P or J?

[kittenke]

Nothing against them as people, I've just been around enough (E)STJs to know that I would not be able to be intimate with one of them. I'm an NF: I am attracted to people who are as imaginative, conceptual, expressive, artistic, and empathic as I am. Furthermore, I actually struggle with the humanitarian, selfless bit (IFPs are known to be selfish and self-centered in their actions, even if their heart goes out to all---which it usually does), so if someone has developed these qualities and they have all the other NF stuff I mentioned, I am pretty much a sucker for them.

The closest thing I have to a love-of-my-life is an ENFJ nurse with an incredible humanitarian spirit. It's like she's able to put into practice what I can only dream of doing. ESTJs are more about building up their own careers or families by focusing on the day-to-day or whatever than trying to save the world. I do not find that attractive in the least, and that's without mentioning the totally off-putting selfish streak most of them have. If INFPs struggle with selfishness, even with the highly developed Fi, just imagine how much more infantile it is in ESTJs, for whom it occupies the Inferior position.

Thanks for the opinion. Are you saying either STJ is bad for you? (Because you put it as (E)STJ.)

Hmm you know I was thinking about this before, T vs F, and I figured everyone's got some selfishness and that T can look more selfish because they are less good at showing feelings, but then I realised F can be just as selfish, it's just implemented differently. To me intent/attitude (selfish or good goal) counts, not implementation (T or F).

But I get you are saying you are attracted to similar people rather than to different/opposite people.

I have been thinking about that too, which one is better (for me at least). No conclusion yet lol, I like how it's easy to solve many problems/conflicts with T's where F's would just get resentful without even saying anything about it until it's too late (not sure if Fi/Fe has any difference here), but I find the relationships with T's just more distant, less connected emotionally compared to the F's. Where I can't make it more connected "on my own" because I'm also too strongly T for that. But I haven't even decided how many needs I actually do have in that area, so there's a lot more observing and thinking to do about it.

Same for the S/N, I like how with S's it's actually easy to do things, and with N's how they have interesting ideas/visions/etc sometimes. Just when it gets too weird it is when gets too much for me ("N overload"). If I want to be honest, I'm pretty ok and safisfied with things if I'm talking with an intelligent S, the N seems like a bonus, though a really attractive bonus at that. Sometimes the N's having good ideas to solve a problem has been useful too in practice but I'm less concerned about that part (talking more about attractiveness and a sense of purpose for the relationship here).

Anyway I just wanted to say that psychological health probably matters more than type as to who's selfish if we look at the actual motivations (and not the "implementation" with functions). But I get the rest of your argument/thoughts yeah.

 

[RadicalDoubt]

Actually I dunno about sp-dom because I never understood the people whose main concern is truly just security and housing related matters. It's pretty boring to me to focus on that all day. Stable but boring. Maybe sp/sx if that combination makes the sp less even and stable, because I really am not even and stable security focused 100% of the time. If I was I'd have settled on ISTJ (I mean without considering Enneagram) but this way I'm open to the other ST types too. (Also ofcourse because I'm more adaptable than those stereotypes.)

I see where you're coming from with this. I could see sp/sx for you as well (that's actually what I initially thought from your questionaire answers at least). I primarily changed my mind because of how you came across (ie. not rude/relatively formal, somewhat expressionate, ect) didn't really match what I've seen low/non-existent Fe types to be, but sp/sx might be a better fit in the end.

It's weird with sp (or Si-like things, not sure the exact difference at this point) because it's like I have a basic grounding but it goes in the background all the time. I can reach into it if I need to but otherwise it just stays there. But it's there anyway, giving some solidity to stuff I guess.

Another way I could put it... it's the opposite of rootless, I've known people who really just barely own anything, and can move anywhere on a second's notice. These really dynamic enterprising types. I actually can too if I had to for some good reason (I didn't settle down enough still) but I still would want to have a headquarters in the background that has all my possessions and stuff safely, that and stuff in there I can access if I ever want to while also retaining ownership of things which is a feeling I do like .

I see. At the very least this points to not sp last and/or a 6 fix of some sort (although I'm pretty sure that wouldn't fit as a core type).

As for apathy/boredom, I never felt bored for long I think. I know how to engage myself.

BTW by "animalistic" I did not mean ignoring health, I meant impulsivity for action and engaging in ruckus without any reservations lol. And yeah sure most people would become less impulsive after teenage passes but I was never different with regard to this, even as a teenager. However much of it I would have is mostly subordinated to whatever task/goal. In the right types of sport it comes out more .

That's what I had in mind when you said it. I was moreso going in the direction that sp in general brings a sort of grounded, withdrawn influence to the type it affects and, since it is somewhat resource/security/internally oriented, it wouldn't really have that "animalistic" urge to pursue stimulus and, among the more traditionally impulse driven types, is more likely to be a bit more deliberate in this sort of stuff (if they do it at all). Exceptions would likely lie under very specific enneatype combinations which I don't really see you having anyhow (ie. 7, 4, or 8 perhaps; You seem to possibly have an 8 fix but I don't think that's a core type).

Yeah there's a lot of overlap between the theories I noticed. Tbh I don't know how I'm supposed to decide if practicality is just being a T type or a strong sp instinct.

Which enneagram type/instinct were you thinking of?

Yeah, it's really messy, which is why I try to stay specific to one specific theory at a time. Since the two theories deal with two separate domains of behavior and motivation, theoretically speaking they shouldn't effect each other or overlap, but unfortunately theory doesn't match reality in this case :/ . What you mention sounds somewhat 6-esque in nature.

Also since you type yourself as sp/so, would you say your sx instinct has no neurotic stuff to it at all? Do you have neurotic stuff for your sp?

I'm probably a bad example to look at since I'm excessively sx blind (idk how far you got into reading the enneagram system, but the last instinct is considered the blindspot). I wouldn't consider my sx to be very neurotic since I don't really place much focus on it to begin with. In a sense, I prioritize internal security/myself (sp) and to some degree belonging/others (soc) over stimulation/my appetite (sx). When the sx does actually come out it can get somewhat neurotic just because (since it isn't a focus) I really don't have much experience with it, which can make it appear childlike. My sp on the other hand can be pretty neurotic. I'm pretty reserved and focus way too much on privacy and maintaining personal boundaries. I'm also pretty security driven, sometimes to the point of cowardice (that also pulls into me being 6 core though). I'd agree though, focusing on housing matters and security matters 24-7 would be incredibly boring, though I do tend to focus on the latter quite often.

Now "compulsive high perciever" what's that : p

It was sort of late when I responded to this, my word choice is wrong lol. I was referring to you being at the more controlled/deliberate end of things

Sure do let me know if you get an epiphany. Your cousin, what's her enneagram and instincts? The similarity is funny, though I would like to say that I don't seek out pure variety/new experiences by default, my approach to variety and gaining more experiences is pretty much what I described. Food and clothes was just examples, but it's the same with everything else.

I figured. She's either a 7w8 or 3w4 sx/so I believe (with a low grade 8w9 fix). Probably one of the more impulsive types in the enneagram.

It isn't jarring for a xxTJ to try and do that?

Not necessarily, however, in a TJ type it wouldn't be something that would be "obvious" (unless it's perhaps something way over the top or purposely made obvious.) I'd argue that non-Fe users spend more time clarifying body language and social cues than Fe types (except maybe inferior Fe) since Fe in all positions picks up on that a bit more naturally/thoughtlessly if they do at all. Unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean, what you said there is distinctly Fe (though low Fe obviously).

Also you compared non-existent Fe of xxTJ vs xxTP Fe, you said both can get self-absorbed and inattentive but xxTPs would sometimes still be attentive, did you mean that they consciously try to use Fe at least a little bit? Even if it's too personal/jarring sometimes? And you also indicated that ISTJs make up for the zero Fe by Si attentiveness to social cues? They just don't try to consciously use Fe too? Sorry, just trying to see the real distinction(s) here. What I do know for sure is I either have very little of Fe or zero lol.

Kind of similar to what I wrote above, but there'd still be that sort of background awareness of Fe things, not necessarily usage. Fe isn't necessarily intrusive or meddling, just sort of aware. Under the grant theory, ISTJs don't have access to Fe. Even in shadow theory (which really hasn't been validated), an ISTJ will not really have much access to Fe if any. Therefore, it defaults to Te and Si, which looks for tangible and physical cues that it can pick up and logically categorize via what it already knows or has experienced (Fi/Si). With TPs it's a bit more fluid and somewhat generalizing of a process.

I'm trying to say my default stance to the world is that, "here's the (external) situation that *I* am looking at". I do think I have an extraverted mode too when focusing on objects.

Otoh I do do things without thought lol, it's like I look and see and know what to do. Or at least this is without deep thought or explicit long analysis. But I do think I always consider (really quickly) the main things for the action. Very simple things really though.

