Trying to zero in on my type, after looking into functions more. Help please.

[Mal12345]

It was "Pe or Je" abbreviated.

Sigh...

Let's just cut to the chase. Louiesgonnadie is INTP.

 

[Flatlander]

Sigh...

Let's just cut to the chase. Louiesgonnadie is INTP.

I'd err on the side of Ne type for him. I don't see the Ji much at all, and what I see is F-like in character. I don't see where Ti is coming into the discussion.

On the other hand, I'll admit I might be wrong anyday, since I don't know him outside a few forum posts. Will you?

 

[Mal12345]

I'd err on the side of Ne type for him. I don't see the Ji much at all, and what I see is F-like in character. I don't see where Ti is coming into the discussion.

On the other hand, I'll admit I might be wrong anyday, since I don't know him outside a few forum posts. Will you?

I'll consult the external world about that. After all, I'm an introvert who loves to live inside his head. So I only consult the external world out of dire necessity.

 

[louiesgonnadie]

Sigh...

Let's just cut to the chase. Louiesgonnadie is INTP.

I'd err on the side of Ne type for him. I don't see the Ji much at all, and what I see is F-like in character. I don't see where Ti is coming into the discussion.

On the other hand, I'll admit I might be wrong anyday, since I don't know him outside a few forum posts. Will you?

Whoa! This thread is exploding....fascinating.

Okay, this is where I get to be a pain in the ass, with some questions pertaining to estimates.
[MENTION=13589]Mal+[/MENTION] What in particular suggests INTP for me? I know you thought there was some thinking involved in one of my statements, about consulting the external world, or whatever. Does that suggest some sort of Ti?
[MENTION=15372]Flatlander[/MENTION] what in particular suggests F-type characteristics? I assume you meant ENFP, although some ENTPs can be really in touch with their Fe.

 

[Flatlander]

I'll consult the external world about that. After all, I'm an introvert who loves to live inside his head. So I only consult the external world out of dire necessity.

Great, so why didn't you outright make that point in the first place?

The problem I see with it is that I don't see the same emphasis on dire need as you apparently did. I can easily see him as a social introvert, but this venture and the material seem to point to cognitive extraversion. Also, I'd be considering 6 as another enneagram core possibility based on some of the attitudes present in the answers to the questionnaire.
[MENTION=17347]louiesgonnadie[/MENTION], I'll give my analysis in awhile. Perhaps tomorrow when I have time, I now have a few of these to do, and I sometimes change my mind as I go through things.

 

[louiesgonnadie]

Great, so why didn't you outright make that point in the first place?

The problem I see with it is that I don't see the same emphasis on dire need as you apparently did. I can easily see him as a social introvert, but this venture and the material seem to point to cognitive extraversion. Also, I'd be considering 6 as another enneagram core possibility based on some of the attitudes present in the answers to the questionnaire.
[MENTION=17347]louiesgonnadie[/MENTION], I'll give my analysis in awhile. Perhaps tomorrow when I have time, I now have a few of these to do, and I sometimes change my mind as I go through things.

Take your time!

PS- Regarding your signature, I don't exist either.

 

[Mal12345]

Whoa! This thread is exploding....fascinating.

Let's analyze this statement. You made an observation, and then judged it as....fascinating. Perceivers make observations first and judgments last. That says nothing about functions or attitudes (I/E), and that's my point. It simply tells me that you're the Perceptive type. That's one letter out of four.

Okay, this is where I get to be a pain in the ass, with some questions pertaining to estimates.
[MENTION=13589]Mal+[/MENTION] What in particular suggests INTP for me? I know you thought there was some thinking involved in one of my statements, about consulting the external world, or whatever. Does that suggest some sort of Ti?

It doesn't suggest anything about functions to me. You use terms common to thinking types, which I emphasized with italics. And consulting the external world is not only an introverted statement (among other things), but come to think of it, as an introvert I can easily identify with it. It's just far more of an intellectual statement than I would care to make because I don't separate myself from the external world enough to say anything about "consulting" it. In function terms, I would say you're a stronger Ti than I am.

 

[Mal12345]

Take your time!

PS- Regarding your signature, I don't exist either.

That's an existentialist statement. Existentialists are mostly INTP or INFP types.

 

[louiesgonnadie]

It doesn't suggest anything about functions to me. You use terms common to thinking types, which I emphasized with italics. And consulting the external world is not only an introverted statement (among other things), but come to think of it, as an introvert I can easily identify with it. It's just far more of an intellectual statement than I would care to make because I don't separate myself from the external world enough to say anything about "consulting" it. In function terms, I would say you're a stronger Ti than I am.

Wait, going by the bolded - wouldn't that make you the one who's more Ji (Ti) focused (or to simply put it, focused on "introverted attitude") than I am since that statement assumes you're in your head more, analyzing data, making judgements based on it - rather than consulting the external world for elaborations? Unless I totally misinterpreted what you just said...

