the affection bits don't seem to be involved in the other bits, but perhaps this is why thing don't seem to fit precisely.

Sorry, I was confusing structure/motive with movement/control somehow...

What I am essentially trying to get at here is that I am a very task-focused person. If I am understanding things correctly, this equates to in-charge or chart-the-course interaction styles, no? But I don't really have a need to be a very directive person unless I am stressed or something needs to be done ASAP, etc.

So it isn't about me necessarily needing to be a thinking type, but rather that I just do not identify with the behind-the-scenes interaction style...even though I am not necessarily a very directing person.

Phlegmatic seems to be the "path of least resistance" temperament. They can take or leave controlling others and being controlled by others. I feel this way, unless under stress, a strict deadline, if something really needs to be done the "right" way (for example, if people working on a project are doing it poorly or something similar), and related scenarios. Then, I can become rather directing, but for the most part I don't really like doing that and prefer to share the responsibilities.

This is one bit that I've never been able to put into words very well. I guess I just have a lot of faith in facts, data, things you can see and touch. I don't have a lot of use for pointless debates about theoretical nonsense (though MBTI and other pointless personality games are fun :p). I'm not interested in talking about how to change the world...either do something about it or stop talking. I'm not necessarily a very practical person, but I have a large appreciation for practicality. I know there is a bit more to the S/N division than that, but there you go.
I should ask what you really mean by "task-focus". Even though it is the classic name for "low wanted behavior", basically, the Supine is described as using tasks a lot. You can break it down:
Sanguine: people for people's sake
Choleric: people for tasks sake (i.e. "goals")
Supine: task for peope's sake ("acts of service", etc)
Melancholy: tasks for tasks sake

(Basically, these correspond to "express for wanted sake", where the "sake" is what we normally judge "people vs task" by, and the first part is basically I/E (how we approach people).
So if you're Supine, you might identify with "tasks", but the tasks are really to gain acceptance by people, where for the Melancholy, while being also loyal when doing things for people, generally approaches tasks for their own sake.

Also, as I've been saying, yes, being Melancholy in Affection may also skew things, for type does not divide interpersonal relations between surface and deeper relations. So a different tyemperament in both areas would end up having to be a type falling into one Interaction Style, yet have some traits not fitting the one for that type.

You're saying you're not Behind the scenes. What is it about Chart the Course that you identify with more? I would allow that Affection is actually your Interaction Style instead of Inclusion (I call this an "invert", and I've seen others here in the past who this seemed to fit). and if you're an SJ (you definitely do sound like an S from that standpoint description) that's "moderate" enough to end up in Phlegmatic in Control, then you could be an ISTJ Supine-Phlegmatic-Melancholy (SPM).

According to the chart, I think I'm somewhere toward the center under the melancholy-phlegmatic "loner" row. Reading through the descriptions on the site, all of them have at least one point that clearly contradict my temperament.

"Loner" is a pure Melancholy in Inclusion (green), while MelancholyPhlegmatic in that area is apart of "Cautious Association".
Have you looked at the descriptions for each area? (Inclusion, Control and Affection. It's one for each).
 

RobinSkye

What Is Life?
Joined
Jul 21, 2015
Messages
572
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
541
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I should ask what you really mean by "task-focus". Even though it is the classic name for "low wanted behavior", basically, the Supine is described as using tasks a lot. You can break it down:
Sanguine: people for people's sake
Choleric: people for tasks sake (i.e. "goals")
Supine: task for peope's sake ("acts of service", etc)
Melancholy: tasks for tasks sake

(Basically, these correspond to "express for wanted sake", where the "sake" is what we normally judge "people vs task" by, and the first part is basically I/E (how we approach people).
So if you're Supine, you might identify with "tasks", but the tasks are really to gain acceptance by people, where for the Melancholy, while being also loyal when doing things for people, generally approaches tasks for their own sake.

Also, as I've been saying, yes, being Melancholy in Affection may also skew things, for type does not divide interpersonal relations between surface and deeper relations. So a different tyemperament in both areas would end up having to be a type falling into one Interaction Style, yet have some traits not fitting the one for that type.

You're saying you're not Behind the scenes. What is it about Chart the Course that you identify with more? I would allow that Affection is actually your Interaction Style instead of Inclusion (I call this an "invert", and I've seen others here in the past who this seemed to fit). and if you're an SJ (you definitely do sound like an S from that standpoint description) that's "moderate" enough to end up in Phlegmatic in Control, then you could be an ISTJ Supine-Phlegmatic-Melancholy (SPM).



