# Best-fit NJs mistype as S over double the amount as best-fit NPs yet...



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

INxJs are suppoosedly the "intuition dominant" introverts. If INxJs were so damn intuitive you would think they wouldn't be mistyping as S so often. Thoughts?


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Where do you get that INJs mistype as S? I think the opposite is true. The bar for N is rather low in the descriptions and they love the idea of being a "mastermind" & whatever the infj descriptions say. Plus, Pi types are more susceptible to subjectification and once they identify with such a thing it's hard for them to let go.

I guess there is one way it could happen, if the INJ has a difficult time understanding themselves to begin with. I have an acquaintance who seems INFJ fairly clearly to me but she's typed as so many things it was a running joke between us. For INTJs its probs not as difficult because the feelery stuff interfere at more levels when typing.


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

Red Panda said:


> Where do you get that INJs mistype as S? I think the opposite is true. The bar for N is rather low in the descriptions and they love the idea of being a "mastermind" & whatever the infj descriptions say. Plus, Pi types are more susceptible to subjectification and once they identify with such a thing it's hard for them to let go.
> 
> I guess there is one way it could happen, if the INJ has a difficult time understanding themselves to begin with. I have an acquaintance who seems INFJ fairly clearly to me but she's typed as so many things it was a running joke between us. For INTJs its probs not as difficult because the feelery stuff interfere at more levels when typing.


I agree in general. Even I tend to type people as N by default. It's a subconscious bias I think. But there are actually more Ss out there. Some Ss are obvious and that makes it easier. 

I find an interesting dichotomy along the N/S divide and that is related to my model of personality and morality. On the one hand the S is related to anger, the body, sensing what is tangible in essence. And the N in that sense is more related to desire, what is imagined or preferred and how that relates to the intangibles like mood and net takeaway of meaning or flow. On the other hand S is more directly related to what is possible now, and this arises from the fear based need for certainty, pragmatism. And N is related to desire again, the idealism angle. 

So you end up with S - fear and anger, N desire and desire. It just interesting and worth consideration. It means by association, S is related more to order, whereas N is clearly chaos.


----------



## Suntide (Dec 22, 2018)

Red Panda said:


> Where do you get that INJs mistype as S? I think the opposite is true. The bar for N is rather low in the descriptions and they love the idea of being a "mastermind" & whatever the infj descriptions say. Plus, Pi types are more susceptible to subjectification and once they identify with such a thing it's hard for them to let go.


Honestly, this. If I had a dollar for every ISFJ that mistyped as an INFP/INFJ because of ISFJ descriptions making them sound so unbearably bland and personalityless compared to the "only NFs can be creative and have an interesting personality" INFx descriptions, I could literally quit my job.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

I didn't just make up the thing; it came from here:









Source:
https://www.capt.org/research/article/JPT_vol64_0404b.pdf

This does beg the question of how exactly they are determining "best-fit NJs", however even earlier in the study, NPs show a bigger average N preference than NJs, and SJs show a bigger average S preference than SPs.

So maybe you can say SJs are more "sensing-dominant" and NPs are more "intuition-dominant" if you were to use those words outside of function theory. But if we are making some sort of function models, why not build it around actual data?


----------



## G.13 (Feb 12, 2018)

So far, most of your personal deductions are _logical_, not intuitive. It is a clear preference.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

G.13 said:


> So far, most of your personal deductions are _logical_, not intuitive. It is a clear preference.


Deductions are logical. Again, this isn't about me. Every thread you go in you do this.


----------



## Suntide (Dec 22, 2018)

Who is determining whether someone is mistyped? How are they doing so? Personality theory like MBTI is a soft science, not a hard science. Since it is also extremely subjective and depends on the interpretation and self-evaluation of the individual, are these recorded mistypes data gathered from self-typings, or is it an observer saying "I think you're wrong and you're actually this"? I skimmed the beginning of the article but I have to leave soon because it's Christmas.

I think there is an interesting conversation to be had about what could potentially make NJs more "N" dominant than NPs and the same for SJs and SPs, but I really don't know if numbers and data can actually be accurately collected for something like this. Sure, self-typings can be obscured by a person's self-image and bias, and observation can be inaccurate because it relies too heavily on the external bias, but I don't know if anything such as a "correct typing" actually exists outside of our individual definitions and imaginations.

