Mistyped TypeCentral Members

[Lark]

Yeah man, you hit the nail on the head.

 

[Zarathustra]

Lark could be an ENTJ, but, unlike every other prominent ENTJ on here, for whom I feel very comfortable saying "that person is an ENTJ", I've never once felt comfortable saying that is in fact his typing. He is most certainly an EJ, imo, and I used to consider ESTJ, but, frankly, it would not surprise me at all if he were ESFJ. In fact, I would put ESFJ at just as likely as, if not more likely than, one of the ETJs.

 

[EJCC]

Yeah. I'm blaming the Fi "I'm a special butterfly and therefore the rules that affect other people don't apply to me" fairy on this one for me. I don't know what everyone elses excuse is, though.

Mine is mostly that, but also not knowing him all that well.

Lark could be an ENTJ, but, unlike every other prominent ENTJ on here, for whom I feel very comfortable saying "that person is an ENTJ", I've never once felt comfortable saying that is in fact his typing. He is most certainly an EJ, imo, and I used to consider ESTJ, but, frankly, it would not surprise me at all if he were ESFJ. In fact, I would put ESFJ at just as likely as, if not more likely than, one of the ETJs.

And so it begins...

 

[miss fortune]

I really hate to say this because I've said it all too many times lately, but I'm going to agree with [MENTION=5578]bologna[/MENTION] here... there's a lot of variety in people and not everyone fits into the same category the same way in the least... the world would be boring if there were 16 different cookie cutter personalities wandering about and everyone of the same type acted and reacted exactly the same.

Not to mention that people evolve over time... I've gone back and forth between a couple of general types in behavior over time and am resettling towards how I was when younger again, only a more grown up version... I hesitate to put any type forward because I KNOW that I don't fall into the cookie cutter mold of anybody on this forum and by putting down a type it would only be inviting everyone's type stereotypes and arguments as to how I fit into a stereotype or didn't. I've changed over time as a member here quite a bit as a result of mental thingies and just time itself... for forum purposes I usually answer as you assume me, not as I test or would be evaluated by those who know me outside of here... it makes y'all more comfortable and frees me to explore other interests here instead of continually arguing about type, which is kind of pointless because we only see each other online, not in our daily lives

Funny how people are looking at N and S as monolithic things with no variation... there's definitely differences within type that would make such broad, sweeping generalizations irrelevant, but then again, I'm not surprised... people are comfortable with the constructs they have

on another note, I've actually known an SJ who may surprise some members here for my entire life... he's an old guy now but was considered a good looking, military helllraiser when younger... he's incredibly stubborn, but unfailingly patient with listening to the points of views of others and questioning them in an almost socratic method to find out how the person came to that conclusion. He's an avid reader and has shelves full of books. He is also a strict atheist, a recovering alcoholic and smoker who quit both cold turkey after a 30 year pack a day and case a day habit when he decided that they would kill him after he retired and had more spare time. He also LOVES playing pranks on people... he would probably be a bit of a surprise for the forum since they don't know him as well as I do. The point is, people don't always fall into the boxes we expect them to... that's the fun of life

 

[garbage]

You're making my point succinctly.

on another note, I've actually known an SJ who may surprise some members here
[...]
he would probably be a bit of a surprise for the forum since they don't know him as well as I do.

We need to allow this to happen. Often.

It would naturally force us to refine our categories and cut away at the bullshit culture that persuades us to--

hesitate to put any type forward because I KNOW that I don't fall into the cookie cutter mold of anybody on this forum and by putting down a type it would only be inviting everyone's type stereotypes and arguments as to how I fit into a stereotype or didn't.

--

We do tend to build on one another, [MENTION=1180]whatever[/MENTION]. Kind of odd that way

 

[Aquarelle]

Okay, I had to open a Word document to organize my thoughts and respond to all this.

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 known can 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.

I agree that Aquarelle was oversimplifying quite a bit.