"Loner" is a pure Melancholy in Inclusion (green), while MelancholyPhlegmatic in that area is apart of "Cautious Association".
Have you looked at the descriptions for each area? (Inclusion, Control and Affection. It's one for each).

Ohp, found it, thanks. Temperament:Melancholy Phlegmatic in Control

Control Melancholy-phlegmatic. What does this entail?
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Would be between SJ and NF, though again, INTP's often get something like that because of the overall blend of temperaments. They're not aware of their high expressed Control (what amounts to "pragmatism") because of the reservation of the introversion.
 

/DG/

silentigata ano (profile)
Joined
Mar 19, 2009
Messages
4,602
I should ask what you really mean by "task-focus". Even though it is the classic name for "low wanted behavior", basically, the Supine is described as using tasks a lot. You can break it down:
Sanguine: people for people's sake
Choleric: people for tasks sake (i.e. "goals")
Supine: task for peope's sake ("acts of service", etc)
Melancholy: tasks for tasks sake

(Basically, these correspond to "express for wanted sake", where the "sake" is what we normally judge "people vs task" by, and the first part is basically I/E (how we approach people).
So if you're Supine, you might identify with "tasks", but the tasks are really to gain acceptance by people, where for the Melancholy, while being also loyal when doing things for people, generally approaches tasks for their own sake.

It's hard for me to say. I guess I am never one who has focused too much on the lives of other people. Maybe I am just too self-absorbed, but I tend not to dive deep into other people and instead focus on the things we are doing together. I have become more aware of people in the last several years, but I still feel more comfortable dealing with "thing"-related issues as opposed to interpersonal ones. For example, I really do not want a career that has me focusing on people (nurse, customer service, etc.).

But yet, I identify with supine in inclusion because I really need other people (but don't show it obviously). For better or for worse, humans are social creatures. Even when I am in a terrible mood...somehow whenever someone talks to me about whatever random bullshit, I tend to light up and forget about my problems. I need to talk to people to be happy.

In your simplistic description, I identify with supine and melancholy, depending on my mood.

Also, as I've been saying, yes, being Melancholy in Affection may also skew things, for type does not divide interpersonal relations between surface and deeper relations. So a different tyemperament in both areas would end up having to be a type falling into one Interaction Style, yet have some traits not fitting the one for that type.

You're saying you're not Behind the scenes. What is it about Chart the Course that you identify with more? I would allow that Affection is actually your Interaction Style instead of Inclusion (I call this an "invert", and I've seen others here in the past who this seemed to fit). and if you're an SJ (you definitely do sound like an S from that standpoint description) that's "moderate" enough to end up in Phlegmatic in Control, then you could be an ISTJ Supine-Phlegmatic-Melancholy (SPM).

I'll admit that I relate more to behind the scenes than I do with the extraverted interaction styles, but still not as much as chart the course. When we have a task to do, I'm interested in progressing towards the task (when I am not being lazy). I'm not interested in debate and meandering around the goal for people to dick around. I just want to accomplish the goal. There is a time and a place to dick around...and when you are working as a group to accomplish a goal is not one of them.

Obviously this tends to relate more to work scenarios, but I'll give an example of when it doesn't. I'm involved at school with a dance club...choreographed dancing, that is, not club dancing. When I go to practices, I love socializing with everyone, but I absolutely hate it when we just sit around and don't actually practice the dances at practice. There is a way to both socialize and still stay on the task at hand, but our current leader doesn't seem interested in doing so. So I guess it comes down to this...when there is a task...I want it to be accomplished in the time we allotted to do so. It's also one of the reasons I've always hated group projects...people like meeting together to work on it, but that is incredibly inefficient. What I like to do is decide who works on what part, then meet together when we are done to go over anything that needs tweaking. It's just more efficient that way, and you don't end up with people dicking around and wasting time. I dunno if any of that made the sense that I am trying to make.

The affection bit as my interaction style could make sense, seeing as it's how I express myself/desire for people to express to me. So why is it that for the most part, you appear to look mostly at only the inclusion and control aspects for type correlations? I haven't read all of your website by any means, but it appears to focus on the first two and the affection aspect isn't related back as much. Why does this "flip" seem to only happen in some people?

