# Meow. Sorry I can't put a more descriptive title here.



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

*Meow. Type this cat here! =)*

So hm, what is my personality type? Reply to questionnaire follows below:

*
0. Is there anything that may affect the way you answer the questions? For example, a stressful time, mental illness, medications, special life circumstances? Other useful information includes sex, age, and current state of mind.*

Not really... I did have a stressful time not long ago but not right now. Current state of mind is the usual state of it. Female, in my twenties.

*1. Click on this link: Flickr: Explore! Look at the random photo for about 30 seconds. Copy and paste it here, and write about your impression of it.*

Here's the pic: 









Er, impression of it? It's just a bird posed in some way and the image itself looks nice and peaceful (=calm). Maybe because the bird isn't really doing anything, just watching around in a nice environment. (Stalker was the title, and I guess that's cool too.)

*2. You are with a group of people in a car, heading to a different town to see your favourite band/artist/musician. Suddenly, the car breaks down for an unknown reason in the middle of nowhere. What are your initial thoughts? What are your outward reactions?*

If I can help solve the problem I will try. I will ask around to see what's really up and what can be done to sort it out. I would be very frustrated if for some reason I can't get to do anything. If I can do something, that would be a really nice energizing feeling, and I would feel really relaxed afterwards if I did manage to solve or to contribute to solving the issue.

*3. You somehow make it to the concert. The driver wants to go to the afterparty that was announced (and assure you they won't drink so they can drive back later). How do you feel about this party? What do you do?*

Hm, dunno, I easily get excited about and yet be a bit wary of that sort of stuff. Many parties just don't go the way I like it... then some are OK.  I suppose I would say OK to this afterparty idea and see if it turns out well...
As for their reassuring me that they won't drink, I suppose if they are reliable people, I would believe them no problem.

*4. On the drive back, your friends are talking. A friend makes a claim that clashes with your current beliefs. What is your inward reaction? What do you outwardly say?
*
I wouldn't have a specific inward reaction beyond curiosity to see what this claim or belief exactly is. I would ask them in more detail about their belief. I may manage to annoy them if they perceive it as nitpicking, but if they are open people then they would understand I'm just trying to learn about what they think exactly about that belief, why they think it's correct to believe in it and so on. If then I still disagree, then I will disagree, and that's all and I will say so. People often accuse me of trying to have the last word and that may be true...

*5. What would you do if you actually saw/experienced something that clashes with your previous beliefs, experiences, and habits?*

Experience > belief. This is a no brainer.

I'm actually a pretty skeptical person so I don't believe too heavily in most things. 

Yes I know about the usual argument against that... and of course yes, I do have my own methods of looking at the world but I won't question those, what's the point of that. Though I wouldn't mind learning more of the scientific way of thinking, because I'm sure I can still improve on my way of thinking / evaluating things etc. But in general, I usually don't question my own evaluation process.

As for habits, nah, habits are not important beyond their usefulness, and that also means the concrete habits can be changed and that happens at times without me trying to do anything consciously, funny .

Oh and about an experience clashing with a previous experience, I don't understand what's meant by that. How can an experience clash with another? Do you mean that the new one is different in some way from the old one? So what? That's just natural, what's the issue there? I probably just misunderstand this thing here. -.-

*6. What are some of your most important values? How did you come about determining them? How can they change?*

Jeeze, don't ask me about values, heh. I dunno where they come from. I'm even not sure about taking this sort of stuff seriously. Sounds like it would determine your actions too much. If a value has some point to it, cool, if not, then it's just limiting.

Edit: ah, I forgot to actually talk about them. If it's about moral values, just the usual basic stuff. If it is not about that... well, what I really want, that is, value: achieve some cool things in life and enjoy myself while on the road, and have some deep meaningful relationship(s). Also... live and let live, have passion for your things, be open but sensible about things, I'm sure there is more but I don't often verbalize these thoughts... I can think more about this if needed.

*7. a) What about your personality most distinguishes you from everyone else? b) If you could change one thing about you personality, what would it be? Why?*

a) My impersonality? No, seriously, I can be pretty dispassionate and analytical even when other people get overly personal in an unproductive way. And then there is my tolerance/flexibility, openness and my enthusiasm about my projects, people tend to notice mostly these traits about me.

b) A bit more emotionality would be nice, and handle the emotion/trust topic better, especially in close relationships. Also, I shouldn't take certain things so literally. I should be a bit less analytical in some situations. More control over impulsiveness (sometimes more impulsiveness would be cool over analysis, but then at other times the opposite, I get too impulsive...).

*8. How do you treat hunches or gut feelings? In what situations are they most often triggered?
*
I'm not sure if the hunches are triggered by certain situations more than others. My default stance is wariness, I don't tend to trust many of these hunches too much, they are usually weak/vague and I first want to see how the hunch came about. But then there are a few cases when it's nice and I kind of follow them to see what happens, though I'm still not in complete belief of them.

*9. a) What activities energize you most? b) What activities drain you most? Why?
*
Well, activity in general energizes me! lol.

Anyway, I like it if I know some topic well and I can help others with solving their issues or even better if I can create something that is cool and also will be useful to their problems. 

I also very much like understanding something that I didn't know about/understand before, slowly build a nice big picture of the details and a really deep understanding with the big picture. 

Then I also really like just traveling/moving around anywhere and some sports.

If I have to do simple jobs, then doing them fast is energizing! 

Doing things together with people or talking to people about stuff also really energizes me, the more people the better. It can also be one-to-one communication but then it must not be just small talk or it'll get boring... something more interesting or deeper is needed in one-to-one communication and that's really good too, then.

What drains me is trying to socialize too hard with pointless small talk. If there is some common activity that we are actually doing together that's much better than that socializing via such superficial talking. Also if I can't be doing anything at a party and I don't get to interact with anyone that reallllllly drains me like nothing else.

*10. What do you repress about your outward behavior or internal thought process when around others? Why?
*
Wah, dunno. Well, one thing, at a party that isn't turning out so well, I'll just sit silently and that's a really bad repressing of myself.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

I updated the post with some stuff I left out first. I think that's good enough now, though. So I'll be glad to receive some help here! Thanks.


----------



## bigtex1989 (Feb 7, 2011)

I am inclined to think you are an Se-dom. I also think Fi is a second, but I'm really not sure. I am trying out a new typing method for you and seeing if it works. I see absolutely zero Ne, so I'm thinking Se is pretty high up in your function list. I have a hard time with the judging functions though D: So I think Fi but I may be WAY off. For now, ESFP I think!


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

bigtex1989 said:


> I am inclined to think you are an Se-dom. I also think Fi is a second, but I'm really not sure. I am trying out a new typing method for you and seeing if it works. I see absolutely zero Ne, so I'm thinking Se is pretty high up in your function list. I have a hard time with the judging functions though D: So I think Fi but I may be WAY off. For now, ESFP I think!


Oh, that's an interesting evaluation. What is the Fi part in my post? What is this new typing method like? And thanks


----------



## bigtex1989 (Feb 7, 2011)

My new typing method is seeing what you don't have and then assuming you have high of the opposite. For example, Ne comes with Si, and Se comes with Ni. Since you have no Ne, you must have Se and Ni. Since you have less Ne, Se has to be higher. It's a working theory and I just thought of doing that like 3 minutes ago. Typing in reverse if you will. Your general lack of Fe (check out question 7) indicates you must have Fi. Since Fi comes with Te, and the function orientation must alternate, Fi comes before Te. So your function order is SeFiTeNi. So I typed you by what you didn't have and am curious to see if it works


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

bigtex1989 said:


> My new typing method is seeing what you don't have and then assuming you have high of the opposite. For example, Ne comes with Si, and Se comes with Ni. Since you have no Ne, you must have Se and Ni. Since you have less Ne, Se has to be higher. It's a working theory and I just thought of doing that like 3 minutes ago. Typing in reverse if you will. Your general lack of Fe (check out question 7) indicates you must have Fi. Since Fi comes with Te, and the function orientation must alternate, Fi comes before Te. So your function order is SeFiTeNi. So I typed you by what you didn't have and am curious to see if it works


Mhmm, couldn't general lack of something also mean it's an inferior function? And what if you don't manage to pinpoint existing Fi at all, just the lack of Fe? Of course if you do see stuff that's specifically Fi, let me know.

I could also ask the same about the Se/Ne thing.

ESFP's seem more social than I am... are there slightly antisocial ESFP's too? ESFP's that do like to spend a bit of time alone analysing stuff? Though of course I don't like to overdo the analysing, it's too much after a while and then I'll have my attention outward. But I do like being alone at times, especially wander around alone somewhere, that really recharges me if I got drained by a failed social situation. And well, am I even an extravert? I'm not saying I can't be but I am a bit divided on that I/E matter. Some stuff about me is pretty heavy I-ish, and then some is really E-ish, most of that I mentioned in the questionnaire.


