Mistyped TypeCentral Members

[greenfairy]

ISFP's are the true fairies of the MBTI spectrum. You are not ISFP.

Edit: I know this isn't referring to me, but as I consider myself knowledgeable about fairies:

Interesting thought, but I've met fairies of many different types. ENTJ, ESTJ, ISTP, INTP, 2 INFP, 2 ISFP, and a few ENFP.


Also you guys should just come to a consensus about what you think my type is, and then get back to me. I'm perfectly happy being INFJ for now. And I've heard the INFP thing a million times, and I'm tired of refuting it; so if that's the consensus I'll refute all of you together (if I feel like bothering).

 

[WALMART]

Edit: I know this isn't referring to me, but as I consider myself knowledgeable about fairies:

Interesting thought, but I've met fairies of many different types. ENTJ, ESTJ, ISTP, INTP, 2 INFP, 2 ISFP, and a few ENFP.


Also you guys should just come to a consensus about what you think my type is, and then get back to me. I'm perfectly happy being INFJ for now. And I've heard the INFP thing a million times, and I'm tired of refuting it; so if that's the consensus I'll refute all of you together (if I feel like bothering).

How do you derive your morals?


In your own words, what entails being Ni-dom?


Would you press a button to kill a hundred and save a thousand? (All 1,100 would die if not)


What is your preferred method of learning?


You're sitting in class and a question relative to what your teacher is speaking about pops into your head - what do you do, and why?

 

[UniqueMixture]

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.

I'm not stepping into that frying pan haha. I think partially it is because he is from another country as well. To me, religious Ns are like Peguy often. Intellectual interests in things like history, theology, philosophy, etc but they don't have the Adventure Time sort of Ne insanity that non-religious Ns often have.

 

[greenfairy]

Ooh, fun questions!

How do you derive your morals?

I believe everything is interconnected in a balance, and I feel my part in it. I try to preserve the balance of life. Preserving and enhancing life is generally preferable and "good" and destroying life is generally non-preferable and "bad." Sub-principles derive from that one.

In your own words, what entails being Ni-dom?

I can't really explain it, but it feels like it fits. And that's a pretty Ni thing to say.

Introverted intuition stores and synthesizes information into an interconnected system.

Would you press a button to kill a hundred and save a thousand? (All 1,100 would die if not)

Yes. Definitely. Why not?

What is your preferred method of learning?

Read or hear about fundamental concepts, learn the details, then simultaneously connect it to things I already know and apply the concepts. I like to try to connect everything I learn with everything I know, in a systematic fashion.

You're sitting in class and a question relative to what your teacher is speaking about pops into your head - what do you do, and why?

First decide if it's an appropriate time to ask, then when it is, ask. Because I MUST KNOW.

 

[garbage]

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...

I know that the bolded itself isn't your main point, but it seems to be highly contradictory with this:

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.

Why are the labels undesirable? Because of the self-perpetuating misconceptions--including as the bolded.


Let me know if I've misread, because I'm not able to make sense of the whole shebang as is.

 

[EJCC]

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 Lark 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 (EJCC, fire at will, darlin. ).

I don't know if there's any need for me to. You seem to have it down pretty well!

I agree that Aquarelle was oversimplifying quite a bit. And the bolded is pretty damn close to the metaphors that I usually use for Si/Ne. I alternate between describing it as a filing cabinet, or a puzzle. By the filing cabinet metaphor, all of the information/experience that I have is contained in that cabinet, sorted into categories for easy access -- but it's equally easy to rearrange those files as necessary, or make new folders, if new information comes up that defies the previous categorization. By the puzzle metaphor, you have millions of puzzle pieces of all different colors, but many of the shapes are the same. So, you can have a red puzzle piece in the predominantly blue area of the puzzle, and it'll feel wrong to you, on a gut level, that that piece is there. Somehow, you know what this puzzle is supposed to look like, but you might not know exactly what puzzle piece should go there instead -- or you might know exactly which piece should go there. Either way, I can't count the number of times in my everyday life when I've looked at something, had a vague sense that something is wrong about it, and then realized that it was somehow changed since I saw it last. (e.g. when a room gets new wallpaper.) I call that Si at work.

