# Help me type myself - alternate method



## Noir (Jun 20, 2014)

I seem to be unbelievably bad at self typing. I tried answering questionnaires but that didn't really help me. I am having trouble typing myself because I am very open minded, to the way where I cannot be certain of anything. I feel that if I look at things from a different angle, I could see myself using almost any function. 
Besides, I found out that the way I answered questions was more like the way I would like to react, not really how I'd react. So I thought I should try giving it a go by describing myself. I will try to be both brief and give enough details at the same time. However, it will still be wordy, so bear with me.

As a child I was pretty carefree. I was curios about things, and I learned how to read and write before going to school. I was a lone wolf, but I didn't feel lonely. I didn't really feel the need to go out all that much and as such I didn't get a lot of friends, but I really didn't mind.
I do something that now strikes me as odd; I would run from one corner of the room to the other the entire day and imagine in my head all sort of super heroes fighting themselves. I could let my imagination roam free all day. I was also quite talkative actually. I had problems with speaking too fast, to the point where I would get so much saliva that I'd look like a rabid dog.
As I grew older I learned a bit of everything, I did martial arts, theater, learned to play guitar and piano and so on. In pretty much every area I was quite decent, but I never could bring myself to be more than that, mainly because I simply wasn't interested in being particularly good. Same with school, I got decent grades, but never really bothered to be the best. 
In high-school, somehow I found myself being one of the best in the entire class. Again, I was quite introverted and , while everyone pretty much liked me, I didn't really become very good friends with any of them. I remember being very resistant to being controlled. I had an ESTJ friend who always tried to boss me around, and I remember really really hating that. I also remember that I hated being seen as the best guy in school who does everything right and is respectful and so on, but I don't know why exactly. Because of this I would sometimes pull stunts on other people (I unleashed a fire extinguisher in one of my friends' backpack) , be rather cheeky (I afforded to do that with the teachers, because they were aware I was ok and I made sure to keep tolerable and not go overboard) and I even started smoking. At one point I wanted a tattoo. 
Basically, I was somewhat anti-authoritarian. I also liked to hang out with the worst people of our school (it was a pretty good school, so they weren't that bad). Actually, about that time I started going to some of the most obscure bars and places, mainly because I was interested what kind of people go there. I met quite a lot of interesting people there too! I somehow did that on instinct. I never really pondered on why, but I guess it was because I was curios to see and even befriend those who are considered to be the lowest of our society. 
In college, however, I became much, much more goal oriented. I would really like to become a prosecutor, but that is really hard work, and so I became more oriented with being one of the best in college, because I figure that actually keeping focused in college and hard work is the key that will get me there.

I believe that what I have written thus far indicates I could be a P. I could be a P, but I believe one of my greatest strengths is my tenacity. I never really had any particular skills or talents, but through really hard work I always managed to overcome obstacles. 

Now I will try to describe what goes on through my head.

I seem to be daydreaming a lot. In fact, I almost never pay any attention to my surroundings. I somehow walk instinctively from point A to point B. I am so spaced out that I am not exactly sure how come I've not been hit by a car to this point. Sometimes, when I am bored, I like trying to watch my surroundings and see how many new things I can spot, but I still end up using my imagination. 
From the moment I wake up, I have this internal monologue inside of me. I keep thinking about various things throughout the day. I think of whatever catches my interest, I analyze characters from shows I watch, I think about people and even about more serious topics such as what should be done to improve the world or even morals. 
I should also note that I am usually very impatient. I have zero patience for almost anything. When I want something, I want it right then, and if it is something that requires others' activity, I put pressure on them to get what I want. I also seem to have a hard time with dealing with feelings. Everytime I seem to connect too much with someone, I instinctively back down from that connection. I dislike being dragged into emotional conversations.

What I want from life: I want to be a prosecutor because I believe it to be a nice game to see who is the best; me, the culprit or the defense lawyer? Getting to play this kind of game, which implies so many things gets me excited. Other than that, I also want to do everything. I want to experiment with everything and see how it is to travel, to pilot a plane, to see North Pole, Africa, to shoot with a gun and so on. 

Also, I should probably note that I constantly forget to eat. I am quite interested in my appearance though, as I do competitive Kickboxing and I enjoy going to the gym as well.

I'd be very grateful if someone could get my MBTI and maybe my enneagram from this


----------



## Alarik (Jan 25, 2015)

There are many similarities to me, for example i learned writing before school too, no need to be the best, i was interested in people of low society and had such friends like yours, your wishes i share too (pilot...) but most of them won't happen. I'm not that adventurous like you, probably because i'm not a martial arts artist. And i had troubles typing myself aswell. Still learning step by step.

I would type you as ENTJ or INTJ. Rather ENTJ, because you mentioned trouble with feelings, and the ENTJ is known for having feelings issues (because he suppresses the feelings more than the INTJ, so he must reveal it sometimes. the INTJ can suppress it better). You seem to be an intuitive very clearly in my opinion.