But, for the sake of the OP since what I've brought up is kind of its own topic...

Could the same pattern be found elsewhere? For example, are FJs and TJs more dominant feelers and thinkers than FPs and TPs, or is this pattern only found among the irrational functions, and is there a pattern of mistyping there? I know that personally tests will sometimes categorize me as Fi because I have both strong Fe _and_ Fi in my stack. Perhaps it could just be that extroverted functions are more easily observable than introverted ones, causing mistypes?


----------



## G.13 (Feb 12, 2018)

Ocean Helm said:


> Deductions are logical. Again, this isn't about me. Every thread you go in you do this.


Yes, you are an algorithm that designs random anagrams with matching avatar. Sorry guy, but all your posts resonate with a personal questioning. In fact it is a redundant questioning.


----------



## PiT (May 6, 2017)

Ocean Helm said:


> I didn't just make up the thing; it came from here:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The interesting thing is that the data is uniformly collected with dichotomies in mind. Part of what makes it hard for me to take function theory seriously is the total dearth of data of any kind based on it or supporting its claims. Worse still is the curious fundamentalism I see with alarming frequency that holds that dichotomies are fake and only functions matter, despite this claim being nonsensical.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Ocean Helm said:


> I didn't just make up the thing; it came from here:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


seems that the best fit was determined by the subjects reading the descriptions and then they took the test to determine the type
So basically they werent typed as ISJs they just liked the descriptions better. 
Sounds more like an issue with how the descriptions and tests are written than actual N/S
But I'm not on a PC now and cant give it more attention.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

if the test subjects were not familiar with mbti to begin with they wouldn't exhibit the typology community's N bias, at least not to the same degree...they would, however, still bring with them social norms which preference S over N...this might explain why both NFs and NTs mistype most frequently on S-N


if you look at table 2, however, it's SPs who actually give relatively more N responses than other temperaments...that is, the average SP mistypes on S-N _questions _more often than other temperaments...apparently, their wrong answers don't cause as many SPs to actually mistype as N as NFs who mistype as S, who nevertheless give relatively more correct answers


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

In the spoiler are brief bullet-point summaries (from official MBTI reports) of the five "facets" of S/N in the "Step II" version of the MBTI.

I think the quintessential S's for purposes of those S descriptions are STJs and the quintessential N's are NFPs. I think T and J can both act as what you might call _grounding_ influences that make some of the N choices on the official MBTI, and some of the N descriptions below, sound a bit too flaky or otherwise unappealing.

I consider myself a pretty strong N, but when I take the official MBTI, I choose the S side of a few items, including "Would you rather have as a friend someone who (N) is always coming up with new ideas, or (S) has both feet on the ground?" and "In reading for pleasure, do you (N) enjoy odd or original ways of saying things, or (S) like writers to say exactly what they mean?"

In the spoiler, I've bolded N bullet-points that seem a bit _too much_ (at least) as applied to me.

So... I suspect that at least one reason (if not the main reason) that NJs are more likely to mistype as S's on the official MBTI than NPs is that the official MBTI includes a number of S/N items where, on average, the N choice is more likely to appeal to NPs than NJs.

And this may also explain why there's a mild S/N-J/P correlation in many official MBTI samples.


* *




*1. Concrete / Abstract*

Concrete

Exact facts; Literal; Tangible

• Are grounded in reality and trust the facts.
• Interpret things literally.
• Are cautious about making inferences.
• May find it hard to see trends and link facts to the bigger picture.
• Begin with what you know to be true, and have all the facts in order before moving on.
• May be seen by others as resistant to change, although you may not see yourself that way.

Abstract

Figurative; Symbolic; Intangible

• Like to go beyond the surface and read between the lines.
• May use symbols and metaphors to explain your views.
• Consider context and interrelationships important.
• Make mental leaps and enjoy brainstorming.
• *May find it hard to identify the evidence for your ideas.*
• May find it hard to disengage from the tangents you've followed.

*2. Realistic / Imaginative*

Realistic

Sensible; Matter of fact; Seek efficiency

• Take pride in your common sense and ability to realistically appraise situations.
• Value efficiency, practicality, and cost effectiveness.
• Appreciate direct experiences and tangible results.
• Believe that good techniques lead to good results.
• Are seen as matter of fact and sensible.

