Help figuring out your type?

[SolitaryWalker]

 

[bluebell]

OK, very belatedly joining this thread. (not from procrastination... for once... only just discovered it)

I'm still getting my head around the introverted/extroverted function thingies so unfortunately i didn't follow all of this thread.

I mostly test INTP. I think the times I don't test INTP are when I lose track of who I actually am, rather than how I have to be at work. But, happy for some input. I probably would have tested as J ages ago, but having dealt with some of past demons, I've become much less controlling and the real procrastinator/disorganised chaos has come out. I can still remember what it was like being a control freak, so I can be organised(ish) enough to meet deadlines. But only if there's deadlines. Sometimes I need things to be finalised and settled and 'done'. But I usually don't like making a decision till I have all the information. But sometimes I'll make a decision without all the information.

The I is definite. Less extreme than it used to be, but everyone I know picks me as the super-quiet introvert.

I have the huge intuitive models in my head. But there isn't much logic, it's mostly intuition. I can be logical if I have to be, but I'm not logical spontaneously. I think I was more logical in childhood.

I've learnt how to do emotional stuff a bit, but I kind of still feel like a beginner and I have to think through it.

I lived inside my head growing up to escape what was around me.

 

["?"]

Over time the assessments become too predictable, thus rendered useless, when someone attempts to confirm they are a certain type in lieu of knowing the real type.

What worked for finally was getting away from those predictable assessments and first concentrating on my core temperament then my core interaction style. If you determine those two, everything will fall into place.

This assessment only works if you follow the directions and have gained some experience in various jobs over the years:

For the following questions think about the work that comes easily to you and most likely you most enjoy doing. When answering these kinds of questions people often think of their current work or most recently learned skills. Don’t do that for this assessment.

Here we are looking for the kinds of work environments that fit who you are at your core. They most likely draw on your talents rather than learned skills. Take the time to think back to the work you’ve most enjoyed and that came easily to you even if you have to reflect back to a non-work situation. Answer in terms of who you really are, not how you’d like to be or how you have to be on the job.

 

[FranG]

Over time the assessments become too predictable, thus rendered useless, when someone attempts to confirm they are a certain type in lieu of knowing the real type.

This is very true. Once one becomes familiar with typology, human bias greatly increases toward a specific type one finds interesting. This bias can be the result of several factors. I started out as INTP, and even still would test as INTP, but I know I'm INTJ. I don't think the test are very useful over the long run. For beginners I think they have some value though. Probably unlike most, I do believe that one can morph into any of the 16 types (although highly unlikely) in lieu of some life changing experience. But yes, it's the long term behavior of oneself that should be studied in contrast to newly learned behavior. This process of long-term evaluation of myself helped me realize that I'm a J instead of a P (some descriptions of J and P are horrible by the way). I am constantly studying the core Jungian preferences and the characteristics of the 16 types in an effort to accurately identify my type, an update if necessary. I have no bias (at least at the conscious level) toward any particular type, other than toward the truth as I see such information an extremely effective tool in learning about oneself and his community as a whole.

 

["?"]

Viable points made Fran. One thing that works for me on the Berens/Nardi assessments is that you actually have to put in some experiential work, which means I have to get out of my head. The system has revised the temperaments, eliminating alot of the hedonistic points made by Keirsey, and replacing them with a need for impact and other language that shows SPs to be between NT and SJ. I consistently show Improvisor/Theorist, which is very accurate:

The temperament pattern you rated highest:

Improviser: Want the freedom to choose the next act. Seek to have impact, to get results. Want to be graceful, bold, and impressive. Generally are excited and optimistic. Are absorbed in the action of the moment. Are oriented toward the present. Seek adventure and stimulation. Hunger for spontaneity. Trust impulses, luck, and their ability to solve any problem they run into. Think in terms of variation. Have the ability to notice and describe rich detail, constantly seeking relevant information. Like freedom to move, festivities, and games. Are natural negotiators. Seize opportunities. Are gifted tacticians, deciding the best move to make in the moment, the expedient action to take. Are frequently drawn to all kinds of work that requires variation on a theme.