Explain the part with the feelings. What matters more to you, justice or harmony? 
Truth or being accepted by people?


----------



## Noir (Jun 20, 2014)

cotton said:


> There are many similarities to me, for example i learned writing before school too, no need to be the best, i was interested in people of low society and had such friends like yours, your wishes i share too (pilot...) but most of them won't happen. I'm not that adventurous like you, probably because i'm not a martial arts artist. And i had troubles typing myself aswell. Still learning step by step.
> 
> I would type you as ENTJ or INTJ. Rather ENTJ, because you mentioned trouble with feelings, and the ENTJ is known for having feelings issues (because he suppresses the feelings more than the INTJ, so he must reveal it sometimes. the INTJ can suppress it better). You seem to be an intuitive very clearly in my opinion.
> 
> ...


Justice exists in order to achieve harmony. I guess harmony is the most important.
I am more interested in the truth, but I would be lying if I didn't say I enjoyed people looking up to me, as bad as that may sound.


----------



## noahx64 (Aug 25, 2014)

ENTP 7w8>3w4>?w?. Here's an in-depth breakdown:



> I seem to be unbelievably bad at self typing. I tried answering questionnaires but that didn't really help me. I am having trouble typing myself because I am very open minded, to the way where I cannot be certain of anything. I feel that if I look at things from a different angle, I could see myself using almost any function.


This is dominant or auxiliary Ne.



> As a child I was pretty carefree.


 Dominant Pe.



> I was curious about things, and I learned how to read and write before going to school.


 Dominant or auxiliary Ti.



> I was a lone wolf, but I didn't feel lonely. I didn't really feel the need to go out all that much and as such I didn't get a lot of friends, but I really didn't mind.


 Shows that Fe and Se are low in your function order.



> I do something that now strikes me as odd; I would run from one corner of the room to the other the entire day and imagine in my head all sort of super heroes fighting themselves. I could let my imagination roam free all day.


 Shows preference for Intuition.



> I was also quite talkative actually. I had problems with speaking too fast, to the point where I would get so much saliva that I'd look like a rabid dog.


 Narrows it down to Extroverted Intuition.



> As I grew older I learned a bit of everything, I did martial arts, theater, learned to play guitar and piano and so on. In pretty much every area I was quite decent, but I never could bring myself to be more than that, mainly because I simply wasn't interested in being particularly good. Same with school, I got decent grades, but never really bothered to be the best.


 Again, Ne shows up, and the attitude about school is indicative of a type 7.



> In high-school, somehow I found myself being one of the best in the entire class.


 Natural academic aptitude is correlated with Ti.



> Again, I was quite introverted and, while everyone pretty much liked me, I didn't really become very good friends with any of them.


 Tertiary Fe. Classic young ENTP behavior.



> I remember being very resistant to being controlled. I had an ESTJ friend who always tried to boss me around, and I remember really really hating that. I also remember that I hated being seen as the best guy in school who does everything right and is respectful and so on, but I don't know why exactly.


 Type 7s don't like being controlled, and type 4s dislike being put in a box, I'm thinking 7w?>4w5 at this point.



> Because of this I would sometimes pull stunts on other people (I unleashed a fire extinguisher in one of my friends' backpack) , be rather cheeky (I afforded to do that with the teachers, because they were aware I was okay and I made sure to keep tolerable and not go overboard) and I even started smoking. At one point I wanted a tattoo.


 The pranks and rebellion show 7w8.



> Basically, I was somewhat anti-authoritarian. I also liked to hang out with the worst people of our school (it was a pretty good school, so they weren't that bad).


 Again, 7w8 and Type 4 anti-authoritarianism.



> Actually, about that time I started going to some of the most obscure bars and places, mainly because I was interested what kind of people go there. I met quite a lot of interesting people there too! I somehow did that on instinct.


 7w8 is your gut type. 



> I never really pondered on why, but I guess it was because I was curious to see and even befriend those who are considered to be the lowest of our society.


 ENTP curiosity.



> In college, however, I became much, much more goal oriented. I would really like to become a prosecutor, but that is really hard work, and so I became more oriented with being one of the best in college, because I figure that actually keeping focused in college and hard work is the key that will get me there.


 Type 3 tendencies! So far, I've got ENTP 7w8>4w3



> I seem to be daydreaming a lot. In fact, I almost never pay any attention to my surroundings.


Weak Se, which is the last function of an ENTP.



> I somehow walk instinctively from point A to point B.


 A Ne-Ti habit.



> I am so spaced out that I am not exactly sure how come I've not been hit by a car to this point. Sometimes, when I am bored, I like trying to watch my surroundings and see how many new things I can spot, but I still end up using my imagination.


 This is all Ne.