(I just realized I used the phrase "dick around" a lot...)
 

fetus

New member
Joined
Mar 22, 2015
Messages
2,575
Enneagram
6w7
I think I am Supine-Phlegmatic, Supine-Sanguine, or Phlegmatic-Sanguine. :mellow:
 

Yama

Permabanned
Joined
Dec 1, 2014
Messages
7,684
MBTI Type
ESFJ
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
I just took a look at this.

Based on the pages with the descriptions for each one, what I think I relate to the most is:

Inclusion: Phlegmatic Melancholy
Control: Supine
Affection: Phlegmatic Supine

Now what's all that mean? I can't wrap my head around all these connections and correlations. :p
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
It's hard for me to say. I guess I am never one who has focused too much on the lives of other people. Maybe I am just too self-absorbed, but I tend not to dive deep into other people and instead focus on the things we are doing together. I have become more aware of people in the last several years, but I still feel more comfortable dealing with "thing"-related issues as opposed to interpersonal ones. For example, I really do not want a career that has me focusing on people (nurse, customer service, etc.).

But yet, I identify with supine in inclusion because I really need other people (but don't show it obviously). For better or for worse, humans are social creatures. Even when I am in a terrible mood...somehow whenever someone talks to me about whatever random bullshit, I tend to light up and forget about my problems. I need to talk to people to be happy.

In your simplistic description, I identify with supine and melancholy, depending on my mood.

I'll admit that I relate more to behind the scenes than I do with the extraverted interaction styles, but still not as much as chart the course. When we have a task to do, I'm interested in progressing towards the task (when I am not being lazy). I'm not interested in debate and meandering around the goal for people to dick around. I just want to accomplish the goal. There is a time and a place to dick around...and when you are working as a group to accomplish a goal is not one of them.

Obviously this tends to relate more to work scenarios, but I'll give an example of when it doesn't. I'm involved at school with a dance club...choreographed dancing, that is, not club dancing. When I go to practices, I love socializing with everyone, but I absolutely hate it when we just sit around and don't actually practice the dances at practice. There is a way to both socialize and still stay on the task at hand, but our current leader doesn't seem interested in doing so. So I guess it comes down to this...when there is a task...I want it to be accomplished in the time we allotted to do so. It's also one of the reasons I've always hated group projects...people like meeting together to work on it, but that is incredibly inefficient. What I like to do is decide who works on what part, then meet together when we are done to go over anything that needs tweaking. It's just more efficient that way, and you don't end up with people dicking around and wasting time. I dunno if any of that made the sense that I am trying to make.

The affection bit as my interaction style could make sense, seeing as it's how I express myself/desire for people to express to me. So why is it that for the most part, you appear to look mostly at only the inclusion and control aspects for type correlations? I haven't read all of your website by any means, but it appears to focus on the first two and the affection aspect isn't related back as much. Why does this "flip" seem to only happen in some people?

(I just realized I used the phrase "dick around" a lot...)
Yeah, you sound like a very typical ISTJ-Melancholy (grew up under two of them, plus a whole bunch of others around, so I can spot them a mile away).

I see you're using the Interaction Style "cross factors" of "process vs outcome" (formerly control vs movement), which is the factor I've discussed the least, though as a BtS, I to can testify to wanting outcomes rather than processes (like I use paying bills as an example. I want it all paid off where my GtG wife doesn't mind bargaining with partial payments and catching up more slowly). But what you're describing sounds actually more like a Melancholy or CtC/SJ [or just "J" in general] "business before pleasure" mindset. I hadn't really gotten into that other factor, because it seems to be easily confused with other aspects of the temperaments, and I'm not sure where those poles even came from (i.e. how they're related to the main two, of I/E and directing/informing).
In APS, the cross factor (tying together opposites) are that the Melancholy and Sanguine are more "direct" (express what they want, and want what they express, either a lot or a little interaction), while the Supine and Choleric are "indirect": the Supine doesn't express as much as he wants (and "want" will be further clarified below), while the Choleric does express, but really only for his goals and terms, and so is considered not really "wanting".
Then Keirsey himself went on and added another corresponding factor for the same groups, called "interlinking vs intersecting" (the passive-responsive "Responder" [his name for the BtS] will "interlink" with the aggressive-directive "Initiator" or In Charge. One will naturally lead the other, who is willing for someone else to take the lead). That one too, is clearly obvious how it relates to the other two dimensions.

So I wouldn't go just by "process/outcome" in deciding between BtS and CtC.

