Mistyped TypeCentral Members

[EJCC]

To me you seem more warm and tentative.

I'm going to try not to take "tentative" as an insult.

I've noticed this about [MENTION=9310]uumlau[/MENTION], but with you and other members I always thought it was for other reasons, like wanting to help people find the correct path to follow, foster someone's self-understanding, etc.

Well yeah. But my point wasn't necessarily about deep-seated reasons, as much as methodology. A style of posting that is intended to make ourselves look as perfect as possible. For me and for Hard, it's more about making sure everything's running the way it should be -- not to mention the "looking perfect" thing for 13x tritypes tends to put a heavier emphasis on "perfect" than "looking", if that makes sense. I suspect that for uumlau and for PB, it's more about creating and maintaining harmony. Watching over the forum with a benevolent and peaceful eye.

Mhm, but you don't think Disco does this? Although I guess he's more open about fighting against setbacks and overcoming obstacles than navigating around them. His second reply got me more used to the idea of him being an 8.

IMO he's been more vulnerable (and MUCH less controlled) on this forum than anyone I've listed, purely in terms of expressing his emotions. Hell, there are some blog posts I've made where I read them after the fact, and they seem so straightforward and emotionless that it amazed me that I was literally crying while I wrote them.

I see his forum presence as less about looking perfect and more about being strong. And in arguments, about being dominant. Not appearing dominant, but actually dominating.

 

[HongDou]

I noticed both you and [MENTION=20829]Hard[/MENTION] have a habit of...idk how else to put it so I'm just gonna say sucking up to authority. I mean this in a 100% non-offensive way though. But do you think this could be something about being kindred ENFJ spirits? Or it could be sp influence trying to secure a safe place among the people who hold more power?

According to a rep, which yes I received permission to post:

I agree, both of them have a strong bent towards respecting/reinforcing authority/structure and their place in it.

 

[Jaguar]

I'm not a trained professional, so it would be ridiculous for me to think that I could judge these things better than they would. Even if I looked under the surface, who's to say that I would be able to judge that information with any degree of accuracy, relative to someone who has spent their entire life learning how to do it?

Again, SJ card. This is the way Si works.

Length of time learning X =/= understanding of X. An STJ doctor of 30 years can be a complete idiot making the same mistakes over, and over, and over. Why? It's always been done that way.

 

[EJCC]

According to a rep, which yes I received permission to post:

I agree, both of them have a strong bent towards respecting/reinforcing authority/structure and their place in it.

I know the answer to your question, but I don't know if I'm allowed to answer.

I highly doubt any human entity has the same thought process as I do, or would want to have it, lol.

I was watching Southpaw, and I am pretty sure Billy Hope and his wife are different ends of the Ni-Se spectrum. Billy is the Se end, and Maureen is the Ni end.
[MENTION=4945]EJCC[/MENTION]

Why such an urgent need to have me respond? Lol.

1) I've never seen Southpaw, so I have no idea.

2) The thought-process-uniqueness comment, while true, runs counter to what we're trying to do here, which is type you.

Length of time learning X =/= understanding of X. An STJ doctor of 30 years can be a complete idiot making the same mistakes over, and over, and over. Why? It's always been done that way.

And most of the time there's no way that I, as a non-doctor, would be able to know that. Unless it was something insanely stupid that a layman would know.

Can we not have this discussion? Lol. It's going to go nowhere.

 

[wolfy]

I don't like just sitting here reading so I am just saying I am here. Keep up the good work people.

 

[HongDou]

I'm going to try not to take "tentative" as an insult.

Coming from an ENFP, it's a compliment! You just seem willing to go with the flow and open about your messier qualities, but I dunno.

Well yeah. But my point wasn't necessarily about deep-seated reasons, as much as methodology. A style of posting that is intended to make ourselves look as perfect as possible. For me and for Hard, it's more about making sure everything's running the way it should be -- not to mention the "looking perfect" thing for 13x tritypes tends to put a heavier emphasis on "perfect" than "looking", if that makes sense. I suspect that for uumlau and for PB, it's more about creating and maintaining harmony. Watching over the forum with a benevolent and peaceful eye.

Oooh okay this makes sense. Now I wonder how the other 2 heart types create a pattern of behavior in people. I have some ideas for 2.

 

[Bush]

I noticed both you and [MENTION=20829]Hard[/MENTION] have a habit of...idk how else to put it so I'm just gonna say sucking up to authority. I mean this in a 100% non-offensive way though. But do you think this could be something about being kindred ENFJ spirits? Or it could be sp influence trying to secure a safe place among the people who hold more power?

From my perspective, it's just me interacting with them as I would anyone else, rather than just being completely formal to and compliant with them because they're mods. People is people. I'm not exactly afraid of being banned or targeted, and so I don't have any need for the shelter I'd get for "sucking up" anyway.

But in the godawful member-on-member-on-mod-on-member Feedback threads, I do seem to agree with mods more than other members do. I think [MENTION=20829]Hard[/MENTION] does, too. I know that could also come across as sucking up. Maybe it's that I come from an (I don't know how to put this either, at all) authoritative (though I'm not authority) perspective, and so often what I say happens to align with each other and with the mods.

And, hey, I've been a forum mod before. I just know how it goes. Maybe that contributes to my perspective. And I do think that, sometimes, if whatever opinions we happen to share only come from mods' mouths, they'd be dismissed as.. ... well, coming from a mod's mouth.

 

[EJCC]

Coming from an ENFP, it's a compliment! You just seem willing to go with the flow and open about your messier qualities, but I dunno.

Okay, that sounds better. Thank you for clarifying!

