Type me!

[VagrantFarce]

Well, it's either Se or Si that you're actively avoiding as far as I can tell. Which is it?

 

[Little Linguist]

Well, it's either Se or Si that you're actively avoiding as far as I can tell. Which is it?

I am not good at either, and it takes large amounts of energy for me to do either one. I can do them: I just prefer not to. If I have to choose between the two, I'll go for Se though.

 

[Laurie]

Listen, you may all be right about the ENFP thing, I don't know. I just want to know how someone who has tested IXTJ for years can shift to ENXP so dramatically.

ISTJ shadow is ENFP? (No, im not calling you istj )

I really don't know what type you are. I do want to encourage you to pursue this until you are done with it. People do seem interested, don't get frustrated with the "well, duh, just pick something already!"

 

[VagrantFarce]

OK, so let's assume Inferior Se for now. How stubborn and locked into an idea do you tend to get (or have had a tendancy to do in the past)?

 

[BlueScreen]

I really don't know what type you are. I do want to encourage you to pursue this until you are done with it. People do seem interested, don't get frustrated with the "well, duh, just pick something already!"

Yep, agree. Keep floating ideas and exploring it. You get to read and understand lots as a side effect anyway.

 

[Little Linguist]

ISTJ shadow is ENFP? (No, im not calling you istj )

I really don't know what type you are. I do want to encourage you to pursue this until you are done with it. People do seem interested, don't get frustrated with the "well, duh, just pick something already!"

I have seriously considered being ISTJ and walking around in an ENFP shadow, which would explain the 'childish' inferiority of the Ne and Fi. Except there's one small problem....Imagine being Si dominant when your Si is very weak....

Personally, I have no issues being ISTJ, but it has to fit.

OK, so let's assume Inferior Se for now. How stubborn and locked into an idea do you tend to get (or have had a tendancy to do in the past)?

OH I AM VERY STUBBORN. My husband complains about this all the time. He calls me DICKKOPF!!!!! (literally: thick head, but not in the sense of stupid, but in the sense of stubborn).

Yep, agree. Keep floating ideas and exploring it. You get to read and understand lots as a side effect anyway.

Exactly. And I do want to get answers. I'm a tough case I know...some people get frustrated with me because I am stubborn and want to know and keep pushing until I get a satisfactory answer, but it really is not because I want to be difficult.

I would post my latest results on MBTI and cognitive functions, but the problem is that I know what they are looking for, and it is hard for me to answer.

 

[Charmed Justice]

Take the example of not speaking in class: If I speak in class, I distract myself and my classmates. I cannot listen or focus. Besides, most of what they have to say is crap that no one cares about anyway. If on a scale of 1 to 10 the things your classmates have to say is a 1-3 and the teacher says a 5-7, and you're getting graded for the more interesting stuff, doesn't it make sense to pay attention to the teacher.

Putting it that way, yes. I always found my peers far more interesting than my teachers though.

We had the same conclusion, but not the same primary motivation. I thought that if I had siblings, I finally would not be alone and would have someone to relate to. At that young age, I did not take into account that my siblings would actually be completely different, hate my guts, or beat me up.

Ah yes, my #2 motivation. Now that I see most of my adult friends and their siblings, I'm pretty satisfied with being an only.

I wish I could say you're right, but I hate parties, especially hosting them. Totally not my thing. I wish it were different because I'm sure I'd have lots more (fake?) friends - ah never mind, scratch that, I'm happy the way I am.

LOL@the bolded. I hate hosting too!
As for "fake friends"...ENFPs are typically optimistic/idealistic about people and their motives. Can you relate to that?

EXACTLY! If I make my expectations clear and even give students a certain amount of leeway for creativity and expression within those boundaries AND I give students every chance to talk to me before, during and after class, during which time I show fair compassion, then I expect my expectations to be carried out. And when people THEN do not listen or abide by my rules, then I take out the whip and say, "No more Ms.-Nice-Teacher." (Not literally, but you know what I mean. Some people really need that).

You give fair warning, and you mean business. The use of language in the above paragraph feels very TJ to me.

It bothers me. I like to get away from it. In fact, I would rather do an interesting activity, like go out to eat and have great discussions in a nice, quiet atmosphere. Or I would like to have a nice glass of wine in the middle of nature. Or I would like to go to a museum or something, and discuss things. Or I would prefer going over someone's house and watching movies and chit-chat. But otherwise, blahhhh. No parties.

Sounds like good fun to me!

Do you feel the need to connect with people on a deep level? Is your natural inclination to want to understand people, and why they do the things they do?