Imaginative

Resourceful; Inventive; Seek novelty

• *Like ingenuity for its own sake.*
• Want to experience what is innovative and different.
• Are resourceful in dealing with new and unusual experiences.
• *Prefer not to do things the same way twice.*
• Readily envision what is needed for the future and enjoy strategic planning.
• May enjoy humour and word games based on nuance.

*3. Practical / Conceptual*

Practical

Pragmatic; Results oriented; Applied

• Find that applying ideas is more appealing than the ideas themselves.
• Need to see an idea’s application to understand it.
• Are impatient listening to ideas if a practical use is not the end result.
• Favor practical utility over intellectual curiosity.

Conceptual

Scholarly; Idea oriented; Intellectual

• Enjoy the role of scholar and thinker.
• Like acquiring new knowledge and skills for their own sake.
• Value mental virtuosity.
• Focus on the concept, not its application.
• Prefer starting with an idea.
• Find that practical uses for your ideas may come as afterthoughts.

*4. Experiential / Theoretical*

Experiential

Hands on; Empirical; Trust experience

• Learn best from direct, hands-on experience and rely on it to guide you.
• Are careful not to generalize too much.
• Focus more on the past and present than the future.
• Concentrate on what is happening now rather than thinking about meanings and theories.
• May sometimes get stuck on details at the expense of larger considerations.

Theoretical

Seek patterns; Hypothetical; Trust theories

• Trust theory and believe it has a reality of its own.
• Enjoy dealing with the intangible.
• Like to invent new theories even more than applying your "old" ones.
• See almost everything as fitting into a pattern or theoretical context.
• Are future oriented.

*5. Traditional / Original*

Traditional

Conventional; Customary; Tried and true

• Identify strongly with what is familiar.
• Are comfortable with the tried-and-true because it provides a precedent to follow.
• Admire and support established institutions and methods.
• Are reluctant to change things that are working well.
• Enjoy participating in traditions at work and at home.

Original

Unconventional; Different; New and unusual

• *Place a high value on uniqueness.*
• *Need to demonstrate your own originality.*
• Value cleverness and inventiveness.
• *Would rather figure out your own way than read the directions.*
• *Will change things whether or not they work as they are.*


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

ae1905 said:


> if you look at table 2, however, it's SPs who actually give relatively more N responses than other temperaments...that is, the average SP mistypes on S-N _questions _more often than other temperaments...apparently, their wrong answers don't cause as many SPs to actually mistype as N as NFs who mistype as S, who nevertheless give relatively more correct answers




social norms might also explain why SPs, who have a reputation for being non-conformist, give more non-conforming answers


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

Red Panda said:


> seems that the best fit was determined by the subjects reading the descriptions and then they took the test to determine the type
> So basically they werent typed as ISJs they just liked the descriptions better.
> Sounds more like an issue with how the descriptions and tests are written than actual N/S
> But I'm not on a PC now and cant give it more attention.


It's basically the other way around (and I find it interesting how the post with things backwards got the likes). They took the test and then professional "MBTI practitioners" gave them their best-fit type.

What this shows is that those determined to be NJ often scored S on the test.

The question I pose is more to MBTI, and how they are putting practitioners out there who are typing "S" people (according to their test) as "intuition dominant" so often. Basically, the MBTI people are inconsistent with themselves.

Even in this pdf you can see references to the idea of being "intuition dominant", etc, which for me is a useless categorization when it amounts to grouping types together which share in actuality very little in common (i.e. if "intuition dominant" extraverts are ENxP, intuition dominant introverts should be INxP).


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

PiT said:


> The interesting thing is that the data is uniformly collected with dichotomies in mind. Part of what makes it hard for me to take function theory seriously is the total dearth of data of any kind based on it or supporting its claims. Worse still is the curious fundamentalism I see with alarming frequency that holds that dichotomies are fake and only functions matter, despite this claim being nonsensical.


It's almost like MBTI is primarily about dichotomies...


G.13 said:


> Yes, you are an algorithm that designs random anagrams with matching avatar.


This apparently makes sense to you.

Is this your idea of typing someone?

"I want Ocean Helm to be INTP, so let's find their Ne! Oh look their name was made by putting "chameleon" into an anagram generator. Therefore, they are an algorithm and the anagram is random. Ti-Ne confirmed!"