Oooh okay this makes sense. Now I wonder how the other 2 heart types create a pattern of behavior in people. I have some ideas for 2.

I'd be interested to know this too!

 

[Jaguar]

And most of the time there's no way that I, as a non-doctor, would be able to know that. Unless it was something insanely stupid that a layman would know.

Can we not have this discussion? Lol. It's going to go nowhere.

You don't have to be an M.D. to know something an M.D. does not. And this discussion illustrates an important point: SJ= authority-centered. NT= Knowledge-centered. (And, yes, I purposely capitalized the "K" and not the "a.")






NT card played.

 

[Totenkindly]

I'm not a trained professional, so it would be ridiculous for me to think that I could judge these things better than they would. Even if I looked under the surface, who's to say that I would be able to judge that information with any degree of accuracy, relative to someone who has spent their entire life learning how to do it?

Again, SJ card. This is the way Si works.

Length of time learning X =/= understanding of X. An STJ doctor of 30 years can be a complete idiot making the same mistakes over, and over, and over. Why? It's always been done that way.

My immediate response was kind of telling, in terms of the difference to EJCC's stated SJ approach:

I note that as long as the practice looks reasonably consistent with what makes sense to me, then I'm willing to go with "They've got experience/training I don't have -> trust their expertise." And don't demand I understand all the details.

The more that the behavior/practice seems counter-intuitive and doesn't seem to make sense to me, the more I challenge it until I either finally understand their approach to be correct or I jettison it as unfounded.

I'm usually asking for "pattern" confirmation versus lots of unconnected data points; does their expertise conform to what seems to be a reasonable data pattern or is it inconsistent? If that latter, then examine more close / learn the principles on which their expertise is based to see if I can find a match.

 

[HongDou]

Maybe it's that I come from an (I don't know how to put this either, at all) authoritative (though I'm not authority) perspective, and so often what I say happens to align with each other and with the mods.

I found the ENFJ part.

I'd be interested to know this too!

If 3 influence adds a polished, "perfect" flavor to the behaviors linked to your core motivations, then maybe 2 adds an charming, attractive flavor? I can definitely see that with my 7ness, where I'm playful and adventurous but with a layer of lovable glazed on top.

 

[Captain_Invincible]

[MENTION=4945]EJCC[/MENTION]

1) Watch it and you will have an idea.
2) How do we define people's thought processes accurately into 16 groups anyway? We have ideas and concepts based upon Typologists writings, but everyone is unique. People have best fits, but will never completely fit the types functional uses. Some people will be ISTPs, but use Se over Ti a good few times. Some people get stuck in loops. Some people are trapped in inferior functions etc. Enneagram types influence functional usage also. Jobs too. People have an idea of a best fit, but they will never truly be an ISTP exactly.

 

[Jaguar]

My immediate response was kind of telling, in terms of the difference to stated SJ approach:

I note that as long as the practice looks reasonably consistent with what makes sense to me, then I'm willing to go with "They've got experience/training I don't have -> trust their expertise." And don't demand I understand all the details.

The more that the behavior/practice seems counter-intuitive and doesn't seem to make sense to me, the more I challenge it until I either finally understand their approach to be correct or I jettison it as unfounded.

I'm usually asking for "pattern" confirmation versus lots of unconnected data points; does their expertise conform to what seems to be a reasonable data pattern or is it inconsistent? If that latter, then examine more close / learn the principles on which their expertise is based to see if I can find a match.

I wasn't talking about your understanding, I was talking about time and understanding. One can understand X in a fraction of the time of another. Time is irrelevant. Doing something over a long period of time does not guarantee understanding of X or quality of output. If one dances for 20 years and another for 5, does 20 automatically make the person "better"? No. That person can still dance like a drunken rabbit, even after 20 years.

 

[EJCC]

Is the goal here to defeat Ne with Ni? Because Ni is superior?

 

[violet_crown]

I think the idea of "scientific rigorousness" as it applies to something as effectively hand wave-y as typology is absurd. In fact, I'd argue that attempts to quantify what systems like MBTI, enneagram or any of the others mean to capture is actually limiting. No matter how fancy you get with your analysis, you're still effectively dealing with a subjective perception of someone else's subjective experience.

But I don't necessarily fault these systems for that lack. The value of typology to me has always resided in the fact that it provides alternate conceptions for how to understand another person beyond my baseline experience. The idea of typology as a framework for greater empathy, mutual understanding and personal insight is infinitely more compelling to me than the idea that I had stumbled upon some ironclad taxonomy for all people everywhere. Type is an entry point for something infinitely more vivid and mysterious than you'd hope could be captured by any model or dataset.

Talking about type meaningfully is less a Ni/Se thing vs Ne/Si thing to me, but rather a Ti thing. It's clarifying definitions or the model you're working from when you're referencing a certain type, so people know where you're coming from. That's the best I think anyone can do with something this fundamentallly subjective.

 

[Jaguar]

Is the goal here to defeat Ne with Ni? Because Ni is superior?

Ni can only be as "superior" as the person who is using it, dear.

What about Fi? Can one not fly a plane into the WTC and kill people based on their individual values? Conversely, can one not run into a building and save a life based on their individual values?

 

[EJCC]

Ni can only be as "superior" as the person who is using it, dear.

Welp, that meets my daily condescension quota. Now I'm officially done.

See ya.

 

[Jaguar]

Welp, that meets my daily condescension quota. Now I'm officially done.

See ya.

I call many women "dear." Calm down. Reset.

 

[Captain_Invincible]

This thread is a findmuck.

 

[uumlau]

This thread is a findmuck.

Trying to figure out how you think in an even remotely objective way remarkably difficult, yes.