Or maybe not so simple because I've met these INFPs who don't even seem to be aware of these things at all.

That's pretty typical among those who do not use Ne in a high position tbh (moreso Se, but it could also apply to high Te to some degree). Ne likes to... Over complicate things if I'm putting it nicely hehe (insert uncomfortable smiley emoji lmao). INFPs in particular have both high Ne and low Te, which does not aid them much with that sort of awareness lol.

 

[Norexan]

Okay but any more characteristic for ExTP than for IxTP?

Аs function is lower it is higher probability to cast its shadow. So IxTP.

 

[kittenke]

I see where you're coming from with this. I could see sp/sx for you as well (that's actually what I initially thought from your questionaire answers at least). I primarily changed my mind because of how you came across (ie. not rude/relatively formal, somewhat expressionate, ect) didn't really match what I've seen low/non-existent Fe types to be, but sp/sx might be a better fit in the end.

Yeah that's what the friend meant - when she said I don't match ISTP. I can be very rude though, but then, everyone is sometimes. Can you say how my being relatively formal relates to not being low/non-existent Fe?

What seemed like sp/sx for me in the questionnaire if I can ask?

I see. At the very least this points to not sp last and/or a 6 fix of some sort (although I'm pretty sure that wouldn't fit as a core type).

What was the 6 fix in there?

As for the grounding, I want to add... it's like, it sets basic limits beyond which I don't go, but these limits are really... forgiving. So I can go around a lot "inside" them. I can go crazy in whatever way I want with taking action to push to achieve something or anything else I want to do with my energy to be expended, but I don't lose grounding like some people do, because of this limits stuff in the background. Did this make any sense?

So for example, again it will be sports, I know a girl - she's ESTP, again, apparently I get to meet some of them lol - who can go hard until eventually when she stops, she almost faints or throws up or whatever. She loses balance in a way for a short time. And that is what I mean by having the limits, I don't go beyond them like that. I can push very hard too and I do get very exhausted too and not that far from vomiting either, but I just don't lose the balance like she does. For me to go beyond limits, I'd have to put in so much energy, I'd first have to have a very strong point or purpose for me to do that. Say, win the national championships, well for that maybe.

Also, it's the same thing mentally and emotionally too with the grounding limits.

While we are at it... I don't know if this is Si or Se related but does seem Sensing: if I learned something that involves movements, even if it involves logic/logically describable steps/strategies, then it happens that if I haven't done the thing for a long time, I need to start doing it first before all that logic and steps come back to me. I start doing it and I just remember from doing. Some sort of muscle memory to store my logic. I've definitely got a strong kinesthetic learning part to myself overall... I commit (already understood) things (rules and steps) to memory best by doing. Thoughts on this?

That's what I had in mind when you said it. I was moreso going in the direction that sp in general brings a sort of grounded, withdrawn influence to the type it affects and, since it is somewhat resource/security/internally oriented, it wouldn't really have that "animalistic" urge to pursue stimulus and, among the more traditionally impulse driven types, is more likely to be a bit more deliberate in this sort of stuff (if they do it at all). Exceptions would likely lie under very specific enneatype combinations which I don't really see you having anyhow (ie. 7, 4, or 8 perhaps; You seem to possibly have an 8 fix but I don't think that's a core type).

Well in my case it's like I want my impulses to have a point, a purpose. I don't know if that's sp-related, it's not about security, just about having a purpose to go for. As soon as I have that point or purpose, I'm glad to invest all my energy (animalistic or not ) into it. Where I easily look like I throw caution to the wind, i.e. I can even look outright reckless (to some people) and I definitely look like I lack moderation, but I have those grounding limits in the background.

Speaking of caution, I don't like cautiousness. I'm not good at prudence or any of that stuff. I'm average at that at best. And so this is part of what was jarring for the ISTJ typing lol (which is what I got in some test).

I'm not a 4 for sure. 8 does seem too oriented towards seeing everything through strength/weakness for it to be core for me, yeah, I think I'm a 1 or a 3.

Yeah, it's really messy, which is why I try to stay specific to one specific theory at a time. Since the two theories deal with two separate domains of behavior and motivation, theoretically speaking they shouldn't effect each other or overlap, but unfortunately theory doesn't match reality in this case :/ . What you mention sounds somewhat 6-esque in nature.

6, in terms of practicality?

I'm probably a bad example to look at since I'm excessively sx blind (idk how far you got into reading the enneagram system, but the last instinct is considered the blindspot). I wouldn't consider my sx to be very neurotic since I don't really place much focus on it to begin with. In a sense, I prioritize internal security/myself (sp) and to some degree belonging/others (soc) over stimulation/my appetite (sx). When the sx does actually come out it can get somewhat neurotic just because (since it isn't a focus) I really don't have much experience with it, which can make it appear childlike. My sp on the other hand can be pretty neurotic. I'm pretty reserved and focus way too much on privacy and maintaining personal boundaries. I'm also pretty security driven, sometimes to the point of cowardice (that also pulls into me being 6 core though). I'd agree though, focusing on housing matters and security matters 24-7 would be incredibly boring, though I do tend to focus on the latter quite often.

Hmm I was interpreting neurotic in terms of having "too much" focus on the stuff and never being okay with it but instead having trouble relaxing about it. Please fix that for me though if that's not how it's supposed to be with first instinct.

The way you defined in a really short way sp/so/sx, that was cool. Going by those defs, if I want to put my appetite to be subject to a point/purpose, what's that? It's a big part of my compulsiveness. Like I say below too about being compulsive.

How is introversion different from sp-first?

It was sort of late when I responded to this, my word choice is wrong lol. I was referring to you being at the more controlled/deliberate end of things

Ohh no problem, I was just curious for real. Because I'm definitely a compulsive person. So I was interested in what you mean by that combo...

Not necessarily, however, in a TJ type it wouldn't be something that would be "obvious" (unless it's perhaps something way over the top or purposely made obvious.) I'd argue that non-Fe users spend more time clarifying body language and social cues than Fe types (except maybe inferior Fe) since Fe in all positions picks up on that a bit more naturally/thoughtlessly if they do at all. Unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean, what you said there is distinctly Fe (though low Fe obviously).

Sorry, what wouldn't be obvious in a TJ type in this context? If you mean it's not obviously jarring to a TJ, it's not to me either by default, just when I try in that unnatural conscious way, see more on my recent experiences below.

Kind of similar to what I wrote above, but there'd still be that sort of background awareness of Fe things, not necessarily usage. Fe isn't necessarily intrusive or meddling, just sort of aware. Under the grant theory, ISTJs don't have access to Fe. Even in shadow theory (which really hasn't been validated), an ISTJ will not really have much access to Fe if any. Therefore, it defaults to Te and Si, which looks for tangible and physical cues that it can pick up and logically categorize via what it already knows or has experienced (Fi/Si). With TPs it's a bit more fluid and somewhat generalizing of a process.

So you are saying TPs have some conscious Fe usage sometimes besides the default background awareness, and TJs don't at all do any conscious Fe, but instead they consciously pick up stuff via their Te etc?

"An ISTJ will not really have much access to Fe if any" - that fits me alright. Not much access if any. lol. Recently I sometimes got to feel like it's a big drawback but I think I just can't change myself. And shouldn't even try... See more below about my experience.

And oh, by "personal/jarring" I did not mean it being meddling to others. I meant it's jarring to myself. It internally just feels too... unnatural and possibly even fake like I said before. Not normal for me to try and focus on Fe stuff consciously at all whatsoever in any form whatsoever. I tried recently for a while because apparently I got into the company of some people where they wanted me to do that... So yeah I find it doesn't work for me, trying to do it consciously in any way at all. Whatever I have works, whatever I don't have, I will not gain in this fashion or in any other. Imagine an endless vent from me at this point about how frustrating it is and how much it's so not leading anywhere. It's like I'd have to learn a book of 1,000,000 pages where I can learn a few lines every day lol. Not natural at all and will never lead anywhere, so f*ck that.

I decided in the end - very very recently in fact - that I will never closely associate with people again who want me to learn that book. Luckily not everyone has such expectations. Actually most people I've been close-ish with haven't had this expectation towards me, so yeah...

There is one thing I do consciously though that's not jarring and is pretty natural instead... When I watch a person enough - because I know the person enough, have had enough experience with them - I can notice small concrete details in their body language or facial expression that repeat and I can sometimes figure out what that is and it can help me sometimes. I can figure it out when I notice what in the external situation it links to. That - i.e. what some specific detail or specific happening links to in several external situations - is something that my logical analysis is easily based on. I just find what's a definable constant in these situations to get the basis for my logic. Usually I don't really try to link these small details - about the Fe body language/facial expression cues - to anything though, it just happens sometimes that I'm able to. The only other option left to me if I were to try and figure out something Fe stuff would be guessing. And guessing is really frustrating to me, so I would rather not even try lol.