Regarding "task" orientation, here are some excerpts from this book http://jacksonsnyder.com/mgi/studies/GCY.pdf I review here: https://erictb.wordpress.com/2014/02/01/review-god-created-you/

"Melody Melancholy [a hypothetical 'character' he created for the temperament] is a task oriented
person. She understands tasks and systems much better than
she understands people
. As far as I can tell, the Melancholy in Inclusion
is not born with any relationship skills. All these skills must be learned.
"

As for your Inclusion "needs":

"Being a natural loner and introvert (this does not mean Melody
Melancholy does not have any social needs, she has more than she admits
to even to herself
) provides her with the opportunity to think.

Melvin Melancholy does not need a high amount of social
interaction. Relationship-oriented temperaments do not understand this
about him and think he will be happier being more social. They devise
ways to cunningly get him into social settings. Being forced (real or
perceived) to socialize causes Melvin Melancholy stress and anxiety.
Being around people for long periods of time in a social setting causes
him stress and anxiety. He usually needs more social interaction than he
likes to admit
. He likes to convey to the world he wants to be a hermit,
but this is only true in his own mind. In reality, Melvin Melancholy
needs and enjoys social interaction, when it is his choice to socialize.

Even this is tiring for the Melancholy. Relationship-oriented
temperaments, like the Sanguine, draw energy and enjoyment from being
around people. It is the opposite for task-oriented temperaments. People
drain energy from Melvin Melancholy.

Melvin Melancholy tends to be selective with whom he socializes. He
tends to make people jump through many hoops before they can be
considered friends and social interaction is possible
. Social interaction
is not readily available to mere acquaintances – and for Melvin
Melancholy there is a distinct difference between acquaintances and
friends. Thus loneliness becomes a problem. Too often he finds himself
in this position: What is this strange thing I am feeling? It is not hunger.
It is not the flu. I am not depressed. Oh, it is loneliness. And even then,
he does not know what to do to combat it.
Melvin Melancholy knows loneliness all too well because he does
not show his tender feelings.

Because he is not showing
these feelings, people are not showing these feelings towards him. This
causes a person to be lonely.
"

To this, I later pointed out:
"this is based on a point that everyone really has the same needs, such as interaction with others, affection, recognition and independence. The Melancholy conveys little need of any interaction, though still has it. So 'Want' simply refers to the typical way the temperament goes about getting their need met, while 'need' in that respect is a basic human need. The Melancholy says 'I don’t want', and truly in his mind doesn’t want, yet the underlying need is still there.”

Just like the functions and archetypal complexes we discuss in type are about "awareness", the temperaments, also being complexes, are also about awareness of needs. (And hence, about the "understanding" of tasks or people better). So when the need is not being met, then the Melancholy is more likely to be aware of it. The difference with the Supine, is that they start out more aware of the need, but are simply too shy to approach others on their own."

So do you think this might explain why you identify with Supine in Inclusion? (The actual APS would sort it out, as it uses techniques in both the questionnaire and the way it is administered, that bring out the true need, rather than just relying on behavior, as we are doing here). Can you identify with responding to people in that way?

Otherwise, it may just be the Affection coloring the type profession, as I've said. Or, being inbetween on the wanted Inclusion scale (MP or SP).

The reason why I focus on the first two areas, is because they seem to be what most closely correspond to Interaction Style and Keirsey temperament, respectively. Once you have those, the type is complete, so there's no room for a third matrix like that (unless you just rehash the other dimensions already present, as Keirsey had been doing in his last book, but then there will be a lot of overlap).
So realizing that Affection might include traits connected with Interaction Style (for it is basically a deeper level of "interaction"), I realized that those might possibly be picked up in the person's type preference as the true "style" of interaction. (For many people, such as myself, Inclusion and Affection are the same or similar temperaments, so there's no conflict. So I'm on both fronts, a solid "Behind the Scenes"). But they can be different, and we have to allow that these different traits may show up, explaining variation in their type.

I think I am Supine-Phlegmatic, Supine-Sanguine, or Phlegmatic-Sanguine. :mellow:
There's no Supine-Sanguine, in any one area. "Supine-Sanguine" would be something like Supine in Inclusion, Sanguine in Control, but you're saying the whole blend lies within Control. For something between Supine and Sanguine in that area, look at Phlegmatic-supine and Phlegmatic-sanguine. ("Phlegmatic-" in that case, indicating "expressiveness" is moderate, which lies between Supine [low] and Sanguine [high]).
So this would basically be either NF or SP, and thus (As DG said), would point to ISFP or INFP.