I also read an Si description online, that used an example of cooking a particular recipe for the second time. An Si-user might be able to go through that recipe and make it exactly the way they did the first time -- which could make Ni-users think that they just "have a really good memory" -- but it does not feel like that for the Si-user, in the moment. It feels like you're going by instinct, from your gut. You go "I guess I'll put this amount of salt in, because that feels right to me", and it turns out that the reason why it feels right is that that's the way you'd seen it done before. An Si-user can't imagine cooking any other way -- either you go with your gut, based on what's "right" from past experience, or you follow a recipe and set yourself a new precedent. If an Si-user watches an Ni-user cook something for a second time, it might unnerve or worry them because of how haphazard and chaotic their process is by comparison. It's not based in anything, they're just doing things that could go horribly wrong at any time.

Which leads me to how much I agree with [MENTION=15392]AffirmitiveAnxiety[/MENTION]'s post about S vs. N. His descriptions are really good. When an Si-user uses their Ne and makes a crazy association or thinks of a crazy idea, it comes from leaping from one part of the file cabinet to the other, or grabbing two random puzzle pieces from the puzzle. But it's still confined to within the puzzle, or within the filing cabinet. There are limits to our use of Ne in that regard.

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?

Correct me if I'm wrong, [MENTION=7254]Wind-Up Rex[/MENTION], but I think there's been a miscommunication here. It's not that people look ENTJ when they're well-read, it's that people have a stereotype that if you're well-read, then you're an ENTJ. People don't associate ESFJs with book-smarts, or intellectual thinking, but they associate them with friendliness (or passive-aggression), and tradition, and practical knowledge.

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 must have missed something here. Did anyone on this thread say that you were an SF because you're right-wing? Was that connection ever made explicitly?

I don't know about other people on this thread, but I swear to you, Lark, I am not judging you as a person from your political beliefs. This conversation is not as personal as you think it is.

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.

Just to clarify -- are you saying that you think people are Feelers when they get infuriated during political discussions?

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.

Firstly, I thought all heads in this conversation were cool already? I'm not getting any negative vibes here.

Secondly, you say that you're not knowledgeable on some elements of the MBTI, but you're also certain enough of your type that you don't want to consider other options (besides ENTJ and INTJ). That seems contradictory and counterintuitive to me. What's the harm in learning more, either from people on the forum or from books on the topic, so that you can say with a good amount of supportive data that you're ENTJ or ESFJ or whatever type you end up being?

 

[Lark]

Spare me the baby Ti, son.



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.



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.

I dont think you're ENTJ.

 

[Lark]

I don't know if there's any need for me to. You seem to have it down pretty well!

I agree that Aquarelle was oversimplifying quite a bit. And the bolded is pretty damn close to the metaphors that I usually use for Si/Ne. I alternate between describing it as a filing cabinet, or a puzzle. By the filing cabinet metaphor, all of the information/experience that I have is contained in that cabinet, sorted into categories for easy access -- but it's equally easy to rearrange those files as necessary, or make new folders, if new information comes up that defies the previous categorization. By the puzzle metaphor, you have millions of puzzle pieces of all different colors, but many of the shapes are the same. So, you can have a red puzzle piece in the predominantly blue area of the puzzle, and it'll feel wrong to you, on a gut level, that that piece is there. Somehow, you know what this puzzle is supposed to look like, but you might not know exactly what puzzle piece should go there instead -- or you might know exactly which piece should go there. Either way, I can't count the number of times in my everyday life when I've looked at something, had a vague sense that something is wrong about it, and then realized that it was somehow changed since I saw it last. (e.g. when a room gets new wallpaper.) I call that Si at work.

I also read an Si description online, that used an example of cooking a particular recipe for the second time. An Si-user might be able to go through that recipe and make it exactly the way they did the first time -- which could make Ni-users think that they just "have a really good memory" -- but it does not feel like that for the Si-user, in the moment. It feels like you're going by instinct, from your gut. You go "I guess I'll put this amount of salt in, because that feels right to me", and it turns out that the reason why it feels right is that that's the way you'd seen it done before. An Si-user can't imagine cooking any other way -- either you go with your gut, based on what's "right" from past experience, or you follow a recipe and set yourself a new precedent. If an Si-user watches an Ni-user cook something for a second time, it might unnerve or worry them because of how haphazard and chaotic their process is by comparison. It's not based in anything, they're just doing things that could go horribly wrong at any time.

