# Just read this...



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

WontlyTheMoonBear said:


> And yeah, I'm not one for debates. I got other things to be getting on with. And I do* tend to assert my opinion and leave*, unless of course, I know that the other person IS wrong and that I'm not. I am firm and set on what I think/believe and can be pushy sometimes.





WontlyTheMoonBear said:


> To be honest, I've never actually thought about joining a debate at all. Like I mentioned before, it's just something that I'm not inclined to do. I keep things straightforward, and *argue when I want something/to be heard*. I have my ways around things, but I try to get as much as I can from things. I do think that what you said is a good idea, and would consider giving it a go.


this is fi...you only debate/argue when your values/interests are directly challenged/at stake...extps, otoh, often enjoy debates and arguments for its own sake because it's a chance to use their ti...ditto, ixtps


----------



## Max (Aug 14, 2014)

ae1905 said:


> this is fi...you only debate/argue when your values/interests are directly challenged/at stake...extps, otoh, often enjoy debates and arguments for its own sake because it's a chance to use their ti...ditto, ixtps


I never thought of it that way, either. For years, I thought that Fi was 'the sensitive, quiet guy, who knows upright morals', but I guess that the more I actually look into Typology, the less right I am. I also guess that the fact that I tend not to actively embrace my 'feelery' side makes me more screwed up. 

I understand why people are convinced that I am ENTP to a degree, but I disagree with that typing because I know that I don't use Ne to the degree that people think I do. When I look at myself, I am a lot more grounded, more assertive, opinionated and results orientated and rough around the edges than I care to notice.


----------



## Malandro (Jul 17, 2014)

WontlyTheMoonBear said:


> I never thought of it that way, either. For years, I thought that Fi was 'the sensitive, quiet guy, who knows upright morals', but I guess that the more I actually look into Typology, the less right I am. I also guess that the fact that I tend not to actively embrace my 'feelery' side makes me more screwed up.
> 
> I understand why people are convinced that I am ENTP to a degree, but I disagree with that typing because I know that I don't use Ne to the degree that people think I do. When I look at myself, I am a lot more grounded, more assertive, opinionated and results orientated and rough around the edges than I care to notice.


I thought a little more about 8 Fi users. "This is my opinion, end of.' is something I can imagine them saying. I can literally only think of two ESFP 8s - one's Merle from The Walking Dead and the other I'm just assuming that's his type because the memory of him makes me sick and I don't want to think about him unless it's me reminiscing beating him up. I'm sorry, I don't have any positive examples of that type to show you XD

But ESFP 8s sound like they'd be bigger arseholes than ESTP 8s if you pissed them off. The headstrong Fi traits mixed with the ID-ness of the 8... Not even a good beating could stop them.

I don't know why you seem so Si-ish if you're sure about your typing. ESFP sees a likely type for you but it makes me wonder if your enneagram stack is right. No, not because I think ESFP 8s are arseholes (I don't, INTJ 8s are the real arseholes ) but because you seem very... Well not so serious.


----------



## Max (Aug 14, 2014)

sharlzkidarlz said:


> I thought a little more about 8 Fi users. "This is my opinion, end of.' is something I can imagine them saying. I can literally only think of two ESFP 8s - one's Merle from The Walking Dead and the other I'm just assuming that's his type because the memory of him makes me sick and I don't want to think about him unless it's me reminiscing beating him up. I'm sorry, I don't have any positive examples of that type to show you XD
> 
> But ESFP 8s sound like they'd be bigger arseholes than ESTP 8s if you pissed them off. The headstrong Fi traits mixed with the ID-ness of the 8... Not even a good beating could stop them.
> 
> I don't know why you seem so Si-ish if you're sure about your typing. ESFP sees a likely type for you but it makes me wonder if your enneagram stack is right. No, not because I think ESFP 8s are arseholes (I don't, INTJ 8s are the real arseholes ) but because you seem very... Well not so serious.


Yeah, pretty much I am "This is my opinion, take it or leave it. This is my decision. WE ARE DOING THIS." I rarely compromise, unless you prove me wrong. I am too decisive for my own good sometimes. 