> From the moment I wake up, I have this internal monologue inside of me. I keep thinking about various things throughout the day. I think of whatever catches my interest, I analyze characters from shows I watch, I think about people and even about more serious topics such as what should be done to improve the world or even morals.


 Ti.



> I should also note that I am usually very impatient. I have zero patience for almost anything. When I want something, I want it right then, and if it is something that requires others' activity, I put pressure on them to get what I want.


 7w8.



> I also seem to have a hard time with dealing with feelings. Every time I seem to connect too much with someone, I instinctively back down from that connection. I dislike being dragged into emotional conversations.





> What I want from life: I want to be a prosecutor because I believe it to be a nice game to see who is the best; me, the culprit or the defense lawyer?





> Getting to play this kind of game, which implies so many things gets me excited. Other than that, I also want to do everything. I want to experiment with everything and see how it is to travel, to pilot a plane, to see North Pole, Africa, to shoot with a gun and so on.





> Also, I should probably note that I constantly forget to eat. I am quite interested in my appearance though, as I do competitive Kickboxing and I enjoy going to the gym as well.


----------



## Noir (Jun 20, 2014)

@noahx64

Thanks a lot! I never really considered type 7, to be perfectly honest. It is definitely worth looking at.


----------



## noahx64 (Aug 25, 2014)

@Noir 
No problem! I'm almost certain you're a 7w8.


----------



## Noir (Jun 20, 2014)

noahx64 said:


> @Noir
> No problem! I'm almost certain you're a 7w8.


Wait. ENTP's inferior is Si, not Se.

EDIT: Nevermind. I believe you were referring to shadow functions.


----------



## noahx64 (Aug 25, 2014)

@Noir
Yes, but Se is their last function, or shadow inferior. ENTP function order is Ne/Ti/Fe/Si/Ni/Te/Fi/Se.
EDIT: Yeah, now we're thinking alike.


----------



## aendern (Dec 28, 2013)

noahx64 said:


> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I agree with everything this person said.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

noahx64 said:


> ENTP 7w8>4w3>?w?. Here's an in-depth breakdown:
> 
> 
> 
> ...






















... @Entropic: Why do I do this to myself? 

WHY?

:th_dead:

*Slinks back to other corner of the forums*


----------



## Noir (Jun 20, 2014)

Word Dispenser said:


> ... @Entropic: Why do I do this to myself?
> 
> WHY?
> 
> ...


Well, that was very helpful. Please explain.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

I LIVE.



Noir said:


> Well, that was very helpful. Please explain.


I don't even know where to start, my friend. 

There are _so many _of these threads. How to stop the rampant, untamed _ignorance_?!

I mean no disrespect. It's a common enough ailment. I've been there-- We've all been there. We've all been newbies to typology.

Hell, I'm _still _a newbie, after the last three or so years, so perhaps my presence here, with my little outburst of silliness, is a bit unwarranted.

Regardless-- Somehow, I find myself stumbling into these threads, and cringing at the audacious typings. Usually, I try to educate. I am normally patient, and don't make such a fuss. But the ignorance grows, and addressing one thread out of dozens that appear everyday... It doesn't exactly help spread the good word.

And you must be asking yourself, what, praytell, _is _the good word, WD?

The answer to that is surprisingly simple.

It's that you are describing yourself. Interests, habits, behavioural traits.

The issue is that these are actually the _result _from your personality type.

Because, the truth is... 

_Anyone _can be carefree as a child, regardless of type. _

Anyone _can run from one corner of the room to the other, imagining being a superhero and having their imagination running wild.

_Anyone _can be a lone wolf.

_Anyone _can be the best in class.

_Anyone _can hate being bossed around and be anti-authoritarian.

_Anyone _can be a daydreamer.

The more difficult question then, becomes, _why_ are you all of these things? What is it about what's going on in your brain squidgiousness that is causing these behaviours to express themselves the way they do? What cognitive functions are kicking around in there, motivating you to like the things you do, in their own way?

In order to answer that, it's probably better not to ask you questions where we're simply lead to take your word for it. One of my favourites is, "I am a very logical person." Oh, really? And I'm supposed to take your word on that, am I? 

Seeing your cognition in what you write is more complex than telling us about the things you like and the way you behave. It's in your motivations, it's in the way you view the world. _That's_ what it's all about. And that's not easily shown through interests and behaviour.

It's in more specific kinds of questions.

The kinds of questions in a questionnaire, for instance.


----------



## Noir (Jun 20, 2014)

Word Dispenser said:


> I LIVE.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Bullshit. How many people have you seen around here being happily typed from questionnaires? 



> 2. You are with a group of people in a car, heading to a different town to see your favourite band/artist/musician. Suddenly, the car breaks down for an unknown reason in the middle of nowhere. What are your initial thoughts? What are your outward reactions?


