# Hey, ISTP or ISTJ? Any attempt at helping with this is really appreciated



## alive1 (Sep 8, 2018)

So I've been reading up on all this but aside from being sure about ISTx, I seem really close to 50/50 on J/P, that, or I'm missing something. As for functions, I can relate parts to all of Se, Si, Te, Ti.

I picked a few questions from the stickied questionnaires, that seemed most relevant to deciding this issue, but please let me know if you need me to answer more/other questions instead.

Oh and before I start, I'm female, 28.


*What tends to weigh on your decisions? (Do you think about people, pro-cons, how you feel about it, etc.)*

(I'll add a bit more than what the question asked because of the J/P issue)

If it's a simple everyday decision: I quickly look at the realistic options and pick for optimizing things. Pretty snap decisions.

If it's a more complex decision: I collect and absorb factual data until I'm able to see some organization for it and then I feel ready to make a decision on it all. At that point again snap decision...

I tend to leave out the feelings of others from all this unless someone puts them in my face, so to speak. How I feel sometimes is part of the factors, sometimes isn't.

For important decisions, I never really do pro-con stuff beyond excluding options before the final choice, as I don't find that a good way of making the actual final decision, it could be too easily second-guessed. I instead consider what I really want and the best optimization for it so the decision is clear. For smaller ones, it's okay to do the pro-con approach, it just needs to be a "good enough" decision so again, second-guessing will not be an issue.

More stuff:

Overall I'm quite decisive when I do get to the point of making decisions. However, I can quite take my time before I'm able to get decisive at all. Sometimes I really have to force myself to "ok time to sit down and hype up yourself and make this decision".

I can change the decision if needed but if it was a true decision then I have to actually take the step of changing it... it doesn't change on its own. However I can get to change the decision too much when it comes to some issues with people, or when I did not do the right evaluation, not in-depth enough so then it's not a true decision so to speak... and then it doesn't stick too well before I "forget" about it and rethink it.


*When working on a project what is normally your emphasis? Do you like to have control of the outcome?*

Emphasis is on the task itself. The process of sorting it out. Optimizing it and doing it well and sticking to it until the end. Excelling overall. I do want control yes.


*How organized do you to think of yourself as?*

This is such a messy question to me. I never really get to be organized enough, I seem to run out of capacity for it beyond a point... but if I look around, some people call way less organizing already really neat and organized. (I disagree with this sometimes.) 

But then there is always mess around at home that I never get to sort out unless someone visits and then I do put it all in order. I'm really good at ignoring the disorder until then. (But then sometimes it stresses me out.) And mess for some of my personal projects if I don't get the energy to organize it all totally neatly. My most basic things that I use the most are always organized though.

Then for getting on with my day, I'm half organized with some stable routines and a little plan for the day that can change if something comes up or when I realize I need to reorganize the plan for some other reason. The routines I can also change okay if needed or whatever, but by default I fall into the established routines naturally.

With plans overall, I don't like the idea of entirely letting go of adaptability for my days unless I decided my goal required making myself completely 100% rigidly scheduled all day. That's when I'm 100% organized too and I lose all adaptability. I don't otherwise want to entirely lose all adaptability because something could come up that I need to take care of, or someone could need this. Otherwise though, if I committed to a plan, I will become very angry if I can't follow through with it.

For tasks/work, if it's big, I break down the project into parts and do a part every day so I can finish on time without stress that I would possibly not be able to do a good job if I had to work on it last minute, meaning very intensely at it continually for the last few days. I however am ok with doing tasks last minute if it does not require more than 1 day (2 days tops) to work crazy intensely at it or I believe the quality could suffer due to lack of time to really do it well. I actually am very resourceful with sorting things last minute if needed. I even enjoy the rush.


*What about your personality most distinguishes you from everyone else? If you could change one thing about you personality, what would it be? Why?*

That I will go in depth analysing some things more than anyone else would and get better results that way.

As for what I'd change, I'd want to have some more energy.


*How do you react to new situations in your life? Can you describe an event in your life where you were in an unknown situation? How did you deal with it?*

I explore the new situation and make sense of things. Either by very quickly navigating to get around, or by doing thorough analysis if I feel the need for it. I prefer to put all the bits together then neatly to see relevant schemes.

Unknown situation... first work interview in my life. I knew the company already, I was actually interested in working specifically for them, so I didn't need to do too much extra research for that part. I prepared for typical interview questions last minute while traveling to the place. Then I just tried to do my best overall answering questions etc. I focused on the task at hand always, no time or interest in unnecessarily stressing about stuff.


*Describe your relationship to order and chaos. What do order and chaos mean to you? How do they manifest in your daily life?*

Order is when things are organized sensibly. It's neat and ideally I'd have everything in order... but I cannot focus on this all day when I want to also do things to achieve the current goal. Then getting hung up on perfect order would get in the way and in the way of my own drive, it would be annoying.

Chaos is when things are (very) unorganized. Figuring out and thus prevailing over the chaos for things around me or people needing help in a slight crisis situation is very much fun. Navigation in a messy area to find my way quickly enough also is fun.


*Why do you want to know your type? What type do you think you are? Why this/these type(s)? Is there a type that appeals to you, to your self-perception, that you would like to be? Why? If you know your enneagram, please post this here. If you have done any online function tests such as the Keys2Cognition, it helps if you post these results here as well.*

I'm interested in more understanding of myself and others.

I'm pretty sure on ISTx. As for the Introversion part: I don't naturally take initiative socially though I can force myself to a bit, still, overall I'm more comfortable with others initiating. As for the Sensing part: I don't focus on more than what's in front of me by default. As for the Thinking part: I'm way more impersonal than personal and I could go on about this.


Keys2cog test:

_Cognitive Process	Level of Development (Preference, Skill and Frequency of Use)
extraverted Sensing (Se) ***************************************** (41.9)
excellent use
introverted Sensing (Si) ******************************************** (44.9)
excellent use
extraverted Intuiting (Ne) ************ (12.4)
unused
introverted Intuiting (Ni) ******************* (19.5)
limited use
extraverted Thinking (Te) ****************************************** (42)
excellent use
introverted Thinking (Ti) ************************************* (37.7)
excellent use
extraverted Feeling (Fe) **************** (16.4)
limited use
introverted Feeling (Fi) ************************ (24.6)
average use_


Don't know my Enneagram.


My notes on the S/T functions for myself:
Se: I seem to be fine with this (or is it Te?) when I have to navigate to find my way to get somewhere, also in sports I'm ok. I don't follow all my impulses without restraint but I'm aware of them when they come up and I do follow some sometimes. When I'm working or otherwise focused on a task, I don't have impulses like this but I can at other times.
Si: Details are easy for me for work or for other tasks. Natural. But I'm not very focused on details when just getting around or taking actions. I'm still focused on them some but I'm not as detail oriented as with other work tasks. I'm also details focused when collecting data for later organization and decisions. I'm not details focused when I actually make the real decision.
Te: I like goals and optimization. Achievements are very important to me. I can take charge. But I do want to go deeper than just make decisions as a boss, definitely not a Te-dom.
Ti: I do deep analysis of some things logically. However I do not like to do this without a real goal in real life, I do not just idly philosophize.


----------



## Westy365 (Jun 21, 2012)

Well dangit, you're a tricky one. I'd have to get to know you and watch you interact with people to figure out what you are. Normally I use the Jungian functions to figure things out, but you're ambiguous there too. :idunno:

Just wanted to let you know that I've tried and failed. Welcome to PerC btw. :smile:


----------



## alive1 (Sep 8, 2018)

Westy365 said:


> Well dangit, you're a tricky one. I'd have to get to know you and watch you interact with people to figure out what you are. Normally I use the Jungian functions to figure things out, but you're ambiguous there too. :idunno:
> 
> Just wanted to let you know that I've tried and failed. Welcome to PerC btw. :smile:


Lol, I see, thanks anyway. Feel free to ask questions if you think that could help. With the functions I suppose the point is which pair I prefer, any way to figure that out?


----------



## Jaune (Jul 11, 2013)

Been in your shoes, considered both ISTP and ISTJ and I'm pretty much borderline J and P. I hope I can help, but I suck at typing.



alive1 said:


> If it's a simple everyday decision: I quickly look at the realistic options and pick for optimizing things. Pretty snap decisions.
> 
> If it's a more complex decision: I collect and absorb factual data until I'm able to see some organization for it and then I feel ready to make a decision on it all. At that point again snap decision...
> 
> ...


Well, this part is tricky because I see Se, Si, Te, and Ti as possibilities here. The part that I bolded makes me lean toward Te-Fi axis. (Factoring personal desires into your decision, but figuring out the most efficient choice.)



> Emphasis is on the task itself. The process of sorting it out. Optimizing it and doing it well and sticking to it until the end. Excelling overall. I do want control yes.


I guess this is a vague explanation on my part, but this seems a lot more like something that I've seen ISTJs say rather than ISTPs. Your constant usage of the word "optimize" strikes me as very Te.

(Personally, I never think of things in terms of optimization. Also, sticking things through to the end doesn't come naturally to me.)



> This is such a messy question to me. I never really get to be organized enough, I seem to run out of capacity for it beyond a point... but if I look around, some people call way less organizing already really neat and organized. (I disagree with this sometimes.)
> 
> But then there is always mess around at home that I never get to sort out unless someone visits and then I do put it all in order. I'm really good at ignoring the disorder until then. (But then sometimes it stresses me out.) And mess for some of my personal projects if I don't get the energy to keep up with organizing it all. My most basic things that I use the most are always organized though.
> 
> ...


I don't think that looking at organization is really the best way to decide between Si-Te and Ti-Se, especially with "kinda organized, but not very" answers like these that people staggering between J and P give. (I relate completely to the last two quoted paragraphs, which made me think that I can't be a perceiver.)



> I explore the new situation and make sense of things. Either by very quickly navigating to get around, or by doing thorough analysis if I feel the need for it. I prefer to put all the bits together then neatly to see relevant schemes.


I was leaning toward ISTJ for the first couple questions, but this is definitely making me reconsider ISTP.



> Keys2cog test:
> 
> _Cognitive Process	Level of Development (Preference, Skill and Frequency of Use)
> extraverted Sensing (Se) ***************************************** (41.9)
> ...


These results lean more ISTJ, but they're really close.



> My notes on the S/T functions for myself:
> Se: I seem to be fine with this (or is it Te?) when I have to navigate to find my way to get somewhere, also in sports I'm ok. I don't follow all my impulses without restraint but I'm aware of them when they come up and I do follow some sometimes. When I'm working or otherwise focused on a task, I don't have impulses like this but I can at other times.


I think your Te prevails over your Se in the rest of the questionnaire.



> Si: Details are easy for me for work or for other tasks. Natural. But I'm not very focused on details when just getting around or taking actions. I'm still focused on them some but I'm not as detail oriented as with other work tasks. I'm also details focused when collecting data for later organization and decisions. I'm not details focused for real decisions.


I don't see anything contradictory here for Si-dom.



> Te: I like goals and optimization. Achievements are very important to me. I can take charge. But I do want to go deeper than just make decisions as a boss, definitely not a Te-dom.


I think Te-aux is accurate for you.



> Ti: I do deep analysis of some things logically. *However I do not like to do this without a real goal in real life*, I do not just idly philosophize.


Honestly, of these four functions, I don't see Ti as much in this questionnaire. Which makes me shy away from suggesting it as your dominant function. The part that I bolded about the real goal, I think that's very Te. Not sure if it's just a me thing, but I don't think that ISTPs mind deep analysis regarding things that don't have goals.

My two cents are that you're an ISTJ with good unvalued Se.

If you have any further questions, I can try to answer them.


----------



## Northern Lights (Mar 25, 2016)

ISTJ, then.

Anectodally, one big difference between me and one ISTJ is that he can get pretty angry if situations/circumstances/etc. don't work out the way he planned it, if he did. It's his weak spot. Whereas I go ... yeah, I got this grand plan with tons of details ... suddenly something throws that out of the window ... well whatever. I don't care, because it doesn't actually matter. A plan, any plan, is just shorthand for "my next action unless I think of something better" anyway. (It gets me attributes such as "chaotic" and "unstructured".)

So that's that, but my P is in the upper stratosphere too -- if you're more reasonably balanced, P/J might still be on this side, after all.


----------



## alive1 (Sep 8, 2018)

Jaune Valjaune said:


> Been in your shoes, considered both ISTP and ISTJ and I'm pretty much borderline J and P. I hope I can help, but I suck at typing.


Ah, thanks, sounds like a good background for trying to help here anyway. 




> Well, this part is tricky because I see Se, Si, Te, and Ti as possibilities here. The part that I bolded makes me lean toward Te-Fi axis. (Factoring personal desires into your decision, but figuring out the most efficient choice.)


Yeah this optimization is in part about efficiency for sure, and in part other resource management.




> I guess this is a vague explanation on my part, but this seems a lot more like something that I've seen ISTJs say rather than ISTPs. Your constant usage of the word "optimize" strikes me as very Te.
> 
> (Personally, I never think of things in terms of optimization. Also, sticking things through to the end doesn't come naturally to me.)


I see, yeah, I do realize this part is definitely strongly "J" of me.




> I don't think that looking at organization is really the best way to decide between Si-Te and Ti-Se, especially with "kinda organized, but not very" answers like these that people staggering between J and P give. (I relate completely to the last two quoted paragraphs, which made me think that I can't be a perceiver.)


Lol the thing is when I discussed recently with an ESTP about how much she is organized, that was when I realized my standards may differ from some other people's... :tongue: What she called organization (that's hard for her to keep to consistently) is the absolute basics for me. But yeah there is the mess issue too. Mind you she has bigger mess. roud:




> I was leaning toward ISTJ for the first couple questions, but this is definitely making me reconsider ISTP.


Hmm yeah I wondered if the navigation thing is typeable here.




> These results lean more ISTJ, but they're really close.


Actually yeah, it recommended ISTJ, ESTJ, ISTP in this order.




> I don't see anything contradictory here for Si-dom.


Oh the one thing where I wondered was about how it works with Si-dom that I'm less detailed when I'm in a more active mode (going somewhere, doing certain activities). I shift over to Te then?




> Honestly, of these four functions, I don't see Ti as much in this questionnaire. Which makes me shy away from suggesting it as your dominant function. The part that I bolded about the real goal, I think that's very Te. Not sure if it's just a me thing, but I don't think that ISTPs mind deep analysis regarding things that don't have goals.
> 
> My two cents are that you're an ISTJ with good unvalued Se.
> 
> If you have any further questions, I can try to answer them.


Thanks for the input. Hmm so having goals and finishing tasks towards those goals is more defining about type than the good Se? I guess I can see why also because I didn't note anything really about doing anything with Se. So, I mentioned sports and I do want to say that the sports training/racing is an integral part of my life. But I suppose you could say I approach it with a Te approach over Se as I'm still quite controlled there. 





Northern Lights said:


> ISTJ, then.
> 
> Anectodally, one big difference between me and one ISTJ is that he can get pretty angry if situations/circumstances/etc. don't work out the way he planned it, if he did. It's his weak spot. Whereas I go ... yeah, I got this grand plan with tons of details ... suddenly something throws that out of the window ... well whatever. I don't care, because it doesn't actually matter. A plan, any plan, is just shorthand for "my next action unless I think of something better" anyway. (It gets me attributes such as "chaotic" and "unstructured".)
> 
> So that's that, but my P is in the upper stratosphere too -- if you're more reasonably balanced, P/J might still be on this side, after all.


Thanks for the input. Lol, oh, that there is definitely not me with treating the grand plan with tons of details like that. :tongue: If I spent the time making such a detailed plan, that means I will be very committed to it (and very angry if there is a problem...). The more detailed I make it the more committed, in general. If that means anything in terms of typology. I can and will change some simpler plans easily though if needed, and a bit of this is also mood/state dependent, and not just dependent on external circumstances changing. Where I say mood/state dependent, I mean that I might feel the need to rest more for example (I'm not very good with energy lately), and then I have to change the plans.

Do let me know if that just confirms your typing or if it's not as simple as that.


----------



## Jaune (Jul 11, 2013)

alive1 said:


> Thanks for the input. Hmm so having goals and finishing tasks towards those goals is more defining about type than the good Se? I guess I can see why also because I didn't note anything really about doing anything with Se. So, I mentioned sports and I do want to say that the sports training/racing is an integral part of my life. But I suppose you could say I approach it with a Te approach over Se as I'm still quite controlled there.


Yeah, most of the Se things for you seemed more stereotypical, while it seems like you can relate to Te on a deeper level.

I'm not sure how to feel about the Se correlation with sports. I do know a lot of xSxPs who are great at them which kind of furthers the stereotype. Thing is, I've never been good at any, but I'm pretty much completely sure that I'm Se-aux at this point. I do fit the navigation stereotype. I've also met people on the Si-Ne axis who are good at both. I guess it's kind of like that Si stereotype of having a great memory.



> Oh the one thing where I wondered was about how it works with Si-dom that I'm less detailed when I'm in a more active mode (going somewhere, doing certain activities). I shift over to Te then?


Yeah, that could be it. I've seen that kind of behavior in other ISTJs.


----------



## alive1 (Sep 8, 2018)

Jaune Valjaune said:


> Yeah, most of the Se things for you seemed more stereotypical, while it seems like you can relate to Te on a deeper level.
> 
> I'm not sure how to feel about the Se correlation with sports. I do know a lot of xSxPs who are great at them which kind of furthers the stereotype. Thing is, I've never been good at any, but I'm pretty much completely sure that I'm Se-aux at this point. I do fit the navigation stereotype. I've also met people on the Si-Ne axis who are good at both. I guess it's kind of like that Si stereotype of having a great memory.
> 
> Yeah, that could be it. I've seen that kind of behavior in other ISTJs.


Yah well if Se preference is about following the impulses *most* of the time, that definitely doesn't fit me, it only comes in second after the focus on tasks and goals.

As for the stereotypes, yeah, I see what you mean. How does navigation work for you? Also, @Northern Lights can I ask you the same question?


----------



## VonWolfram (Sep 9, 2018)

ISTP. 

The thing about ISTJ's is that they have to plan out everything before taking action. An ISTJ loves order and hates chaos, because they need clear rules and systems in place in order to navigate the world and lack the creativity to extemporaneously figure things out. ISTP's appraise situations to identify underlying patterns (using Ni) and then quickly apply logical schemes to solve problems or make decisions.

Note that despite the J-P difference ISTP's are actually the one whose dominant function, introverted thinking, is a judging function. The combination of Dom Ti with being in the moment (Aux Se) and decent Ni makes them great at making solid snap decisions that are rarely too off base. ISTJ's are long term planners and do not do well with making snap decisions.


----------



## alive1 (Sep 8, 2018)

VonWolfram said:


> ISTP.
> 
> The thing about ISTJ's is that they have to plan out everything before taking action. An ISTJ loves order and hates chaos, because they need clear rules and systems in place in order to navigate the world and lack the creativity to extemporaneously figure things out. ISTP's appraise situations to identify underlying patterns (using Ni) and then quickly apply logical schemes to solve problems or make decisions.
> 
> Note that despite the J-P difference ISTP's are actually the one whose dominant function, introverted thinking, is a judging function. The combination of Dom Ti with being in the moment (Aux Se) and decent Ni makes them great at making solid snap decisions that are rarely too off base. ISTJ's are long term planners and do not do well with making snap decisions.


Thanks for your input. If you don't mind, I'll comment on what you've written and please let me know if you have any more thoughts on that. (I put a summary at the end of this post.)


I definitely don't plan out everything before taking action, I only plan for things that are for long term goals, or for things that are new and complex. This is because I always need to get oriented first. For things that are in front of me (or already known complex things) the orienting is instant... and then I do have the ability to do some things seemingly impromptu. But for new and complex things I have a delay with the orienting.

For simpler everyday things, I do my planning very quickly, in a few seconds usually and I remain decently adaptable for most of those things where I only use such a quick plan. This is because I do not restrict myself inside a detailed definite course in those cases. I do in other cases though, when I really get 100% organized and scheduled. That's when I lose all traces of adaptability to respond to upcoming unexpected things and it of course does have its disadvantages too. Also the more focused on these planned courses I am, the less able to respond to unexpected things. I can but I will have a delay. I will get very disoriented in complex situations for these long term plans where something isn't working like I wanted it to, and I spend a lot of time on refocusing. :/



Oh and I mention long term goals. So to make this clear, I do have strong commitment to long term courses for plans, and my life would be empty without these long term goals. Even though by default I am pretty in the moment yes, i.e. I focus on what's in front of me.

Oh and, when I say simple everyday things, I mean it's simple to me, I've met people who have trouble quickly organizing options or picking from them to be able to act or to organize a day that to me seems like a simple task that I'm very used to doing. But yeah, these are things where I don't need much analysis really, simple enough in that sense.

I should also mention that my adaptability is almost fully utilized for goals, by default I'm not very interested in changing things around for the sake of changing them around, and especially not when a goal is involved. In more leisurely moments I might just do that of course, changing a few small things for the sake of changing them, but never for serious things, and I take goals seriously.

Another thing could be important, that yes, I am able to act without preparation for those simpler things, however I cannot figure things out on the spot without getting into it first, I definitely have no adaptability then, I just don't do this "figuring out things" process quickly... I have to take my time to process the details first before I can organize them at all and then afterwards I can figure it out alright, so after the system is in place I do get very quick at figuring stuff out, as long as the system I know applies to the thing.



As for order vs chaos: ha, I'd feel slightly weird if I said "I love order". I like it, but this is such a strong word. And I do like orienting myself in chaos too. Because I like navigating stuff and sorting them out.  It would again be strong wording to say that I "need clear rules and systems in place in order to navigate the world", because I think I have a decently strong ability in many situations to just look and see and orient that way without having very elaborate systems. Or in, so to speak, crisis situations too. I just get very decisive in such situations, taking charge too if need be, and I will be extra-focused on orienting as quick as possible (I'm not sure how fast compared to an ESTP but I am sure I'm better than many people), dealing quickly with options and taking action.

Otoh, when it comes to complex stuff, I definitely get very dependent on systems and rules, just like you described it, I feel almost blind without them, and lol, creativity is the antithesis of me. Mind you, I can still navigate "blindly" if I must, using my above-mentioned adaptability, but it's uncomfortable for me. It's not necessarily complete blindness but uncomfortable anyway and can be annoying definitely. I don't feel blind like this for the simpler situations...

So, overall, when I say I really like navigating in the world, in chaos etc, I don't use elaborate systems, I use the "look and see" adaptability by default. And then in some situations, in those complex ones, I do actually navigate with the elaborate systems in place and that is awesome too.

Bottom line: I am fine with some of so-called chaos, I just do not want chaos or crisis get in the way when I am set on some course or when I just really want things working the way I want them to. It's a big no no then, but I will deal with it of course if I have to. Even if I have to fix disorientation in some cases.



Where you say ISTPs identify underlying patterns, I have no idea what that's supposed to mean exactly. I don't think I'm intuitive like that, I can't just identify patterns, instead I either simply see what's in front of me and orient by that, or I also use those more complex systems with rules when needed for orienting and then I can do decision-making or solve problems or anything else. I think my intuition (both Ni and Ne) is really very weak... too weak to use, let alone rely on this pattern finding. I do apply logical schemes though, yes, that I get from my deep analysis of those more complex things. And yes such schemes are very much used for making certain decisions too. And yeah I like snap decisions and judgments, some people like it less when I voice them 



TL;DR:

So overall I relate to ISTJ in that executing my long term courses for my long term goals are a big part of my life, I can't live without that sense of purpose, that I dislike things getting in the way, and that I need systems and rules to deal with more complex things or I'll feel a bit too "blind". And the lack of creativity, yeah. But I don't always need elaborate systems and I'm not 100% organized, I have a drive for goals that would be stifled if I tried to 100% organize everything - and there is only 24 hours in a day.

I relate to ISTP in that I have some adaptability too in me by focusing on what's in front of me/concrete options - not sure if ISTJ can never have this, or whether I have the same brand of it that ISTP does - and I love navigation (physical) which sounds like an STP thing for sure. And I use logical schemes, well, not sure if we mean the same here. But I'm goal oriented and won't analyse anything without a goal or any purpose for it. I do indulge in more (and deeper) analysis than what the goal strictly requires, but I do not do it without the goal at all. And I don't do my analysis by finding that Ni pattern or whatever it is.


----------



## Jaune (Jul 11, 2013)

alive1 said:


> As for the stereotypes, yeah, I see what you mean. How does navigation work for you?


I don't think it says much about my typing, but finding my way around new places comes pretty naturally to me. I like finding new and different routes for places I normally go to, and I don't really have a problem with getting lost and such.


----------



## alive1 (Sep 8, 2018)

Jaune Valjaune said:


> I don't think it says much about my typing, but finding my way around new places comes pretty naturally to me. I like finding new and different routes for places I normally go to, and I don't really have a problem with getting lost and such.


Yeah it comes naturally to me too, but I don't try to find new different routes for places I go to. See it as an example of me paying more attention to the task and goal than to impulses like that - I rarely actually have this impulse of finding a new route and I only feel like it and only do it when I'm not focused on anything else i.e. leisure time. I thoroughly enjoy it then though.


----------



## alive1 (Sep 8, 2018)

I am thinking about one thing where I described how I lose all adaptability when I get 100% into a detailed course. Then when something comes up and I'm able to only respond to it after a noticeable delay compared to when I do have the bit of adaptability, I actually get to feel like it's really ridiculous to be that way. Which sounds like it's not entirely my natural default...? Or?

Otherwise I do feel fine in that mode, just when this happens is when I feel a bit weird...


----------



## Drecon (Jun 20, 2016)

alive1 said:


> So I've been reading up on all this but aside from being sure about ISTx, I seem really close to 50/50 on J/P, that, or I'm missing something. As for functions, I can relate parts to all of Se, Si, Te, Ti.
> 
> I picked a few questions from the stickied questionnaires, that seemed most relevant to deciding this issue, but please let me know if you need me to answer more/other questions instead.
> 
> ...


Optimizing can be Te or Ti, but both tend to have different methods. 



> If it's a more complex decision: I collect and absorb factual data until I'm able to see some organization for it and then I feel ready to make a decision on it all. At that point again snap decision...


I've read that this kind of thinking (mull it over until you reach a snap decision) fits better with IxTPs than IxTJs. It has to do with brain organization. IJs have a brain that is more geared towards delaying decisions, where IPs need their decisions to be final. 
That said, there's always communication issues. I can see how an ISTJ could frame their answer in this way and actually mean something different from an ISTP giving the same answer. 



> I tend to leave out the feelings of others from all this unless someone puts them in my face, so to speak. How I feel sometimes is part of the factors, sometimes isn't.