I come here to get away. This is my lotus among the weeds. I mean, of course I'm not gonna be so serious online. There's nothing worse than being an uptight asshole in your downtime (unless, of course the situation calls for it, and someone pisses me off). 

You haven't seen me pissed off yet, and I don't think you want me to go there.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

ae1905 said:


> this is fi...you only debate/argue when your values/interests are directly challenged/at stake...extps, otoh, often enjoy debates and arguments for its own sake because it's a chance to use their ti...ditto, ixtps


I'd like to just point out that it isn't so clear cut all the time. I know few high Ti-users who do not enjoy debates for the sake of debates. Rather, they only debate when they have a clear case and can quite possibly affect the way someone else sees the issue. When it actually matters. And it's not just hitting your head on the brick wall that never sees further than it is meant to.... just for the sake of being argumentative and fun?!

@WontlyTheMoonBear, I still honestly am confused between Ne and Se for you. You say Se fits, that is duly noted. I'd like to just tell you my first impression was ESF-ish. Maybe ESFJ even, when you still typed as Fe-dom. For a moment I was undecided between ESFJ or ENTP for what do I know, and it was some time ago anyway. I still wish you could explain how you relate to Fi-Te. In great detail, please (especially if you are in the mood for writing something).


----------



## Max (Aug 14, 2014)

DOGSOUP said:


> I'd like to just point out that it isn't so clear cut all the time. I know few high Ti-users who do not enjoy debates for the sake of debates. Rather, they only debate when they have a clear case and can quite possibly affect the way someone else sees the issue. When it actually matters. And it's not just hitting your head on the brick wall that never sees further than it is meant to.... just for the sake of being argumentative and fun?!
> 
> @WontlyTheMoonBear, I still honestly am confused between Ne and Se for you. You say Se fits, that is duly noted. I'd like to just tell you my first impression was ESF-ish. Maybe ESFJ even, when you still typed as Fe-dom. For a moment I was undecided between ESFJ or ENTP for what do I know, and it was some time ago anyway. I still wish you could explain how you relate to Fi-Te. In great detail, please (especially if you are in the mood for writing something).


I don't see the point in debating because:

1. It's a waste of time mostly, and accomplishes nothing. When people are so set in their ways/opinions like that, 90% of the time, it's a waste of time. No amount of convincing will make them change their minds, unless you can actually make an impact on them internally. Personal opinions/beliefs are hard to change/shift when people hang onto them, like they do. 

2. It takes too much time/effort to actually study other people and their opinions, why they hold those opinions, how they were persuaded, how to impact those opinions etc, when you have so many other things to do. You need 45+ hours in a day to study/invent arguments for the sake of debating. It's an art in itself and takes too long to actually master. 

3. If you get sucked in, and hell-bent on changing other's opinions, the debate becomes meaningless for yourself, and others. It's also about listening to others, yourself and mapping a general idea of how everyone thinks. To me, it's also close to how "The Search Engine" concept in Ex-Machina works ('It's not based upon what people are buying, it's based upon how people were thinking' - Okay, that's paraphrased, but you get the idea). 

It's obvious to me that there are other more effective ways of testing the water than month-long debates with 2-3 users about one specialized topic at a time. It's not fun either. It gets tedious after a short while and you begin to lose focus when things spiral off topic. 

《♤♡♢♧》

The reason I say that Se works more than Ne for myself is because I see myself working with "the real world" a lot more easier than "the abstract world". When I think of something, I put it in concrete terms. I make it realistic. I do something with it in real time. If I have any goals, I make them realistic and imagine them "in reality". When I write, everything is "realism", not just "concepts and ideas that could be real". I want people to actually relate to/experience my writing in their own ways, and actually be touched/inspired as they read it.

You thought I was ESFJ? Was it because "of the unfiltered randomness"? Not everything that "is random" is lesser Ne, that hasn't been let out to play. If you did think ESFJ, then maybe this is why @sharlzkidarlz thinks I am "pretty Si, despite seeming Pe dominant", which is fair enough. The reason that I actually abandoned the "Fe-Typing" was because I didn't think it was fitting my functional stack order, even under a loop. 

