[Staffan]

I am an auditory learner. I make flash cards. I shuffle the flash cards, ask myself the question (or someone else) and say the answer. This helps me to associate the question with the answer, and saying it aloud encodes that memory stronger because it's like I am stating it. It's fun because it adds the challenge of memorising it when someone else is testing you, becomes a bit like a game show. Honestly the best way to learn. When it gets too difficult, I find that teaching it to someone else helps me to get it organised in my head.

I'm auditory too. I wonder if it relates to type, maybe a NF trait?

[Worriedfunction]

Me earlier:
True, it is more complex but I still say it’s a core trait and that is hardly flimsy and more than enough to have doubts.

I suppose from your personal view it is enough to doubt him. I wouldn't be comfortable on such limited information.

It is a core trait because it features a that in the original theory. Is this when I should lecture you on basic MBTI? True that perceivers can plan things but it’s not their preference and since this was about really enjoying long term planning, I think it’s reasonable to have doubts about him being a P.

Actually you assumed it was about long term planning, true it became a discussion about it, but look at what I wrote before, he was merely describing his plan of attack used for tackling his subjects during a semester, that isn't really a case of planning each and every lesson out.

It’s not a start, it’s a continuation. I said “Seems to me like most P-types would not do this at all…” in my very first comment in this thread, and later, I said “Most J-types will not plan things in every detail either”. So yes, I think there are exceptions. Nothing new.

So you agree with me? Doesn't have to be new.

Me earlier:
No, he plans his entire semester before getting started. That has to be mainly based on calendar if it’s going to work.

He plans how he is going to tackle the information contained in the subjects he is studying, I see no mention of a calendar, he isn't planning lessons here.

Creative long term planning is still long term planning.

I suppose this comes down to both a disagreement on what constitutes long term planning and whether or not he has an end goal for that plan beyond merely studying effectively.

Ok, so according to our friend Isabel, originator of the MBTI, even wanting to know about next Thursday is indicative of J, but to you it would have to be a year or so. Since you lecture me on the basics on this theory you may want to say something about the fact that your position is somewhat unorthodox?

Not necessarily, it's not only the length of the plan but also how it is planned. My example was in years because that was the example I used, it could have been over a few months. The point is I was showing you the style of my planning as well as it's length. What @Luke planned out was nothing more than a style of studying, in fact it is a very P style of planning, it's open ended and can be applied to any subject that arises, it can be adapted since he did not specify that he needed to study on certain days or dates, just that he develops a strategy that involves taking in a little bit of information at a time.
I lecture about the basics to explain why and how I came to my conclusions, so that you can get a picture of how I view things. Ironically as a perciever I could say that you should understand this concept very well.

It’s not a stereotype to have doubts about someone who likes long term planning being P. A stereotypical thinking would be to assume that he is J. But having doubts? Nah.

And no Js are not obssesive and Ps are not diagnosed with ADD. Then again I never said so nor does it follow from anything I’ve said here. Straw men.

Well it would be a straw man if id claimed you had said it or that I was using your logic, which I didn't. However it was an exaggeration.

I was just trying to get a point across. As for having doubts that's an interesting and convenient change of track. Your claim in this post and in your older one that you merely have doubts seems to contradict with the way in which you put across your view here:

I agree that designing systems can be done by P types. But living by them is a whole different thing.

Where did he say he lived his life by systems? This would be an assumption, which we've both been making here, but it also shows why I took issue with it, this isn't just someone expressing a doubt, this is someone making a judgement about someone else without sufficient information, this goes beyond doubts as it implies that you are certain in your conviction.

I would say his description of what he does looks like long term planning. If I misunderstood him so fundamentally I imagine he would have mentioned that when he replied to me. As for getting older and more versatile, this is just a recycled version of the “capacity for both”-argument that you used in your previous. Since I don’t want to add to the repetition, I’ll simply refer you to my previous response.

Well firstly he did reply to you:

I think most humans live by systems to some extent. If you consider the more stereotypical INFP trait of having high moral values, then you could infer that many INFPs have a very complex moral value system that at times they adhere to quite rigidly. I don't think there are hard and fast rules of what each type is capable of or what activities they enjoy.