The fact that personal feelings weigh into your decisions more than other people's feelings could point towards having Fi rather than Fe, although the word 'feelings' can be interpreted multiple ways. 



> For important decisions, I never really do pro-con stuff beyond excluding options before the final choice, as I don't find that a good way of making the actual final decision, it could be too easily second-guessed. I instead consider what I really want and the best optimization for it so the decision is clear. For smaller ones, it's okay to do the pro-con approach, it just needs to be a "good enough" decision so again, second-guessing will not be an issue.


This gives off the image of a mind where method is more important than facts, which could fit with Ti dominance. 
The whole wording also feels more Se than Si as you use phrasing like "pro-con stuff" rather than "a list of pros and cons", making me doubt Si dominance. Si really wants correctness and precision of information, which really doesn't fit with your writing style. 



> More stuff:
> 
> Overall I'm quite decisive when I do get to the point of making decisions. However, I can quite take my time before I'm able to get decisive at all. Sometimes I really have to force myself to "ok time to sit down and hype up yourself and make this decision".
> 
> I can change the decision if needed but if it was a true decision then I have to actually take the step of changing it... it doesn't change on its own. However I can get to change the decision too much when it comes to some issues with people, or when I did not do the right evaluation, not in-depth enough so then it's not a true decision so to speak... and then it doesn't stick too well before I "forget" about it and rethink it.


This also feels more like ISTP than ISTJ. Te never needs time to get decisive. It just does. 
Also interesting is how you define a decision as 'something that is in-depth enout to be called a decision'. That definitely doesn't fit with Te. 



> *When working on a project what is normally your emphasis? Do you like to have control of the outcome?*
> 
> Emphasis is on the task itself. The process of sorting it out. Optimizing it and doing it well and sticking to it until the end. Excelling overall. I do want control yes.


Ti wants control of the process while Te wants control of the outcome. I notice how you answered with "I do want control", but that can mean multiple things. 
Let me ask you, if you made all the right decisions but didn't get the outcome that you wanted, how do you feel? Generally Te will feel like they failed and Ti will feel like they did their best but just got unlucky. (this is not just a type issue by the way, maturity for example can influence something like this)



> *How organized do you to think of yourself as?*
> 
> This is such a messy question to me. I never really get to be organized enough, I seem to run out of capacity for it beyond a point... but if I look around, some people call way less organizing already really neat and organized. (I disagree with this sometimes.)
> 
> But then there is always mess around at home that I never get to sort out unless someone visits and then I do put it all in order. I'm really good at ignoring the disorder until then. (But then sometimes it stresses me out.) And mess for some of my personal projects if I don't get the energy to organize it all totally neatly. My most basic things that I use the most are always organized though.


I tend to go back and forth on this. For example: my ISFJ wife does pretty much the same as you. She's messy until someone comes to visit, at which point she cleans up the house in record time. On the other hand, TPs are generally known for being messy, which I've seen lots of counterexamples to. 
I'm going to bench this issue until I get more information. 



> Then for getting on with my day, I'm half organized with some stable routines and a little plan for the day that can change if something comes up or when I realize I need to reorganize the plan for some other reason. The routines I can also change okay if needed or whatever, but by default I fall into the established routines naturally.


I can see multiple reasonings for linking this to type. Si likes routine, but Ti can also do this. Not sure on this one. 



> With plans overall, I don't like the idea of entirely letting go of adaptability for my days unless I decided my goal required making myself completely 100% rigidly scheduled all day. That's when I'm 100% organized too and I lose all adaptability. I don't otherwise want to entirely lose all adaptability because something could come up that I need to take care of, or someone could need this. Otherwise though, if I committed to a plan, I will become very angry if I can't follow through with it.


Adaptability is standard issue for IPs, although I see IJs that have a need for some amount of unpredictability as well. Getting angry when not bein gable to follow through with a plan is pretty Ti though. I do the same thing. When someone wants to schedule a last-minute appointment and I was planning to play games that afternoon, I tend to get very off it. 
Honestly, I haven't seen a lot on this issue, so it's mostly personal experience talking here, but I say this fits with ISTP more than ISTJ. 



> For tasks/work, if it's big, I break down the project into parts and do a part every day so I can finish on time without stress that I would possibly not be able to do a good job if I had to work on it last minute, meaning very intensely at it continually for the last few days. I however am ok with doing tasks last minute if it does not require more than 1 day (2 days tops) to work crazy intensely at it or I believe the quality could suffer due to lack of time to really do it well. I actually am very resourceful with sorting things last minute if needed. I even enjoy the rush.


Not sure if any of that is type related? Just good planning skills. 



> *What about your personality most distinguishes you from everyone else? If you could change one thing about you personality, what would it be? Why?*
> 
> That I will go in depth analysing some things more than anyone else would and get better results that way.
> 
> As for what I'd change, I'd want to have some more energy.


Going very in-depth is typical for Ti dominants and lack of energy is common for introverts (although there's lots of other reasons that can feed into that as well). I see more reasons to think ISTP here. 



> *How do you react to new situations in your life? Can you describe an event in your life where you were in an unknown situation? How did you deal with it?*
> 
> I explore the new situation and make sense of things. Either by very quickly navigating to get around, or by doing thorough analysis if I feel the need for it. I prefer to put all the bits together then neatly to see relevant schemes.


That's Se at work right there. Quick navigating in a new situation is common for Se-users, where Si-users tend to sit back and observe for a while first before springing into action. ISTPs are generally a lot better at thinking on their feet.



> Unknown situation... first work interview in my life. I knew the company already, I was actually interested in working specifically for them, so I didn't need to do too much extra research for that part. I prepared for typical interview questions last minute while traveling to the place. Then I just tried to do my best overall answering questions etc. I focused on the task at hand always, no time or interest in unnecessarily stressing about stuff.


I think this could go with either type, mostly by virtue of all of the familir parts of it. 



> *Describe your relationship to order and chaos. What do order and chaos mean to you? How do they manifest in your daily life?*
> 
> Order is when things are organized sensibly. It's neat and ideally I'd have everything in order... but I cannot focus on this all day when I want to also do things to achieve the current goal. Then getting hung up on perfect order would get in the way and in the way of my own drive, it would be annoying.


I think a big difference between ISTP and ISTJ is that for ISTP order is a means to an end, while for the ISTJ order often is the end. For the ISTP order is a tool, while for the ISTJ it's a necessary condition for getting anything done at all. That's why ISTJs are often obsessive organizers, while ISTPs organize too, but just to get their stuff done. 



> Chaos is when things are (very) unorganized. Figuring out and thus prevailing over the chaos for things around me or people needing help in a slight crisis situation is very much fun. Navigation in a messy area to find my way quickly enough also is fun.


Big red flag for ISTJ here. Navigating a messy area is great for Se, but horrible for Si. 



> *Why do you want to know your type? What type do you think you are? Why this/these type(s)? Is there a type that appeals to you, to your self-perception, that you would like to be? Why? If you know your enneagram, please post this here. If you have done any online function tests such as the Keys2Cognition, it helps if you post these results here as well.*
> 
> I'm interested in more understanding of myself and others.
> 
> I'm pretty sure on ISTx. As for the Introversion part: I don't naturally take initiative socially though I can force myself to a bit, still, overall I'm more comfortable with others initiating. As for the Sensing part: I don't focus on more than what's in front of me by default. As for the Thinking part: I'm way more impersonal than personal and I could go on about this.


I agree with your assessment. I think ISTx leaves you with your two most probable types based on superficial factors. For a more in-depth analysis you need deeper factors though. 



> My notes on the S/T functions for myself:
> Se: I seem to be fine with this (or is it Te?) when I have to navigate to find my way to get somewhere, also in sports I'm ok. I don't follow all my impulses without restraint but I'm aware of them when they come up and I do follow some sometimes. When I'm working or otherwise focused on a task, I don't have impulses like this but I can at other times.


Se isn't just about impulses, it's about how you collect and organize information. Se learns mostly by doing and eperiencing the world, rather than observing. Se also doesn't tend to remember details as well as Si does, remembering impressions and emotions over the cold hard facts. 



> Si: Details are easy for me for work or for other tasks. Natural. But I'm not very focused on details when just getting around or taking actions. I'm still focused on them some but I'm not as detail oriented as with other work tasks. I'm also details focused when collecting data for later organization and decisions. I'm not details focused when I actually make the real decision.


A lot of this can fit with Ti. Ti values correctness and process a lot, leading to using details when planning, but not that much in deciding. 
Not sure where that leaves you though. 



> Te: I like goals and optimization. Achievements are very important to me. I can take charge. But I do want to go deeper than just make decisions as a boss, definitely not a Te-dom.


What you find important is influenced by type, but it's not the same as it. For example, if you were raised by a Te-parent, things like that can rub off without actually changing your personality. 



> Ti: I do deep analysis of some things logically. However I do not like to do this without a real goal in real life, I do not just idly philosophize.


That can fit with ISTP over INTP honestly. ISTPs are often misrepresented. Se never wants to be idle, so the Ti is used more 'on-the-fly'. 

Overall, I'm leaning hard towards ISTP for you, for all the reasons stated above. I'm keeping a lot of room though, as I can see ISTJ for you. It's just that the way you write and reason fits a lot better with Ti than Si. Not a lot of specificity, but very clear lines of reasoning. 

Do with it what you want, at least I hope that the above is useful in finding your type.


----------



## VonWolfram (Sep 9, 2018)

I'm now leaning much more towards ISTJ. I'm learning that maybe I shouldn't be so quick to type people on here ... Reading back through your original post, it now doesn't seem quite as clear-cut as I had originally thought either. 

I don't think that enjoying physical navigation of the environment necessarily indicates STP-- it depends on the cognitive processes that are more in play. I'm guessing it's more of a Te (extroverted thinking) exercise. I can definitely relate to that. 

The way I see the difference between Si and Ni is that Si relates to past experience (i.e. some rule, scheme, system, strategy, or whatever that has worked in the past) whereas Ni just says "Hey this will work, let's do that!" regardless of whether it's been tried before. Si knows something will work because it's been tried before, Ni knows something will work because it can visualize each step of the process leading to the solution. Ni is more efficient, Si is more generalizable.


----------



## Rascal01 (May 22, 2016)

Go to the PerC Entertainment Plaza. There is a section there for testing resources. A sticky at the top will give you a shortcut to self-typing by providing clear descriptions of type terms.

My type was professionally determined. Using that information as a standard to go by, I find the indicators to be spot on.

You seem to be a bit mired as you work toward determine your type. I suggest you try the shortcut and figure out what you are to give you a baseline. You can always dig deeper at your convenience.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

alive1 said:


> Thanks for the input. Lol, oh, that there is definitely not me with treating the grand plan with tons of details like that. :tongue: If I spent the time making such a detailed plan, that means I will be very committed to it (and very angry if there is a problem...). The more detailed I make it the more committed, in general. If that means anything in terms of typology. I can and will change some simpler plans easily though if needed, and a bit of this is also mood/state dependent, and not just dependent on external circumstances changing. Where I say mood/state dependent, I mean that I might feel the need to rest more for example (I'm not very good with energy lately), and then I have to change the plans.
> 
> Do let me know if that just confirms your typing or if it's not as simple as that.


I was married to an ISTJ for 15 years, She planned every detail possible, and was really bent out of shape if she could not tick everything off as having gone down precisely the way she planned it. The idea of "winging it" made her queasy. If she couldn't "touch it" it wasn't real to her. I've never known anyone more organized than her, and she didn't trust technology until she was forced to. She did everything analog. She had more 3 ring binders than anyone I know. When we went on vacation, she had the whole experience organized by topic, with multi-colored tabs. When she commits herself to a job, it gets done. No if's, ands, or buts. She would say she wasn't creative, but when it comes to taking large chunks of data and organizing it into meaningful information, I've never known anyone who came close to her. As far as I'm concerned, that's a form of creativity that's pure ISTJ. An ISTP just isn't going to be as committed to the outcome being just so. They love the details, they love playing around with them, they enjoy organizing, but if a few things slip out of place, they just won't get as bent out of shape about it. 

What the hell she was doing with an agent of chaos like me...I'll never quite know, it worked, until it didn't anymore.


----------



## alive1 (Sep 8, 2018)

@Drecon hey thanks for the thoughtful long post.  I think I got even longer in my response lool, you don't have to comment on everything, but I'm curious about this Ti/Se vs Si/Te issue more, I asked in a couple of places about that, would be interested in your thoughts.




Drecon said:


> I've read that this kind of thinking (mull it over until you reach a snap decision) fits better with IxTPs than IxTJs. It has to do with brain organization. IJs have a brain that is more geared towards delaying decisions, where IPs need their decisions to be final.
> That said, there's always communication issues. I can see how an ISTJ could frame their answer in this way and actually mean something different from an ISTP giving the same answer.


Hmm, ok, let me assume first that you typo'd (please correct me if I'm wrong) and you meant IPs delay decisions while IJs need final decisions fast. 

The thing is I don't "mull over" things per se. Yes I have to wait with more complex decisions but I'm more like, I just collect sensory/factual data/details, this isn't mulling anything over really, just collecting, and then at one point I will be able to see the organization of the details etc... but a true decision - that doesn't need that oversimplified pros/cons based approach and won't be second-guessed - will only happen when I finally get into the decisive mode. It's simply not such a decisive mode while I'm collecting the details. Also such decisions rely on the organization so until that is in place, I cannot make it for complex things.

Like I mentioned above too, for everyday things where you just have a few options to pick from, I just do that thing I described with focusing on what I want and picking for optimization quickly. Instant decisiveness in those cases. It feels the same mode as when I get into the mode to make the decision after collecting and organizing all those details for the more complex cases. So the difference is just that I do not need to collect many details for the instant decisiveness version.

To be really thorough here in describing all this, I can also delay certain decisions because I just feel a block mentally, I don't see what details to analyse or anything at all, so I just leave it at that. But I can hype myself up later into the decisive mode and force myself to somehow find the relevant main factors after all, moving past that block. I somehow just get my brain moving better if I get impatient like this finally to decide and I can then just see the decisive factors out of nowhere almost. I don't know if this is type related?




> The fact that personal feelings weigh into your decisions more than other people's feelings could point towards having Fi rather than Fe, although the word 'feelings' can be interpreted multiple ways.


By focusing on feelings I mean not being emotionally neutral, but actually feeling something is positive or negative (pleasant or unpleasant, desirable or not desirable, and so on). I don't really get more complex than that about my own feelings in terms of making decisions in most cases, for impersonal situations definitely not. For personal situations... the feelings of mine that are more "complex" than the above (e.g. sadness, infatuation, etc), I often still ignore, but sometimes I do definitely stop and take an inventory of them for some more complex situation and thus use information from feelings for my understanding of situations, making decisions etc.

As for other people's feelings, yeah I don't notice them enough unless you do "push" the emotions in my face like I said. Then I'm like, ?!. And then it can make me focus on the issue related to it. So in such cases I can take them into account, but really only if I care about the person, they have to be important to me first. If someone is important to me then all their feelings that they express will be actual factors too to be taken into account ideally for everything but at least for important issues.

In generic social situations I care less than this, I don't try to follow the feelings of people then, I just go by behavioural rules then, ideally applied to everyone equally.

Does this say anything about Ti/Fe vs Te/Fi?




> This gives off the image of a mind where method is more important than facts, which could fit with Ti dominance.
> The whole wording also feels more Se than Si as you use phrasing like "pro-con stuff" rather than "a list of pros and cons", making me doubt Si dominance. Si really wants correctness and precision of information, which really doesn't fit with your writing style.


Ahaha my post wasn't a phd dissertation 

So, yeah I can get into a very simple, brief, almost nonverbal style in terms of how I talk, especially IRL. That's what popped up there. :tongue:

I do care a lot about correctness and precision of information when I get into my more systematic mode for the complex issues. I don't pay attention to precision when I'm in my simpler navigation mode.

And yes, method is important, being methodical in quite some things. Facts are also needed to build things up from them, tho'. They are the details I make systems from.




> This also feels more like ISTP than ISTJ. Te never needs time to get decisive. It just does.


In the decisive mode I definitely make the decision itself very quickly. Because I see the main factors then so it's easy to do it fast. I just am not in that mode all the time. Does this make sense?

What I meant by needing time was that I need time to collect the details prior to the decision-making when I deem that necessary.




> Also interesting is how you define a decision as 'something that is in-depth enout to be called a decision'. That definitely doesn't fit with Te.


Hmm. It's my evaluations that need to be in-depth enough before I can make good decisions for complex issues. Basically the in-depth analysis stuff is the preparation of the data for the decision. 

That's Ti for you then?

To clarify, the evaluations are the systematic evaluations for the details of the situation or whatever collected details, and the decision itself can rely on these when pulling the main factors to make the decision quickly. The evaluations are what can go deep in terms of being thorough, and the decisions just have to be good. And all of this is subordinated to goals and my sense of purpose.




> Ti wants control of the process while Te wants control of the outcome. I notice how you answered with "I do want control", but that can mean multiple things.
> Let me ask you, if you made all the right decisions but didn't get the outcome that you wanted, how do you feel? Generally Te will feel like they failed and Ti will feel like they did their best but just got unlucky. (this is not just a type issue by the way, maturity for example can influence something like this)


As for the control thing, I want control of both the process/direction and the outcome heh.

To answer your question, I'd feel very upset or angry if I didn't get the outcome I wanted if I really wanted it. I have a hard time truly understanding that it may have just been bad luck. Also because I just get angry or upset easily in these situations, I have to take my time to realize where I may have made wrong decisions in the process, but that helps when I do realize that. In general I don't like to think that if I made the right decisions and steps then it would not lead to the outcome I wanted. That is my sense of control, btw. That if I do things right, then I will get where I wanted to get. But yeah, if I really can see it this way that I did my best and it really was just bad luck, it can help with removing the anger or upset.

I don't know what that sounds like to you?




> I tend to go back and forth on this. For example: my ISFJ wife does pretty much the same as you. She's messy until someone comes to visit, at which point she cleans up the house in record time. On the other hand, TPs are generally known for being messy, which I've seen lots of counterexamples to.
> I'm going to bench this issue until I get more information.


Ahahah record time... same for me. That is my last minute mode with a rush that I enjoy even. I get extra-adaptable (Se?), and actually, decisive (Te?) at the same time, and get things sorted real fast. I can get them sorted so easily fast actually because I'm so decisive the whole time during these last minute actions.

So, that's Se and Te together? With just one of them being preferred I suppose.




> I can see multiple reasonings for linking this to type. Si likes routine, but Ti can also do this. Not sure on this one.


I can't say I LIKE routine. It's just something natural for me. I don't feel positively or negatively about it.




> Adaptability is standard issue for IPs, although I see IJs that have a need for some amount of unpredictability as well. Getting angry when not bein gable to follow through with a plan is pretty Ti though. I do the same thing. When someone wants to schedule a last-minute appointment and I was planning to play games that afternoon, I tend to get very off it.
> Honestly, I haven't seen a lot on this issue, so it's mostly personal experience talking here, but I say this fits with ISTP more than ISTJ.


I don't think I want true unpredictability, when I'm in the adaptable mode, I just like to be responding to whatever comes up to be sorted out or to navigate it. Plus I like to do the decision-making too if that also happens to come with the adaptability (for last minute tasks it definitely comes).

I don't know if you are upset about not being able to have fun or about not following through with the plan in this example?  

I get upset because I have a neat course in front/ahead of me and I'm committed to it. To be very clear, when I'm committed to a course or goal or purpose, I don't give a rat's ass anymore about adaptability. I can still utilize this skill of mine and I do enjoy using this approach but it will be done strictly for the goal.




> Going very in-depth is typical for Ti dominants and lack of energy is common for introverts (although there's lots of other reasons that can feed into that as well). I see more reasons to think ISTP here.


Oh yeah that thorough analysing for achieving goals is very me. I think that's a better wording btw, that it's for achieving goals and not simply for getting results. Make sense?

ISTJs don't go in-depth for their goals?




> That's Se at work right there. Quick navigating in a new situation is common for Se-users, where Si-users tend to sit back and observe for a while first before springing into action. ISTPs are generally a lot better at thinking on their feet.


For me this depends. If the navigating in a new situation just means dealing with new stuff in front of me without using an elaborate system for it then yes I'm quick enough and I don't need to sit back. But if the situation is really new and complex then I sit back a looooooot and observe and collect those bits of details. I cannot live without those details then.

As for thinking on my feet... again yes in a sense and no in another sense. If no elaborate system is required or I already have one then sure I "think" on my feet quickly. I said "think" because I don't really think, I just "look and see" mostly and know what to do. But then if it's complex (to me) stuff that I will need those precious details for, I lose the adaptability and I sit back and cannot think on my feet to figure out the new stuff, nope. I'd instead just be going too "blindly", and while I can do this if I must, I dislike that, would rather get the details first, put them together and then navigate fine again.

And where I said I explore: yeah, I can do that only really by moving, taking action. But if I need the details I will stand back a lot first. I just watch until the bits (details) come together for me. No way I'd want to start "blindly" exploring then. Unless some goal or task really forces me to. Then I just ignore the resulting frustration/stress, to be able to get where I want. It's not too much stress anyway usually, just a bit.

So then, I can do both Se and Si I suppose? What do you think?




> I think this could go with either type, mostly by virtue of all of the familir parts of it.


I thought ISTJs prepare way more thoroughly and not last minute? I just, decided, ok maybe time to start to try and work somewhere, then I happened to look at the company's site, I saw they had an opening that I really really qualified for, so I decided to apply asap, and when they called me in for the interview, which as I said, was my first ever work interview, I started looking up basic guidelines on what they usually ask about, what else to pay attention to at an interview, and then I figured that I can think up answers to those stupid questions, lol, while traveling to the place, and I did so, I did the preparation with that absolutely last minute. But I did prepare a bit before that too, in that I could see about how much time I will need to do that last minute preparation (I saw how many questions there are to prepare for, how difficult they seemed, etc). I would not have felt comfortable with doing it last minute without that little bit of preparation to know how long it was going to take. I.e. make it plannable, predictable.

This process as above is pretty typical of me really for many situations (not all, sometimes I take my time and prepare way more thoroughly in advance).




> I think a big difference between ISTP and ISTJ is that for ISTP order is a means to an end, while for the ISTJ order often is the end. For the ISTP order is a tool, while for the ISTJ it's a necessary condition for getting anything done at all. That's why ISTJs are often obsessive organizers, while ISTPs organize too, but just to get their stuff done.


Hmm, uhm, I get obsessive about it where I do actually organize stuff, stuff that I actually have in my focus. The rest I don't have enough energy for...

How is order a tool but not a necessary condition, you mean ISTPs can go about things without any consistent method and organization except when they decide that being more orderly is more optimal for the task? I can too, but I also find myself frustrated if I find things too unpredictably behaving without consistency in how I deal with them. So while I can still deal with them that way, it's not as calm for me as when I do work out the more methodical and organized approach and use that. I just frequently get too impatient for that, because I would be taking my time with it and a day is 24 hours only. I'd just be more frustrated essentially if I was taking my time with it too long because I want to reach the goal in time.




> Big red flag for ISTJ here. Navigating a messy area is great for Se, but horrible for Si.


Ohh if we are talking about mess in physical space, in a room, in a house, in a street, or anywhere really, I find it fun to find my way around quickly. 

Example would be, I travel through a certain area in the city frequently (though not daily), and when one day I got to a square that they started to renovate, and everything was totally in a different place, I was first annoyed for one second and then I went about no problem, finding it fun.

And yeah I thought that was Se, yes. The whole thing with just doing "look and see" and quickly responding physically. The one part where it doesn't seem like Se of STPs is that I do have that first second of annoyance at the change, they don't, do they. 

Actually, most changes annoy me for a second then I adapt easily and I don't mind doing so, very complex new crap is when I don't simply get annoyed, I get disoriented and have to reorient to deal with the change.




> Se isn't just about impulses, it's about how you collect and organize information. Se learns mostly by doing and eperiencing the world, rather than observing. Se also doesn't tend to remember details as well as Si does, remembering impressions and emotions over the cold hard facts.


Oh, I'm strongly a kinesthetic learner (though I also do book study just as good), otoh besides sensory holistic images I remember hard facts the best, besides maps for navigation and numbers, lol. You could definitely say that they are cold hard facts.  I barely pay attention to emotions by default, though I have this fun skill - if I really want to tune into my memories, I can find the emotions stored there, just as I experienced them before and then I can focus on them even if I didn't in the moment before when I actually lived them. Funny like that.




> A lot of this can fit with Ti. Ti values correctness and process a lot, leading to using details when planning, but not that much in deciding.
> Not sure where that leaves you though.


How is Si correctness different from Ti correctness?

And oh, yeah, that fits very well, I use details for planning and preparation of the decisions, and then none in the decision-making moment. Why would you say Ti works like this?

And yeah, I do value correctness and process a lot but the process without the outcome (and the goal) is worthless. So that fits less with Ti-dom...




> That can fit with ISTP over INTP honestly. ISTPs are often misrepresented. Se never wants to be idle, so the Ti is used more 'on-the-fly'.


Oh yes when I'm taking immediate action (and not overly complex new stuff) then yes I'm on the fly with planning for the action and for deciding stuff wherever needed. It's like, I decide to do something and I start doing it and at the same time I start, I plan it out quickly (not a complex plan but it makes me oriented nicely) and so on.




> Overall, I'm leaning hard towards ISTP for you, for all the reasons stated above. I'm keeping a lot of room though, as I can see ISTJ for you. It's just that the way you write and reason fits a lot better with Ti than Si. Not a lot of specificity, but very clear lines of reasoning.


Hmm, I'm not sure what you mean by specificity here. You mean I didn't talk about concrete examples too much?




> Do with it what you want, at least I hope that the above is useful in finding your type.


It was interesting for sure , and yeah I'd be curious what you think about these notes wherever it seems relevant to type.


----------



## alive1 (Sep 8, 2018)

VonWolfram said:


> I'm now leaning much more towards ISTJ. I'm learning that maybe I shouldn't be so quick to type people on here ... Reading back through your original post, it now doesn't seem quite as clear-cut as I had originally thought either.
> 
> I don't think that enjoying physical navigation of the environment necessarily indicates STP-- it depends on the cognitive processes that are more in play. I'm guessing it's more of a Te (extroverted thinking) exercise. I can definitely relate to that.
> 
> The way I see the difference between Si and Ni is that Si relates to past experience (i.e. some rule, scheme, system, strategy, or whatever that has worked in the past) whereas Ni just says "Hey this will work, let's do that!" regardless of whether it's been tried before. Si knows something will work because it's been tried before, Ni knows something will work because it can visualize each step of the process leading to the solution. Ni is more efficient, Si is more generalizable.