----------



## nonnaci (Sep 25, 2011)

@*bigtex1989*

I like this. Typing by shadow functions . Better yet, describe everything that you are not and assume some part of the writing style is influenced by the inferior.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

nonnaci said:


> I like this. Typing by shadow functions . Better yet, describe everything that you are not and assume some part of the writing style is influenced by the inferior.


Did you direct the last sentence to me? Let me know, I can do this if it helps. 

Also, do you agree on that ESFP typing or do you see another type instead? Thanks


----------



## nonnaci (Sep 25, 2011)

Strong Se enjoys activity / experience for its own sake, Fi value judgments as opposed to any dispassionate Ti analysis . Yes, ESFP


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

nonnaci said:


> Strong Se enjoys activity / experience for its own sake, Fi value judgments as opposed to any dispassionate Ti analysis . Yes, ESFP


ok, I can see the Se... but where did I make Fi judgments, can you give me some examples? I'm not trying to nitpick, I may just not have a correct understanding of Fi as a function yet. Thanks!


----------



## nonnaci (Sep 25, 2011)

@*itsme45 *

Regardless of the attitude-type, I understand feeling as a type of value judgment or assignment of worth to a perception and Thinking as an interpretation or establishment of relations between perceptions.



> Stalker was the title, and I guess that's *cool *too





> habits are not important beyond their *usefulness*





> some deep *meaningful *relationship(s)





> create something that is *cool *and also will be *useful *to their problems.





> something more *interesting *or *deeper *is needed in one-to-one communication


The bolded all assign some value to whatever object is being referred to. A thinking function would justify rather than assign various weights of importance.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

nonnaci said:


> Regardless of the attitude-type, I understand feeling as a type of value judgment or assignment of worth to a perception and Thinking as an interpretation or establishment of relations between perceptions.
> 
> 
> "Stalker was the title, and I guess that's *cool *too"
> ...



So you are basically stating that Thinkers don't wish for meaningful relationships (even if they may really suck at them), and they never find anything interesting and cool. My general point here is of course that I think these are very basic and generic judgments, not requiring strong Fi at all.

You also claim that that usefulness of something cannot be an impersonal Thinking justification for having habits. I would like to hear your detailed reasoning on this one because to me it doesn't make sense right now.

Btw in the example about creating things, a better word instead of "cool" would have been "impressive". And the "usefulness" word in the same example means the creation can be used by people for their issues, strictly from a problem solving viewpoint. As far as I know, that is not Fi either.

So far I have not seen a strong enough argument for Fi. This doesn't mean I can't actually have a strong Fi preference, just that the evidence so far isn't convincing. I'd really appreciate it if you could elaborate on the above issues, thanks.


Also, here's why I'm doubting ESFP in general: 

- Yes I wish for some close relationships but I'm not sure about how to connect to people on a really personal level, I did mention this in the questionnaire too. So this is more of a wish rather than an actual thing. I do value basic human and social needs, like any normal person would, e.g. love, friendship. Basic human needs are not type related.

- The values question in the questionnaire left me confused and I think it shows in my reply. I'm really not one to think much about subjective personal values.

- I'm not interested in people in a compassionate humanist way. I'm prone to objectification of people by default, that is, viewing them as impersonal things. I'm indifferent to most people's problems on an emotional level, but I do like to help with their practical issues. The feeling of general compassion is something unnatural to me. At times, I can feel empathy in certain situations, this doesn't come easily either, though.

- I did say in the questionnaire too that I analyse a lot about how things are, how they work, I'm at my best when I figure out such stuff. This would have to be some Thinking function by definition.

- My way of analysis fails with people if I consider them as people and not impersonal objects. Though, I really don't mind people in general, I'm tolerant towards them, and I don't hate anyone, I'm even incapable of real hate. This doesn't mean I don't have the capability to love anyone... but it doesn't help that I'm bad at figuring out relationships.


Of course, if all that is compatible with a strong Fi, let me know your reasoning about it.


----------



## nonnaci (Sep 25, 2011)

itsme45 said:


> So you are basically stating that Thinkers don't wish for meaningful relationships (even if they may really suck at them), and they never find anything interesting and cool. My general point here is of course that I think these are very basic and generic judgments, not requiring strong Fi at all.


Its not a matter of taking the negation of what I said. A thinking function will not make a value judgment so it cannot ask the question to whether an object is say "cool" or "meaningful" without establishing what exactly cool and meaningful are. 



> You also claim that that usefulness of something cannot be an impersonal Thinking justification for having habits. I would like to hear your detailed reasoning on this one because to me it doesn't make sense right now.


Usefulness without a context is a value judgment. e.g. Thinking must establish the conditions of the context that usefulness is met. But when usefulness is used in a generic sense, no context can be established by definition and so it becomes a value judgment.



> Btw in the example about creating things, a better word instead of "cool" would have been "impressive". And the "usefulness" word in the same example means the creation can be used by people for their issues, strictly from a problem solving viewpoint. As far as I know, that is not Fi either.


Impressive is also a value judgment when used in a generic sense (same argument as before).



> Also, here's why I'm doubting ESFP in general:
> 
> - Yes I wish for some close relationships but I'm not sure about how to connect to people on a really personal level, I did mention this in the questionnaire too. So this is more of a wish rather than an actual thing. I do value basic human and social needs, like any normal person would, e.g. love, friendship. Basic human needs are not type related.
> 
> ...


I'll speak from only a function standpoint. Both introverted thinking and feeling are rational functions in the sense that they seek self-consistency that deviates from the external norm. Also, everyone has a thinking and feeling function but its a matter of preference/usage and the attitude-type or direction that it is pointed at. i.e. you should be able to use both auxilary Fi, tertiary Te. 

If you want more analysis, "tolerant" as in "I'm tolerant towards them [people]" is a Fi value judgment as by definition of 'tolerant', it is a *willingness* to allow the existence of the object that contradicts your values. There's no analog in thinking for such a statement.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

nonnaci said:


> Its not a matter of taking the negation of what I said. A thinking function will not make a value judgment so it cannot ask the question to whether an object is say "cool" or "meaningful" without establishing what exactly cool and meaningful are.


Let's start at the basics... What is a value judgment? I'm not sure of what you mean *exactly*. Does it mean that something is personally important to the person? Does it mean something else? I'm unsure, please let me know.

Now to answer you - if, in my replies to the questionnaire, I was to launch into defining what I meant exactly, it would have been a lot longer and I didn't want to overload people's attention span. 

You should not have assumed that I didn't establish to myself as to what they mean.

To me, a "meaningful" relationship is one that works out with the partners being compatible with each other, with smooth and open communication without mind games, and commitment is also there so that one partner doesn't just randomly disappear and never come back without explaining anything...

"Cool" for the picture description was a quick something without bothering to go into detail. A somewhat indifferent shrug, really.

"Impressive" in my usage means many people will look at it.




> Usefulness without a context is a value judgment. e.g. Thinking must establish the conditions of the context that usefulness is met. But when usefulness is used in a generic sense, no context can be established by definition and so it becomes a value judgment.


It doesn't become a value judgment, it's just your subjective impression of a quick sentence.

The contect was established - there are habits that don't save on time and energy and there are habits that do. The ones that do, are to be kept (meaning they are prioritized to be kept, meaning "important"), and are described with the word "useful".




> I'll speak from only a function standpoint. Both introverted thinking and feeling are rational functions in the sense that they seek self-consistency that deviates from the external norm. Also, everyone has a thinking and feeling function but its a matter of preference/usage and the attitude-type or direction that it is pointed at. i.e. you should be able to use both auxilary Fi, tertiary Te.


But can an ESFP have F function so weak that T function is overruling it? As seen in my description. Do you see what I mean by that?

As for deviating from external norm, that is true for me in terms of checking information first if it makes sense to me, thus skeptical of everything first. I have to evaluate it myself before accepting or rejecting it. Such information getting checked is other people's statements, their arguments, their reasoning about things and the world in general, concepts, methods, beliefs.

The way I evaluate is analysing whether the statement is really that way... such as, if someone says one thing causes another thing, I will want to see how good the correlation is between said two things, and whether there is really a causal relationship, or a third factor is causing the two things. Also, if someone states something and then states another thing, I will want to see if they fit together in my mind without error. Then it can also be checking if my experiences or facts I've known previously indicate said thing, are not in contradiction with it, and so on.

This kind of analysis fails if I try to look at people as people with personalities, because I no longer try to check such causal relationships and consistency of facts. I just assume people can't be explained that way... thus I don't try to explain them at all at a personal level and I just react impersonally instead.

An example of that would be if someone comes to me talking about how bad they feel about something... the idea of feeling "bad" about something by judging it to be "bad" is foreign to me, so I will instead focus on solving the problem that caused them to feel bad. So I'm not the kind of person you can come to for explicit sympathy about the bad feelings. I can of course feel sorry that they are in a negative emotional state, though this usually doesn't happen because I'm focused on problem solving and that excludes feeling sorry at the same time. (But of course, the fact that I'm trying to help by solving their problem indicates I do care about them, after all.  )

Is that really Fi > Ti (or Fi > Te) then?