But I suppose since he didn't specifically state that you misunderstood him as in 'you misunderstood me' that means he didnt think that you did?

Do you need it to be spelled out in literal text before it becomes apparant? I thought his second sarcastic reply would have been enough.
As for the capacity for both argument, that was once again just me showing you how I came to my own conclusions. Especially since you seem to like things spelled out so clearly.

And to me his description seems very similar to the “…organized, systematic, and foreseeable” of Briggs Myers. And let’s keep in mind that my conclusion is not that he is J – it’s that I have doubts whether he is J or P.

Your other posts in this thread contrast with this very harshly as I showed above. Also take a look at this:

So it sounds like you are telling @Luke that he has his type wrong. Based on one post that he made.

I have my doubts, yes.

That makes it sound as if you are agreeing with ethyl that you are telling him his type is wrong. If you had said 'I have my doubts, but that is all', which is the argument you have changed track to, then I can see your point, but the 'yes' at the end is extremely hard to ignore. It is hard not to read it that way and communication is the important point here.

I would say it’s not strongly J or P and it seems irrelevant to this discussion. If anything a person getting into a fight like that voluntarily might be a little more P than J since the opponent is always going to be a largely unknown factor even if you study him.

It wasn't irrelevant, it is merely an expansion upon the capacity for both as you named it, but it also has a purpose in showing how a perciever might plan out their actions.

Yes, that sounds like J. So?

So, at what point did he say that he asks those same questions of himself as he is planning? I was showing how I look to predict every eventuality, this is in direct contrast to his system of studying which is extremely open ended to me.

You might say that occupation is such a measure since a person who enjoys planning is more likely to get a job that requires it.

Im not going to debate this as it is a discussion of measurement and frankly my answer would have been the same.

Lucky for me then that I only have doubts and no certainty. This is another straw man of yours.

No it isn't a strawman because I wasn't taking your argument and trying to defeat it by extending it to it's logical extremes in a hypothetical situation, even if I assumed that you were doing things from a certain frame of mind that still wouldn't be a strawman, it would just be my assumption.

I was simply advising against a method of certainties in personal judgement. I never claimed you projected any directly.

Essentially the argument of exceptions again. You sure know how to repeat yourself – I’ll give you that ; )

And you know how to be deliberately obtuse. In any case it wasn't just about exceptions but how the generalised traits of Judging or Perceiving change when put through the vector of the judging or perceiving functions themselves. Regardless of the core J/P divide.


There is one last thing I want to leave this post with and it is a few quotes from Gift's Differing, since you were fond of quoting Isabel allow me to do the same to prove my point.

The planned life. The judging types decide in advance what they intend to accomplish, and they make careful sometimes very long plans. Fj's tend to have the fullest schedules because of an active social life.

Tj's might not have as full schedules.

Decisiveness. Not everyone who lives in the judging attitude enjoys the actual making of decisions. Some simply dislike to have things remain undecided. These are more likely to be feeling types than thinkers

See how that core trait changes again depending upon whether or not it is thinking or feeling.

Acceptance of routine. Acceptance of routine is put last beause any marked development of intuition is apt to cancel it out, but judging types with sensing seem able to take routine more philosophically than any of the other types

Changes those core traits again.

In considering the qualities listed above, readers may have difficulty evaluating their own JP preference because of an inconsistancy between what they feel they do, what they actually do and what they naturally do. It is the natural tendency that reveals the basic preference. A persons ideal of what is right might be an acquired ideal, borrowed from another type, and the persons actual behaviour may reflect a somewhat uncongenial good habit learned from parents or accepted because of the persons own dogged efforts.

It is important, especially for introverts, to remember that the JP preference applies to a person's customary attitude toward the outer world. Thus in an introvert the preference for the judging attitude in outer matters may be quite evident, even obvious, but it is not final. The judging process used in the outer world is in fact subordinate to the introverted dominant process, which is perceptive one.

Similarly, in an introvert whose preference for the perceptive attitude is ordinarily obvious, this perceptiveness is actually subordinate to an introverted judging process.

This speaks for itself.

I lecture and repeat this because you give the impression of only understanding generalised ideas about MBTI, especially if you come to an opinion on something based off only a small amount of evidence.