I just took a look at this.

Based on the pages with the descriptions for each one, what I think I relate to the most is:

Inclusion: Phlegmatic Melancholy
Control: Supine
Affection: Phlegmatic Supine

Now what's all that mean? I can't wrap my head around all these connections and correlations. :p

Inclusion; on the "I" side, but bordering on E. Control would be NF.
So, do you think, INFJ?
 

Yama

Permabanned
Joined
Dec 1, 2014
Messages
7,684
MBTI Type
ESFJ
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Inclusion; on the "I" side, but bordering on E. Control would be NF.
So, do you think, INFJ?

Interesting! I'll have to look into it more at some point. Though I doubt I would be an Ni dom. :wink:
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Well, since it borders on E, you could be ENFJ, where Ni would be aux. and Fe dom. And it's possible the "Phlegmatic" part of the Inclusion might indicate the ISF/INP group (this way of doing it is not exact), and with the Control, would add up to INFP. Are you sure of ISFJ, or at least some of the letters?
 

Yama

Permabanned
Joined
Dec 1, 2014
Messages
7,684
MBTI Type
ESFJ
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Well, since it borders on E, you could be ENFJ, where Ni would be aux. and Fe dom. And it's possible the "Phlegmatic" part of the Inclusion might indicate the ISF/INP group (this way of doing it is not exact), and with the Control, would add up to INFP. Are you sure of ISFJ, or at least some of the letters?

Heh, that makes two people now who have suspected ENFJ as a possibility. I am fairly sure of ISFJ, though I have been told I sometimes appear ISFPish. I actually ended up starting another thread a couple days ago to get more feedback; [MENTION=6554]/DG/[/MENTION] is the one who pointed me in the direction of looking into this. Though I am always open to considering other typings if there's enough evidence for it. ;)
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I just want to be happy. "Happy" for me just means being left alone to sit in my room all day and do whatever I want with no responsibilities or commitments ever. I was not born to be a great person or change the world. I was born to be a normal average person and that's what I want.

I don't know? Maybe times when I've been able to live in ignorant bliss with no responsibilities? High school summer vacations?

I have to have control of the outcome. Other people can't be trusted they'll just fuck it up. What does emphasis even mean?? I just want it to get done so I can go home. And it has to be perfect.

The more freedom and less responsibility and obligation I feel pressured by, the happier I am.

Not the academic setting, that's for damn sure. I love learning when it's not for school. I guess reading? Or if it's something physical, it needs to be hands-on. I can't learn origami by reading directions, I have to actually do it. But if it's just information, reading.

I don't really give a shit if other people feel that they belong to a group or not. I don't really feel like I belong to any groups. Other people's feelings of inclusiveness aren't really my concern if they aren't making a big deal out of it. I probably wouldn't even notice, to be honest. But I'd feel bad/responsible if someone came crying to me later that they were having problems fitting into the group and would help them then.

I need to know where I'm jumping before I leap. I need all of the details. I am that person who asks "when, where, what time" as soon as plans are made. Actions speak louder than words, but I need words of reassurance quite often too.

And when people try to reassure me, say positive things to me, or give me advice, I shoot them down immediately.

I do not like having face to face conversations about my emotions, but over the internet, it's easier because of anonymity.

Anything that is not of my concern. Don't care about my neighbors or people I don't know. Don't care about "getting involved" at school and hate when people bother me. Don't care about the things that I don't care about. If it's not a part of my everyday life then I don't pay a lot of attention to it and don't care about it.

Most of this doesn't sound like ISFJ; it sounds more like FiSe. (And a "P" orientation over "J"). The one exception is the part about neding to know before you leap, but even that could be general S over N, rather than necessarily Si over Se. (I've seen a general description of S that fits this for either attitude somewhere).

And then, in that discussion, you had:
Control: Supine (or Phlegmatic Supine as a second choice)
That borders on Sanguine, and so also looks like a possible SP [i.e. Keirsey] preference.
 

Yama

Permabanned
Joined
Dec 1, 2014
Messages
7,684
MBTI Type
ESFJ
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Most of this doesn't sound like ISFJ; it sounds more like FiSe. (And a "P" orientation over "J"). The one exception is the part about neding to know before you leap, but even that could be general S over N, rather than necessarily Si over Se. (I've seen a general description of S that fits this for either attitude somewhere).

