For the Last Time

[ThatGirl]

Wow, I am kind of surprised at how incredibly close what I wrote today was as compared to three years ago.

 

[Atomic Fiend]

So you've given up on that TypoC sabbatical have you?

One thing I'm fairly certain of whatever you are you're not an introvert.

I love to theorize, just not about anything that is super important. Taking long hours theorizing how to act before doing it drives me crazy. By the time you act, what ever conclusion you came up with for three days ago is going to be less efficient, since by now the situation has likely changed somewhat. You go back to theorize that? Now you are stuck analyzing and never doing. Analyzing things like, black holes, and other things that have no real world application are fine, as long as it is for fun.

I am stubborn as fuck, and will only incorporate other peoples ideas if they make perfect sense to me, and are better than the idea I already held.

I have been known to focus on the negative, that is because to me, the positive doesn't need attention. Its all good. I know it is there, recognize it and appreciate it, but try not to mess with a good thing.

As a result most of the perfect things, moments, I encounter, are things I have done behind the scenes without anyone else's awareness and been able to view the finished result.

That looks like Te to me. I don't know what your perceiving function is though. Maybe Si because of how much you value the practical and though you seem to spend alot of time talking about ideas most of those ideas you seem to discard quickly after the discussion is over never to be heard of again. You do use an intuitive function in there but it's only for the sake of discussion. Ne.


I think you're an ESTJ TG.

 

[ThatGirl]

To be honest I cannot believe how many people are typing me S.

I swear everyone who doesn't walk around throwing their N around is an S these days.

I find it hard to believe you guys don't see the N in my posts.

 

[ThatGirl]

I think I figured out where the disconnection is coming from.....


I would also like to point out that 9/10 S types I met, it was my opinion, they were severely out of touch with "reality."

Just because I don't want to deal with things that don't matter doesn't mean I have the same idea of what matters as everyone else. It means I get frustrated working with a bunch of crap that doesn't.

 

[rav3n]

I say TG is an ENTJ...

YWIR.. You guys are very much alike from where I am standing.

No they're not.

 

[Nicodemus]

From where he is standing... Are you sitting on his shoulders?

 

[rav3n]

No! I stand corrected.

Amended post. From where I stand the two are like night and day. One understands social dynamics and sees herself clearly.

 

[ThatGirl]

Nice, using an inaccurate and subjective statement to promote objectivity and self awareness. *shakes head*

I can assure you what I have written here is exactly how I am irl. Thanks. Also please read the op if you're going to post in my thread.

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

Dude. Stop torturing yourself trying to solve this insolvable puzzle. Type theory isn't a science. You aren't going to find an answer that makes total sense because personality changes--desires, moods, emotions, insights--and because the test isn't designed to do what you want it to do. It's a type theory, not a full fledged personality theory. It's a crude instrument and you want it to be precise. It's not gonna happen. Personality has a lot more depth than 4 dimensions, anyway. There are tons of other personality theories out there that attest to that truth. You are TG: you're kinda weird, strangely confident in many ways, and occasionally laugh-out-loud funny. Who really gives a shit how a crude type theory classifies you? Like, I have a lot of political opinions. In some ways I sound like a Democrat, in some ways a Republican, and in some ways a Socialist. And on top of that, it changes. Do I really care how someone else defines me using their definitions and parameters? No, and it doesn't actually add anything to who I am. It doesn't give me any insight into myself that I don't already know. So why the fuck should I care? I see you going back and forth on the type things and it just seems so stupid to me. It changes nothing, and you're demanding a degree of precision that this type theory was never intended to produce.

 

[Arclight]

No they're not.

That might be because you are not where I am standing??

OH I see Nico said this already..

They have a similar sense of humor.. A similar fire about them..
To me.. I often get the same kind of reaction in myself from them.. so I listen to my body..

 

[ThatGirl]

I just find that unacceptable. Personality theories are supposed to bridge the gaps between perspectives. While I believe it has helped me to see who others are, I still find that most people cannot understand where I am coming from. Not so much just on this forum, but irl too.

So I believe that being open to what other people are suspecting is a good way to see what they are seeing vs how I see myself. This knowledge is useful in bringing attention to the idiosyncrasies I still need to work on in order to become more easily understood.

What I find frustrating, is when people try to use the biases of typology to promote like or dislike of your character. This doesn't help anything.

It is like how people say I suck at language and am therefore hard to understand. In this circumstance I suck at self representation. So that too, causes a communication barrier, that ultimately I am responsible for. I will consider it a success when I am disciplined enough to accurately represent myself in a way that is universally understandable to others.

