# A random mutation in the INFJ genome



## Clairetic (Oct 30, 2011)

Jawz said:


> ^^ Says the person who comes back with this.


Uh huh  I stand by it, too.



Jawz said:


> I scanned your posts about 3 times ... and I saw no evidence of me stereotyping you because you were an INFJ.


I didn't say you stereotyped me, I said you stereotype people by type. If you need more detailed examples:
-claiming that you have some kind of superior outlook on someone's problems because they are a 'fellow ENFJ' (if anything, it puts you in the exact same boat as her, as far as knowing what's going on with them)
-claiming that you know how to deal with INFJs because your mom was one



Jawz said:


> Interesting... an admission that your advice was terrible as well  Thanks.


 My advice was clear and concise. That's the difference.


----------



## Clairetic (Oct 30, 2011)

Spades said:


> I agree with snail on that point actually,


Why?



Spades said:


> but I think Big 5 isn't _meant_ to be used for typing, let alone with descriptions. As far as I understand, it's 0-100% scales, which is exactly what Jung's theory is _not_. The correlation between Big 5 and MBTI isn't set in stone. My two types are different, for example.


That's exactly right. Big 5 is more about finding correlations between various traits - rather than trying to label and sort people into boxes.




Spades said:


> Anyway, sorry for butting in. Welcome to PerC, Clairetic! I promise we're not all nitpicking meanies (well okay, maybe).


 No problem. I'm usually pretty good at telling different opinions apart and I don't feel ganged up on unless that's what people are trying to evoke.


----------



## Spades (Aug 31, 2011)

Clairetic said:


> Why?


Because descriptions such as this exist. It makes my insides twitch when I see how biased the pseudo-descriptions (mostly just adjectives) are. They also did this with the MBTI.

By the way, the way you break down posts to reply.. are you sure you're not a Ti-dom in disguise?  (Though I'll believe you because you explained this in your OP).


----------



## SilentScream (Mar 31, 2011)

Clairetic said:


> Uh huh  I stand by it, too.


Reveals more about you to me 



> I said you stereotype people by type. If you need more detailed examples:
> -claiming that you have some kind of superior outlook on someone's problems because they are a 'fellow ENFJ' (if anything, it puts you in the exact same boat as her, as far as knowing what's going on with them)


Never claimed that my advice was superior. And now what you're doing is the same again. So I could technically reverse your own assertion about me stereotyping back on to you - but since you're being childish, I'll just leave you to your own devices. 



> -claiming that you know how to deal with INFJs because your mom was one


Giving an example based on my experience is stereotyping? 



> My advice was clear and concise. That's the difference.


Just because you don't have the required attention span to read comprehensive posts doesn't mean others don't.


----------



## Clairetic (Oct 30, 2011)

Jawz said:


> Just because you don't have the required attention span to read comprehensive posts doesn't mean others don't.


 Whoa. Too far.


----------



## Clairetic (Oct 30, 2011)

Spades said:


> Because descriptions such as this exist. It makes my insides twitch when I see how biased the pseudo-descriptions (mostly just adjectives) are. They also did this with the MBTI.


 Then I don't see how that source is in any way a valid representation?

This is kind of like saying "I think feminism is a plague on humanity because [describes Andrea Dworkin]"



Spades said:


> By the way, the way you break down posts to reply.. are you sure you're not a Ti-dom in disguise?  (Though I'll believe you because you explained this in your OP).


 lol, I've been through this so many times. I learned to do things this way because it's the way others understand best  It really depends on how they approach me, but obviously there's only a few ways you can do that in a debate...


----------



## SilentScream (Mar 31, 2011)

Clairetic said:


> Whoa. Too far.


Well then ... With a humble apology for hurting your feelings, this is the last you'll hear from me on your posts.

Best regards. And enjoy ur time on this forum.


----------



## Clairetic (Oct 30, 2011)

Jawz said:


> Well then ... With a humble apology for hurting your feelings, this is the last you'll hear from me on your posts.
> 
> Best regards. And enjoy ur time on this forum.


