# P-doms: what don't J-doms get about you and the way you see the world?



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

ae1905 said:


> Cool head means reasonable. Rational. Logical.
> 
> It doesn't mean lacking in passion, in conviction, in forcefulness of expression.


Take it or leave it I guess.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

ae1905 said:


> Cool head means reasonable. Rational. Logical.
> 
> It doesn't mean lacking in passion, conviction, and forcefulness of expression.


Also, if you really want to argue semantics, a topic that I _love_, technically cool-headed means:

"not easily excited; calm." according to dictionary.com

"not easily worried or excited" according to Oxford dictionary

and the one that I really like in this case:

"not easily excited : able to think and act in a calm way" according to Webster's

Just sayin...


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

PaladinX said:


> Also, if you really want to argue semantics, a topic that I _love_, technically cool-headed means:
> 
> "not easily excited; calm." according to dictionary.com
> 
> ...


Sure, I know that. But you can be rational and be passionate about what you are saying. It means you have the conviction of your ideas and the determination to speak your truth.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

ae1905 said:


> Let me say the context for this question was another thread where I was accused by a few P-doms of being closed-minded when I said I didn't think Jung's collective unconscious was a useful idea and that I didn't believe in ghosts. So the question was motivated by a particular incident but the idea is that J is rational and J-doms tend to value their judgments while P is irrational and P-doms tend to value their perceptions.


I'm curious, who accused you? I must've missed that part in that thread. 

As to the original post in this thread, I do think that J doms limit themselves, along with their reasoning, to what is presently considered, in Jungs words, an average occurrence. This inevitably limits, and lowers, the threshold in what their current understanding of the world is. I tend to dislike when people limit themselves, so yes this does become a problem for me when discussing topics with J doms personally.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

ae1905 said:


> Sure, I know that. But you can be rational and be passionate about what you are saying. It means you have the conviction of your ideas and the determination to speak your truth.


True but passion tends to influence ideas, and is the number 1 leading cause of bias. To lower the probability of being bias it is preferred that the person have no passion in their conviction. 

Bias is one hell of a mind altering mechanism


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

ae1905 said:


> Sure, I know that. But there is no reason you can't be rational and be passionate about what you are saying. It means you have the conviction of your ideas and the determination to speak your truth.


Fair enough, but the point is that your passion is coming off as irrational and crazy, rather than cool and collected. Especially when you fling what seem like passive aggressive insults (for example implying that people are lazy thinkers for believing in something that you don't because you assume they haven't thought it through else they'd come to the same conclusion that you have that it's nonsense. That's what I find to be "close-minded." It's very "judgey." Not to mention irrelevant. And this has nothing to do with your stance on ghosts or the collective unconscious.) It's not conducive to a rational and intelligent conversation, of which you clearly are, but it doesn't always come off that way.

Obviously you are free to do as you please, but if you are honestly interested in why people react to you the way that they do then I'm offering up some honest and sincere feedback.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

PaladinX said:


> If you are talking about me, then I think you misread the situation.


I wasn't.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

ae1905 said:


> This is pure speculation since you can't know what was in my subconscious


Wrong.

Just because you are unconscious of yourself does not mean other people don't notice it and pick up on it. However, I also really don't care enough to engage in a debate about it with someone who is apparently _pathologically_ unaware of their unconscious influences.

However, if it's not a problem for you, then it's not a problem I suppose. Forget I said anything.

Good luck figuring out your OP.


----------



## EndsOfTheEarth (Mar 14, 2015)

ae1905 said:


> Sure, I know that. But you can be rational and be passionate about what you are saying. It means you have the conviction of your ideas and the determination to speak your truth.


The kitten throws everything off. It just looks hyper....


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Abraxas said:


> Wrong.
> 
> Just because you are unconscious of yourself does not mean other people don't notice it and pick up on it. However, I also really don't care enough to engage in a debate about it with someone who is apparently _pathologically_ unaware of their unconscious influences.
> 
> ...


Who said I was unaware? I said you couldn't _know _and it didn't matter. A debate is decided by the _arguments_. And you and others failed to produce any sound arguments. 

The "unconscious" is just your attempt to deflect attention away from _your_ _shortcomings_.

And it's _dishonest._


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Atrium Strutionum said:


> True but passion tends to influence ideas, and is the number 1 leading cause of bias. To lower the probability of being bias it is preferred that the person have no passion in their conviction.
> 
> Bias is one hell of a mind altering mechanism


When you and I had that long exchange about "infinite existence", did I not remain cool? Did I not continue to use reason to point out where you were mistaken? At the end, did I not decide to stop the discussion because we were not going to agree, and I asked you what your reasons for being interested in the subject were? Was I not cordial?

The only time I may have stepped out of line was when you claimed the mind had access to an infinite number of concepts and I pointed out the mind--including yours--was too small to hold an infinity of anything. That statement was a little insulting. But I wasn't "impassioned" when I made it. Just amused.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Atrium Strutionum said:


> I'm curious, who accused you? I must've missed that part in that thread.