I don't have any fluid let alone generalising process to consciously pick up on cues for the not-enough-obvious emotional expressions. (Unconsciously either, I only learn about this stuff only one way, described above.) Where by "obvious" expression I mean basic emotional things that everyone sees and recognises, regardless of type. The above approach doesn't generalise either... I just wait, watch, then at one point a specific small detail/expression has been repeated enough for me to see how it links logically to the happenings in the situations. It has to link in some specific and logical way. It doesn't generalise to other people.

As for background awareness: I have it for obvious expressions - that everyone does recognise - I guess. I say background because I don't really focus on this stuff either, not more than anyone else anyway.

More on expressions... you said I'm a bit expressive. Yeah people sometimes comment on it IRL, in a positive way, and I'm like... what. It's never conscious lol. Again I don't want it to be conscious at all.

BTW besides this Fe stuff, I do want to say that I definitely do logical categorising of stuff that I've seen/experienced, that's what I default to, but don't TPs do this? Devil must be in the details because I'm sure I'm missing something here.

One more thing on categorising things... I do that naturally for most things to organise them but specifically in terms of emotions, I sometimes like to do categorising of internal emotional/feeling states. This is definitely easier, more natural and way more fun for me than to try and guess at expressions... I even have the synesthesia for these internal emotional states like I said in the other thread. For these internal emotional states, I somehow do not need to do any guessing, I can just wait patiently until I've seen a new (or unknown anyway) emotional state enough times to figure out what it is. By then I'm able to see how it links to the external situations, and to my own memories of emotional states. Also these states are just more interesting for me to focus on consciously. Though I still don't like to too often focus on my internal emotional states even if they are mine and not someone else's. I just do this sometimes. And when I do focus on them like above, I still want to do it via logic, I prefer to dissect them in the above manner, instead of too directly feeling them for too long. The body language/Fe expressions stuff of other people's or even my own, I do not want to try and focus on consciously at all, again.

Does that make sense?

That's pretty typical among those who do not use Ne in a high position tbh (moreso Se, but it could also apply to high Te to some degree). Ne likes to... Over complicate things if I'm putting it nicely hehe (insert uncomfortable smiley emoji lmao). INFPs in particular have both high Ne and low Te, which does not aid them much with that sort of awareness lol.

Haha right about INFPs, that's what I meant.

 

[kittenke]

Аs function is lower it is higher probability to cast its shadow. So IxTP.

I see. For me the thing is that I know when I have commitment or when I don't and why I have it when I do. I decide myself about that and stick to it. It's as simple for me as that.

If I have commitment, then it's about more than just showing social emotional expressions. If I don't have anything to base commitment on, I don't want the relationship. And I've always been clear about this, no self-deception.

 

[kittenke]

About J/P facets

So from here MBTI(R) Step II: The 40 Facets of the 16 Types – Personality Playbook

Judging Facets vs Perceiving Facets


• Systematic: The core facet of Judging, people with the Systematic facet like to have order in their home, work, and sometimes leisure life, by planning, organizing and performing tasks in a systematic fashion.
• Casual: The core facet of Perceiving, a person with the Casual facet is usually good at going with the flow of life. They deal well with surprises, and they may be described as laid back, with a preference for keeping options open, in lieu of deciding early.

I don't plan too much, I do have to *always* have a direction but I do not plan all the time beyond that. I do organise a lot, I'm ok with planning leisure. I don't like to keep options open for the sake of keeping them open. That just sounds very bad to me. I'm not always in decisive mode by default though so technically options are left open until I get to decisive mode. But I don't play with options until I get to the decisive mode. I just don't like to play with the options/possibilities, it's not fun.

EDIT: I forgot to add, I do perform tasks systematically. But I don't do as much planning for them (see also last facet below for all this.)

And as for going with the flow... I don't think so, my sense of goals/direction is more constrained than that. Pure "going with the flow" feels aimless to me. As if the cognitive layer I have for the sense of direction has been removed - it's unnatural for me. But I adjust and even adjust quickly enough if I have to, to the surprises.


• Planful: Appears as someone who likes to plan well in advance to make sure they do mot miss out on things that are important to them. This can include holidays with family, vacations, concerts, etc.
• Open-Ended: Appears as someone who loves freedom and making decisions on the fly, rather than being tied down to plans that are far in the future. They love flexibility and a lack of feeling constricted.

I don't feel tied down by plans, but I don't make that many in advance. I'm not the most flexible person. (This can be an understatement too lool, I get very inflexible in some things.) Very fine with making decisions on the fly in my decisive mode. But plans etc don't ever make me feel constricted. They're just normal as far as I do have plans. If others have plans for something I agreed to be a part of, it just seems normal too to go by the plan, it gives tangible grounding/orientation so to speak. Maybe that's Sensing too.


• Early Starting: Describes someone who becomes quite stressed when working right up to a deadline, so the person tends to start early, complete tasks one at a time, and finish with enough time to leave room for things to go wrong (internet or printer down) without causing a missed deadline.
• Pressure-Prompted: Describes someone who may come up with ideas for projects in advance, but does his/her best work during the energetic and creative burst that comes right before a deadline. They almost feed off of the stress of a project being due, and they may squeak it in just in the nick of time. This is not to be confused with procrastination, which all types do.

I'm stressed if I work right up to the deadline but it also makes me faster and more energetic. IDK if I do my best work there though. It's usually okay work. I'd like to be early starting again.... haven't been for too long.


• Scheduled: Fits individuals who find comfort and security in completing their tried and true routines each day. They know these routines are reliable and reduce chaos.
• Spontaneous: Fits Individuals who love variety in their lives and having a work environment where they have some say over what they can do at any given time, rather than being restricted to monotony.

Routines are reliable, but I don't explicitly give much thought to the topic of chaos ever, I will adjust if I must. I'd pick monotony over variety at work.

EDIT: the less energy I have, the more I want the monotony for work. It takes additional energy to adjust to variety/change. I am not entirely sure anymore what's natural for me in the area of energy levels, I do want some of the calm routine oriented lower energy mode, but I do not think it's entirely natural for me to have it all day, still when I don't have much energy, that is just what my day is going to look like. I do know for sure that beyond a point, in these cases my having an extreme preference for monotony over variety is no longer normal or optimal for how I am by default.


• Methodical: Tends to organize everything needed to complete a project, from materials to people, and create a sequence for the completion of tasks that lead to project completion in a planned and strategic fashion.
• Emergent: Tends to enjoy problem solving on the fly through improvisation and a lack of planning... They may believe that the instructions that come with a furniture kit are a waste of paper because they'd rather jump in and figure it out along the way.

This is the interesting part. I'm methodical on the fly, does that make sense?!

I mean, I start with minimal preparation, I create the method while at it, and then stick to it. If the task is of a very familiar type, then I of course do have the method for it already. But if I haven't done it in a while, I might have to start doing it to remember the method/methods for it. Again that "muscle based" memory of logic.

 

[RadicalDoubt]

Mm it seems that either I tangented too much or didn't phrase myself well this time around, sorry about. I'll see if I can clear up a bit what I meant last time around....

Yeah that's what the friend meant - when she said I don't match ISTP. I can be very rude though, but then, everyone is sometimes. Can you say how my being relatively formal relates to not being low/non-existent Fe?

I meant that your formality and relatively pleasant/complimentary way of speaking didn't align with a low/nonexistant Fe and soc blind combo. Low Fe can often be formal (sometimes excessively so), especially when paired with the social instinct. Low/nonexistant Fe paired with one of the two soc blind combos (sp/sx and sx/sp) are known for their abrupt style and strong lack of social couth/politeness/warmth. In both combos, attentiveness to how one comes across would not be there in the slightest due the to the lack of concern for belonging or society as a whole (Soc) and due to lack of care/attentiveness to the environment in terms of people and what in generally acceptable (Fe + soc). Based on your speaking style in general, I really don't see that as a possibility.

What seemed like sp/sx for me in the questionnaire if I can ask?

It was mostly that in the op/questionaire I saw bits and pieces of sp scattered about
(in terms that you were relatively responsible and not blindly sociable or health ignorant), but wasn't 100% sure you were sx blind. If sp/sx ends up fitting you, maybe I'm missing something, but from this you seemed closer to some sort of sx blind combination (so/sp, sp/so).

What was the 6 fix in there?

The whole idea that you'd like some sort of background security as an ideal (in context of this, you talked about not being completely rootless, though having the flexibility to be malleable, which fits well with 6).

As for the grounding, I want to add... it's like, it sets basic limits beyond which I don't go, but these limits are really... forgiving. So I can go around a lot "inside" them. I can go crazy in whatever way I want with taking action to push to achieve something or anything else I want to do with my energy to be expended, but I don't lose grounding like some people do, because of this limits stuff in the background. Did this make any sense?

