What type is House?

[ptgatsby]

Thank you.

I don't understand the tact thing.
I thought that was an F or T indicator: Ts tend to be blunt, Fs tend to be diplomatic.
Is that not true?

It's slightly false...

Fs are about empathy and compassion on one end, but accepting and tender on the other. Inbetween you have accommodating, which is what you likely mean by diplomatic.

However, this is seperate from the tact portion, which is about how one expresses oneself to the world (rather than accommodates other's preferences). There is a conceptual overlap, but are quite seperate in practise.

That is to say that an ExFx will attempt to be tactful and accommodate your request, while an IxTx will not care to accomodate you and not care what they say to you about it. Inbetween you have the ExTx, who might be selective with their words but won't accommodate your request, or the IxFx that might tell you exactly what they think while they accommodate you anyway.

(Above are loose examples, just to help think about the different scope of each trait... I don't have the actual sub-trait breakdown questions, so I can't give a real example.)

 

[INTJMom]

It's slightly false...

Fs are about empathy and compassion on one end, but accepting and tender on the other. Inbetween you have accommodating, which is what you likely mean by diplomatic.

However, this is seperate from the tact portion, which is about how one expresses oneself to the world (rather than accommodates other's preferences). There is a conceptual overlap, but are quite seperate in practise.

That is to say that an ExFx will attempt to be tactful and accommodate your request, while an IxTx will not care to accomodate you and not care what they say to you about it. Inbetween you have the ExTx, who might be selective with their words but won't accommodate your request, or the IxFx that might tell you exactly what they think while they accommodate you anyway.

(Above are loose examples, just to help think about the different scope of each trait... I don't have the actual sub-trait breakdown questions, so I can't give a real example.)

I see what you're saying.

I was taught that an F is careful with their words - diplomatic in the speech. They choose their words in such a way as to not hurt the feelings of the hearer.

A T tends to believe the truth is more important that a person's feelings and speak the truth even though it might hurt someone's feeling - tactless.

But the system you mention attributes that to E/I instead of T/F.

 

[ptgatsby]

In case it helps, here are the F/T sub-sub traits

F:
EMPATHETIC - Personal, seek understanding, central values
COMPASSIONATE - Tactful, sympathetic, loyal
ACCOMMODATING - Approving, agreeable, want harmony
ACCEPTING - Tolerant, trusting, give praise
TENDER Gentle, tender-hearted, means-oriented

T:
LOGICAL Impersonal, seek impartiality, objective analysis
REASONABLE Truthful, cause-and-effect, apply principles
QUESTIONING Precise, challenging, want discussion
CRITICAL Skeptical, want proof, critique
TOUGH Firm, tough-minded, ends-oriented

As far as agreeableness goes (the FFM T/F divide, but this doesn't correlate as well, so it's just for your information);

Service
T: More interested in self needs
F: More interested in others’ needs

Agreement
T: Welcomes engagement
F: Seeks harmony

Deference
T: Wants acknowledgement
F: Uncomfor-table with acknowledgement

Reserve
T: Usually expresses opinions
F: Keeps opinions to self

Reticence
T: Enjoys being out front
F: Prefers the background

 

[redacted]

It's slightly false...

Fs are about empathy and compassion on one end, but accepting and tender on the other. Inbetween you have accommodating, which is what you likely mean by diplomatic.

However, this is seperate from the tact portion, which is about how one expresses oneself to the world (rather than accommodates other's preferences). There is a conceptual overlap, but are quite seperate in practise.

That is to say that an ExFx will attempt to be tactful and accommodate your request, while an IxTx will not care to accomodate you and not care what they say to you about it. Inbetween you have the ExTx, who might be selective with their words but won't accommodate your request, or the IxFx that might tell you exactly what they think while they accommodate you anyway.

(Above are loose examples, just to help think about the different scope of each trait... I don't have the actual sub-trait breakdown questions, so I can't give a real example.)

actually ExFx isn't more likely to be tactful than IxFx. xxFJ is more likely to be tactful than xxFP. that's because Fe is focused on group dynamics and Fi is focused internally.

an xxFP may end up being tactful anyways because their internally defined value system may have tact as a high priority. but there's nothing inherent about Fi that makes it tactful.

