Mistyped TypeCentral Members

[UniqueMixture]

[MENTION=1180]whatever[/MENTION] is obviously intj and just doesn't want to admit it

 

[miss fortune]

[MENTION=1180]whatever[/MENTION] is obviously intj and just doesn't want to admit it

Were I eating I would have choked to death...

 

[Aquarelle]

Guys, I'm pretty sure Lark is an N. Heres why:

Lark and I have discussed our personal belief systems at length, and I actually think his is much more a result of critical thought, and less about tradition, than it may appear on the surface.

Also, here's an S vs N example from the real life laboratory of Aquarelle's household: I see concepts, whereas my ESFJ spouse sees details. He notices when it's 95 degrees, vs 98 yesterday. To me, its just hot. I could care less about the numbers. To him, our car is a Chevy Equinox. To me, it's a white SUV. More than once I've gone up to the wrong car and waited to get in, only to hear him say "wrong car!"

As far as I can tell, Lark notices and remembers both details and concepts, but overarchingly I think he's more of a concepts guy. I have other reasons for believing he's an iNtuitive as well but I'm using my phone and don't feel like going rambling on anymore.

 

[UniqueMixture]

^I agree. Religious Ns are just different. I've seen it before so it doesn't surprise me.

 

[violet_crown]

Guys, I'm pretty sure Lark is an N. Heres why:

Lark and I have discussed our personal belief systems at length, and I actually think his is much more a result of critical thought, and less about tradition, than it may appear on the surface.

Since when has being a sensor meant one is incapable of critical thought?

 

[Aquarelle]

Since when has being a sensor meant one is incapable of critical thought?

I never said sensors are incapable of it. Obviously they are. But it's my understanding that sensors TEND to base their opinions on tradition and past experience, more than against an internal gauge or reflection.

 

[Cellmold]

I never said sensors are incapable of it. Obviously they are. But it's my understanding that sensors TEND to base their opinions on tradition and past experience, more than against an internal gauge or reflection.

Everyone is a product of past experience though. When we talk, for example, we use the words we learnt from those we experienced around us growing up. I would base my opinions on past experience if that experience was relevant. Of course the argument could be made that it is the relevancy which is important as a sensor might, based on your understanding, believe that every past experience is relative. But then again this brings into issue the point that every individual would presume their past experience to be a justified source of information, otherwise they wouldn't say it in the first place, hence why it is an opinion.

Ive always thought that sensing is about informing the world of what it is through our sensory input, which is then filtered down into that complex network called the human brain. This is then used to conceptualise sensory information into intricate acknowledgments of the environment. Afterall our senses KNOW something exists....just look, feel, taste, clearly it is there.

Where as intuition is about escaping the world in some manner, not delusion or denial but a constant need to jump to another moment another here or there, potential or idea. Whether that idea be sudden or a built upon concept, it always has it's roots in a distortion of what our sensory input tells us it must be. It actually wishes for more checks, so what if taste, smell, sound, touch and hearing inform us of somethings inherency, what check do we have to explain this to be true? Outside of just the senses themselves?

But this is just my idle idea, not really related to the functions.

As an aside ive noticed it is much more common for an individual's T to come under question than someone's F. Is it because F is more often confused for T rather than the other way around? But if statistics on type mean anything the split is roughly 50/50 between T and F, so why the heavy beat down on mistaken T?

I suspect it might be because T is often more admirable online and away from the world. Distance seems to accentuate what it is and it's useful brilliance, whereas in the normal arena's of life F holds more sway, especially Fe, because it is more expressive and observable.

The crying child garners more attention than the child making a quiet, but well discerned, observation.

 

[violet_crown]

I never said sensors are incapable of it. Obviously they are. But it's my understanding that sensors TEND to base their opinions on tradition and past experience, more than against an internal gauge or reflection.

Hmm. I feel that's a little bit of an oversimplification of Si as a process. It without question makes reference to tradition and past experience, because it is about anchoring oneself in what is known. But if you have a guy like [MENTION=7280]Lark[/MENTION] who's well-read, and has managed to amass a fairly respectable bank of knowledge the knowncan encompass a great deal. Especially since Si lends the ability to recall one's bank of knowledge with a great deal of care and accuracy.