Do you have any idea how many times I answered this question? Do you have any idea how many times people said I used Te, when, in fact, I don't use that at all? I was typed as an ENTJ, when I am nothing further from that.



> And you must be asking yourself, what, praytell, _is _the good word, WD?


I dislike your attitude. With this very wording of the sentence you treat me as if you were so superior to me. I never asked for your "good word", I merely asked you to explain your baseless rant.



> "I am a very logical person."


The world "logical" does not appear at all in the first page. 

You also seem to suggest I try to describe the motivation of my thoughts, what goes behind my mind. If I was able to do that, I wouldn't be here now, would I? 

What I really dislike about you overall is not that you suggest I described myself improperly, I understand the idea. I am annoyed by your extremely arrogant attitude. I don't know who you are, I never even knew you existed previously to this. Please be more polite, or confront me with a civilized demeanor, not by talking about me in the third person as if I was a mere absentee that came to a prophet.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Noir said:


> Bullshit. How many people have you seen around here being happily typed from questionnaires?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I never said _you _made any claims about the word 'logical'.

You're taking things really personally. I'm just trying to help out and educate.

Really-- That's ultimately what it boils down to. I'm not trying to be condescending or anything like that. All I'm saying is-- Do your own research. Don't eat up what people tell you, even what I'm saying should be put into question, of course.

And, honestly, I wasn't really talking about _you_. So, calm your nose hairs, and let them breathe. 

I'm talking about ignorance in general, and it's mostly directed at the people who are throwing out random cognitive functions and attaching them to regular, potentially universal behaviour/interests. That's all.

And perhaps that _is _an inadvertent criticism of the way you structured your 'alternative being typed' thingie. If you don't agree, and you think I'm wrong that the way you've put forth your desire-to-be-typed is perfectly reasonable, and that anyone could type you accurately that way, fine. But, if you think there's a chance that I could be right, please try to take it as constructive criticism, and don't take it personal.

I'm not saying you're _not_ an ENTP, or whatever you're finding yourself to be through research and understanding. I'm just saying not to type yourself based on what you like, and what your mood/attitudes are like, because it doesn't make sense. Those things stem from inner motivations.

I don't think I'm better than you, or anyone.

And, yes, questionnaires _can _work. But, you've gotta know what questions to answer in order to get at the _meat _of your psyche. Personally, I prefer random philosophical questions. They tend to be both interesting, entertaining, and shed light on the cognition going on underneath.


----------



## Noir (Jun 20, 2014)

Word Dispenser said:


> I never said _you _made any claims about the word 'logical'.
> 
> You're taking things really personally. I'm just trying to help out and educate.


When someone talks to me using collocations such as "good word"


> And you must be asking yourself, what, praytell, is the good word, WD?


 and 



> But the ignorance grows, and addressing one thread out of dozens that appear everyday... It doesn't exactly help spread the good word.


where you refer to me with the third person makes it personal. You're so called education can only be found in this line 



> It's in more specific kinds of questions.
> 
> The kinds of questions in a questionnaire, for instance.


If you really just wanted that, I think it would've been easier to say: "I really recommend you fill out a questionnaire because they are much more revealing than your description."



> And, honestly, I wasn't really talking about you. So, calm your nose hairs, and let them breathe.


Yes, you were.



> I'm not saying you're not an ENTP, or whatever you're finding yourself to be through research and understanding. I'm just saying not to type yourself based on what you like, and what your mood/attitudes are like, because it doesn't make sense. Those things stem from inner motivations.


Where exactly did you get the idea I typed myself based on what I liked?



> I don't think I'm better than you, or anyone.


Then behave adequately.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Noir said:


> Where exactly did you get the idea I typed myself based on what I liked?


Because of what you wrote in your first post.

But, besides that, I was speaking in general, and not about you, so, again, don't take it personally.

I behave quite adequately, you're welcome. :kitteh:


----------



## Noir (Jun 20, 2014)

Word Dispenser said:


> Because of what you wrote in your first post.


I am not exactly sure what you are talking about. I never hinted I liked a type or another.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Noir said:


> I am not exactly sure what you are talking about. I never hinted I liked a type or another.


Well, you _would _be typed based off of what you like, by the kind people in this here forum, and thus by yourself as well, based upon the original post.

What you posted was primarily, if not entirely, behavioural traits, interest, and quirks. 

Now, my first three questionnaire thingies were quite similar in that regard, so I don't fault you for it. I've gone through _six_. Some have gone through even more. Typology is quite an obsession at times. 

I had to go through a lot of research before I actually began to understand-- And I'm not even halfway to _complete _understanding, so bear with me.

I apologize if my bearing has in anyway caused offense-- That wasn't my intent.

My intent, post-frustration, was to point out that there are better ways to find out your type.

I recommend Socionics! :happy:

If interested ----> Sociotype.com: Socionics Applied

If not, I understand.

