# I want to be ignorant again



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

NeatoBurrito said:


> I didn't think it was worth mentioning; but now that you bring socionics up, the most accurate description of me that I've ever read came from a socionics INTp description. It was this one: Socionics Types: ILI-INTp


Well if it makes sense to you to be an introvert and a gamma that is feasible.
My work here seem to be done.


----------



## Simpson17866 (Dec 3, 2014)

NeatoBurrito said:


> *It was cool when typology was easy. When things were as simple as A, B, C, Dichotomy.* I've read Carl Jung's _Psychological Types_, and it seems to me that the more you know, the less you _know_. I've been studying this stuff for over a year, and I don't even know my own type. Is anyone on this site completely confident in their self-assessment? Am I the only one that is mentally drowned?


 That makes sense, the MyersBriggs spectrum system works better than the more-popular Grant Cognitive Functions system.

MyersBriggs wise, I'm extremely confidant in my type: strong preference for self-containment over outgoingness, strong preference for the abstract over the tangible, slight-to-moderate preference for insensitivity over sensitivity, and strong preference for disorganization over organization.

I think the most important thing to remember is that *nobody is 100% of anything* (I'm basically INTP, but I'm also a lot closer to INFP than I am to ENTP, ISTP, or INTJ), even though the type *descriptions* that you find are generally going to be written around the hypothetical 100% extremes.

Also, MyersBriggs type ≠ Grant Cognitive Functions type: I'm an Introvert, an iNtuitor, a Thinker, and a Perceiver (MyersBriggs INTP), but my leading functions are Ne-Fi (Grant ENFP)


----------



## Arzazar Szubrasznikarazar (Apr 9, 2015)

Simpson17866 said:


> That makes sense, the MyersBriggs spectrum system works better than the more-popular Grant Cognitive Functions system.
> 
> MyersBriggs wise, I'm extremely confidant in my type: strong preference for self-containment over outgoingness, strong preference for the abstract over the tangible, slight-to-moderate preference for insensitivity over sensitivity, and strong preference for disorganization over organization.
> 
> ...


So, MBTI merely indicates what are your perceived preferences and doesn't actually try to tell about cognitive configuration? I thought that cognitive functions were a part of MBTI? What's the source on it?


----------



## Simpson17866 (Dec 3, 2014)

Arzazar Szubrasznikarazar said:


> So, MBTI merely indicates what are your perceived preferences and doesn't actually try to tell about cognitive configuration? I thought that cognitive functions were a part of MBTI?


 MyersBriggs types were originally supposed to go along with Jungian functions, but this connection has been disproven and it's more effective to look at MyersBriggs separately



> What's the source on it?


 MyersBriggs tests not correlating with functions tests: I'm a MyersBriggs INTP and a Cognitive Functions ENFP, and I'm one of the *easiest* people to type according to functions that I've ever met.

My functions from strongest to weakest are Ne-Fi-Ti-Ni-Te-Si-Se-Fe. According to the strict Grantian perspective that's most popular on this site, I don't exist because somebody who scores "Ne" *at all* would have an "Ni" of 0 because the two are "incompatible".

Even so, it's easy to look at my functions to see what my Grant type *would* be if we were looking at what was least inaccurate - rather than most accurate - and *Ne*-*Fi*-Ti-Ni-*Te*-*Si*-Se-Fe line up well enough to be called "≈ENFP" (despite not *technically* being one of the "correct" combinations).

How would you type somebody who got Ne-Ti-Fi-Se-Fe-Ni-Te-Si instead?


----------



## Arzazar Szubrasznikarazar (Apr 9, 2015)

Simpson17866 said:


> MyersBriggs types were originally supposed to go along with Jungian functions, but this connection has been disproven and it's more effective to look at MyersBriggs separately


Disproved by whom? When? How?



Simpson17866 said:


> My functions from strongest to weakest are Ne-Fi-Ti-Ni-Te-Si-Se-Fe. According to the strict Grantian perspective that's most popular on this site, I don't exist because somebody who scores "Ne" *at all* would have an "Ni" of 0 because the two are "incompatible".


1. That test is horrible. Functions used together can substitute for a different function. Also, your behaviour may be impacted by what you've learned from other people.
2. Cognitive function development and preference isn't the same as configuration. For example I use Te and Si a lot. The thing is that it costs me a lot of energy. While someone who would have them as dominant/auxilary would gain energy from it. Presence and sequence of other functions also impacts how the functions are used and how they work.


----------



## ProfessorPregraduate (Feb 15, 2016)

floodbear said:


> stop studying the system and for a while just observe yourself without needing to label things


I've attempted this, never could successfully pull it off without analyzing.


----------



## ProfessorPregraduate (Feb 15, 2016)

Raawx said:


> You're probably not an INTJ. Too asking for others input, tell things in the story Ne-Si fashion. Probably an Ne dom.


That seems sorta anecdotal.


----------



## italix (Sep 26, 2015)

Someone else talk about myer briggs and grant cognitive functions. I have not been able to put the true meaning to them b/c there are so many different views on what they are, written on PerC. Does anyone know for certain!?!?!!? 

Sent from my VS990 using Tapatalk


----------



## Ghostsoul (May 10, 2014)

Taking a break might help. Just take an interest in something else for a while, find another hobby.
The solution might just come to you one day, once you've let it settle.


----------



## ProfessorPregraduate (Feb 15, 2016)

Ghostsoul said:


> Taking a break might help. Just take an interest in something else for a while, find another hobby.
> The solution might just come to you one day, once you've let it settle.


Perhaps you're right. I certainly haven't gotten anywhere with my rigorous analysis.


----------



## floodbear (Mar 3, 2016)

NeatoBurrito said:


> I've attempted this, never could successfully pull it off without analyzing.


you can still analyze, just don't let yourself be distracted by trying to fit what you see into mbti terms. pay attention to how you function, what's actually happening inside moment to moment. try to see how you happen. if you need to label things, make up your own labels, but before you get around to labeling, try as much as possible to see what's happening without deciding what it is till your damn certain.


----------



## italix (Sep 26, 2015)

floodbear said:


> you can still analyze, just don't let yourself be distracted by trying to fit what you see into mbti terms. pay attention to how you function, what's actually happening inside moment to moment. try to see how you happen. if you need to label things, make up your own labels, but before you get around to labeling, try as much as possible to see what's happening without deciding what it is till your damn certain.


Adding on to this, act first and analyze later. One can't figure out themselves when they're attempting to be someone else. 

Sent from my VS990 using Tapatalk


----------