So, to me, your anecdote about him doesn't prove very much, because it hasn't disproven the idea that Lark's beliefs and viewpoints aren't Si derived. My own observation of him on the forum is that he seems to use books as a way to "push back the darkness" as it were, and when confronted with new information he'll refer back to information that's he's already mapped out as a way to make an assessment of what's in front of him. Again, when you have a person with a lot of information at their disposal, that can be a fairly rich process, but it's still quintessentially Si.

That is very different than what you or I do as Ni-users. Ni is less about contextualizing (which is Si's m.o.), and more about conceptualizing. When presented with something new, it's Se that allows us to appreciate the thing for what it is, and Ni that allows for us to then manipulate the concept to generate possible meanings. I don't see that kind of play in Lark. He appears to take objects as they are, and his intellectual process seems to revolve around finding the correct shelf for them. The information he gathers appears to be used to crystalize definitions and positions as oppose to the odd unmooring thing that Ni does to the things it gets its hands on.

I welcome Lark to point out where I might have misconstrued him, btw. And am also open to the idea that I could be completely talking out of my ass about how Si works ([MENTION=4945]EJCC[/MENTION], fire at will, darlin. ).

 

[violet_crown]

Where as intuition is about escaping the world in some manner, not delusion or denial but a constant need to jump to another moment another here or there, potential or idea. Whether that idea be sudden or a built upon concept, it always has it's roots in a distortion of what our sensory input tells us it must be. It actually wishes for more checks, so what if taste, smell, sound, touch and hearing inform us of somethings inherency, what check do we have to explain this to be true? Outside of just the senses themselves?

+1

Well put.

As an aside ive noticed it is much more common for an individual's T to come under question than someone's F. Is it because F is more often confused for T rather than the other way around? But if statistics on type mean anything the split is roughly 50/50 between T and F, so why the heavy beat down on mistaken T?

Honestly, I think it's cause it can be obnoxious when someone consistently dresses up subjective opinion as objective fact, and while everyone's guilty of it from time to time, mistyped Feelers are pretty notorious about that shit. You get the double whammy of bullshit "logic", and then the person's inability to take criticism when you call them on it.

And I think that that's why mistyped feelers are more likely to catch flack. When I'm being conscientious like that, I do try to be accomadating of the fact that you can't play as rough with feelers as you can with other T's, and I'll moderate my behavior accordingly. But when someone rolls up on you with a label that says "I can play", and you throw the first punch and they go feeler on you it just makes you go .

I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's just safer, particularly on a site like this, to be a mistyped T than a mistyped F. Then again, I'm sure the feelers would be just as unforgiving if there was ever a fox in the hen house...

Talking more big picture, though, I can see how a guy might not want the label. But it strikes me as more a function of ignorance as to what it means to be a Feeler, than how desirable or undesirable the label might actually be. It's just like all this bullshit about people not wanting to Sensors. People treat it like they've been called a squib or some shit and it's just not right. All of this type coveting is just utterly ass backwards to me.

 

[Lark]

Hmm. I feel that's a little bit of an oversimplification of Si as a process. It without question makes reference to tradition and past experience, because it is about anchoring oneself in what is known. But if you have a guy like [MENTION=7280]Lark[/MENTION] who's well-read, and has managed to amass a fairly respectable bank of knowledge the knowncan encompass a great deal. Especially since Si lends the ability to recall one's bank of knowledge with a great deal of care and accuracy.

So, to me, your anecdote about him doesn't prove very much, because it hasn't disproven the idea that Lark's beliefs and viewpoints aren't Si derived. My own observation of him on the forum is that he seems to use books as a way to "push back the darkness" as it were, and when confronted with new information he'll refer back to information that's he's already mapped out as a way to make an assessment of what's in front of him. Again, when you have a person with a lot of information at their disposal, that can be a fairly rich process, but it's still quintessentially Si.