The temperament pattern you rated second:

Theorist: Want knowledge and to be competent, to achieve. Seek to understand how the world and things in it work. Are theory oriented. See everything as conditional and relative. Are oriented to the infinite. Trust logic and reason. Want to have a rationale for everything. Are skeptical. Think in terms of differences, delineating categories, definitions, structures, and functions. Hunger for precision, especially in thought and language. Are skilled at long-range planning, inventing, designing, and defining. Generally are calm. Foster individualism. Frequently gravitate toward technology and the sciences. Well suited for engineering and devising strategy, whether in the social or physical sciences.

I went as far as to believe that I could be an introverted ENTP, however realized that it was my attempt to manipulate the theory to and seek validation in ENTPs being less social. When I read the "Get Things Going" interaction style, it became quite clear that it did not fit and realized that I have a "Chart the Course" interaction style. After the validation, the pieces seemed to fall into place.

 

[nightning]

I mostly test INTP. I think the times I don't test INTP are when I lose track of who I actually am, rather than how I have to be at work. But, happy for some input. I probably would have tested as J ages ago, but having dealt with some of past demons, I've become much less controlling and the real procrastinator/disorganised chaos has come out. I can still remember what it was like being a control freak, so I can be organised(ish) enough to meet deadlines. But only if there's deadlines. Sometimes I need things to be finalised and settled and 'done'. But I usually don't like making a decision till I have all the information. But sometimes I'll make a decision without all the information.
...
I have the huge intuitive models in my head. But there isn't much logic, it's mostly intuition. I can be logical if I have to be, but I'm not logical spontaneously. I think I was more logical in childhood.

I've learnt how to do emotional stuff a bit, but I kind of still feel like a beginner and I have to think through it.

I lived inside my head growing up to escape what was around me.

Going with the MBTI model of J/P determining your main function use (or which I'm currently questioning the validity of such myself). What you described as "huge intuitive models" in your mind sounds like Ni processing... in particular the lack of spontaneous internal logic. Very much like me it's not a bad thing. Therefore from a function use stand-point, you should be classified more as INTJ rather than INTP. In terms of just looking at J/P distinction. You're more in between. It is important to note that the control freak nature of Js relates more to SJs rather than NJs... in particular INXJ. I like to see the J in us as the need for structural framework for us to build upon rather than physical rigid structures of setting up deadlines and set procedures for doing something. Unfortunately the current type inventory does not address that difference between SJ and NJ, but rather have this "generic" J.

 

[bluebell]

Going with the MBTI model of J/P determining your main function use (or which I'm currently questioning the validity of such myself). What you described as "huge intuitive models" in your mind sounds like Ni processing... in particular the lack of spontaneous internal logic. Very much like me it's not a bad thing. Therefore from a function use stand-point, you should be classified more as INTJ rather than INTP. In terms of just looking at J/P distinction. You're more in between. It is important to note that the control freak nature of Js relates more to SJs rather than NJs... in particular INXJ. I like to see the J in us as the need for structural framework for us to build upon rather than physical rigid structures of setting up deadlines and set procedures for doing something. Unfortunately the current type inventory does not address that difference between SJ and NJ, but rather have this "generic" J.

Thanks for that, very interesting. There is some logic in my models, as in it all fits together. But the models in my head just kinda build themselves, I don't have to logically process all the data. I'm more logical and analytical than my colleagues at work. But I think I'm less logical and thorough than the INTPs I see on INTPc.

So maybe INTp would be more accurate. I suspect I'm more P than J, given how little I get done at home and how much I procrastinate at home.

One of my ISTJ colleagues is reasonably self-aware and we sometimes talk about the difference between her and me. She wants the process spelled out in detail whereas I'm happy to make it up as I go along, as long as I have some indication of what my main deadlines are. My desk is the messiest and most disorganised in my team, but all my emails and electronic documents are filed logically.

Wondering if there's an 'idiot's guide' to the difference between Ne and Ni? I've seen some explanations but it's very generic. Another thing about how I think is that generalities confuse and annoy me but if I have one specific example of something then I can extrapolate and then understand the generalities.

