# I'll give this one a shot.. what's my type?



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

delphi367 said:


> If you watch a group of INFPs for a while, you'll start to see the Si in their attitudes. Likewise, if you watch a group of ISFPs, you see occasional flashes of Ni.


This. ...and I don't think it is so occasional. I think INFP is defined by their Si, and ISFP by their Ni. 

INFP by their procedural pessimism and past-orientation and ISFP by their tendency toward holistics and surprising orientation to abstract art...

Example... 

How ISFP shows what might be seen as Ne, but is actually Ni being dynamicized by Se:






How INFPs CONSISTENTLY show strong Si in their poetry and music... often using themes of innocence and childhood, the potency of sensory memory, even their imagination is often strongly anecdotal and oriented towards very real past-oriented sensory impressions.


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

arkigos said:


> INFP by their procedural pessimism and past-orientation and ISFP by their tendency toward holistics and surprising orientation to abstract art...


What do you mean by their "procedural pessimism" .. are INFP's pessimistic? (I can already sense a possible Nirvana example coming out of that..) 

Does this sound like an INFP using Si? 







I'm not sure how Si is used exactly. What does it even DO? We all feel nostalgia at some points. Anyone who doesn't stop and look back at the past has to be crazy. I don't think that's Si. I have trouble understanding it. All I know is that I don't really relate to most descriptions of it.


----------



## athenian200 (Oct 13, 2008)

zazara said:


> Oh how I wish there was an MBTI zoo to observe each type in their natural habitat.. I mean, where do you even find a group of INFPs all together besides online (and I'm even doubting that)? :laughing:
> 
> How do they use Si as compared to an high order Si user?
> 
> ...


I don't really understand Si at all, so it's hard for me to say. 

But I have noticed that some INFPs tend to romanticize the past, wishing we still had knights and such. I've seen a lot of them use knights and ladies in their avatars. 

More commonly, though, it seems like they tend to consider personal experience to be very significant. Secondary to their values of course, but what they've been through tends to define them, in a way. They tend to internalize certain social standards and expectations on a visceral level, but rebel against themselves intellectually. It's really weird. 

SPs don't quite seem to have the same issue... it seems like they don't really internalize that stuff to begin with. They can go along with something when it suits them, and then go against it when it no longer suits them. A past experience doesn't seem to define them to the same extent, because they live in the present, and occasionally talk about the future... like maybe they have a little dream about having a certain kind of car to race, or being a bartender. They might not work towards the vision, but they'll still have these little fantasies in the back of their mind.

Again, I may have completely messed that up, since I'm not an Si user. I don't have a clue what it's like, but that's what it seems like to me.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

zazara said:


> What do you mean by their "procedural pessimism" .. are INFP's pessimistic? (I can already sense a possible Nirvana example coming out of that..)
> 
> Does this sound like an INFP using Si?
> 
> ...


INFPs would only be necessarily pessimistic when forced into their lower function by some logistic stress. Rather, let me put it this way: When they are compelled to work in the arena of an ISTJ, they seem to be more pessimistic, and of the same quality, but 'inferior', as what we imagine of an ISTJ. Where the ISTJ would be energized and capable, the INFP would be drained and neurotic. But, again, of the same quality.

Owl City is not an example of INFP using Si.... interestingly, he is much more likely an example of ISFJ using Ne (and obviously a ton of Si, so, yeah, good example).

You are right about the Nirvana reference. Kurt Cobain is a perfect study of an INFP. I think his Si is clear as day. 'Hoarders' are strongly associated with Si, and that sensory crust and deposit is what Si is. It is a database of experience. Si types, especially xNFPs are constantly accumulating crust and deposit of sensory impressions that they have to chisel at. I don't get this from SP or SJ types at all. 

Since you asked for it. Subjective anecdotes, general getting stuck on the past, obsessive focus on the body, but not in a dynamic or holistic way like an SP would, but more like a hoarder would... with an inferior aspect to it. 

Then you have that hilarious Ne credulism and imagination rising out of those fixations, like at 3:05:








> I've always been just fascinated with medical texts and charts... I guess I just secretly want to be a doctor, ya know. Or a person that works in a ... cremation factory.