> If you want more analysis, "tolerant" as in "I'm tolerant towards them [people]" is a Fi value judgment as by definition of 'tolerant', it is a *willingness* to allow the existence of the object that contradicts your values. There's no analog in thinking for such a statement.


It's easy to be tolerant because I do not think I need to force everyone to think the same way I do. Why should I? Views are subjective, and it's their own problem what they do or believe. As I said, live and let live. Now of course if I see someone *spreading* incorrect facts, I will often step in and tell them they are wrong. They usually hate my style (they accuse me of nitpicking too), and get really stupidly personal in their response while I tend to stay detached and analysing - focused on correcting the incorrect information. So in those cases I'm not tolerant at all and don't behave tolerant at all, instead I become pretty aggressive in sticking to my argument and making sure they hear my argument.

Note I highlighted "spreading" because see, as long as one just believes their own views it doesn't matter to me whether they are right or wrong, it's their own problem, not mine, so I'm tolerant and let them live. But if they try to make others believe the same incorrect thing, then I don't agree with that.

Is that Ti? Te? Or still Fi?


----------



## nonnaci (Sep 25, 2011)

@*itsme45 *

I'll have to keep this short so a Value_judgment is a judgment that is made in a normative sense, i.e. "ought" or "should" qualifies the judgment as having to take some latent or implied value system into account. 

So for example,


> *compatible *with each other


is a value judgment because it imparts within it some presumed system that which "compatibility" is defined or expounded upon. Furthermore, the addendum



> with smooth and open communication without mind games, and commitment is also there so that one partner doesn't just randomly disappear and never come back without explaining anything...


does not specify/add to the value system presumed under compatibility but rather are instances of what one may achieve with compatibility. It is also debatable as to whether a "compatible relationship" has a normative definition (some Fe dom user can chime in)? i.e. when someone calls two people compatible, does there exist some general understanding / external value system of this to begin with?


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

nonnaci said:


> I'll have to keep this short so a Value_judgment is a judgment that is made in a normative sense, i.e. "ought" or "should" qualifies the judgment as having to take some latent or implied value system into account.


I don't tend to consciously think of any "ought" or "should", and it doesn't even make a lot of sense unless it is about an action that needs to be done to solve a current issue. If I have such a value system it's probably unconscious, unverbalized, at a basic instinctual level, but I will have to think more about this.

Oh, ok, now I checked your link, and the first sentence started this way _"A value judgment is a judgment of the rightness or wrongness of something"_. What does "rightness" or "wrongness" even mean to other people? There is no right or wrong or good or evil, in my opinion. 

Well, ok, I did think about this matter a while ago and I ended up at these definitions: "right" means something that the human brain is evolved to enjoy, and "wrong" is when the brain has issued signals of suffering, pain, etc. I can talk about this more in terms of an evolutionary theory framework if you want.  

From another perspective, you can also define it in terms of laws, because obviously you don't want to let people do things freely that infringe on another person's space, property, life and so on. Beyond that, all these judgments are very subjective, so I'd be careful to put too much stock into it. All in all, these words are pretty much meaningless to me as idealized concepts of "right" and "wrong". I do have trouble with the idea of an abstracted away value system.

What I do instead of relying on ideals like that... I use a very situational evaluation, and my actions only depend on that. This is what I implied when in my first post I said values would often just limit my actions, as they may not fit the specific situation, too idealized and too biased/judgmental for it.

(I'm not claiming I don't have any biases when perceiving things and reasoning about things, I'm sure I do.)




> So for example,
> 
> "*compatible* with each other"
> 
> is a value judgment because it imparts within it some presumed system that which "compatibility" is defined or expounded upon.


The "compatibility" meant getting along with each other, understanding each other's way of thinking, attitude and behaviour, not too many necessary conflicts and so on. Sorry I can't define it better than that. 

If talking about relationships, you cannot avoid such judgements about the compatibility of the partners, regardless of being a Thinker or a Feeler. That's just the nature of the thing. I don't feel very familiar in this area though... I feel a bit awkward trying to put my thoughts together about what I think about relationships in this way. Usually I don't think about this sort of stuff. As I said, that question about values was the hardest one for me to answer.

Another thing... your lover is obviously valued by you regardless of type, that is, a Thinker has a Feeling side too in certain matters. The question is, how strong is my Feeling side? This is the matter that I would like to delve into more. 

I mean, I always suspected my F side is weak, though the ESFP evaluation here contradicts that, so, I need to see exactly why I got the ESFP result here, before I can decide on this matter. I'm truly not nitpicking, simply wishing to understand this. 




> Furthermore, the addendum
> 
> "with smooth and open communication without mind games, and commitment is also there so that one partner doesn't just randomly disappear and never come back without explaining anything..."
> 
> does not specify/add to the value system presumed under compatibility but rather are instances of what one may achieve with compatibility. It is also debatable as to whether a "compatible relationship" has a normative definition (some Fe dom user can chime in)? i.e. when someone calls two people compatible, does there exist some general understanding / external value system of this to begin with?


Hum, I don't like the idea of following some normative thing, I prefer deciding my actions based on the situation, and if it happens to involve other people, I decide based on their current/actual needs if applicable. This is also why I only listed instances. See, I'm not good at defining these value thingies.


You did not reply to my question, as to whether the stuff I listed are things that can fit into the ESFP profile. Do you just not think those parts are indicative of either strong F or weak F? -.-


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

*bump*

Questions are still valid.

I appreciate any help, thanks!


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

From the little I've skimmed, I'd think that you have already decided on some level what you are, you're just hoping that other people will come to the same conclusion.

Just go with whatever you think is closest. Mingle on the sub-forums and see where you fit. If you think you're a thinker, feel free to place the label on yourself until you deem it necessary to remove it.

It's not an exact science anyway.

If you have it narrowed down to a few types, share your information with the class.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Word Dispenser said:


> From the little I've skimmed, I'd think that you have already decided on some level what you are, you're just hoping that other people will come to the same conclusion.
> 
> Just go with whatever you think is closest. Mingle on the sub-forums and see where you fit. If you think you're a thinker, feel free to place the label on yourself until you deem it necessary to remove it.
> 
> ...



Nah, it's not as simple as you think. 


Firstly, I'm not sure I fit into any of the type stereotypes, so that way of coming to a decision is out.


Secondly... I did think I knew my type... I did always think of myself as a Thinker, but then I started thinking about how I may have come to that conclusion too fast. At times I can have feelings about things, even if it is not always that often... I can also be pretty sensitive. And I know that logic is not suitable for certain situations, like, the emotional aspects of relationships.

Just the same with N vs S, I always thought I was N, because I can deal with abstract stuff and I even like it (and I was tested as ENTP). Then one day I started thinking maybe I was actually S because of a few things I noticed. Plus, I realised I did not really understand the definition of Ne either. So... I ended up dropping the idea of being necessarily an N and I'm open to being a Sensor type just fine, no problem. I do lean towards S now, even though I can still be convinced I'm N.


But mostly, I need to know more about this Fi deal. Is it really strong Fi that I have? If yes, why? If not, why not? I just need strong arguments and evidence to decide.

And if anyone thinks I'm N > S, then I again need to hear why. I'm fine with the Sensor evaluation here, don't get me wrong. 


OK, the one thing I am completely sure about is that I am a P type.

I also like to think of myself as an Extravert, and I enjoy extraversion, but I can and will also introvert a lot, and I do have people issues too, so who knows. I still lean towards E because introversion can drain me after a while. I keep snapping out of I mode into E mode. I can maintain heavy introversion for pretty long though, it's just a bit hard after a while. Still, I can still go on with it no problem. As long as I want/need to.

So overall, ExxP or perhaps IxxP is what I've narrowed it down to. Perhaps ESxP or ISxP. See, I dunno at this point.


Thanks for reading btw.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

itsme45 said:


> Nah, it's not as simple as you think.
> 
> 
> Firstly, I'm not sure I fit into any of the type stereotypes, so that way of coming to a decision is out.
> ...


No problem. 

My understanding of typing is rudimentary at best, but for some reason you strike me as a possible introvert.

I think introverts may have more of a tendency to internalize both thoughts and feelings, rather than to gain this information from their environments and people.

I think that you were typed a bit too quickly as an ESFP. I've only known one suspected ESFP, and there was little deliberation to her actions, which I get a sense of from you. I wouldn't be quick to dismiss F, but the S is questionable, as is the E, to me.

How do you view life? Are you an optimistic with a lot of energy? A realist? A pessimist?

Do you like to do your work hands on, are organized and concrete, or more 'in your head', and not quite present with your environment? Do you think about the future rather than the present, enjoying going over possibilities?

How do you look at life? Are you someone who searches for meaning, or signs? Do you believe in some kind of afterlife, ghosts, psychics, etc?

Most importantly: When someone comes to you for advice, telling you that they've been dumped, and they've lost all hope in life, how do you respond to this?