Yes this is related to you not being sp blind (so/sx, sx/so). You're aware of your own limitations (be they physical, mental, ect) and boundaries, and while they're flexible, they are maintained and there is a limit to how far you are going to step outside them. That is sp by nature.

So for example, again it will be sports, I know a girl - she's ESTP, again, apparently I get to meet some of them lol - who can go hard until eventually when she stops, she almost faints or throws up or whatever. She loses balance in a way for a short time. And that is what I mean by having the limits, I don't go beyond them like that. I can push very hard too and I do get very exhausted too and not that far from vomiting either, but I just don't lose the balance like she does. For me to go beyond limits, I'd have to put in so much energy, I'd first have to have a very strong point or purpose for me to do that. Say, win the national championships, well for that maybe.

Also, it's the same thing mentally and emotionally too with the grounding limits.

Yeah, this is exactly what I meant in the above. You could think of the girl you mentioned above as someone who is sp blind (technically that could also relate to a so/sp with sp on the weaker side, but we'll stick with sp blindness). Your contrast with her is directly relative to the presence and lack of presence of sp.

While we are at it... I don't know if this is Si or Se related but does seem Sensing: if I learned something that involves movements, even if it involves logic/logically describable steps/strategies, then it happens that if I haven't done the thing for a long time, I need to start doing it first before all that logic and steps come back to me. I start doing it and I just remember from doing. Some sort of muscle memory to store my logic. I've definitely got a strong kinesthetic learning part to myself overall... I commit (already understood) things (rules and steps) to memory best by doing. Thoughts on this?

I'm pretty sure that this isn't necessarily type related, but rather just a common human thing. Technically, being strongly hands on in general and learning strongest by doing things is more common among all high sensing types than intuitive types as a whole, but there's no strong correlation. Being able to that in tune physically to your body and things like muscle memory probably relates back to being a high sensing type as well, but again, doesn't really discern between si and se.

Well in my case it's like I want my impulses to have a point, a purpose. I don't know if that's sp-related, it's not about security, just about having a purpose to go for. As soon as I have that point or purpose, I'm glad to invest all my energy (animalistic or not ) into it. Where I easily look like I throw caution to the wind, i.e. I can even look outright reckless (to some people) and I definitely look like I lack moderation, but I have those grounding limits in the background.

Speaking of caution, I don't like cautiousness. I'm not good at prudence or any of that stuff. I'm average at that at best. And so this is part of what was jarring for the ISTJ typing lol (which is what I got in some test).

I'm not a 4 for sure. 8 does seem too oriented towards seeing everything through strength/weakness for it to be core for me, yeah, I think I'm a 1 or a 3.

You're probably not a 1 core from what I've acquired from your information thus far, though being a competency oriented individual I can see where that's coming from. 1 is known for having an excessive amount of self control, prudence, and somewhat non-malleable boundaries, especially when not sp blind. I haven't really gotten a sense that you're overly moralistic either (that also applies to 1 because their core fear is of being bad, evil, or wrong). Your op also suggested you were comfortable with anger and saw it as one of the emotions you felt most comfortable with, which opposes 1s desire to maintain control and avoid being angry (ie. 1s are known to avoid being angry and can sometimes refer to such feelings as resentment due to their discomfort with loosing themselves to that anger). You malleability, but strong goal orientation and drive does align very well with 3 though, I could easily see that as your core type.

Going back to your first point there (wanting action to have purpose), that could relate back to 3, especially since 3s as a whole are noticed for their goal orientation and their drive towards that/those goal(s). Nonetheless, that could also relate to Te or Se to some degree. If you're coming across as reckless or risky though, even if you do have those boundaries in the back of your mind, it is more likely to relate back to Se since, by nature of the functions, that is how Se can come across.

6, in terms of practicality?

I think I was going more for desiring some level of certainty/structure or finding comfort in that based on the context. 6 values being aware and also having some sort of linear structure/safe zone/understanding it can fall back onto to maintain control.

Hmm I was interpreting neurotic in terms of having "too much" focus on the stuff and never being okay with it but instead having trouble relaxing about it. Please fix that for me though if that's not how it's supposed to be with first instinct.

This is what I was specifically trying to get at, maybe I tangented enough to the point that it wasn't clear. To be more simplistic in my description, I'd say I am most likely to be neurotic about sp and sx, though not at all (or very rarely so) with my secondary instinct soc. As I mentioned, I focus way to much on maintaining and erecting boundaries, which is very sp by nature. I'm also really weird about money and saving it, I focus too much on having monetary security than is really warranted in any situation, and this is difficult to satisfy. While mine sort of ties to these two areas of sp, other areas that sp could become neurotic (that I don't) are in regards to health, resources, space, ect. With sx, I'm likely to overfocus or become "neurotic" about it to a disgusting degree only under specific circumstances or low levels of health/stress, which is typical of the last instinct.

The way you defined in a really short way sp/so/sx, that was cool. Going by those defs, if I want to put my appetite to be subject to a point/purpose, what's that? It's a big part of my compulsiveness. Like I say below too about being compulsive.

Not yielding to your appetites in that way and funneling them into goals and such probably relates to you likely being a sx blind (so/sp or sp/so).

How is introversion different from sp-first?

They're not related. Sp can make someone falsely appear more introverted than others I guess, because sp relates to maintaining personal boundaries (ie. a sp dom may not be as open to sharing their personal information without being close/really trusting another person) and are a bit more attentive to maintaining their energy reserve (where a strong extrovert might just blow themselves out from stimulating themselves with people/the outside world, a sp dom Extrovert would probably sense their limits a bit better and seem to be less driven by people and relationships than a soc or sx dom). Introversion is specifically becoming most energized by things internal to yourself rather than external.

Sorry, what wouldn't be obvious in a TJ type in this context? If you mean it's not obviously jarring to a TJ, it's not to me either by default, just when I try in that unnatural conscious way, see more on my recent experiences below.

I was refering to when you said this:

I can just tell you I don't ever spend time on clarifying emotional states in the body language of people. It's either obvious and easy to read for me, or it isn't, and then I don't bother. But even when it's obvious, I don't really usually comment on it then either. That'd again just be jarring personal stuff.

The whole comment on body language, not bother to clarify emotional states like a Fi user would be inclined to, just taking it or leaving it, is often attributed to Fe. That's because emotional states are just obvious to high Fe users (less so to low Fe obviously, but they'll still pick up on that a lot more quickly than Fi users. The only exception would maybe be some ExFPs do to other things which you don't need to worry about just because it doesn't apply to you or any of the low F types). Contemplating emotional states will be jarring to both low F users (TP and TJ) because it isn't a natural way of going about things.

So you are saying TPs have some conscious Fe usage sometimes besides the default background awareness, and TJs don't at all do any conscious Fe, but instead they consciously pick up stuff via their Te etc?

"An ISTJ will not really have much access to Fe if any" - that fits me alright. Not much access if any. lol. Recently I sometimes got to feel like it's a big drawback but I think I just can't change myself. And shouldn't even try... See more below about my experience.

And oh, by "personal/jarring" I did not mean it being meddling to others. I meant it's jarring to myself. It internally just feels too... unnatural and possibly even fake like I said before. Not normal for me to try and focus on Fe stuff consciously at all whatsoever in any form whatsoever. I tried recently for a while because apparently I got into the company of some people where they wanted me to do that... So yeah I find it doesn't work for me, trying to do it consciously in any way at all. Whatever I have works, whatever I don't have, I will not gain in this fashion or in any other. Imagine an endless vent from me at this point about how frustrating it is and how much it's so not leading anywhere. It's like I'd have to learn a book of 1,000,000 pages where I can learn a few lines every day lol. Not natural at all and will never lead anywhere, so f*ck that.

I decided in the end - very very recently in fact - that I will never closely associate with people again who want me to learn that book. Luckily not everyone has such expectations. Actually most people I've been close-ish with haven't had this expectation towards me, so yeah...

There is one thing I do consciously though that's not jarring and is pretty natural instead... When I watch a person enough - because I know the person enough, have had enough experience with them - I can notice small concrete details in their body language or facial expression that repeat and I can sometimes figure out what that is and it can help me sometimes. I can figure it out when I notice what in the external situation it links to. That - i.e. what some specific detail or specific happening links to in several external situations - is something that my logical analysis is easily based on. I just find what's a definable constant in these situations to get the basis for my logic. Usually I don't really try to link these small details - about the Fe body language/facial expression cues - to anything though, it just happens sometimes that I'm able to. The only other option left to me if I were to try and figure out something Fe stuff would be guessing. And guessing is really frustrating to me, so I would rather not even try lol.

I don't have any fluid let alone generalising process to consciously pick up on cues for the not-enough-obvious emotional expressions. (Unconsciously either, I only learn about this stuff only one way, described above.) Where by "obvious" expression I mean basic emotional things that everyone sees and recognises, regardless of type. The above approach doesn't generalise either... I just wait, watch, then at one point a specific small detail/expression has been repeated enough for me to see how it links logically to the happenings in the situations. It has to link in some specific and logical way. It doesn't generalise to other people.