That is classic xNFP to me... some lazy rockstar talking about how much he loves 'charts and texts' and how that must mean he secretly wants to be a person that works 'in a cremation factory'. There's your Ne 'possibilities' at work. LOL.


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

delphi367 said:


> I don't really understand Si at all, so it's hard for me to say.
> 
> But I have noticed that some INFPs tend to romanticize the past, wishing we still had knights and such. I've seen a lot of them use knights and ladies in their avatars.
> 
> ...


You've been here since 2008 and still don't really understand Si?! What kind of witchcraft is this function? 

I'm not sure about your explanations there.. 

Hold on.. a _*little*_ dream? Car? Bartender? Do SPs not dream big at all? 

I don't know about you, but I'm going to be the queen of the world someday.. or maybe Mars. I'll have to see how that pioneer expedition to my potential new kingdom goes. Hah, bartender.. that's sad. 

EDIT: 
Kidding about the sad part. Bartenders are awesome. 

I mean.. why would they not dream big though?


----------



## athenian200 (Oct 13, 2008)

zazara said:


> Hold on.. a _*little*_ dream? Car? Bartender? Do SPs not dream big at all?
> 
> I don't know about you, but I'm going to be the queen of the world someday.. or maybe Mars. I'll have to see how that pioneer expedition to my potential new kingdom goes. Hah, bartender.. that's sad.
> 
> ...


Haha! Yes, of course SPs can dream big. I didn't want to start you off with a huge example, though... but yeah, a lot of SPs dream of being actors, or starting a rock band. 

Also, sometimes when they're in a bad situation and have to improvise a plan for getting out... they can foresees the consequences of various actions in the near future, and quickly come up with a way out that looks much like a contingency plan an NJ would have worked out before entering it in the first place. xD

I think that Ni plays a part in an SP's ability to improvise. Not sure how much of one, but I see it there, and I think it's part of why they can mistype as Intuitives... their Intuition is internal, it's a part of them. 

I don't really have an accurate measure of how much SPs use Ni, but all of them seem to have at least a little bit of it. NPs and SJs just don't seem to use it.


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

@arkigos

Seems like a lot of Ne for an inferior function.. but no matter. 

I didn't watch the whole thing, but I relate to what Kurt said about whether you can buy happiness.. the feeling of finding something special *treasure* in a second hand shop. I love that feeling. ( ..and now there's going to be a Macklemore "thrift shop" reference for the SP side of that. .. wait a second. Is this Ni I'm using to make that prediction or do I just have good guessing skills? Maybe I'm a psychic.. )

I think I used to be somewhat of a hoarder.. I used to collect a bunch of old books from thrift stores. Used books are amazing. I never buy new ones.. it makes me wonder what kind of person the previous reader was.. what did they get out of the story/information.. did they like it or not? I'd make this little character in my mind of the previous reader.. look for markings or "to Bob, love grandma" notes in the beginning of the books. It's kind of heart-warming in a way.. is that Si? 

Though I ended up donating them all to a library.. because that was just too much clutter.. :bored:


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

@delphi367

What does the lack of Ni look like then?


----------



## Oprah (Feb 5, 2014)

My $0.02...
It's sounds stereotypical Si to say, but if you're an INFP, you'll probably collect things like badges or mementos and stuff. 


My best friend from high school was ISFP (I think - I didn't know about functions or anything like that back in high school), and if I compare her to an INFP, the ISFP is WAAAY more immaterial.


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

UglierBetty said:


> My $0.02...
> It's sounds stereotypical Si to say, but if you're an INFP, you'll probably collect things like badges or mementos and stuff.
> 
> 
> My best friend from high school was ISFP (I think - I didn't know about functions or anything like that back in high school), and if I compare her to an INFP, the ISFP is WAAAY more immaterial.


I used to collect EVERYTHING when I was little. Rocks, stamps, stickers, snapple bottle caps, trading cards, etc. 

You name it, I had it. 

But I would never hold on too long to a collection. When I was into it.. they were my prized possessions.. when I found the next best thing.. they were trash. 

Even now.. I collect funny looking pens. Why? I don't know. It looks cool. Oh and old world record books too. I'll eventually become bored of it all and move on to something "better" .. so yeah, I can't say I'm immaterial. Honestly, I'm pretty materialistic.