 Ok, apology accepted. Sorry for being kind of a bitch :kitteh:


----------



## SilentScream (Mar 31, 2011)

Clairetic said:


> Ok, apology accepted. Sorry for being kind of a bitch :kitteh:


Have to admit I was being an ogre ... Lesson learnt ... looking forward to move on from this and hopefully interact with a cooler head next time


----------



## Antrist (Jan 26, 2011)

Spades said:


> Because descriptions such as this exist. It makes my insides twitch when I see how biased the pseudo-descriptions (mostly just adjectives) are. They also did this with the MBTI.
> 
> By the way, the way you break down posts to reply.. are you sure you're not a Ti-dom in disguise?  (Though I'll believe you because you explained this in your OP).





> ISTJ - Jung Type Descriptions
> *ISTJ*
> "Trustee". Decisiveness in practical affairs. Guardian of time- honored institutions. Dependable. 11.6% of total population.


Loool. That's not the first time that's happened.


----------



## Antrist (Jan 26, 2011)

@Jawz
@Clairetic

It's quite funny, I was reading every single post from the beginning, before I got distracted by something and had to reply. I was thinking 'before long, they'll both apologise to each other...' and I looked up, what did I see?

It's definitely an xNFJ trait to get caught in the current when it comes to arguing a case, and then later apologising for the intensity of the response. Same thing happened with me and Vaan, about violence.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Welcome Clairetic!

I'm happy to see you here. I missed this thread until now.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

snail said:


> Hmm, that's odd, because I think of the Big 5 as a prejudiced, judgmental version of the MBTI that completely devalues certain types and classifies some as better than others, mentioning some types in terms of their negative qualities and some in terms of their positive qualities. In many cases, the negative qualities some types are being defined by only exist because of non-ideal conditions, and are not truly representative of those types in their pure form. The Big 5 decides to label some types by behaviors that wouldn't exist if that type's ability to thrive weren't being stunted by a world that is hostile toward them. From all of the Big 5 descriptions I have seen, Anything that isn't an ENFJ is considered inferior, and the further the deviation from that type, the more negative terms are used. Instead of there being a positive category for both Extroversion and Introversion, for instance, there is a positive category for Extroversion, and Introversion is considered just a lack of extroversion.
> 
> To give an analogy, this would be like a world where men and women existed, where instead of seeing female genitals as distinct and valuable, having a vagina would never be thought of as having something. It would be described in terms of lacking a penis, when the penis is considered a desirable thing.
> 
> That is what the Big 5 does to the personality. Instead of recognizing the equality of the types, it describes some types for the qualities they lack instead of for the qualities they have. It is hard for me to understand how anyone who is aware of the MBTI could possibly think the Big 5 was valid.


I do agree with you that the Big 5 seems to want us all to be ENFJs (in fact I get this sensation sometimes from modern psychology, in general, like therapists would rejoice if we were a big robotic parade of the healthier version of politically correct ENFJs).

As a SLUAI (who is sometimes SLUEI) I clearly don't quite measure up.

I tend to call Big 5 "the stranger test" in that I think it is overly simplistic. It tells you WHAT but not WHY.

I am a fan of Jung..for the most part, and I even like PTypes and Keirsey's Matrices of temperament (though I hate his individual type descriptions and find them much too full of ridiculous mid-20th century WASP-y Western stereotypes)


----------



## Feral sheep (May 13, 2011)

its a tool and things can always be improved. so far, this has been a useful tool. I tested people, and I know them well. their personalities match up to the description and cog functions. also, everything said on the forums by various individuals were very much the matching to the person. i read them things off other forums, like intj, infj. yea, it works. can it work better? yes. 

people have opinions about what is better. its a matter of preference at the moment





here is something for you to check out


he used mbti and did some neuroscience...