I thought that my thinking function was stronger/equal strength to my Pe, but I guess that I may have overestimated it, considering what people say about the "masculine being geared towards thinking, and feminine being geared toward feeling", which I also think can be tied in with social norms/hormone levels and "your dominant side of the brain". I have felt my right side hurt more than my left numerous times, but I don't seem "any less intelligent" than a leftie.

And typology stereotypes too. A well grounded SFJ can seem NTP, and vice versa, if the situation calls for it. I read somewhere that a "well grounded Ne-Dom" can seem like an S, "making nature connections and making them work", which I understand can happen. I can also see the reverse being true for a well-grounded S. 

Could you tell me how you see me relating to Ti-Fe, please? I need to think about my Fi-Te post, and will get back to you later. Thinking about the function I use and how you use them is hard to do when you use then automatically.

(That took a lot outta me xD)


----------



## Stachan (Jul 8, 2016)

WontlyTheMoonBear said:


>


Hell yes it is!


----------



## Stachan (Jul 8, 2016)

WontlyTheMoonBear said:


> Anyway. I think this might have something to do with me:
> 
> Being a recluse of late (as in working on a project full time and pouring my time into that, instead of going out into the outside world and experiencing/ doing shit like I usually do).
> Getting too emotionally involved in the musical side of the project and projecting too much passion into it, as well as the artistic side of things (which is pretty fun and also important).
> ...


Sounds pretty much like me. XD

What are you writing about?


----------



## Max (Aug 14, 2014)

Stachan said:


> Sounds pretty much like me. XD
> 
> What are you writing about?


I'm writing about a undercover CI, who also happens to be a famous actor. Who is in a lot of shit and sees one way out. Does he make.it there alive?

Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk


----------



## Max (Aug 14, 2014)

Anyone else?

Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk


----------



## Max (Aug 14, 2014)

.


----------



## soop (Aug 6, 2016)

Ill look at it later in not so good at typing yet though


----------



## Parrot (Feb 22, 2015)

I agree that you are neither an 8, nor the ENFJ you were, before. ExFP could work for you.


----------



## Max (Aug 14, 2014)

Drunk Parrot said:


> I agree that you are neither an 8, nor the ENFJ you were, before. ExFP could work for you.


God knows why I thought I was an ENFJ. And tbh, I don't really care for enneagram. Or Socionics. Much. I'll just read, take one and move on. Waste of time to me. 

Interested to hear your thoughts on why you think EXFP, though. 



soop said:


> Ill look at it later in not so good at typing yet though


Aight, appreciate it.


----------



## sometimes (Dec 26, 2013)

Yeah just looking at functions I still think you're an ESTP. So wonder you thought you were Fe dom and people are now typing as ESFJ. You seem stereotypically like a Feeler and like you use Fi but honestly I don't really see it. I see Fe more but as a Tertiary function. I think you have a relatively high interest in using it but it's still a tertiary function. The way you describe how you interact with people just has a Ti-Fe flare to it. With Se as your Dominant function. Maybe you seem more like a Feeler because of the way you use your functions and your interests and life philosophy or whatever or like the way you don't see the point in debating. Doesn't mean you don't use Ti. I see Ti in the way you think. A lot of ExFP's are very focussed on the here and now, not interested in debating etc. but they still have a Te sharpness and decisiveness about them behind it if you look for their thinking function in the way they speak about things. And they have that Fi self focus vibe. I don't see Fi in you. I'm more convinced than ever that you are an ESTP.


----------



## Max (Aug 14, 2014)

*What day is it even? (Night Call #001)*



pippylongstocking said:


> Yeah just looking at functions I still think you're an ESTP. So wonder you thought you were Fe dom and people are now typing as ESFJ.


Yeah, the thought of someone (@DOGSOUP) thinking that I was an 'ESFJ' was back a long time ago, when I was typing as an Fe-Dom. I thought I was an Fe-Dom (or, at least some sort of feeler dominant) because of how focused on the feeling/personal side of things I was back then. Yes, I have looked into loops (Se-Te, Se-Fe) and they make sense, if I get so 'out of control' and stop introspecting to the point that I just can't go inwardly anymore. 