----------



## athenian200 (Oct 13, 2008)

zazara said:


> @arkigos
> 
> Seems like a lot of Ne for an inferior function.. but no matter.
> 
> ...


No, Si is about remembering your OWN experiences. Trying to imagine what someone ELSE experienced based on little clues is Ni.

You're almost as bad as I am... you interpret Si through an Ni lens, because you don't experience it directly.

An Si user would be unlikely to get rid of clutter. They hold on to stuff. Things are important to them, throwing away an object is like throwing away the past. 



zazara said:


> What does the lack of Ni look like then?


In SJs, the lack of Ni manifests as failing to notice future trends. They might be paranoid about various possibilities (Ne), but they won't see the big trend, the way things actually ARE changing, where it's really headed (Ni). They want to hold onto the past, and they fight each possibility like it's a dragon... but they completely miss what all those possibilities add up to, and in the end fail to stop the bigger change that may have been more important to worry about. Because it was so slow, so insidious, so organized that it crept up on them. A frog will jump out of a pot of boiling water if placed in one, but if you place it in a pot of cool water and slowly raise the temperature... it won't even resist.

That's why SJs don't like to think about Ni... it's a huge vulnerability in their psyche that threatens to invalidate their entire worldview, leaving them with nothing to hold onto. That would be their worst nightmare.

As for NPs... basically, it's that they tend to toss around the same old kinds of ideas around, but just make their own interpretation or variation. They rarely come up with anything truly visionary or original, they just sort of patch together ideas from past experience, and apply them to the moment. There seems to be this unwritten standard holding them back, this enmeshment in experience and data that they want to hold onto, because it's the lifeblood of their creative process based on patching up the present. They're more interested in fixing, interpreting, or changing what exists, than in creating something totally new.

I'm sure a lot of them would disagree with that and take exception to it, but that is my observation. Their Intuition just isn't revolutionary or exciting. It's just throwing out possibilities based on the same old standards and existing assumptions that everyone knows about. Sometimes they can even become "stuck" on these, and resist anything that threatens to violate those assumptions. But more likely, a healthy Ne user will be one of the first to embrace a revolutionary possibility, it will more rapidly become part of their database of experience than it would for an SJ. They just may well not be the person to come up with it.


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

delphi367 said:


> No, Si is about remembering your OWN experiences. Trying to imagine what someone ELSE experienced based on little clues is Ni.
> 
> You're almost as bad as I am... you interpret Si through an Ni lens, because you don't experience it directly.
> 
> An Si user would be unlikely to get rid of clutter. They hold on to stuff. Things are important to them, throwing away an object is like throwing away the past.


Eh? .. well.. I bought them. That's an experience.. oh, and I write in a diary! 

.. maybe you're right. 

I don't hold objects or things I see in that regard.. and I'm not sure _how_ I would even go about doing that to begin with. I guess I never really thought about it that way. I see experiences in moments.. not things.

I wouldn't have thought that was Ni either! Because those books didn't apply to me directly so I didn't make the connection.. but now I'm starting to see what you mean! .. "ah ha!" moment ? :laughing:

Si seemed like the get rid of clutter type. My grandma who lives with us is, I believe, an ESTJ. She gets angry when old papers aren't thrown away. I think she loves throwing away things.. but on the other hand, she has this "everything has a right place and should always be in their place" mentality so whatever she's throwing out must not be of any importance to her anyway. "If it's trash, it belongs in the trash." Huh. I don't know what to make of it. 


Thanks for the observations as well ~ it was helpful!


----------



## White_dress (Jan 24, 2014)

Hmm, I read that the auxiliary finction develops until 21, and tertiary about midlife... So is it still possible to see this tertiary function when someone is young? I mean to see it as a tertiary function, because maybe other further functions can be also visible nad mistaken for it.


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

White_dress said:


> Hmm, I read that the auxiliary finction develops until 21, and tertiary about midlife... So is it still possible to see this tertiary function when someone is young? I mean to see it as a tertiary function, because maybe other further functions can be also visible nad mistaken for it.


Yes, I've been wondering about that too. 