Given the general direction of this thread, I would say the improvements I made to become more understandable have led people to believe I am more of an S type. Which sort of makes sense, since I have tried to combat the 'open for interpretation' parts of my personality.

It also indicates I have gone from one extreme to another, and therefore am still getting it wrong.

It is not that I need to know myself, I know that. It is that I need others to be more aware of myself, if I am to walk the same paths as them without unnecessary conflict or jeopardizing my own integrity.

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

I just find that unacceptable. Personality theories are supposed to bridge the gaps between perspectives.

Well, I disagree already. Personality theories are easy ways to divide people. You can divide 'em along any dimensions: height, education, accomplishments, dominance, humor, intelligence, whatever. A type theory is just supposed to categorize. It's not comprehensive. There's a lot more variation in perspectives than MBTI can account for, and I'm guessing you can see that. If I told you someone's INTP, you'd have some information about them, but once you met them, you'd see so so so so so so much more. You especially.

While I believe it has helped me to see who others are, I still find that most people cannot understand where I am coming from. Not so much just on this forum, but irl too.

Type has nothing to do with it. It helps very very little on this forum. If you want people to understand you, you need to express yourself clearly and thinking accurately. Type is irrelevant.

It is like how people say I suck at language and am therefore hard to understand. In this circumstance I suck at self representation. So that too, causes a communication barrier, that ultimately I am responsible for. I will consider it a success when I am disciplined enough to accurately represent myself in a way that is universally understandable to others.

You suck in finding the word that other people use to express difficult concepts that you want to express. The vocabulary is out there, you're just not familiar with it yet because you probably hang around morons (no offense to Vent). If you express yourself with more familiar words, people will "get you."

Given the general direction of this thread, I would say the improvements I made to become more understandable have led people to believe I am more of an S type. Which sort of makes sense, since I have tried to combat the 'open for interpretation' parts of my personality.

It also indicates I have gone from one extreme to another, and therefore am still getting it wrong.

It is not that I need to know myself, I know that. It is that I need others to be more aware of myself, if I am to walk the same paths as them without unnecessary conflict or jeopardizing my own integrity.

People have aspired to harmonize with others and be understood long before typology came around. There are better ways, and investing all your time (or really, any time) into further trying to discern your type is pointless. There are better, more efficient ways to tackle conflict and integrity than this. It's not like once they understand your type everything'll get better.

 

[Kalach]

How come it's important to you that other people get you, but other people's theories make no difference to yours?

 

[ThatGirl]

I have had a life time to test my own theories regarding myself for accuracy. When other people present theory they are automatically at a disadvantage. Jumping in somewhere in the middle of what I have already thought about or figured out. Then I need to go back and explain how, yes, I could see where you are saying that but..... Then it comes off to the other as arguing to make my point.

I try to shy away from theory regarding my type for this reason alone. If I were to go through the chronological understanding I have come to at this point, you would surely agree that I am in fact an INTJ. Though because you did not believe that to begin with, the fault would be put on me for changing your perspective to fit my "ideal". Which is counter productive to simply representing myself accurately.

There are a great number of reasons for my idiosyncrasy. Which as ThatsWhatHeSaid, are not type related. Or maybe they are, only if you can dissect type down to its most basic probabilities. How would someone of this type have dealt in these situations. Which I have first hand knowledge of more so than others.

I suppose in a way, bringing myself back to my base state, clear enough to be understood off hand, is the ultimate goal.

 

[Kalach]

I have had a life time to test my own theories regarding myself for accuracy. When other people present theory they are automatically at a disadvantage. Jumping in somewhere in the middle of what I have already thought about or figured out. Then I need to go back and explain how, yes, I could see where you are saying that but..... Then it comes off to the other as arguing to make my point.

This presumably goes to interaction style, and seems, perhaps superficially, to suggest In Charge.

I also have a pet theory about particularly ESTP and ENTP. They tend to know more than they say. Part of it is being a perceiver before a thinker; part of it is being lumbered with Ti and having no need to actually come clean about how much they think is true. They measure truth against inner standards and if the quest for truth comes out into the outside world, it often takes the form of arguing the other side of what they believe or by having hypotheses that they don't reveal but do test by seeing how far wrong they can go. Think House, MD.

I try to shy away from theory regarding my type for this reason alone. If I were to go through the chronological understanding I have come to at this point, you would surely agree that I am in fact an INTJ.

Now this goes to judgment type. Either F over T because of the idea another person can be swayed by presentation or more likely, but for the same reason, Ti over Fe. And I say that because you're not INTJ. At the very least, you're not INTJ because other people's theories don't bug you. You don't *feel* compelled to put misunderstanding right. You'd like people to get you, but how they're supposed to get you is not by them being corrected by you saying what you know to be true. This is a relatively flimsy case for saying not INTJ, but that is neither here nor there. (If you know why it's neither here nor there, then maybe you can be INTJ. We'll see.)