Confirmation bias is a hell of a drug.


> Sorry guy, but all your posts resonate with a personal questioning. In fact it is a redundant questioning.


I don't think I could ever express my true motivations openly here, however if you think my purpose is only to "question" then you're very wrong.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

Suntide said:


> Who is determining whether someone is mistyped? How are they doing so? Personality theory like MBTI is a soft science, not a hard science. Since it is also extremely subjective and depends on the interpretation and self-evaluation of the individual, are these recorded mistypes data gathered from self-typings, or is it an observer saying "I think you're wrong and you're actually this"? I skimmed the beginning of the article but I have to leave soon because it's Christmas.


MBTI professionals are determining their "best-fit type" and comparing it to their MBTI result.


> I think there is an interesting conversation to be had about what could potentially make NJs more "N" dominant than NPs and the same for SJs and SPs, but I really don't know if numbers and data can actually be accurately collected for something like this.


Open challenge to anyone: find one bit of evidence that would support the idea that INJs are more "intuition dominant" than INPs. I'm waiting...


> Sure, self-typings can be obscured by a person's self-image and bias, and observation can be inaccurate because it relies too heavily on the external bias, but I don't know if anything such as a "correct typing" actually exists outside of our individual definitions and imaginations.


This study did not involve self-typings, but yes I agree with what you said.


> Could the same pattern be found elsewhere? For example, are FJs and TJs more dominant feelers and thinkers than FPs and TPs, or is this pattern only found among the irrational functions, and is there a pattern of mistyping there? I know that personally tests will sometimes categorize me as Fi because I have both strong Fe _and_ Fi in my stack. Perhaps it could just be that extroverted functions are more easily observable than introverted ones, causing mistypes?


The same pattern isn't even found among SPs and SJs (SJs are the "dominant sensers"). Maybe we'd end up with something like:
T-doms: ISTP, INTJ, ESTP, ENTJ
F-doms: ISFP, INFJ, ESFP, ENFJ
S-doms: ISTJ, ISFJ, ESTJ, ESFJ
N-doms: INTP, INFP, ENTP, ENFP

But that's just assuming that the F/T preferences are neutral across types and I don't know if that holds true. And even in that case we are categorizing people as "T-dom" and "F-dom" because their type correlates with a more unclear N/S preference, rather than their actual T/F preference being unclear.

What we would have there though, is a function assignment that is building upward from evidence rather than flatly stating things should be a certain way even though nothing has ever been shown to my knowledge that does anything other than refute that ENPs/INJs should be grouped together as most similar in a particular way ("sharing intuition dominance").


----------



## Zidane (Sep 9, 2015)

Ocean Helm said:


> INxJs are suppoosedly the "intuition dominant" introverts. If INxJs were so damn intuitive you would think they wouldn't be mistyping as S so often. Thoughts?


I agree with you, I think intuition dominant introverts are the INxP, just like ENxP are the intuition dominant extraverts. I also do not see why Ni dominants would test type 1 enneagram, because perfectionism is a T trait, not N trait. The only other type who tests type 1 is ISTJ, which means they are more alike than we think, and that it's probably the middle functions that are swapped with these two. Perhaps these are the actual Ti dominant types. Perhaps it was never IxTP.


----------



## Zidane (Sep 9, 2015)

Ocean Helm said:


> So maybe you can say SJs are more "sensing-dominant" and NPs are more "intuition-dominant" if you were to use those words outside of function theory. But if we are making some sort of function models, why not build it around actual data?


Because people know the data would fuck up the theory, which means they have change their way of thinking about MBTI which they have build up for so long. That is why they defend it and defend it and defend it. Basically, they are intellectually dishonest, who care little about evidence (only when it verifies instead of disrupts their beliefs).

So basically, this entire problem rests on the function stack model which someone has just pulled out his ass instead of basing on tests. For example, if most people who test Ni as their strongest function also test INxP, then obviously the Ni dom. function must be given to them and not to a type who tests lower on it.

Because if you don't base it on tests, you get a whole bunch of fucked up scenario's whereby a person would test a type and then being given their function model which they might not even use at all. So a Ti dominant might think they are Si dominant. So they start confusing functions.