My interpretation of this idea is that it is possible to see the tertiary function.. but not consciously being used. Plus, most people my age are not seeking to find their functions or even know what they are to begin with. I have yet to meet any 18 year old who is actually that interested in looking into all of it past the basic cognitive functions test (in which I still get Ne as the number 1 function for some reason! and I always always test as xNFP on the online ones and I don't know why. That bothers me! Am I doing the test wrong or is the test itself flawed? I have yet to test as a sensor ugh. Moving on.) .. of course that's just what I see. Who knows? They could be super introspective and into learning about all this just as much as I am.. maybe more. I'm not a mind reader. All I know is what I know about me, myself, and I. 

I don't think the age thing is set in stone. I spoke before I could walk. I started speaking phrases and sentences at 6 months old.. yet I never knew how to ride a bike or swim even until 11~13 years old! I couldn't.. which lead to being picked on by the other kids saying I was stupid for not knowing that. People learn at different paces.

Maybe there is an average age standard that most people can apply to.. or that those going through a "midlife crisis" will truly start to rethink their values, who they are, etc.. Sometimes I joke that I'm going through a "quarterlife crisis" haha. 

But yeah, it should be possible. I mean if I can identify my dominant function, then I know what my inferior is! If I can identify my auxiliary function, then I know what my tertiary is.. and there you go! I do think I use Ni.. but I don't do it knowingly. I think I use my inferior function as well! .. just not in the right way. 

"Developing" a function might as well mean knowing how to use that function properly.


----------



## White_dress (Jan 24, 2014)

Yes, everything is average. I know it can be different in reality.
I think trying to find out the type is harder when going by functions, because you can write something and everyone can interprete this in different ways, perhaps because of one's own functions. Have you tried this test:
Personality Test Based on Jung and Briggs-Myers ?
I, interestingly, get here 100% T. There are only 28 questions. 
Haha, if you are going through the quarterlife crisis, then I am going through the whole life crisis :tongue:
By the way, when you answer the questions on this forum, that someone asks you to type you or write that sth means that you use x function, you answer that "it doesn't have to mean this, it also can mean", that sounds like Ne to me. I don't see these possibilities you see, I wish I could see the possibilities that could help me get better, find a job, achieve what I would like to achieve. But maybe this is only my interpretation of what I read.


----------



## eb44345 (Mar 9, 2014)

I just took that test you linked to and it's garbage. It gave me ENTP. Not even close to who I am. I'm 100% INTJ.

I wouldn't place any value in that test other than pure entertainment.


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

White_dress said:


> Yes, everything is average. I know it can be different in reality.
> I think trying to find out the type is harder when going by functions, because you can write something and everyone can interprete this in different ways, perhaps because of one's own functions. Have you tried this test:
> Personality Test Based on Jung and Briggs-Myers ?
> I, interestingly, get here 100% T. There are only 28 questions.
> ...


Apparently, I'm an *INTP* based on that test..

Are you sure that's what Ne is? I mean, maybe it could sound like Ne, but it could just by my.. wow, I'm doing it again. 

That's the strange thing. I relate to Ne more than Ni for the most part.. yet I see SO much more Se in me than Si.. what does "possibilities" have to do with it? I just want to learn as much as I can about it, because it's interesting. Of course I would look to understand it from different angles.. like taking a picture with a camera. I want to take a mental shot of all the sides before saying I truly know what I'm talking about.


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

eb44345 said:


> I just took that test you linked to and it's garbage. It gave me ENTP. Not even close to who I am. I'm 100% INTJ.
> 
> I wouldn't place any value in that test other than pure entertainment.


Yeah, I'm not sure how valid "CelebrityTypes" can be with a name like that.. 

What do you mean by 100% INTJ though? Can someone be 88% INTJ? You're either an INTJ or not. :laughing:


----------



## White_dress (Jan 24, 2014)

zazara said:


> Apparently, I'm an *INTP* based on that test..
> 
> Are you sure that's what Ne is? I mean, maybe it could sound like Ne, but it could just by my.. wow, I'm doing it again.
> 
> That's the strange thing. I relate to Ne more than Ni for the most part.. yet I see SO much more Se in me than Si.. what does "possibilities" have to do with it? I just want to learn as much as I can about it, because it's interesting. Of course I would look to understand it from different angles.. like taking a picture with a camera. I want to take a mental shot of all the sides before saying I truly know what I'm talking about.


