Please help type me.

[The Great One]

Do you think so? If you dont mind me asking, could you elaborate?

Incidentally my criticism of David Keirsey far pre-dates the idea of me being an ISFJ.

Well, I knew that you were an Fe user and after that it was just a matter of finding out whether you used Si or Ni. Type yourself based on cognitive functions not on Kiersey: Kiersey temperaments suck.

 

[AgentF]

op: you started out with an apology. that probably rules out INTJ.

you ooze Fe, in a way that reminds me of INFjs.

"friends and family come and go but i exist." <- i find that quite beautiful but do you?

 

[Cellmold]

op: you started out with an apology. that probably rules out INTJ.

you ooze Fe, in a way that reminds me of INFjs.

"friends and family come and go but i exist." <- i find that quite beautiful but do you?

I dont know really, I just thought it was the best way to describe how I felt at the time. I felt it was my fault for not following people up more or holding on to relationships for longer. It sounds poetic but it's really just a description of something very literal in my mind.

Well, I knew that you were an Fe user and after that it was just a matter of finding out whether you used Si or Ni. Type yourself based on cognitive functions not on Kiersey: Kiersey temperaments suck.

Agreed, they do indeed suck.

 

[Cellmold]

You know ive realised that in reality I have no idea any more, the more information I receive the more convoluted my thought processes become. Complexity into obscurity with no practical use. The multitudinousness of my ideas is actually headache inducing, ive realised that many people with a seemingly concrete grasp of this theory and it's interpretations often dont question it the way I do and do not consider the variables the way I feel compelled to do, arrogant as that sounds it isn't intented that way.

My understanding of his work and this theory is based almost entirely on a series of eureka moments built upon accumulated information, that comes like a match flare in the dark but which then soon fades away, leaving a bare imprint, but taking everything of use.

The problem is I want set answers and I wont get them from a heuristic model which acknowledges the fluidity of people. To this end im not sure if MBTI or JCF were ever of serious use to me, I was never unhappy before, merely curious and my curiousity grabbed me and pulled me down the rabbit hole. But the rabbit hole is confusing and just when you think you have caught up with the rabbit, away he speeds again down some new avenue of understanding. I think it is a sobering fact that I am just limited in my intelligence and imagination and there is nothing I can do about that but accept it.

Connecting patterns in a useful manner is not my talent, I can only correlate with baseless stereotypes. People have always been too variable, too....specific for me. And this is a mode of thinking ive had since being a child, there is no indoctrination or internal war of projected self-doubt, this is just the way ive always seen things and to not do so is to not be myself.

But this very mode of cognition is also anathema to a theory such as this and all it's interpretations. Catagorisation is not wrong, nor has it ever been, but if there is to be a catagorisation then it has to be absolutist in my mind. This is a product of black and white thinking in myself that may never be undone, seeing as how it wasn't 'done' in the first place.

Afterall, how does a person go against the true, unadulterated, nature of their personality?

 

[Oaky]

INFJ

 

[Mal12345]

Heh, the only problem with descriptions is they can get filtered down to vague traits that anyone could possess, like "INTJ's are stubborn and rude arseholes who want to rule the world, or think they can" or "ESFP's are airheaded party animals who have no concept of introspection or deep evaluation".

Straw dog. Try evaluating a real type description instead of one you made up that circularly verifies your belief. I guess what you said above about your adherence to facts being subjective is true. Except that one was objective, so actually you have control over your subjectivity.

 

[Cellmold]

Straw dog. Try evaluating a real type description instead of one you made up that circularly verifies your belief. I guess what you said above about your adherence to facts being subjective is true. Except that one was objective, so actually you have control over your subjectivity.

Whose argument was I pre-supposing here?

I said others filter the descriptions down not that the descriptions themselves will always result in that hence the word CAN. It's a weakness in the way many descriptions are put across.

If you want evidence I can spend hours upon hours going over forums to gather information. The way in which people's biases and perceptions are formulated etc...

 

[Mal12345]

Whose argument was a pre-supposing here?

It's circular to declare that type descriptions are all bad, and then create one that contains the word "arsehole" among other oddities that seem very, very out of place for a type description.

 

[Cellmold]

It's circular to declare that type descriptions are all bad, and then create one that contains the word "arsehole" among other oddities that seem very, very out of place for a type description.

Where did I say they were all bad? I said it was a problem, a fault. You are assuming a great deal here.

Those 'ones I created' as you put it are merely stereotypes put forth by people, who often cite type descriptions as their source of information. At most it was a simplistic and exaggerated summing up.

 

[Mal12345]

Where did I say they were all bad? I said it was a problem, a fault. You are assuming a great deal here.