(please please please back me up on this....someone)

 

[redacted]

Service
T: More interested in self needs
F: More interested in others’ needs

Te: interested in task efficiency
Fe: interested in others' needs
Ti: interested in knowledge gathering
Fi: interested in application of personal values

Agreement
T: Welcomes engagement
F: Seeks harmony

Te: won't agree unless something is efficient
Fe: will try to get the group to reach common ground
Ti: will agree if it makes logical sense, will disagree if not
Fi: will agree as long as it's "good" not "bad"

Deference
T: Wants acknowledgement
F: Uncomfor-table with acknowledgement

Te: will defer if efficient
Fe: will defer if harmonious
Ti: will defer if logical
Fi: will defer if "good"

Reserve
T: Usually expresses opinions
F: Keeps opinions to self

Te: will express opinions about how to make things run better
Fe: will express opinions about how to bring the group together
Ti: will express opinions if something doesn't make logical sense
Fi: will express opinions if something is "immoral"

this is heavily affected by I vs. E

Reticence
T: Enjoys being out front
F: Prefers the background

this is an E vs. I divide, not a T vs. F one.

 

[INTJMom]

Te: interested in task efficiency
Fe: interested in others' needs
Ti: interested in knowledge gathering
Fi: interested in application of personal values


Te: won't agree unless something is efficient
Fe: will try to get the group to reach common ground
Ti: will agree if it makes logical sense, will disagree if not
Fi: will agree as long as it's "good" not "bad"


Te: will defer if efficient
Fe: will defer if harmonious
Ti: will defer if logical
Fi: will defer if "good"


Te: will express opinions about how to make things run better
Fe: will express opinions about how to bring the group together
Ti: will express opinions if something doesn't make logical sense
Fi: will express opinions if something is "immoral"

this is heavily affected by I vs. E


this is an E vs. I divide, not a T vs. F one.

According to that, I'm a Te.

 

[ptgatsby]

actually ExFx isn't more likely to be tactful than IxFx. xxFJ is more likely to be tactful than xxFP. that's because Fe is focused on group dynamics and Fi is focused internally.

Well, first, the difference is Fi-Ne vs Ne-Fi and Fe-Ni vs Ni-Fe saying that Xe dominant is more likely to pay attention to the outside world and be aware of their impact.

And either way, that's great, in theory. Do you have a reason, other than theory, to believe this?

(As far as the breakdown goes, that's from MBTI Step II. The sub-traits listed are assumed under the 4 traits and they are, as much as is possible, individual/unique. Well, ignoring that it's the questions that are under each sub-trait that would be unique - the descriptors leave something to be desired.)

 

[redacted]

According to that, I'm a Te.

yeah, of course you're Te. the function breakdown of INTJ is Ni, Te

 

[redacted]

Well, first, the difference is Fi-Ne vs Ne-Fi and Fe-Ni vs Ni-Fe saying that Xe dominant is more likely to pay attention to the outside world and be aware of their impact.

And either way, that's great, in theory. Do you have a reason, other than theory, to believe this?

(As far as the breakdown goes, that's from MBTI Step II. The sub-traits listed are assumed under the 4 traits and they are, as much as is possible, individual/unique. Well, ignoring that it's the questions that are under each sub-trait that would be unique - the descriptors leave something to be desired.)

why would i have reasons other than theory? that's just the definition. thats all.

did you want me to make up some false definitions and use those? i don't get it.

"Well, first, the difference is Fi-Ne vs Ne-Fi and Fe-Ni vs Ni-Fe saying that Xe dominant is more likely to pay attention to the outside world and be aware of their impact."

we were talking about thinking and feeling, not perceiving functions. the feeling functions of IxFJ and ExFJ are exactly the same. the amount of time spent in that particular function is the only thing affected by I vs. E.

so, sure...an IxFJ would use Fe less often than an ExFJ.
but an IxFP would use Fi MORE often than an ExFP.

and Fi and Fe are very different anyway.

 

[Nocapszy]

PT, the difference between you and dissonance is that he doesn't define the functions by what we see in people who've tested a certain way. We use the provided definitions, and use them as 'logic gates' for determining type. Asking him if he's got any other reason than theory for something is wasteful, since they serve as the steady rules, to which type has to conform. You're clearly approaching the concept in exactly the opposite direction he and I are.

Really, what he's using isn't a theory. It's just putting names to information uptake and organization modes.

Consider:

"ti builds a logical framework in the mind"

If whatever a person is doing is NOT building a logical framework in their mind, then they're not using Ti, they're using something else.

or

'Ne find analogies between seemingly unrelated events through recognition of patterns and paralleling them"

If someone is say, wondering at the morality of an event and putting that into a bank of stored moral gates, we know they're not using Ne. It's something else.

So whether it originated in theory or not, you can tell, if someone consistently speaks in metaphors/similies saying things like "It works like a rotor in that it does..." or similarly, then they're using Ne. It doesn't necessarily speak to their preferences -- that has to be deciphered over time, but behavioral typing can be done.