 

[booyalab]

In noticing the ways my posts and my reactions differ from everyone else on INTPC, I've questioned whether I'm really an INTP for awhile. But I don't think I care anymore.
On the other hand, since this thread exists now, it might be entertaining to read other people's ideas about my type and the reasons behind them, if there are any.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

In noticing the ways my posts and my reactions differ from everyone else on INTPC, I've questioned whether I'm really an INTP for awhile. But I don't think I care anymore.
On the other hand, since this thread exists now, it might be entertaining to read other people's ideas about my type and the reasons behind them, if there are any.

Ok, what are your concerns?

 

[Totenkindly]

Wondering if there's an 'idiot's guide' to the difference between Ne and Ni? I've seen some explanations but it's very generic. Another thing about how I think is that generalities confuse and annoy me but if I have one specific example of something then I can extrapolate and then understand the generalities.

I think I just posted something within the last day that brought out the point that Ne assumes that there is truth waiting to be discovered in the external world -- that the patterns exist and that truth can be derived from them. Ne trusts the external world.

Ni, on the other hand, is skeptical of the external world because the data streams all have "spin" on them when they come in. If someone tells you something, they automatically have a spin on it; but Ni sidesteps around and "reorients" to see things from many different perspectives.

If you compare it to Se/Si -- it's the same thing. Se trusts the data it's getting, in real-time, and responds to it; it assumes the data is accurate and that it CAN accurately respond to and capitalize on the data coming its way. Si, on the other hand, is an internalized world based on data acquired in the past; it's like the comfortable, or idealized world, how things SHOULD be. There is implicit distrust of the data coming in; it must all be compared to the Si world before being accepted. (This is why ISxJ types often come across as cynical and have to be convinced that something new is actually GOOD, if it's a change from what they're used to.)

Maybe the comparison to Se/Si helps you to see how the same "pattern" applies to Ne/Ni.

For another difference, Ne assumes the observer is "anchored" and the patterns are what is moving; it's like the observer is spinning in place at best, or looking down on the patterns from above and seeing them all unfold. Ni assumes that the pattern is stable, but the observer can walk around the pattern and thus reorient, seeing the pattern from all different sides and thus the meaning/view of the pattern changes. (Does that make sense?)

So someone using Ne might see a red sports car zooming down the street and will note the physics of the car, where it might be and what it could intersect with, where it might end up, what it could be used for, etc. Ni will look the red sports car and might start thinking not about a fast car but about how red sports car are symbols of prestige in society, and how such things don't make sense because a red car really means nothing of value; or it might start thinking about how cars symbolize freedom, because a person becomes very mobile once they can drive, and...

Well, you see the meaning there? The Ne person is observing the patterns unfold; the Ni person is flipping through a bunch of different meanings/patterns of significance.

Since we all have eight functions, N folks have either Ne or Ni as strong and have usually developed a bit of the other as well, so sometimes it can seem to overlap.

 

[booyalab]

Ok, what are your concerns?

you mean what specifically causes me to wonder?

 

[Totenkindly]

you mean what specifically causes me to wonder?

Probably.

I've been curious some as well. You do seem cut from a bit different cloth, but I don't have enough specific detail to distinguish how or why, so it's all purely speculatory.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Probably.

I've been curious some as well. You do seem cut from a bit different cloth, but I don't have enough specific detail to distinguish how or why, so it's all purely speculatory.

INTJs are more speculative and less definitive than INTPs because their superior function is iNtuition, yet again the opposite may appear on the outside. As there is the Te there and Ne for us.

INTPs could easily seem like they dont make judgments about things, but they do internally and that Ne may make it seem like the INTP's remarks are purely speculatory, yet when they internally harbor clear-cut opinions on things.

We are not in the position to make an assessment yet.

 

[bluebell]

I think I just posted something within the last day that brought out the point that Ne assumes that there is truth waiting to be discovered in the external world -- that the patterns exist and that truth can be derived from them. Ne trusts the external world.