Those 'ones I created' as you put it are merely stereotypes put forth by people, who often cite type descriptions as their source of information. At most it was a simplistic and exaggerated summing up.

"the only problem with descriptions is they can get filtered down to vague traits that anyone could possess."

Your original description of the problem was also vague compared to your new one.

Besides, Jung provided type descriptions which can suffer the same filtered-down fate.

 

[Cellmold]

"the only problem with descriptions is they can get filtered down to vague traits that anyone could possess."

Your original description of the problem was also vague compared to your new one.

Besides, Jung provided type descriptions which can suffer the same filtered-down fate.

Very true. But so what? I also dont see how my original description of the problem was vague. I was talking about stereotypes.

While Jung's functions can suffer from a filtered-down-fate as well, I see it as less likely to happen due to how he wrote them, but this is only my personal view.

But this is all about opinions so I dont see why you even started this argument in the first place. You may trust descriptions of type more than I do. I dont have a problem with that and nor would I belittle your judgement if you did.

 

[Mal12345]

Very true. But so what? I also dont see how my original description was vague. I was talking about stereotypes.

"Can get filtered down" is a passive tense verb form that specifies no subject. (Example, "No subject was specified [by whom?] in your sentence.") Who is doing the filtering? Blank. Later you clarified this by stating that people filter them down. Since you specified no subject, I thought you were blaming the descriptions. And you recommended abandoning the descriptions as if it were their fault. So do you see how confusing your original statement was?

Let me offer a solution to the problem you mentioned. I believe it's a real problem. But the solution is to go back to the descriptions and re-read them, not toss them out because some unspecified people filtered them down. I am one of those who constantly references type descriptions without destroying their meaning. I can't buy your argument at all.

 

[Cellmold]

I can't buy your argument at all.

Perhaps because im not really making one. I was just expressing opinion, you disagreed with it which is fine. I dont toss out type descriptions completely but I believe you need to be careful with them.

Im not here to convince you of anything.

 

[Mal12345]

Perhaps because im not really making one. I was just expressing opinion, you disagreed with it which is fine. I dont toss out type descriptions but I believe you need to be careful with them.

Im not here to convince you of anything.

Convince me.

 

[Cellmold]

Convince me.

To what end?

Can I ask, do you see what i wrote as assumptive, unsubstantiated gibberish that has too many holes and maybe even needs to be corrected? Or is there a different motive?

Is it to offer me a different perspective maybe? Or maybe you think im dismissing helpful information unfairly? But you have already influenced my view. What is it that you want?

 

[Mal12345]

To what end?

Can I ask, do you see what i wrote as assumptive, unsubstantiated gibberish that has too many holes and maybe even needs to be corrected? Or is there a different motive?

Is it to offer me a different perspective maybe? Or maybe you think im dismissing helpful information unfairly? But you have already influenced my view. What is it that you want?

To have fun and learn something. That's what these forums are for, right?

 

[Cellmold]

To have fun and learn something. That's what these forums are for, right?

An unsatisfying answer but fair enough. Maybe it is the real answer...

Although I would not mind yours or anyone elses input on either my type or the theory/ies. Perhaps ESFJ!

 

[Mal12345]

An unsatisfying answer but fair enough. Maybe it is the real answer...

Although I would not mind yours or anyone elses input on either my type or the theory/ies. Perhaps ESFJ!

The thing is, I don't like to use JCF very much because of the way I've seen it being applied. For example, nobody really knows how a tertiary function affects a personality. And there are both positive and negative effects. So this lack of knowledge can be used to opportunistically justify type calls and to rationalize away contradictions.

But right now I am moving away from complex type descriptions (not that they're wrong) and experimenting with using simple archetypal names. I don't know anybody else who types people this way. With this method, I try to get an over-all impression of a person based on evidence, and then search for the archetype that fits best, or towards which the bulk of the evidence generally points.

An example of an archetypal name would be the name given to the type 5 personality by some authors - the Observer.

P.s., What's wrong with INFJ for your type?

 

[Cellmold]

P.s., What's wrong with INFJ for your type?

Basically im unsure of my understanding of the functions. I dont really relate to any individual type description, (although this is not where my perception of description's faults comes from), this means I often turn for outside help which so far is divided on Ni and Si much as I am.

I doesn't help that people often misunderstand Si and sensing in general.

 

[Mal12345]

Basically im unsure of my understanding of the functions. I dont really relate to any individual description, this means I often turn for outside help which so far is divided on Ni and Si much as I am.

I doesn't help that people often misunderstanding Si and sensing in general.

Yet NF and SJ are so clearly dichotomized as to have nothing in common to be confused about.