I suppose it might seem cruel and arrogant for me to do this, (in fact most would probably agree it was so sorry on that account), but I really just want people to grasp a better understanding of this material so they can avoid the pitfalls that are evident throughout the internet.

[Staffan]

“Actually you assumed it was about long term planning, true it became a discussion about it, but look at what I wrote before, he was merely describing his plan of attack used for tackling his subjects during a semester, that isn't really a case of planning each and every lesson out.”

Everyone here has had this discussion under that premise – as did you yourself if you remember. And Luke has responded several times without contradicting it. Now it’s not working out so well and you want to change the subject. Fine, we can do that. But then I rather have it from the horse’s mouth.

“So you agree with me? Doesn't have to be new.”

That there are exceptions? Yes, kind of trivial but yes.

“He plans how he is going to tackle the information contained in the subjects he is studying, I see no mention of a calendar, he isn't planning lessons here.”

“I suppose this comes down to both a disagreement on what constitutes long term planning and whether or not he has an end goal for that plan beyond merely studying effectively.”

Regarding changing the subject: see above.

“My example was in years because that was the example I used, it could have been over a few months. The point is I was showing you the style of my planning as well as it's length.”

The style may be relevant, but my main point is that if you fill up your calendar you will drastically limit your possibilities disabling the core of P. The style can’t change that.

You earlier:
“It's called typology yes, not stereotypology. To get a deeper understanding you have to see things on an individual basis. J's are not obsessive planners who need everything in place and predictable in order to function and P's are not ADD-style sufferers who need to keep jumping from one task to the other in bursts of adaptability, only unhealthy people demonstrate such traits.”

Me earlier:
And no Js are not obssesive and Ps are not diagnosed with ADD. Then again I never said so nor does it follow from anything I’ve said here. Straw men.

“Well it would be a straw man if id claimed you had said it or that I was using your logic, which I didn't. However it was an exaggeration.”

So you say tell me it’s called typology and not stereotypology and then later say that isn’t implying me being stereotypical? Really?

Me earlier:
I agree that designing systems can be done by P types. But living by them is a whole different thing.

“Where did he say he lived his life by systems? This would be an assumption, which we've both been making here, but it also shows why I took issue with it, this isn't just someone expressing a doubt, this is someone making a judgement about someone else without sufficient information, this goes beyond doubts as it implies that you are certain in your conviction.”

This was in the context of developing a study strategy. And no this isn’t more than doubts, this is me making a distinction in order to make my point. Doing so doesn’t change the evidence nor does it express anymore or less certainty. I would have to comment on my own position to do that.
Luke earlier:
“I think most humans live by systems to some extent. If you consider the more stereotypical INFP trait of having high moral values, the you could infer that many INFPs have a very complex moral value system that at times they adhere to quite rigidly. I don’t think there are hard and fast rules of what each type is capable of or what activities they enjoy.”

And then you:
“But I suppose since he didn't specifically state that you misunderstood him as in 'you misunderstood me' that means he didnt think that you did?

Do you need it to be spelled out in literal text before it becomes apparant? I thought his second sarcastic reply would have been enough.”

So his example of how INFPs can have complex value systems is a hint to me suggesting his study strategy doesn’t involve long term planning? Seriously? This is just you getting back to changing the subject. And his second sarcastic reply read,

“I don’t see why they even bother with these personality tests. All you need to to is let a bunch of people loose in a supermarket and the ones who crowd around the aisle with the calendars and planners are J-types and the ones who rush to the candy aisle and start tearing open packets of skittles are P-types.”

This is Luke hinting he didn’t mean long term planning? I rather think it is Luke telling me I oversimplify things. If not, I really would like him to spell it out.



Me earlier:
I have my doubts, yes.

“That makes it sound as if you are agreeing with ethyl that you are telling him his type is wrong. If you had said 'I have my doubts, but that is all', which is the argument you have changed track to, then I can see your point, but the 'yes' at the end is extremely hard to ignore. It is hard not to read it that way and communication is the important point here.”

And here I was thinking “I have doubts, yes” meant that I actually had doubts. Silly me.