That is very different than what you or I do as Ni-users. Ni is less about contextualizing (which is Si's m.o.), and more about conceptualizing. When presented with something new, it's Se that allows us to appreciate the thing for what it is, and Ni that allows for us to then manipulate the concept to generate possible meanings. I don't see that kind of play in Lark. He appears to take objects as they are, and his intellectual process seems to revolve around finding the correct shelf for them. The information he gathers appears to be used to crystalize definitions and positions as oppose to the odd unmooring thing that Ni does to the things it gets its hands on.

I welcome Lark to point out where I might have misconstrued him, btw. And am also open to the idea that I could be completely talking out of my ass about how Si works ([MENTION=4945]EJCC[/MENTION], fire at will, darlin. ).

I think its been useful that you've posted this because what you describe as S, the contextualising vs. conceptualising, is definitely not me, in fact I've met more than a few people who fit that frame and who've complained about how conceptual my thinking is.

Its a little tenuous, I believe, to interpret book smarts in the way you do actually to, its possible I suppose, but are you really going to go down the road of suggesting that there, as opposed to being types in and of themselves, types which only have the appearence of a type because they are well read? I mean you'll reach the point eventually of suggesting there's no extroverts, just well connected or networked introverts, things like that.

Using books to "push back the darkness" really?

Yeah, it was interesting meeting Aquarelle in person because we were able to more or less "compare notes" about people appear online, the attitudes of forum users to other forum users and what informs all that, I'm pretty sure that there's a lot of people here who have strong opinions about who and what I am formed on the basis of views about comments I've made on specific topics which miss the bigger picture. In a big way.

For instance, the suggestion that I'm SF and I think corresponds to the idea that anyone who is "right wing" is a "concrete thinker" and "emotive", Lark thinks supposedly "right wing" things ergo he's a "concrete thinker" and "emotive" ergo SF. I think this evidently underpins your own analysis there because you suggest that in light of "new information" my response is to find from my banks of knowledge, vacarious experience from books, I'll find a way to resist any revision of my views, well, I'm unsure of any individual who revises their views every time they are presented with fresh information without processing it, its almost a parody of the "progressive" mindset.

If you need any evidence of that, and the whole "pushing back the darkness" style appraisal isnt sufficient, there's the frequent anti-religious cartoons which were thrown up in the other "what I imagine you look like" thread a while back.

 

[citizen cane]

To me this doesn't sound like a very good discernment between S and N thinking patterns. Mainly because it doesn't make any sense to me.

Here's an N story just for random's sake:

Once upon a time I had 2 INFJ employees. We all drove to work one balmy summer morning, greeted each other, and scampered inside. About an hour later a customer came in and said "Wow! Did you see that tree got knocked down in that storm from last night!" Us: What tree? (Me: There was a storm?) We trot outside and the giant 30 foot pine that one has to drive past in order to get into the parking lot, was down quite obviously in the parking lot. But since it didn't affect the narrow range of land needed to be driven past... none of us had noticed.

There may be a moral to this story, I have no idea. But it's a story. It's a GOOD story. Maybe not Pulitzer good, but it's what I got right now.

(Btw, if this is annoying you, please let me know. I just saw you post in here and decided to chime in.)

I have moments like this. Apparently a ginormous pine tree was cut down in front of my sister's apartment complex. I didn't even notice that something was different, let alone what was different.

 

[Lark]

The S thing is interesting to me because I've never ever tested S, I know that I've tested sometimes as I instead of E, to be honest that's complex to me because the answers can be different depending upon your options for socialising and whether you deal with more or less toxic people daily, I really think that.

I've not really tested as F either, although there are friends who've said that I'm a bad tempered thinker, which I can accept at times, I dont think that's the same as being a feeler, whether good or bad tempered

A lot of the time my bad temper is tripped in contact with people who I believe are feelers and less willing to examine topics of discussion in the way I have as a consequence of type or rather how that corresponds to whatever is under discussion. Obviously if you're a feeler and the topic is ice cream whatever your attachment to a particular flavour is you're not as liable to get infuriated as if the topic is politics, country or culture and it involves something you're attached to, why? Because people experience those things differently obviously and I'd only expect that but I like to be able to think about matters large and small in the same way with that dispassionate detachment and apply reason.