I shan't bother ye fine folk with mine inane quibbles any longah!

Fare thee well, fine chap. Good luck on thy quest! :kitteh:


----------



## noahx64 (Aug 25, 2014)

Word Dispenser, for a supposed ENTP, you suck ass at communicating in a way that doesn't inadvertently offend people. During your pretentious, condescending, overwritten replies, you expressed very few actual points, and mostly intellectually masturbated with your vocabulary. Next time, attempt to actually be assistive, instead of typing out a bunch of bullshit with no real argument or point. Remember, don't take this personally, and you're welcome. :kitteh:


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

noahx64 said:


> Word Dispenser, for a supposed ENTP, you suck ass at communicating in a way that doesn't inadvertently offend people. During your pretentious, condescending, overwritten replies, you expressed very few actual points, and mostly intellectually masturbated with your vocabulary. Next time, attempt to actually be assistive, instead of typing out a bunch of bullshit with no real argument or point. Remember, don't take this personally, and you're welcome. :kitteh:


I think these adjectives you're throwing around are more a novelty than anything-- People are always telling me how warm I am, and I'm often confused for Fe in the ego. Now we see why I'm not. :bored:

Based upon the cognitive functions, it makes sense that I'd be bad when it comes to social boundaries, and inadvertently offending people. Unfortunately. I really would rather like to _not _offend people. If it were up to me, I'd make everyone happy. But, we can't be good at everything, I suppose.

When Fe is 2-dimensional, such as in the ENTP, yet valued-- That means it's rather weak, as opposed to 3 or 4 dimensional functions. It's not as weak as Si or Fi, which are 1-dimensional, though, so... At least there's that. But, we all have bad days, right?

Honestly-- My purpose in this thread, _after _my initial silliness/trolling behaviour, was just to educate. 

The fact is, typing the original poster is going to be very difficult based on the information he is giving us. Maybe there's something in the way he's interacting, but not in the original post itself. Does that make sense?

I understand that you had well-meaning intentions with your post outlining the cognitive functions in each of his statements, but those statements don't really have a bearing on what's actually going on behind the scenes.

Character traits, behaviour, interests... All of these can be universal. An ENTP can have these, yes, of course! But, so can an.. ISFJ, for example. Or an INFP. Or an INTJ.

And that's where it gets complicated. That's what I was trying to get at-- Behaviour, character traits, and interests-- All of these things are on the surface. Behind these tendencies are the reasons for their existence, and why and how they come about-- Cognitive functions.

When I see Ti in what someone is saying to me, it's because there are personal logical definitions being made, this person is categorizing their thoughts, they are being somewhat expansive and philosophizing about their thoughts. 

Seeing that in, 'I let my imagination roam free.' and 'I was the best in my class', isn't going to really happen. That's about as good as, 'I have Ti because I am logical.' We're left to take their word for it, instead of examining and analyzing their cognition.

Does all of that make sense?

If not, I won't bother you anymore, and again, I apologize if I was being offensive.


----------



## Noir (Jun 20, 2014)

Word Dispenser said:


> I think these adjectives you're throwing around are more a novelty than anything-- People are always telling me how warm I am, and I'm often confused for Fe in the ego. Now we see why I'm not. :bored:
> 
> Based upon the cognitive functions, it makes sense that I'd be bad when it comes to social boundaries, and inadvertently offending people. Unfortunately. I really would rather like to _not _offend people. If it were up to me, I'd make everyone happy. But, we can't be good at everything, I suppose.
> 
> ...


I am sorry, but I am not buying the meant well facade. If you really, really did, you would have posted a justification after the gifs.
If you really did mean well (which I doubt) I am thankful, but I would appreciate a nicer choice of words. As I have emphasized earlier, your posts could be summed up in a more polite manner.
I understand it is the internet, but I would like to believe people are nice regardless if they are talking to someone they know or not irl.
Still, I understand your idea that I have described myself badly and I thank you for pointing it out. Thing is that I do not find questionnaires very helpful either.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Noir said:


> Still, I understand your idea that I have described myself badly and I thank you for pointing it out. Thing is that I do not find questionnaires very helpful either.


I did actually post a justification after the gifs, when prompted.

I don't think that you described yourself badly-- Not at all. That's not what it's about. It's just that these are surface descriptions and have no bearing on the way you think, really. We need more information, that's all. And a specific kind of information. Let me explain.

If you don't like questionnaires, I completely understand. They can be tedious, and boring, and they don't often get at the meat of the psyche, either.

So, you know what I like to do? 

I like to just grab a bunch of random philosophical questions, or thought experiments, off of Google, or from my own head, and get people/myself to answer those instead.

Questions such as: 

Do people have free will? 

Why is there something rather than nothing? 

Or responding to phrases such as, "Death need not concern us because when we exist death does not, and when death exists we do not." And saying whether that is true or not, and why or why not. Expanding on it. 

