So scientific conspiracy theories...got it. You can't just not dot the T and cross the I. If you do you may screw something up.
No, a conspiracy theory by definition is never scientific as it does not go by the scientific way of thinking.
I have been going down a rabbit hole of Ti these last few pages and it is only by putting hers against mine can I see things more clearly to a point of solidity. Measure twice (or many times in this thread!); cut once. I'm ready to cut.
And I've already cut.
It is easy to feel the group (NFJ /STP) but the endless search for understanding is such a NFJ thing to do, unfortunately..... And we even think we are really logical when we do it.....
I've already finished my search here. But if you are willing to say where you see my Fe, I'm all ears.
Also, remember where you said Ti is about true/false. Did you note the ISTPs don't agree with that. I do agree with it myself, tho'.
@existence remember when I said Ti was neutral? This is saying the same thing. Poki is saying the same thing I was. This is key to being Ti dom and and I'll come back to it in more detail later but it is why I don't see you as Ti dom at all. This is a sticking point that you cannot get around.
We are speaking the same language but we are mirroring each other's Ti/Ni in this thread. Hence, the different dialect. Which is causing that sense of something ain't right for me and causing your continued and rigorous examination. You aren't in a Ti-Ni loop. You are in an Ni-Ti loop.
When I spoke about Ni - you countered me in a way that I didn't understand. You said it was natural for you. Yes! Same how I was talking about Ti. It is your dom function - effortless.
I notice my Ni. You don't. You notice your Ti. I don't notice mine.
Ack. I'll be able to quote you where I am pulling this from but like I said, that will take time i dont have now.
So I see you posted more. The sticking point here is that we both have equally strong Ti in Socionics. But in a different function position. You already agreed to having Demonstrative Ti. I agree you have that. To go with your word usage, we are mirroring each other's Ti, your Ti demonstrative vs my Ti leading.
Now, back to MBTI.
I need to correct you - I notice both my Ni and my Ti. I already showed you by bolding those Ni descriptions where I see my Ni.
Anyway, just tell me where you see my Fe if you think I'm INFJ.
I don't care as much about "why" I want to know "how". Biggest difference between IP and EJ due to goals...meant in general terms, not as in J vs P and goals.
It's actually why I get along very well with EJs in general..the how actually allows me to answer the why alot of the time. Even when it doesn't allow me to answer whyour it allows me to narrow down to likely possibilities to determine and figure out exactly why.
The "why" is actually Ti.
You get along better with ENFP yeah? That's what you said.
Oh it was more for me than you, kitten.
Swapping my vote to INFJ.
Thanks for the vote but to prove it you'll need to show where the Fe is in me and where the Ni symbolism is.
Ni for the win.... The is a prime example of the Ni-dom rabbit hole. Pages and pages of walls of text and explanations... In the most simplistic way, Se is very action-oriented.... and this is not.
No, not a rabbit hole as I've already drawn my conclusions. Though I'm open to hearing more on Fe.
Your last sentence must be a joke; you have not seen me outside this forum. You don't have the means to tell how Se I am outside the forum so don't assume. The ISTPs also engaged in it while they are all Se supposedly.
Thanks though for the input.
Same answer to you as to Protege. & Thanks.
ahhh... I could totally see that. Ti = the most precise word choice. Se = descriptive imagery Ni= pulling in symbolism and meaning/tying in overarching themes Fe = hints of emotional expression subtly weaved into it. My ISFP friend is similar but she likes to pick "bold and colorful words" to accurately depict her inner world (Fi+Se?)
To compare Ti and Ni specifically, I relate to precise word choice and a bit of overarching themes. I'm not good at symbolism tho'. I don't think you've seen any symbolism from me here either.