Well... some of what you're saying seems more J than S, but I can see why you might say that. It's interesting that you think details by themselves aren't useful, but the framework/system that gets built is more important. I would have thought an S perspective was that the details were more important than the results of the framework/system. Huh.
Please note: Even if I'm saying "we" - I'm always talking about my own experiences because I can never know for certain that this is what it's like for other sensors or any other individual. I prefer not to assume things, I can guess but the other person will ultimately have a better insight than me regarding themselves as long as they are mentally sound.
You're not wrong. The details are important to sensors, because we build our frameworks and system with these things. It's where the whole linear thing might come into play. Considering that sensors are constantly being described as practical orientated, it does not really make sense that they only deal with facts if you think about it. Facts stand alone don't have practical value, but they can be useful in a game of trivia.
There's one contradiction with the typical S/N systems. You sort of have to question and understand the reason sensors look towards details. I'm not saying that you can't. It's just that being a intuitive, you are more likely to focus on your own type and defend things thrown in your direction, than concentrate on the problems that exist elsewhere. Exception being if you are defending on the behalf of a close sensor friend.
It reminds me of a conversation I had a long time ago with an INFP on INFPgc chatroom. Me and another ISFJ were being accused of being rigid, not wanting to change, shooting down their plans etc. However if they looked at it from our perspective, they would quickly see that we're not against change but unneccessary change. This is true for the ISTJs as well. We essentially operate on the motto: "If it's not broken, don't try and fix it" and "If you are going to change the system, provide me with good justification."
Think about it this way: Does it seem so unusual as an idea that an ISFJ might adapt to their partners needs, changing their frameworks because they believe that it will improve things?
That's basically one of the biggest problems with claims about sensors. Some of them aren't backed up with reasoning, it's just accepted that we do engage in this behaviour without fully understanding or explaining the reason we do it. The whole stereotype that sensors have no reasoning for their actions, they just do things, but I can definitely tell you along with other ISTJs that this is untrue. I assume it's true for SPs as well.
How do people operate without reasoning anyway? There's always some motivation behind actions. Most people would agree that people seek meaning for their actions, otherwise we would be in a state of apathy. For some this is religion, for others it'd be creating meaning for ourselves.
Don't worry, we're all biased.
I kind of doubt there's a coherent pattern in MBTI anyway, and that the whole thing is subject to confirmation bias more than actual patterns. There's absolutely
nothing in it that can be measured objectively, because no apparent skills, abilities, or traits are specifically tied to functions. It's not like scanning your brain with an fMRI to see which areas light up, or measuring weight/height. Only reason I keep messing with it is the community, and the hope that I might stumble onto a way of interpreting it that ties it to something and allows it to be measured more clearly.
Yep. Therefore it's best to take the MBTI model with a pinch of salt and use it as a basic model and then refine it with real life experiences, while trying to maintain being objective as possible when doing so.
That said... it seems like you're definitely IxFx. Probably ISFJ, but ISFP and INFJ are also possible. You should be careful with the Si result, because several of my friends have agreed that even NJs are likely to get a high Si score and low Ni score, due to certain J traits being thrown into Si, and Ni being described in a way that describes more how Ni looks from the outside, than how it seems to someone who uses it on a regular basis.
When I first came to MBTI I thought I was an ISXX because I had totally rejected intuition within me, because I do not see myself as a creative nor imaginative individual. Having been with an INFJ friend, I could see that while there was many similarities, there was also lots of differences and she concluded the same. She also wanted to become a writer, I'm not so good with words.
Regarding Si and Ni. It's interesting to hear about your friends experiences, do you mind elaborating a little more on that? Otherwise I could be an ISFP, except there's the major problem that I identify Ne as my weakest function. Brainstorming and going off tangent is difficult for me. I've tried improving Ne by engaging in the whole Seaside - Ocean - Dolphins etc, but you would quickly realise that I'm always operating within a framework than allowing myself to go into something completely unrelated to the original point.