> You seem stereotypically like a Feeler and like you use Fi but honestly I don't really see it. I see Fe more but as a Tertiary function. I think you have a relatively high interest in using it but it's still a tertiary function. The way you describe how you interact with people just has a Ti-Fe flare to it. With Se as your Dominant function.


Can some please explain to me how I act 'Ti-Fe'? No-one has actually told me/ broken it down yet. You're the second person who has said this without an explaination, or whatever. :dry: 



> Maybe you seem more like a Feeler because of the way you use your functions and your interests and life philosophy or whatever or like the way you don't see the point in debating. Doesn't mean you don't use Ti.


I know that it doesn't mean that I don't use Ti as an auxiliary function. I'm not big into the whole 'manufactured logic' concept. I would say that I am a lot more direct logically speaking, and don't care for it being 'right logically to me' as long as it's correct in general. I don't waste time worrying about stuff like that, to be honest. 



> I see Ti in the way you think. A lot of ExFP's are very focused on the here and now, *not interested in debating etc. but they still have a Te sharpness and decisiveness about them behind it if you look for their thinking function in the way they speak about things.* And they have that Fi self focus vibe. I don't see Fi in you. I'm more convinced than ever that you are an ESTP.


I can be sharp and decisive, too. I mean, if I want to me. 

Fi is self-focus? I thought it was more than that. I thought it related to the other person too. 

The vibes never leave, huh? 










They gather here, on Personality Cafe.


----------



## sometimes (Dec 26, 2013)

Alright. Yeah I didn't mean you weren't sharp and decisive I just don;t see it in a Te way. ESTP's are very sharp and decisive one of the most sharp and decisive types there are. So I din't explain that because I thought it was inherent in saying you were an ESTP but I should of explained. Anyway I know you're joking but that kinda tone of reply makes me less likely to try and explain myself better. I'm giving you all I've got at the moment. It's not my fault your questionnaire is so vague. Making fun of me typing somewhat based on vibes is just counter productive because vibes are are usually always based on something and can often be correct if you keep thinking about it and get out an explanation eventually. They are just difficult to explain. But now I don't feel like explaining anymore.


----------



## Max (Aug 14, 2014)

pippylongstocking said:


> Alright. Yeah I didn't mean you weren't sharp and decisive I just don;t see it in a Te way. ESTP's are very sharp and decisive one of the most sharp and decisive types there are. So I din't explain that because I thought it was inherent in saying you were an ESTP but I should of explained. Anyway I know you're joking but that kinda tone of reply makes me less likely to try and explain myself better. *I'm giving you all I've got at the moment. It's not my fault your questionnaire is so vague. Making fun of me typing somewhat based on vibes is just counter productive because vibes are are usually always based on something and can often be correct if you keep thinking about it and get out an explanation eventually. They are just difficult to explain. But now I don't feel like explaining anymore.*


You should have explained it better, but :shrug: . You made your points. 

I'm joking? :dry:










I'm not making fun of you. It's most of the people on here 'go by vibes' when they're typing people. They never actually explain their answers. They just say "Oh, I get x vibe". Just explain why you get X vibe. Typing on vibes isn't what annoys me, it's when people don't explain the thinking behind X vibe. 

If people explain it, fine. If not, what's the point? 

And you're saying my questionnaire is vague? Vibes are just as vague, to me. 

Thanks for your input, though.


----------



## sometimes (Dec 26, 2013)

WontlyTheMoonBear said:


> You should have explained it better, but :shrug: . You made your points.
> 
> I'm joking? :dry:
> 
> ...


I know. I wasn't saying there's anything wrong with your questionnaire sorry just that you're a tough nut to crack and that's not your fault either of course and i like the challenge. And yeah of course vibes are vague. More vague than your questionnaire I'm sure. I don't mind I'm just being honest that it puts me off trying to explain it more now but i'm not annoyed or anything honestly. Maybe I'm just lazy and easily put off but whatever. I know it can be frustrating though not getting much of an explanation. I understand.