Mm I see what you mean. It could be Te related then (some of that actually sounded like it could be related to Si), though what you said doesn't necessarily discount the possibility of a low Fe type.

More on expressions... you said I'm a bit expressive. Yeah people sometimes comment on it IRL, in a positive way, and I'm like... what. It's never conscious lol. Again I don't want it to be conscious at all.

BTW besides this Fe stuff, I do want to say that I definitely do logical categorising of stuff that I've seen/experienced, that's what I default to, but don't TPs do this? Devil must be in the details because I'm sure I'm missing something here.

One more thing on categorising things... I do that naturally for most things to organise them but specifically in terms of emotions, I sometimes like to do categorising of internal emotional/feeling states. This is definitely easier, more natural and way more fun for me than to try and guess at expressions... I even have the synesthesia for these internal emotional states like I said in the other thread. For these internal emotional states, I somehow do not need to do any guessing, I can just wait patiently until I've seen a new (or unknown anyway) emotional state enough times to figure out what it is. By then I'm able to see how it links to the external situations, and to my own memories of emotional states. Also these states are just more interesting for me to focus on consciously. Though I still don't like to too often focus on my internal emotional states even if they are mine and not someone else's. I just do this sometimes. And when I do focus on them like above, I still want to do it via logic, I prefer to dissect them in the above manner, instead of too directly feeling them for too long. The body language/Fe expressions stuff of other people's or even my own, I do not want to try and focus on consciously at all, again.

Does that make sense?

That does make sense. Both Ti and Te logically categorize things in their own way, generally a T thing anyhow. What you describe here actually sounds very Fi in nature. Idk, maybe you're just a TJ type who's on the more adaptable end of things?

Nonetheless, I feel at this point that I'm really not providing you any useful information and, rather, am going around in circles with my own logic. Especially as I'm going back to classes in the coming week or so, I'm probably not going to be able to dedicate a lot more time to this thread. With this you did make a pretty good argument for a TJ type rather than TP. If you're looking for more resources that have been helpful to others in the past, I think it might be helpful to do some reading from here Resource or perhaps other mbti books (I haven't any in particular I'd recommend). With enneagram, "Wisdom of The Enneagram" is probably one of the best resources I've come across, there's a lot of free and legal versions of it online I believe. 3 is probably a good possibility for you core wise, and IV I think you're either so/sp or sp/so. If you have any last questions I'd be happy to try and answer those.

Good luck btw, sorry I couldn't give you anything more definitive.

 

[kittenke]

Mm it seems that either I tangented too much or didn't phrase myself well this time around, sorry about. I'll see if I can clear up a bit what I meant last time around....

Oh no worries about that.

I meant that your formality and relatively pleasant/complimentary way of speaking didn't align with a low/nonexistant Fe and soc blind combo. Low Fe can often be formal (sometimes excessively so), especially when paired with the social instinct. Low/nonexistant Fe paired with one of the two soc blind combos (sp/sx and sx/sp) are known for their abrupt style and strong lack of social couth/politeness/warmth. In both combos, attentiveness to how one comes across would not be there in the slightest due the to the lack of concern for belonging or society as a whole (Soc) and due to lack of care/attentiveness to the environment in terms of people and what in generally acceptable (Fe + soc). Based on your speaking style in general, I really don't see that as a possibility.

I understand what you are getting at. I do have an abrupt style easily lol if I don't pay attention. But I don't expect you to analyse this topic further, no worries. Actually, for the rest of my post too, if I don't ask any specific question, I really am not expecting you to add any analyses. I'll add clarifications etc, but that's all.

It was mostly that in the op/questionaire I saw bits and pieces of sp scattered about
(in terms that you were relatively responsible and not blindly sociable or health ignorant), but wasn't 100% sure you were sx blind. If sp/sx ends up fitting you, maybe I'm missing something, but from this you seemed closer to some sort of sx blind combination (so/sp, sp/so).

Tbh so/sp is too political for me, and sp/so, besides having overly strong concern - from my pov - for their safety and health etc, is too oriented towards certain societal things compared to me, but thanks for the input in any case.

The whole idea that you'd like some sort of background security as an ideal (in context of this, you talked about not being completely rootless, though having the flexibility to be malleable, which fits well with 6).

Sorry, I was not clear enough, it was not about security for its own sake, it was about keeping my possessions for other purposes.

I don't know what you mean by malleability... please can you elaborate on this one?

Yes this is related to you not being sp blind (so/sx, sx/so). You're aware of your own limitations (be they physical, mental, ect) and boundaries, and while they're flexible, they are maintained and there is a limit to how far you are going to step outside them. That is sp by nature.

Alright I can see that, though like I said these limits are quite basic and actually, they are quite uh... far, compared to what more security oriented people have as their limits. Also, I always like to say that I believe that the limits are further stretchable than what most people would think. In pursuit of getting where you want to get. (And this is very general about getting wherever, could be anything from getting a house to getting fame or finding the romantic partner you can truly connect with. Not in terms of my goals specifically, speaking just in general.)

Also, with my risk taking or whatever, I know some people who would probably have no trouble believing I'm sp blind looool. The people warning me to have more moderation, less excitement to throw myself into what I see a point/purpose to, or people who are more focused on small details safety, are more of a worrywart. Oh yeah, I like this phrasing, "small details of safety" is what I absolutely pay no attention to. I have the basic idea that as long as it won't kill me, won't maim me, and won't get in the way of important goals/purposes, I don't care/worry about it.

Overall I really dislike to be reminded of danger or worry, and I read about a stereotype of ESTP that is most like that lol. With not liking to be reminded. But that ESTP girl I mentioned, she was stretching the limits more than me still.

Make sense about stretching the limits in pursuit of what you want to get, and the "small details of safety"?

Yeah, this is exactly what I meant in the above. You could think of the girl you mentioned above as someone who is sp blind (technically that could also relate to a so/sp with sp on the weaker side, but we'll stick with sp blindness). Your contrast with her is directly relative to the presence and lack of presence of sp.

Could be.

I'm pretty sure that this isn't necessarily type related, but rather just a common human thing. Technically, being strongly hands on in general and learning strongest by doing things is more common among all high sensing types than intuitive types as a whole, but there's no strong correlation. Being able to that in tune physically to your body and things like muscle memory probably relates back to being a high sensing type as well, but again, doesn't really discern between si and se.

OK, I see what you mean. Afaik not everyone learns or remembers in this way like I described it. But yeah I don't know how much it is strictly type related.

You're probably not a 1 core from what I've acquired from your information thus far, though being a competency oriented individual I can see where that's coming from. 1 is known for having an excessive amount of self control, prudence, and somewhat non-malleable boundaries, especially when not sp blind. I haven't really gotten a sense that you're overly moralistic either (that also applies to 1 because their core fear is of being bad, evil, or wrong). Your op also suggested you were comfortable with anger and saw it as one of the emotions you felt most comfortable with, which opposes 1s desire to maintain control and avoid being angry (ie. 1s are known to avoid being angry and can sometimes refer to such feelings as resentment due to their discomfort with loosing themselves to that anger). You malleability, but strong goal orientation and drive does align very well with 3 though, I could easily see that as your core type.

I do have non-malleable boundaries in terms of um, not really getting enmeshed with people and not getting my own opinions influenced easily by others if that's what you meant...?

I never thought I was "overly moralistic" either, but I'm finding myself baffled at how certain other people are er, even less so. The same applies to the issue of self-control. Prudence though yeah I'm only average there, I'm no 1 sp I guess. As for anger, I do feel in control with it, I'd really dislike it if I lost my head and thus control. I definitely am comfortable with anger though yes, as long as I also keep my head and not get overemotional. That is when I'd definitely have discomfort and I'd regret it afterwards. This doesn't happen often though, actually very very rarely, luckily.

Again the malleability, I don't know what you are getting at with it. I'm not flexible with behaviours like 3 is, if that's what you mean.

So all in all yeah, I don't relate to fully suppressing anger or being overly moralistic (1), but I also don't relate to needing external validation or being flexible with behaviours (3), so I feel like a mix of 1 and 3 heh. Originally I said 1/3 because they are the achievement oriented types. 1 just gets at it from a purely conscientious and internally oriented viewpoint, while 3 interprets it in terms of success for external validation. This is my understanding anyhow. For me again it's like a mix slightly, my need for achievement is internally driven but I do recognise material/social status and the like, and that kind of competitiveness does add to the motivation/modifies what I want to achieve. Also I'm pretty conventional/mainstream with many of these things so that's also 3-ish to me. Not all of it, though. And 1 is conventional too. Also I don't want to get too shallow with this stuff, for some reason. And with 3 "sucking up" to people for validation or aligning their goals towards that... completely alien to me. I guess that's most true of 3 with the social instinct though.