Oh, no worries, I can make too quick conclusions too.  I actually like that you don't seem to have bias, I guess.

Can you describe how your Te works for the physical navigation? Like, compared to Se, if possible? Would the difference be that Se navigation is never with a goal in mind? Mine is very often with a goal in mind, though I can wander around places without a goal too and that's great too.

As for Si vs Ni, I definitely don't have the Ni, Si seems okay, though for me it's not as simple as "it's been tried before", sure it's best if I observed it working before, but I want to have a sense of control over the process as well, and for that I have to do a bit of my in-depth analysis at least.




tanstaafl28 said:


> I was married to an ISTJ for 15 years, She planned every detail possible, and was really bent out of shape if she could not tick everything off as having gone down precisely the way she planned it. The idea of "winging it" made her queasy. If she couldn't "touch it" it wasn't real to her. I've never known anyone more organized than her, and she didn't trust technology until she was forced to. She did everything analog. She had more 3 ring binders than anyone I know. When we went on vacation, she had the whole experience organized by topic, with multi-colored tabs. When she commits herself to a job, it gets done. No if's, ands, or buts. She would say she wasn't creative, but when it comes to taking large chunks of data and organizing it into meaningful information, I've never known anyone who came close to her. As far as I'm concerned, that's a form of creativity that's pure ISTJ. An ISTP just isn't going to be as committed to the outcome being just so. They love the details, they love playing around with them, they enjoy organizing, but if a few things slip out of place, they just won't get as bent out of shape about it.
> 
> What the hell she was doing with an agent of chaos like me...I'll never quite know, it worked, until it didn't anymore.


Ah, an agent of chaos, lol, did she try to regulate you much? I honestly do not plan every little detail, I'm sure you didn't mean this literally, nobody can do that, how would that be even possible? Winging it... depends on what we mean by that because I can look like I'm winging it and yeah in a sense I do with the adaptability. Can you say more on her brand of creativity? I have a brand of it too but I don't know anyone who'd call it creativity per se... but yes I am very good at organization of data in a sensible way that actually works for results and goals. I get bent out of shape when I get too obsessive yeah but I'm only like that with the things I truly have my focus on, the rest is okay whatever, some disorder that I can tolerate so so...




Rascal01 said:


> Go to the PerC Entertainment Plaza. There is a section there for testing resources. A sticky at the top will give you a shortcut to self-typing by providing clear descriptions of type terms.
> 
> My type was professionally determined. Using that information as a standard to go by, I find the indicators to be spot on.
> 
> You seem to be a bit mired as you work toward determine your type. I suggest you try the shortcut and figure out what you are to give you a baseline. You can always dig deeper at your convenience.


Thanks, looking at it now.

One quick note first, not sure if relevant lol (and this isn't complaining, just interesting to me), but the way you described how to find this page for self-typing was at first slightly annoying, not fitting my style as I prefer precise and specific instructions for this kind of new thing (and as unambiguous as possible). So I wonder if that's an indication against being ISTP.

Probably TL;DR for most people, but if someone is curious, I'll describe why it's like this for me: I'm totally new on this site, I didn't look around yet much because I've been focusing on typing, and so now I'm supposed to locate each new part you mentioned separately, instead of just following a structure directly, e.g. "go to the top menu and select the fifth menu item called Xxx, then inside this menu, click the third menu item called Yyy, ...", which would rely on a structured description of the website within which I'd easily and quickly move. When I have structure like this, it always speeds up my navigation. Though navigating a new physical space without much structure is definitely way easier than on a new website (again, with the structure not established), not sure why - with both I try to see the places of things in some structure. But easy to do this when there are real 3-dimensional physical objects, the more sensory detail the better lol, and also the more organized they are placed, the better again.

And with ambiguity, I just dislike it in general.


So... I found your stuff by using shortcuts to be quicker in navigating, here's the J/P part, I bolded what definitely fits me, italicized what fits me about half of the time (i.e. varies), and the rest definitely doesn't fit.


Judging Characteristics

* _Decisive_
* _Controlled_
* *Good at finishing*
* _Organized_
* _Structured_
* _Scheduled_
* *Quick at tasks*
* _Responsible_
* _Likes closure_
* _Makes plans_ 


Perceiving Characteristics

* _Adaptable_
* _Relaxed_
* _Disorganized_
* _Care-free_
* _Spontaneous_
* _Changes tracks midway_
* _Keeps options open_
* *Procrastinates*
* Dislikes routine
* Flexible


Some clarifications: being spontaneous comes from a bit of impulsivity for me but I don't feel very spontaneous otherwise, still, the impulsivity fits so I italicized it; also for disliking routine, hm, I do need more than just routine for some things, but I don't dislike routine. And I'm not always quick at tasks, I can be slow too (compared to my standards) when I get very details-focused but then I don't want to waste time too much, I like being quick...

So overall I don't find this determines J/P for me, sorry. Feel free to comment if you want, but no need, I appreciate your attempt to help already.


----------



## Drecon (Jun 20, 2016)

alive1 said:


> @Drecon hey thanks for the thoughtful long post.  I think I got even longer in my response lool, you don't have to comment on everything, but I'm curious about this Ti/Se vs Si/Te issue more, I asked in a couple of places about that, would be interested in your thoughts.


This is very interesting and it's also the full reason for why I try to give my reasonings on every point rather than giving you my conclusions. You raise some very interesting points here that really give me doubts about my ISTP conclusion. After reading your response I'm starting to think ISTJ is very likely and I might have misinterpreted some of your responses. 

I'll go over everything and try to highlight some points that might help in getting clarity on your type. 



> Hmm, ok, let me assume first that you typo'd (please correct me if I'm wrong) and you meant IPs delay decisions while IJs need final decisions fast.


No actually, but it's definitely different for extroverts than with introverts. EPs definitely delay decisions and EJs definitely make quick decisions but apparently IJs use the same brain region as EPs while IPs use the same region as EJs. The behaviour is very different though. 
The thing is that IJs tend to make decisions but refuse to make them final, changing their minds in the middle of a project because that fits better with what they really wanted to do, while IPs can mull things over for months, but when they finally 'discover' the truth, it's basically set in stone. 

In practice this might not be very helpful in determining type though as the behaviour associated with this can be very similar. 

My main point is that the J/P divide isn't really what people think it is. The whole J = structured P = messy idea is misleading. 



> The thing is I don't "mull over" things per se. Yes I have to wait with more complex decisions but I'm more like, I just collect sensory/factual data/details, this isn't mulling anything over really, just collecting, and then at one point I will be able to see the organization of the details etc... but a true decision - that doesn't need that oversimplified pros/cons based approach and won't be second-guessed - will only happen when I finally get into the decisive mode. It's simply not such a decisive mode while I'm collecting the details. Also such decisions rely on the organization so until that is in place, I cannot make it for complex things.
> 
> Like I mentioned above too, for everyday things where you just have a few options to pick from, I just do that thing I described with focusing on what I want and picking for optimization quickly. Instant decisiveness in those cases. It feels the same mode as when I get into the mode to make the decision after collecting and organizing all those details for the more complex cases. So the difference is just that I do not need to collect many details for the instant decisiveness version.
> 
> To be really thorough here in describing all this, I can also delay certain decisions because I just feel a block mentally, I don't see what details to analyse or anything at all, so I just leave it at that. But I can hype myself up later into the decisive mode and force myself to somehow find the relevant main factors after all, moving past that block. I somehow just get my brain moving better if I get impatient like this finally to decide and I can then just see the decisive factors out of nowhere almost. I don't know if this is type related?


Something that I really missed in your earlier answers is focus on data collection. That could very well fit with Si. The decisiveness for everyday decisions is very typical for Te. 

To be honest, I know some ISTJs but I don't know them very well. I have to base this mostly on my knowledge of how ISFJs and INTJs work, both of whom I do have a lot of experience with. 

The final part you describe here does fit very well with what I know of Si and Te working together. Te tends to get impatient (as opposed to Ti) and will just force the issue. Si will try to block this at first because Si wants all the information first. 

Ti and Si can look very similar. Si wants correctness of information and Ti wants correctness of process. At the same time Si is very perfectionistic. No function can be viewed on its own and combinations of functions can seem very similar to how another function operates. 

Honestly, the above makes me really lean towards Si+Te: 
1: You describe how you delay decisions until you feel like you have enough information (Si in the lead would cause this)
2: You describe decisive mode as a separate part of the process, which fits with Te secondary
3: Everyday decisions can go quickly (can be Te)
4: You sometimes need to get over a certain 'hump' when moving from information collecting to problem solving, which really doesn't click with Ti+Se for me. 



> By focusing on feelings I mean not being emotionally neutral, but actually feeling something is positive or negative (pleasant or unpleasant, desirable or not desirable, and so on). I don't really get more complex than that about my own feelings in terms of making decisions in most cases, for impersonal situations definitely not. For personal situations... the feelings of mine that are more "complex" than the above (e.g. sadness, infatuation, etc), I often still ignore, but sometimes I do definitely stop and take an inventory of them for some more complex situation and thus use information from feelings for my understanding of situations, making decisions etc.
> 
> As for other people's feelings, yeah I don't notice them enough unless you do "push" the emotions in my face like I said. Then I'm like, ?!. And then it can make me focus on the issue related to it. So in such cases I can take them into account, but really only if I care about the person, they have to be important to me first. If someone is important to me then all their feelings that they express will be actual factors too to be taken into account ideally for everything but at least for important issues.
> 
> ...


Generally, both ISTJ and ISTP aren't great with other people's feelings, but I see some hints that would actually point towards ISTJ here. 

The way you handle your own feelings could fit with tertiary Fi. I've seen INTJs that handle them very similarly. 
In general you could say that Te/Fi = Group rules and personal values and Ti/Fe = Personal rules and group values.

The way you describe "behavioural rules, applied to everyone equally" points to classic Te. 

Again, what you describe here makes me think a lot of ISTJ. 



> Ahaha my post wasn't a phd dissertation
> 
> So, yeah I can get into a very simple, brief, almost nonverbal style in terms of how I talk, especially IRL. That's what popped up there. :tongue:
> 
> ...


The briefness of your original post did leave a lot of room for interpretation. I think that muddied my analysis by a lot. The short writing style isn't out of place for either type though. 

I think correctness is very important for both ISTP and ISTJ, but focus on correctness of information leans a lot more towards Si. ISTJs are also system builders. They love organizing information above all. One ISTJ I know once spent hours working in excel to build the perfect teams for our game night. That's completely in character.



> Hmm. It's my evaluations that need to be in-depth enough before I can make good decisions for complex issues. Basically the in-depth analysis stuff is the preparation of the data for the decision.
> 
> That's Ti for you then?
> 
> To clarify, the evaluations are the systematic evaluations for the details of the situation or whatever collected details, and the decision itself can rely on these when pulling the main factors to make the decision quickly. The evaluations are what can go deep in terms of being thorough, and the decisions just have to be good. And all of this is subordinated to goals and my sense of purpose.


I'd say that preparation of data is very far from what Ti is actually. That's Si. For Ti thorough analysis is abstract and geared toward logical consistency separate from reality itself. Te is more goal-oriented and practical compared to Ti. 

Especially the "subordinated to goals and my sense of purpose" is linked to Te and Fi, rather than Ti. 

It can be hard to separate these kinds of things. One person's "Deep analysis" is completely different from another person's so I try to go by other deciding factors like the "goal-orientedness" for example, which fits very clearly with Te. 



> As for the control thing, I want control of both the process/direction and the outcome heh.
> 
> To answer your question, I'd feel very upset or angry if I didn't get the outcome I wanted if I really wanted it. I have a hard time truly understanding that it may have just been bad luck. Also because I just get angry or upset easily in these situations, I have to take my time to realize where I may have made wrong decisions in the process, but that helps when I do realize that. In general I don't like to think that if I made the right decisions and steps then it would not lead to the outcome I wanted. That is my sense of control, btw. That if I do things right, then I will get where I wanted to get. But yeah, if I really can see it this way that I did my best and it really was just bad luck, it can help with removing the anger or upset.
> 
> I don't know what that sounds like to you?


I can see how Si wants control of the process and Te wants control of the outcome. It's a factor that I really hadn't considered before but it fits very well. 

What you describe is very typical for Te and doesn't really fit with Ti at all. 



> Ahahah record time... same for me. That is my last minute mode with a rush that I enjoy even. I get extra-adaptable (Se?), and actually, decisive (Te?) at the same time, and get things sorted real fast. I can get them sorted so easily fast actually because I'm so decisive the whole time during these last minute actions.
> 
> So, that's Se and Te together? With just one of them being preferred I suppose.


I'm actually always amazed at how much my wife's Ne plays into her decisions. The adaptability you want can easily be Ne shining through. I must confess that I'm still struggling to get a good grasp on how that process works exactly. 

The decisiveness could be either Se or Te, but I can easily see that as Te here. 



> I can't say I LIKE routine. It's just something natural for me. I don't feel positively or negatively about it.


Honestly, that's a much better one for Si. It's easy to fall into stereotypes. Lots of ISTJs love routine because their brain is optimized to use it. So it's natural to work from routine. That doesn't mean you have to like it though, the same for my ISFJ wife. She actually hates routine for her daily activities. 



> I don't think I want true unpredictability, when I'm in the adaptable mode, I just like to be responding to whatever comes up to be sorted out or to navigate it. Plus I like to do the decision-making too if that also happens to come with the adaptability (for last minute tasks it definitely comes).
> 
> I don't know if you are upset about not being able to have fun or about not following through with the plan in this example?
> 
> I get upset because I have a neat course in front/ahead of me and I'm committed to it. To be very clear, when I'm committed to a course or goal or purpose, I don't give a rat's ass anymore about adaptability. I can still utilize this skill of mine and I do enjoy using this approach but it will be done strictly for the goal.


The goal-oriented thing is very Te over Ti. 



> Oh yeah that thorough analysing for achieving goals is very me. I think that's a better wording btw, that it's for achieving goals and not simply for getting results. Make sense?
> 
> ISTJs don't go in-depth for their goals?


It makes a lot of sense and that doesn't really fit with ISTP (as above). 

ISTJs can go in-depth for their goals. They just don't tend to enjoy going in-depth for the sake of going in-depth. 



> For me this depends. If the navigating in a new situation just means dealing with new stuff in front of me without using an elaborate system for it then yes I'm quick enough and I don't need to sit back. But if the situation is really new and complex then I sit back a looooooot and observe and collect those bits of details. I cannot live without those details then.
> 
> As for thinking on my feet... again yes in a sense and no in another sense. If no elaborate system is required or I already have one then sure I "think" on my feet quickly. I said "think" because I don't really think, I just "look and see" mostly and know what to do. But then if it's complex (to me) stuff that I will need those precious details for, I lose the adaptability and I sit back and cannot think on my feet to figure out the new stuff, nope. I'd instead just be going too "blindly", and while I can do this if I must, I dislike that, would rather get the details first, put them together and then navigate fine again.
> 
> ...


Definitely Si. I think the Se seems to come off because of your Te decisiveness. 

Se loves situations where everything is happening at the same time and it can just respond the way the body wants to. It's not about achieving anything, just about reacting to the environment. It works great for sports. I don't really see that in your answers though. 



> Hmm, uhm, I get obsessive about it where I do actually organize stuff, stuff that I actually have in my focus. The rest I don't have enough energy for...


That's Si needing organization and Te looking for actual results (and stopping the organization because there's things to be done)



> And yeah I thought that was Se, yes. The whole thing with just doing "look and see" and quickly responding physically. The one part where it doesn't seem like Se of STPs is that I do have that first second of annoyance at the change, they don't, do they.
> 
> Actually, most changes annoy me for a second then I adapt easily and I don't mind doing so, very complex new crap is when I don't simply get annoyed, I get disoriented and have to reorient to deal with the change.


I agree, that really doesn't sound like Se too much. 



> Oh, I'm strongly a kinesthetic learner (though I also do book study just as good), otoh besides sensory holistic images I remember hard facts the best, besides maps for navigation and numbers, lol. You could definitely say that they are cold hard facts.  I barely pay attention to emotions by default, though I have this fun skill - if I really want to tune into my memories, I can find the emotions stored there, just as I experienced them before and then I can focus on them even if I didn't in the moment before when I actually lived them. Funny like that.


I've heard that a lot from Si. Having very strong emotions coupled to stored memories. That's classic Si. 



> How is Si correctness different from Ti correctness?


Si wants to conform to the facts while Ti wants to build an abstract logical system. The two aren't mutually exclusive, but they have very different goals. 



> And oh, yeah, that fits very well, I use details for planning and preparation of the decisions, and then none in the decision-making moment. Why would you say Ti works like this?
> 
> And yeah, I do value correctness and process a lot but the process without the outcome (and the goal) is worthless. So that fits less with Ti-dom...


Definitely. I had no idea from your original post that you were so goal-oriented. If I had known I would never have thought for a second that you were ISTP. 

Overall I must thank you a lot for the extended response. I have done a complete 180 here and now say without a doubt that I think you are an ISTJ. Superficially there might be some overlap with ISTP but what you describe above could really be nothing else.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

alive1 said:


> Ah, an agent of chaos, lol, did she try to regulate you much? I honestly do not plan every little detail, I'm sure you didn't mean this literally, nobody can do that, how would that be even possible? Winging it... depends on what we mean by that because I can look like I'm winging it and yeah in a sense I do with the adaptability. Can you say more on her brand of creativity? I have a brand of it too but I don't know anyone who'd call it creativity per se... but yes I am very good at organization of data in a sensible way that actually works for results and goals. I get bent out of shape when I get too obsessive yeah but I'm only like that with the things I truly have my focus on, the rest is okay whatever, some disorder that I can tolerate so so...


Well, she's very headstrong (Enneagram 8w7 Sp/Sx 863) so having everything just so is important to her. As far as her creativity goes, she will go to great lengths to organize data in such a way that it makes perfect sense to her, and often she can break it down to a point where other people understand it too, but she needs really good guidelines as to what she is expected to do. If you give her sloppy instructions, she'll produce what she thinks makes sense, and that may not be what makes sense to anyone else. She really hates when she's given incomplete instructions. I guess she's like a musician who wants the sheet music to play by. 

It is the sort of creativity of being able to make chaos seem like order. It doesn't seem like creativity because most people equate that with art, literature, or performance of some sort. It isn't like that. I guess it would be like computer programming, or those Japanese rock gardens. There's a certain kind of beauty woven into the absolute structure of it. Of course, she'd prefer the computer program, because in her mind, that's performing some sort of function. The rock garden would seem kind of superfluous to her because she wouldn't see the purpose of it. She really doesn't even poop without a plan. I believe she's probably borderline OCD (if not full blown). 

She probably saw me as something of a challenge. If she could bring order to someone like me, she'd be a goddess. On the other hand, she found out I had some uses. I happen to be a genius when it comes to producing research, I'm far more well-read, and thus my personal knowledge-base is far broader. She found uses for me. That's part of the problem. She can be the sort of person who looks at others and values them for how useful they are to her. If they are of no use to her, she doesn't bother with them. I'm not sure if that's an ISTJ trait or not. She pretty much believes in the practical and functional over all else. Everything else is extraneous.


----------



## alive1 (Sep 8, 2018)

Drecon said:


> This is very interesting and it's also the full reason for why I try to give my reasonings on every point rather than giving you my conclusions. You raise some very interesting points here that really give me doubts about my ISTP conclusion. After reading your response I'm starting to think ISTJ is very likely and I might have misinterpreted some of your responses.
> 
> I'll go over everything and try to highlight some points that might help in getting clarity on your type.


Thanks, this made some sense. I'll comment mainly for parts where I'd like to hear a bit more. Well and parts where something still doesn't add up, if you don't mind.  

I think it's going to get a bit long again lol but I'll try to make it not too crazy long overall. But I hope you are still interested in this. 

Also, the real issue I still have I detailed at the end of the post.




> No actually, but it's definitely different for extroverts than with introverts. EPs definitely delay decisions and EJs definitely make quick decisions but apparently IJs use the same brain region as EPs while IPs use the same region as EJs. The behaviour is very different though.
> The thing is that IJs tend to make decisions but refuse to make them final, changing their minds in the middle of a project because that fits better with what they really wanted to do, while IPs can mull things over for months, but when they finally 'discover' the truth, it's basically set in stone.


What shared brain region do IJ/EP vs EJ/IP use? Got some source where I can read about this?

Okay so the thing is, I like final decisions. I can change them if I didn't evaluate deep/thorough enough or if something else changes e.g. the circumstances, but I want them to be final and firm by default. I like that feeling when they are so firm and certain and unambiguous.




> Ti and Si can look very similar. Si wants correctness of information and Ti wants correctness of process. At the same time Si is very perfectionistic. No function can be viewed on its own and combinations of functions can seem very similar to how another function operates.


Perfectionistic... that can fit some




> 4: You sometimes need to get over a certain 'hump' when moving from information collecting to problem solving, which really doesn't click with Ti+Se for me.


Ti+Se instantly problem solves even with totally new complex things? I don't get how that would work, do they just instantly start with experimenting in a trial and error way?




> The way you handle your own feelings could fit with tertiary Fi. I've seen INTJs that handle them very similarly.
> In general you could say that Te/Fi = Group rules and personal values and Ti/Fe = Personal rules and group values.
> 
> The way you describe "behavioural rules, applied to everyone equally" points to classic Te.


Any difference in how INTJs handle them, or is it the exact same as I described? With the stuff on how I often just evaluate them as positive vs negative in impersonal situations?




> I think correctness is very important for both ISTP and ISTJ, but focus on correctness of information leans a lot more towards Si. ISTJs are also system builders. They love organizing information above all. One ISTJ I know once spent hours working in excel to build the perfect teams for our game night. That's completely in character.


Yeah I'm quite fine with organizing information... even as a kid.




> I'd say that preparation of data is very far from what Ti is actually. That's Si. For Ti thorough analysis is abstract and geared toward logical consistency separate from reality itself. Te is more goal-oriented and practical compared to Ti.


To be brutally honest, I wouldn't call myself 100% pragmatic in the sense that while I am practical and pragmatic, yes, I will always analyse just a bit more than what I think the goal strictly needs. I called that indulging earlier. I also would think some people (especially Te-doms I bet) would say even what I say is strictly needed to understand enough to achieve a goal, is unnecessary analysis. :tongue:

But most certainly, I don't relate to logic'ing things separate from reality itself, no way, things need to be anchored in tangible reality for me in logical analysis. It would make me sick if I had to disconnect it from that tangible reality lol. I would not call it abstract either, right, though with things like mathematics it can get a bit abstract but that gets draining soon for some reason. It gets to feel like I'm turning too "inward" and too deep, too abstract, yeah though it can also feel really neat, just I can't and don't want to maintain it for very long at a time. It would also disconnect me from my surroundings too much and I dislike that.





> Especially the "subordinated to goals and my sense of purpose" is linked to Te and Fi, rather than Ti.
> 
> It can be hard to separate these kinds of things. One person's "Deep analysis" is completely different from another person's so I try to go by other deciding factors like the "goal-orientedness" for example, which fits very clearly with Te.


Well by deep I meant that the overall understanding I build is deep compared to what many other people try to get away with to get where they want. And I can deduce further things from just understanding the system without having to experiment in a trial and error way (I HATE that) or without having to find more instructions, no, it instead comes from understanding the system that those other people didn't bother to build or understand in the first place and what I deduce in this fashion can be quite useful for tasks etc so I get further than those other people.




> I'm actually always amazed at how much my wife's Ne plays into her decisions. The adaptability you want can easily be Ne shining through. I must confess that I'm still struggling to get a good grasp on how that process works exactly.


You might've misread? I don't say I "want" adaptability, I already *have* it. I don't think it's Ne because it's too physical and concrete for that. I basically am sure about this one thing, I have no Ne. Period. lol

How does your wife's Ne play into her decisions, though? I still say I have no Ne, for those either.




> The decisiveness could be either Se or Te, but I can easily see that as Te here.


How does Se decisiveness work? How is it different from Te decisiveness?




> Honestly, that's a much better one for Si. It's easy to fall into stereotypes. Lots of ISTJs love routine because their brain is optimized to use it. So it's natural to work from routine. That doesn't mean you have to like it though, the same for my ISFJ wife. She actually hates routine for her daily activities.


I don't hate routine either, really, I think I do rely on them, they are just almost silently in the background, automatic mostly. It's very stabilizing and calm, you could say. It's just emotionally neutral too so yah I don't LOVE this mode lol, it's simply "fine".




> The goal-oriented thing is very Te over Ti.


I read somewhere that Se also has goals, but it's not clear to me how this differs from Te goals. Any idea?




> ISTJs can go in-depth for their goals. They just don't tend to enjoy going in-depth for the sake of going in-depth.


Exactly! I don't enjoy that, I only do it a tiny little bit at a time, then it becomes aimless, purposeless. Where I said I indulge in analysis, I don't actually do the indulging for a long time at a time. Because otherwise it would be a problem for me. It's like I do little bits of it pretty often, "indulge" for a second beyond what I deem necessary for the goal/course/task, then focus on the necessary parts of analysis again, but that does build up a system over time.




> Definitely Si. I think the Se seems to come off because of your Te decisiveness.


You mean because Se also has its brand of decisiveness?




> Se loves situations where everything is happening at the same time and it can just respond the way the body wants to. It's not about achieving anything, just about reacting to the environment. It works great for sports. I don't really see that in your answers though.


Ohh just physically reacting to the environment without any other goal is fine and enjoyable but again I don't indulge in this for more than a couple seconds at a time because then, yeah, you've guessed right, it becomes aimless lol! Tbh this is similar to the short periods of the extra analysis bits I guess, hmm.

As for everything happening at the same time lol, it's ok, I can pick the most important objects fast enough usually and it's fun, I guess. But put too many objects there though, and I will have to have them in an organization where everything gets assigned some place. Again this is just like simple or known complex situations with my brand of adaptability VS complex and new situations with losing that bit of adaptability fully and instead being dependent on organization. See the theme here?




> That's Si needing organization and Te looking for actual results (and stopping the organization because there's things to be done)


Pretty much, I stop because I want to get the task done.




> I agree, that really doesn't sound like Se too much.


I thought about this a bit more. I don't like change (but will adapt to it) that I didn't effect myself. I sometimes like to generate the change myself in the environment though. Just usually it's only for short times at a time. Those little moments of indulging again, you see. As an aside to the goal I'm otherwise working towards. Sometimes I can "jump" big (into something) though BUT it's only if I see the point to doing so.

I guess imagine Te with a bit of extra Se flashes overall lol. Make sense? 