Answering those types of things really gets into the way your mind works, and will help to evaluate which cognitive functions you're using.


----------



## Wolfskralle (Nov 29, 2013)

@Word Dispenser you've made a tirade about how you hate when people type off behaviors and then you posted



> I think these adjectives you're throwing around are more a novelty than anything-- People are always telling me how warm I am, and I'm often confused for Fe in the ego. Now we see why I'm not.
> 
> Based upon the cognitive functions, it makes sense that I'd be bad when it comes to social boundaries, and inadvertently offending people. Unfortunately. I really would rather like to not offend people. If it were up to me, I'd make everyone happy. But, we can't be good at everything, I suppose.


implying that you are rather ILE, not SEI, because you offend people ? :th_woot: I have nothing against you but wtf, don't you think that justyfing our behaviour with "cognitive functions", theoretical concept not even proven to exist, is making worst possible use of this whole model? 


@Noir you may not like it either, but you somehow vibe Te Fi and Si Ne. I've read some of your previous questionnaires and even was about to post reply but somehow I got distracted by other stuff. 
Especially from socionics standpoint, your answers points towards Si more than Ni (Si and Ni block from socionics questionnaire), and you seem like a Te valuer, or at least confident Te user (difference is that some types are very capable of using Te, but don't put much value in it; ENTp being one of those types). 
You may educate yourself in that matter here, or take some tests, like dichotomies or examine your relationships with people.

If you wish to stay in the realm of MBTI I suggest to not drift into Cognitive Functions territory, since I believe that original MBTI is actually *not* about CF, but about preferences in dimensionality of N/S I/E etc. I believe @reckful is a good source provider in that matter.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

wolf12345 said:


> @_Word Dispenser_ you've made a tirade about how you hate when people type off behaviors and then you posted implying that you are rather ILE, not SEI, because you offend people ? :th_woot: I have nothing against you but wtf, don't you think that justyfing our behaviour with "cognitive functions", theoretical concept not even proven to exist, is making worst possible use of this whole model?


Well, thank you for your insights!

I think you misunderstood my point. I can see how it looks inconsistent, but I was merely musing about how these assumptions can look on the surface, and if anything, I wasn't entirely serious about it.

People say I look warm, and then assume I am SEI. Then they say I'm offending people, and then assume I cannot be ILE. :laughing: These kind of assumptions are frustrating, to say the least, and that particular comment was kind of contrasting against that. I just failed to make the connection to that tangent until now.

Hope that makes sense. :kitteh:


----------



## Wolfskralle (Nov 29, 2013)

@Word Dispenser


----------



## Noir (Jun 20, 2014)

wolf12345 said:


> @Word Dispenser you've made a tirade about how you hate when people type off behaviors and then you posted
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks a lot! So, the closest things are either ISTJ either ENFP?


----------



## aendern (Dec 28, 2013)

Word Dispenser said:


> It's that you are describing yourself. Interests, habits, behavioural traits.
> 
> The issue is that these are actually the _result _from your personality type.
> 
> ...


This. I've had to say this on so many threads in the past. I'm probably just going to start copying/pasting you.



> It's in more specific kinds of questions.
> 
> The kinds of questions in a questionnaire, for instance.


Not this, however. The questionnaires on this website are garbage and a waste of time.

edit:

"in my opinion"


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

emberfly said:


> This. I've had to say this on so many threads in the past. I'm probably just going to start copying/pasting you.
> 
> 
> Not this, however. The questionnaires on this website are garbage and a waste of time.
> ...


I can agree, on the whole, that questionnaires are garbage. There _are _questions in them that _start _getting at cognition, but most of them do not.

The exception to the rule is the Socionics questionnaires-- They actually _do _ask the right questions, and mainly, those are the ones I generally talk about when I say, "Do a questionnaire."

Actually, maybe I should make a questionnaire with the appropriate questions for _this _part of the forums. But, then people will start mentioning me, or something, and then I'll actually have to type people. :laughing:

Oh, and also, I will be told that I'm being pretentious, arrogant and condescending.

How 'bout, I'll make the questionnaire if you respond to the mentions instead of me? Haha.


----------



## aendern (Dec 28, 2013)

Word Dispenser said:


> I can agree, on the whole, that questionnaires are garbage. There _are _questions in them that _start _getting at cognition, but most of them do not.
> 
> Actually, maybe I should make a questionnaire with the appropriate questions. But, then people will start mentioning me, or something, and then I'll actually have to type people. :laughing:
> 
> How 'bout, I'll make the questionnaire if you respond to the mentions instead of me? Haha.


I've actually thought about making one many, many times. But more of like a test than a questionnaire. I think questionnaires fail because they are open-ended. And this leads to people giving shitty answers (it's too dependent on the answerer to supply the substance--so they fail more often than not).