Thank you. You were very helpful in narrowing down the possibilities, just like Liquid Laser gave a very specific approach, which I appreciate.

Hm, you seem to like things to be stated clearly and plainly. Would you agree?

 

[Little Linguist]

Putting it that way, yes. I always found my peers far more interesting than my teachers though.

They might have been more amusing, but not more interesting.

Ah yes, my #2 motivation. Now that I see most of my adult friends and their siblings, I'm pretty satisfied with being an only.

Now, I'm cool with it as well.

LOL@the bolded. I hate hosting too!
As for "fake friends"...ENFPs are typically optimistic/idealistic about people and their motives. Can you relate to that?

It depends. I'm either really optimistic in close relationships/friendships or really pessimistic. I'm quite pessimistic when it comes to situations and think the worst of people when they screw up.

You give fair warning, and you mean business. The use of language in the above paragraph feels very TJ to me.

Fair = nothing to bitch about. If you are fair, no worries. If you are not fair, then people can complain. If they can present their case correctly, it's all good.

Do you feel the need to connect with people on a deep level? Is your natural inclination to want to understand people, and why they do the things they do?

I like to connect with people in a way that is not merely superficial, if that makes sense. I don't want to talk about the weather and cars all day. I want to talk about things that matter, things that last. Sure, I want to understand people because it means I can make better choices and decisions. Some people you cannot understand, however, and you just have to deal with that and either put up with it or break off contact.

Hm, you seem to like things to be stated clearly and plainly. Would you agree?

Yes. That's true. Otherwise, there is too much room for misinterpretation.

 

[Little Linguist]

Okay, every time I take this silly test I get different answers, but what the hell. Earlier my results were 38 for Ne and Ni, 37 for Te, 28 for Fi, 26.X for Se, 25.X for Si, 24.X for Ti, and 23.X for Fe (sorry but I cannot remember the exact numbers).

Cognitive Process Level of Development (Preference, Skill and Frequency of Use)

extraverted Sensing (Se) ******************** (20.4) limited use
introverted Sensing (Si) ************************ (24.7) average use
extraverted Intuiting (Ne) **************************************** (40.8) excellent use
introverted Intuiting (Ni) *************************************** (39.8) excellent use
extraverted Thinking (Te) ************************************* (37.9) excellent use
introverted Thinking (Ti) ************************ (24.6) average use
extraverted Feeling (Fe) ******************** (20.6) limited use
introverted Feeling (Fi) ******************************* (31.6) good use

It's as if I am some kind of strange hybrid between an INTJ and an ENFP. Weird.

 

[VagrantFarce]

what do you think of this?

"He walked out in the gray light and stood and he saw for a brief moment the absolute truth of the world. The cold relentless circling of the intestate earth. Darkness implacable. The blind dogs of the sun in their running. The crushing black vacuum of the universe. And somewhere two hunted animals trembling like ground-foxes in their cover. Borrowed time and borrowed world and borrowed eyes with which to sorrow it."

*cautiously awaits response, if any*

I'm straining to grasp at straws, here

[edit] Are you very emotional around others? Are you stoic / guarded? Downright gregarious?

 

[Little Linguist]

what do you think of this?

"He walked out in the gray light and stood and he saw for a brief moment the absolute truth of the world. The cold relentless circling of the intestate earth. Darkness implacable. The blind dogs of the sun in their running. The crushing black vacuum of the universe. And somewhere two hunted animals trembling like ground-foxes in their cover. Borrowed time and borrowed world and borrowed eyes with which to sorrow it."

*cautiously awaits response, if any*

I'm straining to grasp at straws, here

[edit] Are you very emotional around others? Are you stoic / guarded? Downright gregarious?

Um...that's the kind of writing that...well...yeah....Ugh. I mean okay, it's abstract and symbolic, great....but out of context, it's just...strange. (No offense.)

Anyway, I'm emotional around certain people. Not everyone. I'm relatively loud when I'm in front of a classroom. Not really gregarious unless I'm with people I know and feel comfortable with.

Class - loud, guarded, not very gregarious
After class, at school - quiet, guarded, more gregarious
At home - quiet, not guarded (except with certain thoughts/feelings), very gregarious
With friends - moderately loud, somewhat guarded, fairly gregarious
With strangers - very quiet, very guarded, not very gregarious
With business partners - moderately expressive, guarded, fairly gregarious in a professional way

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Why is this not accurate? How do you want to find a core personality? .