Going back to your first point there (wanting action to have purpose), that could relate back to 3, especially since 3s as a whole are noticed for their goal orientation and their drive towards that/those goal(s). Nonetheless, that could also relate to Te or Se to some degree. If you're coming across as reckless or risky though, even if you do have those boundaries in the back of your mind, it is more likely to relate back to Se since, by nature of the functions, that is how Se can come across.

Hmm I don't think I have a full understanding of how 3s interpret the word "goal". If you have a short summary on what you think 3's version is for being goal-oriented - the kind of neat short thing you had for the instincts - I'd be interested but if you don't have that summary, that's okay too.

I think I was going more for desiring some level of certainty/structure or finding comfort in that based on the context. 6 values being aware and also having some sort of linear structure/safe zone/understanding it can fall back onto to maintain control.

Do you mean to refer to my approach to structuring things? The word "safe zone" makes me fall asleep (much like all the other buzzwords on security, safety, etc) lol. But (half* of) my cognition is good for linear structure and lack of ambiguity, that's true.

*: The detailed, calmer half.

This is what I was specifically trying to get at, maybe I tangented enough to the point that it wasn't clear. To be more simplistic in my description, I'd say I am most likely to be neurotic about sp and sx, though not at all (or very rarely so) with my secondary instinct soc. As I mentioned, I focus way to much on maintaining and erecting boundaries, which is very sp by nature. I'm also really weird about money and saving it, I focus too much on having monetary security than is really warranted in any situation, and this is difficult to satisfy. While mine sort of ties to these two areas of sp, other areas that sp could become neurotic (that I don't) are in regards to health, resources, space, ect. With sx, I'm likely to overfocus or become "neurotic" about it to a disgusting degree only under specific circumstances or low levels of health/stress, which is typical of the last instinct.

OK, for me it's the sp instinct where I see the least of neurotic stuff for myself. I'm not worried about financial safety in the way you are, I'm also not worried about the other sp themes you listed (and the other sp themes I've read about). Can I ask what the overfocus on sx as the last instinct is like? (I'm not asking about the private personal details, just asking in general.) I've never read anything about that and I've definitely tried to read up on the topic.

Not yielding to your appetites in that way and funneling them into goals and such probably relates to you likely being a sx blind (so/sp or sp/so).

I have no idea what you had in mind for what the goals would specifically be like, but they are pretty in line with the uh, appetites lol. When I said the appetite is subject to a point/purpose, I meant that I give it a direction. I can't just be directionless with taking action. Also I get impulsive but I give it a direction, same thing.

They're not related. Sp can make someone falsely appear more introverted than others I guess, because sp relates to maintaining personal boundaries (ie. a sp dom may not be as open to sharing their personal information without being close/really trusting another person) and are a bit more attentive to maintaining their energy reserve (where a strong extrovert might just blow themselves out from stimulating themselves with people/the outside world, a sp dom Extrovert would probably sense their limits a bit better and seem to be less driven by people and relationships than a soc or sx dom). Introversion is specifically becoming most energized by things internal to yourself rather than external.

OK I see what you mean. Though I still think there is a relation because sp is about the self so it's internal in a way. And hm I like to push instead of reserving my energy. Put in the effort being driven. And so yeah people who want to maintain their energy reserve too much are alien to me. But again people who just go past the totally basic limits too, that's alien too.

I was refering to when you said this: The whole comment on body language, not bother to clarify emotional states like a Fi user would be inclined to, just taking it or leaving it, is often attributed to Fe. That's because emotional states are just obvious to high Fe users (less so to low Fe obviously, but they'll still pick up on that a lot more quickly than Fi users. The only exception would maybe be some ExFPs do to other things which you don't need to worry about just because it doesn't apply to you or any of the low F types). Contemplating emotional states will be jarring to both low F users (TP and TJ) because it isn't a natural way of going about things.

Okay I see but when I talked about "obvious" things I truly meant it, it's things that everyone recognises, TP or TJ or any other type. I mean universal basic emotions, that really everyone recognises. Unless the person has some developmental problem.

And for the rest, I just do the "leave it" part of the "take it or leave it" approach. lol see what I meant by zero Fe

So all in all, just to be totally sure you meant this: "So you are saying TPs have some conscious Fe usage sometimes besides the default background awareness, and TJs don't at all do any conscious Fe, but instead they consciously pick up stuff via their Te etc?" - yes?

Mm I see what you mean. It could be Te related then (some of that actually sounded like it could be related to Si), though what you said doesn't necessarily discount the possibility of a low Fe type.

OK glad I managed to explain it.

That does make sense. Both Ti and Te logically categorize things in their own way, generally a T thing anyhow. What you describe here actually sounds very Fi in nature. Idk, maybe you're just a TJ type who's on the more adaptable end of things?

Your idea, that's an option too and I considered it's just that I don't have a strong preference (for the dichotomy) either way yeah.

And I see what you mean by it sounding like Fi, though I would say that I definitely would not want to "own" these Fi feelings too much either... I want to stay emotionally detached and approach it all/interface with it via logic only. This is so much true that, in terms of ExTJ descriptions, I can relate to their emotional detachment.

Nonetheless, I feel at this point that I'm really not providing you any useful information and, rather, am going around in circles with my own logic. Especially as I'm going back to classes in the coming week or so, I'm probably not going to be able to dedicate a lot more time to this thread. With this you did make a pretty good argument for a TJ type rather than TP. If you're looking for more resources that have been helpful to others in the past, I think it might be helpful to do some reading from here Resource or perhaps other mbti books (I haven't any in particular I'd recommend). With enneagram, "Wisdom of The Enneagram" is probably one of the best resources I've come across, there's a lot of free and legal versions of it online I believe. 3 is probably a good possibility for you core wise, and IV I think you're either so/sp or sp/so. If you have any last questions I'd be happy to try and answer those.

Good luck btw, sorry I couldn't give you anything more definitive.

No worries, your pov is understandable and I think you've had a really reasonable approach to discussing all this. Thanks again for the link/recommendations.

Hm if I'm 3, I can't be 3 soc though, that's too stereotypically 3, and I'm too far from that. 3 sp is less alien than 3 soc, but I'll look into all this more.

 

[kittenke]

[MENTION=22833]Legion[/MENTION] I don't know if you saw my response to you a while ago above (#75).

 

[RadicalDoubt]

I understand what you are getting at. I do have an abrupt style easily lol if I don't pay attention. But I don't expect you to analyse this topic further, no worries. Actually, for the rest of my post too, if I don't ask any specific question, I really am not expecting you to add any analyses. I'll add clarifications etc, but that's all.

Cool, thank you for understanding.

Tbh so/sp is too political for me, and sp/so, besides having overly strong concern - from my pov - for their safety and health etc, is too oriented towards certain societal things compared to me, but thanks for the input in any case.

I think it's worth noting that in descriptions of these types, the political and single minded societal focus is often exaggerated/not expanded on in a non-black and white fashion (ie. A lot of so/sps will mistype as soc blinds), but you do make a decent point.

Sorry, I was not clear enough, it was not about security for its own sake, it was about keeping my possessions for other purposes.

I don't know what you mean by malleability... please can you elaborate on this one?

I think I meant in terms of adaptability and ability to change/accept it.

Alright I can see that, though like I said these limits are quite basic and actually, they are quite uh... far, compared to what more security oriented people have as their limits. Also, I always like to say that I believe that the limits are further stretchable than what most people would think. In pursuit of getting where you want to get. (And this is very general about getting wherever, could be anything from getting a house to getting fame or finding the romantic partner you can truly connect with. Not in terms of my goals specifically, speaking just in general.)

Also, with my risk taking or whatever, I know some people who would probably have no trouble believing I'm sp blind looool. The people warning me to have more moderation, less excitement to throw myself into what I see a point/purpose to, or people who are more focused on small details safety, are more of a worrywart. Oh yeah, I like this phrasing, "small details of safety" is what I absolutely pay no attention to. I have the basic idea that as long as it won't kill me, won't maim me, and won't get in the way of important goals/purposes, I don't care/worry about it.

Overall I really dislike to be reminded of danger or worry, and I read about a stereotype of ESTP that is most like that lol. With not liking to be reminded. But that ESTP girl I mentioned, she was stretching the limits more than me still.

Make sense about stretching the limits in pursuit of what you want to get, and the "small details of safety"?

Yeah that makes sense. I think it's worth noting that this could probably be used as another point against type 1 as a core btw.

I do have non-malleable boundaries in terms of um, not really getting enmeshed with people and not getting my own opinions influenced easily by others if that's what you meant...?