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Of course I must complicate this further. Obviously my previous post points toward Se > Ti, but let me present the other side too...

The Ni as described in Personality Junkie | ISTP Type Profile seems like me: _"if ISTPs succeed in moving from the top of their functional stack downward, they are capable of obtaining some of their own theoretical insights. Namely, through consistent use of their Ti and Se, ISTPs can eventually tap into authentic Ni insights. Like other SP types, they gain insight through action and experience (Se). Only then can they get to a place of authentic Ni conviction that “this is true"_. 

I like to call those insights "eureka" moments.

Then there are other statements such as _"ESTPs are not wired to effectively assemble or critique theories"_. If that's to be taken literally (I suspect not), then the debate is forever decided in favour of ISTP as my type. 

Yes of course I realize these differences are not necessarily as clear-cut in real life. :/ I'll just need to find the most substantial difference between an "outgoing ISTP" and a "reserved ESTP".


----------



## Impact Calculus (Mar 29, 2012)

You seem to be pretty well divided _in preference_ of your dominant/tert and auxiliary/inf processes, but was that so when you were in your earlier years? Our processes tend to be more stereotypical during our teenage years, primarily because our ego hasn't yet become bored (in the slightest) of our leading process. 

This is why introverts tend to become more extraverted as they get older and extraverts tend to become more introverted as they get older. However, what I said prior tends to apply in many different ways.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Impact Calculus said:


> You seem to be pretty well divided _in preference_ of your dominant/tert and auxiliary/inf processes, but was that so when you were in your earlier years? Our processes tend to be more stereotypical during our teenage years, primarily because our ego hasn't yet become bored (in the slightest) of our leading process.
> 
> This is why introverts tend to become more extraverted as they get older and extraverts tend to become more introverted as they get older. However, what I said prior tends to apply in many different ways.



Well the idea about looking at childhood is very good, and not new to me - I tested N in simple MBTI tests but when I thought of how I was as a kid, I could see I was doing pretty much S stuff then, not much N at all. If I'm not to trust my own detailed autobiographical memories, well I have an old diary too, I looked at that too.  So that's when I realized that tests suck. I also kind of equated N things with Ti stuff and that's what got reflected in tests maybe... -.-


So anyway about Se and Ti, as a kid: I was often pretty reserved in behaviour as a small kid too, but most of my memories are me "looking outside" and not introverting. That may be Se leading? I tried to make sense of the world a lot though... but then a lot of the time I wasn't explicitly analysing. Anyway I enjoyed it too, e.g. discovering math concepts. 


As for Fe and Ni: 

I had a basically non-existent Fe until I was 13. I think so because I had no idea of what a community was supposed to mean and I didn't even care much. I was not accepted into the communities in school but I didn't care about that either, I didn't even understand there was something wrong. I always had one friend (this was not the same person over all the years), and that was enough for me. I did like spending time with whoever was my friend at a time. After the age 13, I did get to understand the group stuff, I did start to care a lot too, and still do but I have a lot of negative experiences so this is a controversial topic.

As for Ni, I really dunno what developing Ni would manifest as. I only have this one guess... I was born into a religious family but I could never believe in that stuff. I tried hard but I was anything but spiritual. I'm very much a skeptic about such things in general and this was true of me as a small kid too. I was just living in the world and that was OK. But then I was 18, I discovered there was something that was not institutional religion and that was kind of spiritual. I'm still not a real believer in anything, but at that age I finally got the idea. Then after that I gained a much more abstract understanding of some stuff about the world and I'm not sure if it was just Ti or Ni too... I think both. 


I think I got more introverted with all that. But as I said, Fe was developing too so that made me look more extraverted or at least more social (I know the two are not the same).


 What do you mean by getting bored of the leading process? If it is Se for me... Well after all that above or along with it, I got bored of the too simple aspects of the world. That's why I don't spend that much time focusing on most physical environments unless it is stimulating enough or I want to do something with it, etc. Or maybe also when I'm really really bored and can't think of anything else. But otherwise I'm just busy with whatever without caring beyond what I need for my activities in the environment. I don't have an experience of getting bored with Ti, however. It's always very interesting to analyse stuff. 


Is any of this stuff definitive for function preference?


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Let me sum this all up - I definitely have two "modes", in one almost all my actions need to have a rational point or I'm not doing it. (Well sometimes I feel very good without trying to justify the stuff, for a change.) In the other "mode", I don't need a point and that's usually when I'm socializing or when just getting around enjoying myself.

So that would be why I can't identify with the usual ISTP stuff, because they don't really seem to have/like the socializing part like I do, but also not with the ESTP stuff because they don't seem to need to justify their actions a lot... based on the descriptions anyway.


----------



## Impact Calculus (Mar 29, 2012)

itsme45 said:


> Well the idea about looking at childhood is very good, and not new to me - I tested N in simple MBTI tests but when I thought of how I was as a kid, I could see I was doing pretty much S stuff then, not much N at all. If I'm not to trust my own detailed autobiographical memories, well I have an old diary too, I looked at that too.  So that's when I realized that tests suck. I also kind of equated N things with Ti stuff and that's what got reflected in tests maybe... -.-
> 
> 
> So anyway about Se and Ti, as a kid: I was often pretty reserved in behaviour as a small kid too, but most of my memories are me "looking outside" and not introverting. That may be Se leading? I tried to make sense of the world a lot though... but then a lot of the time I wasn't explicitly analysing. Anyway I enjoyed it too, e.g. discovering math concepts.
> ...


-bored as in a transitional preference shift.

Ni deals in seeing future trends and possibilities based on prior experience. (not so directly related with the environment)

The core of Fe actually deals in wanting to stay harmonious with ones environment. Fe types will generally be more interested in adhering to what should be done based on the environment. It isn't exactly empathy, but a person with lead Fe will likely engage very strictly to social standards and unwritten rules, but mainly with a goal of staying harmonious with his/her environment. It's more of an internal message of: "Oh my god! People around me will be quick to judge me if I do X!!"

Though this probably won't provide the determining factor you're looking for.

I recently correctly typed an ISTP here. He hasn't *completely* confirmed it yet, but it seems blatantly obvious to me; and the layout of how the functions worked in his type made sense to him. 

I wouldn't so much compare/contrast the fundamentals of his personality as I would of his thought process and how the functions play out in his type.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Impact Calculus said:


> -bored as in a transitional preference shift.


Then that would clearly be the stuff I was doing after I turned 18.




> Ni deals in seeing future trends and possibilities based on prior experience. (not so directly related with the environment)


Yeah I know, I only mentioned the spirituality part because many people seem to correlate mystical stuff with Ni for some reason. Even that beebe article that was linked here associated it with Ni. Eh, a lot of random stuff in general is associated with Ni by various people, for some reason.




> The core of Fe actually deals in wanting to stay harmonious with ones environment. Fe types will generally be more interested in adhering to what should be done based on the environment. It isn't exactly empathy, but a person with lead Fe will likely engage very strictly to social standards and unwritten rules, but mainly with a goal of staying harmonious with his/her environment. It's more of an internal message of: "Oh my god! People around me will be quick to judge me if I do X!!"


Yes I know that, that's what I mean by developing Fe. Prior to realizing there was such a thing as group harmony and caring about it, I looked quite the loner except for that one friend or two and I just must have pissed everyone else off somehow, I was completely clueless about it as a kid, so I never figured out how or why. But I was clueless enough to not be touched by it too deeply except for 1-2 moments here or there. 

Now I do care a lot about the Fe as defined by you if it is a group that I feel responsible for. And that's all cool! However, if I don't perceive myself as being part of the group then I'm all "fuck it" and I can even act against the harmony. Out of frustration maybe... because I do prefer to perceive myself as part of it and when for some reason I don't, I don't know what to do. Or sometimes I'm just not in the mood to care about these Fe "rules", independently of whether I'm frustrated or not.




> I recently correctly typed an ISTP here. He hasn't *completely* confirmed it yet, but it seems blatantly obvious to me; and the layout of how the functions worked in his type made sense to him.
> 
> I wouldn't so much compare/contrast the fundamentals of his personality as I would of his thought process and how the functions play out in his type.


Ah yeah I'm trying to do it in the ISTP forum too.  Thanks, I'll check this out now.


----------



## Impact Calculus (Mar 29, 2012)

itsme45 said:


> Yes I know that, that's what I mean by developing Fe. Prior to realizing there was such a thing as group harmony and caring about it, I looked quite the loner except for that one friend or two and I just must have @#!*% everyone else off somehow, I was completely clueless about it as a kid, so I never figured out how or why. But I was clueless enough to not be touched by it too deeply except for 1-2 moments here or there.
> 
> Now I do care a lot about the Fe as defined by you if it is a group that I feel responsible for. And that's all cool! However, if I don't perceive myself as being part of the group then I'm all " @#!*% it" and I can even act against the harmony. Out of frustration maybe... because I do prefer to perceive myself as part of it and when for some reason I don't, I don't know what to do. Or sometimes I'm just not in the mood to care about these Fe "rules", independently of whether I'm frustrated or not.