A good way to find your natural tendencies is by taking a careful note of the tendencies to think in a certain way that you display even when your environment offers no reinforcement for you to do so. This becomes even more relevant when you tend to think in a certain way and your environment not only is non-supportive of what you do, but also adversarial to the activity in question.

For example, many people think that when I come on Vent and act wild and crazy, I must be an NP or SP because an NJ or SJ just wouldn't be that strange and peculiar. Well, perhaps that is the case, but I think some people believe I behave like that all the time, when I really only do it to relax, after which time, I'm quiet and reflective, hard-working and analytical again. But I need these bursts to sort of regain balance.

Here we have two ways of functioning. One of these that comes to you more naturally corresponds to your type.

Another example is that people think "Oh you are such an emotive person that you must be an F." That could very well be. However, I don't think I can stress how DIFFICULT it was for me to get to that point.

We're getting into irrelevancies again, as these are just personality qualities that may be a result of natural tendencies or of personal experiences.

And to be honest, in real life, I think people think I'm this warm, fuzzy person who goes around hugging people all the time and jumping on tables and dancing or whatever. *shakes her head* I'm really NOT. Just because I make a joke about doing something strange on Vent or someone's blog doesn't mean I would actually do it. It's just a funny, strange idea that pops into my head and leaves as quickly as it came.

Who knows, are you fuzzy by nature or is it a learned trait? Hard to tell? Or was it always your tendency to be fuzzy, now you merely had the freedom to act this way. Or is it the case that it was never natural for you to act in an emotive manner, yet now, since your environment reinforces displaying emotion, you've learned to do that.

In short, decide which of these two scenarios is true.

1. You do have a natural tendency to be emotive, in your childhood you were not because your environment was opposed to acting this way significantly. Yet now your environment merely lets you act naturally.

2. You never had a natural tendency to display a great deal of emotion, because your present environment reinforces such behavior, you indeed do so.

Agreed, however, how do you cut a person's personality away from action?

We do not need to do that and we cannot do that. Our goal is not ceasing to pay attention to actions altogether, but to pay attention only to a certain kind of actions. The actions in question are those that display natural tendencies. For example, if you put a piece of lemon on a tongue of an extrovert and on a tongue of an introvert, the latter will salivate much quicker and with more liquid than the former as the former requires a lot more contact to become stimulated. So, here, the person inevitably displays introversion, or an unconscious disposition to be easily stimulated by the external environment.

Similar task could be performed with regard to sensing and intuition. Show a picture to a sensor and a natural intuitive, the latter will take note of patterns and various possible ways of interpreting the meaning behind the picture quicker than the sensor. As for thinking/feeling, present a scenario to the person who needs to be typed where it is both possible to make an artistic move or to look at structure within the scenario. See which way of reasoning the person gravitates to. If he or she elects one and not the other 29/30 times, you can be confident that the choice he made corresponds to his or her type.

But it would be good if you could demonstrate another way we could do it that would be more effective.

I have tried above.

I would agree. That's the one big problem I have with S-type. Personally, I think it would be way more practical to be an S-type, and I would be more than happy to call myself an S-type. However, I need to take personal preferences out of it and be honest: Do I really display S-type behavior? Sometimes, sure, everyone does. My natural tendency has always been N, though.

I never suggested that you're an S type, the remarks about sensing were purely informative.

But I can only prove this through behavioral tendencies, and that does not hold water with you, so I really do not know how to prove it otherwise (i.e. how do you prove an impression?)

Only certain kind of behavioral tendencies hold water with me. Namely, those that are indicative of natural tendencies of thought.

This could very well be. However, even today I spend a great majority of my free time alone, with my husband, or with one or two friends. I do not feel comfortable at large parties or get-togethers unless I know that the topic of discussion is one I'm well-versed in.

The best way to see if you are introvert is to take note of how much activity is required to drain you. The activity need not involve people.

Analyzing paper structure and grammar has nothing to do with systematic thought?.

All arts have a systematic component, however, it is not nearly as significant in the arts as it is in the sciences, philosophy and mathematics.

I'm always analyzing - it's just not apparent to you because I only discuss things I find challenging, not the things that come easily to me. That's why I always talk about people, red tape, and my internal conflicts because THOSE are the things that challenge me, not analyzing and explaining complex grammatical structures..

So according to this argument, you think that most people who engage themselves in languages must by definition not be NT? Language is VERY VERY systematic..

Today, Linguists almost unanimously believe that much of the structure of the language that we use is innate. The implication of this is that there is no need for a solidified tendency of thought in favor of seeking structure in order for one to enjoy language. A structure of logical thought is not innate and is therefore different from the structure of thought in language.

