There we go again

[Methylene]

-

 

[Pionart]

From seeing a picture of you, I got a clear impression of ENTP.

--

Also, I saw a post from you recently where you were describing the steps you take in completing a report. That sort of thing is good for determining your type, because it's a way of seeing if you start with Ne, then go Ti then Fe then Si, or if you start with Ti, then go Ne then Si then Fe. Function order literally manifests in a sequential ordering a lot of the time. So think about whether the ideas or the logic is what you start with.

 

[Pionart]

Let me guess, the one in lab?

Discussing projects, I've always felt like my N was pretty weak. I know some ENPs, those guys are capable of throwing up at your face half a dozen ideas not really unrelated one to the another.
For myself, it's more of "okay, this is the final goal, which are the ways strictly related to it that make sense and can help me?". I've found the "make sense" part is a major difference with other ENTPs. I've recently had a discussion with an ENTP colleague because I was extremely pissed off at his unprofessionality in lab and how he would just go nuts over possibilities while I was trying to actually finish the lab experience and understand what I was doing.

Also, care about the report. The scheme I mentioned is given to us by the teacher and for some subjects even decided by law, so we're forced to go "theory, then procedures, then etcetera".

I mean the recent picture posted alongside that one where your face can be clearly seen. I'm typing based on facial features, not contextual clues. Basically... I have some idea of what each type looks like based on facial features, so I drew the connection based on that, but my accuracy isn't that high. I often get INFJ and ENFJ confused, so getting INTP and ENTP confused isn't a longshot.

Ok, so you're following a standard procedure, which might say more about the average chemistry major or whoever made the procedure rather than you. But the idea of looking for sequential ordering of functions is what I think you'd want to focus on because that allows you to make judgement calls between types with the same last 3 letters.

For example, in your post which I'm quoting now, you said "Let me guess..." which is an indicator of Ne. So you started with Ne, indicating it's likely to be the dominant function. However, you were also replying to an INFJ, and it's possible that skipping the Ti and going for the Ne was the response which made sense based on the situation.

I'm having a look through some of your posts now to see if I can determine your function order, but I've been drinking so it might not get done. Lelz.

From reading through the OP of this thread, you do mention an asocialness, but I just read that as Ti, not necessarily as Ti dominant. And you mention hyperactivity which I read as being ExxP, but maybe IxxP could fit that too.

I'd still guess ENTP but if I can identify your function order from your posts I'll be sure.

 

[Vendrah]

I agree with [MENTION=22833]Legion[/MENTION], you seem ENTP to me.
I wouldnt take INTP out of the table although.

 

[Vendrah]

In this case, I would like to invert.
INTP, without getting ENTP out of the table.
INTP has thertiary Si, strong thertiary Si explains the Sensing results in the past.

 

[Pionart]

I looked through many of your posts. I found your Ne and Ti harder to read (harder to identify/classify, I mean) than your Fe and Si, but the latter half of posts, where relevant, were the more Fe+Si half. I spotted many examples of Si being used after Fe, and Fe being used directly after Ti, thus confirming my hypothesis that you are an ENTP. (if you'd like I can PM you with the particular posts I looked at and which functions I interpreted them as referring to)

What I notice is that there is an Si theme that runs through many of your posts. So the reason that you may not seem as Ne as other ENTPs, and instead are more focused on the end-goal, may be that you're focusing on getting to the Si right from the very beginning. An Ne dominant can still do that. Doing so is likely useful in chemistry where there is a heavy ISFJ presence, but in general it's best to let your intuition roam free without necessarily tying it to "the purpose". The Si is still an important step, but I suspect you're overdoing it.

For an Ni dom, it would be like only considering concepts/theories that are known to be present in reality. While it's good when a theory can be shown to refer to the outside world, requiring it before the speculative phase has even taken place would be stifling.

