• 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.

The Untyped

NewEra

New member
Joined
Dec 21, 2008
Messages
3,104
MBTI Type
I
From the very start I've found your desire to become a 'proper SJ' a bit suspicious - it's not like there's anything bad about SJs, it's just that I have yet to meet an SJ who would take so much pride in being an SJ. They just... are. *shrugs* Contrariwise, in your case it all seems to me like some sort of a vision you want to fulfill because you believe it's right - but that's all Fi.

How many ISTJs have you met that are familiar with MBTI theory? Just sayin'. I still think Ruthie is an xSTJ with a very well-developed Fi (and well-developed Ne).


Ruthie - let me ask you this: do you prefer having decisions finalized (and finished) or being open-ended with them?
 

Space_Oddity

New member
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
359
MBTI Type
CAT
Instinctual Variant
so
How many ISTJs have you met that are familiar with MBTI theory? Just sayin'. I still think Ruthie is an xSTJ with a very well-developed Fi (and well-developed Ne).

Well, it's not like I've met dozens of them, but I have met a few.

My boyfriend (ISTJ) - did the test, got INTP and INFP. He's so J that it hurts though, so I settled on an INTJ, against which he protested, because some things didn't fit. He wasn't too happy about the MBTI thing in general. When I got to know him better I found out he was really an ISTJ, which he agreed on, but he didn't get any keen on MBTI after that either. He always says it's not as important who people are as why they are who they are, which I agree on.

Friend (ISTJ) - did the test, got ISTJ, was excited because it described her perfectly. But it was the end for her, wasn't further interested in the theory and when I later talked about some people in MBTI terms she seemed to disapprove because she thought their actions stem from different things than MBTI, which I again agree on.

Friend (ESFJ) - did the test, got some Exxx (closest to ENFJ), but I typed her ESFJ and she read the profile and agreed. That was the end, she wasn't interested anymore.

Friend (ISFJ) - got INTJ on the test, but I'm sure she's Si Fe. I think she didn't even read the profile... She wasn't really interested. But I suspect that she would agree with the ISFJ and would be proud of it. But as you can see, she typed as an N, just like the friend above and my SO.

I have never sent the test to the other ISTJ friend of mine because she would get mistyped as an N anyway. She's way to artistic and 'free' to fit into the S typing stereotypes. I suspect she would think some things do not fit, which they really don't. But her way of thinking does.

All the people I described above have very high Ne, so I know very well what it is like to interact with SJs with high Ne. But I've got a different feeling about Ruthie.

This wasn't my main argument at all, though. I think I've explained to Ruthie in my previous post in sufficient detail why I think she's INFP - it's up to her to decide.
 

NewEra

New member
Joined
Dec 21, 2008
Messages
3,104
MBTI Type
I
^^Ah ok, fair enough, but I think most of those SJs (if not all) were not interested enough to take pride in their SJness. I just think that's not really a good measure to find her type. Some of your other points were good though.


Ruthie, I don't know if it's that unnatural for an S to be daydreaming. There are a few times where I tend to zone out, usually when I'm tired or bored. I'm not really thinking of anything while I do that, just kind of stare into space.
 

Ruthie

New member
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
436
MBTI Type
?
How many ISTJs have you met that are familiar with MBTI theory? Just sayin'. I still think Ruthie is an xSTJ with a very well-developed Fi (and well-developed Ne).


Ruthie - let me ask you this: do you prefer having decisions finalized (and finished) or being open-ended with them?

My preference is for finalizing decisions. That's making this particular consideration and re-consideration of type a bit outside my comfort zone :). I will say that I see some of the points in SpaceOddity's evaluation, but also a number of holes. For one thing, I often play the role of the skeptic quite naturally, and I don't really see possibilities everywhere - at least not good possibilities. I'm not at all fanciful, and I'm something of a judger in the classic sense of the word - as in, the little internal judge that gavels down one verdict or another on virtually everything I encounter. With the unfortunate exception of work or other practical matters, I'm not a particularly open-ended person.

I really do want to iron out this daydream thing though. Since I was very young, I have had extremely elaborate daydreams that I never share with anyone. As in, I have never ONCE shared them with anyone (hey, the beauty of anonymity). Basically, I create characters and play out scenes in my mind. I'm never a character, and people I know are rarely characters (and if they are, only in very tangential ways). The story-lines can develop for years - I'd say I've probably had about 10 major stories throughout the 30 years of my life, and I don't think I've ever lived a day without spending some time in that world. When I'm in daydream mode, the outside world doesn't exist at all. It's all extremely rich and vivid and complex and also completely separate from the rest of my personality. Unlike the child with the imaginary friend, I never blurred the line between fantasy and reality. That world is entirely divorced from the grounded, realistic - even skeptical - person I am in real life (although I admit, I'll occasionally steal a line or an idea from one of the characters in the daydream without attribution...sometimes I do actually develop theories by working them out through the characters.)