And then, in that discussion, you had:

That borders on Sanguine, and so also looks like a possible SP [i.e. Keirsey] preference.

I don't even know anymore. :( But I think I'm very likely S > N, in any case. I'll keep looking into it. If I had to pick an alternate type for myself, I think the two types I'd give the most weight are ISTJ and ISFP, possibly INFP (I feel that the SJ temperament fits me rather well, and I do relate to Fi well enough I think, but I feel pretty confident about Si--though I am hesitant to think of myself as a T when I have so much F).
 

Yama

Permabanned
Joined
Dec 1, 2014
Messages
7,684
MBTI Type
ESFJ
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
[MENTION=3521]Eric B[/MENTION] asking here since you're very knowledgeable and have helped me out. Do you think it's possible for one to confuse (their own) tertiary Ni for Si, or to confuse FiNi for Si? I've always felt rather attached to Si in myself and have found it very relatable, but now I'm wondering if I might have confused it with aspects of other functions. I think all things considered, ISFJ and ISFP, despite sharing no functions, are the two types I am most likely stuck between.
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
If you're an introvert who prefers Sensing (IS), then your primary focus is inward, and the primary type of data you pay attention to is sensory. So it's easy to confuse that for "introverted Sensing", and looking at it purely through dichotomies, it technically is.

But the function of Si deals in tangible date taken in through the senses, like Se, but the difference is that it is internalized (in the individual's memory) first and from there drawn upon; where Se takes directly from the environment. So Si types tend to think in terms of "responsibilities" and "commitment", and like to go by stuff like reading directions (all of which you said you don't like), so that when they sit down to do whatever it is they are planning, they will have that internal storehouse to draw on; where Se is more "hands on" (emergent data, which you said you like).

Both Si and Ni can be used to get a sense of what will happen (not just Ni; as Si, again, draws from stored images of experience), so it is possible to confuse them, too. With Ni, you're getting an internal impression of Se emergent data, so you could think of that as an internal sensation, but it's really different.
 

Yama

Permabanned
Joined
Dec 1, 2014
Messages
7,684
MBTI Type
ESFJ
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
If you're an introvert who prefers Sensing (IS), then your primary focus is inward, and the primary type of data you pay attention to is sensory. So it's easy to confuse that for "introverted Sensing", and looking at it purely through dichotomies, it technically is.

But the function of Si deals in tangible date taken in through the senses, like Se, but the difference is that it is internalized (in the individual's memory) first and from there drawn upon; where Se takes directly from the environment. So Si types tend to think in terms of "responsibilities" and "commitment", and like to go by stuff like reading directions (all of which you said you don't like), so that when they sit down to do whatever it is they are planning, they will have that internal storehouse to draw on; where Se is more "hands on" (emergent data, which you said you like).

Both Si and Ni can be used to get a sense of what will happen (not just Ni; as Si, again, draws from stored images of experience), so it is possible to confuse them, too. With Ni, you're getting an internal impression of Se emergent data, so you could think of that as an internal sensation, but it's really different.

Hm. Now I am starting to wonder if what I experience is Si, or if it's Se filtered through Ni. Any tips on the best way to differentiate that? (Sorry for asking you so many questions. :blush:)
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Well, what exactly is it that you're interpreting as “Si”? What is it you say you're “attached” to?
 

Yama

Permabanned
Joined
Dec 1, 2014
Messages
7,684
MBTI Type
ESFJ
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Well, what exactly is it that you're interpreting as “Si”? What is it you say you're “attached” to?

To me, Si means taking in information from around you and filtering it through yourself to give it subjective meaning. I say I feel "attached" to it because I had felt like I had a fairly good grasp on it. I made a thread once about Si and how I relate to it/understand it.
 

laterlazer

good, hot, fresh, fly ~
Joined
Dec 22, 2014
Messages
501
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
592
Instinctual Variant
sp
So...
Inclusion: Melancholy Phlegmatic
Control: Melancholy Phlegmatic
Affection: Melancholy

Not really sure what this means tbqh. Except that I'm likely Melancholy overall?
 

hjgbujhghg

I am
Joined
Jun 6, 2013
Messages
3,333
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w3
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Interesting, I think I am:

Inclusion: Supine Compulsive
Affection: Supine Phlegmatic
Control: Supine Phlegmatic
 
Top