Ohh where it really doesn't sound STP for sure but I had second thoughts on it, let me quote for you from some other post of mine: 

_"I am thinking about one thing where I described how I lose all adaptability when I get 100% into a detailed course. Then when something comes up and I'm able to only respond to it after a noticeable delay compared to when I do have the bit of adaptability, I actually get to feel like it's really ridiculous to be that way. Which sounds like it's not entirely my natural default...? Or? Otherwise I do feel fine in that mode, just when this happens is when I feel a bit weird..."_

Of course, I thought about this too further LOL, so, I figured by default I have that one second delay to reorient quickly. STPs don't have that 1 second either I guess...? I read that before somewhere, that they don't at all. :shocked:

...I actually had a moment today where I noticed I was being like that accidentally, and it's definitely not my default though: I was crossing the road while cars were waiting on the other side of the road, and yeah I was crossing it in the wrong place lol, but other cars were not close on the side of the road where I started from, but then since this was at a corner where cars can come out of nowhere, you have to watch them while crossing, and one suddenly showed up. I usually am a bit more considered in my response though fast enough usually, but this time I felt like I was just truly reacting directly from instinct without being considered at all. I just started running to get to the other side of the road away from the moving car. If STPs are like that all the time, well no, I'm not like that, I have a little extra barrier (even if not much of it) to reacting so directly. And by default I have more of an aim or a precise target with every movement of mine. (That's Te?) And I prefer it my usual way.




> I've heard that a lot from Si. Having very strong emotions coupled to stored memories. That's classic Si.


Eh, the emotions are not strong. I'm quite neutral emotionally by default and it's rare that I'd have a very strong emotion, let alone it lasting... But yeah I read this about Si too that it can store emotions in memories.




> Si wants to conform to the facts while Ti wants to build an abstract logical system. The two aren't mutually exclusive, but they have very different goals.


Yeah "abstract" is off for me. My systems are certainly logical but think of it like concrete formal logic. Where you can make those further deductions. And yeah, I do need facts. I'm pretty anal about organizing them well, and about them making sense logically, but I do need to anchor all this logic to something concrete.


OK, so I mentioned: _"And oh, yeah, that fits very well, I use details for planning and preparation of the decisions, and then none in the decision-making moment."_

You earlier said Ti does this, so I'm not sure, can you say if this has a variant for Si+Te?


OK, overall what I wonder about is this... while yes I can see how ISTJ fits me especially with things like me needing my little precious details lol, and being frustrated with unpredictability if I don't act methodically enough to ensure consistency; still, all these ISTJ descriptions are so very J, they are so thoroughly preparing for stuff always, and while half of the time I'm like that, the other half of the time I really don't feel all that J or all that thorough. Like where I described the interview situation in more detail, though you could say I was still being J because I needed things to be still plannable and predictable even if I kept this part to the minimum where I still feel comfortable because I know I will be able to manage the rest of the situation without extra planning or without being "extra J".

I said also, _"I don't pay attention to precision when I'm in my simpler navigation mode"_, and this is pretty often. You know, that simple wording you pointed out earlier :tongue:, that's that simpler navigation mode too. Though I will have to add, if I think of it more, the Si details are still there even if invisible almost as my focus is somewhere else, I rely on them anyway, that is, in known places I rely on the structure of these details to find my way around and do tasks.

Well, all in all. Have you known ISTJs like this with this bit of a sort of adaptability? ISTJs that are only annoyed at most changes for a second then instantly start adapting?


Also where I describe things like:

_"And where I said I explore: yeah, I can do that only really by moving, taking action."
"Oh yes when I'm taking immediate action (and not overly complex new stuff) then yes I'm on the fly with planning for the action and for deciding stuff wherever needed."
"And yeah I thought that was Se, yes. The whole thing with just doing "look and see" and quickly responding physically."
"Ohh if we are talking about mess in physical space, in a room, in a house, in a street, or anywhere really, I find it fun to find my way around quickly."
"If the navigating in a new situation just means dealing with new stuff in front of me without using an elaborate system for it then yes I'm quick enough and I don't need to sit back."_

I still feel these things sound pretty Se. Physical, just-look-see, adapt-respond quickly, not too detail-oriented (more holistic sensory instead), etc... Even if it doesn't seem as unrestrained Se as for the STPs. Half of the time I am still a somewhat adaptable navigation machine lol. Do you have any thoughts on how to place this issue with ISTJ?


----------



## alive1 (Sep 8, 2018)

tanstaafl28 said:


> Well, she's very headstrong (Enneagram 8w7 Sp/Sx 863) so having everything just so is important to her. As far as her creativity goes, she will go to great lengths to organize data in such a way that it makes perfect sense to her, and often she can break it down to a point where other people understand it too, but she needs really good guidelines as to what she is expected to do. If you give her sloppy instructions, she'll produce what she thinks makes sense, and that may not be what makes sense to anyone else. She really hates when she's given incomplete instructions. I guess she's like a musician who wants the sheet music to play by.


Oo yeah, I'm that musician too with tasks I'm given by others (e.g. at work), though I can get by with less than perfect instructions if I try. And yes my creativity is that, go thorough more than most people with the system and get further with it than most other people.




> It is the sort of creativity of being able to make chaos seem like order.


Yep, I like navigating and prevailing over chaos like that.




> Of course, she'd prefer the computer program, because in her mind, that's performing some sort of function. The rock garden would seem kind of superfluous to her because she wouldn't see the purpose of it. She really doesn't even poop without a plan. I believe she's probably borderline OCD (if not full blown).


You mean OCPD, not OCD. And if she's OCPD, she's Enneagram 1, not 8, btw, as far as I understand Enneagram (which isn't a deep understanding for me, mind you).

I could see the purpose to a rock garden if a family member of mine liked it.

Tbh, otoh, I don't know if I see things as "performing some sort of function". Sure there is that too somewhere but what I'm really focused on is whether things I do have a point to them. Some rational point but this doesn't necessarily have to do with requiring things to perform whatever sort of function. Do I make sense to you here, let me know.




> She probably saw me as something of a challenge. If she could bring order to someone like me, she'd be a goddess. On the other hand, she found out I had some uses. I happen to be a genius when it comes to producing research, I'm far more well-read, and thus my personal knowledge-base is far broader. She found uses for me. That's part of the problem. She can be the sort of person who looks at others and values them for how useful they are to her. If they are of no use to her, she doesn't bother with them. I'm not sure if that's an ISTJ trait or not. She pretty much believes in the practical and functional over all else. Everything else is extraneous.


I read that's an ESTJ trait (along with being extremely headstrong), always looking at the usefulness of things and very low Inferior Fi...? I certainly can't relate. "Practical and functional" the way you describe it makes me yawn big time. I mean I do some of that too but it doesn't determine everything as first priority for me. And those binders, makes me go yawn again, if it's to be overdone lol. I'm able to use such things but to go overboard like that... no.

You said, she planned every detail possible, got an example of this please?


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

alive1 said:


> You said, she planned every detail possible, got an example of this please?


When we went on vacation, she'd put together a binder (or folder) with colored tabs. Each tab of the binder was organized by flight information, car rental, hotels, excursions, train information, and whatever else she could think of to make sure we were always exactly where we were supposed to be at any given time. 

Additionally, as she worked several part-time jobs online, she also blocked out several hours nearly every afternoon to do her work (yes, _while on vacation_) and this required me to make time zone charts; so she knew what time it was where her employers were tracking her activity levels. She has to respond to her students so many times per week as a part of her job (she's got a doctorate in Education, so she teaches classes part-time online).

Every year, she buys one of those big desk blotter sized calendars, and uses this as her "master," while also making use of her laptop, cell phone, and iPad, to keep track of important dates and schedules.

I helped her set up a system that allowed her to transfer what was on her computer onto a keyboard, mouse, and monitor that is mounted on a treadmill; so she can do her work and exercise at the same time. I don't know if this is an ISTJ thing, she's really into efficiency though.

She's very ambitious. Some of it comes from her fears growing up. Her dad was pretty much a bum, and her mom had to work multiple jobs to keep her and her 2 siblings in their house. She remembers having to help her mom roll coins in order to get groceries. She's afraid of ever being poor, so she has been hustling multiple jobs since she was 18. 

*Addendum*: I've wondered about her being an 8 and having so many fears. She was the "baby" of 3. Her mom was terribly depressed after her mother died, and her doctor told her to have another baby, so she did. She named my ex after her mom, and she really did a number on her, filling her with all sorts of prejudices and fears. I suspect when her mom dies, my ex is going to explode with all the anger she has suppressed due to the fears her mother instilled in her. She's essentially angry because she's afraid, and afraid because she's angry. I love her still, but I couldn't help her with this struggle. I had my own demons to dance with.


----------



## Kiriae (Oct 2, 2015)

alive1 said:


> Well, all in all. Have you known ISTJs like this with this bit of a sort of adaptability? ISTJs that are only annoyed at most changes for a second then instantly start adapting?


Just my 3 cents:

I can relate with a lot of what you said, for example the need to plan every detail and getting frustrated when your plan fails (but recovering fast and dealing with the situation easily anyway) - I had a period of time in my life when I was like that, between 21 and 25 years old(and only then). I blame it on intense Si development, fueled by Fe expectations. I was an adult and the pressure about me "growing up already" was heavy. And I wouldn't allow myself to make mistakes. I would do nothing (such as "going to a trip with friends") if I didn't have a detailed plan because I was afraid I might miss some important detail. I was changing the detailed plan midway anyway more often than not because once I was there my improvisation mode would kick in, but I wouldn't start doing anything if I didn't have a plan and if the plan failed because I failed to predict something important I was in scatters for a while. That kind of unhealthy behaviour stopped when I gave up on growing up and returned to the childlike personality I always had. Although it taught me how to be organised and detail oriented - an ability I still use when needed. 



alive1 said:


> Even if it doesn't seem as unrestrained Se as for the STPs. Half of the time I am still a somewhat adaptable navigation machine lol. Do you have any thoughts on how to place this issue with ISTJ?


I can also easily find my way through any place - I seem to constantly be drawing a map in my head, with a gps device attached. As I walk through a city (not just a city, any building/place is like that too) I unconsciously take mental notes of the pattern how streets connect, how specific places look like and where they are located. This makes it very easy for me to use a different way every time, finding shortcuts, changing my route and just choosing how to get to a specific place. It gets useful when someone gets lost (I am never lost, I own any place - unless I space off in a shopping centre with a bunch of shops I seen too many times in too many locations in too many other shopping centres). Once during a school trip a girl called the teacher she is lost and I joined the search team because I had an idea where she is based on the little info she gave - she apparently "passed a bank" and I vaguely remembered I seen a street with a few banks with the corner of my eye although I didn't pay attention to them. I went there, found her a little further ahead and returned to the school bus using a different street - one I didn't walk before but which I knew is heading right to the parking lot - because it was on my mental map. 

When I mentioned that ability of my someone said they know an ISTJ that is also great at navigation and said it's a Si thing. I believe in my case Si gathers info, Ne fills the blanks and Ti figures out the patterns based on that. Because there is a lot of intuition and logic in what I do, sensory data are just a small part of it.



> Also where I describe things like:
> 
> _"And where I said I explore: yeah, I can do that only really by moving, taking action."
> "Oh yes when I'm taking immediate action (and not overly complex new stuff) then yes I'm on the fly with planning for the action and for deciding stuff wherever needed."
> ...


Ne can actually be really similar to Se, especially when paired with Te which is a "get stuff done" function (Ti will run Ne the possibilities in head and often stop at that - Te will make them real instead). Both Se and Ne are extrovertic functions that deal with the outside world. The difference is Se focuses on how something looks (you will often see Se users saying they find stuff beautiful, cool or eye catching) and Ne on guessing what something is or can turn into (Ne users will spew nonsense about a tree looking like a Santa Claus due to it's shape). 

Both are quick to observe the world and willing to jump in and interact if not put on hold by other functions (Ti, Si, Fi or Ni). 

Se will want to interact with the world directly - get moving, be one with the world, be in the eye of action, sink in the physical experience.
Ne will jump in to fill it's curiosity - to see what happens when you mix sand with boiling oil, whats inside the box, whats behind that corner, what the sound was, what will ants do when you kill one and they find the body...

Te-Ne in ISTJ will look at the outside world, get an idea (using data gathered by Si over all the years in new context) and push to make it true because filling a goal (Te) feels good.
Ti-Se in ISTP will observe the outside world, poke it a little, figure out a the way of action that makes the most sense with some help of Ni (it takes current Se data, adds Ti logic and predicts where it's heading) and jump in to do this because doing stuff physically (Se) feels good.
Something like that.

You mentioned you don't use Ne. At all. Mind sharing why you think so? You are pretty clearly using Si - and Ne is other side of the same coin. As a Si dom you would naturally be devaluing Ne and might refuse to see it, especially with the descriptions of dominant Ne in the internet - but it doesn't mean you don't use it at all. Si must use Ne in order to make plans because otherwise it would just be remaking the same scenerio over and over again without any adaptability. Ne generates ideas of how to do stuff differently and finds similarities between different situations so you can use your knowledge in new, different contexts. 

If anything I would say you use Ne quite well. Not as much as your Si but better than an average inferior use. You are 28 though - an age when inferior gets developed enough to be used on tertiary level = as a tool or a toy. Which explains that. 

Were you always that good in new situations or is it an ability you developed as an adult? It should be the case for 28 year old ISTJ. If it's the other way around and you actually developed your planning ability and routines recently - consider INTP with developed Si (I doubt that one because I see Te-Fi axis in you but it's an option). And if the adaptability got developed when you were a teen - consider ESTJ. Introversion doesn't mean that much in MBTI. I am most possibly an extroverted INTP for example.


----------



## alive1 (Sep 8, 2018)

tanstaafl28 said:


> When we went on vacation, she'd put together a binder (or folder) with colored tabs. Each tab of the binder was organized by flight information, car rental, hotels, excursions, train information, and whatever else she could think of to make sure we were always exactly where we were supposed to be at any given time.
> 
> Additionally, as she worked several part-time jobs online, she also blocked out several hours nearly every afternoon to do her work (yes, _while on vacation_) and this required me to make time zone charts; so she knew what time it was where her employers were tracking her activity levels. She has to respond to her students so many times per week as a part of her job (she's got a doctorate in Education, so she teaches classes part-time online).


Hm lol I see myself a lot in that vacation thing actually.

What I don't really get is why she asked for your help in a simple task like making time zone charts. ??? That bit of a task for organization (because it is exactly that kind of task) didn't fit into her schedule of organizing?  Or why even make charts lol, this stuff is simpler than that, it's not much data so it doesn't really require that kind of organization IMO, so a waste of time (I'll say more on this attitude of mine below).

And uhm, I think a main difference would be that yes I'm also clear about where to go etc. like flights, hotels, etc. But I'm WAY more relaxed about it than this, I would never waste time on making binders just for this. Coloured tabs, god, what a waste of time additionally. I just keep all that information where I know I easily access it, in part in my own head. Overall I'm really good at making lists and keep them in my head and in other designated places but I would never try to make it all look "neat" like that. Because that truly is a serious waste of time for me, I have better things to do with my time and I don't need binders and colouring for such simple tasks. Dunno why this difference...?

That makes me think, I was the same in school... I tried this method of colouring information in textbooks because I saw others did that a lot, but I only tried it once, I got nothing out of it. Just don't need it, I used my own simple, less flashy method (NOT wasting time with it) for knowing which parts I would need to remember from the textbooks, really overall a good principle for many things where I don't want to waste time is KISS principle (keep it simple stupid). :tongue:




> Every year, she buys one of those big desk blotter sized calendars, and uses this as her "master," while also making use of her laptop, cell phone, and iPad, to keep track of important dates and schedules.


Yeah ok she's like she does all this organization for things for herself in a really visible way where I do it in part in my own head and in part with other non-flashy simple tools of mine. Works fine for me, I suspect it would not work for most people like that.




> I helped her set up a system that allowed her to transfer what was on her computer onto a keyboard, mouse, and monitor that is mounted on a treadmill; so she can do her work and exercise at the same time. I don't know if this is an ISTJ thing, she's really into efficiency though.


Lol I wish I had that kind of energy to multitask. Tbh when I do my training I do not want to focus on another task - I take my training very seriously, it's basically another job to me. Maybe for her it's not that important and so that explains the difference then. Cool system otherwise!




> She's very ambitious. Some of it comes from her fears growing up. Her dad was pretty much a bum, and her mom had to work multiple jobs to keep her and her 2 siblings in their house. She remembers having to help her mom roll coins in order to get groceries. She's afraid of ever being poor, so she has been hustling multiple jobs since she was 18.
> 
> *Addendum*: I've wondered about her being an 8 and having so many fears. She was the "baby" of 3. Her mom was terribly depressed after her mother died, and her doctor told her to have another baby, so she did. She named my ex after her mom, and she really did a number on her, filling her with all sorts of prejudices and fears. I suspect when her mom dies, my ex is going to explode with all the anger she has suppressed due to the fears her mother instilled in her. She's essentially angry because she's afraid, and afraid because she's angry. I love her still, but I couldn't help her with this struggle. I had my own demons to dance with.


I see, I'm comparatively less focused on the self-preservation issues. Very ambitious too, though, yes. I'm sorry to hear really about the last part, I think you can't take up the role of a therapist in a relationship though, so it's ok IMO. The most you could've done was to show her why she'd need therapy if that's the case at all. The caveat though is, I don't think most therapy methods out there are really designed for STJs. roud: But there are a few (really not many) that could work.


----------



## alive1 (Sep 8, 2018)

Kiriae said:


> Just my 3 cents:
> 
> I can relate with a lot of what you said, for example the need to plan every detail and getting frustrated when your plan fails (but recovering fast and dealing with the situation easily anyway) - I had a period of time in my life when I was like that, between 21 and 25 years old(and only then). I blame it on intense Si development, fueled by Fe expectations. I was an adult and the pressure about me "growing up already" was heavy. And I wouldn't allow myself to make mistakes. I would do nothing (such as "going to a trip with friends") if I didn't have a detailed plan because I was afraid I might miss some important detail. I was changing the detailed plan midway anyway more often than not because once I was there my improvisation mode would kick in, but I wouldn't start doing anything if I didn't have a plan and if the plan failed because I failed to predict something important I was in scatters for a while. That kind of unhealthy behaviour stopped when I gave up on growing up and returned to the childlike personality I always had. Although it taught me how to be organised and detail oriented - an ability I still use when needed.


Hey there, cool about relating. Really appreciate your analysis too, I'll comment and answer your questions too. 

I explained somewhere in one of these long posts, lol, that I don't plan every detail a lot of the time. Just the details I know I need to orient by. And then sometimes it's all detailed yeah, I indulge in being very detail-oriented then like that. 

The difference however is that I don't change such all-detailed plans midway, I simply do not enter an improvisation mode then, I completely lose the adaptability part of myself, I become 100% J, and I no longer see options outside the plan, I am just inside my own process of executing the plan for the task and the goal. And I do feel great being this way, I was like this as a kid too.

I'm not sure I really try to predict much. Basic things, important points for the plan need to be certain but I don't try to speculate on how things may play out, I just simply create points in the plan for the definite parts that don't need speculating because the world just works like that based on my experience and because of relying on the organization in the world (call this the Si and Te, yeah). And for the other parts I still don't speculate, it's part of the plan to take care of the unclear parts. Either by preparing for those properly by getting enough details/information first (still no speculation!), or by knowing what actions to take when I get there. That latter part is contingency planning almost but I am not very good at contingency planning beyond this, I am really bad at thinking of possible things that could get in the way. That's when I can be really almost stopped in my tracks sometimes if the problem that came up is too complex and new. Very disoriented then and wasting time... I don't actually necessarily stop though, I just get to act "blind" from that point on until I manage to reorient. Or I stop and try to get more information/details first to reorient. And I do feel 100% ISTJ with that.

As for the Fe part: I will be honest, I've never felt these Fe expectations so I don't relate to that part, I think. OK, I maybe felt it once or twice but it's so foreign to me. I'd rather not align by Fe expectations directly at all. Instant disorientation pretty much, systems falling apart if I was supposed to do that. If I see the logical purpose to something I am fine, but Fe expectations without that, nah. My systems and keeping them intact is of a higher priority, those Fe expectations must not conflict with them. Unless I really care about someone, then whatever feelings they have become important, so you could say if Fi (?) agrees then Fe is ok too.




> I can also easily find my way through any place - I seem to constantly be drawing a map in my head, with a gps device attached. As I walk through a city (not just a city, any building/place is like that too) I unconsciously take mental notes of the pattern how streets connect, how specific places look like and where they are located. This makes it very easy for me to use a different way every time, finding shortcuts, changing my route and just choosing how to get to a specific place. It gets useful when someone gets lost (I am never lost, I own any place - unless I space off in a shopping centre with a bunch of shops I seen too many times in too many locations in too many other shopping centres). Once during a school trip a girl called the teacher she is lost and I joined the search team because I had an idea where she is based on the little info she gave - she apparently "passed a bank" and I vaguely remembered I seen a street with a few banks with the corner of my eye although I didn't pay attention to them. I went there, found her a little further ahead and returned to the school bus using a different street - one I didn't walk before but which I knew is heading right to the parking lot - because it was on my mental map.
> 
> When I mentioned that ability of my someone said they know an ISTJ that is also great at navigation and said it's a Si thing. I believe in my case Si gathers info, Ne fills the blanks and Ti figures out the patterns based on that. Because there is a lot of intuition and logic in what I do, sensory data are just a small part of it.


Cool about your navigating and maps . It is a bit similar to me yeah. I don't try to use different routes every time though lol, I'm a way more purposeful J than that, apparently. :laughing: If I'm really really leisurely (not all that often...), then I can be like this a bit. That is when I go after my impulses a bit. :wink:

Just for fun, let me compare a bit more, where you said, you are never lost, yeah same, but I don't have a problem with shopping centres, I know which shopping centre I am in so my sense of space and orientation takes that into account. It's like I'm a bit less focused on just the objects compared to you and more on an overall organization of things that includes concious identification of the place too.

And I don't think I fill in blanks consciously, no, for me all the map stuff is very sensory plus it relies on organization of the data/things too as much as that's applicable. I definitely don't do this Ti thingy: _"Ti figures out the patterns"_. No way, no, I'm more into concrete formal logic than that.

Your example with picking a different street after finding that girl, I would have not bothered with trying to follow my impulses, I would probably not have had the impulses coming up, as I'd probably still have been in my task focused J mode. But let's assume I somehow decided to pick the different street, I'd simply know that it heads in a similar direction I need to go in because say, other streets around it that I've already seen determine that, and the distance is about right too, etc., do you call this filling in the blanks?

I can do such in general a tiny bit, sure, but I'd not really rely on it, unless I really had to, because it would usually be a bit ambiguous and I avoid ambiguity like the plague. I'd get really pissed off if I was wrong too, if I try to guess about an ambiguity... 

What I can do instead is, I go through that street WITHOUT expectations, then I won't be pissed off. And when I'm doing navigation tasks, I often work like this actually, without expectations, also because there isn't usually any serious ambiguity anyway, because I am good at this stuff, and so I can get a bit more carefree adaptable like that. 

All in all, me consciously trying to fill in blanks would just create expectations and I'd get annoyed at any kind of failure about them, this way I'm more adaptable and quick to react with way fewer expectations, is a good summary for this. (I will still get annoyed or even VERY pissed off if any of the remaining expectations relating to the plan/goal are violated though.) But yeah, it feels very sensory, the adaptability.




> Ne can actually be really similar to Se, especially when paired with Te which is a "get stuff done" function (Ti will run Ne the possibilities in head and often stop at that - Te will make them real instead). Both Se and Ne are extrovertic functions that deal with the outside world. The difference is Se focuses on how something looks (you will often see Se users saying they find stuff beautiful, cool or eye catching) and Ne on guessing what something is or can turn into (Ne users will spew nonsense about a tree looking like a Santa Claus due to it's shape).


Yeah I never do guesses like that. I can't brainstorm, that would do my head in. It is truly fucking pointless to run possibilities in the head even if I could do it. I much prefer to make whatever option I picked for something real, yes. And I do like some eye catching stuff to myself.  But I can't say I'm very focused on beauty on the whole, other than that I'm focused on some cool eye catching attractive things, "beautiful" kind of sounds "off" with how I focus on it. I'm more for strong sensory impact than just plain beautiful.




> Both are quick to observe the world and willing to jump in and interact if not put on hold by other functions (Ti, Si, Fi or Ni).
> 
> Se will want to interact with the world directly - get moving, be one with the world, be in the eye of action, sink in the physical experience.
> Ne will jump in to fill it's curiosity - to see what happens when you mix sand with boiling oil, whats inside the box, whats behind that corner, what the sound was, what will ants do when you kill one and they find the body...


The Ne one is such a turn-off here. I'm yawning big time sorry lol :laughing:
Though, "what's behind that corner", sometimes is interesting but only in terms of me liking to go around and hoping for some nice complex route continuing behind the corner.

The Se one... I don't fully immerse physically in this fashion usually, I'm a bit more reserved than this. I mean... I love taking action for some stuff, especially my goals, but I don't fully sink in the physical experience of the action or not for long, I have a little more reservation than that. I keep focused on the task and goal instead. And so I keep purposeful enough usually. If that makes sense. When I do decide to go after an impulse of mine (because they can come up when I'm not task-focused), it's usually still a considered decision.

Otherwise what you describe about Se is familiar. We can safely say that it's some strong tool for me but subordinated to other things. Or I get this all wrong and Si+Ne is like this. (See more below on that.)




> Te-Ne in ISTJ will look at the outside world, get an idea (using data gathered by Si over all the years in new context) and push to make it true because filling a goal (Te) feels good.
> Ti-Se in ISTP will observe the outside world, poke it a little, figure out a the way of action that makes the most sense with some help of Ni (it takes current Se data, adds Ti logic and predicts where it's heading) and jump in to do this because doing stuff physically (Se) feels good.
> Something like that.


Yeah, the way you describe ISTJ is great for me. Look at the outside world and push to make a selected option true to fulfill a goal - is absolutely me. Though I'm not sure if I get ideas in that fashion, I'd have to think about that a bit more, maybe. The way you say it's done in the context of data gathered by Si for a long time, it does ring a bell, though. Can you say more on this process please?




> You mentioned you don't use Ne. At all. Mind sharing why you think so? You are pretty clearly using Si - and Ne is other side of the same coin. As a Si dom you would naturally be devaluing Ne and might refuse to see it, especially with the descriptions of dominant Ne in the internet - but it doesn't mean you don't use it at all. Si must use Ne in order to make plans because otherwise it would just be remaking the same scenerio over and over again without any adaptability. Ne generates ideas of how to do stuff differently and finds similarities between different situations so you can use your knowledge in new, different contexts.