My belief is that daydreaming (especially daydreams in which the person having the daydream isn't even starring in said daydream) is likely the result of an introverted perceiving function, Ni or Si, and that the difference in that function would result in entirely different daydreams. For instance, Ni might create a world that bears little resemblance to the actual world - maybe people don't even look like people, or it exists in the 13th century, or horses fly or something imaginative like that. Si, on the other hand, would likely create a world that neatly overlaps with the real world. Characters do and say realistic things and behave in accordance with the laws of physics. My daydreams are very much the latter.

Problem I'm having is that it seems assumed that daydreams themselves are evidence of N over S. That's just a stereotype, right?

Do you daydream in this way?

Sometimes I feel like I'm trying to type two different people... the external version of me, which seeks an anchor for my life, prefers down-to-Earth people and forms of entertainment, takes a skeptical, judging approach to most things, is generally annoyed by idealism, wants things to be a certain way, and thinks people need to act more in accordance to duty than with subjective, untrustworthy personal values. When I read the temperament descriptions of the SJs, I can check it off point by point as fitting me.

Then there's the internal version, which creates worlds, zones out daily, tinkers with theories, and has a decent amount of personal introspection and insight into others. When I read the standard descriptions of N vs. S, I can check off all the points under N as fitting me. Both versions are authentic - it's not like I'm a dreamy person who learned how to exhibit skepticism and realism. I've played both roles naturally for my entire life.

Which side am I supposed to think of when typing?
 
B

brainheart

Guest
I think having to choose between N and S can be tremendously confusing, and quite honestly, arbitrary. What is the benefit you are trying to glean from this, Ruthie?
 
B

brainheart

Guest
Sometimes I feel like I'm trying to type two different people... the external version of me, which seeks an anchor for my life, prefers down-to-Earth people and forms of entertainment, takes a skeptical, judging approach to most things, is generally annoyed by idealism, wants things to be a certain way, and thinks people need to act more in accordance to duty than with subjective, untrustworthy personal values. When I read the temperament descriptions of the SJs, I can check it off point by point as fitting me.

Then there's the internal version, which creates worlds, zones out daily, tinkers with theories, and has a decent amount of personal introspection and insight into others. When I read the standard descriptions of N vs. S, I can check off all the points under N as fitting me. Both versions are authentic - it's not like I'm a dreamy person who learned how to exhibit skepticism and realism. I've played both roles naturally for my entire life.

Which side am I supposed to think of when typing?

I am so with you on this, Ruthie.
 

Space_Oddity

New member
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
359
MBTI Type
CAT
Instinctual Variant
so
^^Ah ok, fair enough, but I think most of those SJs (if not all) were not interested enough to take pride in their SJness. I just think that's not really a good measure to find her type.

Yeah, I agree. I didn't want to imply by any means that being an SJ isn't something to be proud of. It sure is - I said the SJ ideals are beautiful. But you're right, the ones I know really weren't interested enough, because they either just didn't think it was such a big deal or they thought MBTI was useless. But you're right, it sure isn't the best measure to find her type.

TheChosenOne said:
Some of your other points were good though.

Thank you :)
 

Ruthie

New member
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
436
MBTI Type
?
I think having to choose between N and S can be tremendously confusing, and quite honestly, arbitrary. What is the benefit you are trying to glean from this, Ruthie?

Perfectly stated. No benefit really. Mostly just curiosity, but like I said - I do like things to be finalized.

Have you settled on being undefinable, or do you still turn the N vs. S card over and over in your mind?
 
B

brainheart

Guest
I will never settle. I don't know how to...

But I'm starting to accept that, and that MBTI is a flawed system with no perfect answer. I think introverted feeling describes me well enough... the rest is... irrelevant.
 

Ruthie

New member
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
436
MBTI Type
?
I will never settle. I don't know how to...

But I'm starting to accept that, and that MBTI is a flawed system with no perfect answer. I think introverted feeling describes me well enough... the rest is... irrelevant.

Spoken like a true P ;)

Hey, regardless of our actual types, we've gotta keep the Sensor-love alive, ok? We still stand together railing against N-snobbery? :)
 

NewEra

New member
Joined
Dec 21, 2008
Messages
3,104
MBTI Type
I
My preference is for finalizing decisions. That's making this particular consideration and re-consideration of type a bit outside my comfort zone :). I will say that I see some of the points in SpaceOddity's evaluation, but also a number of holes. For one thing, I often play the role of the skeptic quite naturally, and I don't really see possibilities everywhere - at least not good possibilities. I'm not at all fanciful, and I'm something of a judger in the classic sense of the word - as in, the little internal judge that gavels down one verdict or another on virtually everything I encounter. With the unfortunate exception of work or other practical matters, I'm not a particularly open-ended person.