----------



## Zidane (Sep 9, 2015)

G.13 said:


> Yes, you are an algorithm that designs random anagrams with matching avatar. Sorry guy, but all your posts resonate with a personal questioning. In fact it is a redundant questioning.


It's not redundant at all, you're just too stupid to understand the significance.


----------



## G.13 (Feb 12, 2018)

Red Panda said:


> Again, you are starting by taking as a fact that TJs use TE when that is not a fact.


For me it's a fact. Because empirically, I can establish that the ESTJs that I know fully correspond to this description. Totally.


This ESTJ: [PDF]ESTJ - Davidson College


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

G.13 said:


> For me it's a fact. Because empirically, I can establish that the ESTJs that I know fully correspond to this description. Totally.
> 
> 
> This ESTJ: [PDF]ESTJ - Davidson College


Yes, because you don't take into context the whole theory and critically engage it to see the mistakes and good points. Myers made similar mistakes which is why we're stuck with the MBTI.


----------



## contradictionary (Apr 1, 2018)

You know, @Ocean Helm, i always like data and your link is good.

What makes typing is so 'cumbersome' is that when people know they are being tested, either self test or being tested by professionals, with or without anyone attendance, *they tend to project their desired self image in picking the answer rather than honestly admitting what they actually are and how they operate*.

So for everyone who keep having different results from test to test my advice is very simple: try to do it honestly.



_Sent sans PC_


----------



## G.13 (Feb 12, 2018)

Red Panda said:


> Yes, because you don't take into context the whole theory and critically engage it to see the mistakes and good points. Myers made similar mistakes which is why we're stuck with the MBTI.


You are. Because you want a science, not a system.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

G.13 said:


> You are. Because you want a science, not a system.


of course, because science is actually real


----------



## G.13 (Feb 12, 2018)

Red Panda said:


> of course, because science is actually real


Well, no. Psychology is not a science. No more than there is science in the martial arts ( that's why there are so many) there is no science in psychology. Psychology is not Psychiatry.

You can simply use science to support a viability of your system. It's all about choice, system preference. it stops there.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

G.13 said:


> Well, no. Psychology is not a science. No more than there is science in the martial arts ( that's why there are so many) there is no science in psychology. Psychology is not Psychiatry.
> 
> You can simply use science to support a viability of your system. It's all about choice, system preference. it stops there.


It only stops there if you wanna stop there, or maybe you can't go on. Psychology is formed somehow, doesn't come from a vacuum. Just because we don't understand something yet doesn't mean we never will or that we shouldn't try.


----------



## G.13 (Feb 12, 2018)

Red Panda said:


> It only stops there if you wanna stop there, or maybe you can't go on. Psychology is formed somehow, doesn't come from a vacuum. Just because we don't understand something yet doesn't mean we never will or that we shouldn't try.


Actually, I'm S, so I just want to use the abstract system what works in physical world. I do not want to invent another system, it does not interest me. But I suspect some people, here, want to "kill the father" and then to develop their own concept from the ashes.

Too much bad faith.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

G.13 said:


> Actually, I'm S, so I just want to use the abstract system what works in physical world. I do not want to invent another system, it does not interest me. But I suspect some people, here, want to "kill the father" and then to develop their own concept from the ashes.
> 
> Too much bad faith.


Is it really a choice or are you incapable of doing otherwise because of your preferences?
rhetorical


----------



## G.13 (Feb 12, 2018)

Red Panda said:


> Is it really a choice or are you incapable of doing otherwise because of your preferences?
> rhetorical



It's not choice, it's a nature. I prefer to work on something physical, especially in theory. You can not understand that?


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

G.13 said:


> It's not choice, it's a nature. I prefer to work on something physical, especially in theory. You can not understand that?


Science _is_ physical.


----------



## G.13 (Feb 12, 2018)

Red Panda said:


> Science _is_ physical.


You are an authentic caricature. "Concret" if you prefer.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

G.13 said:


> You are an authentic caricature. "Concret" if you prefer.


Oh yea? Of what?


----------



## G.13 (Feb 12, 2018)

Of your avatar.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

G.13 said:


> Of your avatar.


:laughing:
Look, you said you prefer to work with something physical, yet earlier you said you want a system instead of science. But science is physical, so why this inconsistency? Something being "physical" is not the determining factor here. But whatev.