They sort of add to and change their subjective list of rules based on what the environment has given them over the years. An Fe user will likely backlash with ease if this subjective list is broken by the people he/she knows well.

Anyway, good luck. Let me know if you find anything ground breaking.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Impact Calculus said:


> I recently correctly typed an ISTP here. He hasn't *completely* confirmed it yet, but it seems blatantly obvious to me; and the layout of how the functions worked in his type made sense to him.
> 
> I wouldn't so much compare/contrast the fundamentals of his personality as I would of his thought process and how the functions play out in his type.


I read it now, yes I would say IxTP for him too, not that I'm an expert  It's always easier typing others than yourself, you see. 

Well, some of the Ti plays out for him exactly like for me. Example _"Probably being able to concentrate on a theoretical subject that interests me and analyze it throroughly until I'm satisfied"_. Others note this about me too, and I like it myself, but I only became like this after I turned 18.

Then some of it doesn't. Especially this part: _"16) What makes you dislike the personalities of some people? I dislike extreme extroverts that talk too much, which makes me unable to focus my thoughts. Also people that argue just to argue, without a point. And last but not least, people who don't consider what others feel and think".

_Thinking more about that, I would probably have a high capability to irritate him. Ti dominants in general, uh, I get along very well with some of them!, but I've had real issues with some other Ti dominants. Those that had an issue with me criticized me exactly for the things above - for talking too much, arguing too much and not considering others. But it's more the INTP's that hate me for these, the ISTP's usually don't mind me, I can get along very well with some ISTP's.

Overall this guy is not at all like me, except for that theoretical analysis part, though for me it is not JUST theoretical, it's always something I like to put into practice too or I will get disinterested fast.


----------



## Impact Calculus (Mar 29, 2012)

itsme45 said:


> I read it now, yes I would say IxTP for him too, not that I'm an expert  It's always easier typing others than yourself, you see.
> 
> Well, some of the Ti plays out for him exactly like for me. Example _"Probably being able to concentrate on a theoretical subject that interests me and analyze it throroughly until I'm satisfied"_. Others note this about me too, and I like it myself, but I only became like this after I turned 18.
> 
> ...


Yeah. How well do you relate to the "dream like state" that he often falls back on? I believe he mentions this in reply to my first post on that thread.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Impact Calculus said:


> They sort of add to and change their subjective list of rules based on what the environment has given them over the years. An Fe user will likely backlash with ease if this subjective list is broken by the people he/she knows well.
> 
> Anyway, good luck. Let me know if you find anything ground breaking.



Yes I see what you mean about Fe. When I try to maintain group harmony, I avoid backlashing like that, though... I prefer the "word of reason" (Ti) when there is an issue 


I don't think anything is ground breaking here, but I still think ESTP over ISTP. 

It would have to be either 1) an ESTP with Se "overridden" by Ti in certain cases if this is possible; or 2) an ISTP with extra attention and enjoyment on the "Se-Fe loop" (overriding Ti just fine  ).

I can't escape these extra assumptions for either case, unfortunately. But the Se-Fe over Ti-Ni does often feel very nice, so I'll go with ESTP unless there is real big evidence for ISTP...


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Impact Calculus said:


> Yeah. How well do you relate to the "dream like state" that he often falls back on? I believe he mentions this in reply to my first post on that thread.


This? _"Hmm yeah, thats what got me wondering, because I do like to live in a kind of a dream world and explore esoteric things, like philosophy, quantum physics etc. so that would indicate intuition; but what you say about being drawn to tertiary function would make a lot of sense then. And I definitely have a lot of Se since I love to observe the world around me too. So you make me almost certain I am ISTP now thanks. And yeah I do remember things through perceived patterns and direct experience. For example I can predict what is going to happen just because I had a similar experience in past. Thanks once more "

_
No, no dream world for me. No mystical esoteric things. I don't have or like dream-like states. I dream when I'm asleep, and that's it. OK, sometimes for a minute I will be in that spiritual mood, but it is not explicit dreaming either, it's just a certain mood. I have a couple things that I'd like to do later that can be called dreams but I don't daydream about those either. They are goals I want to get to in future.

(All that for him along with the ability to easily (?) predict things sounds like INTP > ISTP, just like the guys who had issues with me - but I could be wrong. )

Quantum physics doesn't fall under the esoteric category for me, btw. It's very interesting from the viewpoint of physics. Part of philosophy is mental masturbation to me because they argue over words without trying to anchor their definitions properly, but other parts are good, such as philosophy of scientific thinking.

So anyway, if this stuff quoted happens to be characteristic for ISTP's (and not just INTP's), another minus for ISTP. Was this why you were asking about this?


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

I went back to jung's descriptions to get to the root of things.  Btw, why I doubt myself so much is... I always had the instinctual feeling that I'm extraverted (especially in situations that someone here pointed out that it's a stressful holding back of Se-Fe loop), but the consciousness of my Ti function makes me wary of evaluating myself as an extravert just based on that instinct. I mean, I definitely like to have a rational argument supporting important conclusions. 

Anyway... The way he describes extraverted sensing and introverted thinking, I can find myself in both as long as neither approach is absolutized too much. So far this doesn't help. 

But I don't like the way the introverted thinking type (as described) upholds his ideas as absolute truth. When I put an idea out there I don't expect others to accept it just because I think it may be true. I do like talking about my Ti views but I'm not too worried if someone doesn't agree. I can be actually too open to hearing the other person about more evidence against it. 

Now that openness of course doesn't apply much if I already know a lot about something, I already have a lot of experience and it's an objective enough area. I'll be pretty confident in my understanding and knowledge then. If it is not an objective one... I have more trouble with that, I'll be very relative and "too open" because I'll never be truly convinced. (Please let's not start arguing the idea that objectiveness can't exist in this world for people. Pfft. That would be just a definition issue, so not worth arguing about it.)

If I really have to go for an "absolute truth", that is what things I absolutely rely on, the following quote would characterize me: 

"He will, without hesitation, relate an obvious psychogenic symptom to the falling barometer, while the existence of a psychic conflict seems to him a fantastic abnormality." 

I'm definitely wary of such ideas by default, I want to examine everything from the standpoint of objective evidence. Can it be perceived directly or not, where directly means everyone can see it in some way? Things can seem a "fantastic abnormality" when I can't reach ideas this way, so I will reject them. And yes it also does have a very negative quality to it, when I'm rejecting something like that, just like Jung's text claims as to how the repressed inferior introverted function would have that quality. That would point towards preferred extraversion for me.

Though of course, if later it turns out there is a way to access such an idea, then I may actually accept it, but I'm usually not wrong about my evaluation as to whether it can be or not.

OK, I don't like the idea of totally losing myself in simple experiences or sensations, or whatever. I really really don't. Maybe I was a bit more like that as a kid, but not really much now. But according to the text, this attitude of mine doesn't exclude extraversion as the main attitude, as that is claimed to be just a lower level manifestation of extraverted sensing. Maybe I can call myself healthy, heh. 

So unless I misinterpreted something here (see, this is a manifestation of my unsureness of theories in less objective areas), I'll categorize myself within the extraversion preference and thus ESTP. But let me know, if I did misinterprete some things.

Btw, I don't think I'll manage to identify with these ESTP stereotypes, but that's ok. I can't identify better with ISTP ones anyway. They are just stereotypes anyway. -.-

A lot of thanks to everyone!


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

One last thing I wanted to mention. I wandered to the extraverted intuition description, and I do see myself a bit in some of the things there: 

_"He seizes hold of new objects and new ways with eager intensity, sometimes with extraordinary enthusiasm, only to abandon them cold-bloodedly, without regard and apparently without remembrance, as soon as their range becomes clearly defined and a promise of any considerable future development no longer clings to them."_

Yeah, if I evaluate something as having no chance for future improvement, I'll drop it... However I have a tendency to evaluate any possibilities very quickly and thus become quickly disinterested if I don't see a clear way to actually achieving any improvement. My evaluation depends on how realistic the possibility seems and I'm pretty picky with regards to that. I really hate any idea of being irrealistic, I prefer to be rooted in reality... speculation is only good in terms of evaluating whether something can be done or not.

_"As long as a possibility exists, the intuitive is bound to it with thongs of fate. It is as though his whole life went out into the new situation. One gets the impression, which he himself shares, that he has just reached the definitive turning point in his life, and that from now on nothing else can seriously engage his thought and feeling."

_Well, the intensity I can see myself in.  I do also sometimes feel like it's such a niiice turning point at that moment. Woo, woo.

Now maybe it's my E8-ness that plays into things here. I mean, the intensity thing is supposedly related to my E8 enneagram type. Let me also mention that there is a pretty well recognized enneagram site that links E7 to Se dominance and E8 to Ne dominance. I could never make sense of that, but I found it interesting. Really on most forums they link Ne to E7 and Se to E8... I find this contradiction funny. Why's that, does anyone know?