Whereas the biggest flaw with tests is that the questions are almost always very terribly-worded. Which is super easy to fix. All you have to do is supply some examples or context or define the words used (instead of forcing the answerer to look up the words).

Tests >>>>>>>>>>> questionnaires insofar as the potential benefit is concerned. It's just that the people who actually got around to making tests just so happen to be shit at making test questions.

Maybe that's a funny happenstance--those who are actually qualified to make good test questions can't be bothered. And those who actually have the initiative to make tests and do so suck at it.

That's funny.

Maybe the doers and the thinkers should get together and collaborate and make a super test. One test to rule them all.

edit:

Actually, for some reason many people do not know about John's Personality Test. Which is a shame because I find it to be the best one I've seen so far. However I think it's far too simplistic and can definitely be improved upon. But it's a _great_ start.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

emberfly said:


> Maybe that's a funny happenstance--those who are actually qualified to make good test questions can't be bothered. And those who actually have the initiative to make tests and do so suck at it.
> 
> That's funny.
> 
> Maybe the doers and the thinkers should get together and collaborate and make a super test.


I'm dubious as to the test actually working. I'm guessing you're talking about a multiple choice quiz, rather than a test, which would imply something awesome like essay questions.

I don't think it's easily as cut and dry. I've seen actually well-versed people making tests which were still not as effective.

I still think that answering a question like, "Do people have free will?" Is more telling. Because, in such a questionnaire, the individual couldn't say, "Well, I'm logical, because..." Because that has nothing to do with the question. 

They would be forced to answer the question, in their own way, and from that answer, we could derive whether they are logical or not. And there would be many varying questions to subtly test different kinds of thinking. 

Philosophy handles everything, yay! :kitteh:


----------



## aendern (Dec 28, 2013)

emberfly said:


> Actually, for some reason many people do not know about John's Personality Test. Which is a shame because I find it to be the best one I've seen so far. However I think it's far too simplistic and can definitely be improved upon. But it's a _great_ start.


A note on John's Test, though, is that it is based on stereotypes and not based on cognitive functions. So naturally it fails. Still, it's a great start and still the best since it allows you to skip poorly-worded questions. Which no other test lets you do.



Word Dispenser said:


> I'm dubious as to the test actually working. I'm guessing you're talking about a multiple choice quiz, rather than a test, which would imply something awesome like essay questions.
> 
> I don't think it's easily as cut and dry. I've seen actually well-versed people making tests which were still not as effective.
> 
> ...


On one hand I agree, but on the other hand--if that is all that the question says, it would be near-impossible to answer because it gives no context. Is it asking from an objective context? Religious context? Subjective context?

I think the burden on the answerer to provide every possible context and answer it like 12 different ways would be a huge failure of that kind of test and would turn many people away. But I can totally see why a Ti preferrer would love it 

edit:

Actually I think it's so funny how both of our solutions reflect our types :laughing:

Mine is very efficient and result-focused and yours is very inefficient and process-focused.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

emberfly said:


> On one hand I agree, but on the other hand--if that is all that the question says, it would be near-impossible to answer because it gives no context. Is it asking from an objective context? Religious context? Subjective context?
> 
> I think the burden on the answerer to provide every possible context and answer it like 12 different ways would be a huge failure of that kind of test and would turn many people away. But I can totally see why a Ti preferrer would love it


Haha, I get what you're saying, but that's why there would be more than one question, and they would all cover different things. With philosophy questions, and I don't just think this is a Ti thing, by the way, people need to dig deep and actually think about their own answers. And they're not required to think of contextual answer. 

The nature of a questionnaire, _I_ think, is to kind of trick the person who's doing it into letting their guard down and showing us their inner clockwork instead of putting up a facade and giving us what they want to show us in order to get the type they want.

It's kind of devious, maybe.


----------



## aendern (Dec 28, 2013)

Word Dispenser said:


> Haha, I get what you're saying, but that's why there would be more than one question, and they would all cover different things. With philosophy questions, and I don't just think this is a Ti thing, by the way, people need to dig deep and actually think about their own answers. And they're not required to think of contextual answer.
> 
> The nature of a questionnaire, _I_ think, is to kind of trick the person who's doing it into letting their guard down and showing us their inner clockwork instead of putting up a facade and giving us what they want to show us in order to get the type they want.
> 
> It's kind of devious, maybe.


Another failure of your suggestion (actually I already mentioned it on the previous page) is it puts too much burden on the answerer to provide the content. And this is why questionnaires fail. Because the vast majority of people don't do that.

Sure, you could argue "that's not the questionnaire failing, that's the answerer failing." And if it were just one or two answerers doing that, I would agree, but since EVERYONE is doing that, I strongly disagree. That's a massive failure on the part of the medium. It's not *ergonomically-designed*.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

emberfly said:


> Another failure of your suggestion (actually I already mentioned it on the previous page) is it puts too much burden on the answerer to provide the content. And this is why questionnaires fail. Because the vast majority of people don't do that.
> 
> Sure, you could argue "that's not the questionnaire failing, that's the answerer failing." And if it were just one or two answerers doing that, I would agree, but since EVERYONE is doing that, I strongly disagree. That's a massive failure on the part of the medium. It's not *ergonomically-designed*.