I think the only thing I can see as Ne is when I mention "options" to pick from, but they seem so concrete sensory options to me. I can only think of ones that I've actually experienced physically before or ones that I can directly deduce by my (concrete again) logic from things I've actually seen and experienced.

I can't otherwise brainstorm, hate guessing, speculating, ambiguity, get really pissed off if I did try to go with a guess on ambiguity and made the wrong decision there, and getting disoriented in a complex new situation is a nightmare. (Dramatizing sorry lol, I actually usually remain collected, not panicking.) I know Ne can really easily find their way out of complex new shit, me nope lol. I definitely refuse to see the Ne in me I think. :tongue: :laughing:

OK a bit more on this... Where you talk about finding similarities between (seemingly) different situations, yes I do that here and there. That's a significant part of system-building for me, a significant part of making important rules in general. I don't really see why this is Ne, though, it requires zero brainstorming (thank god), requires no possibilities to play with (again thank god sorry lol).

I make plans without Ne by seeing the concrete options I've already seen before, and organizing logically. I guess my "adaptability part" plays a part where I see the concrete options. It still all seems very sensory to me though. No conscious Ne.

It's true too, if I don't think of another option because I didn't experience it, or am not shown it in some other way (I don't see it somewhere, outside me, I can't think of it on my own usually), then my plans could become too repeated, yes. It can definitely be a problem. What people call a rut.

EDIT: Maybe I see more Ne now, wait. When I get so disoriented, and waste time, I tend to go outside what I usually do, the usual systems, and I try to find something very different that promises a solution, like "magic". This could be Ne. It's very unconventional approaches then. Then I return back to normal, conventional solutions slowly once I reoriented... but I might retain what I learned from the unconventional approach.

Ne could play a life-saving role then (if we want to exaggerate :laughing: ), as long as it does actually work to lead me to a better place, sure. I'm joking though, I never feel truly lost or panic, so Ne issues don't phase me overall, I just know it's too much waste of time sometimes with me getting disoriented like that and that's a big issue sometimes.




> If anything I would say you use Ne quite well. Not as much as your Si but better than an average inferior use. You are 28 though - an age when inferior gets developed enough to be used on tertiary level = as a tool or a toy. Which explains that.
> 
> Were you always that good in new situations or is it an ability you developed as an adult? It should be the case for 28 year old ISTJ. If it's the other way around and you actually developed your planning ability and routines recently - consider INTP with developed Si (I doubt that one because I see Te-Fi axis in you but it's an option). And if the adaptability got developed when you were a teen - consider ESTJ. Introversion doesn't mean that much in MBTI. I am most possibly an extroverted INTP for example.


Thanks for the compliment but I don't believe I use Ne well lol :laughing: If you mean that I'm able to not be so J all the time, just half of the time, then OK, though that is exactly the part where I wonder what's up with my typing. Because it seems Se to me, what I see, but not the Se of STPs, as I've seen it described. 

And yeah, I was always like this. If I really think back in my memories, maybe as a small kid I did not have it, kindergarten age: I was really introverted, calm, and slow to act then, always just observing, watching. I would wander around, navigate, even then, but doing it all alone. And I did not try to adapt quickly to anything. Instead I had my detail oriented stuff already. I think in middle school I was already like I am now, though. Somewhere between elementary and middle school is when I became like this...? I.e. more of this "adaptability" and more extraverted thing. But I definitely started out life as introverted like described.


So all in all - the sensory adaptability I keep describing, does the theory explain it as, Si motivated by unconscious Ne, or what? Again, the ISTJ type descriptions do not have it, so this is why I wonder.


----------



## Kiriae (Oct 2, 2015)

alive1 said:


> I don't try to speculate on how things may play out, I just simply create points in the plan for the definite parts that don't need speculating because the world just works like that based on my experience and because of relying on the organization in the world (call this the Si and Te, yeah).


Does the world really works like that? In my experience it constantly changes. Well, not exactly "constantly" but accidents happen, people (me ) oversleep, weather goes wild or some interesting distraction appears or what I planned stops being interesting.



> Your example with picking a different street after finding that girl, I would have not bothered with trying to follow my impulses, I would probably not have had the impulses coming up, as I'd probably still have been in my task focused J mode. But let's assume I somehow decided to pick the different street, I'd simply know that it heads in a similar direction I need to go in because say, other streets around it that I've already seen determine that, and the distance is about right too, etc., do you call this filling in the blanks?


That's pretty much how it works for me. And the new street was an effective shortcut, although it did came with the risk of it ending midway (I had my doubts because you never know - the street didn't go exactly straight and I couldn't see where it ends therefore it could change direction or suddenly end but it ending near the bus made most sense according to what I learned about the pattern of streets in the area). I knew this is correct direction - my "gps" was telling me the bus is there, about 300 meters away - and we walked about 1000 meters using the around way to find the girl. I cared more about seeing if my guess is right than about "not wasting time" walking a few minutes longer though. Walking was actually interesting too - it was my first time hanging out at 1AM with my underage classmates in an unknown city - "forbidden fruit" experience. I didn't exactly want to return to our hotel yet. But I was more curious about the street and checking if my conclusion was correct than prolonging the experience. I was pretty sure it is because all puzzles did fit together (there was even a street near the bus that should be the new one) but I wanted to get rid of any doubts by checking it. Of course I was aware a thug might attack us or we might have to be forced to return even longer way or find a different route but my curiosity won. 



> The Ne one is such a turn-off here. I'm yawning big time sorry lol
> Though, "what's behind that corner", sometimes is interesting but only in terms of me liking to go around and hoping for some nice complex route continuing behind the corner.


And I am yawning (or rather keeping my eyes wide open, thinking "How?") when you are speaking about sticking to a plan and not even having those impulses. 



> I can't otherwise brainstorm, hate guessing, speculating, ambiguity, get really pissed off if I did try to go with a guess on ambiguity and made the wrong decision there, and getting disoriented in a complex new situation is a nightmare. (Dramatizing sorry lol, I actually usually remain collected, not panicking.) I know Ne can really easily find their way out of complex new shit, me nope lol. I definitely refuse to see the Ne in me I think.


Ne in Ne doms and auxes can easily do that. Ne with lower place in the stack is a freaking "3-10 year old" in that field. Don't expect it to solve "university level" tasks - figuratively speaking. By itself it can only deal with easy, risk-free, playful stuff and cant be depended on. Kinda like this: 



> Maybe I see more Ne now, wait. When I get so disoriented, and waste time, I tend to go outside what I usually do, the usual systems, and I try to find something very different that promises a solution, like "magic". This could be Ne. It's very unconventional approaches then. Then I return back to normal, conventional solutions slowly once I reoriented... but I might retain what I learned from the unconventional approach.


As for this: 



> OK a bit more on this... Where you talk about finding similarities between (seemingly) different situations, yes I do that here and there. That's a significant part of system-building for me, a significant part of making important rules in general. I don't really see why this is Ne, though, it requires zero brainstorming (thank god), requires no possibilities to play with (again thank god sorry lol).


That's how Ne works when it's working in tandem with Si instead of going against it. It is still brainstorming (looking for ideas how the current situation is similar to any situation in the past - a lot of past situations gets checked one by one before the program gets a hit) and deals with possibilities (is current situation similar to A, B, C....?). But goes through Si-Te filter. Random, pointless, unreal possibilities get automatically ignored before they make it to the awareness because focusing on them would be a waste of time and energy. Ne is literally "a thousand ideas a minute" (well, slower when it is low in stack, but still quite a big amount) - it's impossible to be aware of all of them so only the best or most accepted by other functions reach concious level. Except for Ne doms - in their case Ne just spews random ideas out whenever it has a chance and other functions can only try to control the firework show that happens when strong Ne gets triggered. 

BTW. Writing long posts like that is also Ne. Se-Ni users usually keep it short and to the point. Ne likes to dispute both with others and... itself. It also likes customizing the meaning of words and changing approach. "Could be true but might not be true but let's assume its true, it shouldn't be true though so... but..." <- something like this. I can see it in your messages.



> So all in all - the sensory adaptability I keep describing, does the theory explain it as, Si motivated by unconscious Ne, or what? Again, the ISTJ type descriptions do not have it, so this is why I wonder.


No clue because I still don't understand what your "sensory adaptability" exactly means. All I can talk about here is how I wondered whatever I am INTP or ISTP in the past because I though my Ne is Se because I could easily see different sceneries in my head as if I were really experiencing them - whatever I created was no different from my memories that are just as real (I am gifted with nearly photographic memory). There was no "abstract" as I used to describe it - my ideas were always "senses" related - either the real senses or ones in the vividly real world of my imagination. Now I am calling that ability a good use of Si sensory database. It collects sensory data all the time and Ne can easily use it the same way people use paints and crayons to create seemingly real situations inside of head. Because why the hell would Se user imagine to teleport a jacket downstairs (followed by calling the roommate to throw it out from 3rd floor or going to a nearest shop to buy a random jacket or better yet - a multi purpose poncho that can also be used as a skirt or a blanket) because they are too lazy to go to get it but don't want to feel cold on the 10 mins walk to bus stop. Then choose to go without jacket anyway, "freeze to death" and end up wearing their emergency shirt they left at school for situations like this because it wasn't first or even 2nd situation like that so it was expected.


----------



## Kiriae (Oct 2, 2015)

Check those links about inferior Ne:
https://mbti-notes.tumblr.com/post/128225101612/how-functions-work-inferior-ne-istjisfj
https://personalityjunkie.com/02/extraverted-introverted-intuition-inferior-functions/
https://www.typeinmind.com/site/
https://www.typologycentral.com/for...j-isfj-estj-istj-/20517-istj-inferior-ne.html
https://www.personalitycafe.com/isfj-articles/78380-recognizing-inferior-function-isfj.html

Keep in mind most of them are explaining so called grip, when inferior Ne is used in an unhealthy way but you seem to be integrating it in your personality just fine so it's not the case for you. But they also explain how Ne looks like when it isn't dominant/aux.

Also check out the tertiary Ne for reference (functions are growing during lifetime and inferior will reach tertiary level sooner or later as long as the person is developing properly):
https://www.typeinmind.com/tesi/
https://www.personalitycafe.com/cog...-how-does-ne-manifest-itself-estjs-esfjs.html
https://www.psychologyjunkie.com/2017/11/20/myers-briggs-type-uses-tertiary-function/
https://personalitygrowth.com/heres...esents-itself-based-on-your-personality-type/

And those deal with both: 
https://funkymbtifiction.tumblr.com/post/93786222556/how-ne-acts-in-all-4-positions
https://thoughtcatalog.com/heidi-pr...fests-based-on-its-position-in-your-stacking/


----------



## alive1 (Sep 8, 2018)

Kiriae said:


> Does the world really works like that? In my experience it constantly changes. Well, not exactly "constantly" but accidents happen, people (me ) oversleep, weather goes wild or some interesting distraction appears or what I planned stops being interesting.


Ehhh you P. This stuff makes me go mad. :tongue: 

(OK I can adapt to people who are important to me, but please, not all the time.)

The thing that fits me in the most profound way from ISTJ descriptions is that thing with ISTJ trying to stabilize the world in their perception. That is totally how my perception works.

(Even in the action-oriented adaptability mode I have this in a way. The one where I wondered if it's Se.)




> That's pretty much how it works for me. And the new street was an effective shortcut, although it did came with the risk of it ending midway (I had my doubts because you never know - the street didn't go exactly straight and I couldn't see where it ends therefore it could change direction or suddenly end but it ending near the bus made most sense according to what I learned about the pattern of streets in the area). I knew this is correct direction - my "gps" was telling me the bus is there, about 300 meters away - and we walked about 1000 meters using the around way to find the girl. I cared more about seeing if my guess is right than about "not wasting time" walking a few minutes longer though. *Walking was actually interesting too - it was my first time hanging out at 1AM with my underage classmates in an unknown city* - "forbidden fruit" experience. I didn't exactly want to return to our hotel yet. But I was more curious about the street and checking if my conclusion was correct than prolonging the experience. I was pretty sure it is because all puzzles did fit together (there was even a street near the bus that should be the new one) but I wanted to get rid of any doubts by checking it. Of course I was aware a thug might attack us or we might have to be forced to return even longer way or find a different route but my curiosity won.


Oh in that situation (bolded), I might've followed the impulses too myself. 

I care about not wasting time when task focused. I could otherwise follow curiosity like this, this is similar to that other example with what's behind the corner.  I would also find it a fun challenge like you. 

I'm just often task-focused but I can get to the side having a little fun if the task allows for it, sometimes. Just nothing where I'd stray too far from the task. I'm pretty strict on that really.




> And I am yawning (or rather keeping my eyes wide open, thinking "How?") when you are speaking about sticking to a plan and not even having those impulses.


Hhaha.




> Ne in Ne doms and auxes can easily do that. Ne with lower place in the stack is a freaking "3-10 year old" in that field. Don't expect it to solve "university level" tasks - figuratively speaking. By itself it can only deal with easy, risk-free, playful stuff and cant be depended on. Kinda like this:


Really for playful stuff, I don't do much playful stuff I think... sometimes the wandering and navigating around or the way I give myself some extra small challenges in some tasks/routines is almost playful too, but other than that not much I can think of.

What you quoted from me there is not really playful, it's "life and death" (OK, exaggerating) situations where I'm very disoriented, to figure out how to go on to achieve my eventual goal. 

BTW: These are always about long-term goals. Simpler immediate or nearly immediate goals do not usually involve such complex disorienting situations. I'm really decently adaptable for those simpler ones, again. I don't see the need for Ne there. Or I don't realize still how I'm utilizing Ne for those.




> As for this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hmm well, the thing is I'm not aware of checking past situations one by one. It's more like, I notice a situation where something is "off" compared to my previous understanding of things. It really does not match it and so it gets "flagged" in my memory. Then later I may notice another situation playing out that has something in common with the flagged one... and then I realize OH this is the similarity and it explains everything... and I get to set a new strong rule on it...

This is strongly linked with me avoiding certain situations where I know stuff will play out bad. I sometimes have this really strongly to avoid bad outcomes. I always say, I try something only twice if it leads to a bad outcome (three times if it is somewhat tolerable). If a very bad outcome, I don't try a second time even. :tongue: Only if I'm really forced to... unless I solve later why things played out the way they did. By noticing similarities like above, or by other analyses.

The logical possibilities of A, B, C... where I say "logical" because they are deduced from the logical (formal) system's rules, this is somewhat familiar but I really don't like to sort through them too much by default. I prefer just collecting more data patiently until I can organize it all in a truly unambiguous way, where I do not need to check all A, B, C... X, Y, Z. I really dislike considering many possibilities, dislike it to this extent, even if they are such "logical possibilities" (i.e. derived from a system).

So you could say my Si-Te filter is very strong.




> BTW. Writing long posts like that is also Ne. Se-Ni users usually keep it short and to the point. Ne likes to dispute both with others and... itself. It also likes customizing the meaning of words and changing approach. "Could be true but might not be true but let's assume its true, it shouldn't be true though so... but..." <- something like this. I can see it in your messages.


I actually have two modes, long detailed like this lol, indulging in the Si I suppose?, and short to the point bottom line style but you can call it Te if you want... But it's linked to my action-focused adaptable style.

I don't really think in this way of _"Could be true but might not be true but let's assume its true, it shouldn't be true though so... but..."_, it drains me immediately. Where I said "Or I get this all wrong and Si+Ne is like this", to be honest, I was not really liking that mode of bringing up another possibility. But if I have to, I can force myself to as you could see.  It's still draining, the only way to tolerate it is I focus enough on concrete details overall.




> No clue because I still don't understand what your "sensory adaptability" exactly means.


Oh I guess it's hard to convey it well. I will try to sum it up. 

It's like... I'm in the situation physically, I'm actions focused, I'm immediately decisive but also I'm ready to react, respond to whatever comes up, whatever I spot, and it's all very concrete things and options around me - and in my mind too the concrete options can come to me if needed, but just a quite limited amount of them! only what's truly relevant. And I can manipulate them for whatever I want but usually I'm doing all the responding and manipulating for an eventual goal or an immediate one included inside the situation. I can use this mode in sports or for quick navigation, for last-minute sorting out things, for quickly taking care of a slight crisis situation, for having to adapt a plan, but for quickly organizing things as well. So it's like a mix of reactive-responsive and purposeful-targeted action taking.

I think it's got a good dose of Te in there with that but it also seems so physical-sensory and reactive and that is why I thought it has a significant dose of Se in it too.

Where it seems less Se is that I don't really try to create chaos further, I'm more about controlling chaos. It is very very rare and very minimal amount of action from me that would be oriented towards creating further chaos intentionally. If at all, because I really don't like the thought of that much. Too aimless... Unless this further chaos means it's all to be organized better eventually.

When I exit my task-focused process-oriented routine-oriented mode, I usually enter this mode. These are my two main modes overall. Sometimes I have a more leisurely one too where I'm not so goals focused, but still a sensory-physical focus. That is when I go for checking out the new street for fun. 




> All I can talk about here is how I wondered whatever I am INTP or ISTP in the past because I though my Ne is Se because I could easily see different sceneries in my head as if I were really experiencing them - whatever I created was no different from my memories that are just as real (I am gifted with nearly photographic memory). There was no "abstract" as I used to describe it - my ideas were always "senses" related - either the real senses or ones in the vividly real world of my imagination. Now I am calling that ability a good use of Si sensory database. It collects sensory data all the time and Ne can easily use it the same way people use paints and crayons to create seemingly real situations inside of head. Because why the hell would Se user imagine to teleport a jacket downstairs (followed by calling the roommate to throw it out from 3rd floor or going to a nearest shop to buy a random jacket or better yet - a multi purpose poncho that can also be used as a skirt or a blanket) because they are too lazy to go to get it but don't want to feel cold on the 10 mins walk to bus stop. Then choose to go without jacket anyway, "freeze to death" and end up wearing their emergency shirt they left at school for situations like this because it wasn't first or even 2nd situation like that so it was expected.


Lool, optimization gone wrong.  For the last part. Jk.

My concrete options thingy is very similar to this, actually. I'm just less chaotic than you. roud: And I don't pull up very unrealistic options like the teleporting one, though you are funny with that.  If picking from these options, with the rule that I'm not going back to the building, I'd call the roommate to throw it out from the 3rd floor for me. I don't often do this type of option either, but it happened before once or twice. I would not choose to go without the jacket because I know it will definitely be too cold without it, and I don't store emergency shirts in other places lol because I do the optimization more than this. Less chaos overall.

Otherwise yeah I feel some similarity here with your approach minus, again, the chaos . Again yeah for me it's really concrete sensory stuff like for you minus your idea on the teleporting ofc... I don't have that type of idea. This is why I doubted this would be Ne.

I even have the vivid sensory memory but I think less vivid usually than for you. It is more "clinical", but it is definitely as I experienced things in reality previously. I can even pull out further details I did not pay attention to in real life before, like the emotions stuff but sensory details as well.


Something else. How often do you think of bad, catastrophic possibilities? Or that's just Ne inferior? I read ISTJ has this... I'm really resistant to this by default though. I believe so strongly in my action-focused mode, that I think I can take care of things by default. But I find as I got older, I can sometimes get these surfacing. I don't like it. I don't feel it's me, not healthy me anyway.  I have had to train myself to remember that these are just unrealistic catastrophic possibilities, that I am just in a negative mood producing them, and that they will never turn real and I can reason against them then. I just need to rely on my usual realistic sense of things and see the big picture that way to see that the possibility is bullshit. It then gets to feel unreal and "leaves" slowly. It actually is a pretty recent development for me.  At least my luck is that I only get to have to deal with one at a time. Not several, like I read it somewhere that some ISTJs can have several, wtf.  But in turn, it truly is the worst possibility, truly a catastrophy... 

And I also have some version by default that doesn't get conscious and it is often not really refined beyond just "something really bad will happen". And it's easier to let go of this, especially if I goto action-taking mode. That mode somehow excludes this stuff.


----------



## Northern Lights (Mar 25, 2016)

alive1 said:


> Ehhh you P. This stuff makes me go mad. :tongue:


I think you got it :tongue:

If it gives you some solace: Serenity in that kind of circumstances is paid for with a lack of constant focus. That story about the ENFP who wanted to buy bread and ended up at the northpole to cuddle penguins is only 90% untrue.


----------



## Kiriae (Oct 2, 2015)

alive1 said:


> Ehhh you P. This stuff makes me go mad. :tongue:
> 
> (OK I can adapt to people who are important to me, but please, not all the time.)


I only do it when left alone do do whatever I want and no one is depending/counting on me (and no, my life doesn't turn into chaos - actually I get much more done this way and paradoxically I find some kind of order in this type of life) . When it affects others I get into my responsible mode because Fe kills me when I end up being a bother to other people. But responsible, predictable mode drains me and my health and private life gets affected when I do it for prelonged periods of time.



> What you quoted from me there is not really playful, it's "life and death" (OK, exaggerating) situations where I'm very disoriented, to figure out how to go on to achieve my eventual goal.


The situation described seems like a case of inferior taking over when dominant reaches it's limit and trying to deal with it the best it can within it's poor abilities. A healthy one. It could as well turn into a grip experience but you seem to be going the other way. That's interesting and quite unusual if we go with stereotypes but not impossible to do, especially if a person was raised in a friendly environment and doesn't experience too much stress in daily life. 



> Hmm well, the thing is I'm not aware of checking past situations one by one. It's more like, I notice a situation where something is "off" compared to my previous understanding of things. It really does not match it and so it gets "flagged" in my memory. Then later I may notice another situation playing out that has something in common with the flagged one... and then I realize OH this is the similarity and it explains everything... and I get to set a new strong rule on it...


It's not concious - it's a program, like one in a computer. "Situation" enters the system, program compares it to what it knows and "prints the results" (filtered by other functions). 

I recently focused on observing what happens in my brain due to boredom. I was going somewhere by bus and looking at the world through the window. My brain was like: known-ignore, known-ignore, known-ignore, known-ignore, new... [what's that? how do I deal with it? what does it turn into?] ->[known, boring, move on], known-ignore, known-ignore, known-ignore, known-ignore, known-ignore, new...[what's that? how do I deal with it? what does it turn into?] ->[known, boring, move on], known-ignore, known-ignore, known-ignore, known-ignore...

The difference between how you and I describe it is what you do with the "new" - I get triggered and poke it till I figure out what to do with it, using a lot of different approaches and ideas. You flag it for future reference because you can't exactly generate possibilities and theories out of a hat like I do.
You are probably also seeing less "new" and more "known" than I do and while I get excited by the "new" and the "known" bores me you might get uneasy with the "new" and the "known" gives you a peace of mind. 



> This is strongly linked with me avoiding certain situations where I know stuff will play out bad. I sometimes have this really strongly to avoid bad outcomes. I always say, I try something only twice if it leads to a bad outcome (three times if it is somewhat tolerable). If a very bad outcome, I don't try a second time even. :tongue: Only if I'm really forced to... unless I solve later why things played out the way they did. By noticing similarities like above, or by other analyses.


I only do it when I get "traumatized" and only for like... 2 weeks? Then I am "someone else" already and try again. Unless it was actually traumatizing, not just "traumatizing". But even then it's not like it's impossible for me to try again - just with more care and different approach. If it is bad enough I can even dissociate and approach the situation not as me but as a player controlling a video game character.
I might be telling myself "I will never do it again" or "Next time I will know better". But I repeat my mistakes anyway because my brain is always like "what if it's different this time?". Well, that's unless the unwillingness to go is based not just on bad situations in the past (bad situations always feel worse while they are happening than they are in my memories: I remember thinking "It's so bad I can't stand it! Just kill me here and now!" but think "It wasn't so bad after all, it was just an experience" when getting back to the situation in my mind) but some rules I observed over multiple contexts and know logically the situation will trigger the undesirable result (Ne wants me to go to a concert because its curious how a concert looks like and how its all done and how the building looks like inside and what they sell there and... but I know I can't stand noise, crowds, bodyguards and situations when you are locked in a place whatever the reason is so I won't go). 



> I don't really think in this way of _"Could be true but might not be true but let's assume its true, it shouldn't be true though so... but..."_, it drains me immediately. Where I said "Or I get this all wrong and Si+Ne is like this", to be honest, I was not really liking that mode of bringing up another possibility. But if I have to, I can force myself to as you could see.  It's still draining, the only way to tolerate it is I focus enough on concrete details overall.


Inferior function is something draining by definition, especially when you try to forcefully use it.



> My concrete options thingy is very similar to this, actually. I'm just less chaotic than you. roud: And I don't pull up very unrealistic options like the teleporting one, though you are funny with that.  If picking from these options, with the rule that I'm not going back to the building, I'd call the roommate to throw it out from the 3rd floor for me. I don't often do this type of option either, but it happened before once or twice. I would not choose to go without the jacket because I know it will definitely be too cold without it, and I don't store emergency shirts in other places lol because I do the optimization more than this. Less chaos overall.


My unrealistic options are mostly for fun too (I have an inner comic in my head, I often laugh at my own thoughts) although a part of me actually thinks they are real alternatives. I need to control it.

(both are me)
- I can sleep longer, I can always just teleport to school... 
- Makes sense... Hold on! Teleportating isn't not possible in this world as far we are aware of!
- Yet. It could be discovered...
- But it wasn't discovered yet and you are not going to discover it within the next 15 mins...
- <imagines discovering teleportation and what would be needed for one> I guess so...
- ...so get your ass up. 
- Well, I can always do my own "teleportating". You know, the part where I take my scooter to the bus stop and enter a random tram and do a few tram switches and go on the scooter to school just to be 5 mins late. And the school won't start by then anyway because they are often still getting ready at that time and even if what do I waste being 5 mins late? They won't even go past first real page of a presentation and who cares about introduction?
- Just get up, will ya?
- Ok. I am wide awake already and can't fall back asleep anyway. 
- <predicts the substitute "teleportating" is going be needed because just the idea of it will cause further delays in getting ready>



> Something else. How often do you think of bad, catastrophic possibilities? Or that's just Ne inferior? I read ISTJ has this... I'm really resistant to this by default though. I believe so strongly in my action-focused mode, that I think I can take care of things by default. But I find as I got older, I can sometimes get these surfacing. I don't like it. I don't feel it's me, not healthy me anyway.  I have had to train myself to remember that these are just unrealistic catastrophic possibilities, that I am just in a negative mood producing them, and that they will never turn real and I can reason against them then. I just need to rely on my usual realistic sense of things and see the big picture that way to see that the possibility is bullshit. It then gets to feel unreal and "leaves" slowly. It actually is a pretty recent development for me.  At least my luck is that I only get to have to deal with one at a time. Not several, like I read it somewhere that some ISTJs can have several, wtf.  But in turn, it truly is the worst possibility, truly a catastrophy...