----------



## G.13 (Feb 12, 2018)

I have a new for you


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

G.13 said:


> There is a difference between *leading *a group and *working *in a group. The most obtimal function is _Fe _for the second. For example, the _ESTJ _gives an order with _Te_, your opinion does not matter _Fi_, rather than sharing his ideas hoping for validation. _Ti-Fe_


If you're going to go to Jung, attributing "your opinion does not matter" to Fi specifically is wishful thinking on your part.


> You still claim that _TJ _uses _introverted thinking _in a preferential way ...


Is your latest thing just to completely lie about what I say? After your post before it, and now this one, it would seem that may be the case.

I believe that *INTJs*, not TJs in general, are the most likely type to relate pretty heavily to Jung's Introverted Thinking type, but that a lot of them will also relate to his Extraverted Thinking type as well.

The type that people think that INTJs should relate to but I don't think often actually happens is the Introverted Intuitive.


> It's hopeless ... Because I am referring to Jung.


I think you're unaware of the personal bias you are interjecting into Jung's words in your interpretation. For instance, moral *codes* are not a "Fi" thing in Jung. The idea of codifying morality is what happens when T reigns supreme. He talks about this a lot with, not surprisingly, his Ti type and Thinking types in general which he groups together (not explicitly in the part I linked maybe, but in other things he wrote). So just because *you* personally take some things to mean "Fi", that doesn't mean that Jung did as well.

A Jungian Feeling-preferring type doesn't have a tendency to codify morality because they more naturally deal with it outside of intellectual constructs.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

contradictionary said:


> You know, @Ocean Helm, i always like data and your link is good.
> 
> What makes typing is so 'cumbersome' is that when people know they are being tested, either self test or being tested by professionals, with or without anyone attendance, *they tend to project their desired self image in picking the answer rather than honestly admitting what they actually are and how they operate*.
> 
> So for everyone who keep having different results from test to test my advice is very simple: try to do it honestly.


I agree with this a ton. I've noticed that the people who take the tests most "function-blind" end up achieving the results which are *least* in line with the Grant-Brownsword function stacks. For me, there's only a shade of difference between the results I achieved back when I started taking these things and what I get now, possibly because I never bought into that model.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

Ocean Helm said:


> INxJs are suppoosedly the "intuition dominant" introverts. If INxJs were so damn intuitive you would think they wouldn't be mistyping as S so often. Thoughts?


Maybe their "J-ness" gets in the way. How easy do you suppose it is to try and organize intuition? It may be like trying to herd cats.


----------



## G.13 (Feb 12, 2018)

_Te-Fi_, is in the _Te _description of Jung's . _Fi_ is already integrated inside. Like something inseparable. 



Ocean Helm said:


> If you're going to go to Jung, attributing "your opinion does not matter" to Fi specifically is wishful thinking on your part.


_The Introverted Feeling Type_

-_Should this outer side be somewhat emphasized,* a suspicion of neglectfulness and coldness may easily obtrude itself, which not seldom increases to a real indifference for the comfort and well-being of others*._

-_A superficial judgment might well be betrayed, by a rather cold and reserved demeanour, into denying all feeling to this type.
_

And it's the description of a dominant_ introverted feeling_ that Jung says more present in women. This is corroborated by the ISFP and INFP statistics. No surprise.

Again I maintain, that according to Jung's definition, INTJs use little the _introverted thinking _. Or you confuse them with INTPs. Which is most likely.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

tanstaafl28 said:


> Maybe their "J-ness" gets in the way. How easy do you suppose it is to try and organize intuition? It may be like trying to herd cats.


I agree with this and I think the "organizing" of it can be thought as something dominating over it (in a function model, a rational function).


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

G.13 said:


> _Te-Fi_, is in the _Te _description of Jung's . _Fi_ is already integrated inside. Like something inseparable.


For "Te types", T dominates the extraverted consciousness, and F is part of the introverted unconsciousness.


> _The Introverted Feeling Type_
> 
> -_Should this outer side be somewhat emphasized,* a suspicion of neglectfulness and coldness may easily obtrude itself, which not seldom increases to a real indifference for the comfort and well-being of others*._
> 
> ...


This is said within the context of it being a Feeling type. The Introverted Feeling type still cares more about what others think than the other introverted types.