----------



## Max (Aug 14, 2014)

pippylongstocking said:


> I know. I wasn't saying there's anything wrong with your questionnaire sorry just that you're a tough nut to crack and that's not your fault either of course and i like the challenge. And yeah of course vibes are vague. More vague than your questionnaire I'm sure. I don't mind I'm just being honest that it puts me off trying to explain it more now but i'm not annoyed or anything honestly. Maybe I'm just lazy and easily put off but whatever. I know it can be frustrating though not getting much of an explanation. I understand.


I know you weren't. I was making myself clear about what I thought of 'vibes'. And be as honest as you like. I value people being honest. When people aren't honest, it makes me mad. 

If you do come up with an explaination behind your thoughts, go ahead and post it here. Take your time, if you want.


----------



## Max (Aug 14, 2014)

Azure_Zalaire said:


> Have you taken a cognitive functions test yet? (Apologies if you already did haven't read the whole thread yet)


Not to be rude, but they are too unstable and easy to manipulate depending on mood etc. 
I always get ridiculous answers in those tests. I've gotten INxJ before in those lol. 

I have considered being an ESFP in a loop and not engaging Fi at all, you know. 
Although, I do resonate with Ti, but that could be Se-Te making me.


----------



## Azure Dreamer (May 26, 2016)

Fair enough you could always ask others who know you to describe you and try to see which functions fit those descriptions.


----------



## Max (Aug 14, 2014)

Azure_Zalaire said:


> Fair enough you could always ask others who know you to describe you and try to see which functions fit those descriptions.


Good idea.

Anyone know me? Wanna help out a moonbear in need?


----------



## soop (Aug 6, 2016)

WontlyTheMoonBear said:


>


Okay after reading this, I'm going to be the first to admit I don't really know how to find one's auxillary function. For me, I tried to negative type myself, find all the descriptions that didn't work which would leave me with the best one. Turns out that may not have worked. Another thing is that at this stage in my understanding of MBTI and all other theories correctly or incorrectly associated with it, it is still very hard for me to tell Ti and Fi in another person because they are so similar. If I had to hazard a guess, I would guess you to be more on the thinking side than the feeling side. I will try to pay attention to your posts in other areas of the site since sometimes my ni kicks in and that's more insightful than when I am trying to analyze something on the spot, particularly something I feel I lack sufficient knowledge in to do so. You also raised some interesting questions in your OP, ones which while interesting to think about, I again don't have enough knowledge to feel comfortable answering.


----------



## Eset (Jun 7, 2016)

@WontlyTheMoonBear
I've heard socionics is helpful since it looks beyond just the 4 functions that are assigned per type i.e. the other 4 that are not assigned.
I don't know too much about socionics, but I'm reading about it now and I thought it might be helpful for you.

The sources I'm reading about are specific for INTPs, so they won't be much use for you.
I haven't watched this (can't say how legitimate it is), but it's about ESFP's socionics and it might interest you:





Besides that, looking online or the socionics forum would be helpful.

Reason is because I'm sort of out sourced (i.e. no more _new_ information) on trying to find a nice snug type for you.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

@WontlyTheMoonBear, can't recall if we already discussed this, but if we did, do remind me - why is it so important to you to figure out your type this way?

Lots of things make more sense when you give them time.


----------



## Max (Aug 14, 2014)

soop said:


> Okay after reading this, I'm going to be the first to admit I don't really know how to find one's auxillary function. For me, I tried to negative type myself, find all the descriptions that didn't work which would leave me with the best one. Turns out that may not have worked. Another thing is that at this stage in my understanding of MBTI and all other theories correctly or incorrectly associated with it, it is still very hard for me to tell Ti and Fi in another person because they are so similar. If I had to hazard a guess, I would guess you to be more on the thinking side than the feeling side. I will try to pay attention to your posts in other areas of the site since sometimes my ni kicks in and that's more insightful than when I am trying to analyze something on the spot, particularly something I feel I lack sufficient knowledge in to do so. You also raised some interesting questions in your OP, ones which while interesting to think about, I again don't have enough knowledge to feel comfortable answering.