I was wondering when it's going to be mentioned because it is kinda surprising it didn't so far - not impossible though. It's a matter of amount of stress in life, stress resistance, methods to cope with stress available and function balance. Catastrophic possibilities in case of ISTJs is inferior grip experience. Grip experiences are results of prelonged stress, when dominant function is unable to deal with the situation anymore but inferior function is not developed enough to deal with it properly either (while it's its role!). If you are living a relatively stress-free life (stress-free = lack of situations dominant function can't be used) or know how to do stress relief you might not experience grips at all. Grips are the worst experiences that can happen to a person - it doesn't just feel bad, you genuinely want or attempt(intentionally or not) to die or kill someone because nothing is normal anymore. Usually it doesn't reach that point.

That said - I experience catastrophic possibilities too, but in different way. It's usually a way to... kill time.  Imagine a plane crashing against my house? Fun. A tornado? Fun. Fire? Fun. Alien invasion? Fun. Car crash? Fun. Serial killer on loose? Fun. Someone taking a gun and killing me out of blue? Fun. 
People like watching horrors and catastrophic movies for a reason - my catastrophic possibilities are like the movies.
The only exception is "my mom dieing in a car accident on her way back after giving me a drive" - the feelings of guilty and not having a mom anymore make it not fun. 

However I have a lot of small daily life anxieties. "My roommate is going to get angry with me because I didn't clean the floor.", "I lose my house keys and can't get home.", "I can't find my ticket and have to pay the fine despite having one", "The weird thing on my hand is actually cancerous", "Doctor is going to be angry at me because I didn't do as I was told." "I won't have bread for breakfast because I forget to buy it", "I won't have enough cash on me and the shop won't accept cards". I was actually diagnosed with generalised anxiety disorder once thanks to that.


----------



## alive1 (Sep 8, 2018)

Northern Lights said:


> I think you got it :tongue:
> 
> If it gives you some solace: Serenity in that kind of circumstances is paid for with a lack of constant focus. That story about the ENFP who wanted to buy bread and ended up at the northpole to cuddle penguins is only 90% untrue.


Heh I see.

Can I ask you quickly about how this is different for you as an Se aux type? The extraverted mode of mine:

_"I'm in the situation physically, I'm actions focused, I'm immediately decisive but also I'm ready to react, respond to whatever comes up, whatever I spot, and it's all very concrete things and options around me - and in my mind too the concrete options can come to me if needed, but just a quite limited amount of them! only what's truly relevant. And I can manipulate them for whatever I want but usually I'm doing all the responding and manipulating for an eventual goal or an immediate one included inside the situation. I can use this mode in sports or for quick navigation, for last-minute sorting out things, for quickly taking care of a slight crisis situation, for having to adapt a plan, but for quickly organizing things as well. So it's like a mix of reactive-responsive and purposeful-targeted action taking.

I think it's got a good dose of Te in there with that but it also seems so physical-sensory and reactive and that is why I thought it has a significant dose of Se in it too.

Where it seems less Se is that I don't really try to create chaos further, I'm more about controlling chaos. It is very very rare and very minimal amount of action from me that would be oriented towards creating further chaos intentionally. If at all, because I really don't like the thought of that much. Too aimless... Unless this further chaos means it's all to be organized better eventually.

When I exit my task-focused process-oriented routine-oriented mode, I usually enter this mode. These are my two main modes overall. Sometimes I have a more leisurely one too where I'm not so goals focused, but still a sensory-physical focus. That is when I go for checking out the new street for fun. "_


----------



## alive1 (Sep 8, 2018)

Kiriae said:


> I only do it when left alone do do whatever I want and no one is depending/counting on me (and no, my life doesn't turn into chaos - actually I get much more done this way and paradoxically I find some kind of order in this type of life) . When it affects others I get into my responsible mode because Fe kills me when I end up being a bother to other people. But responsible, predictable mode drains me and my health and private life gets affected when I do it for prelonged periods of time.


Ah I see, ok, for me it doesn't drain me to act "responsible, predictable", the only thing that drains me is if I take up too much responsibility for other people. I can over-promise in that fashion if I'm not careful. I've been paying more attention to that lately though. But it's part of why I wish for more energy. Thanks for this comparison. Yeah I read Ps get to their goal in a random nonlinear fashion and Js go linear predictable, I'm more the latter, though it is fun sometimes to visit "P mode" a tiny bit. : p (In the action-oriented mode I described.)




> The situation described seems like a case of inferior taking over when dominant reaches it's limit and trying to deal with it the best it can within it's poor abilities. A healthy one. It could as well turn into a grip experience but you seem to be going the other way. That's interesting and quite unusual if we go with stereotypes but not impossible to do, especially if a person was raised in a friendly environment and doesn't experience too much stress in daily life.


Yeah... it's just I still feel I do waste time in this mode trying to reorient and get a good system. But I do end up taking something from the experience.





> It's not concious - it's a program, like one in a computer. "Situation" enters the system, program compares it to what it knows and "prints the results" (filtered by other functions).
> 
> I recently focused on observing what happens in my brain due to boredom. I was going somewhere by bus and looking at the world through the window. My brain was like: known-ignore, known-ignore, known-ignore, known-ignore, new... [what's that? how do I deal with it? what does it turn into?] ->[known, boring, move on], known-ignore, known-ignore, known-ignore, known-ignore, known-ignore, new...[what's that? how do I deal with it? what does it turn into?] ->[known, boring, move on], known-ignore, known-ignore, known-ignore, known-ignore...
> 
> ...


Ah OK I see. Yeah, I think your guess is good for the most part. "Known" is just calm normal to me. "New" depends but yeah it's not always very good. I always do have to reorient at least a little for "new". This is often very quick but still there.




> I only do it when I get "traumatized" and only for like... 2 weeks? Then I am "someone else" already and try again. Unless it was actually traumatizing, not just "traumatizing". But even then it's not like it's impossible for me to try again - just with more care and different approach. If it is bad enough I can even dissociate and approach the situation not as me but as a player controlling a video game character.


I see, the thing is it's hard for me to try or even think of a different approach unless I gathered enough information first... ok sounds like classic Ne inferior here then I guess.




> I might be telling myself "I will never do it again" or "Next time I will know better". But I repeat my mistakes anyway because my brain is always like "what if it's different this time?".


Lol oh we are the opposite here.




> My unrealistic options are mostly for fun too (I have an inner comic in my head, I often laugh at my own thoughts) although a part of me actually thinks they are real alternatives. I need to control it.


Real alternatives 




> I was wondering when it's going to be mentioned because it is kinda surprising it didn't so far - not impossible though. It's a matter of amount of stress in life, stress resistance, methods to cope with stress available and function balance. Catastrophic possibilities in case of ISTJs is inferior grip experience. Grip experiences are results of prelonged stress, when dominant function is unable to deal with the situation anymore but inferior function is not developed enough to deal with it properly either (while it's its role!). If you are living a relatively stress-free life (stress-free = lack of situations dominant function can't be used) or know how to do stress relief you might not experience grips at all. Grips are the worst experiences that can happen to a person - it doesn't just feel bad, you genuinely want or attempt(intentionally or not) to die or kill someone because nothing is normal anymore. Usually it doesn't reach that point.


I think I had that grip thing then for a short time not long ago. I did remind myself pretty quickly that I must just be looking at negative aspects of things and that instantly helped me start and go back to normal and find a solution...




> That said - I experience catastrophic possibilities too, but in different way. It's usually a way to... kill time.  Imagine a plane crashing against my house? Fun. A tornado? Fun. Fire? Fun. Alien invasion? Fun. Car crash? Fun. Serial killer on loose? Fun. Someone taking a gun and killing me out of blue? Fun.
> People like watching horrors and catastrophic movies for a reason - my catastrophic possibilities are like the movies.
> The only exception is "my mom dieing in a car accident on her way back after giving me a drive" - the feelings of guilty and not having a mom anymore make it not fun.
> 
> However I have a lot of small daily life anxieties. "My roommate is going to get angry with me because I didn't clean the floor.", "I lose my house keys and can't get home.", "I can't find my ticket and have to pay the fine despite having one", "The weird thing on my hand is actually cancerous", "Doctor is going to be angry at me because I didn't do as I was told." "I won't have bread for breakfast because I forget to buy it", "I won't have enough cash on me and the shop won't accept cards". I was actually diagnosed with generalised anxiety disorder once thanks to that.


Lol you are very imaginative compared to me.

As for the small daily life anxieties: I barely think of that sort of thing. I just go to my action-oriented mode instead to deal with most of daily life. When I can't take action immediately, I just accept the situation as is by taking in the hard cold facts, and just brace for dealing with the upcoming situation without any further thought, etc. (This is of course assuming that I don't see the need or don't have a chance to get more information to prepare first. For many everyday things I don't.)

Speaking of that, did my summary of it still not ring any bells? It's ok if not, just curious.


And out of curiosity, while reading your earlier links, I came across this: _"As an inferior function, Fe originally manifests as the user being reluctant to dabble with or express emotional concerns, as the user cannot logically make sense of many of his or her own emotions and therefore doesn’t feel confident in moderating them."_ Do you relate to this as a possible INTP? How does an emotion not make logical sense? For me it's more like, if a new emotion comes up, and it seems too strong to ignore it, I just observe it first. For some reason I'm confident that it will make sense sooner or later. Often just later, lol. Or I just ignore them, yeah...




Kiriae said:


> Check those links about inferior Ne (...)
> 
> Keep in mind most of them are explaining so called grip, when inferior Ne is used in an unhealthy way but you seem to be integrating it in your personality just fine so it's not the case for you. But they also explain how Ne looks like when it isn't dominant/aux.
> 
> Also check out the tertiary Ne for reference (functions are growing during lifetime and inferior will reach tertiary level sooner or later as long as the person is developing properly) (...)


Thanks for your links on Ne etc., I skimmed them. Unfortunately I have to say that Ne tertiary is really foreign to me lol, I will never be like that. I really am far from that. Well the thing on discovering my greater purpose in life (for tertiary Ne at the funkymbti link), that almost sounds right. I've had moments of that recently... though not anything implementable yet, which is what I want to get to eventually.

Well so, the Ne inferior works way better though: _"I know that these two things are connected, but I’m not sure how. I’m sorry, but that idea is completely unrealistic. Can we stick to one idea, please?" "It is best to stick to the most reliable methods of getting things done. There is no sense getting lost in a sea of unpredictable possibilities."_

And so on... It says though that tertiary Ne gives more of the concrete options to use for a goal, and that would sound great. I sometimes am like that actually but I need to get into this special extra-decisive mode for accessing them. By default nope I only get the most relevant seeming ones... and nothing that could take me further if those are not good. That's when it's time to gather more information. In special extra-decisive mode I get extra impatient-angry and that helps skip having to gather information endlessly.

I suppose then that this is in line with Ne inferior.


----------



## Northern Lights (Mar 25, 2016)

alive1 said:


> ~snip


I'm not focused at all, on anything. I just ... am. Open to everything, concentrated on nothing in particular. There is no conscious "ready for". Everything is flowing around me, and if I do nothing, I'm just drifting along, pushed from here to there. That's the outset. (This is where some people badly miscalculate, because this state makes us appear as pushovers -- when in truth we are only inactive because there is no current aim, nothing to move towards to, so any direction is fine, and as soon as said people then introduce some new element we dislike, the resistance is fierce and comes out of nowhere, for them.)

If suddenly something I need to deal with comes up, in an emergency or decide-now kind of way, I actually couldn't tell you what my state of mind is. There is nothing active that I do, I just react instinctively. It's seamlessly integrated in my thinking. Basically, all the well-structured description and decision-making process you just laid out is entirely absent. (Or at least I never noticed it.) Conscious decision making is for planning only.


----------



## alive1 (Sep 8, 2018)

Northern Lights said:


> I'm not focused at all, on anything. I just ... am. Open to everything, concentrated on nothing in particular. There is no conscious "ready for". Everything is flowing around me, and if I do nothing, I'm just drifting along, pushed from here to there. That's the outset. (This is where some people badly miscalculate, because this state makes us appear as pushovers -- when in truth we are only inactive because there is no current aim, nothing to move towards to, so any direction is fine, and as soon as said people then introduce some new element we dislike, the resistance is fierce and comes out of nowhere, for them.)
> 
> If suddenly something I need to deal with comes up, in an emergency or decide-now kind of way, I actually couldn't tell you what my state of mind is. There is nothing active that I do, I just react instinctively. It's seamlessly integrated in my thinking. Basically, all the well-structured description and decision-making process you just laid out is entirely absent. (Or at least I never noticed it.) Conscious decision making is for planning only.


Ah thanks, this really shows the difference, yes. Really interesting. And oops lol, I used the word "focused", it's true I'm always focused with strong concentration. There definitely is a conscious "ready for" in my case, interesting then that this is not Se, must be because it is too aimful, yes? I'm instinctive somewhat too but no, nothing like you, for sure.

Navigating is also very instinctive like that for you then with nothing "active" being done?


----------



## Northern Lights (Mar 25, 2016)

alive1 said:


> There definitely is a conscious "ready for" in my case, interesting then that this is not Se, must be because it is too aimful, yes? I'm instinctive somewhat too but no, nothing like you, for sure.


I'm not too interested in functions, so I couldn't say. I have no opinion on what is Se. What I described was the ISTP.

Frankly, I wouldn't know what I was trying to be "ready" _for_. How can you be ready if you don't know for what? Constantly being "ready" for something (or even worse, _everything_) sounds far too exhausting too. Far easier to just walk into the situation, and then just deal with whatever happens.

And yep, I never even thought about "navigating" until you brought it up. I have to observe myself to see how I do it, next time I'm outdoors (I assume that's what you meant, moving through outside space?).


----------



## alive1 (Sep 8, 2018)

Northern Lights said:


> I'm not too interested in functions, so I couldn't say. I have no opinion on what is Se. What I described was the ISTP.


Ah ok, well sure I just meant ISTP is supposed to have auxiliary Se, but either way, interesting.




> Frankly, I wouldn't know what I was trying to be "ready" _for_. How can you be ready if you don't know for what? Constantly being "ready" for something (or even worse, _everything_) sounds far too exhausting too. Far easier to just walk into the situation, and then just deal with whatever happens.


I see, it's not exhausting for me though. It's true it's not a totally relaxed-loose mode if that's what you mean. But funny about your last sentence, because I also feel that I am dealing with whatever happens, though I probably do still have some basic expectations about things in the background (just fewer of these than when I'm in my very detail-oriented introverted mode).

EDIT: Oh yeah I may not know what it is exactly that's coming next, but that doesn't bother me in that mode (as long as it's within those very basic expectations I guess).




> And yep, I never even thought about "navigating" until you brought it up. I have to observe myself to see how I do it, next time I'm outdoors (I assume that's what you meant, moving through outside space?).


Yeah in the most literal sense that's what I meant (there is a non-literal sense of it but let's leave that alone now). Do let me know if you ever get around to observing it.


----------



## Kiriae (Oct 2, 2015)

alive1 said:


> And out of curiosity, while reading your earlier links, I came across this: "As an inferior function, Fe originally manifests as the user being reluctant to dabble with or express emotional concerns, as the user cannot logically make sense of many of his or her own emotions and therefore doesn’t feel confident in moderating them." Do you relate to this as a possible INTP? How does an emotion not make logical sense? For me it's more like, if a new emotion comes up, and it seems too strong to ignore it, I just observe it first. For some reason I'm confident that it will make sense sooner or later. Often just later, lol. Or I just ignore them, yeah...


- It was something like that when I was younger. When I was about 25 I learned what emotions are thanks to a therapist (the only one who wouldn't do the "How do you feel about that?" approach but do: "Does it make you angry?", "I don't think so...", "Sad?", "Perhaps...", "Confused?", "Yeah, that could be it." instead.) and from then on I can recognize my own emotions and even explain to others what they are feeling when they say something about use specific body language. But I still deal quite poorly with them - my way to control my emotions is through distractions. I feel sad - I will watch funny cats on youtube. I am anxious - I will read about anxiety on my phone. I am angry - I will go away and try to throw it out of my mind. Emotions don't seem that connected to what is exactly happening (why is my body shaking and why am I sweating during a fiery discussion despite having fun and not wanting to stop?) but I wouldn't say they aren't logical anymore (I used to think so when I was younger). Emotions are depended of state of mind, past experiences, other people body language, abilities and such and affect behaviour, thoughts and bodily reactions. They are just like various substances in chemistry. There is a lot of variables and it's impossible to learn all the reactions (at least for me - I hated chemistry because there was too much memorization about what substance does what - such as changing color or blowing up when affected by a different substance) but I can't say there is no logic in it. If I observe what's happening to my body and mind I can moderate emotions, by identifying the cause and "lessening the fuel" or "cutting the oxygen". Or I can just mentally disconnect from my body and let it do whatever it wants (shake, raise voice, cry - whatever) while my mind stays calm and collected - like I did a lot in the past.


----------



## Drecon (Jun 20, 2016)

alive1 said:


> Thanks, this made some sense. I'll comment mainly for parts where I'd like to hear a bit more. Well and parts where something still doesn't add up, if you don't mind.
> 
> I think it's going to get a bit long again lol but I'll try to make it not too crazy long overall. But I hope you are still interested in this.
> 
> Also, the real issue I still have I detailed at the end of the post.


I'm actually learning a lot here, so I'm very happy to engage in this some more. 



> What shared brain region do IJ/EP vs EJ/IP use? Got some source where I can read about this?


It's research by Dario Nardi. He's done some research on MBTI and neurology and while you can say a lot of bad things about his research, this is one part that actually gives clear results. You can check it out if you want, but be warned that there's a lot of discussion about the validity of his interpretations.

There's a part of the brain in the prefrontal cortex where there are two areas. An area that delays decisions and one that hastens decisions (among other tasks of course). These two keep each other in check and you need both for normal functioning. Nardi has found that people that identify with EJ and IP have higher brain activations in the one that promotes quick decision making and people that identify with IJ and EP have higher activations in the area that delays decision making. 

I've asked around on these forums and in my circle of friends on how this might make sense and I have a general idea of how that would work. It's hard to put it into clear words though. 

If you want to read more about Nardi's research into the neurology of personality theory I would recommend his book: "Neuroscience of Personality: Brain Savvy Insights for All Types of People". There's a lot of things in there. Just remember that I warned you about the discussion there is about his methods. 



> Ti+Se instantly problem solves even with totally new complex things? I don't get how that would work, do they just instantly start with experimenting in a trial and error way?


I'm not an ISTP so I'm going to have to reach a bit here, but as far as I can tell Ti+Se doesn't really thing about problems in the same way, Ti likes to set up systems of personal rules, separate from real-world problems and Se applies those rules to the real world (and gives feedback on what the results were). So in a way it's trial and error, but it's based on abstract systems of rules. 
Honestly, the whole way I view this thing is partly academic and theoretical. I don't know that many ISTPs and I'm always interpreting from the outside. I can't talk to any of them about MBTI too, which makes it harder to get any real data on this subject. 



> Any difference in how INTJs handle them, or is it the exact same as I described? With the stuff on how I often just evaluate them as positive vs negative in impersonal situations?


I believe the way you described Te+Fi here does fit with how I've seen INTJs handle things. 



> Yeah I'm quite fine with organizing information... even as a kid.


That's an important factor. As a kid you're mostly developing your primary function (Si). 



> Well by deep I meant that the overall understanding I build is deep compared to what many other people try to get away with to get where they want. And I can deduce further things from just understanding the system without having to experiment in a trial and error way (I HATE that) or without having to find more instructions, no, it instead comes from understanding the system that those other people didn't bother to build or understand in the first place and what I deduce in this fashion can be quite useful for tasks etc so I get further than those other people.


Trial and error is the natural way for Se brains to learn so that again fits with ISTJ. Not that Se-users don't also learn from books, but it's less natural for them. 



> You might've misread? I don't say I "want" adaptability, I already *have* it. I don't think it's Ne because it's too physical and concrete for that. I basically am sure about this one thing, I have no Ne. Period. lol
> 
> How does your wife's Ne play into her decisions, though? I still say I have no Ne, for those either.


It's possible that you have Ne and can't recognize it because it looks so different in ISTJs than it does in Ne-dominants. For my wife I sometimes feel it's a factor of not getting bored. Once you have perfect control over a situation it can be boring to just watch it play out exactly that way. She seems to introduce some controlled elements of chaos into her life to make sure there's always something unknown in her life. 
It's a very small thing though. She mostly keeps an iron grip on every aspect of her life. Si is mostly about control after all. 



> How does Se decisiveness work? How is it different from Te decisiveness?


You should probably ask ESFPs and ENTJs about this but generally Te is goal-oriented decisive while Se is decisive by responding in the moment without thinking about it too much. It just happens. A dominant Se-user will stand on a skateboard and just use it, responding to how their body feels it should handle without overthinking things. Si might function perfectly on the skateboard but will have to think about how the body moves and act accordingly. 

Again, you should ask high Se-users for details. INFJs have a notoriously bad relationship with their Se. 



> Ohh just physically reacting to the environment without any other goal is fine and enjoyable but again I don't indulge in this for more than a couple seconds at a time because then, yeah, you've guessed right, it becomes aimless lol! Tbh this is similar to the short periods of the extra analysis bits I guess, hmm.
> 
> As for everything happening at the same time lol, it's ok, I can pick the most important objects fast enough usually and it's fun, I guess. But put too many objects there though, and I will have to have them in an organization where everything gets assigned some place. Again this is just like simple or known complex situations with my brand of adaptability VS complex and new situations with losing that bit of adaptability fully and instead being dependent on organization. See the theme here?


I think the answer is somewhere in here. As an ISTP above said, Se doesn't really think about things, it just is. I also think the deciding factor here is "indulging for a couple of seconds" while for Se it's the standard way of navigating through life. 
People interact with environments, it's what we evolved our bodies for. As humans we're very good at interacting with our environment so there will always be some amount of this, just because you're a living creature. That doesn't mean that you're an Se-user by definition. I admit that it can be a muddy subject.



> I thought about this a bit more. I don't like change (but will adapt to it) that I didn't effect myself. I sometimes like to generate the change myself in the environment though. Just usually it's only for short times at a time. Those little moments of indulging again, you see. As an aside to the goal I'm otherwise working towards. Sometimes I can "jump" big (into something) though BUT it's only if I see the point to doing so.


That might be a big deciding factor in why you're Si instead of Se. Si longs to have control over its environment while Se puts itself in situations where the environment is outside of their control and they just respond to it. This seems to paint you as an Si-user over an Se-user. 



> Ohh where it really doesn't sound STP for sure but I had second thoughts on it, let me quote for you from some other post of mine:
> 
> _"I am thinking about one thing where I described how I lose all adaptability when I get 100% into a detailed course. Then when something comes up and I'm able to only respond to it after a noticeable delay compared to when I do have the bit of adaptability, I actually get to feel like it's really ridiculous to be that way. Which sounds like it's not entirely my natural default...? Or? Otherwise I do feel fine in that mode, just when this happens is when I feel a bit weird..."_
> 
> ...


I really think this barrier to responding to your base instincts is what separates you from an Se-user. That one second where you observe instead of respond, that's Si butting in. Se doesn't delay and doesn't panic. It responds. 

One important side-note to this though: I'm not trying to imply that Se-users aren't as smart. I could write a whole book about that subject by now, but let's just keep that whole discussion on the sidelines for now. 



> Eh, the emotions are not strong. I'm quite neutral emotionally by default and it's rare that I'd have a very strong emotion, let alone it lasting... But yeah I read this about Si too that it can store emotions in memories.


Thanks for clearing that up. Si is still somewhat of a mystery for me to be honest. I have a theoretical understanding of it, but it's really hard to separate personal differences from type differences. 



> Yeah "abstract" is off for me. My systems are certainly logical but think of it like concrete formal logic. Where you can make those further deductions. And yeah, I do need facts. I'm pretty anal about organizing them well, and about them making sense logically, but I do need to anchor all this logic to something concrete.


Very Si. The whole idea of being 'anal' about organizing facts is very, very far from how ISTP works. 



> OK, so I mentioned: _"And oh, yeah, that fits very well, I use details for planning and preparation of the decisions, and then none in the decision-making moment."_
> 
> You earlier said Ti does this, so I'm not sure, can you say if this has a variant for Si+Te?


I probably interpreted what you said earlier in a different way. Ti organizes processes, not details. Si organizes details. In your first post you had some vague wordings like "organize things" that could fit multiple functions. My Ni tends to have some tunnel-vision where I can interpret vague wordings to mean what I want them to mean. 

So in short, the italicized text above is exactly how I imagine Si+Te.



> OK, overall what I wonder about is this... while yes I can see how ISTJ fits me especially with things like me needing my little precious details lol, and being frustrated with unpredictability if I don't act methodically enough to ensure consistency; still, all these ISTJ descriptions are so very J, they are so thoroughly preparing for stuff always, and while half of the time I'm like that, the other half of the time I really don't feel all that J or all that thorough. Like where I described the interview situation in more detail, though you could say I was still being J because I needed things to be still plannable and predictable even if I kept this part to the minimum where I still feel comfortable because I know I will be able to manage the rest of the situation without extra planning or without being "extra J".
> 
> I said also, _"I don't pay attention to precision when I'm in my simpler navigation mode"_, and this is pretty often. You know, that simple wording you pointed out earlier :tongue:, that's that simpler navigation mode too. Though I will have to add, if I think of it more, the Si details are still there even if invisible almost as my focus is somewhere else, I rely on them anyway, that is, in known places I rely on the structure of these details to find my way around and do tasks.
> 
> Well, all in all. Have you known ISTJs like this with this bit of a sort of adaptability? ISTJs that are only annoyed at most changes for a second then instantly start adapting?


I don't know a ot of ISTJs and I could not really answer to how I know them to act. From theory though I can imagine that Si will often be automated to a degree where you don't even notice it anymore. Noticing the environmental details might just be such a natural process that it happens without you being aware of it. 

As for how accurate that is, I would ask around on the ISTJ forum if I were you. As an INFJ, I'm not the best source for this. 



> Also where I describe things like:
> 
> _"And where I said I explore: yeah, I can do that only really by moving, taking action."
> "Oh yes when I'm taking immediate action (and not overly complex new stuff) then yes I'm on the fly with planning for the action and for deciding stuff wherever needed."
> ...


The thing about Si is that it's also very good at observing and interpreting the environment. I can see Si+Te behaving in a similar way to what you describe, although it's hard to have a really good idea of how it all works without actually interacting with you. 