(note: my analysis may not be correct, it's just what I'm seeing)

 

[Pionart]

Well, when you say "logical analysis", "reasoning", "hard formulas", what I think of is Ti. There's a bit of Si e.g. focusing on past behaviour, sensory things, but more the Ti.

About social anxiety... I'm not sure how social anxiety ties into the functions precisely, but I can say as an INFJ that I have pretty bad social anxiety. If you ask me which causes me more anxiety: people or logic? I would easily say people. I think people can be just... anxiety provoking, idk.

But here's some evidence that Si causes you anxiety too:

In your signature it says "I don't think it's so personal Anymore / I don't think it's irreversible Anymore". To me that is an elegant description of overcoming the difficulties associated with Fe (personal) and Si (irreversible). I can say as someone who has Si in the 8th position, that Si causes me a lot of anxiety, and the concept of "irreversible" seems tied into that anxiety. For me though it's having a bad reaction to being reminded of the past. A memory will come to my mind, and it won't necessarily be a bad memory, but it will cause me anxiety just being reminded of it. Whether I made a mistake or something bad happened in the memory or not, I will feel that I/it did.

Regarding people as blank noise... I think that's more of a low-Feeling trait than social anxiety. But I think it's consistent with Fe being in the tertiary. The tertiary is perhaps the most neutral function, in that we kinda identify with it but not strongly, kinda want to distance ourself from it but not strongly. I suppose I can be like that with logical analysis. I tend to be quite logical, but if it becomes the focus I just don't care. I can do it but I don't necessarily like doing it unless I have a specific interest in the issue being analysed. Whereas with something Se related like sports, while I can sometimes enjoy that, I am usually very reluctant to engage with the physical world. I for the most part just don't like sports, or physical challenges or the like. Being made to react in the moment to incoming data is generally anxiety provoking, which is one reason I can socialise online but often not in person, because online is less "real time".

Regarding approaches to learning, I don't know enough about the example you provided to say what's going on there, but I associate Si with rote-learning. Si is the most capable of taking in a large amount of data and processing that data for regularities, so they are good in subjects where there is a lot of information to take in as opposed to subjects where the theory is paramount. From what I understand chemistry can be approached from either a factual or a theoretical angle, and it probably does depend on the kind of chemistry as to which is more likely to be appropriate - though I suspect that both would need to be incorporated to really excel.

I guess questions to think about regarding Si...
Do you like / are you good at rote learning?
Do you like / are you good at repetitive tasks?
Are you someone with good "attention to detail"?
How do you feel about looking back at the past?

That's all I can think of for now.

 

[Pionart]

This part stroke the opposite to me. While I can engage in the physical world and can enjoy pleasurable stimuli, I used to be really reluctant with people. Something I've never been interested in is the silent rules of human interacting. I mean, I've forced myself to understand them from a Ti and Si perspective (analyzing, then placing everything in a framework confirmed if the same actions happened again under the same circumstances), but I've always struggled and didn't feel like interested in applying them. Until I moved here, in a new city, and decided that I didn't want to make the rest of my uni years even harder by having problems with socializing.

I have my own problems with socialising; to me, it's not about rules of interaction (well, I like to think it's not) but rather the Fe is in the attitude of being caring towards others, helping out and not encroaching on their individuality, but I come at Fe from an Ni/philosophical perspective rather than rules.

But I am aware that there are rules and I don't know what these are really either, so I tend to freeze up, not knowing what the appropriate action is.

As long as I conduct myself ethically, that's what counts.

I agree on rote learning and Si. I'd say that the kind of chemistry which is more Si is analytical chem: very little to elementary theory, tons of statistical work, based on hard facts and data (mainly different kind of titolations), more practice than theory. I actually was decent at it, I could adapt to the mindset needed without many problems.
I had tried to give examples of two theoretical branches (organical as opposed to physical, in fact).

Off-topic, but I have a book on chemistry that I really liked when I was in senior years of high school called "Chemical Bonding" by Audrey Companion. It goes quite a bit into the different orbitals like s, p, d etc. and I found those shapes really interesting.