 

[Anew Leaf]

Talking more big picture, though, I can see how a guy might not want the label. But it strikes me as more a function of ignorance as to what it means to be a Feeler, than how desirable or undesirable the label might actually be. It's just like all this bullshit about people not wanting to Sensors. People treat it like they've been called a squib or some shit and it's just not right. All of this type coveting is just utterly ass backwards to me.

I couldn't say this better myself.

Wouldn't it be better to explore that which is actually you so that you can grow and learn based on who you actually are?

/crazy fi rhetorical question

 

[violet_crown]

I think its been useful that you've posted this because what you describe as S, the contextualising vs. conceptualising, is definitely not me, in fact I've met more than a few people who fit that frame and who've complained about how conceptual my thinking is.

I can't really respond to this, because I have no clue what you might've said to lead them to make that assessment of you. Based on the interactions I've had with you, and the subjects that seem to interest you I'd say that you were more academic than conceptual. But I've known plenty of Si users that capably navigated more esoteric subjects, they just did it in an Si way. If you feel that being a sensor precludes being an intellectual, that's your own prejudice, and has nothing to do with anything I've said.

Its a little tenuous, I believe, to interpret book smarts in the way you do actually to, its possible I suppose, but are you really going to go down the road of suggesting that there, as opposed to being types in and of themselves, types which only have the appearence of a type because they are well read? I mean you'll reach the point eventually of suggesting there's no extroverts, just well connected or networked introverts, things like that.

See my above comment. And, ftr, I believe that anyone who knows what Ni actually is would not mistake you for having it.

Using books to "push back the darkness" really?

Sure. The phrasing's a bit flowery, but it's a pretty apt metaphor for how you apparently approach the acquisition of knowledge.

Yeah, it was interesting meeting Aquarelle in person because we were able to more or less "compare notes" about people appear online, the attitudes of forum users to other forum users and what informs all that, I'm pretty sure that there's a lot of people here who have strong opinions about who and what I am formed on the basis of views about comments I've made on specific topics which miss the bigger picture. In a big way.

There might be people who would form the opinion that you're ESFJ cause they find you distateful. But you're making this comment on the basis of at least two flawed assumptions. 1) I or any of other people who have chimed in about your type are amongst them, and 2) that I would use your type as a put down even if I did dislike you. I've spoken out a couple of times about the fact that I think there's a lot that's just not fucking conducive about the cultural disdain in this forum for Sensors and Fe-users. It'd be miserably hypocritical of me to then turn around and "call someone out" on the basis of that.

For instance, the suggestion that I'm SF and I think corresponds to the idea that anyone who is "right wing" is a "concrete thinker" and "emotive", Lark thinks supposedly "right wing" things ergo he's a "concrete thinker" and "emotive" ergo SF. I think this evidently underpins your own analysis there because you suggest that in light of "new information" my response is to find from my banks of knowledge, vacarious experience from books, I'll find a way to resist any revision of my views, well, I'm unsure of any individual who revises their views every time they are presented with fresh information without processing it, its almost a parody of the "progressive" mindset.

Again, your assumption about me and where I'm coming from is incorrect. Like [MENTION=13402]Saturned[/MENTION] was pointing out in an earlier post, my assessment of you isn't so much about the content of your beliefs as how you apparently arrived at them. Look, dude, my mother is an INTJ and a Discalced Carmelite. You can't get more conservative nor more religious than a nun, but at the same time, I have no doubts that my mother's dominant function is Ni because of my understanding of how she processes the world to come to the set of beliefs that she currently holds. Again, my assesment of you is not a put down.

And yeah, you're absolutely right that most people aren't going to go so far as to revise their mindset everytime they're provided with new information about a subject. That wasn't my point. My point was my belief about how you go about assimilating new information as it's presented. I made no comment as to what outcome you'd reach, or why you'd necessarily reach it. My analysis was directed strictly at process.