@Clairetic


----------



## Clairetic (Oct 30, 2011)

fourtines said:


> I do agree with you that the Big 5 seems to want us all to be ENFJs (in fact I get this sensation sometimes from modern psychology, in general, like therapists would rejoice if we were a big robotic parade of the healthier version of politically correct ENFJs).
> 
> As a SLUAI (who is sometimes SLUEI) I clearly don't quite measure up.
> 
> ...


Honestly? I think the Big 5 is a lot more about balance. Almost every extreme on every axis has an associated disorder or syndrome or is just not considered a valuable trait.

Extreme extroversion? Dependent and some aspects of histrionic.
Extreme introversion? Anhedonia, schizoid, schizotypal, avoidant.
Extremely low openness? Paranoid/avoidant.
Extremely high openness? ... well, I'm sure there's a downside somewhere.
Extremely low conscientiousness? Sloth or depression or ADHD.
Extremely high conscientiousness? Obsessive-compulsive.
Extremely low neuroticism? Blunted affect, dissociation.
Extremely high neuroticism? Bipolar/borderline.
Extremely low agreeableness? Antisocial, narcissistic.
Extremely high agreeableness? Other aspects of histrionic, over-compliance.

If people were 'too' ENFJ we would be a bunch of dependent, histrionic, obsessive-compulsive whores.

... that sounds kind of fun actually.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Clairetic said:


> Honestly? I think the Big 5 is a lot more about balance. Almost every extreme on every axis has an associated disorder or syndrome or is just not considered a valuable trait.
> 
> Extreme extroversion? Dependent and some aspects of histrionic.
> Extreme introversion? Anhedonia, schizoid, schizotypal, avoidant.
> ...


My most notable trait is my openness on Big 5. However, I am also high neuroticism, and I also seem rather bipolar or at least "cyclothymic" in my mood range and emotional reactivity. 

I'm pretty medium on everything else. 

I have weird agreeableness scores. Some tests have called me very agreeable (SLUAI) and others have said, wait, no you're SLUEI. 

Maybe it's that whole cyclothymic thing I have going on.


----------



## Clairetic (Oct 30, 2011)

fourtines said:


> My most notable trait is my openness on Big 5. However, I am also high neuroticism, and I also seem rather bipolar or at least "cyclothymic" in my mood range and emotional reactivity.
> 
> I'm pretty medium on everything else.
> 
> ...


Maybe tests are not a very good measure of this hmmmmmmm

it's true that it's not an inventory of psychiatric disorders. There are other tests for that.  and any such may confound your result. I highly recommend the NEO-PIR 300-question inventory; it's very detailed and highly balanced and has excellent retest validity. The only problem is that after answering 300 questions you're going to be rather disappointed in how obvious the results seem. Hence the appeal of MBTI...


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Clairetic said:


> Maybe tests are not a very good measure of this hmmmmmmm
> 
> it's true that it's not an inventory of psychiatric disorders. There are other tests for that.  and any such may confound your result. I highly recommend the NEO-PIR 300-question inventory; it's very detailed and highly balanced and has excellent retest validity. The only problem is that after answering 300 questions you're going to be rather disappointed in how obvious the results seem. Hence the appeal of MBTI...


I think it's just fine, honestly. Both SLUAI and SLUEI sound like me. SLUEI is just me being crazy or angry or depressed, and SLUAI is me at what I consider my best and happiest.

I've never taken an "official" test though.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

But on second thought, someone who is really into Big 5 said I *am* most likely a SLUAI because they can *become* aggressive when upset, which is not their typical state, and he compared himself to me, himself being more of a SLUEI...and I can assure you, this guy is kind of obnoxious...you probably know him actually.


----------



## Clairetic (Oct 30, 2011)

fourtines said:


> I think it's just fine, honestly. Both SLUAI and SLUEI sound like me. SLUEI is just me being crazy or angry or depressed, and SLUAI is me at what I consider my best and happiest.
> 
> I've never taken an "official" test though.


Yep, just like how INTP or RCUEI seems to fit me perfectly if you don't consider what actually goes on in my head 



Feral sheep said:


> here is something for you to check out


Cool, thanks! Watching it now.


----------