I'm not sure :tongue: it's how I understand it. When someone writes/says sth, I will think about it and I will understand his/her point, find the reasons why this can be true and also why it may not be true. But I'd probably won't find another option like you do. Extraverted functions are much more visible and that make them easier to understand, so maybe that's why you relate more to Ne and Se. :happy:


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

White_dress said:


> I'm not sure :tongue: it's how I understand it. When someone writes/says sth, I will think about it and I will understand his/her point, find the reasons why this can be true and also why it may not be true. But I'd probably won't find another option like you do. Extraverted functions are much more visible and that make them easier to understand, so maybe that's why you relate more to Ne and Se. :happy:


I don't directly look for truth in someone's words. I assume them to be true off the bat unless it doesn't sound right.. through uh.. common sense I suppose. Though I don't know how this has to do with the functions. 

Not sure about that.. I've never related to Fe. I understand Fi easily. Te/Ti is another story. I think I might identify with Ti more if I read the description of them.. but then again, I'm pretty sure about my Fi so that can't be the case.


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

@delphi367










It all makes sense now. 


Even the famous people.. who is even a mentioned as a famous ISFP in that book? Marie Antoinette? 

Then there's _*these*_ articles floating around on the internet.. 

"N's are Smarter Than S's" 
- N's Are Smarter Than S's -- MBTI | Slayerment



> "I'm not saying S's are bad. I'm saying they're not smart. They are not the leaders of the world. They rarely make a most respectable people throughout history list. I'm sorry for having to be the one that breaks it to you, but somebody had to. It is what it is. S's may be good at entertaining you or making you laugh. They may be good at sports. But they're not good at running countries, running businesses, innovating, improving the standard of living or anything else of higher value than simply entertainment. They don't make the lists for a reason. They don't have what it takes.
> 
> As good as entertainers like Lady Gaga, Brad Pitt, Justin Bieber and Barack Obama are at entertaining they're just not going to make the cut for being historically influential. And the entertainers of Plato's time, Jesus' time, Muhammad's time, Bacon's time and so forth also sadly didn't make the list. That is because they're not influential."


Of course no one wants to be called an S if they have all that ingrained in their minds. This is so stupid! 


But.. I think Keirsey did mention meeting with Myers or something in the book.. like they were friends I think if I remember correctly.. how could their ideas be so different then? I could be completely wrong here. I'm not sure.

I'll order the book though. :kitteh:


----------



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

Remember, Ni and Se together can mimic Ne. If you were hurt by the outside world somehow, you could be falling back on your Ni as a subconscious defense measure. This would explain INFP mistyping, and also your lack of ability to see the big picture, as you would be relying on an underdeveloped function...

And, please don't believe any of that anti-S propaganda. Churchill and Teddy Roosevelt were S types, and even George Washington! S types can be just as famous as Ns, just in a more realistic sans philosophical sense.


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

EthereaEthos said:


> Remember, Ni and Se together can mimic Ne. If you were hurt by the outside world somehow, you could be falling back on your Ni as a subconscious defense measure. This would explain INFP mistyping, and also your lack of ability to see the big picture, as you would be relying on an underdeveloped function...
> 
> And, please don't believe any of that anti-S propaganda. Churchill and Teddy Roosevelt were S types, and even George Washington! S types can be just as famous as Ns, just in a more realistic sans philosophical sense.


I do see the big picture though. I'm just NOT focusing on it here, because I know it already. Why would I focus on seeing the big picture if I already see it? 

The funny thing is.. I'm not very realistic at all. Well, it wouldn't be a word I would use to describe myself. 

Like when the whole down to earth or head in the clouds question comes up, I would say that I very much have my head in the clouds.


----------



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

zazara said:


> I do see the big picture though. I'm just focusing on it here, because I know it already. Why would I focus on seeing the big picture if I already see it?
> 
> The funny thing is.. I'm not very realistic at all. Well, it wouldn't be a word I would use to describe myself.
> 
> Like when the whole down to earth or head in the clouds question comes up, I would say that I very much have my head in the clouds.


That's really interesting. From the tone of your text, it's almost as if you really do want to be an INFP, but also feel attached to being an ISFP. Like when you want to go out somewhere to eat, and there is one restaurant that is familiar to you, but doesn't feel right, and another you really want to try and think will fit your tastes, but you feel an attachment to the old and don't want to give it all up for the new... could just be me, though.