PaladinX said:


> Fair enough, but the point is that your passion is coming off as irrational and crazy, rather than cool and collected. Especially when you fling what seem like passive aggressive insults (for example implying that people are lazy thinkers for believing in something that you don't because you assume they haven't thought it through else they'd come to the same conclusion that you have that it's nonsense. That's what I find to be "close-minded." It's very "judgey." Not to mention irrelevant. And this has nothing to do with your stance on ghosts or the collective unconscious.) It's not conducive to a rational and intelligent conversation, of which you clearly are, but it doesn't always come off that way.
> 
> Obviously you are free to do as you please, but if you are honestly interested in why people react to you the way that they do then I'm offering up some honest and sincere feedback.


I made that comment after you and others failed to produce any sound arguments to contradict my criticisms of the idea of the collective unconscious. So I established the fact before I made that comment.

And, as I recall, my comment prompted you to write:

"I am always willing to accept a possibility no matter how much I examine it critically." 

My reply was, 

"I am always willing to accept a possibility when there is evidence to support it."

So I made the "lazy statement" before you made your "always willing to accept" statement, so I had no way of knowning that was your belief. Instead, I was working on my own belief that possibilities should be accepted only when there is evidence, and my "lazy" statement was a criticism of what I thought was a failure to critically examine the possibility, _as evidenced _by your failure to produce sound arguments.

Now, you say my idea of "accepted" is narrow compared to yours, so it _was _you--though not only you--who made the accusation that I was "narrow-minded" because of my Ti. 

And even though you didn't give me a reason why I should accept the idea of the collective unconscious despite the lack of evidence, I nevertheless listened to you and created this thread to ask if other P-doms feel the same way about J-doms. _And _I've also decided to make some changes in the way I do things around here, starting with dialing back my Ti. (It's a work in progress, as you can tell. 

So I listened.

Now please hear me. 

A debate is about the arguments first and foremost. Talk of hidden motives and imputed emotions is a logical fallacy:_ ad hominem._ Usually used by people who have no real arguments to make.

So make real arguments or don't argue at all.


----------



## FluffyTheAnarchist (Sep 9, 2013)

Robopop said:


> To my understanding this question doesn't make much sense, are ESPs really seeing and perceiving things similiarly to ISJs.
> 
> ExxPs are much closer to IxxPs in the way they see the world than they are to IxxJs.
> 
> In fact Pe and Pi are pretty much opposites.


Interesting spin. Here is a counter argument though. An Si-dom, would still be more open to the outside influence than a J-dom. For instance is an external authority figure proclaims that "b" is now an acceptable alternative to "a", an Si-dom would be OK with it.


----------



## mushr00m (May 23, 2011)

ae1905 said:


> So it is impossible for a person to have two cognitive functions that are _approximately_ equal and alternate in dominance at _different _times?
> 
> If a person can have two functions that alternate in dominance, then they could have two MBTI types, albeit at different times, no?


A person has a default position - introversion or extroversion and can't see how a person can be default both, Jung spoke of ambiversion but there are noticeable differences in an introverted type and it's extroverted counterpart for example. If they were both introverted and extroverted by dominant function, this would warrant the explanation of how the inferior function would also run as a result. 



> What do you mean by "fully understand"?
> If you mean "fully understand" _decisions _then you are assuming the dominant function is the only function _and factor _that influences decisions, and that is categorically false. Other functions influence our decisions as do other factors like life experience, knowledge, education, intelligence, age, and so on.
> 
> If you mean "fully understand" why each type "invests authority" in its dominant function, then you have to define what it means to "fully understand" such a thing.


Understanding it function context as in the same attitudes towards something. Despite this though, there are vastly opposing viewpoints within people of the same type but the type of judgement and perception used is the same but previous experiences arn't which is probably one of the factors that contributes to opposing views even within the same type. So yeah, type can't be used to explain everything in disagreements but it will give clues to our problem solving style. 'Understanding' is complex in it's own right as to what influences us to make the decisions we do. 



> Do you mean intellectual understanding? If you do then I can't see any reason why I can't understand a P-dom's preference for perception. It's what theory and experience tell me they do. So why wouldn't I know that?
> 
> Do you mean experiential understanding? Then, yes, to some degree I cannot understand a P-dom's preference for perception. But only to _some_ degree because I have many experiences where I prefer perception to rational judgment. Listening to music for example. Or watching a sunset. Or eating food. I much prefer to listen to music, watch a sunset, or eat food than think about these things. So I definitely have some experiential understanding of P-doms' preference for perception.


But it goes back to you default mode again whether you can experientially understand(in function context), introversion or extroversion and one is subservient to the other or better rather, the aux is subservient to the dominant whether judgement or perception and they must be differing attitudes. It makes all the difference in terms of understanding when in context with functions/type in this particular topic but when you add layers such as the upbringing, the past experiences, the education etc, then you start to see external fragmenting when even those within one type will branch off because your dealing with a different dimension - environmental influence rather than how someone cognitively functions and why I said above that type can't explain everything related to disagreement between two people. Sorry this is long winded.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

> Now please hear me.
> 
> A debate is about the arguments first and foremost. Talk of hidden motives and imputed emotions is a logical fallacy:_ ad hominem._ Usually used by people who have no real arguments to make.
> 
> So make real arguments or don't argue at all.