I do find it a touch ironic, though, that as you deny that you're Si, you're entire arguement is based on your past experiences with people on this site and in your own life. Nor did you attempt to attack my premises in the direct, impersonal, and logical fashion I'd expect from another Te-dom. Instead, your whole line of attack here has been to discredit me personally. Whether it be because my opinion of you doesn't match up with the majority (para 1), doesn't match up with people who've met you irl (para 2), or because my assessment has upsetted you so it must be motivated by something personal on my part (para 3) none of these points have any bearing on the actual argument that I've made, and everything to do with controlling the emotional content of our discussion. This is unusual for someone who's Te/Fi, but is pretty typical of someone who's Fe/Ti.

If you need any evidence of that, and the whole "pushing back the darkness" style appraisal isnt sufficient, there's the frequent anti-religious cartoons which were thrown up in the other "what I imagine you look like" thread a while back.

I think my pushing back the darkness comment was misconstrued. The image in my mind was more of the sun coming over the horizon, shedding light on the land. It was supposed to play on the idea of knowledge overcoming ignorance, as well as the mapping focus of Si. It was my baby Ni's attempt at a play on meaning; nothing more, nothing less. I'm sorry people have given you shit for your faith in the past, though. And no harm was intended if what I said touched on old wounds.

 

[Lark]

OK guys, I suppose I could have expected this when I choose to participate in the thread, I dont presume to be an authority in MBTI and its already been evident that you each have superior knowledge for the terminology at least, so it makes little sense to carry on in the contrary when we cant settle on a common way of communicating.

One or two of you have already said that you think that my posts have been emotive and this is a vindication of what you've been saying, I'm sorry its been construed that way because its not the case.

I wouldnt choose words like "denial" to describe my view of what my type is, that does reek of strongly felt opinions, although I came to MBTI with no prior knowledge, joining the forum because of an interest in Jung and psychology and not really knowing much about typology and the first test I did had the result of ENTJ, consistently others have had the same, and reading about the type there's a lot which corresponds to my everyday thinking and experience.

Its been interesting but I think its gone as far as it can go, at least until cooler heads prevail.

 

[violet_crown]

And just as a follow up question: [MENTION=7280]Lark[/MENTION], iirc, you are the one who instigated the conversation about your type. Yet, for whatever reason, you've shot down most of the discussion. What discussion were you actually looking to have, and why start it if you evidently were not looking for and answer besides ENTJ?

Its been interesting but I think its gone as far as it can go, at least until cooler heads prevail.

Who is this directed towards? The conversation up till now has been nothing but civil.

 

[Lark]

And just as a follow up question: [MENTION=7280]Lark[/MENTION], iirc, you are the one who instigated the conversation about your type. Yet, for whatever reason, you've shot down most of the discussion. What discussion were you actually looking to have, and why start it if you evidently were not looking for and answer besides ENTJ?

Who is this directed towards? The conversation up till now has been nothing but civil.

I did begin a discussion, a little less emotive than "instigate" wouldnt you think?, and had a discussion and that's fine, dont think that I "shot down most of the discussion", which I think is a little emotive again but I know you're not going to buy that.

Directed towards? Well, I suppose there's two people whose choice of language when framing their posts looks emotive to me, and escalating, you were one of them and the other was Saturned, now, you're free to disagree and that's fine but its my read of the situation. I think its been civil and its been interesting, although you guys havent taken my rejection of your analysis that well. Thanks for contributing though.

 

[violet_crown]

I did begin a discussion, a little less emotive than "instigate" wouldnt you think?, and had a discussion and that's fine, dont think that I "shot down most of the discussion", which I think is a little emotive again but I know you're not going to buy that.

Spare me the baby Ti, son.

Directed towards? Well, I suppose there's two people whose choice of language when framing their posts looks emotive to me, and escalating, you were one of them and the other was Saturned, now, you're free to disagree and that's fine but its my read of the situation.