I had assumed that the writer would be an N, but when I looked back at it to apply textual function analysis, I noticed that the author seemed to start each section with a miniature history lesson, thus probably being ISFJ!

1. I struggle with rote learning, as I need to find some kind of reasoning and pattern behind what I'm studying. But I actually kind of resort to it if I'm in a hurry and I don't have time to truly understand everything.
2. My answer to this one is ambivalent. I'm more than good at repetitive tasks which need precision. If the main goal is particularly important (ie: an exam, a lab report, whatever), I'd always go for the safe, repetitive, way (and that's why I argued with another ENTP in lab lately). If I'm by myself, maybe doing something just for the sake of it and I don't have a particular goal, I can sometimes experiment.
3. Again, it depends by the situation. And once again, if I have a main goal I get super attentive about small details, as I want everything to be perfect. If I'm not I could easily not see them. But I've been told I'm actually decent at noticing changings in the environment from what I've been accustomed to, so it's complicated.
4. I do have some good memories, especially related to the senses (ie: the smell of plastic immediately makes me happy because I think of when, as I child, after asking for a console for years, I had received my first Nintendo DS), but I also do fall in the trap of the "it's always been like that, it's never gonna change" related to bad things.

What I gather from 1 is that Si is not one of your stronger functions, because there are certain requirements (Ti in this case) for it to operate. And I also gather that you're adept at using Si; it's not really a weak-point for you, but something you see as important, at least in certain circumstances, and feel capable of doing.

That doesn't mean it's not the inferior function though. I'm quite confident that you're ENTP but I don't know how to make a compelling argument apart from the sequential function order approach, but that approach requires a lot of interpretation.

Feeling that things not changing would be bad might indicate inferior Si, but I can sometimes feel that the future is very daunting, though often this is tied to fearing the resurfacing of negative elements of the past. So I guess it's complex.

 

[Pionart]

OT: one thing that blew my mind when I first studied phys chem is that the shapes you usually study are really approximative. For instance, a 2s orbital has a radial node (zone where the probability of finding an electron is zero, shaped like a shell) inside. So it's more like two spheres one inside the other.
Care about that. I've never seen a book, worst if entry level, without some kind of historical section when introducing a new chapter. Also because science history's not a subject, and you need to know where those discoveries came from. I don't think that's enough to type anyone, it could easily be just something to get the reader more accustomed to the subject. And well, for instance, without studying decently Bohr's model, it would be much harder to understand what came later.

I feel like studying some chemistry. I was planning on it when I entered university but the first year subjects sounded rather boring and there was only a subset of the higher level subjects that sounded interesting. I majored in mathematics instead.

That typing method is I believe a good one, because the type will shine through in the writings of a textbook even, it will show the sequential ordering. I've been able to type writers through that method but of course there is no confirmation that I'm write, only a belief in my methodology.

Well I will say that there are Ni doms who are good with Se. Bruce Lee is supposedly INFJ, and there is the occassional other INFJ sportsman.

So look for the sequential ordering, only then will you know.

 

[Pionart]

I like this life,cause u always need to fight

random af?

 

[typologyenthusiast]

Yes. I agree. Judging solely by your posting, you are an INTP to the MBTI.
Fe-Si verbal expression would be like this: "You walk too slowly, you are just like a snail". When they say this it means Fe-Si wants to push the person they sensates subjectively walking so slowly like a snail, to walk faster so that they won't sensate the person resembles a snail, that walks very slowly anymore. The Fe-Si empirically likes to instruct others to take some actions. My mother (identification: ESFJ) instructs me to throw the garbage away while she was busy doing something else. They are an "executive" that take actions habitually. They delegate task to others rather easily, by instructing.

Some years ago When I began researching about the typology theory, I stayed in my room for such a long time, that my mother commented: "staying in your room for a long time, you are just like "a hen" who hatches its eggs". Telling that, She instructs me not to stay in my room for such a long time and go out for another activities.