Ni, on the other hand, is skeptical of the external world because the data streams all have "spin" on them when they come in. If someone tells you something, they automatically have a spin on it; but Ni sidesteps around and "reorients" to see things from many different perspectives.

If you compare it to Se/Si -- it's the same thing. Se trusts the data it's getting, in real-time, and responds to it; it assumes the data is accurate and that it CAN accurately respond to and capitalize on the data coming its way. Si, on the other hand, is an internalized world based on data acquired in the past; it's like the comfortable, or idealized world, how things SHOULD be. There is implicit distrust of the data coming in; it must all be compared to the Si world before being accepted. (This is why ISxJ types often come across as cynical and have to be convinced that something new is actually GOOD, if it's a change from what they're used to.)

Maybe the comparison to Se/Si helps you to see how the same "pattern" applies to Ne/Ni.

For another difference, Ne assumes the observer is "anchored" and the patterns are what is moving; it's like the observer is spinning in place at best, or looking down on the patterns from above and seeing them all unfold. Ni assumes that the pattern is stable, but the observer can walk around the pattern and thus reorient, seeing the pattern from all different sides and thus the meaning/view of the pattern changes. (Does that make sense?)

So someone using Ne might see a red sports car zooming down the street and will note the physics of the car, where it might be and what it could intersect with, where it might end up, what it could be used for, etc. Ni will look the red sports car and might start thinking not about a fast car but about how red sports car are symbols of prestige in society, and how such things don't make sense because a red car really means nothing of value; or it might start thinking about how cars symbolize freedom, because a person becomes very mobile once they can drive, and...

Well, you see the meaning there? The Ne person is observing the patterns unfold; the Ni person is flipping through a bunch of different meanings/patterns of significance.

Since we all have eight functions, N folks have either Ne or Ni as strong and have usually developed a bit of the other as well, so sometimes it can seem to overlap.

Thanks for taking the time to write so much. But oh dear, I should have said I don't understand any of the functions - Se, Si, Fe, Fi, Ne, Ni, Te and Ti are all equally mysterious to me... I thought I'd start with trying to get my head around Ne vs Ni as I feel I have some understanding of what intuition is (whereas I have no idea what S means in practice, and F is something very awkward requiring logic and analysis to cope with...).

Your description of Se sounds like intuition? I don't know. S is mysterious to me. For me, data just feeds models in my head.

Ne vs Ni. I know that your explanations should make sense to me but they don't. [that forehead slap is directed at myself, I hate my brain not being able to absorb concepts!!!] I guess the example of a red sports car is too external, too much real world. I'm in my head more than that. I kinda only absorb data/information if it interests me. Whereas something like a sports car I'll mostly tune out because I'm not really interested in cars. I guess I only pay attention to stuff that will build on current exciting models in my head and it will only be of interest because it fills a gap in my knowledge.

You mentioned trusting the external world. I guess I don't really trust either the external world or my internal world - I know that my perceptions of the world are not accurate due to my past experiences. Basically, I don't trust anything or anyone. But I know that's from my past, it may not be typical of any MBTI type.

I suspect I'm more Ni than Ne, but I still don't have a model in my head of the 8 functions that I can play with. I usually pick up concepts pretty quickly but I don't know why I don't understand these ones (I have tried reading some of the function discussions on INTPc and I've googled it a bit - gah, frustrating that I don't get it!]

 

[Kyrielle]

Well, if it's any help, Ni causes people to make huge mental leaps to a conclusion without receiving much data. And when asked how they arrived to that conclusion...that idea or association...they haven't the foggiest.

 

[ptgatsby]

Well, if it's any help, Ni causes people to make huge mental leaps to a conclusion without receiving much data. And when asked how they arrived to that conclusion...that idea or association...they haven't the foggiest.

But it's always right. Until they get new information and change it. And THEN it's always right. Until...

 

["?"]

In noticing the ways my posts and my reactions differ from everyone else on INTPC, I've questioned whether I'm really an INTP for awhile. But I don't think I care anymore. On the other hand, since this thread exists now, it might be entertaining to read other people's ideas about my type and the reasons behind them, if there are any.