Poets and novelists for example know the structure of language very well, but they are artists rather than systematic thinkers. Most of them do not enjoy math, logic or the hard sciences and display no tendency of thought that is well suited for such activities.

It's just as systematic as math, only people think that because you do not get one answer for one equation that it is NOT the case. It's amorphous, they think.

Two objections.

1. Language is learned intuitively, many of the skills in learning it are innate, or inhere within our instincts. Math requires more systematic and non-intuitive thought. Some people are what you may call 'naturals' who seem to have an instinct to pick up on it, but nonetheless the tendency to learn math is not nearly as innate to human nature as the tendency to learn languages.

2. Language is indeed much less systematic than math or logic. In the language of symbolic logic, generally the same term almost never carries two different definitions. A dictionary often has 2 or 3 different definitions for the same word. Our communication both written and oral is filled with allegories, metaphors and even slang. All of these expressions are imprecise

As much as we language nerds love to say we hate math, the truth is that they are two peas in a pod. But because you can get away with 'not knowing the formulas and exactness' (e.g. grammar, complex structures, logic) much more easily than math, it can appeal to people who put less emphasis on it.

Generally, language is much less precise than mathematical expressions. Mathematicians avoid using ordinary language as it is too imprecise for reasons I mentioned above. Altogether, the fact that there are so many confusions, disputes and gaps in communication regarding what people may have meant seems to show that expressions of language are ambiguous at best.

 

[VagrantFarce]

Just skimmed the OP, and...

I couldn't stand sexually promiscuous people - they disgusted me. These flamboyant types who always partied and went to clubs and had sex all the time with guys and talked about their experiences. BLEH.

Materialistic types also pissed me off. These long nails for $100 dollars. Expensive, fast cars. Sports. Sex. Drugs. Rock 'n' roll. What was the point?

Hey look, Inferior/Tertiary Se! Coupled with your need and respect for competance, as well as your intuitive nature, that would make you an NTJ!

So, is it I or E?

Do you find yourself sometimes acting the dominant type to get what you want, or to convince someone of something?

 

[Little Linguist]

A good way to find your natural tendencies is by taking a careful note of the tendencies to think in a certain way that you display even when your environment offers no reinforcement for you to do so. This becomes even more relevant when you tend to think in a certain way and your environment not only is non-supportive of what you do, but also adversarial to the activity in question.

Actually, my husband often comments that I am very natural. He can tell immediately if I am happy or not. It's very difficult for me to don on 'fake' auras or impressions.

However, I would say that as a child, if anything I grew up in a VERY emotive family. My grandmother was an ExFJ and my aunt was an INFP. My grandfather, with whom I was most comfy, was probably an ENTP. I spent a lot of time with him. All were very expressive, either due to the E or the F.

Actually I was generally the quietest among them, reserved, spending a lot of time in my room. That wasn't because it was expected; in fact, it unnerved the hell out of them. They kept asking me to go to football games or things like that. I almost did not go to prom, although my grandmother was very happy when I finally decided to do so, went all out and got me everything....

Of course, they were very strict, but they were VERY emotive and VERY gregarious and VERY well...yeah. My grandmother is the kind of person who hugs everyone. She'd ask me, "Did you see anyone you knew?" "Yes," "Did anyone tell you they liked your outfit?" "No." "Did you give him/her a big hug?" "WHAT????" lol Yeah...she hugged everyone. And she cried when she was happy, when she was sad, when she was upset, when she was overwhelmed. Dude, the woman cried about everything. I would ask her, "Why are you crying," "Oh, these are happy tears." Ugh. Happy tears. Bloody hell.

Sometimes it was great going over my aunt's house. She was an ISXJ I think....She would watch TV and chill, and let me do my own thing. We'd play cards together and stuff; it was fun.

Anyway, yeah, when I say my family was strict, I don't mean they were mean or cold. They were the friendliest strict people you ever knew.

Here we have two ways of functioning. One of these that comes to you more naturally corresponds to your type.

Eh...yeah. Naturally. Naturally I spent a lot of time in my room. Alone. Ever since I was little. A few years ago, I talked to my mother again, and she remarked that it was very hard to tear me away from books and make me go outside. Even when I was little. I always preferred being by myself.