I never thought I was "overly moralistic" either, but I'm finding myself baffled at how certain other people are er, even less so. The same applies to the issue of self-control. Prudence though yeah I'm only average there, I'm no 1 sp I guess. As for anger, I do feel in control with it, I'd really dislike it if I lost my head and thus control. I definitely am comfortable with anger though yes, as long as I also keep my head and not get overemotional. That is when I'd definitely have discomfort and I'd regret it afterwards. This doesn't happen often though, actually very very rarely, luckily.

Again the malleability, I don't know what you are getting at with it. I'm not flexible with behaviours like 3 is, if that's what you mean.

So all in all yeah, I don't relate to fully suppressing anger or being overly moralistic (1), but I also don't relate to needing external validation or being flexible with behaviours (3), so I feel like a mix of 1 and 3 heh. Originally I said 1/3 because they are the achievement oriented types. 1 just gets at it from a purely conscientious and internally oriented viewpoint, while 3 interprets it in terms of success for external validation. This is my understanding anyhow. For me again it's like a mix slightly, my need for achievement is internally driven but I do recognise material/social status and the like, and that kind of competitiveness does add to the motivation/modifies what I want to achieve. Also I'm pretty conventional/mainstream with many of these things so that's also 3-ish to me. Not all of it, though. And 1 is conventional too. Also I don't want to get too shallow with this stuff, for some reason. And with 3 "sucking up" to people for validation or aligning their goals towards that... completely alien to me. I guess that's most true of 3 with the social instinct though.

Mm ok, I see where you're coming from.

Hmm I don't think I have a full understanding of how 3s interpret the word "goal". If you have a short summary on what you think 3's version is for being goal-oriented - the kind of neat short thing you had for the instincts - I'd be interested but if you don't have that summary, that's okay too.

It's pretty variable depending on the 3 and their values, basically whatever ambition you'd personally like to achieve. It can be work related, it can be self related (ie. self improvement). Basically whatever would give the 3 a sense of worth/fulfillment, whether it pertains mostly to the self (sp 3), society/specific others (soc), or to that specific other or passion (sx). For 3s and 3 fixers, it is important to have a direction to move and a place that you want to be, not necessarily physically, but in terms of live, self, or anything related to their current ambition, which is what that goal relates to. A lot of 3 descriptions place a lot of importance on the 3 needing to be affirmed by others, which is pretty prominent among the social 3s archetype especially, but the goal itself can also be affirming in the sense that it gives the 3 a sense of self worth by achieving it, even if it's not necessarily recognized by anyone but themselves (though that'd note in particular would probably be more in the domain of sp 3).

Do you mean to refer to my approach to structuring things? The word "safe zone" makes me fall asleep (much like all the other buzzwords on security, safety, etc) lol. But (half* of) my cognition is good for linear structure and lack of ambiguity, that's true.

*: The detailed, calmer half.

I was specifically referring to your cognition being on the more linear/certain end of things. 6s are certainty seeking, therefore structured in nature. 6w5 and sp 6 is more comfort/safety zone oriented than 6w7 and non sp dom 6 imo

OK, for me it's the sp instinct where I see the least of neurotic stuff for myself. I'm not worried about financial safety in the way you are, I'm also not worried about the other sp themes you listed (and the other sp themes I've read about). Can I ask what the overfocus on sx as the last instinct is like? (I'm not asking about the private personal details, just asking in general.) I've never read anything about that and I've definitely tried to read up on the topic.

You could be sp secondary then perhaps, your self description didn't sound sp last at least. And the way that you joked about others perhaps seeing you as such kind of furthers that. Sx overfocus can vary a lot, but typically just takes the normal sx behaviors and puts them to the extreme in a way that is atypical of the person. Typically, you'll see it as a tunnel vision/excessive focus on someone or something to the point where it way overshoots and ignores safety concerns and what is considered rational. Also it could manifest as perhaps someone not really risky in nature taking a risk for once for the stimulation/yielding to their appetite, but since they don't really do it that much/prioritize it it's to the extreme. Being randomly polarized or passionate, but in places that don't really warent the context. Those are just examples, but there's definitely more. Last fix overfocus typically isn't super commonplace either.

OK I see what you mean. Though I still think there is a relation because sp is about the self so it's internal in a way. And hm I like to push instead of reserving my energy. Put in the effort being driven. And so yeah people who want to maintain their energy reserve too much are alien to me. But again people who just go past the totally basic limits too, that's alien too.

You're probably sp secondary than.

Okay I see but when I talked about "obvious" things I truly meant it, it's things that everyone recognises, TP or TJ or any other type. I mean universal basic emotions, that really everyone recognises. Unless the person has some developmental problem.

You'd think it'd be super universal, but some people are really blind to those sort of things. I get what you mean though, that's what I had presumed.

And for the rest, I just do the "leave it" part of the "take it or leave it" approach. lol see what I meant by zero Fe

So all in all, just to be totally sure you meant this: "So you are saying TPs have some conscious Fe usage sometimes besides the default background awareness, and TJs don't at all do any conscious Fe, but instead they consciously pick up stuff via their Te etc?" - yes?

No, it's not always conscious to TPs either. Nonetheless, it's typically somewhat recognizable in their behavior that they have Fe, though not always recognizable to themselves. Just for clarification, TJs don't do conscious or unconscious Fe.

No worries, your pov is understandable and I think you've had a really reasonable approach to discussing all this. Thanks again for the link/recommendations.

Hm if I'm 3, I can't be 3 soc though, that's too stereotypically 3, and I'm too far from that. 3 sp is less alien than 3 soc, but I'll look into all this more.

No yeah, I don't think you're a so dom 3 either, usually so 3s are more obviously so 3 lol, although not all are as obnoxious as the descriptions peg them. Thank you for understanding, good luck on finding your type.

 

[kittenke]

Cool, thank you for understanding.

Yeah absolutely np

I'll add a few last comments and just a quick little last question on the malleability thing. EDIT: nvm the question. I fixed that now.

I don't know what you mean by malleability... please can you elaborate on this one?

I think I meant in terms of adaptability and ability to change/accept it.

Sorry, change/accept what? Missing the reference here.

EDIT: ohh, I see now the actual sentence structure, sorry. I'm able to accept change, yah, but I don't think it makes me malleable per se. Uhm, I mean I'm not exactly flexible naturally, I just force myself to adjust things.

Yeah that makes sense. I think it's worth noting that this could probably be used as another point against type 1 as a core btw.

Yeah I'm for sure not a 1 sp, afaik that's the one that's all about moderation and prudence.

It's pretty variable depending on the 3 and their values, basically whatever ambition you'd personally like to achieve. It can be work related, it can be self related (ie. self improvement). Basically whatever would give the 3 a sense of worth/fulfillment, whether it pertains mostly to the self (sp 3), society/specific others (soc), or to that specific other or passion (sx). For 3s and 3 fixers, it is important to have a direction to move and a place that you want to be, not necessarily physically, but in terms of live, self, or anything related to their current ambition, which is what that goal relates to. A lot of 3 descriptions place a lot of importance on the 3 needing to be affirmed by others, which is pretty prominent among the social 3s archetype especially, but the goal itself can also be affirming in the sense that it gives the 3 a sense of self worth by achieving it, even if it's not necessarily recognized by anyone but themselves (though that'd note in particular would probably be more in the domain of sp 3).

Thanks for the explanation. Sense of fulfillment and direction sounds a bit too generic to be just related to one specific type, though.

Just noting (not asking you to analyse it), I've read up a bit on 3 sp and it says "Self-preservation Threes feel their value is dependent on their ability to take care of basic security needs." - well that's not me.

Then:
"Of the three instinctual variants of this type, the Self-Pres Three has the most difficulty contacting feelings. They tend to express affection through accomplishing things for their partner and by meeting practical expectations. But they may begin to see all of their relationships in terms of functional roles, transactions, task lists, and how well they and the people in their lives are fulfilling these roles. While this can be efficient up to a point, it often ends up creating distance between Self-Pres Threes and the people they care about."

This is a bit more dry than I am with all these functional roles and transactions.

"Threes grow by recognizing that they do not need to separate their work and functioning from their feelings. Threes believe they will be less effective and competent if they allow their feelings to enter the picture. Thus, they wait until they are done with their tasks before they pay any attention to their emotions. Nonetheless, their emotions are always operating, even if unconsciously. And if Threes neglect them too long, those emotions start to make functioning much more difficult. Thus, growth for Threes entails pausing while working and actively checking in with their feelings. By tuning in to their heart and becoming more conscious of their inner life, Threes derive much greater happiness and satisfaction from their work and from their relationships."

This was more interesting though I don't think of emotions as threatening competency... more like I don't want them to "get in the way" for what I want (this is independent of competence, not sure how to explain though), or in the way of self-respect in general.

But the emotional detachment I do have. (Whether it's the 3 version or not, I relate to this part easily.)

