/DG/
silentigata ano (profile)
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2009
- Messages
- 4,601
(EDIT) NOTE TO SELF: CHANGE P/J PARAGRAPH TO BE P = "GO WITH THE FLOW" AND J = CONTROL
**Look only at the starred parts for the extremely short version of this post.**
Okay, so I haven.t been here in quite some time, but recently, for some odd reason, MBTI popped into my head.
I've determined that I'm definitely an IS__. That much I already knew, but my reasoning is a bit different.
All of this "introverts simply want to conserve energy" thing never really made sense to me. As an introvert, I've never felt the need to "conserve" my energy. In fact, I love it when I go out and do something physical (but I suppose that's also the sensor in me
). Anyway, this statement loosely goes with what I believe is the key difference with introverts and extraverts. Introverts tend to have a lower energy output, but it's not necessarily because they feel their energy is limited or because they want to "conserve" it. Rather, they just don't see the need to act like a loud, gregarious extravert.
Using **introverts = low energy output** and **extraverts = high energy output**, it becomes VERY easy to distinguish this dichotomy. Usually, it's the first thing I notice about a person in relation to MBTI. Obviously though, it IS a scale, so people can very well fall somewhere in the middle.
I've never really been confused whether or not I'm a sensor or intuitor, and I'm not exactly sure why. I think part of it is that I just don't really understand what intuition is all about. This is harder to detect in people because I'm not really sure what to look for. People describe sensors as being concrete and intuitors being abstract, but beyond that description, I don't really know what those things look like. Typically, when I think of an intuitor, I think of someone who is metaphorical, highly intelligent, but clearly this is not true for everyone. My perceptions are a bit skewed from talking to all of the amazingly eloquent people on these boards.
So I've decided that it goes a bit like this: **sensors prefer things**, while **intuitors prefer ideas**, but this may not always be the case. I'm not really sure how to simplify it like the first dichotomy.
Now, we have the third dichotomy, thinking and feeling. I've always swayed between the two. When I first learned about dichotomy, I thought I was a thinker because I cared much more about objective classes, like math and science, and I hated subjects like history and English. But then I expanded a bit, and realized that subjective subjects can be amazing. Also, as time goes one, I've developed a very strong attitude about social issues, which further confused me as to whether I am a thinker or a feeler. Well, no matter how you look at it, it's important to realize that thinkers can be emotional and feelers can be rational. The naming of this dichotomy is a bit silly, because it makes it seem otherwise.
So in order to distinguish thinkers from feelers, some people like to say that feelers are people-oriented, and thinkers are task-oriented. While this may be true in a workplace, I think that it needs to be broadened a bit as this feels to specific. I want to put it a bit like this: **thinkers prefer objectivity**, while **feelers prefer subjectivity**. Now, using this, just a simple question is needed to determine the third dichotomy. But yet again, as all of these dichotomies should be thought of as scales. Some people lie way out on the ends, while others have preferences near the middle.
I know this whole blog has been talking about dichotomies and some of you may argue that this is a silly way to go around typing people and that cognitive functions are better. Well, typing people's personalities is silly in the first place and we all know that it has no real practical value, no matter how much you try to insist that it does. But I think that the dichotomies and cognitive functions can work together in harmony. I haven't yet thought of any way to simplify the last dichotomy, so we'll have to go back to cognitive functions. You'll have to **pick which function you feel is your dominant, then fill in the blanks**. So say I feel like I'm an IST and my S (in this case Si) is my dominant function. Therefore, if I am a thinker, Te goes with the Si to form SiTe, or ISTJ.
However, I feel like this doesn't quite fit, so I'm still not sure what to do about the last dichotomy.
I'm not claiming correctness or anything, but I really felt the need to write this out for some reason. Maybe I'll use it for future reference.
**Look only at the starred parts for the extremely short version of this post.**
Okay, so I haven.t been here in quite some time, but recently, for some odd reason, MBTI popped into my head.
I've determined that I'm definitely an IS__. That much I already knew, but my reasoning is a bit different.
All of this "introverts simply want to conserve energy" thing never really made sense to me. As an introvert, I've never felt the need to "conserve" my energy. In fact, I love it when I go out and do something physical (but I suppose that's also the sensor in me
). Anyway, this statement loosely goes with what I believe is the key difference with introverts and extraverts. Introverts tend to have a lower energy output, but it's not necessarily because they feel their energy is limited or because they want to "conserve" it. Rather, they just don't see the need to act like a loud, gregarious extravert. Using **introverts = low energy output** and **extraverts = high energy output**, it becomes VERY easy to distinguish this dichotomy. Usually, it's the first thing I notice about a person in relation to MBTI. Obviously though, it IS a scale, so people can very well fall somewhere in the middle.
I've never really been confused whether or not I'm a sensor or intuitor, and I'm not exactly sure why. I think part of it is that I just don't really understand what intuition is all about. This is harder to detect in people because I'm not really sure what to look for. People describe sensors as being concrete and intuitors being abstract, but beyond that description, I don't really know what those things look like. Typically, when I think of an intuitor, I think of someone who is metaphorical, highly intelligent, but clearly this is not true for everyone. My perceptions are a bit skewed from talking to all of the amazingly eloquent people on these boards.
So I've decided that it goes a bit like this: **sensors prefer things**, while **intuitors prefer ideas**, but this may not always be the case. I'm not really sure how to simplify it like the first dichotomy.
Now, we have the third dichotomy, thinking and feeling. I've always swayed between the two. When I first learned about dichotomy, I thought I was a thinker because I cared much more about objective classes, like math and science, and I hated subjects like history and English. But then I expanded a bit, and realized that subjective subjects can be amazing. Also, as time goes one, I've developed a very strong attitude about social issues, which further confused me as to whether I am a thinker or a feeler. Well, no matter how you look at it, it's important to realize that thinkers can be emotional and feelers can be rational. The naming of this dichotomy is a bit silly, because it makes it seem otherwise.
So in order to distinguish thinkers from feelers, some people like to say that feelers are people-oriented, and thinkers are task-oriented. While this may be true in a workplace, I think that it needs to be broadened a bit as this feels to specific. I want to put it a bit like this: **thinkers prefer objectivity**, while **feelers prefer subjectivity**. Now, using this, just a simple question is needed to determine the third dichotomy. But yet again, as all of these dichotomies should be thought of as scales. Some people lie way out on the ends, while others have preferences near the middle.
I know this whole blog has been talking about dichotomies and some of you may argue that this is a silly way to go around typing people and that cognitive functions are better. Well, typing people's personalities is silly in the first place and we all know that it has no real practical value, no matter how much you try to insist that it does. But I think that the dichotomies and cognitive functions can work together in harmony. I haven't yet thought of any way to simplify the last dichotomy, so we'll have to go back to cognitive functions. You'll have to **pick which function you feel is your dominant, then fill in the blanks**. So say I feel like I'm an IST and my S (in this case Si) is my dominant function. Therefore, if I am a thinker, Te goes with the Si to form SiTe, or ISTJ.
However, I feel like this doesn't quite fit, so I'm still not sure what to do about the last dichotomy.
I'm not claiming correctness or anything, but I really felt the need to write this out for some reason. Maybe I'll use it for future reference.