“So, at what point did he say that he asks those same questions of himself as he is planning? I was showing how I look to predict every eventuality, this is in direct contrast to his system of studying which is extremely open ended to me.”

Yes, but under the premise of the discussion it is still long term planning limiting the possibilities that is the core of P. Another recycled argument.

“I was simply advising against a method of certainties in personal judgement. I never claimed you projected any directly.”

Given this discussion, I find that very hard to believe. You keep insinuating stuff and then go “I didn’t say nothing”. It’s a bit lame. Maybe from now on you could just spell everything out.

You quoting Isabel,
“The planned life. The judging types decide in advance what they intend to accomplish, and they make careful sometimes very long plans. Fjs tend to have the fullest schedules because of an active social life.”

And from that you got:
“Tj's might not have as full schedules.”

Me, I got that Js have full schedules, FJs more than others. This clearly supports my doubts about Luke being P under the assumption that he was into long term planning. You are looking for an exception to make a point, I look at the big picture. And how is the TJ modification – your invention not Isabel’s - even relevant to him? He is supposed to be INFP.

You quoting Isabel,
“Decisiveness. Not everyone who lives in the judging attitude enjoys the actual making of decisions. Some simply dislike to have things remain undecided. These are more likely to be feeling types than thinkers.”

And you got from that,

“See how that core trait changes again depending upon whether or not it is thinking or feeling.”

No, I don’t see it. Some dislike making decisions but they still do because they want things settled. That’s still core J.

You quoting Isabel,
“Acceptance of routine…”

We have no idea how much routine Luke’s study planning involves so I fail to see the relevance. And even if he can’t take routine it is still long term planning disabling the possibilities of P.

And finally quoting Isabel again,

“In considering…” which is essentially saying that things aren’t always what they look like, but since they usually are – otherwise there wouldn’t exist a typology – I think my doubts based on how it usually is are more reasonable than your objections based on the existence of exceptions.

“I lecture and repeat this because you give the impression of only understanding generalised ideas about MBTI, especially if you come to an opinion on something based off only a small amount of evidence.

I suppose it might seem cruel and arrogant for me to do this, (in fact most would probably agree it was so sorry on that account), but I really just want people to grasp a better understanding of this material so they can avoid the pitfalls that are evident throughout the internet.”

Personally, I think you lecture me and repeat yourself for the same reason you want to change the subject and interpret my “I have doubts, yes” as me not having doubts – your arguments are weak. This strategy of yours isn’t going to change that. You will probably bore me to silence and get the last word, but it won’t improve your flawed arguments one bit.

[Worriedfunction]

*Snipped*

Then we are at an impasse. You are as flawed in your convictions as you claim I am.

On the subject of me changing track by the way I want to remind you that it did indeed become a discussion on long term planning once you said this:

Sure some Ps plans ahead, but usually not long term, and I dont think they enjoy it, as he explicitly said he did, when their basic preference is so much about keeping possibilities open. This is not about fitting into a little mold, its about the core of the JP divide.

Did you or did you not type that? Obviously that's rhetorical. Originally it was just about planning for something, it was when you changed track to long term planning, which no one else mentioned, that it becomes about it. From that post it looks like you assumed he meant long term hence why I mentioned it. If of course this turns into the fact that he was talking about a semester and the fact that some consider it of a long time, hence long term planning, I could point out that this an implication in itself. He doesn't directly state the length of his semester afterall.

Given this discussion, I find that very hard to believe. You keep insinuating stuff and then go “I didn’t say nothing”. It’s a bit lame. Maybe from now on you could just spell everything out.

Actually that's what you have been doing from the start.

Yes, but under the premise of the discussion it is still long term planning limiting the possibilities that is the core of P.

How so? Explain it with reason. You never actually make a point with any substance, at most your points are backed up by 'im right because im right'.

The style may be relevant, but my main point is that if you fill up your calendar you will drastically limit your possibilities disabling the core of P. The style can’t change that.

But he never mentioned a calender. This is a completely flawed premise, he merely gave a generalised plan of attack used for studying.