 

[Eric B]

Such thinking is common in certain circles in these typology forums. Je/Pi is an abstract way of referring to ESTJ, ESFJ, ENTJ, and ENFJ types. Pe/Ji is an abstract way of referring to ESTP, ESFP, ENTP, and ENFP. But they are both wrong.

I think making it so abstract just scares many people away from typology who actually might get into it. The situation is much simpler than this.

A J (Judicious) type is directive. This doesn't relate to functions, but to letters only. And it encompasses more types, eight in fact, including all MBTI types that end with the letter J.

A P (Perceptive) type is adaptive. It also encompasses eight MBTI types, all the types that end with the letter P.

So much for the idea that Je/Pi is directive, etc.

Those shorthands as I intended do cover eight types each and not just four. It wasn't specifically Je/Pi (dom/aux, respectively) to the exclusion of Pi/Je. Those are just collectives, and the best way to represent them is by the dichotomy that denotes them: J vs P.

Anyway, "directive" is already commonly known to refer to an Interaction Style factor. J is directive, but necessarily, for N's only. For S's, it's a similar, parallel factor, called "structure-focus". T is vice versa. Directive for S's, structure-focused for N's. STP's are directive, while SFJ's are not.
Both directive and structure focus are versions of the old temperament pole "task-focus". The opposite pole, informatives and motive-focused (F, P), are "people-focused".

 

[Mal12345]

Wait, going by the bolded - wouldn't that make you the one who's more Ji (Ti) focused (or to simply put it, focused on "introverted attitude") than I am since that statement assumes you're in your head more, analyzing data, making judgements based on it - rather than consulting the external world for elaborations? Unless I totally misinterpreted what you just said...

Concerning my personal history: I gazed at my own navel for a few years and then re-entered the external world. Twenty years ago I may have thought about consulting the external world. Now I just do, most of the time. It depends on how much anxiety the idea produces in me.

 

[Mal12345]

Those shorthands as I intended do cover eight types each and not just four. It wasn't specifically Je/Pi (dom/aux, respectively) to the exclusion of Pi/Je. Those are just collectives, and the best way to represent them is by the dichotomy that denotes them: J vs P.

Anyway, "directive" is already commonly known to refer to an Interaction Style factor. J is directive, but necessarily, for N's only. For S's, it's a similar, parallel factor, called "structure-focus". T is vice versa. Directive for S's, structure-focused for N's. STP's are directive, while SFJ's are not.
Both directive and structure focus are versions of the old temperament pole "task-focus". The opposite pole, informatives and motive-focused (F, P), are "people-focused".

My experience indicates that the SFJ is very directive. But thanks for explaining what Je/Pi means, because nobody else knew.

 

[Eric B]

My experience indicates that the SFJ is very directive.

That's actually structure-focus you're seeing. I guess technically, they're the same thing, but one is more socially oriented, and the other is more "conative", meaning dealing with action. Again, the common factor is "Task-focus".

 

[Mal12345]

That's actually structure-focus you're seeing. I guess technically, they're the same thing, but one is more socially oriented, and the other is more "conative", meaning dealing with action. Again, the common factor is "Task-focus".

Which is more socially oriented? The directive? I see where you're going now. Thanks for avoiding function talk, I find it counter-productive in many ways.

 

[louiesgonnadie]

Which is more socially oriented? The directive? I see where you're going now. Thanks for avoiding function talk, I find it counter-productive in many ways.

Re-reading some of your statements it seems you're more into MBTI-letter codes in terms of typing, rather than Jungian functions. Any reason why? Interesting.

 

[Mal12345]

Re-reading some of your statements I assume you're more into MBTI-letter codes in terms of typing, rather than the functions, rather than Jungian functions. Any reason why? Interesting.

I have 5,341 posts on this forum. Most of them involve typology, and mostly JCF. I tried it on for size, watched others on this forum having fits over their strange function test scores that don't mesh with tradition, and struggling to determine types based on JCF went around and around for many pages with no resolution. This thread is only the latest example of the silent torment created by JCF cognitive functions.

I had a similar struggle over 20 years ago, but it was easily resolved without having to dig deep into the theory. My first MBTI score came out as IXTP. I was exactly even on S/N. The solution was to read the type descriptions. I was obviously an INTP based on that reading. The S traits came from my childhood desire to be like my older brother who is 8 1/2 years older than me and an ISTJ (which is Si dominant). But that's not who I am.

 

[louiesgonnadie]

I have 5,341 posts on this forum. Most of them involve typology, and mostly JCF. I tried it on for size, watched others on this forum having fits over their strange function test scores that don't mesh with tradition, and struggling to determine types based on JCF went around and around for many pages with no resolution. This thread is only the latest example of the silent torment created by JCF cognitive functions.