Yeah, I was definitely oversimplifying, because it wasn’t really my intent to go into a bunch of detail about my understanding of S vs N. I think a lot of people have superior understanding of MBTI, and especially the Jungian functions, to my own. I also don’t especially subscribe to the Jungian interpretation and tend to use the more straight MBTI approach, so I think to a certain extent we’re speaking from different perspectives here. [MENTION=7254]Wind-Up Rex[/MENTION], I agree with your description of S vs N, and I think essentially that’s what I was saying—that, for whatever reason, Lark does come off as what you describe as S in his posting style. But having had many in-depth conversations with him both online and in person, I don’t think that the way he comes off in his posts is an accurate picture of his actual cognitive processes. All I’m saying. ☺

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.

But I thought the idea that Ss rely on past experience was oversimplifying.

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.

…

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

I already told [MENTION=7280]Lark[/MENTION] this and he agreed, and I think he was getting a bit defensive here. Everything did seem very civil to me. (Although I did resent the implication that I had said that Sensors are incapable of critical thought… I am married to a Sensor after all, and I would certainly not have married someone I didn’t think was capable of critical thought!)

Lark does have a tendency to be defensive, and he knows it, and I can see why other people might see this as an indication that he’s a Feeler rather than a Thinker. However, I would posit that just have many have pointed out that Sensors can think critically and conceptually, Thinkers are also capable of having emotional reactions. And given the history of some people (not saying anyone in this conversation) on this forum have had or frequently still do have to Lark’s posts, I can understand why he might be quick to assume people are attacking him.

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?

I don’t think this is really fair—Lark said a couple of times that the descriptions and discussion has been interesting and useful, but he just still thinks ENTJ fits him better. I happen to know that Lark has a lot of respect for Feelers, so I don’t think it’s that he doesn’t want to be typed as a Feeler out of any sort of idea of Thinker superiority. You’ve all made good points, and I also see how one could type Lark as ESFJ based on his posting style, but I really think that’s just not him. And in the end, I think really a person is the best judge of their own type. So just because he hasn’t said, “My god you’re right!I am ESFJ after all!” it doesn’t necessarily mean he’s rejecting all of your thoughts and dismissing them out of order.

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

I’ve actually had quite a bit of success reasoning with Lark. True story, after we hung out for a week plus when I was in Ireland for work, Lark said to me, “I need to think about and reevaluate what I think about your beliefs, even the ones I don’t immediately agree with.” Now, I have never spent any time trying to convince Lark to change his mind about anything; we’ve simply discussed our differing (and similar as well) viewpoints and I’ve presented my reasoning behind my beliefs, and he’s presented his, and overall we’ve agreed to disagree about things we don’t agree on. You have to be willing to accept his beliefs, even if you think they’re wrong, if you want him to do the same for you.

And as a slight tangent, I don’t think Lark’s beliefs are really that different from what most people on the forum believe. Fiscally, he’s a liberal. So agrees with probably about half of us on that front, Socially, he’s conservative, so he says, but—let’s just say it—it’s really only his views on GLBT issues that sets him apart from most people on the forum, including me. But even there, I don’t think his views differ nearly as much as everyone thinks. He’s not anti-gay, he doesn’t believe homosexuality can be “cured,” and he doesn’t think it’s a lifestyle choice. But because most people don’t take the time to really talk to him to understand his views, people assume him to be much more socially conservative than he really is. And some of that is cultural—Northern Ireland is a very different place than the US, the UK and the Republic of Ireland. (There’s a whole book on the GLBT movement in Northern Ireland and how it’s different from anywhere else, if anyone’s interested—it’s called Queering Conflict: Examining Gay and Lesbian Experiences of Homophobia in Northern Ireland, by Maria Duggan, and it’s very recent—from this year.)

I provided a fair bit of reasoning into your type which was not countered. Instead you chose pick into wordier arguments. I wonder if you felt I did not provide enough substance.

To wit:

You are objective, but objective directly against previous experience. Your methods of collecting information are perhaps where your insights come from, hence Ne instead of Ni. Ne is tertiary in your function stacking though, because I see a drive towards some sort of growth. I think auxiliary judgers/inferior perceivers are more 'set in their ways'.

So pretty much what I said, only you argued that Lark is an S, whereas I argued in favor of N. And yet no one accused you of oversimplifying… But honestly, I thought your analysis was interesting.