Though because you did not believe that to begin with, the fault would be put on me for changing your perspective to fit my "ideal". Which is counter productive to simply representing myself accurately.

Really, really, really not Chart The Course interaction style.

There are a great number of reasons for my idiosyncrasy. Which as ThatsWhatHeSaid, are not type related. Or maybe they are, only if you can dissect type down to its most basic probabilities. How would someone of this type have dealt in these situations. Which I have first hand knowledge of more so than others.

And the judgment inherent in that isn't introverted?

Now see, with the above question I'm either looking for a conclusion to be made public or I'm looking for an argument. Which one does it seem like? Both are instances of looking for proof. Extroverted proof is you say what's true and I accept it (or I believe it's wrong and I reject it). Introverted proof is we debate.

And now again see, I'm saying out loud what's true. I'm charting a course. I'm saying this is they way things are and you'll benefit from knowing them. It's not guaranteed that all INTJs do this, but it is sort of built into the function structure. Is that you? Not by what you've said.

I suppose in a way, bringing myself back to my base state, clear enough to be understood off hand, is the ultimate goal.

Presumably this goes to purpose, and has a bearing on interaction style too. You seek clarity of communication. Clear communication of what exactly? One thinks perhaps it may be clear communication of orders. Seeking efficiency of leadership, and not necessarily through being personable. ESTP or ENTJ. And it's not ENTJ. ENTJ would be just as unlikely as ESTP to accept being told what they are, and both would be tempted to play with the speaker to find out what he knows, but their rejection of the other person's authority will take different forms. For ESTP specifically I suspect extroverted thinking claims will simply be ignored. ENTJ would interact with them a little more.

Could also be ESTJ. But where's the wild hypothesizing? You're stubborn enough for ESTJ (or even ESFJ with a mean streak), but.... something.

Or something.

 

[ThatGirl]

Interesting. Thanks.

 

[Kalach]

^ LOL.


Okay, so what would convince you? Seriously, what does another person have to do to not just get your attention but change your mind?

(I ask not as a potential fanboy, lovely as you are, but as a Course Charter. If you know the answer, it'll go some substantial distance to showing what your preferences are on taking in information and making judgments. And if you actually say the answer--which seems like it might be unlikely, perhaps even especially unlikely if you are In Charge, inferior feeling and all that--other people will have more to work with than just what you've decided is enough for them to know.)

 

[ThatGirl]

Not necessarily. I spoke my answer in the OP. Make it make sense, and make it worth more than what I already know.

 

[Kalach]

I am stubborn as fuck, and will only incorporate other peoples ideas if they make perfect sense to me, and are better than the idea I already held.

But you didn't say what incorporation means, nor what constitutes sense, nor what makes an idea better or worse than yours. Every type can claim of themselves the same things you claim, they just mean totally different things by the same words.

So...

To incorporate an idea is to add it into your overall belief structure or merely deploy it in today's plan?
Perfect sense means is consistent with your beliefs or provides a key you're currently looking for?
Better in terms of quality or current usability?

Which is to ask, in short, Ti or Te?



Let's just skip ahead a few steps, shall we? Your answer to all questions is "both". But your preferences exist, inadequately phrases questions notwithstanding. Why do you need currently require other people to tell you answers?

Now a question to which "both" is a legitimate answer: "are you feeding a perception function or do you want a judgment function prompted?" Other people are putatively involved so one or the other of those is an e function. (That is true anyway.) So, either Ne or Fe. But it's Ne that doesn't dominate (demonstrated by how well it doesn't work) and/or it's Fe that isn't a primary judgment function (demonstrated by how it seems to serve demands for truth rather than the other way around). So ESTP or ESTJ. Except Te is not apparent (making much of this "proof" irrelevant anyway.) So ESTP. Again. I'm going to be annoyed when I'm wrong later.

 

[Kalach]

Well anyway, my arguments are getting crappier and more tendentious than usual and really all I'm semi-confident of seeing here is In Charge interaction style. And a lot of feelery, semi-moral complaint in the OP. From my inexperienced F point of view it seems maudlin and catastrophising, but who can know, and either way I can't be sure if it's tertiary or inferior.

There are definite constraints on what information can be used for type checking. Is this because of In Charge interaction or because the fact checking was couched in the wrong language? I may never know.

And why does everyone else have to agree on a type? Sounds like a management ploy.


Etc. Speculation fail.



Why is information being managed? Or is it?