Well, I've given people philosophical questions before, and they tend to be a lot longer and more thorough than questionnaire questions that are given today. I have had no trouble in typing people from them, which is why I suggest them.


----------



## Wolfskralle (Nov 29, 2013)

@Noir
Te is rather clear, for example what you posted in the other thread:


> I am literally at the end of my powers here. There is an institution here in romania called the anti-corruption department (DNA), but they are in fact a very bad idea, used for political manipulation. I study law, and I really know what I am talking about(...)
> The frustrating thing is that I really know that I am right. It is annoying how people just won't listen and repeatedly ignore every single thing that I am saying.
> What should I do? How should I make them listen? I really am right here, I am 100% sure of that. Thing is, it's hard to say I think the anti-corruption department is a piece of shit.


I lol'ed. Cognitive Te dom problems. How could they not see what's so painfully clear? The truth is naked and is starring into our eyes. :th_wink:



> From the moment I wake up, I have this internal monologue inside of me. I keep thinking about various things throughout the day...


This simply mean what it look like - you are primary a _thinker_.




> In college, however, I became much, much more goal oriented...


Because in college you are in age when your CF actually develop, and your thinking oriented itself outwardly.



> I should also note that I am usually very impatient. I have zero patience for almost anything. When I want something, I want it right then...


AFAIK this is the opposite of what Ni is, at least by socionics definitions (Ni = intuition of time). You mentioned your impatience in several other cases, too (like being nervous waiting for someone etc.).



> ...and if it is something that requires others' activity, I put pressure on them to get what I want.


You know how to make use of Se though (surprisingly, ESTj have strong Se in socionics model).



> Everytime I seem to connect too much with someone, I instinctively back down from that connection. I dislike being dragged into emotional conversations.


Low and unvalued Fe, possibly.

-----
I can find more of it, but at the end of the day it's up to you to decide, and I can't see how bringing more examples could change anything, as for every bit I quoted someone might come and say "no you are wrong this is obviously Ti, Ne" or whatever, lol.
You might have somewhat biased look at Te Si though. MBTI descriptions and generalizations are made on base of people who took MBTI dichotomy test. Which has nothing to do with CF. 
You've mentioned you always wanted to be a detective. Do you know that Sherlock Holmes is considered to be ESTj archetype in socionics? For the record, ENTj's have Jack London, dude who did 1000 and 1 random things during his life but mostly was a socialist writer.



To be honest I think you are cognitively closest to Te - Si - ESTj. 
You could be an Ne - Fi or Si - Te either, but somehow you vibe judging dominant, so if we stay in NeSiTeFi zone it mean you are either Te - Si or Fi - Ne. I don't think your thinking is by no mean inferior, so it leaves Te - Si as a best possibility.

Anyway, I encourage you to take this personal journey and to decide about your type yourself, as letting bunch of random strangers to tell you who you are is not the wisest thing to do.
Exploring the links I posted before might be a good starter.


----------



## westlose (Oct 9, 2014)

From a quick look, it looks like INTJ could be the most probable type.


----------



## Pressed Flowers (Oct 8, 2014)

Word Dispenser said:


> Haha, I get what you're saying, but that's why there would be more than one question, and they would all cover different things. With philosophy questions, and I don't just think this is a Ti thing, by the way, people need to dig deep and actually think about their own answers. And they're not required to think of contextual answer.
> 
> The nature of a questionnaire, _I_ think, is to kind of trick the person who's doing it into letting their guard down and showing us their inner clockwork instead of putting up a facade and giving us what they want to show us in order to get the type they want.
> 
> It's kind of devious, maybe.


Having been typed by the Socionics questionnaires.... yes, I think that is what they do. Part of me was thinking "what does this have to do with anything," while I filled out the questionnaire, but that was part of what made it so good. I couldn't really try t bias my answers towards one type because I didn't know what type would say what for the answers. That's something that isn't so much the case in the MBTI forum :/

Also, John's test is... interesting. I remember the last time I took it I had to do maybe twenty five extra questions because I was a "difficult case" or something. This time it was more straightforward, but it gave me INFJ again 

I would like an interactive test like John's based on cognitive functions, personally.


----------



## Greyhart (Oct 13, 2014)

When filling questionnaires myself I find them to be most enlightening _to me_ because I suck at introspection and typing/talking it out allows me to look at it objectively which helps a lot.

That's your second thread right, OP? I still get Te and Fi from you _not_ Ti and Fe. I'm banking on NTJ. :th_o:


----------