> And it's the description of a dominant_ introverted feeling_ that Jung says more present in women. This is corroborated by the ISFP and INFP statistics. No surprise.


All IFs are more common in women, so this confirms nothing with regards to J and P.

Jung saw N and F as being more common in women, and S and T in men.


> Again I maintain, that according to Jung's definition, INTJs don't use the _introverted thinking _very much. Or you confuse them with INTPs. Which is most likely.


I don't care if you would like to continue stubbornly being wrong!


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

Ocean Helm said:


> I agree with this and I think the "organizing" of it can be thought as something dominating over it (in a function model, a rational function).


I suspect, not as much as sensors do, but that J types are going to feel uneasy about trusting their intuition at some level because it goes against "The order of things" to some degree, whereas intuition is a more natural fit for P types, who are used to going with the flow. 

I'm saying that a J type will feel a bit more "push-pull" over intuition than a P type might, not that it doesn't work, or that they are inferior in any way. Every type is a mix of strengths and weaknesses. No type is superior, they just explain certain set of cognitive preferences.


----------



## G.13 (Feb 12, 2018)

Ocean Helm said:


> For "Te types", T dominates the extraverted consciousness, and F is part of the introverted unconsciousness.
> 
> This is said within the context of it being a Feeling type. The Introverted Feeling type still cares more about what others think than the other introverted types.
> 
> ...


It's me, or are you just confirming with other words, what I'm saying? How should I disagree?


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

FPs don't use Jung's Fi, they are adaptable feelers by definition and care a lot to adapt to other people, hence why they often become victims of control freaks
Fi by Jung matches up with FJs better, especially evident when they are disgruntled, they'll just find all kinds of reasons to eliminate that person in their minds or in reality (depending on the severity too)


----------



## G.13 (Feb 12, 2018)

Red Panda said:


> FPs don't use Jung's Fi, they are adaptable feelers by definition and care a lot to adapt to other people, *hence why they often become victims of control freaks*
> Fi by Jung matches up with FJs better, especially evident when they are disgruntled, they'll just find all kinds of reasons to eliminate that person in their minds or in reality (depending on the severity too)


There are a lot of ISFP here. Ask them, instead of speculating bulls***...


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

G.13 said:


> There are a lot of ISFP here. Ask them, instead of speculating bullsh*t ...


this isn't speculation lol
mbti defines P types as adaptable, Jung defines FI as non adaptable so just by this simple investigation of the definitions shows there is a fundamental issue with how Myers handled them all


----------



## G.13 (Feb 12, 2018)

Red Panda said:


> this isn't speculation lol
> mbti defines P types as adaptable, Jung defines FI as non adaptable so just by this simple investigation of the definitions shows there is a fundamental issue with how Myers handled them all



Adaptable to the level of the sensation (extraverted), as for the ISTP ... It is the auxiliary which is the perception, not the dominant... On the contrary, very subjective and closed.

And the MBTI has officially abandoned the functions. Without condemning them This is not the current most used stack. 

Damned ... Get out of your burrow.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

G.13 said:


> Adaptable to the level of the sensation (extraverted), as for the ISTP ... It is the auxiliary which is the perception, not the dominant... On the contrary, very subjective and closed.
> 
> And the MBTI has officially abandoned the functions. Without condemning them This is not the current most used stack.
> 
> Damned ... Get out of your burrow.



Yes, the MBTI abandoned the function stack because they couldn't verify any of it. Because it was wrong. The idea that SP types are adaptable to the level sensation is part of that stack. 
MBTI characterises P types as adaptable people in general and that's what the data has shown all these years. And it simply doesn't fit the "Fi" temperament. 
In reality, the extraverted attitude of the perception informs and guides their decision making which is why they are overall adaptable. And why they cannot be "Fi" doms.


----------



## G.13 (Feb 12, 2018)

Red Panda said:


> Yes, the MBTI abandoned the function stack because they couldn't verify any of it. Because it was wrong. The idea that SP types are adaptable to the level sensation is part of that stack.
> MBTI characterises P types as adaptable people in general and that's what the data has shown all these years. And it simply doesn't fit the "Fi" temperament.
> In reality, the extraverted attitude of the perception informs and guides their decision making which is why they are overall adaptable. And why they cannot be "Fi" doms.