I thought that, at one point, you were leaning toward ISTP while on INTPC.

 

[Totenkindly]

Thanks for taking the time to write so much. But oh dear, I should have said I don't understand any of the functions - Se, Si, Fe, Fi, Ne, Ni, Te and Ti are all equally mysterious to me...

Ooops, sorry about that, my bad.

you do know the shorthand, though?
Fi = Introverted Feeling
Fe = Extroverted Feeling
(etc)

Your description of Se sounds like intuition? I don't know. S is mysterious to me. For me, data just feeds models in my head.

Se is actually just "experiencing" life without any processing whatsoever, except to recognize the sensations. You feel the wind blowing in your hair, you hear cars going down the street, you see clouds move across the sky. Basically, "turn off the brain" and just experience life around you without considering it at all... what things you experience. Or, in other words, "raw data."

Si is an inner world of its own, usually formed from Se data. It's like "my mental image of the world" or "the way I think things should be, based on what I have already experienced in the past."

The classic example for Si is the notion of a chair. We experience a chair, so we create a memory in our head of a chair... and when we think of the chair, we recollect that image. For people centered in Si, they will continue to think of the chair just like that, and what a chair "should be" and what it "should do"... and when they see another chair in real life, they are less "experiencing it as it is" and more "experiencing their memory and concept of what a chair is." And sometimes, if things have changed, the Si model no longer matches reality.

So, let's say you know an ISFJ in her 50's, and she seems to "live in the past." This is basically Si at work -- her ideas and concepts were formed from a world that no longer exists, but she won't change the internal landscape to match reality, she only sees what existed when she created that internal image of the world.

Ne vs Ni. I know that your explanations should make sense to me but they don't. [that forehead slap is directed at myself, I hate my brain not being able to absorb concepts!!!]

Oh, no, that's okay. Really. It takes awhile, and I can't even claim I've got the "best handle" on things, and other people might be able to explain more, I've been doing MBTI for ten years now, and it was only in the last month or two where I got a clearer understanding of Ni.

I guess the example of a red sports car is too external, too much real world. I'm in my head more than that. I kinda only absorb data/information if it interests me. Whereas something like a sports car I'll mostly tune out because I'm not really interested in cars. I guess I only pay attention to stuff that will build on current exciting models in my head and it will only be of interest because it fills a gap in my knowledge.

I picked a car because it was tangible (personally, cars bore me too), but what sort of thing do you find exciting? Maybe an example using one of those things would be easier for you to process.

You mentioned trusting the external world. I guess I don't really trust either the external world or my internal world - I know that my perceptions of the world are not accurate due to my past experiences. Basically, I don't trust anything or anyone. But I know that's from my past, it may not be typical of any MBTI type.

Yes, that sounds more like "trust issues" than inherent type (i have similar trust issues from the past as well... I need to check and be wary of anything, because nothing is inherently reliable due to bad experiences with people and situations).

I suspect I'm more Ni than Ne, but I still don't have a model in my head of the 8 functions that I can play with. I usually pick up concepts pretty quickly but I don't know why I don't understand these ones (I have tried reading some of the function discussions on INTPc and I've googled it a bit - gah, frustrating that I don't get it!]

Like I said, don't feel bad about it. Once you get it, it will click... but it takes awhile sometimes, and even when you understand some things, other things will not be as clear for a bit. Just go at your own pace.

Have you seen this chart before? Maybe it'll help. Feel free to ask questions, if you look at it.

 

[bluebell]

Ooops, sorry about that, my bad.

you do know the shorthand, though?
Fi = Introverted Feeling
Fe = Extroverted Feeling
(etc)

Thanks again for replying in detail. Yes, I know about the shorthand but I don't yet have clear examples in my head for each of them.

Se is actually just "experiencing" life without any processing whatsoever, except to recognize the sensations. You feel the wind blowing in your hair, you hear cars going down the street, you see clouds move across the sky. Basically, "turn off the brain" and just experience life around you without considering it at all... what things you experience. Or, in other words, "raw data."