Rereading the above I already see some red flags pop up where you say "planning for the action" which really doesn't fit Se in any way. 

From everything I've read up until this point I don't doubt that you're ISTJ, but you have given me a lot of things to think about in how to describe Se, since interacting with the environment is just natural human behavior. It can be very hard to distinguish Se from Si+Te sometimes. 

In any case, I hope all of this helped you. I'll be happy to keep on responding but when things get too deep and specific into Si and Se I might be out of my depth.


----------



## alive1 (Sep 8, 2018)

Kiriae said:


> - It was something like that when I was younger. When I was about 25 I learned what emotions are thanks to a therapist (the only one who wouldn't do the "How do you feel about that?" approach but do: "Does it make you angry?", "I don't think so...", "Sad?", "Perhaps...", "Confused?", "Yeah, that could be it." instead.) and from then on I can recognize my own emotions and even explain to others what they are feeling when they say something about use specific body language. But I still deal quite poorly with them - my way to control my emotions is through distractions. I feel sad - I will watch funny cats on youtube. I am anxious - I will read about anxiety on my phone. I am angry - I will go away and try to throw it out of my mind. Emotions don't seem that connected to what is exactly happening (why is my body shaking and why am I sweating during a fiery discussion despite having fun and not wanting to stop?) but I wouldn't say they aren't logical anymore (I used to think so when I was younger). Emotions are depended of state of mind, past experiences, other people body language, abilities and such and affect behaviour, thoughts and bodily reactions. They are just like various substances in chemistry. There is a lot of variables and it's impossible to learn all the reactions (at least for me - I hated chemistry because there was too much memorization about what substance does what - such as changing color or blowing up when affected by a different substance) but I can't say there is no logic in it. If I observe what's happening to my body and mind I can moderate emotions, by identifying the cause and "lessening the fuel" or "cutting the oxygen". Or I can just mentally disconnect from my body and let it do whatever it wants (shake, raise voice, cry - whatever) while my mind stays calm and collected - like I did a lot in the past.


Ah, heh I relate as far as how I did have to learn what emotions really are. I just never thought that they are totally not logical, somehow. I like the chemistry analogy... The mental disconnection I think is default for me btw. I remain calm and collected in the head even when I am angry etc. It is rare that I lose my head fully. I kind of can for 1-1 second here and there - meaning I get emotional for those seconds - but overall keep collected and oriented and keep control between these short seconds, truly losing my head is what is extremely rare.

So, not ringing a bell then? My summary of the action-oriented mode that I thought had something to do with Se. Sorry, just making sure this didn't get skipped accidentally.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

alive1 said:


> Hm lol I see myself a lot in that vacation thing actually.





> What I don't really get is why she asked for your help in a simple task like making time zone charts. ??? That bit of a task for organization (because it is exactly that kind of task) didn't fit into her schedule of organizing?  Or why even make charts lol, this stuff is simpler than that, it's not much data so it doesn't really require that kind of organization IMO, so a waste of time (I'll say more on this attitude of mine below).


Certain simple tasks eluded her. She had trouble remembering left from right (and would actively check by shaking her left and her right hand) She couldn't read a map to save her life, and for some reason, calculating time zone differences confused her, whereas I never seemed to have a problem with any of these things. 



> And uhm, I think a main difference would be that yes I'm also clear about where to go etc. like flights, hotels, etc. But I'm WAY more relaxed about it than this, I would never waste time on making binders just for this. Coloured tabs, god, what a waste of time additionally. I just keep all that information where I know I easily access it, in part in my own head. Overall I'm really good at making lists and keep them in my head and in other designated places but I would never try to make it all look "neat" like that. Because that truly is a serious waste of time for me, I have better things to do with my time and I don't need binders and colouring for such simple tasks. Dunno why this difference...?


She has a strong phobia of being lost, of being left behind, of being abandoned, so I think she overcompensated. 



> That makes me think, I was the same in school... I tried this method of colouring information in textbooks because I saw others did that a lot, but I only tried it once, I got nothing out of it. Just don't need it, I used my own simple, less flashy method (NOT wasting time with it) for knowing which parts I would need to remember from the textbooks, really overall a good principle for many things where I don't want to waste time is KISS principle (keep it simple stupid). :tongue:


My ex was developmentally delayed. She had hearing problems that went undetected until she was 2 or 3. The doctors were able to correct this by putting tubes in her ears. So she didn't learn language as early as she should have because she couldn't hear clearly. She spent her school years playing catch up, and what she learned was that she had to work harder and develop very disciplined systems in order to comprehend things most of us take for granted. For whatever reason, she developed her reading and writing skills, but struggled mightily with math, social sciences, and sciences. I should like to point out that, by the time I met her, she already had an Associates, a Bachelors, AND a Masters degree, so she figured out a way to get through. Her answer to everything was hard work. She was a gifted writer. She could crank out 10+ page papers. She wrote them for her ex, her sister, and her sister's boyfriend. Her ex was learning disabled, and he found writing papers extremely difficult. Her sister and her sister's boyfriend were engineering students, who found writing English/Composition papers to be an annoying waste of their time. 



> Yeah ok she's like she does all this organization for things for herself in a really visible way where I do it in part in my own head and in part with other non-flashy simple tools of mine. Works fine for me, I suspect it would not work for most people like that.


She's very tactile. She distrusts anything she can't touch. I once had to save her from being arrested in Athens, Greece, because she walked right up to the Parthenon and wanted to touch it (strictly forbidden). 



> Lol I wish I had that kind of energy to multitask. Tbh when I do my training I do not want to focus on another task - I take my training very seriously, it's basically another job to me. Maybe for her it's not that important and so that explains the difference then. Cool system otherwise!


She believes in her ability to work hard to such a degree that she can go without sleep for extended periods of time. She exists on extensive amounts of caffeine and nicotine (She quit smoking for a number of years while we were married and went back to it after we broke up). She doesn't quit until she feels like the job is done. 



> I see, I'm comparatively less focused on the self-preservation issues. Very ambitious too, though, yes. I'm sorry to hear really about the last part, I think you can't take up the role of a therapist in a relationship though, so it's ok IMO. The most you could've done was to show her why she'd need therapy if that's the case at all. The caveat though is, I don't think most therapy methods out there are really designed for STJs. roud: But there are a few (really not many) that could work.


I wasn't trying to be her therapist. I wasn't trying to save her. I was looking for someone to share my life with and once I let her in, I knew she was the one. We became best friends in college and our chemistry was off the charts. We grew together over 4 years, got married, and then discovered that marriage was a whole new level of intimacy we weren't prepared for. Despite all this, we were determined to make it work, and while we had moments of pure bliss and absolute struggle, somehow we lost sight of what it was that brought us together in the first place. She was so intensely focused on her work that I felt squeezed out. At some point, she changed her mind on having kids (after we had agreed to have a family). She would say she just didn't see herself lugging around a diaper bag, whenever her friends (all with kids) would ask her why she wasn't a mom. Privately, she said to me that I wasn't stable enough to be a good partner (Admittedly, for the first 5 years of our marriage, I did have some job issues, but I had finally found a field I was good at, and stuck with it. I'm still there today after nearly 14 years). I wasn't very much use around the house. I'm something of a slob, and while I would say she's not exactly a "neat freak," she's far more particular about things than I ever was. I came home to relax from working 40+ hours a _week_. She worked from home, so she was always there, plus her mother lived with us for nearly all of our marriage (something my mom says doomed our marriage because she was there to handle a lot of the things we should have had to work out for ourselves. Her mom is an ISFJ, 2w3 268 Sp/Sx, and she needed to to be acknowledged for all she did for us on a regular basis). So there was a lot of resentment floating under the surface. It's probably amazing we managed to keep it together as long as we did; we managed to stay married for 15 years (she says she had lost faith about 8 months before the end, and had started having an affair about 3 months after that. I caught her on Valentine's Day, 2015. I moved out that night, and I never went back). I still miss holding her at night. When she slept, she looked like an angel to me. I wouldn't have missed being married to her for all the money in the world, despite how it ended. 

She's _definitely_ Sp/Sx. She's mostly social only to the extent that it advances her career. She has a very small circle of friends, most of whom are just as ambitious and hard working as she is. Most of them she knows through one of her part-time jobs, or they attended Doctoral School together. She keeps in touch with a few of them. I agree, she's been in therapy, she doesn't see the point of it. It is too "fluffy" and theoretical to her. She spends most of her time in hardcore denial and points all her energy towards whatever task is in front of her, while she puffs away her worries, and obsesses about her weight (she's had two bariactric surgeries and looks like a waif, and still wants to loose more). However, the more I reveal about her, the less I think it has to do with her being an ISTJ, or an 8w7, and the more it has to do with all the deep-seated phobias she's built up in her own mind. I suppose the usefulness of any comparisons dissipates with each revelation.


----------



## alive1 (Sep 8, 2018)

Drecon said:


> I'm actually learning a lot here, so I'm very happy to engage in this some more.


Ah ok, I'm glad you are actually getting something out of all this. roud:

And btw, your disclaimer about it being theory more than experience with the discussed types and functions: duly noted.




> It's research by Dario Nardi. He's done some research on MBTI and neurology and while you can say a lot of bad things about his research, this is one part that actually gives clear results. You can check it out if you want, but be warned that there's a lot of discussion about the validity of his interpretations.
> 
> There's a part of the brain in the prefrontal cortex where there are two areas. An area that delays decisions and one that hastens decisions (among other tasks of course). These two keep each other in check and you need both for normal functioning. Nardi has found that people that identify with EJ and IP have higher brain activations in the one that promotes quick decision making and people that identify with IJ and EP have higher activations in the area that delays decision making.
> 
> ...


OK thanks for the info. Hmm, bet Nardi would find that I have the quick decision-making half of the time and the delayed decision-making the other half of the time. Heh would be interesting. roud:

And like you said IPs have firm decisions, I do too. Those get created in the "quick decision making" mode.




> I'm not an ISTP so I'm going to have to reach a bit here, but as far as I can tell Ti+Se doesn't really thing about problems in the same way, Ti likes to set up systems of personal rules, separate from real-world problems and Se applies those rules to the real world (and gives feedback on what the results were). So in a way it's trial and error, but it's based on abstract systems of rules.


Yeah but I don't get how Ti sets up these systems of rules right away in new complex situations/for new complex objects. That is where I definitely differ because I need to take my time to organize collected information and I cannot act - or I can if I must, but it's not good for me - until I'm oriented enough by the system. Then I'm able to act based on it.




> I believe the way you described Te+Fi here does fit with how I've seen INTJs handle things.


Oh ok. I was specifically interested in whether they do this thing with binary evaluation of positive vs negative. Do you know if they do?




> That's an important factor. As a kid you're mostly developing your primary function (Si).


Yeah like I added in some other post, I started out really introverted and calm and slow to act. The extraverted action-focused mode started up sometime between elementary-middle school.




> Trial and error is the natural way for Se brains to learn so that again fits with ISTJ. Not that Se-users don't also learn from books, but it's less natural for them.


Yeah noo, no trial and error. I can try and manipulate a new object without instructions in my more active less reserved mode and then I can poke at it to see what it does, but if it seems too complex and ambiguous then I'm again cautious with that and I would hate to make that truly a trial and error process overall - I much prefer to have a system for the whole thing. Hm I think for me, depending on what's to be learned, my most natural ways to learn are:

- observe and put the information bits together like I described
- kinesthetic learning by doing
- follow instructions laid out in a detailed way (detailed: this is important)

Book learning - that goes beyond just following some instructions - is also very easy yeah, and I do prefer it for some things, though if it goes too abstract, it does not feel so natural.

So I suppose this sounds Si with some Se-seeming bit added for the kinesthetic learning. I only mention that because I'm definitely strong in that area too.



> It's possible that you have Ne and can't recognize it because it looks so different in ISTJs than it does in Ne-dominants. For my wife I sometimes feel it's a factor of not getting bored. Once you have perfect control over a situation it can be boring to just watch it play out exactly that way. She seems to introduce some controlled elements of chaos into her life to make sure there's always something unknown in her life.
> It's a very small thing though. She mostly keeps an iron grip on every aspect of her life. Si is mostly about control after all.


Ooh I do recognize it in this form. I'm not sure I'd call it looking for the "unknown" but I do want challenges and I like sometimes for things to come up so I can control the chaos. Like I said in some other post before, I even enjoy the rush with it if it has to be a strongly action-oriented mode. Emulating the STPs. roud: Just I suppose with a totally different internal attitude and approach, i.e. wanting to control the chaos, and not simply cause it or play with it.

And yes, control, that's a key word in my life.




> You should probably ask ESFPs and ENTJs about this but generally Te is goal-oriented decisive while Se is decisive by responding in the moment without thinking about it too much. It just happens. A dominant Se-user will stand on a skateboard and just use it, responding to how their body feels it should handle without overthinking things. Si might function perfectly on the skateboard but will have to think about how the body moves and act accordingly.
> 
> Again, you should ask high Se-users for details. INFJs have a notoriously bad relationship with their Se.


Lool, uh, I would never want to explicitly think about how my body moves if I'm doing a sport like that. I would die if I had to stop and think deeply like that while taking action, just a big no no. roud:

So I relate far more to the Se description here since the Si one just does my head in even thinking about it. Unless I misunderstood you on it of course.

But I won't claim that I'm 100% Se here like Se-doms lol. I'm more like, if it's a completely new move in the sport or even a completely new sport I will first be a bit cautious until I can actually feel the moves enough to perform them well. I don't really have the capacity to overthink it tho', no, I just simply am a bit reserved initially.

Maybe this is Si, or maybe just me: I noticed I really want to stabilize my perceptions* with this sort of thing too, with learning new moves/sports. This in practice means that I want to see the static steps, at least the initial ones, and then I'm able to put it together and perform the series of movements for the move or for the sport skill. But again, I want to emphasise, that this is not about any kind of overthinking it or thinking about how my body works. I just "look and see" the steps for the moves and then perform them and refine them in practice.

*: Lenore Thomson describes ISTJ as having this perception of stabilizing the changing chaos the world is.

Is that what seems like having to overthink it? This process for me really is not mental thinking in any deep way, it's very sensory instead. You could say sensory-analytical, but I do *not* have to go inside my mind to analyse to do the "look and see" breaking down of the information.

I hope this made some sense. 


Also I guess you answered me on how Se has goals... it doesn't really beyond the immediate moment I suppose? I would say my action-oriented decisive mode doesn't have a focus on how it's supposed to take action, beyond the quick plan for the objective. The rest is done by the _"responding in the moment without thinking about it too much. It just happens"_ Se attitude. But that attitude is then controlled by the objective/plan and is always refocused by it, keeping the whole thing inside the orientation for the goal or a "box". Inside that box, I can freely move as far as the (not detailed!) plan lets me take action.

I again hope that made sense. Ofc let me know if not.




> I think the answer is somewhere in here. As an ISTP above said, Se doesn't really think about things, it just is. I also think the deciding factor here is "indulging for a couple of seconds" while for Se it's the standard way of navigating through life.
> People interact with environments, it's what we evolved our bodies for. As humans we're very good at interacting with our environment so there will always be some amount of this, just because you're a living creature. That doesn't mean that you're an Se-user by definition. I admit that it can be a muddy subject.


Yeah it's just that I'm better at this than quite some other people. With the whole not thinking just "look and see" and adapt thing with an empty head - but like I said above just now, it does not seem as flexible or as purely un-analytical as Se of STPs when it comes to quite new things.




> That might be a big deciding factor in why you're Si instead of Se. Si longs to have control over its environment while Se puts itself in situations where the environment is outside of their control and they just respond to it. This seems to paint you as an Si-user over an Se-user.


Oh yeah, control, definitely. I do not want the environment to be outside my control. Or at least the part of the environment that I find relevant.




> I really think this barrier to responding to your base instincts is what separates you from an Se-user. That one second where you observe instead of respond, that's Si butting in. Se doesn't delay and doesn't panic. It responds.


Yeah, I don't panic either though. 




> One important side-note to this though: I'm not trying to imply that Se-users aren't as smart. I could write a whole book about that subject by now, but let's just keep that whole discussion on the sidelines for now.


Oh no I didn't assume it would have to mean that - it seems like a good type of intelligence if we define intelligence as ability to adapt to the environment. I suppose each type does that in a different way, and ofc some of the types look directly adaptable like the SPs, but J types also have to respond in a way to the environment to prevail over it.




> Thanks for clearing that up. Si is still somewhat of a mystery for me to be honest. I have a theoretical understanding of it, but it's really hard to separate personal differences from type differences.


Np, I hope this stuff helps.  Maybe for the ISFJs the emotions are strong, this seems like a T/F thing.




> Very Si. The whole idea of being 'anal' about organizing facts is very, very far from how ISTP works.


Ok. BTW. Where I say it's more concrete than abstract... I would be able to give you concrete rules and reasoning that you can link to the real world. If I cannot apply the rules or reasoning on real things, it's too abstract to me. You did say ISTP also applies their rules, but I guess where they differ is that they do not need to derive their rules from those concrete bits of information (the details of the facts) by way of organizing them...

Linking to this one more thing: @Northern Lights posted earlier in this thread about how he just lives in a flow in the surroundings. Now if that's Se... for me it's as if I have to stabilize and break up the flow into the bits and identify those bits and then impose a system derived from those, over all the physical reality. While Northern Lights instead seems to just directly interface with physical reality with that flow.

Tho' I should add that I do have access to a holistic sensory view of objects too and I use this for the actions-focused mode too. I just simply overall have to be more anal-analytic , than Northern Lights as an ISTP. I do not have conscious access to the sensory flow he described.

I hope this made some sense. 




> I probably interpreted what you said earlier in a different way. Ti organizes processes, not details. Si organizes details. In your first post you had some vague wordings like "organize things" that could fit multiple functions. My Ni tends to have some tunnel-vision where I can interpret vague wordings to mean what I want them to mean.
> 
> So in short, the italicized text above is exactly how I imagine Si+Te.


Ah ok gotcha on the tunnel-vision, I actually have it sometimes too (not often, just when it comes to these vague things about people like personality types). 

So, hm, can you say what it means for Ti to organize a process? Just curious, because I also organize the task process but I'm sure it's going to be different for me. I basically organize the process through organizing the details.




> I don't know a ot of ISTJs and I could not really answer to how I know them to act. From theory though I can imagine that Si will often be automated to a degree where you don't even notice it anymore. Noticing the environmental details might just be such a natural process that it happens without you being aware of it.
> 
> As for how accurate that is, I would ask around on the ISTJ forum if I were you. As an INFJ, I'm not the best source for this.


Ok, and yeah, that makes sense.




> The thing about Si is that it's also very good at observing and interpreting the environment. I can see Si+Te behaving in a similar way to what you describe, although it's hard to have a really good idea of how it all works without actually interacting with you.
> 
> Rereading the above I already see some red flags pop up where you say "planning for the action" which really doesn't fit Se in any way.


Heh, yeah that planning, well it's planning for the overall situation and its objective, and so it's not detailed, I don't have time and the capacity to do that detail-oriented analysis on the move that much. The whole action-focused decisive mode is more big picture than that. But it's true I need to put myself into this "box" the quick plan gives me. Like I said above too, I can only move inside that box so it's less free than pure Se, I'm sure.




> From everything I've read up until this point I don't doubt that you're ISTJ, but you have given me a lot of things to think about in how to describe Se, since interacting with the environment is just natural human behavior. It can be very hard to distinguish Se from Si+Te sometimes.
> 
> In any case, I hope all of this helped you. I'll be happy to keep on responding but when things get too deep and specific into Si and Se I might be out of my depth.


Makes sense. And yes you've helped.


----------



## Kiriae (Oct 2, 2015)

alive1 said:


> So, not ringing a bell then? My summary of the action-oriented mode that I thought had something to do with Se. Sorry, just making sure this didn't get skipped accidentally.


It got skipped intentionally. 
Because I keep spacing out when you try to describe your "Se" - it's unclear and full of bias (my or yours). Makes my head blow up and leave the room. All I know you show too much Si to be Se so your "Se" must be Te or Ne. 

Se is a function foreign to me (and so you know: all human beings use 5 senses to interact with the world and we all have instinct protecting us from immediate danger) so most of my understanding of it comes from theory, movies (ISTP characters are pretty characteristic) and... observing my mom, that happens to be ESFP. A lot of what she does is influenced by Fi so I don't know how Thinkers Se looks like in real life (I am not aware of knowing any ESTP or ISTP) but I can say what she does.

She is all about "it's beautiful" and keeps asking me "How does it look?" (which bores me to death because I don't really think in those categories so I just say "good/beautiful" so she leaves me alone). She also has a lot of hands on interests - she creates her own clothes and does gardening all the time. She has virtually no ability to sit still for longer than a few minutes. She has to do something. Even when she is watching TV she exercises, dances or cleans. Except for late evenings if she got tired enough during the day. And she says she can't fall asleep if she doesn't take a walk that day.

And as for her problem solving (which would be dom Se + ter Te): She usually ask someone else to fix/learn stuff for her because she can't be bothered (and she has 2 NTPs in the house, happy to figure out and teach her anything so she doesn't really have to think). And when it isn't possible she just does: trial and error or a pure hands on approach. Printer doesn't work? Push all the buttons randomly. A newly bought dresser is too big to fit in the car without some preparation? Push it in anyway, who cares you might break the gearbox. A wasp is in the house - hunt it like crazy, and get stung. A shrub needs to be pulled out (or rather - she wants it out because she wants to plant something else there) - get inside it without worry about all the spiders and thorns and dirt, make a mess and get the result of shrub taken care off and arms and legs full of small wounds. She is like a damn animal when she gets into her doing mode. No insight. It needs to bo done so she just does the first thing that comes to her mind, without any planning or thinking about possible consequences.

That said... she is a school secretary and somehow is able to deal with her job so she isn't stupid and her approach usually really works. Although she sends more complex tasks to me and I sometimes get phone calls from her when she breaks the computer or something and doesn't know what to do.


----------



## alive1 (Sep 8, 2018)

tanstaafl28 said:


> Certain simple tasks eluded her. She had trouble remembering left from right (and would actively check by shaking her left and her right hand) She couldn't read a map to save her life, and for some reason, calculating time zone differences confused her, whereas I never seemed to have a problem with any of these things.
> 
> She has a strong phobia of being lost, of being left behind, of being abandoned, so I think she overcompensated.
> 
> (...)


Ah okay, yeah I don't relate to any of those issues or phobias. It's funny because I did have another issue as a kid delaying language learning for me, but it did not result in these things for me. Love maps actually and I aced maths etc., without having to be extra disciplined. Social science or writing other "soft" papers (like those English papers) is a pain in the ass to me too though. I manage that sort of soft science too if I must and I actually seem good at writing about such stuff when I try, as long as it's a quantitative enough approach (at least a tiny trace of the quantitative approach instead of being too qualitative), but eh. Idk if that's type related, yeah.




> She's very tactile. She distrusts anything she can't touch. I once had to save her from being arrested in Athens, Greece, because she walked right up to the Parthenon and wanted to touch it (strictly forbidden).


Lol I kind of see myself in that...




> She believes in her ability to work hard to such a degree that she can go without sleep for extended periods of time. She exists on extensive amounts of caffeine and nicotine (She quit smoking for a number of years while we were married and went back to it after we broke up). She doesn't quit until she feels like the job is done.
> 
> (...)
> 
> However, the more I reveal about her, the less I think it has to do with her being an ISTJ, or an 8w7, and the more it has to do with all the deep-seated phobias she's built up in her own mind. I suppose the usefulness of any comparisons dissipates with each revelation.


Ok yeah a lot of it is person-specific for sure. The workaholic stuff IMO, just from my pov and based on experiences really, it could def. indicate what you say about there being other psychological problems. I don't know really, I'm also not good at the vague fluff.  I do know I try to run to more work though if there are emotional issues with people. I suppose it's a way of keeping balance too, I don't see it as entirely unhealthy. Still, I wonder if it's an ISTJ thing on the whole to have difficulties with emotional processing, unless the ISTJ works on it. I've worked on it for myself but man, just running to work is much easier than that. :tongue: An understatement there actually, with it being much easier. I only kept with it because I knew I had to if I wanted to get better connections with people. (Work still in progress.) Don't ask where I got my desire to even want that as a goal. Maybe sx instinct...


----------



## alive1 (Sep 8, 2018)

Kiriae said:


> It got skipped intentionally.
> Because I keep spacing out when you try to describe your "Se" - it's unclear and full of bias (my and yours). Makes my head blow up and leave the room. All I know you show too much Si to be Se so your "Se" must be Te or Ne.


Ahh sorry for - unintentionally - torturing you with it. :laughing: Not sure where you see it as full of bias in my case, I tried to describe it as close to reality as possible. But yeah, I'm set on being ISTJ alright and I don't think I have the Se of STPs. That much has become clear for me from all the deep posts here.  And I'm definitely not an ISTP especially according to what the ISTP in this thread posted.




> Se is a function foreign to me (and so you know: all human beings use 5 senses to interact with the world and we all have instinct protecting us from immediate danger) so most of my understanding of it comes from theory, movies (ISTP characters are pretty characteristic) and... observing my mom, that happens to be ESFP. A lot of what she does is influenced by Fi so I don't know how Thinkers Se looks like in real life (I am not aware of knowing any ESTP or ISTP) but I can say what she does.


Lol your mom with the wasp and the shrub. For some reason I feel like I'd have some fun there if I was there with her, lol. I do recognize part of myself in that, but I definitely do not get at this stuff that mindlessly. I'm a tiny bit more cautious and optimize a tiny bit more. roud: I'm inside my little "box" of optimization and the minimum amount of planning. So I'll go up to the shrub and look at how to optimize positions and moves and then quickly start and optimize more during the process, or if I see the need, get some tool for it but I'm also prone to work without tools as much as I can because of impatience. 

That impatience or slight impulsiveness I got is what is similar to your mom's (just less of it).  And then while exploring via action, I can figure out more, but this is for things where I really do not see a risk so I get more freely impulsive (though never completely impulsive). And it does not feel trial and error, I'm a bit more methodical-analytical still than that. I'd be frustrated with the true trial and error approach. But the (risk-free) exploration definitely adds information, yes.

So yeah, with slightly more complex breakable things like the printer - ok replace this example with a more complex machine - or the dresser example, no no, I would not risk breaking things. Otoh, while I personally feel cautious enough with this, using the minimum required caution, I do look too unconsidered to some other people. Some people get upset "don't throw that thing to the floor so hard!" while I'm perfectly calm because I know it will not break and I throw it because I feel like putting in a strong move lol, not bothering to go at it all neat careful. And with the dresser example, I could push it into the car while knowing how far I can go without risking anything, assuming that that makes it fit at all. I will be doing the "preparation" on the move with this kind of example. Again, due to the slight impulsivity/impatience.