Oh ok, so what you're saying (correct me if I'm wrong) is that you like having decisions made already, except if it's not necessary (like at work or school, etc.) ? Is that what you mean when you say "With the unfortunate exception of work or other practical matters, I'm not a particularly open-ended person." ?


I really do want to iron out this daydream thing though. Since I was very young, I have had extremely elaborate daydreams that I never share with anyone. As in, I have never ONCE shared them with anyone (hey, the beauty of anonymity). Basically, I create characters and play out scenes in my mind. I'm never a character, and people I know are rarely characters (and if they are, only in very tangential ways). The story-lines can develop for years - I'd say I've probably had about 10 major stories throughout the 30 years of my life, and I don't think I've ever lived a day without spending some time in that world. When I'm in daydream mode, the outside world doesn't exist at all. It's all extremely rich and vivid and complex and also completely separate from the rest of my personality. Unlike the child with the imaginary friend, I never blurred the line between fantasy and reality. That world is entirely divorced from the grounded, realistic - even skeptical - person I am in real life (although I admit, I'll occasionally steal a line or an idea from one of the characters in the daydream without attribution...sometimes I do actually develop theories by working them out through the characters.)

My belief is that daydreaming (especially daydreams in which the person having the daydream isn't even starring in said daydream) is likely the result of an introverted perceiving function, Ni or Si, and that the difference in that function would result in entirely different daydreams. For instance, Ni might create a world that bears little resemblance to the actual world - maybe people don't even look like people, or it exists in the 13th century, or horses fly or something imaginative like that. Si, on the other hand, would likely create a world that neatly overlaps with the real world. Characters do and say realistic things and behave in accordance with the laws of physics. My daydreams are very much the latter.

Problem I'm having is that it seems assumed that daydreams themselves are evidence of N over S. That's just a stereotype, right?

Do you daydream in this way?

Hmm... interesting, that sounds very different from me. I don't really think of things like that. Come to think of it, the word 'daydreaming' is pretty puzzling to me. I usually think of whatever I'm doing at a particular time or what I need to do.


Sometimes I feel like I'm trying to type two different people... the external version of me, which seeks an anchor for my life, prefers down-to-Earth people and forms of entertainment, takes a skeptical, judging approach to most things, is generally annoyed by idealism, wants things to be a certain way, and thinks people need to act more in accordance to duty than with subjective, untrustworthy personal values. When I read the temperament descriptions of the SJs, I can check it off point by point as fitting me.

Then there's the internal version, which creates worlds, zones out daily, tinkers with theories, and has a decent amount of personal introspection and insight into others. When I read the standard descriptions of N vs. S, I can check off all the points under N as fitting me. Both versions are authentic - it's not like I'm a dreamy person who learned how to exhibit skepticism and realism. I've played both roles naturally for my entire life.

Which side am I supposed to think of when typing?

This too is intriguing. I am very introspective too, but most of me would be in the first paragraph of this particular quote (starting with "the external version...").
 
B

brainheart

Guest
Yeah, for sure.

Down with N-Snobbery! Up with S... uh, what rhymes with 'snobbery'?
 

Ruthie

New member
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
436
MBTI Type
?
Oh ok, so what you're saying (correct me if I'm wrong) is that you like having decisions made already, except if it's not necessary (like at work or school, etc.) ? Is that what you mean when you say "With the unfortunate exception of work or other practical matters, I'm not a particularly open-ended person." ?

Sort of. I think it just means that I enjoy closure, and I like decisions being finalized. I don't really enjoy having options open. But I'm not particularly good at follow-through when it comes to the stuff that really matters to my life. THAT'S the unfortunate exception.
 

Ruthie

New member
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
436
MBTI Type
?
I've gotta head out for a bit, but while I'm gone, I'll try to think up more appropriate rhymes for snobbery...
 

Space_Oddity

New member
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
359
MBTI Type
CAT
Instinctual Variant
so
Ruthie said:
For one thing, I often play the role of the skeptic quite naturally, and I don't really see possibilities everywhere - at least not good possibilities. I'm not at all fanciful, and I'm something of a judger in the classic sense of the word - as in, the little internal judge that gavels down one verdict or another on virtually everything I encounter. With the unfortunate exception of work or other practical matters, I'm not a particularly open-ended person.

This does seem J, that's right.
But than, the first bolded part may be very easily interpreted as Fi. (Fi is a strong judge.)
And the other bolded part seems NP, or N at the very least.