Fair enough. Thank you for your input. 

Why do you think I am more on the thinking side of things if you don't mind me asking? 



narcissistic said:


> @WontlyTheMoonBear
> I've heard socionics is helpful since it looks beyond just the 4 functions that are assigned per type i.e. the other 4 that are not assigned.
> I don't know too much about socionics, but I'm reading about it now and I thought it might be helpful for you.
> 
> ...


Socionics just makes things even more complicated. I tried it, and most of the time, they don't even correlate. Supposedly I'm ENFj(??) in Socionics, and ESxP(?!?!) in MBTI. Thanks for your help and suggestion, but I don't think the two correlate exactly to give one a true personality type. They're two different systems. I can understand trying to type someone seperately, but not together as one 'mega-type' with the different systems. 



DOGSOUP said:


> @WontlyTheMoonBear, can't recall if we already discussed this, but if we did, do remind me - why is it so important to you to figure out your type this way?
> 
> Lots of things make more sense when you give them time.


Because I want to know my type. I want to know it, so that I can work on it. 

What other way is there?


----------



## Azure Dreamer (May 26, 2016)

Which would you relate to more as your more disposed/natural position:
Do you relate more to understanding your internal state of values or put more emphasis on the values of others?

If you are in a discussion with someone and they say something you highly disagree with, what would it be and how would you react?


----------



## Max (Aug 14, 2014)

Azure_Zalaire said:


> Which would you relate to more as your more disposed/natural position:
> Do you relate more to understanding your internal state of values or put more emphasis on the values of others?
> 
> If you are in a discussion with someone and they say something you highly disagree with, what would it be and how would you react?


Um... I don't even know to be fair? Values aren't something that I constantly think about. 

Um, tell them they're wrong? Argue against it. Show them why they're wrong.



Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk


----------



## Azure Dreamer (May 26, 2016)

How would you want to show them they were wrong? Elaborate if you can. Also what type of thing would have set you off to argue against them and why. (Trying to dig more into your motovations to help sort out f and t orientation)


----------



## Max (Aug 14, 2014)

Azure_Zalaire said:


> How would you want to show them they were wrong? Elaborate if you can. Also what type of thing would have set you off to argue against them and why. (Trying to dig more into your motovations to help sort out f and t orientation)


Aight. I'd tell them some facts to back it up and argue them into submission by showing them how wrong they are based on the evidence around them. 

What would set me off? Them being stupid and disagreeing in the first place.

Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk


----------



## Eset (Jun 7, 2016)

@WontlyTheMoonBear

Compare these statements in which one relates to you most:

*A):*
* *






*A1):* The individual is very adept at perceiving, establishing, and maintaining personal bonds between people. However, these bonds are often perceived as being situational and flexible rather than static. The individual is inclined to focus on establishing personal bonds with other people in the context of realizing or following perceptions from his base function. The person easily creates a sense of closeness and kinship between people by expressing like and acceptance, but these sentiments are situational rather than an expression of permanent feelings. If the person's mood or external situation changes, he or she may "turn off" the feelings instantly, even forgetting whom they had created the feeling of kinship with.

*A2):* The individual is keen on accumulating factual knowledge on subjects of personal interest and those that help him be more efficient and productive, but he's often unsure of his ability to find and select the correct information and is therefore attracted to people whom he sees as competent in that area and reassure him.

*A3):* The individual appreciates situations where people are enjoying a positive emotional atmosphere as in having fun and joking together, and is quite adept at creating them himself, but does not see creating or promoting them a top priority, nor does he actively look for people who maintain or need such an atmosphere; too high a focus on that is seen by the individual as overdone.

*A4):* The individual has a tendency to either completely reject or completely embrace a source of theoretical knowledge, but does not like to reveal the source or his adherence to it. He prefers to limit the number of theoretical categories he works with and tends to see new terminology, systems, and rules as being arbitrary and unnecessary until he at last discovers their necessity for himself through extensive personal experience. He may be able to express his views clearly when given the time, but he is not prepared to deal with people who challenge his views and draw him into logical arguments and disputes. For this reason, he is reluctant to publicize new determinations and opinions until he is absolutely sure that they are right and that he can support them thoroughly to anyone who challenges them.