And here again you're attempting to undermine the assessment made myself and Saturned by framing us as "emotive" rather than actually dealing with the content of what we've said to you. Looking at my options, I can engage you on this level and say something like, "No, dickhead, you're the one who's being emotive", but that would allow the conversation to occur on your terms and that would seriously put me out. Fe games aren't my style, really.

I think its been civil and its been interesting, although you guys havent taken my rejection of your analysis that well.

Honestly, it's my fault. I've talked with you up until now like an ENTJ looking to have a discussion about his type, as oppose to an ESFJ looking for reassurance after one of his colleagues hurt his feelings at work. I took you at your word, rather than acting in accordance with what I knew to be true of this situation. This is a fairly brilliant illustration of what I was talking about earlier in terms of the kinds of problems that mistyped T's can run into. If I'd treated you like what you actually are, I'd have avoided this conversation altogether, cause again, Fe-games are not my thing.

So for that, don't worry about "rejecting" my analysis. It'll live. For my part, I apologize for not being more sensitive to your needs in this conversation. I hope that you're able to rally enough people via PM or wall message or whatever to your side to help you lick your wounds here and move on from this ugliness as directly as possible.

 

[Totenkindly]

Guys, I'm pretty sure Lark is an N. Heres why:

Lark and I have discussed our personal belief systems at length, and I actually think his is much more a result of critical thought, and less about tradition, than it may appear on the surface.

Also, here's an S vs N example from the real life laboratory of Aquarelle's household: I see concepts, whereas my ESFJ spouse sees details. He notices when it's 95 degrees, vs 98 yesterday. To me, its just hot. I could care less about the numbers. To him, our car is a Chevy Equinox. To me, it's a white SUV. More than once I've gone up to the wrong car and waited to get in, only to hear him say "wrong car!"

As far as I can tell, Lark notices and remembers both details and concepts, but overarchingly I think he's more of a concepts guy. I have other reasons for believing he's an iNtuitive as well but I'm using my phone and don't feel like going rambling on anymore.

Well, I've seen SJ's focus on concepts as well. The problem tends to be that they can't think in terms of them without wandering off-track, until they get some experience in concept-think. (I considering intuition to be symbolic thinking, like algebra or set theory -- and you can easily capture the nuances of the expression and are not bothered by the fuzziness.) So when I see people who are great at sharing details about topics of TRUE interest to them but not great at thinking via conceptual logic, even if they like to talk sometimes in concept thought -- well, the reality is that their concepts are more often just "conclusions" they have drawn and that they promote and defend as end points, rather than true conceptual dialogue.

I've also seen ESFPs use Intuition at various stages of life (both children ESFPs and adults), and without a lot of Intuition practice, while they can sound Intuitive, it's still a very basic and unnuaced intution that seems to overreact and speculate wildly, resulting in paranoia of some type.

I'm just speaking generally here. People are complex and we all use various aspects of the range of functions, so it's not as clear-cut as 100% sensing or 100% intuition, we borrow from both frameworks but usually one is more natural and advanced than the other.

^I agree. Religious Ns are just different. I've seen it before so it doesn't surprise me.

What do religious S's look like, then?

It sounds almost like you are saying Religious N's (because of adherence to doctrinal points) sound more S; and religious S's can sound rather N because of the broad principles of abstracted spiritual truth.

This sounds like an interesting thread to start.

 

[Totenkindly]

I couldn't say this better myself.

Wouldn't it be better to explore that which is actually you so that you can grow and learn based on who you actually are?

/crazy fi rhetorical question

Crazy girl.

Honestly sometimes I wish I was more S rather than just so stupidly N. (For one, I would have saved myself about $10-15K recently based on a bad decision I made because I didn't read the paperwork carefully enough.)

But honestly, my life would be easier in some ways if I had more S skillz. It's frustrating. Both sides have their pro's and con's; I wish we could all be liberated to be ourselves without having to fear coming up with the short end of the stick on a type read.

When I was in court last Monday, I was in total awe of the very S woman in charge to running calculations; she had mad skillz with detail that I could only salivate over.