Ruthie said:
I really do want to iron out this daydream thing though. Since I was very young, I have had extremely elaborate daydreams that I never share with anyone. As in, I have never ONCE shared them with anyone (hey, the beauty of anonymity). Basically, I create characters and play out scenes in my mind. I'm never a character, and people I know are rarely characters (and if they are, only in very tangential ways). The story-lines can develop for years - I'd say I've probably had about 10 major stories throughout the 30 years of my life, and I don't think I've ever lived a day without spending some time in that world. When I'm in daydream mode, the outside world doesn't exist at all. It's all extremely rich and vivid and complex and also completely separate from the rest of my personality. Unlike the child with the imaginary friend, I never blurred the line between fantasy and reality. That world is entirely divorced from the grounded, realistic - even skeptical - person I am in real life (although I admit, I'll occasionally steal a line or an idea from one of the characters in the daydream without attribution...sometimes I do actually develop theories by working them out through the characters.)

Well... I wouldn't say this daydreaming mode is particularly related to one type of person or another, but if I had to choose, INFP would seem like the more natural choice to me. I, for once, was 'telling stories' to myself in my head all my childhood. They were completely separated from reality as well, and I didn't feel any need to share with anyone else. But then I started to dream about being a writer, I started learning how to put the ideas onto paper, so they didn't really stay in my head all the time, although I very rarely share until this day. (The 19th century thing was more like a game than anything else.) I know that my boyfriend is also a great (day)dreamer, but his daydreams are pretty reality-oriented - he shared that he fantasizes about his future or some 'better place'. I'm not sure if his imagination is elaborate enough to be able to create what you described, though - he always has lots of good ideas for stories and characters, but he doesn't really do anything with them. Your fantasizing reminds me of my old 'telling stories' quite a lot :)

Ruthie said:
My belief is that daydreaming (especially daydreams in which the person having the daydream isn't even starring in said daydream) is likely the result of an introverted perceiving function, Ni or Si, and that the difference in that function would result in entirely different daydreams. For instance, Ni might create a world that bears little resemblance to the actual world - maybe people don't even look like people, or it exists in the 13th century, or horses fly or something imaginative like that. Si, on the other hand, would likely create a world that neatly overlaps with the real world. Characters do and say realistic things and behave in accordance with the laws of physics. My daydreams are very much the latter.

Hum, I'd have to disagree on this one. I think that daydreaming is reserved for any person with imagination. It is probably more commonly associated with N, although it's not in my place to judge it. I don't think that the difference between Ni and Si would work like you described, though. Most NFs I know (and I know quite a lot) have pretty reality-focused imagination either. They don't like fanciful stories at all that much.

Ruthie said:
Problem I'm having is that it seems assumed that daydreams themselves are evidence of N over S. That's just a stereotype, right?

Honestly, I don't know. But the more I'm trying to remember, the less S's who would do anything similar do that I know. It was one of the things that separated me from other people when I was young, I guess.

Ruthie said:
Sometimes I feel like I'm trying to type two different people...

This is really hard. The only thing I can tell you is that you really extremely remind me of my older brother (possibly the same enneagram type either). I mistyped him for an INTJ for the longest time, because his Te stands out so much but his N as well, but when I looked at the difference between Ne and Ni it became clear he definitely isn't a Ni user, no matter how J he behaves. Then I looked at him from perspective and realized he can't be anything but an INFP.

Ruthie said:
Which side am I supposed to think of when typing?

I think the inner world is more important, because it says something about your perception. But if you think the outside world matters more, go with it :)

I will keep that secret belief you're an INFP and be content.
 

cascadeco

New member
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
9,083
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
9w1
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Hum, I'd have to disagree on this one. I think that daydreaming is reserved for any person with imagination. It is probably more commonly associated with N, although it's not in my place to judge it. I don't think that the difference between Ni and Si would work like you described, though. Most NFs I know (and I know quite a lot) have pretty reality-focused imagination either. They don't like fanciful stories at all that much.

Just wanted to chime in and say although I'm an N, I've never been a daydreamer in the sense that Ruthie has described she experiences. So it seems perfectly reasonable to me that if there are N's who don't experience daydreams in really imaginative senses - creating characters, or the like - there will be S's who do. I think this is one of those things where it's easy to go astray when trying to type someone -- latching onto details, and noticing how little details or individual behaviors point towards a myriad of different types, when it's more of the broader context of who you are that points towards type. I'm sure all of us have random little traits that could easily fall into another type, more stereotypically, but the *majority* of our traits fall in line with one.

I haven't read enough of this thread to really comment on your type; just wanted to say that!
 

Ruthie

New member
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
436
MBTI Type
?
I take a full day, and still have no additional rhymes for "snobbery."
 

Space_Oddity

New member
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
359
MBTI Type
CAT
Instinctual Variant
so
I take a full day, and still have no additional rhymes for "snobbery."

What about strawberry?

(Or is there any sly nuance in pronunciation?)
(... I would like to hear that poem...)
 
Top