Naturally I loved puzzles and games...things where I had to think. Always loved languages. These were not expected or even encouraged. Just things I liked. My family gave me spending money for souvenirs, and I'd buy language books. "Don't you want to buy Daddy something to bring back," "No, not really, I want to learn a new language." *shocked expressions*

Natural: perfectionism. My motto: "If I can't do it perfectly, it's not worth doing." That's why I discarded math. I got B's instead of A's, ergo I was not good at it, ergo dump it. Too much effort wasted on something where I could not be perfect when I could be learning a new language or reading another politics book. Same with learning the piano. I had to play the same notes over and over and over again. I wanted to learn quickly. And all I was playing was CBABCBABC...ugh. CDEFGABCCDEFGABC. GAH!

My family would surely rather seen me play the piano than learn another language or get another book, but nope...no go.

They expected me to do dancing. I wanted to do ballet. They wanted me to do Irish dancing. But that was cool because I could do it without practicing really....

Who knows, are you fuzzy by nature or is it a learned trait? Hard to tell? Or was it always your tendency to be fuzzy, now you merely had the freedom to act this way. Or is it the case that it was never natural for you to act in an emotive manner, yet now, since your environment reinforces displaying emotion, you've learned to do that.

My grandmother would have been super happy if I had been fuzzier, more gregarious at get-togethers, etc. I wasn't mean. I was nice. I was friendly or whatever. But I was so glad to get back into my room and do my own thing.

In short, decide which of these two scenarios is true.

1. You do have a natural tendency to be emotive, in your childhood you were not because your environment was opposed to acting this way significantly. Yet now your environment merely lets you act naturally.

2. You never had a natural tendency to display a great deal of emotion, because your present environment reinforces such behavior, you indeed do so.

I would say I was definitely less emotive as a child, although it definitely would have been encouraged. Or let's say emotion was expected.

I was cold as a teenager. A downright freezer. And trust me, it wasn't because my family was a freezer. If anything, my grandmother, the matriarch of the family, was a heater. She always told me to explain things when something bothered me.

For a long time, I had the horrible habit of bottling things up and exploding every 6 months or so. That was really bad. My grandmother was a saint putting up with that BS: I surely would not have been so compassionate or understanding, and indeed I wasn't. I'd chastise myself for weeks, think I would 'go to hell for being so bad,' and things like that.

The religiosity was definitely an imposed thing. I haven't gone to church on a regular basis since leaving my family.

My grandmother tried for years to get me interested in clothes and decorating, but it just wasn't happening, see...No way.

Not going to parties, drinking, etc. was definitely my own choice. If my grandparents had said, "GO OUT DRINK DAMN IT!!! LEAVE! WE DON'T WANT TO SEE YOU HERE!" I still would not have done it.

Of course, I still had elements of feeling and compassion, but I kept them bottled up. Mostly because I was afraid of them. I did not know how to handle them, and they got too big for me and would explode on me, and I did not like that. I was more in my element when I was just working, studying, and dreaming alone in my room.

We do not need to do that and we cannot do that. Our goal is not ceasing to pay attention to actions altogether, but to pay attention only to a certain kind of actions. The actions in question are those that display natural tendencies. For example, if you put a piece of lemon on a tongue of an extrovert and on a tongue of an introvert, the latter will salivate much quicker and with more liquid than the former as the former requires a lot more contact to become stimulated. So, here, the person inevitably displays introversion, or an unconscious disposition to be easily stimulated by the external environment.

Similar task could be performed with regard to sensing and intuition. Show a picture to a sensor and a natural intuitive, the latter will take note of patterns and various possible ways of interpreting the meaning behind the picture quicker than the sensor. As for thinking/feeling, present a scenario to the person who needs to be typed where it is both possible to make an artistic move or to look at structure within the scenario. See which way of reasoning the person gravitates to. If he or she elects one and not the other 29/30 times, you can be confident that the choice he made corresponds to his or her type.

Is there some way I could do that? That would be interesting.


The best way to see if you are introvert is to take note of how much activity is required to drain you. The activity need not involve people.

All arts have a systematic component, however, it is not nearly as significant in the arts as it is in the sciences, philosophy and mathematics.


Today, Linguists almost unanimously believe that much of the structure of the language that we use is innate. The implication of this is that there is no need for a solidified tendency of thought in favor of seeking structure in order for one to enjoy language. A structure of logical thought is not innate and is therefore different from the structure of thought in language.

Poets and novelists for example know the structure of language very well, but they are artists rather than systematic thinkers. Most of them do not enjoy math, logic or the hard sciences and display no tendency of thought that is well suited for such activities.




Two objections.