I had a similar struggle over 20 years ago, but it was easily resolved without having to dig deep into the theory. My first MBTI score came out as IXTP. I was exactly even on S/N. The solution was to read the type descriptions. I was obviously an INTP based on that reading. The S traits came from my childhood desire to be like my older brother who is 8 1/2 years older than me and an ISTJ (which is Si dominant). But that's not who I am.

Yeah, I guess I see what you mean. However, sometimes the hard way is the best way, since the hard way has more depth.

I'll elaborate further: I don't know a lot about Jung and his history, and exactly why he decided to create this whole abstract theory related to sets of processes of the brain, but it certainly is fascinating - and it certainly helps understand yourself better, and pinpoint your strengths/weaknesses, rather than just have the letters tell you what you most likely resemble. The latter is quite lazy, actually...yes, it's easier to understand, and I would see why people can get intimidated by all of this information. In other words, Jung's theory is like dissecting your brain, in a way. And then you have people like David Kiersey, Lenore Thompson (even Myers and Briggs! didn't they simplify Jung's theories after all?) come in and theorize further, create systems based on it, etc. which does offer more confusion, but I really think if you combine all of this different information, different perspectives, whatever - you can find out what is consistent and inconsistent, and build on more consistent data. That's why I like to get people's perspectives on, say, my type, for example - you have people thinking I'm NT and people thinking I'm NF, so that sets the stage for debate, which is an opportunity to discern what seems consistent, which is all based on what kind of research you've done, so it can get dicey since that will vary between people - but that's why it's a good idea to combine all of that different data being thrown out there and form a judgement based on information that can be constructed into more consistent data. So, if both sides seem plausible, someone else will step in with their perspective. And so on.

 

[Mal12345]

Yeah, I guess I see what you mean. However, sometimes the hard way is the best way, since the hard way has more depth.

I'll elaborate further: I don't quite know a lot about Jung and his history, and exactly why he decided to create this whole abstract theory related to sets of processes of the brain, but it certainly is fascinating - and it certainly helps understand yourself better, and pinpoint your strengths/weaknesses, rather than just have the letters tell you what you most likely resemble. The latter is quite lazy, actually...yes, it's easier to understand, and I would see why people can get intimidated by all of this information. In other words, Jung's theory is like dissecting your brain, in a way. And then you have people like David Keirsey, Lenore Thompson (even Myers and Briggs! didn't they simplify Jung's theories after all?) come in and theorize further, create systems based on it, etc. which does offer more confusion, but I really think if you combine all of this different information, different perspectives, whatever - you can find out what is consistent and inconsistent, and build on more consistent data. That's why I like to get people's perspectives on, say, my type, for example - you have people thinking I'm a thinker and people thinking I'm a feeler, so that sets the stage for debate, which is an oppurtunity to discern what seems consistent, which is all based on what kind of research you've done, so it can get dicey since that will vary between people - but that's why it's a good idea to combine all of that different data being thrown out there and form a judgement based on information that can be constructed into more consistent data. So, if both sides seem plausible, someone else will step in with their perspective. Or something like that.

I think abstract data can be simplified that way, however it can be an intense process.

You could say that letters are lazy, or just easier. But on occasion I've seen a Feeler or two come to this forum, read some of this stuff, and then exclaim that their brain is tired.

The reason for that I would pin on functions and attitudes. Fe generally does not like intense Ti experiences (reading deeply intellectual material), although there are always exceptions. And Ti does not like intense Fe experiences (loud parties and such), because it tires out quickly.

Where am I going with this? The current system is only attractive to ivory tower types. It has left the realm of mere society and entered the upper atmosphere where only a few dare to go.

As for Myers-Briggs, the original MBTI is a hybrid mixture of their own original ideas regarding typology with that of Jung's.

 

[RaptorWizard]

I think you are an INFP 5w4 sx/sp.

 

[louiesgonnadie]

You could say that letters are lazy, or just easier. But on occasion I've seen a Feeler or two come to this forum, read some of this stuff, and then exclaim that their brain is tired.

The reason for that I would pin on functions and attitudes. Fe generally does not like intense Ti experiences (reading deeply intellectual material), although there are always exceptions. And Ti does not like intense Fe experiences (loud parties and such), because it tires out quickly.

Where am I going with this? The current system is only attractive to ivory tower types. It has left the realm of mere society and entered the upper atmosphere where only a few dare to go.

As for Myers-Briggs, the original MBTI is a hybrid mixture of their own original ideas regarding typology with that of Jung's.

Yeah, but if it entered a more mainstream light, I think it would actually be misunderstood more - for several reasons that I don't feel like elaborating on (I have an intuitive light on why, I don't feel like discerning it all). Then again, since it is so abstract, it may not be able to ever reach a more mainstream level.

As far as what you said about Fe/Ti axises....I can get pretty tired when I'm reading about intellectual excerpts, but that's mainly since I don't understand it very well - I'd make an arguement that I am fairly uneducated, for reasons I won't get into.

Anyway, getting this thread back on track: your INTP estimate of me was based on mainly the letters?