There's also the fact that I do identify much with Se as a function. In fact until recently I had a fair amount of bias for SPs as I essentially associated it with hedonism. That coupled with some experiences with unstable SPs basically made them out to be rather... dubious. But I've always known that this is just prejudice. One thing that interests me most about psychology is actually how susceptible we are to bias created from self-defensive mechanisms, as it's something I aim to reduce within myself.
Thankfully I met a wonderful ESFP who happens to be a christian. Personally I think her religion provides her with a sense of stability and ethical positions like "To be kind to people etc". It's wonderful as she is so kind and quirky at the same time, somebody who is willing to accept people as long as they are reasonably within christian morals. So in some ways that has dismissed my prejudice against ESFPs.
Generally speaking, though, the accepted way to test for type around here is simply go with whatever type you feel most represents your self-concept, do your best to rationalize it, and then run it by the community along with a couple descriptions of yourself. As long as there's no major red flag that makes the majority of people go "no way in heck are you that type," that's your type.
At least until we find a more measurable way of typing people.
Just in case you're curious, the major red flags on your S (among those who even try to use standards and don't just look for reasons to believe you're whatever type you imply you are) are probably:
- Interest in philosophy/psychology - I've explained why I am interested earlier on.
- Analytical skills - This for me is Ti.
- Ability to pick up on puns and other forms of humor - The British is known for sarcasm. But I've never heard of this as a S/N standard. ^^'
- Rejection of conservative religious beliefs and political values. - See the part where I was explaining about ho
- Questioning of authority and desire to find your own way
There are lots of things that I keep and lots of things I've rejected based on whether I view them as truth. I explaind earlier in this post about how SJs react to change in beliefs and values. However in practice I'm more willing to conform unless I view there as being an obvious major problem with society.
Just to give a little background on how I have potentially come to create my model of reality in bullet points.
- Rejection from school at early age.
- Development of perfectionism in order to be accepted.
- Refusal of falling to peer-pressure to engage in 'immoral acts'
- Social Anxiety producing shyness. Don't fit with 'mainstream' crowds.
- Observance of negative treatment towards outcasts.
- Stronger development of protection for the underdogs.
- Development of moral relativism. Remaining neutral in arguements.
[Why do people bully? Why did they persecute people for believing the world was round in the past? etc]
- Decision to find my own system of what is truth.
This is the framework that I have adopted and it can hold true for other sensors. You could also say that I was influenced by a close INFJ friend during my adolescent years (13-19).
I've changed a few times for example: I used to think that shopping and small talk is superficial, but then I met an ISFP who loves shopping and clothing, and I could never describe her as shallow. Regarding that of small talk, I discovered that topics that aren't interesting to me as usually deemed as small talk. But it's extremely possible for some one to go into lots of depth with shopping etc. Someone mentioned small talk as being a method of exchanging greetings/acknowledgement of the other person rather than conversation and I think that's extremely true.
The fact is, I'm
done with standards. From now on, I'm just going try and type people based on how I think they want to be seen. Standards are unfair, subjective, and make no sense. In fact, I'm not even going to type people, because I know I'll be influenced by the standards. So to be fair, I'm going to quit participating in typing.
I'm so sick of choking on the biases I've picked up from my time here...
Aww It's all good! You do usually make insightful posts, for example that one about the limitations of MBTI. For me personally I find it best to operate in a scientific method way when dealing with the theory and to ensure that my foundation is correct as logic can prove anything.
My parents personally hate that I do this, but I use extreme examples to counter a theory being 100% correct and thus it needs refining. Another example: I operate on the belief that function ordering is not rigid and fluid, however the first two functions along with the inferior are usually good indicators of type. Then BlackCat came along and pwned me by telling me that his inferior is actually well developed.
Oh dear post count 444: Not good for the chinese...
The functional order is Fi, Se, Ni, Te. It's ISFJs that have Ne as the forth. Si, Fe, Ti, Ne. I think it's assumed that you're much more likely to use the four functions in your type, than the four in your shadow.
I totally get it.