Ah, well, I find it funny too that I can so strongly identify with the idea of attaching to a possibility that IMO has a real potential to be put into reality. When I see that, I will stay on track doggedly. Sometimes I even can't consciously evaluate why I see a potential, I just know I must go in that direction, but this doesn't happen often. Usually I only trust ideas only if I can reason how it is in reality and with logic. 

Also, for me this possibility searching is very limited, that is, when I look at something in my environment I usually am just "stuck" in the "here and now" and I very much enjoy being in the moment. Even if someone asks me to, I cannot force my mind out of that state with regard to most things around me. I mean, I can't start thinking of stupid possibilities about stupid everyday things. Seriously, who cares? 

I like possibilities about "bigger things" only. I can't however conjure up too many "possibility ideas" about the bigger things either. Ideas only come to me after reflection, analysis, whatever, but then they do have an "eureka" feeling to them. 

Possibility itself in practice though, is not an idea, it's the ability to see if something has potential and go after achieving it. That one, I'm pretty good at. A big part of myself.

Btw, I can also argue this "who cares" attitude regarding the physical aspects of the everyday things. I just don't care in many cases. I definitely cared more as a kid about simple sensations for themselves. Oh well I suppose, to pass the time it's still ok at times. If I'm really bored. 

Eh, I guess my stimulation threshold is pretty high regarding either physical sensations or possibilities. -.- 

Of course I'm not thinking I'm Ne dominant - considering my love for the present and my unability and disinterest to conjure up random possibilities at will..  So, yeah, ESTP, ok.


----------



## Impact Calculus (Mar 29, 2012)

itsme45 said:


> One last thing I wanted to mention. I wandered to the extraverted intuition description, and I do see myself a bit in some of the things there:
> 
> _"He seizes hold of new objects and new ways with eager intensity, sometimes with extraordinary enthusiasm, only to abandon them cold-bloodedly, without regard and apparently without remembrance, as soon as their range becomes clearly defined and a promise of any considerable future development no longer clings to them."_
> 
> ...


You do seem more like an ESTP, and I'm sure it will be easier to understand how the functions manifest into your type as you learn more about this. 

Oh, and there are tons of threads out there that compare the functions through metaphors, direct explanation, or otherwise.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Impact Calculus said:


> You do seem more like an ESTP, and I'm sure it will be easier to understand how the functions manifest into your type as you learn more about this.
> 
> Oh, and there are tons of threads out there that compare the functions through metaphors, direct explanation, or otherwise.



It's ok, I'm content with my conclusions.  Just wondered aloud about a few things above. Thanks again!


----------



## Impact Calculus (Mar 29, 2012)

itsme45 said:


> It's ok, I'm content with my conclusions.  Just wondered aloud about a few things above. Thanks again!


Yw. :wink:


----------



## drowninthefear (Apr 26, 2011)

Not really contributing, just saying; I'm kind of baffled that you were/are even considered as an SFP after your answer to number 6. 



> I'm even not sure about taking this sort of stuff seriously. Sounds like it would determine your actions too much. If a value has some point to it, cool, if not, then it's just limiting.


Yes, because this completely sounds like someone ruled by their values... Just what?


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

drowninthefear said:


> Not really contributing, just saying; I'm kind of baffled that you were/are even considered as an SFP after your answer to number 6.
> 
> Yes, because this completely sounds like someone ruled by they're values... Just what?



 See, I was baffled by it too.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

One last question to people.

I reflected on how little I'm interested in sensory details in everyday life. Then I saw this jungian quote:

_But since intuition, in the extraverted attitude, has a prevailingly objective orientation, it actually comes very near to sensation; indeed, the expectant attitude towards outer objects may, with almost equal probability, avail itself of sensation. Hence, for intuition really to become paramount, sensation must to a large extent be suppressed. I am now speaking of sensation as the simple and direct sense-reaction, an almost definite physiological and psychic datum. This must be expressly established beforehand, because, if I ask the intuitive how he is [p. 463] orientated, he will speak of things which are quite indistinguishable from sense-perceptions. Frequently he will even make use of the term 'sensation'. He actually has sensations, but he is not guided by them per se, merely using them as directing-points for his distant vision. They are selected by unconscious expectation. Not the strongest sensation, in the physiological sense, obtains the crucial value, but any sensation whatsoever whose value happens to become considerably enhanced by reason of the intuitive's unconscious attitude. In this way it may eventually attain the leading position, appearing to the intuitive's consciousness indistinguishable from a pure sensation. But actually it is not so. _

So now I am again thinking about Ne. -.- My sensory detail filter often works exactly like described here. 

Could it be just this high stimulation threshold I mentioned? That is, I'm not interested in the simple everyday things, because I suppose I've seen enough of them as a kid. So I don't have a focus on them much. What does take my interest for some reason (do not ask what reason, no idea!) is what I focus on but the sensory details are still something that I don't access very well. 

In my blog, I can describe details relating to my interests but even those aren't very sensory details actually. They are more like details of what happened, what I did. Details contributing to an overview of the situation. This is the same way I think usually. My recall of sensory details isn't great either. (But I could draw things very well, copying reality very precisely, when I was a kid! I probably would still be able to do that.)

So, how realistic is Ne in general? Because I'm usually pretty realistic and grounded in my thinking, but at the same time when I get excited about something new, I do not feel grounded at all for a few seconds, so I've always had this impression of myself that I'm not 100% realist but I need to stay rooted in reality. And that keeping rooted in reality I do pretty well and I feel good about that.

I don't relate to the random brainstorming stuff at all though. I see no point in it and I'm unable to do it much... just don't care! Unless I need it for something. Then I can think of a couple of options until I find a good enough one. Or when building my understanding of something, but again the brainstorming doesn't go very far, does not go unchecked. 

Also, when I'm looking outside, I don't usually try to put the current situation or things into a bigger picture. I'm just present in the here and now and that's great. 

But anything else that is not tangibly around me, I will keep trying to look at it from a distance, a "bigger picture". It's almost like my brain has two modes depending on whether the object is directly in front of me or not.

What do you all think? Can I be Se dominant with little focus on sensory details in life in general?


----------



## Impact Calculus (Mar 29, 2012)

itsme45 said:


> One last question to people.
> 
> I reflected on how little I'm interested in sensory details in everyday life. Then I saw this jungian quote:
> 
> ...


Mmm.. It's a bit different than that.

Here; try this:

Articles - Extraverted Sensing


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Impact Calculus said:


> Mmm.. It's a bit different than that.
> 
> Here; try this:
> 
> Articles - Extraverted Sensing


Ugh. The first part of the description is so not me and never been. That stuff sounds so terribly limiting, I can't tell you how limiting. In the second part I definitely can see myself in a few things, but... well some more details below.

As I said, I couldn't care less about most of these sensations it details in the first section of the article. As a kid, maybe when I was 1-2 years old based on what my mother tells me. After I learnt language, I became a lot more reserved, inclined to filtering sensations. I dived into books a lot because I was taught to read very early (age 4). I was also taught basics of mathematics around the same age, so I remember having theoretical thoughts about how math stuff worked (yeah, I was still only 5-6 years old). 

Then, I don't care about tradition, bleh. I guess I didn't have anything against tradition until I turned 18, but I never really understood before that either and sometimes I wondered if it was really all there was to life?! Basically I felt clueless about that question while hoping that there was more. Then after age 18, I was no longer as clueless, that was a good change.

The only part where I see myself is this intense uninhibited exploration of the object that grabbed my interest. But the object is often not directly sensed. It is more like... I'm close to the object but not directly there. A good example of that would be my special interest in anything where software and hardware interface. I will with great interest look at the hardware through the software. This doesn't have to be even computer stuff, this is an analogy here. Software means the intangible and the hardware is the tangible vehicle for the intangible. That vehicle, that is, the actual object, is what takes my interest but I approach it this complicated way... Beyond arts (drawing, writing, and er... music), this is the other way I can create impressions on other people. I like doing this sort of stuff. I dunno maybe that's just strong Ti? -.-

As for the other sections... it is true I don't like to overvalue myself, but I still expect a lot of myself (trying to keep this realistic at all times though) and I want to find some possibilities to make the most out of myself, more and better achievements. I want to be anything but ordinary! I would not feel satisfied with life if I was to be stuck in just this simple way of living. However where I feel limited about these possibilities is perceiving them unless one is already staring into my face, so with regard to that it's Se > Ne. Well, sometimes I can pick out other possibilities but I'm a bit wary of the ones that are not as direct, less ready to act on them. Then sometimes I've acted on those too if my interest was strong enough. I can't say it necessarily turns out the way I'd imagine it though. So I'm still wary without a proper realistic evaluation.