*B):*
* *






*B1):* The individual easily generates logical systems and formulations to explain a set of phenomena that he has experienced or studied. However, these logical systems or explanations are not viewed as permanent or all-encompassing, but can be improved upon or even discarded as new experience and information is added.

*B2):* The individual longs for situations where people are having fun, laughing and joking, and feel emotionally free and spontaneous. However, he is generally unable to produce this atmosphere himself and uses other means to create situations where there is a good chance that others will take the emotional initiative and create a fun and emotionally stimulating atmosphere. Failure at such attempts are met with dismay, which the individual either hides or reacts to with frustration and annoyance.

*B3):* The individual is adept at recognizing which aspects of an information, statement, or action are factually accurate in the sense of checking them against available external sources of information, but he tends to see this as lesser importance in comparison to their internal logical consistency when pursuing a concept fed by Ne or Se. To focus on the facts, also when giving out information, is seen as rather pointless when there is an Ne idea to be explored or a Se power to be gained.

*B4):* The individual does not normally pay attention to the nuances of interpersonal relationships; he is either overly suspicious or overly assuming of his relations with others when they are not clearly defined. More importance is given to these relations as they pertain to objective mutual benefit; entertaining one another and accomplishing mutual goals are seen as the main focus, rather than seeing the relationships as rewarding in and of themselves. The individual does not expect others to be actively aware or concerned with his own personal sentiments, and so sees little reason to be concerned with those of others, unless they have direct consequences for the individual. Statements by other persons reflecting their inner feelings are not fully registered by the individual if not accompanied by external emotional expression or actions. Suggestions that the individual may have acted unethically in the eyes of another person who has not clearly expressed disapproval are met with bafflement by the individual; those that are expressed without tact are either dismissed or reacted to aggressively. Expressions of deep personal sentiments are awkward for the individual, whether coming from another or himself. He does not see it as his "right" to place the burden of his true emotions on another, both because he knows how uncomfortable those of others make him (even when they are positive and genuine), and because of his own awkwardness in expressing them.


----------



## Max (Aug 14, 2014)

narcissistic said:


> @WontlyTheMoonBear
> 
> Compare these statements in which one relates to you most:
> 
> ...


Both sets? Erm... okay A1 and B2 

Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk


----------



## Eset (Jun 7, 2016)

WontlyTheMoonBear said:


> Both sets? Erm... okay A1 and B2
> 
> Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk


Ok, let's make this easier.

A1 or B1

A2 or B2

A3 or B3

A4 or B4

Which one is greater than the other.
Don't generalize it and be like:
"oh yeah totally" - to everything, 
Be very critical as if every line is the absolute truth.


----------



## Max (Aug 14, 2014)

narcissistic said:


> Ok, let's make this easier.
> 
> A1 or B1
> 
> ...


A1 over B1
A2 over B2 
B3 over A3
B4 over A4



Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk


----------



## Eset (Jun 7, 2016)

WontlyTheMoonBear said:


> A1 over B1
> A2 over B2
> B3 over A3
> B4 over A4
> ...


Most likely ESFP.

But what precisely is it that:
B4>A4?


----------



## Max (Aug 14, 2014)

narcissistic said:


> Most likely ESFP.
> 
> But what precisely is it that:
> B4>A4?


Oh shit! I meant A4 over B4 lol.

See what happens when I answer at 3am? 

Definitely A4 over B4. 

Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk


----------



## Eset (Jun 7, 2016)

WontlyTheMoonBear said:


> Oh shit! I meant A4 over B4 lol.
> 
> See what happens when I answer at 3am?
> 
> ...


Yep, you're definitely ESFP then.


----------



## Max (Aug 14, 2014)

narcissistic said:


> Yep, you're definitely ESFP then.












I'd never have actually guessed ESFP in a million years? (Based on that).

Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk


----------



## Max (Aug 14, 2014)

So, does anyone else wanna add/ask anything before I roll off to bed?

Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk


----------