Which leads me to how much I agree with @AffirmativeAnxiety 's post about S vs. N. His descriptions are really good. When an Si-user uses their Ne and makes a crazy association or thinks of a crazy idea, it comes from leaping from one part of the file cabinet to the other, or grabbing two random puzzle pieces from the puzzle. But it's still confined to within the puzzle, or within the filing cabinet. There are limits to our use of Ne in that regard.

Correct me if I'm wrong, [MENTION=7254]Wind-Up Rex[/MENTION], but I think there's been a miscommunication here. It's not that people look ENTJ when they're well-read, it's that people have a stereotype that if you're well-read, then you're an ENTJ. People don't associate ESFJs with book-smarts, or intellectual thinking, but they associate them with friendliness (or passive-aggression), and tradition, and practical knowledge.

I must have missed something here. Did anyone on this thread say that you were an SF because you're right-wing? Was that connection ever made explicitly?

I don't know about other people on this thread, but I swear to you, Lark, I am not judging you as a person from your political beliefs. This conversation is not as personal as you think it is.

Just to clarify -- are you saying that you think people are Feelers when they get infuriated during political discussions?

Firstly, I thought all heads in this conversation were cool already? I'm not getting any negative vibes here.

Secondly, you say that you're not knowledgeable on some elements of the MBTI, but you're also certain enough of your type that you don't want to consider other options (besides ENTJ and INTJ). What's the harm in learning more, either from people on the forum or from books on the topic, so that you can say with a good amount of supportive data that you're ENTJ or ESFJ or whatever type you end up being?

Yeah, I got some pretty negative vibes. People providing their view, which is fine, then getting pretty worked up when there's no agreement with it and then further suggesting the lack of agreement is a validation of their view.

I dont think there's any harm in learning more about MBTI, its part of the reason I posted in this thread to begin with, I'd expected things to run the course that they did, given my familiarity with the personalities of the people who elected to take part, although it did get a little OTT. Go figure though. I'd hope that its provided some food for thought, although I doubt it.

 

[EJCC]

I dont think you're ENTJ.

If she's not ENTJ, then I'm not ESTJ.

Yeah, I got some pretty negative vibes. People providing their view, which is fine, then getting pretty worked up when there's no agreement with it and then further suggesting the lack of agreement is a validation of their view.

Sorry about the miscommunication, then. I, for one, didn't intend for any negative vibes, and it doesn't look like Wind-Up Rex did either.

I dont think there's any harm in learning more about MBTI, its part of the reason I posted in this thread to begin with, I'd expected things to run the course that they did, given my familiarity with the personalities of the people who elected to take part, although it did get a little OTT. Go figure though. I'd hope that its provided some food for thought, although I doubt it.

Why do you doubt it? Data is data, regardless of how it's presented. Unless you were going to dismiss this entire forum interaction because it got too negative... in which case I'm going to annoy you further and suggest that that sounds much more like Fe than Fi.

(Also, what about all the questions, in my post?)

Also:

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'm not entirely sure what "conceptual logic" is? But if it's purely hypothetical and in the abstract, then yes, I relate to this and entirely agree with it. The bolded, especially. I can handle theoretical and abstract conversations with ease, as long as their path is generally in a straight line -- as opposed to a circle and then a neighboring circle and then another one, which is what conversations with some of the NTs in my life, are like.

 

[Nicodemus]

I'd expected things to run the course that they did, given my familiarity with the personalities of the people who elected to take part, although it did get a little OTT. Go figure though. I'd hope that its provided some food for thought, although I doubt it.

 

[Lark]

If she's not ENTJ, then I'm not ESTJ.

Well I dont know you but from the interaction in this thread alone I doubt Wind Up Rex is ENTJ. I'm not the only one as all the reps I just received suggest.

What I do think is that they've a particular view as to the superiority of that type and does a bad impression of how they believe that type is, some say imitation is the highest form of flattery but I'm not seeing it.