The part about thinking, I can approach topics in empirical and in abstract form too, but the empirical approach is what can be used for any real purpose, thus taken seriously. The abstract form without real application is more something that I just enjoy... it can have an enchanting quality to it. But as for avoiding complexity in the empirical (or the abstract), that is NOT true. I always want to discover or create something new and I feel at my best when I've managed that. This is also why I'm thinking about trying myself out as a researcher in certain sciences. This quote from the article actually describes my attitude to science well: _"They are most impressed by facts, and their originality finds expression in a truer and less prejudiced view of these than others take, with the result that they may also discover fresh facts."_ That is, I like the idea of improving on models of reality. A paradigm change is always the most interesting, because it can result in possibly better models. Thus I have the capability to drive certain Ti dominant types mad by creating "chaos" in their theories with the intent of finding a better viewpoint.

Oh and the part about their way of experiencing feelings is really just stupid. It's with regard to feelings where I can feel pretty idealist at times. I definitely need more than just a husband at my side to truly experience feelings about my SO. But yeah sure, the practical side, that is, physical presence is needed too, or it's again not enough.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Articles - Effective way to spot an S or N

In those checks, I would test as N, no problem. Haha.


_When you meet someone new, ask them how their week went. When they are done talking, ask them specific details about it. Note whether they are *excited* to share SENSING details such as who was wearing what, colors, sights, sounds, who said what, who did what, etc. Then, when you are done, turn the topic to something abstract. I go to Christian groups so I often mention some truth in the Bible or something about life. A question is best. Note their *excitement* and *willingness *to talk about the subject, as well as any obvious introspection that they must have done on their own time._

OK, so this guy asks me: "How did your week go?". I will reply: "Nothing really happened."

If I'm really forced to talk about how it went, I will be pretty general, not many details. That's just boring everyday stuff.

About life? Life's meaning or what? I sorted that topic out a long time ago (but it was great stuff!), but yeah I don't mind sharing my thoughts about it. Definitely a better question than asking about how my last week went.


_If you have a chance to sit down for an hour or two and have a discussion with the person you are most likely gonna figure out by the end whether they are S or N. I have yet to meet an S that can talk about abstract concepts for that length of time. They can do it for about 30 mins or so, but they WILL get frustrated and bored if it continues on past that. You WILL even likely scare them off  My N friends and I have literally talked for 4-5 hours straight about purely abstract concepts and ideas, and enjoyed every minute of it. And then called each other up later that week for another long talk  Ns want to analyze, analyze, analyze. Watch for that, it's a key sign.

_I don't have a problem with talking for hours like that and wanting to continue later.  Though, I suppose, it depends, if it is something mystical, I'll entirely ignore it. Unless it is just "mystical" feelings, those are interesting (by this I mean, those that are not readily analysed by logic). Also anything else, that is not mystical, is great. My approach may be skeptical to certain things, but it doesn't mean I don't like discussion about the abstract and I readily indulge in it. As long as it relates to reality, or if it does not, I can still take it, depending on if it is enchanting enough to me, I just won't take it seriously, more like enjoyment only. So, I love talking to NT and NF types. 


_On the other hand, S's can talk for hours on end about the latest movies, trends, music, etc. and not get bored. Note: Ns can talk about things they are interested in for hours, but S's will talk about what is HAPPENING, whether it is their particular interest or not. Try talking like this for more than a few mins to an N and they will try profusely to change the subject to something they consider "meaningful", which doesn't have to be something deep with all Ns, just something conceptual or analytical  If that doesn't work they will suddenly remember they had to run an errand and excuse themselves from the conversation.
_
I don't know about the latest movies or trends. Well, as for trends, periodically I'll check out fashion and make sure I'm up to date with my clothing. But otherwise, I talk about things I'm interested in, not what is happening.

When my mother talks to me about these things (about what she was doing that day, etc., all those everyday errands etc.), I politely listen but my attention isn't really there. Though, my attention can still be captured if instead of paying most of attention to what she says, I'm focusing on the way she is, she is so excited talking and that's nice to watch. Etc.

You know what, I remembered how it was listening to my father. He'd talk a lot about his theories or about science or politics or anything. He was some INTx type. Anyway, in some cases I loved hearing about what he said. In other cases it was really boring and I just politely listened for a while. I think the deciding factor was whether I thought the theory was BS or not. What I did resent a bit was that if I tried to argue in some cases where I disagreed, he kind of ignored what I said. It was like a mind dump for him without trying to check the validity of the theory.


Whatever... if I'm just a unique abstract S, that's cool, hah.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

if all that was TDLR, then:

I'm either Se dominant or not (Ne vs Se question here), but I pass that N/S test linked above as being N, in practice. I find the plain simple S things really limiting, unless they are related to my interests, because then I will analyse everything. But even then, I have little conscious focus on most sensory details. They are usually more unconscious to me.

(Yet I'm told by others I'm realistic and sometimes people criticize me as being too literal.)

Do these things exclude Se over Ne or not? Especially in the context of a completely dominant function. That is, can Se dominance manifest this way?


----------



## Impact Calculus (Mar 29, 2012)

We can essentially think about anything we want to. Perception is more of an inherent factor that isn't too close to conscousness. However, it is the channel of which we gain raw data to fuel our thoughts. This can be through either objective or subjective means. And furthermore, either from sensing or intuition.

Also, MBTI, itself, isn't perfect. There are few factors that can actually _determine_ somebody's personality, and little breathing room for the fundamental, spontaneous dynamic that we're all constantly experiencing. 

S's can still think about N things and enjoy thinking about them. However, their main form of perception will still be through either subjective or objective raw sensory data. They can do with this data as they please.

It isn't so much about how you try to focus as it is how you're going to be focusing no matter what. 

Oh, and I'm really not much of a fan of that article because of the things listed here.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Impact Calculus said:


> We can essentially think about anything we want to. Perception is more of an inherent factor that isn't too close to conscousness. However, it is the channel of which we gain raw data to fuel our thoughts. This can be through either objective or subjective means. And furthermore, either from sensing or intuition.
> 
> Also, MBTI, itself, isn't perfect. There are few factors that can actually _determine_ somebody's personality, and little breathing room for the fundamental, spontaneous dynamic that we're all constantly experiencing.
> 
> ...



Yes I see what you mean about the way of focusing on things. I only brought up the N/S testing article just for the hell of it, to show that it is not a perfect test as long as I'm really typeable as Se dominant.  LOL in that case, I actually find it funny how I'd pass that test so well.

Yes before looking into Jung etc., I always naturally assumed that the raw sensing component of perception is not as conscious as that but Jung for Se dominants describes it as if it were fully conscious always. All his conclusions clearly come from this assumption. That's not me. Such as, they only see what's in front of them in their *whole* life, because it's so fully conscious. Get what I mean?

As for being able to do anything with the sensory data as I please... doesn't *everyone* have that capability on that low raw perception level? Gee. Makes no sense. I can't even always do with them as I please. I sometimes get really clumsy and sometimes get really absent minded (too often for my liking) and so on. I get really irritated in those cases. I prefer not to be clumsy or absent minded at all...

OK, it's all a matter of definitions. If N is all about associating stuff with random images or random ideas or whatnot, then I'm not N at all, for sure. If that's definitive, then good. Is it? 

PS: _"fundamental, spontaneous dynamic that we're all constantly experiencing" _- A nice way of putting it.


----------



## drowninthefear (Apr 26, 2011)

Overflow said:


> @_itsme45_, I'm now considering ISTP much more than before, especially after looking at several of your posts that I somehow missed. It seems to me that Se is supporting a very dominant Ti for you. They're both quite strong, but your answer to the values question makes me think that Fi is your 8th function.
> 
> Not to mention that you seem more split between S vs N rather than T vs F, which again implies a stronger Ti than Se.


Maybe it's because you're analyzing your personality, but I agree with this; your Ti seems _very_ strong. And your persistence in figuring it out- I think maybe an ESTP might be satisfied more quickly and would just run with it...


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

drowninthefear said:


> Maybe it's because you're analyzing your personality, but I agree with this; your Ti seems _very_ strong. And your persistence in figuring it out- I think maybe an ESTP might be satisfied more quickly and would just run with it...


I'm a very persistent person when something takes my interest.  But yeah, Ti is strong for me, I know that... 

But, It's usually like this, I'm just doing something for a goal, and Ti assists me with that a lot. I don't want to analyse everything, just things that interest me. ISTP's tell me that they need to sort everything they run into. I'm not this compulsive with Ti, I do like just having fun with people without much thinking, it energizes me very much. ISTP's tell me they want to analyse data that comes up then so they must leave the party after a while... that's not me.

So I'm at least clear about preferring extraversion. 

Btw, no, it is not just because I'm analyzing my personality, I'm this thorough in every topic that interests me. In this case, I don't have any big goals though, I just see some contradictions in my understanding and I want to resolve those...


----------



## drowninthefear (Apr 26, 2011)

itsme45 said:


> Btw, no, it is not just because I'm analyzing my personality, I'm this thorough in every topic that interests me.


Lol. That's actually what I meant, maybe it's just because it's a topic of interest. 



itsme45 said:


> In this case, I don't have any big goals though, I just see some contradictions in my understanding and I want to resolve those...