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

EthereaEthos said:


> That's really interesting. From the tone of your text, it's almost as if you really do want to be an INFP, but also feel attached to being an ISFP. Like when you want to go out somewhere to eat, and there is one restaurant that is familiar to you, but doesn't feel right, and another you really want to try and think will fit your tastes, but you feel an attachment to the old and don't want to give it all up for the new... could just be me, though.


I don't want to be anything other than myself. I think that's just your interpretation of it, but I personally don't feel that way. 

Is it not possible to be an unrealistic sensor?


----------



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

zazara said:


> I don't want to be anything other than myself. I think that's just your interpretation of it, but I personally don't feel that way.
> 
> Is it not possible to be an unrealistic sensor?


I really don't know. How exactly are you unrealistic?


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

EthereaEthos said:


> I really don't know. How exactly are you unrealistic?


I'm very impractical. A word that would describe me would be "starry-eyed" 

_naively enthusiastic or idealistic; failing to recognize the practical realities of a situation._

My feelings usually cloud up my better judgment. I go with what I feel to be the right decision, but not necessarily the realistic one. 

I'm a big dreamer. My imagination and interests gravitate towards the more abstract and interesting things in life. 

Though I know my functions are Se-Ni so .. calling all sensors realistic doesn't make sense to me.. because I am not.


----------



## athenian200 (Oct 13, 2008)

zazara said:


> I'm very impractical. A word that would describe me would be "starry-eyed"
> 
> _naively enthusiastic or idealistic; failing to recognize the practical realities of a situation._
> 
> ...


I think Sensors can be unrealistic, and Intuitives can be realistic. I believe that, to an extent, this is why Ps are more likely to test as N, while Js are more likely to test as S. Judging types tend to pride themselves on being decisive and making good decisions... realism tends to get mixed up with that.


----------



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

As I said, Se-Ni can mimic Ne. The types are less defined than most believe. You are ISFP, and the type descriptions are skewed.


----------



## athenian200 (Oct 13, 2008)

EthereaEthos said:


> As I said, Se-Ni can mimic Ne.


Ni/Se is distinct in quality and nature from Ne. 

I would prefer to say that Se only appears similar to Ne because both are forms of Extraverted Perception, which has a certain character. The function descriptions includes certain parts of this character in Ne, and parts of it in Se. 

I just don't agree that Ni + Se = Ne. Although, if you meant that it only mimics it in a very superficial way, I suppose I might agree.


----------



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

I said mimics, not equals. To the typical cognitive function test, a superficial appearance is enough to throw it off.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

delphi367 said:


> I think Sensors can be unrealistic, and Intuitives can be realistic. I believe that, to an extent, this is why Ps are more likely to test as N, while Js are more likely to test as S. Judging types tend to pride themselves on being decisive and making good decisions... realism tends to get mixed up with that.


Being 'realistic' to me, is a sign of extraverted judgment. 

Te is realistic logic.
Fe is realistic valuation.

Those with strong extraverted judgment will be the 'J' types, the realistic judgers. You might associate this with Si or Se but that won't work because all perception is limited, especially sensory perception. Si is notoriously unrealistic and subjective in how it sees the world. Si can get programmed very early on with wildly unrealistic perceptions which it will find almost impossible to shake off. I don't perceive Si types as being 'realistic' in the least.

I don't see how anyone would characterize Se types as realistic. My ESFP brother in law has got to have the Guinness record for number of schools he's dropped out of. He even dropped out of the USAF. The guy is 30 and is taking a class to be a life coach that is probably a scam (if you've ever seen Peep Show, UK sitcom, he is Jez - aka, Captain Unrealistic - I actually think this exact thing was the plot of one episode) and his ESTP father is inexplicably funding it. The father-son unrealistic combo! My Ne-dom wife looks on incredulously. 

I think that the most 'realistic' people are probably NJs, on the whole... though only in their respective spheres. NFJ on the personal subjects, and NTJ on impersonal. Just my experience. In their sphere, they are almost unnervingly objective at times. 

It all depends on the person, though. S most certainly does NOT = realistic.


----------



## VoodooDolls (Jul 30, 2013)

@arkigos i liked your song


----------