Sorry about the miscommunication, then. I, for one, didn't intend for any negative vibes, and it doesn't look like Wind-Up Rex did either.

No, I didnt think you did, I do think that there's something going on with the typing of everyone as SJs, someone posted about it in the Random Thread. Although it wasnt my reason for posting in this thread. I just recalled it. I dont think you could mistake the negativity from the last post by Wind-Up Rex and I dont think that its typical of anyone who's NTJ at the very least. I do suspect its the very sort of feeling reaction that was being attributed to me, so maybe there's a bit of projecting going on? In any case its interesting to me because the style of interaction has been similar to what I've observed on other topics too.

Why do you doubt it? Data is data, regardless of how it's presented. Unless you were going to dismiss this entire forum interaction because it got too negative... in which case I'm going to annoy you further and suggest that that sounds much more like Fe than Fi.

I didnt think you were being negative, like I said I think that Wind Up Rex and Saturned entered the thread posited a view and when it wasnt accepted reacted in a certain, for me at this point predictable fashion.

(Also, what about all the questions, in my post?)

I decided they were rhetorical, to make a certain point or continue for your entertainment my contributions to the thread when I think its reached its natural and logical conclusion. If you read my post again you can probably make the connections yourself but as I said there are certain ideas about character or thinking which are associated with people of certain opinions, ie concrete thinking, practical reason etc. etc. seeing as those also correspond to a type in MBTI people make connections which are mistaken.

 

[Ginkgo]

Rex is an ENTJ...

 

[EJCC]

What I do think is that they've a particular view as to the superiority of that type and does a bad impression of how they believe that type is, some say imitation is the highest form of flattery but I'm not seeing it.

I see her as ENTJ because I see her as Te-dom -- because nearly every trait I have, that I attribute to being Te-dom (sans Si-second), I share with her. So my reasoning is a little more micro, than macro, on that topic.

I decided they were rhetorical, to make a certain point or continue for your entertainment my contributions to the thread when I think its reached its natural and logical conclusion. If you read my post again you can probably make the connections yourself but as I said there are certain ideas about character or thinking which are associated with people of certain opinions, ie concrete thinking, practical reason etc. etc. seeing as those also correspond to a type in MBTI people make connections which are mistaken.

They weren't rhetorical. I didn't want to have to guess at your opinion from your other posts, because I thought I would get more reliable data from hearing it directly from you. How you decided to answer the questions might have said a lot about your reasoning, and your type.

 

[WALMART]

I believe everything is interconnected in a balance, and I feel my part in it. I try to preserve the balance of life. Preserving and enhancing life is generally preferable and "good" and destroying life is generally non-preferable and "bad." Sub-principles derive from that one.

How do you feel about the human condition?

I can't really explain it, but it feels like it fits. And that's a pretty Ni thing to say.

Introverted intuition stores and synthesizes information into an interconnected system.

I would liken the statement closer to Ne than Ni. Jung and others smarter than I placed NFP's in a category highest to trust things that 'felt like they made sense'. Ni users are much more objective about their expressed perceptions, I feel. An accurate summarization of Ni, though.

Yes. Definitely. Why not?

I don't know, some people would consider it murder in their minds, maybe, is what I was going for. A silly question.

Read or hear about fundamental concepts, learn the details, then simultaneously connect it to things I already know and apply the concepts. I like to try to connect everything I learn with everything I know, in a systematic fashion.

Interesting.

First decide if it's an appropriate time to ask, then when it is, ask. Because I MUST KNOW.

Interesting again. I was hoping to glean insight from these past few questions, but all I have are hunches. I can take things either way on how I want to interpret them.


What is more important, insight you know to be true or factual, objective information?

 

[violet_crown]

I know that the bolded itself isn't your main point, but it seems to be highly contradictory with this:

It is only if there was any sort of judgement attached to the fact that the average Feeler is typically less likely to rely on logic and more likely to take things personally than the average Thinker. What's wrong with making an appeal to ethos or pathos before logos? What I take exception to is when people are clearly appealing to the former two, and expect it to be taken as the latter. That's troublesome to me.