Me, I got that Js have full schedules, FJs more than others. This clearly supports my doubts about Luke being P under the assumption that he was into long term planning. You are looking for an exception to make a point, I look at the big picture. And how is the TJ modification – your invention not Isabel’s - even relevant to him? He is supposed to be INFP.

And yet you spent so much effort denying your assumption....an assumption is not a doubt sir. It is a finished judgement based on certainty. You claim to be looking at the big picture when in reality the big picture is that you shouldn't be going off one tiny bit of information, you need to go into detail when it comes to this theory and observe more than just a few traits to get a complete picture of a personality.



If you have doubts about him being a perceiver what else is there besides judging that he could alternate to? From this how could anyone get any other impression other than you believe him to be a judging personality type?

You cannot simply say something then deny all the implications that come with it. People are not going to look at it and go "Oh it just means thus". Of course you can easily blame others for that but that is part and parcel of good communication; being clear.

Essentially the main point I and others were trying to get across was a simple cliche one: Get more information and dont stereotype.

Good stuff true, but planning everything before you start limits your possibilities, which P-types are supposed to dislike.

That bolded part? That isnt an assumption? That isnt stereotyping?



If you can prove how having doubts about someones type based off one single aspect of their life, which is also a tiny bit of information without details, isn't stereotyping the theory's dichotomies then show me.

Oh one last thing:

“
Personally, I think you lecture me and repeat yourself for the same reason you want to change the subject and interpret my “I have doubts, yes” as me not having doubts – your arguments are weak. This strategy of yours isn’t going to change that. You will probably bore me to silence and get the last word, but it won’t improve your flawed arguments one bit.

This reads like nonsense. Why i'll explain below >

for the same reason you want to change the subject and interpret my “I have doubts, yes” as me not having doubts

Are you now changing the very definition of what your doubts were? So now the doubt is not about his type being a P it is now a doubt about the doubt that you have about his type? I suppose compared to other things you have said it makes a twisted kind of sense.

No, I don’t see it. Some dislike making decisions but they still do because they want things settled. That’s still core J.

Never disputed the 'core traits' but the subtleties are important since he mentioned he enjoyed it, enjoyment does not immediately mean J. My quotes from Gifts Differing support this which is why I brought them up. I still dont understand why you couldn't have simply added 'but obviously im not sure yet and I need more information' to the post when you first mention doubts. Any other subject and it would probably have flown, but in this context there are only so many implications people can take. Originally you never mentioned doubts, you brought that in to cover your original post, which is an accusation:

Are you sure your last letter is P? .

I suppose this is just my assumption of your motives and intentions, but based on the correlating evidence if how others reacted towards this question did you believe it would be taken as anything other than an accusation?

I think my doubts based on how it usually is are more reasonable than your objections based on the existence of exceptions.

But based on what argument or evidence? You never actually give me reason to believe this in anything you have said, your vagueness is a beautiful defence mechanism.
In any case that is a disgusting way to argue, im wrong because im wrong and you are right because you are right? You never even use reason to make a point. My objections are not just on the basis of exceptions, they are mainly about the fact that the complexity of these divides becomes more apparant when you apply different functions, the fact that you cannot go off one piece of evidence with this theory to form an entire view without it being considered flawed.

At the very least I have offered almost a page of information that supports my position, which you merely dismiss on the basis of....nothing.
Then you accuse me of strawmen that were in fact nothing of the sort. You used one tiny half of a sentence quote for your position throughout this entire exchange, you didn't even explain your logic in an example, which I have done multiple times. I keep recycling my argument as you say, because you completely lack a logical reading comprehension, you never understand my point and then make your own as unclear as possible so you can turn around and say 'nope didnt mean that' or 'straw man'.

You call my argument flawed when I have been bringing up examples and evidence for my position, you have done nothing but refute without evidence. I dont think you even know how to debate, it seems you cherry pick and twist logic to make your position seem valid.
Anyhow I wanted you to learn the value of thinking before you said something but this is lost on someone as stubborn and obtuse as you. Obviously im equally stubborn but im at least trying to be clear.


Sorry for wasting both your and my time, we both bored each other into silence. Ultimately it was an argument of opinion that neither of us was going to win, which wasn't really my intention anyhow I just wanted to offer a different perspective much as you did.