I was specifically referring to your cognition being on the more linear/certain end of things. 6s are certainty seeking, therefore structured in nature. 6w5 and sp 6 is more comfort/safety zone oriented than 6w7 and non sp dom 6 imo

Yeah but like I said only half of my cognition is like that. The calmer, more detailed, more patient, unemotional half, that is not action focused or quickly decisive. "Certainty seeking" is off for it though, because this cognition is already very grounded (in concrete detail) by default, so no need to seek certainty. But since it's so grounded, it definitely is black and white, thus not accommodating ambiguity.

You could be sp secondary then perhaps, your self description didn't sound sp last at least. And the way that you joked about others perhaps seeing you as such kind of furthers that. Sx overfocus can vary a lot, but typically just takes the normal sx behaviors and puts them to the extreme in a way that is atypical of the person. Typically, you'll see it as a tunnel vision/excessive focus on someone or something to the point where it way overshoots and ignores safety concerns and what is considered rational. Also it could manifest as perhaps someone not really risky in nature taking a risk for once for the stimulation/yielding to their appetite, but since they don't really do it that much/prioritize it it's to the extreme. Being randomly polarized or passionate, but in places that don't really warent the context. Those are just examples, but there's definitely more. Last fix overfocus typically isn't super commonplace either.

Okay, I have the bolded a lot. I don't relate to "taking a risk for once". I don't really vary this, I don't often seek or avoid risk consciously, I think the best way to put it is, it's just not a theme for me to focus on. When people think I'm reckless, I'm still not seeking risk consciously. It's like just a necessary whatever in pursuit of other things. Thus the ignoring of safety concerns too... while I am in my tunnel vision to get where I want to get. No "small details of safety" for me.

You're probably sp secondary than.

Thanks for the input here too!

You'd think it'd be super universal, but some people are really blind to those sort of things. I get what you mean though, that's what I had presumed.

Well ok say 90% of people is what I meant

No, it's not always conscious to TPs either. Nonetheless, it's typically somewhat recognizable in their behavior that they have Fe, though not always recognizable to themselves. Just for clarification, TJs don't do conscious or unconscious Fe.

Ok, I see now what you meant, thanks.

No yeah, I don't think you're a so dom 3 either, usually so 3s are more obviously so 3 lol, although not all are as obnoxious as the descriptions peg them. Thank you for understanding, good luck on finding your type.

I don't actually find 3 so or in general 3 or in general the soc instinct obnoxious actually. I just don't relate to 3 so. And thanks and np once more lol

 

[kittenke]

[MENTION=34313]RadicalDoubt[/MENTION] maybe this will interest you too - been reading this book "Paul D. Tieger and Barbara Barron-Tieger: Just Your Type - Create the Relationship You've Always Wanted Using the Secrets of Personality Type" and it talks about what relationship each MBTI type wants. And that is something along the lines of which I was able to analyse myself better, see below. And, do you want me to get the e-book to you? For you to add it to that collection you linked to earlier. (If it's your collection I mean. Feel free to PM me either way if you are interested in getting your hands on it.)


So I looked at the four ST types about what they are like as a partner in a relationship and what they want in relationships, and I bolded and coloured with green the bits I definitely relate to, while I italicised and coloured with red the bits I definitely do NOT relate to:

ESTJs as Partners: Because ESTJs are great talkers with strong opinions, their partners seldom have to guess where they stand on any given issue. Dependable, responsible, and rock solid, they work hard to make their homes safe and secure havens and find comfort in family routines and traditions. They also have great energy and enthusiasm for family adventures and projects. They run an organized and orderly home and may exert considerable control over their partners. They can be rather inflexible about their schedules and unwilling to accept other points of view. But their impatience when dealing with their partners' feelings can be the greatest impediment to open communication, sharing, and intimacy. ESTJs want to be appreciated for being trustworthy, efficient, and productive. They feel most appreciated when their partners notice and acknowledge all the tangible ways they keep their homes and lives running smoothly.

ISTJs as Partners: ISTJs are hardworking, dependable, and predictable, and they usually like things to be done in very specific ways — their ways. Traditional and conforming, they work hard to achieve the goals they set with their partners. However, because they are not usually comfortable sharing their feelings, they tend not to be as emotionally available as their partners might like. In their eagerness to be organized and productive, they can also be unwilling to examine and embrace alternative points of view. ISTJs like to be appreciated for their practical contributions, their common sense, and the effort they put into maintaining their homes and keeping their families' lives on track. They feel most appreciated when their actions are noticed and acknowledged both informally, with a well-deserved thank you, and formally, with cards and gifts on appropriate holidays and anniversaries.

ESTPs as Partners: ESTPs are usually exciting partners who are willing to try anything once. They are often much more responsive to their mates' physical needs than their emotional ones. Because they don't usually have the patience for or see the need for long heart-to-heart talks, they tend to keep communication at a somewhat superficial level, which can prevent them from discovering the real sources of a conflict or making their partners feel that they truly understand them. ESTPs want to be appreciated for the fun-loving, responsive problem solvers they are. They feel most appreciated when their partners acknowledge and respect their need for freedom and encourage them to be spontaneous and to enjoy fully life's many pleasures.

ISTPs as Partners: ISTPs are calm, handy partners to have around, especially when something goes wrong or needs fixing. They can be very responsive to their mates' immediate and obvious needs but are usually much less comfortable dealing with their emotional ones. They are fun, playful, and adventurous, and they may be patient teachers and coaches of physical experiences. But they are essentially loners and may resist exposing themselves by sharing their private thoughts. ISTPs want to be appreciated for their often superb ability to size up a problem and solve it. They feel most appreciated when they are left to do their own thing, free to respond spontaneously to life's many adventures.


The things that really jumped out to me in the way the whole book puts this stuff:

- I do care very much about keeping things on track for the people I care for. To achieve those goals especially if mutual goals. Even if it takes effort. This wording was great, things on track, with effort/work, for that. That is what I feel I am best at...
- I do not care about spontaneity in this way it was described here for the STPs. I am okay with going for some fun or adventure if the partner has that idea or sometimes if I have the idea myself or whatever... but I do not want it emphasised to this degree. Not in the way it's put there ("most appreciated for").

So that shows a lot about how I am with regard to type... and J/P.

Overall I do like this idea of analysing in context of relationships... for some reason in that context I see far more clearly how I am, what I care about, what I don't care about, etc.

 

[kittenke]

Consider this:

Si+Te: producing logically-structured information based on personal experience/verifiable information

Ne+Fi: considering multiple generalised options based on personal qualities

Se+Ti: clearly perceiving reality in terms of defining qualities

Ni+Fe: producing socially-oriented information based on conceptual understanding


For STJs, Si+Te and Ne+Fi are conscious, so these are the things they "bring to the table", with Si+Te being the primary, energising functions, and Ne+Fi the secondary, de-energising ones. They seek Se+Ti primarily, and Ni+Fe secondarily in another, however they can produce these themselves through the unconscious at times, they just have limited control over it.

For STPs, it is the other way around. They bring Se+Ti, and then Ni+Fe to the table, and seek out Si+Te and then Ne+Fi.

Do these descriptions resonate with you in any way? Can you make a distinction as to which applies to you?

So based on what you said elsewhere, your description works for me actually, with Si+Te fitting me, and that fitting my choice of type actually.

I would say I definitely agree that Ne+Fi is also more conscious for me than Ni+Fe. (I actually posted an analysis of how I focus on Fi internal feelings a bit better and more naturally consciously than on Fe expressions.) And yeah, de-energising. Not sure about what I seek but that's an interesting topic to consider further.

Where you said for Se+Ti as a roughly illustrative example, "That's a dolphin - it's a mammal because [defining features of a mammal]", I'm more like, "that's a dolphin - I've seen this before, as it looks like this and this", and I put it in a "sensory category" in my mind automatically based on this. And I guess that actually sounds pretty Si lol... I don't actually try to stop and think to abstractly define the features for the category at least, it's based on these sensory templates instead. This example above for Se/Ti is pretty abstract for me in the way I don't do it. I'm of course capable of telling you a dolphin is a mammal with whatever defining features as I do have that knowledge/understanding of biology, but I don't explicitly think of that by default. It's somewhere there in the background more like. To start by thinking in that way, it would be like... dissecting things in a way unnatural for me. It's some too conceptual sort of logic for me. Instead, I need to see things for myself and then sort my sensory templates. I do dissect and then structure things in this way, more natural for me.

So, from all your options specifically, logically-structured information based on personal experience/verifiable information sounds good to me. I did note earlier that I don't see how that differs from what STPs do but it makes sense now (based on other readings on the topic too).

 

[kittenke]

I settled on ISTJ or more specifically, iSTJ, I actually figured that the "J" is a stronger dichotomy for me than the "I" though I'm pretty sure on Introversion too. I've put my type in my forum profile. If anyone wants to still add anything, of course feel free to, I don't get offended at anyone questioning my type either but I think I'm settled on it.

Once more, thanks for all the help from everyone.