1. Language is learned intuitively, many of the skills in learning it are innate, or inhere within our instincts. Math requires more systematic and non-intuitive thought. Some people are what you may call 'naturals' who seem to have an instinct to pick up on it, but nonetheless the tendency to learn math is not nearly as innate to human nature as the tendency to learn languages.

2. Language is indeed much less systematic than math or logic. In the language of symbolic logic, generally the same term almost never carries two different definitions. A dictionary often has 2 or 3 different definitions for the same word. Our communication both written and oral is filled with allegories, metaphors and even slang. All of these expressions are imprecise



Generally, language is much less precise than mathematical expressions. Mathematicians avoid using ordinary language as it is too imprecise for reasons I mentioned above. Altogether, the fact that there are so many confusions, disputes and gaps in communication regarding what people may have meant seems to show that expressions of language are ambiguous at best.

[/QUOTE]

Ah, okay. Yes, true. However, would that necessarily be a good indicator of type?

 

[Little Linguist]

Just skimmed the OP, and...



Hey look, Inferior/Tertiary Se! Coupled with your need and respect for competance, as well as your intuitive nature, that would make you an NTJ!

So, is it I or E?

Do you find yourself sometimes acting the dominant type to get what you want, or to convince someone of something?

Yes.

Interestingly enough, I just asked my husband to give me some adjectives he would use to describe me:

amiable, nice, loyal, honest, funny, priceless, ambitious, unpretentious (not wanting a lot of material goods, easy to satisfy physical needs), concentrated, dreamy, strange, expressive, impressive

Eh, that's not helpful. Kind, complimentary (except the dreamy one), but not very helpful.

It describes me now. But again, much of that may be acquired behavior, as Solitary was describing.

 

[Little Linguist]

Introversion (I): 12
versus
Extroversion (E): 4

Sensing (S): 8
versus
Intuition (N): 19

Thinking (T): 18
versus
Feeling (F): 5

Judging (J): 14
versus
Perceiving (P): 5

Apparently, I have big minus points for wanting to stay at home, read books, and keep my room as a working space.

 

[VagrantFarce]

Still trying to figure out if you're INTJ or ENTJ. I'm throwing this Lenore Thompson quote around my head a bit, hope it enlightens

Although both INTJs and ENTJs realize their Intuitions by way of rational criteria - principles, law, organizational structure and so forth - ENTJs will not usually persue a goal unless it strikes them as compatible with reason. INTJs are more classically Promethean. They will steal fire from the gods without any assurance that a reasonable hearth exists at which to tend it back home. For such types, knowledge is not information, but a way of looking at things.

 

[Little Linguist]

Still trying to figure out if you're INTJ or ENTJ. I'm throwing this Lenore Thompson quote around my head a bit, hope it enlightens

Um...well....

My husband maintains that I am very ambitious and confident when I have a goal that I want to reach. Otherwise, I'm pretty laid back.

However, at school when I asked my students to fill out evaluations, they all said I was pretty intimidating at first, but I won several people over as time went on. Now they think I'm generally friendly, structured, and fair.

 

[VagrantFarce]

What do you thnk of Tertiary Temptation?

Tertiary Temptation

"I'll physically intimidate him. I'll brandish a little power and he'll get back in line. Beneath all our refinement, people are just animals, and let me tell you, this animal will not be denied. I'll go with my gut instinct here. You can't know everything in advance, you have to trust your gut in each moment. Good thing my gut is trustworthy. A person with lesser character wouldn't be able to trust his luck the way I can." The Secondary Function (Ni) would say: "What is really dangerous here and what's just a paper tiger? What are some options you haven't considered yet only because the current way appears--falsely--to be necessarily so?"

"I can't possibly go along with this, because it would mar my soul. It's not 'me'. I am a good person, and in order to maintain my integrity, I need to steer clear of this. This is the responsibility of those other people: it emerges from their souls, not mine, so it's their problem." The Secondary Function (Te) would say: "Do something. Take responsibility even if no one gave it to you, and go after some tangible gain right now, within the limits of the situation and your current understanding. That will improve your position, after which you can re-assess and plot a new course."

 

[Little Linguist]

What do you thnk of Tertiary Temptation?

Tertiary Temptation

I'd say both are realistic. I'd be more tempted to do (a) when I am in a position of strength and (b) when I'm behind the scenes.

For example, let's say I'm in front of the class and no one is listening. I'll get loud and confront the class in some way, straight up, in a way that makes them stare wide-eyed. However, let's say my boss tells me to do something I know isn't right - I would react with b. See how that dynamic works?