 

[redacted]

PT, the difference between you and dissonance is that he doesn't define the functions by what we see in people who've tested a certain way. We use the provided definitions, and use them as 'logic gates' for determining type. Asking him if he's got any other reason than theory for something is wasteful, since they serve as the steady rules, to which type has to conform. You're clearly approaching the concept in exactly the opposite direction he and I are.

Really, what he's using isn't a theory. It's just putting names to information uptake and organization modes.

Consider:

"ti builds a logical framework in the mind"

If whatever a person is doing is NOT building a logical framework in their mind, then they're not using Ti, they're using something else.

or

'Ne find analogies between seemingly unrelated events through recognition of patterns and paralleling them"

If someone is say, wondering at the morality of an event and putting that into a bank of stored moral gates, we know they're not using Ne. It's something else.

So whether it originated in theory or not, you can tell, if someone consistently speaks in metaphors/similies saying things like "It works like a rotor in that it does..." or similarly, then they're using Ne. It doesn't necessarily speak to their preferences -- that has to be deciphered over time, but behavioral typing can be done.

thanks

 

[ptgatsby]

we were talking about thinking and feeling, not perceiving functions. the feeling functions of IxFJ and ExFJ are exactly the same. the amount of time spent in that particular function is the only thing affected by I vs. E.

I was explaining why MBTI theory says that Exxx is considered more tactful than Ixxx.

so, sure...an IxFJ would use Fe less often than an ExFJ.
but an IxFP would use Fi MORE often than an ExFP.

And... this ties into what I said how? I said IxFJ < ExFJ and IxFP < ExFP because the dominant function is extroverted, meaning regardless of what function it is, they focus on the outside world. It was shown that those testing higher in E (dominant extroverted function) had more tact than those with testing higher than I (dominant introverted function)... true regardless if your dominant function is rational or irrational.

 

[ptgatsby]

PT, the difference between you and dissonance is that he doesn't define the functions by what we see in people who've tested a certain way. We use the provided definitions, and use them as 'logic gates' for determining type. Asking him if he's got any other reason than theory for something is wasteful, since they serve as the steady rules, to which type has to conform. You're clearly approaching the concept in exactly the opposite direction he and I are.

Really, what he's using isn't a theory. It's just putting names to information uptake and organization modes.

Ah, so is this again "we think this behaviour fits this description"? Well, I guess I am approaching it from a different perspective - I don't believe that we can do what you guys claim can be done.

But whatever, this is a thread on House, not type... it's better suited for another thread.

 

[Xander]

Situation #1
I am an extrovert.
I sit alone staring into blank space absent-mindedly tapping my cane on the floor whilst thinking through a problem.

Situation #2
I am an introvert.
Whilst walking along I have a brilliant idea and immediately engage the next person who I speak to in a conversation about it to see how it pans out when I say it out loud.

Sorry but I reckon that situation #2 is far more in keeping with what I've observed of people.

As PT was pointing out (the most damning "evidence" IMO) House comes to conclusions. He does not discuss possibilities and argue for his point of view, he states and he corrects succinctly and precisely. House leaves little room for discussion and hands out orders not suggestions. He does enjoy an argument but not for the sake of the argument but for the sake of peering over his victim and showing that he is the superior brain.

House has a team, it seems, to feed him information. House does not do scans or take blood samples or give shots he just directs. When working on a problem House is either analysing someone's response (verbally because otherwise the viewer would get bored) or is silent and is feeding off the information being tossed about. House will then sum up what the current situation is (presumably for the viewer) and then either decides if it's clear cut or will delegate the decision and the responsibility to someone else (is that not an INTJs reaction to uncertainty given the situation?).

Now to a bit of nuance on the actor...
This is a Brit trying to play an American. Now as all us Brits know you Yanks are a brash, loud, overly aggressive and extroverted lot. Even your introverts.() Hence perhaps there's a little artistic license?

 

[INTJMom]

... Now to a bit of nuance on the actor...
This is a Brit trying to play an American. Now as all us Brits know you Yanks are a brash, loud, overly aggressive and extroverted lot. Even your introverts.() Hence perhaps there's a little artistic license?

Ah! I was wondering what the American stereotype is!

 

[Xander]

Ah! I was wondering what the American stereotype is!

LOUDER!!

 

[INTJMom]

LOUDER!!

Hey, watch it, Buster!

 

[Xander]

Hey, watch it, Buster!

Better, much better. Now if you could manage about an extra 100lbs or so with this sumo suit and be really gregarious and over the top then I think you have it down to the shoes.

Oh and more patriotism obviously. That's just got to be in there. Perhaps an "hallelujah" or two? Think TV evangelist and you've got one vision of the stereotype down perfectly

 

[IXTJ]

Typing Dr. House

What type is Dr House? These are the most obvious choices people say...

 

[Thursday]

He's definitely an ENTP