But this: _"It needs to be done so she just does the first thing that comes to her mind, without any planning or thinking about possible consequences."_

This is so me with my limited amount of concrete options. The first thing that comes to my mind about what to do, without thinking... I have trouble finding more of the concrete options (and I definitely do not see non-concrete ones). And I lack insight there. Then what I can do is go ahead and get more concrete options via action or just get successful with the first one, or I can step back and more passively gain information first (e.g. from instructions/books, or by really observing the thing or situation and trying to put the analytical bits together about it).


So, whatever this is, I hope this wasn't too confusing. : p

Maybe that 8-function model explains it that I saw somewhere. I am sure of my typing now, this "Se mode" just seems something on the side (not mentioned in ISTJ descriptions).


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

@*alive1*

Apologies for all the personal detail. It seems even after 2 years, I'm still processing the loss. I hope some of my insights were useful to you. I tend to think you fall more on the ISTJ side of things, regardless.


----------



## Kiriae (Oct 2, 2015)

alive1 said:


> Yeah but I don't get how Ti sets up these systems of rules right away in new complex situations/for new complex objects. That is where I definitely differ because I need to take my time to organize collected information and I cannot act - or I can if I must, but it's not good for me - until I'm oriented enough by the system. Then I'm able to act based on it.


I don't think ISTPs are that interested into complex situations and when they do their Ni probably butts in and works in tandem with Ti till they get it. Ni is sort of like Si but it stores abstract realisations about memories/information instead of the actual memories/information. But I can't understand how it works exactly so I cant explain any further than that. It seems somehow similar to the feeling "something bad will happen" as far I know, but I am a Ne user and still experience the feeling so it's probably different. My INFJ friend describes Ni as just "knowing" a person can't be trusted and such. Se+Ni users probably just "know" somehow how to get stuff done and for more complex tasks they need to use the other rumored Ni property - "just sleep with it and the answer will come as a sudden realization later on". I admit it is also sort of like you described your "new situation getting flagged and then connected to another new situation in the future and suddenly it all making sense" but that kind of thing is also not foreign to me when I learn something completely new. Not like anybody can make conclusions without any information. 
From what I learned Ni is slower than Ne though and Ni is about single but mysteriously sure result and Ne about multiple possibilities requiring logic to find most possible one. 




> So I suppose this sounds Si with some Se-seeming bit added for the kinesthetic learning. I only mention that because I'm definitely strong in that area too.


Kinesthetic learning works with Si well too. It's all about storing sensations in order to develop automatisms. 
Se users do the kinesthetic learning because they need to physically do stuff in order to understand them. 
Si users do kinesthetic learning in order to make their body remember how to do stuff so they do it automatically in the future.



> Lool, uh, I would never want to explicitly think about how my body moves if I'm doing a sport like that. I would die if I had to stop and think deeply like that while taking action, just a big no no. roud:
> 
> So I relate far more to the Se description here since the Si one just does my head in even thinking about it. Unless I misunderstood you on it of course.


And so do I. And I am a freaking Ne aux as far I am aware of. 

Thinking about how to use a skateboard while using one would literally kill me. There is no room for that. You just need to feel the skateboard and use body balance accordingly. It's normal. It might be difficult at first because it's a scary feeling when skateboard is escaping from your feet as you push forward but sooner or later the body learns how to deal with it. For Si doms it should be easier because they have the body balance covered better than strong Ne users.


----------



## alive1 (Sep 8, 2018)

tanstaafl28 said:


> @*alive1*
> 
> Apologies for all the personal detail. It seems even after 2 years, I'm still processing the loss. I hope some of my insights were useful to you. I tend to think you fall more on the ISTJ side of things, regardless.


No worries, really. If it helped you with writing out some of that stuff that's all cool.  Thanks for your input overall!




Kiriae said:


> I don't think ISTPs are that interested into complex situations and when they do their Ni probably butts in and works in tandem with Ti till they get it. Ni is sort of like Si but it stores abstract realisations about memories/information instead of the actual memories/information. But I can't understand how it works exactly so I cant explain any further than that. It seems somehow similar to the feeling "something bad will happen" as far I know, but I am a Ne user and still experience the feeling so it's probably different. My INFJ friend describes Ni as just "knowing" a person can't be trusted and such. Se+Ni users probably just "know" somehow how to get stuff done and for more complex tasks they need to use the other rumored Ni property - "just sleep with it and the answer will come as a sudden realization later on". I admit it is also sort of like you described your "new situation getting flagged and then connected to another new situation in the future and suddenly it all making sense" is somehow like this but that kind of thing is also not foreign to me when I learn something completely new. Not like anybody can make conclusions without any information.
> From what I learned Ni is slower than Ne though and Ni is about single but mysteriously sure result and Ne about multiple possibilities requiring logic to find most possible one. And both with work differently in Sensors.


Ah I see. Oh the flagging stuff and then later finding a similar situation, it's a conscious comparison actually, but me noticing that there is something in the first place to compare, that seems like my unconscious intuition, whether Ni or Ne. I definitely have no patience though to sleep on current issues and wait for an insight MAYBE coming up later. So while I suck at finding possibilities to check, and I find it very frustrating, I'm willing to look at A, B, C, ... logical possibilities if I really must.




> Kinesthetic learning works with Si well too. It's all about storing sensations in order to develop automatisms.
> Se users do the kinesthetic learning because they need to physically do stuff in order to understand them.
> Si users do kinesthetic learning in order to make their body remember how to do stuff so they do it automatically in the future.


Ah ok, yeah I'm Si for this one, no question about it. The conscious side of the understanding for me does not come from doing the stuff, it instead comes from watching, observing, putting those bits of information together. "Doing" simply helps me remember better, remember it more deeply.

Oh, to be more precise, where I said I find more concrete options via action/doing, if needed, it's not about understanding either. The understanding itself comes strictly from the above.




> And so do I. And I am a freaking Ne aux as far I am aware of.
> 
> Thinking about how to use a skateboard while using one would literally kill me. There is no room for that. You just need to feel the skateboard and use body balance accordingly. It's normal. It might be difficult at first because it's a scary feeling when skateboard is escaping from your feet as you push forward but sooner or later the body learns how to deal with it. For Si doms it should be easier because they have the body balance covered better than strong Ne users.


Ahh ok, then the original description was just not put in the best way.


----------



## Drecon (Jun 20, 2016)

alive1 said:


> OK thanks for the info. Hmm, bet Nardi would find that I have the quick decision-making half of the time and the delayed decision-making the other half of the time. Heh would be interesting. roud:
> 
> And like you said IPs have firm decisions, I do too. Those get created in the "quick decision making" mode.


Yeah, and everyone uses both parts of the brain a lot, it's just that pretty consistently, one of them gets used more for specific types. 
Honestly, there's not that much information to go on. Nardi hasn't published a lot of what he finds so it's hard to go too deep into it. 



> Yeah but I don't get how Ti sets up these systems of rules right away in new complex situations/for new complex objects. That is where I definitely differ because I need to take my time to organize collected information and I cannot act - or I can if I must, but it's not good for me - until I'm oriented enough by the system. Then I'm able to act based on it.


It's probably wise to ask ISTPs and INTPs how this really works for them in practice. I use Ti, but it's steered heavily by my Ni. I'm not sure I can do the topic true justice. 



> Oh ok. I was specifically interested in whether they do this thing with binary evaluation of positive vs negative. Do you know if they do?


It's actually most Fi-users that have this process. Especially the "I don't like this" response can be very strong for Fi-users. I've seen the binary evaluation time and again for not only INTJs but also ESTJs and ISFPs for example. 



> Yeah like I added in some other post, I started out really introverted and calm and slow to act. The extraverted action-focused mode started up sometime between elementary-middle school.


I think it's generally agreed that that's the time when the secondary function usually starts really developing so it checks out. 



> Yeah noo, no trial and error. I can try and manipulate a new object without instructions in my more active less reserved mode and then I can poke at it to see what it does, but if it seems too complex and ambiguous then I'm again cautious with that and I would hate to make that truly a trial and error process overall - I much prefer to have a system for the whole thing. Hm I think for me, depending on what's to be learned, my most natural ways to learn are:
> 
> - observe and put the information bits together like I described
> - kinesthetic learning by doing
> ...


It does sound like lots of natural Si indeed. I'm curious about how your Se-like experience fits in but I must confess that I'm out of my depth for that one. Maybe ask around on the ISTJ forum. Maybe some there have similar experieces?



> Lool, uh, I would never want to explicitly think about how my body moves if I'm doing a sport like that. I would die if I had to stop and think deeply like that while taking action, just a big no no. roud:
> 
> So I relate far more to the Se description here since the Si one just does my head in even thinking about it. Unless I misunderstood you on it of course.
> 
> ...


It makes sense but I must confess that I'm completely out of my depth on this subject. Again, ask around on the forums. Maybe there's some others that can clear all of this up. 



> Also I guess you answered me on how Se has goals... it doesn't really beyond the immediate moment I suppose? I would say my action-oriented decisive mode doesn't have a focus on how it's supposed to take action, beyond the quick plan for the objective. The rest is done by the _"responding in the moment without thinking about it too much. It just happens"_ Se attitude. But that attitude is then controlled by the objective/plan and is always refocused by it, keeping the whole thing inside the orientation for the goal or a "box". Inside that box, I can freely move as far as the (not detailed!) plan lets me take action.
> 
> I again hope that made sense. Ofc let me know if not.


The way you phrase this makes a lot of sense to me. I'm sure heavy Se-users can tell you more on the subject though. 



> Oh no I didn't assume it would have to mean that - it seems like a good type of intelligence if we define intelligence as ability to adapt to the environment. I suppose each type does that in a different way, and ofc some of the types look directly adaptable like the SPs, but J types also have to respond in a way to the environment to prevail over it.


True. I'm actually working on a theory about all this type of stuff. Check back in twenty years, I'm sure I will have gotten around to it at that point 



> Np, I hope this stuff helps.  Maybe for the ISFJs the emotions are strong, this seems like a T/F thing.


That actually makes some sense. ISFJs have a different way of experiencing the world and emotions. It makes sense that they also have different types of memories of events then. 



> Ok. BTW. Where I say it's more concrete than abstract... I would be able to give you concrete rules and reasoning that you can link to the real world. If I cannot apply the rules or reasoning on real things, it's too abstract to me. You did say ISTP also applies their rules, but I guess where they differ is that they do not need to derive their rules from those concrete bits of information (the details of the facts) by way of organizing them...
> 
> Linking to this one more thing: @Northern Lights posted earlier in this thread about how he just lives in a flow in the surroundings. Now if that's Se... for me it's as if I have to stabilize and break up the flow into the bits and identify those bits and then impose a system derived from those, over all the physical reality. While Northern Lights instead seems to just directly interface with physical reality with that flow.
> 
> ...


I think that's the big difference between Si and Se. Si observes while Se acts. I can see how Si observing and Te acting can lead to similar behaviours though. That's often the problem with descriptions of type and functions. They are often focused on observable behaviour rather than the underlying mental processes. 



> Ah ok gotcha on the tunnel-vision, I actually have it sometimes too (not often, just when it comes to these vague things about people like personality types).
> 
> So, hm, can you say what it means for Ti to organize a process? Just curious, because I also organize the task process but I'm sure it's going to be different for me. I basically organize the process through organizing the details.


Again, it will probably help more to ask ISTPs and INTPs about this. They tend to have a better grasp on how it actually works for them in practice. 



> Makes sense. And yes you've helped.


roud:


----------



## alive1 (Sep 8, 2018)

Drecon said:


> Yeah, and everyone uses both parts of the brain a lot, it's just that pretty consistently, one of them gets used more for specific types.
> Honestly, there's not that much information to go on. Nardi hasn't published a lot of what he finds so it's hard to go too deep into it.


OK, yeah, the thing however was that I do prefer firm decisions once I do get to the decision-making moment... so I don't think it can be said that IJs would not really want to have those. I'm an example of that.




> It's probably wise to ask ISTPs and INTPs how this really works for them in practice. I use Ti, but it's steered heavily by my Ni. I'm not sure I can do the topic true justice.


Sure, ok, I was just wondering if it was anything like them making the rules on the fly quickly from a little data and changing them easily when new information comes in. Because that is what would be the opposite of me heh.




> It's actually most Fi-users that have this process. Especially the "I don't like this" response can be very strong for Fi-users. I've seen the binary evaluation time and again for not only INTJs but also ESTJs and ISFPs for example.


Oh there might be a little miscommunication here, because when I spoke of "positive" and "negative", I was not speaking of "I like" and "I don't like". It's more impersonal for me than that. It truly is just a positive (to approach) or a negative (to avoid) "charge". Let me know please if this made sense.

Otherwise, I'm of course able to like or dislike something, but that on its own doesn't get to decide anything, only in that mode of binary positive/negative viewing of things. Think of it as converting the positive emotional states to 1s and the negative emotional states to 0s, though the actual process is a bit more complex than this (because the external context for these positive/negative values is what really determines things). 




> It does sound like lots of natural Si indeed. I'm curious about how your Se-like experience fits in but I must confess that I'm out of my depth for that one. Maybe ask around on the ISTJ forum. Maybe some there have similar experieces?
> 
> It makes sense but I must confess that I'm completely out of my depth on this subject. Again, ask around on the forums. Maybe there's some others that can clear all of this up.
> 
> The way you phrase this makes a lot of sense to me. I'm sure heavy Se-users can tell you more on the subject though.


Thanks for the suggestion. I was not really asking you about clearing up functions in general, I was asking you if you meant that stuff by Si overthinking.




> True. I'm actually working on a theory about all this type of stuff. Check back in twenty years, I'm sure I will have gotten around to it at that point


Okay :tongue:




> I think that's the big difference between Si and Se. Si observes while Se acts. I can see how Si observing and Te acting can lead to similar behaviours though. That's often the problem with descriptions of type and functions. They are often focused on observable behaviour rather than the underlying mental processes.


Yeah I see what you mean.




> Again, it will probably help more to ask ISTPs and INTPs about this. They tend to have a better grasp on how it actually works for them in practice.


I'd just like to know what you had in mind when you said Ti organizes processes. If you are able to put that into words. If not, no need to bother with it, this isn't that important, simple curiosity as to what you had in mind.

Thanks again for all this!


----------



## Northern Lights (Mar 25, 2016)

No. The difference is elsewhere. I don't make up any systems and rules at all, because I already have a system and rules. In fact, I extrapolate the facts from the system, not the other way round.

My entire internal state is one perfectly tidy space. There's not a hair out of place, and if there is, I have a problem. It's a rigid, inflexible, all-dominating and overpowering thing that runs my entire being and that I'm loath to change. However, it's also a really really good approximation of the outside world (this depends on maturity, experience, balance etc.). Hence, in very nearly most situations, I can use it for instant understanding (and it's also how I instantly see if something _just doesn't fit_ -- pattern prediction deluxe). A problem arises in two cases: 1) I have never dealt with it before. Then it takes time to incorporate this new thing, I have to understand it completely, first. 2) My system is off. That's when I shoot off in the wrong direction and feel good about it on top of that, because I'm cherry picking evidence to fit the system.


... That is, of course, the idealised idea. But you get the point I'm trying to make. (The two problems are real, though everyone will have such biases, just in varying degrees, and absent of that, you run into it every time you meet my literally boundless stubbornness.)


----------



## Kiriae (Oct 2, 2015)

As a strong Ti user I will try to answer the "ask ISTPs and INTPs" issues.


alive1 said:


> alive1 said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah but I don't get how Ti sets up these systems of rules right away in new complex situations/for new complex objects. That is where I definitely differ because I need to take my time to organize collected information and I cannot act - or I can if I must, but it's not good for me - until I'm oriented enough by the system. Then I'm able to act based on it.
> ...


I don't remember any new, "complex" situation right now but I can give example of how I dealt with some simple new situation I experienced recently. 

I never changed bag in a vacuum cleaner in my whole life (despite being almost 30 yo, shame on me), and the case is about a new vacuum cleaner anyway:

Just today I wanted to vacuum my room and while putting the vacuum cleaner together I realized lots of cats fur coming out from the bag, after my roommate used the vacuum cleaner. I thought "What the hell, is it stuck, like a bung?" and took the ball of fur out. "It looks better now." <putting finger to see if there is any fur left> "...but shouldn't it have more spot for dirt?", "Oh, I see. It must be full. Do we have any replacement bags?" <proceeds to the place where we keep vacuum cleaner in, finds something that looks like them> "That should be it. Will it fit? Probably. It's in the big box the vacuum cleaner came with after all. The box with bags isn't open yet so I will be the first one putting the bag in though - there is a chance my roommate made a mistake in buying them, but probably not - they came with the vacuum cleaner after all! I would check the model letters but too lazy. It's most possibly be correct." <opens the box with bags, while reading and looking at whats on it> "4 <picture of one type of bags>= 7 <picture of other type of bags> - I wonder how it works, do they spread differently than the regulars? Probably.", <takes one of the bags out of the box and watches it from all sides, checking how it spreads>,"Wait a moment. Shouldn't I compare it to the bag thats inside the vacuum cleaner first?", <goes to the vacuum cleaner>, "How do I open it? This is where the bag is so this place should open somehow. Do I push here?", <pushes>, "Yes, it's open.", <looks at the bag inside>, "It's one of the regular bags mentioned on the box. It's not that similar to the ones in the box but the shape and size of the square part is close enough so it should fit. How do I take it out?",<stares> ," That part here holds the square part so it should go out the other way.", <pushes>, "Yup, it's moving.", <pulls the bag out, stops halfway>, "Wait a moment... The bag doesn't seem like it's fully spread yet... Oh, I get it! That's how it works. The bag will always seem full from the hole because it spreads inside the vacuum cleaner the more dirt is inside it. The fur might have been stuck there indeed but the bag itself isn't full yet. Can I put it back inside? If I try this way the dirt fill come out due to air pressure... well, I can just cover the hole with my hand and it won't.", <does that, puts everything back together>, "It clicked do it's probably closed." <checks>, "Yup. It won't open unless I push it here. And the hole looks like it did before I opened it so everything should be fine. Let's see if the device works and what sound it makes - if I was right about the bag spreading it should suck like it always does.", <turns the vacuum cleaner on>, "Sounds like always, sucks like always - all good. No need to replace the bag after all. But at least I learned how!(And that made me excited - another knowledge figured out on my own)". :skeleton: 

As you can see I observe, draw conclusions, check them(in reality or in my mind), confirm or draw new conclusions, check them... It goes further and further till everything fits together and a new rule forms.



alive1 said:


> alive1 said:
> 
> 
> > So, hm, can you say what it means for Ti to organize a process? Just curious, because I also organize the task process but I'm sure it's going to be different for me. I basically organize the process through organizing the details.
> ...


I am not sure if I understand the question here but my "process organisation" is all about making sure each step is logically following the previous one and choosing which ones out of the options in my head deserve a reality check, which are good enough just the way they are and which are obviously a bullshit.


----------



## alive1 (Sep 8, 2018)

Northern Lights said:


> No. The difference is elsewhere. I don't make up any systems and rules at all, because I already have a system and rules. In fact, I extrapolate the facts from the system, not the other way round.
> 
> My entire internal state is one perfectly tidy space. There's not a hair out of place, and if there is, I have a problem. It's a rigid, inflexible, all-dominating and overpowering thing that runs my entire being and that I'm loath to change. However, it's also a really really good approximation of the outside world (this depends on maturity, experience, balance etc.). Hence, in very nearly most situations, I can use it for instant understanding (and it's also how I instantly see if something _just doesn't fit_ -- pattern prediction deluxe). A problem arises in two cases: 1) I have never dealt with it before. Then it takes time to incorporate this new thing, I have to understand it completely, first. 2) My system is off. That's when I shoot off in the wrong direction and feel good about it on top of that, because I'm cherry picking evidence to fit the system.
> 
> ...


Ah interesting. I'm the same with 1) BTW. I take my time too but I suppose we process very differently otherwise. I've also of course run into problem 2) too, like you say all people will get issues with bias. Though I always try to remain objective and keep weeding it out. Anyhow, I'd be just curious how the trial and error thing to figure out things works for you with that. That xxTPs supposedly have. If it's mostly like Kiriae's stuff then ofc, that's cool to know too.  Idle curiosity here really.




Kiriae said:


> As a strong Ti user I will try to answer the "ask ISTPs and INTPs" issues.


Thanks. :kitteh:




> I don't remember any new, "complex" situation right now but I can give example of how I dealt with some simple new situation I experienced recently.


That was a great example too. You sound REALLY verbal inside your own mind.  (I barely say a word in my own head by default. Sometimes a few words.) Plus you seem extra curious. (Btw: I seem curious too in this thread, I suppose, lol, because I'm invested in exploring the topic, but I don't get at everything like "oooh new knowledge!" like you do.)

Heh I can get a similar example for you, the first time I ever tried to take apart and then put together a vacuum cleaner to change/clean the insides, I was observing way more first than really acting (though that too a little)... that analytical breaking it down by just looking at it in every way possible along with a little interaction where really needed, but initially reserved with that. And yeah not really verbal, though ofc it can be verbalized if I was to tell about it to someone else. I don't remember my way of thinking in a detailed way about it though, was a while ago. Figured it out alright in the end. And, my mom also wanted to mess around there but I had to tell her to leave, I can't do this focusing and analysing if others keep talking or trying to interfere with my actions.




> I am not sure if I understand the question here but my "process organisation" is all about making sure each step is logically following the previous one and choosing which ones out of the options in my head deserve a reality check, which are good enough just the way they are and which are obviously a bullshit.


Ah ok, thanks for this too. Lol you and your options needing reality checks ;p

For me I think it's more like... well obviously steps need to logically follow but I also want to see all the options and actions organized nicely in a way that I see as optimized. It basically matters what I pick, and when I do it, and why.


----------



## Kiriae (Oct 2, 2015)

alive1 said:


> That was a great example too. You sound REALLY verbal inside your own mind.  (I barely say a word in my own head by default. Sometimes a few words.) Plus you seem extra curious. (Btw: I seem curious too in this thread, I suppose, lol, because I'm invested in exploring the topic, but I don't get at everything like "oooh new knowledge!" like you do.)
> 
> Heh I can get a similar example for you, the first time I ever tried to take apart and then put together a vacuum cleaner to change/clean the insides, I was observing way more first than really acting (though that too a little)... that analytical breaking it down by just looking at it in every way possible along with a little interaction where really needed, but initially reserved with that. And yeah not really verbal, though ofc it can be verbalized if I was to tell about it to someone else. I don't remember my way of thinking in a detailed way about it though, was a while ago. Figured it out alright in the end. And, my mom also wanted to mess around there but I had to tell her to leave, I can't do this focusing and analysing if others keep talking or trying to interfere with my actions.


My thoughts are not verbal. I think in pictures and impressions. I can translate it to words if I need to the only things I actually hear in my head are stuff like: "Yeah, sure - what else ...?"(accompanied with mental picture of flying pink elephants as an absurd example of "what else"), "Baaaka"(Japanese "idiot") or a random "Ne?" (Japanese "Isn't it right?") - the Japanese ones are used in the intonation I often hear in anime so they are more sounds than my own verbal thinking. I am just good at translating my non verbal thoughts to words.

Well. I will also hear mental radio (songs playing over and over again) or the mental audio recorder (my mind records and is able to replay a few seconds of sound, for example what exactly was said). I also use auditory thinking as a note - I will do mental math using sounds, although I prefer to just write it down. 
Of course my auditory thinking turns on when I am thinking how to express something to other people but I wish telepathy existed at times because it isn't that easy - it can be difficult to find the right word, people like to misunderstand words and it goes the other way around too. I am not that good at listening either - people speak too slowly for me and I tend to lose words in sentences due to loosing focus or due to external sounds mixing with words so I lose the meaning. 
I have auditory processing disorder and I prefer to have subtitles while watching TV or yt, no matter what language they are (I am Polish but I understand English subtitles better than Polish speech). 

As for other people being there as I figure out stuff - they don't bother me that much. If they are trying to change the topic, tell me to "take a break and eat my dinner because it will be cold" or ask me to explain stuff to them before I figured out the whole thing I do get irritated and might tell them off in a rude way but if we are working at the same thing I am mostly fine (although their speech can interfere with my mental math). I can get information to analyse by observing what they do and make them do most reality checks for me instead of getting my hands dirty/tired. And if I choose to think aloud and spew ideas out instead of internalizing them there will be much more reality checks done because they will try most of them. They are also a good base for ideas (they mention a "need" and I generate multiple "how"s, "we need a screwdriver" - "We can use a knife, a key, a bank card, the thing at end of my zipper, a spatula..."). And a source of laugh (they say something and I make a joke out of it).


----------



## alive1 (Sep 8, 2018)

Kiriae said:


> My thoughts are not verbal. I think in pictures and impressions. I can translate it to words if I need to the only things I actually hear in my head are stuff like: "Yeah, sure - what else ...?"(accompanied with mental picture of flying pink elephants as an absurd example of "what else"), "Baaaka"(Japanese "idiot") or a random "Ne?" (Japanese "Isn't it right?") - the Japanese ones are used in the intonation I often hear in anime so they are more sounds than my own verbal thinking. I am just good at translating my non verbal thoughts to words.
> 
> Well. I will also hear mental radio (songs playing over and over again) or the mental audio recorder (my mind records and is able to replay a few seconds of sound, for example what exactly was said). I also use auditory thinking as a note - I will do mental math using sounds, although I prefer to just write it down.
> Of course my auditory thinking turns on when I am thinking how to express something to other people but I wish telepathy existed at times because it isn't that easy - it can be difficult to find the right word, people like to misunderstand words and it goes the other way around too. I am not that good at listening either - people speak too slowly for me and I tend to lose words in sentences due to loosing focus or due to external sounds mixing with words so I lose the meaning.
> ...


Ah ok, I'm not sure what I think in... Mostly I just see what's in front of me really and I just "know" the analysis about them. I can have pictures too but they go so fast when I'm dealing with simpler everyday issues that I don't usually notice them, they assist in spatial logic though for organizing stuff for problem solving. I'm very spatial overall with the navigation etc too, otoh the systematic stuff for the breakdown of bits of information isn't spatial, that's the left half of my brain I think, while the spatial side is right brained.

Interesting about your auditory thinking.  That auditory mental math and how external sounds mix with your words, too.  You sound really N too with how you have to do the reality checks for your ideas. Thanks for all the help so far but also thanks for describing all that, definitely interesting overall.


----------