Interesting. Thanks for that explanation, that seems quite clear. I wonder if that's what 'mindfulness' in Buddhism is about?

I think part of my interest in learning about these 8 functions is that it seems like another way of gaining a different insight about myself and other people (and more data for my models in my head!). Since first learning about MBTI types a few months ago, I sometimes try to picture how life is experienced by people who are a different type to me. But I suspect some ways of being are too alien for me to really 'get'.

I think having Se as dominant is one of those ways of being that is just too different. I can't picture experiencing the world and switching off thinking and intuiting. That would be losing too much of me. But I know intellectually that it must be a valid a way of experiencing the world, I just can't picture what that would be.

Si is an inner world of its own, usually formed from Se data. It's like "my mental image of the world" or "the way I think things should be, based on what I have already experienced in the past."

The classic example for Si is the notion of a chair. We experience a chair, so we create a memory in our head of a chair... and when we think of the chair, we recollect that image. For people centered in Si, they will continue to think of the chair just like that, and what a chair "should be" and what it "should do"... and when they see another chair in real life, they are less "experiencing it as it is" and more "experiencing their memory and concept of what a chair is." And sometimes, if things have changed, the Si model no longer matches reality.

So, let's say you know an ISFJ in her 50's, and she seems to "live in the past." This is basically Si at work -- her ideas and concepts were formed from a world that no longer exists, but she won't change the internal landscape to match reality, she only sees what existed when she created that internal image of the world.

Hmm, I'll need to think about this one a bit more. I feel like I almost understand your explanation but not quite. Is it like me seeing a chair and knowing I can sit on it and it will support me, but I might not notice the details of its design or materials?

I picked a car because it was tangible (personally, cars bore me too), but what sort of thing do you find exciting? Maybe an example using one of those things would be easier for you to process.

Oh dear. This would have been easier 10 or 15 years ago when my mental models were about the physical world. My current mental model that I'm excited by is trying to integrate many ideas/topics into a model of people, behaviour, government, organisations, the world. My data is from psychology, neuroscience, human evolution, HR, self-help books, early childhood development, cultural studies, how governments and organisations really work, history etc. It's all very intuitive and about relationships between the data I have, all big one fuzzy model that is continually (without effort) being tweaked and revised.

How about something that I used to be excited by that is a bit more real-world and a little bit less abstract... Astronomy. I was really into astronomy as a teenager. But I was excited by the theories (eg of black holes, red dwarves, quasars etc) rather than learning the names of the stars in the sky. Is that a more useful example for the purposes of explaining the functions?

Unfortunately, nearly all of my previous obsessions have been about theories and abstract stuff. eg if I went through a phase of being excited about a particular historical period, I'd just read and read and think about it, I had no desire to ever visit the place or go to the museum to look at artifacts from that period.

Yes, that sounds more like "trust issues" than inherent type (i have similar trust issues from the past as well... I need to check and be wary of anything, because nothing is inherently reliable due to bad experiences with people and situations).

Sorry to hear that. Learning to trust is particularly difficult in my experience.

Have you seen this chart before? Maybe it'll help. Feel free to ask questions, if you look at it.

Thanks for the link. I think I had stumbled across it on INTPc before but it was too abstract for me unfortunately. When I read something that's very general, my mind switches and spins through past knowledge and data trying to come up with an example that captures the abstract theory so I can understand it. But if something is too abstract, then my mind is kind of just spinning endlessly through data and nothing clicks into place. bleah.

Thanks again, I appreciate it.

 

[booyalab]

I thought that, at one point, you were leaning toward ISTP while on INTPC.

Probably.

I've been curious some as well. You do seem cut from a bit different cloth, but I don't have enough specific detail to distinguish how or why, so it's all purely speculatory.

I'm satisfied with posts like this. (although it would be cool for some reasoning behind the ISTP comment) I don't want to have a conversation via PM regarding my type. *ahem* I thought I made it clear in my first post that I don't care enough to make it into a big overanalytical mess. I just wanted to be entertained.