Ti *Cough* But I understand what you mean. Carry on.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

drowninthefear said:


> Lol. That's actually what I meant, maybe it's just because it's a topic of interest.


Okay...




> Ti *Cough* But I understand what you mean. Carry on.


I know that's a Ti "goal". 

I think it's just that I was born with this mathematical brain. I'm very mathematical* and musical and I was even taught/shown the basics of maths at such a young age (age 4-5).

*: It's like this feeling that all the math concepts were preinstalled in my brain that were then shown to me in school... just needed to be shown and I knew instantly what the stuff was.


----------



## drowninthefear (Apr 26, 2011)

itsme45 said:


> I think it's just that I was born with this mathematical brain. I'm very mathematical* and musical and I was even taught/shown the basics of maths at such a young age (age 4-5).
> 
> *: It's like this feeling that all the math concepts were preinstalled in my brain that were then shown to me in school... just needed to be shown and I knew instantly what the stuff was.


Lucky you. I've always just been very logical (or reasonable)- and creative. Mathematical? Not in the slightest. xD

Also,


itsme45 said:


> ISTP's tell me they want to analyse data that comes up then so they must leave the party after a while.


INTPs mention this a lot too, but I don't really identify with that either. Usually when I leave a party I'm already thinking about something else, not thinking about what happened or what was said.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

drowninthefear said:


> INTPs mention this a lot too, but I don't really identify with that either. Usually when I leave a party I'm already thinking about something else, not thinking about what happened or what was said.


Ah... yeah, same for me.

But I'm not drained afterwards (if I was having fun, Se-Fe loop), so still E.


----------



## drowninthefear (Apr 26, 2011)

itsme45 said:


> Ah... yeah, same for me.
> 
> But I'm not drained afterwards (if I was having fun, Se-Fe loop), so still E.


Same- sort of? For me, if I had stimulating conversation and alcohol, I'd probably have a blast. Otherwise I'd rather be home or somewhere else doing my idea fun. The only thing I find draining is being forced to do something I really don't feel up to which is usually talking to people I find boring.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

drowninthefear said:


> Same- sort of? For me, if I had stimulating conversation and alcohol, I'd probably have a blast. Otherwise I'd rather be home or somewhere else doing my idea fun. The only thing I find draining is being forced to do something I really don't feel up to which is usually talking to people I find boring.


I don't need alcohol for it. 

Yeah, your last sentence applies to any type I think


----------



## drowninthefear (Apr 26, 2011)

itsme45 said:


> I don't need alcohol for it.


I don't always. But then I think people are more fun/interesting when they've had a few...



itsme45 said:


> Yeah, your last sentence applies to any type I think


For sure.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

OK, more Jung...

_
In such a case the most highly differentiated function has a constantly extraverted application, while the inferior functions are found in the service of introversion, i.e. the more valued function, because the more conscious, is more completely subordinated to conscious control and purpose, whilst the less conscious, in other words, the partly unconscious inferior functions are subjected to conscious free choice in a much smaller degree. _

Ah, well, I can pull Ti into the conscious any time... but if I try at that too hard then it'll feel too compulsive. So, definitely extraverted perception for dominant function. I think we can safely say that this matter is settled permanently.


_The more powerful and vivid his intuition, the more is his subject fused and blended with the divined possibility. He animates it; he presents it in plastic shape and with convincing fire; he almost embodies it. It is not a mere histrionic display, but a fate. 
_
This was a quote about Ne. Yeah, I know this feeling very well, and it is a very conscious experience for me, but it only lasts for a few seconds before evaluating the possibility to see whether it is realistic. I guess if I still like it I'll still have the passion. Real enthusiasm for improving the object. (Though "object" here is only things that are not directly sense-able. Remember the software/hardware analogy.) Maybe the phase before evaluation only lasts this short because it well functions for me? The text also goes into detail about how overemphasized Ne can lead one into never finishing what they started, but otherwise Ne dominants can very much achieve their ideas persistently. (A reason for my doubting the Ne-ness was that I always finish what I start. Though, due to that I'm very picky to what I will actually start...)


_he merely desires the strongest sensation, and this, by his very nature, he can receive only from without. _

This really seems the essential sum up of Se in this jungian text. This is not me, I don't care much about finding the strongest sensations. The parts in this Se description that I identify with is mostly the realistic, empirical approach (well and the hate of mysticism), but maybe that's true of any extraverted function...? The point here is, I really just don't care about the sensations like that.


Does someone know - what is the difference between the empiricalness of Se and Ne? I do recall reading somewhere that both are quite empirical but Se more so (Se is the ultimate empirical function). Would it be that Se only accepts what is literally seen by the senses but not what can be seen a bit more indirectly?


Anyway, I know several of you here said I have "strong Se", is that due to my literal style lacking in analogies most of the time? Or my love for details in my areas of interest? (I don't care about details anywhere else.) My refusal about dealing with mysticism? My disinterest in the totally random brainstorming? Or something else? I would like to hear some response about this, it could be the final enlightening factor for me.


Hope I don't seem like an idiot due to doubting the nature of my dominant function, which should be soooo obvious otherwise, right.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

EDIT: OK. I don't know if anyone reads this, I bet it is strongly bordering on TLDR, but I don't mind anyone chiming in if they want to. Thanks.


***


Ok, well, I'm just talking to myself in this thread , but I suppose the enlightening factor is that all this is relative. 

I can see why Jung was upset about other people misinterpreting his concrete examples of the dominant function manifestation in types. It is certainly easy to do so; the way he describes the example personality for Se vs Ne is really black and white, explicitly making it sound like it's only the Ne people who have a really special use to the world. I can see where that famous "sensor bias" comes from.

So just the fact that I'm the kind of achiever that the Ne personality is described as, instead of spending time on sensations for their own sake, doesn't have to mean anything about the nature of my dominant function, on its own this is not proof. 


So then some arguments and I'll describe myself again to see how it is...

I would not be Ne dominant because I don't live in the world of constant possibilities, I'm always only working on one possibility to achieve. The way Ne is defined on most JCF sites is not me. My mind is simply not set up in a way to go so scattered mentally all the time and playing around with random analogies. Sure, I will very happily change viewpoints exactly like a Ne dominant will, but I do it step by step, not in one moment, I first examine stuff (details) thoroughly. And when I get to a conclusion that I'm satisfied with, then I don't really want to change that afterwards, because realistic achievement is more important to me in general than considering viewpoints for their own sake.

I would have to be a strange version of Se though, because I don't feel at all addicted to physical sensations. Again, I never cared enough for them. I can enjoy some sensations but the effect they have on me is not addictive at all. It's more like, "oh this is cool, sure". Pretty fleeting. I get plain bored if focusing on them for too long. Instead, I'm addicted to working on that one big possibility (that Ne types like to see) that is intangible in the moment until achieved. That's when I feel at my best, it is not just "cool sure", it is not fleeting, it is addictive, even irresistible, and I immerse in it. Sensations never have that effect on me. They are not taken as seriously by me as this is.

I actually have two modes, 1) sensable external world is plain Se, no Ne at all, this is for sure. Ne can never win over Se in this situation, Se always inhibits it. 2) When I'm into achieving something that is intangible at the moment, I'm not truly in the external world much, so I can definitely be a bit more N without Se's capability to inhibit it too much, but overall it is still more Se, I'm still in the present context, not changing it, taking things "as is", sometimes changing the viewpoint though via "eureka" moments. (That would have to mean intuition is unconscious.) Btw, most of the time I spend time in mode 2, not much time in mode 1. So I'm pretty un-sensory in the original sense of the word...


Alright, so I'm either an extremely focused Ne dominant or I'm an extremely un-sensory Se dominant type. Haha. 

Jung himself talks about how Ne appears much like Se, sensory just fine to a degree, but some of the Se needs to be inhibited to allow Ne to see the possibilities. This is an important distinction between the two functions.

For me Se inhibits Ne pretty well most of the time. Sometimes I manage to get past that and that's when I'm going for a possibility in that intense way. Ne only truly "wins" only for a few seconds but if afterwards the realistic evaluation supports the possibility then I will go for it. Sometimes there are exceptions to this, I don't manage to evaluate because, for some reason, there is no way to do so, but if the desire to explore the possibility is strong enough, I will still go with it, without knowing how to get there. This is never tangible things though! Se doesn't give a chance to Ne for those things. 


Overall, I cannot resist getting "stuck" in the present "as is" while achieving the idea/possibility. I can "resist" the "possibility brainstorming" more easily on the other hand. So that would have to be Se > Ne. 


Really, I'm finished with all this self-analysis, had enough.  And other people don't disagree with my conclusion, I suppose.


Last fun fact: maybe I'm not very sensory but the test for ENTPs about the touching the stove makes me ESTP too; I will not try to touch it, because I will instantly recall a strong image of the bad sensation of a hot stove and that's enough for me to make a decision of not wanting to try it out and think the idea is complete BS.


----------