Think of it this way: me masquarading, for instance, as a an ENFJ. I'd go around and being as blunt and oblivious to social cues as I usually am, doing my Te/Fi thing, and basically bastardizing the whole Fe-thing in the meanwhile. And if you or any of the other ENFJs on the site came across me being as blatantly not Fe as I am, I think you'd fully be within rights to be annoyed enough to call me out on it.

Why are the labels undesirable? Because of the self-perpetuating misconceptions.

My point was less about misconceptions and more about misplaced values. Ideally, we wouldn't disparage the Feeling viewpoint such that Feelers felt they had to be anything but themselves. The contempt in my previous post was leveled squarely at pretenders--those with a clear preference for Fe or Fi trying pass off those things as Te or Ti who get butt hurt when you make the mistake of treating them like you would another Thinker. If it's the implication that Feelers and Thinkers have preferences on how they'd like to be treated, and you're not always doing right by someone to treat them like you treat everyone else, I can't help you there. It's not PC, but it's accurate.

 

[Lark]

I see her as ENTJ because I see her as Te-dom -- because nearly every trait I have, that I attribute to being Te-dom (sans Si-second), I share with her. So my reasoning is a little more micro, than macro, on that topic.

They weren't rhetorical. I didn't want to have to guess at your opinion from your other posts, because I thought I would get more reliable data from hearing it directly from you. How you decided to answer the questions might have said a lot about your reasoning, and your type.

You are aware though that the question had already been answered before you fielded it?

Like I say I do believe that there's a lot of prejudice on the forum, people reach conclusions very quickly about people based on very little and I do think it's fed, on this occasion, into the discussion about type. Perhaps its an unconscious thing.

I dont agree that Rex is ENTJ, although you guys are free to disagree, I do think that there are barriers to communication on this topic, one of which is the use of terminology casually which other posters are unfamiliar with and I mentioned that before, the other are reactions such as Rex's earlier on in the thread there, my point is that I dont believe those barriers are likely to make any kind of meaningful discussion possible.

I'm interested in typology and to begin with there were some interesting posts which I enjoyed reading but then it turned to labelling and getting butt hurt when there wasnt agreement upon it or deference to presumed authority. That's fine too. It wouldnt work for me but I enjoy discussions, even the odd debate, I also know when they're over.

 

[greenfairy]

How do you feel about the human condition?

Eh, I dunno. It is what it is. It's about the same as it has always been, but with more or less collective consciousness compared to other times. I'm more worried about the biosphere. It hurts me because it and I are part of one organism.

I would liken the statement closer to Ne than Ni. Jung and others smarter than I placed NF's in a category highest to trust things that 'felt like they made sense'. Ni users are much more objective about their expressed perceptions, I feel. An accurate summarization of Ni, though.

Well, NFJ's are NF's and also Ni users, so your statements are somewhat inconsistent. I wasn't really serious about the first thing, as I'm not 100% certain of anything; feeling right is just an intuitive hunch and not definitive proof.

What is more important, insight you know to be true or factual, objective information?

Something I know to be true is more important; but if it is only an intuitive thing, it's a vague interpretation of facts; that is, in applying it and defining it, it could change in its expression with new relevant information. So if objective information is inconsistent with what I already know, I look at the underlying concepts and decide if they are in conflict, then sort it out logically and see which is true.

 

[violet_crown]

I dont think you're ENTJ.

Fair enough. What's a better fit and why?

 

[Rasofy]

Lol, people still try to reason with Lark. Si fail.

 

[Lark]

Fair enough. What's a better fit and why?

I actually wouldnt venture to type you with the limited information that I have, I just dont believe that your posts in this thread strike me as being very ENTJ as I understand the ENTJ type. I've read more about that type than any other given that I've consistently come out with that type in tests. So while I may not understand what you or others have said about Fe or Fi or Te or Ti etc. I do have a clear enough picture of how ENTJs choose to communicate, reach conclusions, deal with opposition or disagreement and seek or do not seek validation of their opinions.

None of which really correspond to how you've posted, certainly not your final one. Perhaps you'd anticipated a different response from me or were playing a game. I dont know. What I do know is it certainly didnt strike me as a very ENTJ post. Maybe some of what you've said to me applies as well to yourself or better? Do you think its likely that you've been projecting?