 

[miss fortune]

We do tend to build on one another, [MENTION=1180]whatever[/MENTION]. Kind of odd that way

half the time I open up a thread to respond and you've already made my point first so all I can do is rephrase... it's always funny how different people come to the same conclusion in a way

 

[Aquarelle]

[MENTION=5578]bologna[/MENTION] and [MENTION=1180]whatever[/MENTION] both made excellent points while I was typing up my long dissertation.

 

[garbage]

half the time I open up a thread to respond and you've already made my point first so all I can do is rephrase... it's always funny how different people come to the same conclusion in a way

We must be the same type.

 

[miss fortune]

We must be the same type.

according to the logic of some... (which we ALL know is the gospel truth! )

I mean, it couldn't POSSIBLY have anything to do with age, or life experiences or anything of that sort...

 

[RaptorWizard]

So [MENTION=15371]RaptorWizard[/MENTION], are you content with INTJ? If not, what do you think of Fi and Fe as they apply to you?

I like to get along with people and not be a dick, which I guess is Fe, but, when called for, when people challenge me, I will also hold true to my own value systems, rather than being swayed by the popular opinionm which I guess is Fe. It seems I may have traits of both, so I cannot state definatively which one I am, though at the moment, I think of myself as a TeFi user, just because I also like to challenge people and argue with them, like Te.

 

[EJCC]

Can we just say that [MENTION=5578]bologna[/MENTION] and [MENTION=1180]whatever[/MENTION] have officially won the discussion, so that it ends on a high note?

You guys rocked that shit.

 

[Rasofy]

I'm unsure what you mean by that.

A proper explanation would cost me an infraction.

Yeah. I'm blaming the Fi "I'm a special butterfly and therefore the rules that affect other people don't apply to me" fairy on this one for me. I don't know what everyone elses excuse is, though.

I’ve actually had quite a bit of success reasoning with Lark. True story, after we hung out for a week plus when I was in Ireland for work, Lark said to me, “I need to think about and reevaluate what I think about your beliefs, even the ones I don’t immediately agree with.”

http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...ing-with-woman-leave-man-cognitively-impaired

 

[greenfairy]

I like to get along with people and not be a dick, which I guess is Fe, but, when called for, when people challenge me, I will also hold true to my own value systems, rather than being swayed by the popular opinionm which I guess is Fe. It seems I may have traits of both, so I cannot state definatively which one I am, though at the moment, I think of myself as a TeFi user, just because I also like to challenge people and argue with them, like Te.

In my experience with people Ti challenges and argues as much as Te, and more passionately. (Yes I used Ti and passionate in the same sentence. Boo-ya. )

So I'll ask you some questions like Jontherobot did with me.
How do you derive your morals?
Do you accept your feelings as valid, or seek outside assurance of their appropriateness?
Do you feel the need to express your feelings as authentic things in themselves, or to seek a response from others?
Do you communicate to be heard or to reach an agreement?
Are you easily affected by others' emotions?
Are you accommodating?
Do you value more: personal inner harmony, or social external harmony?
[MENTION=15886]jontherobot[/MENTION]: All my responses are the second option.

 

[Lark]

A proper explanation would cost me an infraction.

Good to know.

 

[miss fortune]

[MENTION=4945]EJCC[/MENTION]

and something about how you ended that phrase with a question mark made me think that the inflection was "ok people... here's how it is and if you don't play nice in the sandbox I'm going to make you eat all of the fucking sand as punishment, ok?" ... to be effective this phrase should be said sweetly and with a smile!

 

[greenfairy]

[MENTION=5578]bologna[/MENTION] and [MENTION=1180]whatever[/MENTION] both made excellent points while I was typing up my long dissertation.

Yes.

 

[EJCC]

EJCC

and something about how you ended that phrase with a question mark made me think that the inflection was "ok people... here's how it is and if you don't play nice in the sandbox I'm going to make you eat all of the fucking sand as punishment, ok?" ... to be effective this phrase should be said sweetly and with a smile!

I do believe you read my message as I intended for it to be read.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...ing-with-woman-leave-man-cognitively-impaired

Wow. And to think that women are the ones who are supposedly impaired by their hormones...

 

[garbage]

Well, I have even more material if that doesn't work for y'all.

 

[ReflecTcelfeR]

Well, I have even more material if that doesn't work for y'all.

DANCE MONKEY