They are so Fi Dom that the MBTI recommends trades related to animals. ISFPs love animals. Precisely because they do not have to deal with the feelings of others. SFPs in police are not uncommon. Values and organization of the outside world, with a good physical presence. So, yes Fi Dom, it's strong character, but also sweetness. As long as you do not attack their inner convictions. The ISFPs I know are a mixture of kindness and authority, and very physical.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

G.13 said:


> They are so Fi Dom that the MBTI recommends trades related to animals. ISFPs love animals. Precisely because they do not have to deal with the feelings of others. SFPs in police are not uncommon. Values and organization of the outside world, with a good physical presence. So, yes Fi Dom, it's strong character, but also sweetness. As long as you do not attack their inner convictions. The ISFPs I know are a mixture of kindness and authority, and very physical.


lol...
top careers for FPs are in healthcare, childcare, social working as well as other types of people-related jobs like customer service and sure helping animals too. These are generally related with the F function.

Dealing with the feelings of others is difficult for the FPs because they don't wanna make decisions for other people. Because they are adaptable people, not comfortable with affecting changes to others but prefer to change themselves. This is also true for TPs.
Organization of the outside world is not a P trait.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

Remember someone tested for what were based off Jung's types and the "Ti" was the strongest J of them all?

I remember that.


----------



## G.13 (Feb 12, 2018)

Red Panda said:


> lol...
> top careers for FPs are in healthcare, childcare, social working as well as other types of people-related jobs like customer service and sure helping animals too. These are generally related with the F function.
> 
> Dealing with the feelings of others is difficult for the FPs because they don't wanna make decisions for other people. Because they are adaptable people, not comfortable with affecting changes to others but prefer to change themselves. This is also true for TPs.
> Organization of the outside world is not a P trait.



It's not a dominant trait. But it is there, in inferior function. They are not as comfortable with others as ISFJs. 

_Careers to Consider 
_
[PDF]ISFP - Davidson College
[PDF]ISFJ - Davidson College

Do you see anything related to animals for ISFJ?


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

G.13 said:


> It's not a dominant trait. But it is there, in inferior function. They are not as comfortable with others as ISFJs.
> 
> _Careers to Consider
> _
> ...


Maybe ISFJs are not empathetic enough with non human creatures they are not bonded with and can't micromanage, because they are not adaptive feelers :shocked:

we may be on to something here lads


----------



## G.13 (Feb 12, 2018)

Ocean Helm said:


> Remember someone tested for what were based off Jung's types and the "Ti" was the strongest J of them all?
> 
> I remember that.


Remembers you seeing Ocean reading Jung texts by reversing the meaning, trampling the book, urinating on it, and pledging allegiance to a dark entity of the sophistry universe.

I remember that.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

@G.13 @Red Panda are you familiar with this Singer-Loomis Inventory of Personality (SLIP)/MBTI correlation study?

https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5268&context=etd

In order of J to P for Jungian types (writing them in the common notation): Ti, Se, Te, Si, Fe, Fi/Ne, Ni

I'm not saying the inventory is perfect but Fi did come up as being a fairly "P" type relative to the others. But Ti was the most J and Ni was the most P.


G.13 said:


> Remembers you seeing Ocean reading Jung texts by reversing the meaning, trampling the book, urinating on it, and pledging allegiance to a dark entity of the sophistry universe.
> 
> I remember that.


Only in your imagination can such a thing happen :wink:


----------



## G.13 (Feb 12, 2018)

Red Panda said:


> Maybe ISFJs are not empathetic enough with non human creatures they are not bonded with and can't micromanage, because they are not adaptive feelers :shocked:
> 
> we may be on to something here lads


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

G.13 said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance


that's what you're doing with your absolutely ridiculous animal argument when in your own link you see top careers for ISFP in healthcare, which means they do have a preference for human-centered careers
oh and these lists have a disclaimer to not exclude other careers lol


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

G.13 said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance


Based on that link, it would seem like certain individuals who post links to cognitive dissonance descriptions are suffering from cognitive dissonance themselves...


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Ocean Helm said:


> @G.13 @Red Panda are you familiar with this Singer-Loomis Inventory of Personality (SLIP)/MBTI correlation study?
> 
> https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5268&context=etd
> 
> ...


nah I wasn't familiar, will read tho thanks


----------