Practice what you preach, sir.



ae1905 said:


> I made that comment after you and others failed to produce any sound arguments to contradict my criticisms of the idea of the collective unconscious. So I established the fact before I made that comment.
> 
> And, as I recall, my comment prompted you to write:
> 
> ...


You keep accusing me of things that I have not done. 

That's just this last post. I can cite a whole pile more if you require the evidence. I did not argue that concept with you at all. I avoid that subject with you because of how you act when discussing it. To be fair, I did offer some empathy (or maybe sympathy?) on your frustration behind not getting good arguments to support the concept of the collective unconscious.

Otherwise, our engagement began when you implied people are lazy thinkers. So I attempted to lightheartedly call you out with a similar implication in return. Then you talked about evidence. I was intrigued and decided to explore that with you, where you then made a number of accusations based on absolutely no evidence. J'accuse, sir.

On a friendlier note, I appreciate the fact that you are trying to explore some possibilities.


----------



## Robopop (Jun 15, 2010)

The Wing-It Nike said:


> Interesting spin. Here is a counter argument though. An Si-dom, would still be more open to the outside influence than a J-dom. For instance is an external authority figure proclaims that "b" is now an acceptable alternative to "a", an Si-dom would be OK with it.



Not really, what you've described is really more introversion vs extroversion, in fact ExxJs are the most likely to put weight in external authority as long as they see that authority as reliable. Si is very personalized, so it trusts it's own impressions, sometimes it will directly conflict with external standards. It the very erroneous MBTI stereotype that ISJs are blind followers of tradition when Si has nothing to do with that.

Si is experientially based but it is very selective about what experiences it internalizes, this is what makes ISJs so cautious and careful, a very very different approach compared to ExxPs.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

PaladinX said:


> Practice what you preach, sir.
> 
> You keep accusing me of things that I have not done.
> 
> ...


I don't agree with this but there's no point arguing any further. And thanks.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

mushr00m said:


> *A person has a default position* - introversion or extroversion and can't see how a person can be default both, Jung spoke of ambiversion but there are noticeable differences in an introverted type and it's extroverted counterpart for example. If they were both introverted and extroverted by dominant function, this would warrant the explanation of how the inferior function would also run as a result.


Why does a person have a "default" position? What did Jung say about ambiverts? And why does the inferior function have to change? I know MBTI has a rigid structure for the cf stack, but we know there are many people who don't comply with this.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

ae1905 said:


> Who said I was unaware? I said you couldn't _know _and it didn't matter. A debate is decided by the _arguments_. And you and others failed to produce any sound arguments.
> 
> The "unconscious" is just your attempt to deflect attention away from _your_ _shortcomings_.
> 
> And it's _dishonest._


Lol, are you for real?

All I said was, "I see sunlight so it must be daytime" and you want me to prove it to a blind man.

And my final response was, "oh, you're blind. Well nevermind then."

Oh yeah dude, that's totally _my_ shortcoming. You got me. Guess I should work on that! Nothing you need to concern yourself with though, right? It's totally my fault, there's no need for you to compromise at all. I'm just a rotten liar telling _lies_ and being dishonest!

Seriously, grow up.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Abraxas said:


> Lol, are you for real?
> 
> All I said was, "I see sunlight so it must be daytime" and you want me to prove it to a blind man.
> 
> ...


Dude, the evidence is on this site in _clear black print.

_But keep denying it all you want.

Anyhow, I've got a new policy of not getting into debates with people unless it's clear they want to debate. I'll know in the future not to waste my time on you. 

Cheers.


----------



## FluffyTheAnarchist (Sep 9, 2013)

Robopop said:


> Not really, what you've described is really more introversion vs extroversion, in fact ExxJs are the most likely to put weight in external authority as long as they see that authority as reliable. Si is very personalized, so it trusts it's own impressions, sometimes it will directly conflict with external standards. It the very erroneous MBTI stereotype that ISJs are blind followers of tradition when Si has nothing to do with that.
> 
> Si is experientially based but it is very selective about what experiences it internalizes, this is what makes ISJs so cautious and careful, a very very different approach compared to ExxPs.


I admit, Si is my weakest, least developed function, so I probably don't understand it very well.


----------



## Kakorrhaphiophobia (Jun 6, 2015)

Ninjaws said:


> Why do you think xNFJs are accepting and xSFJs are not? And please no traditional/conformist stereotype bullshit, we have enough of that already.


I don't have profound knowledge about ISFJ's to be honest or don't know them that well to analyze if they are accepting or not, but for ESFJ's: The Si+Fe combination probably makes them obsessed about normality, popularity etc and to judge everything that doesn't fit into their standards of "perfection". While the ENFJ's I knew are actually interested in people and their feelings and tend to love everyone and try to accept them with their mistakes/imperfections, all the ESFJ's seemed to care about was to obtain their queen bee status in the hierarchy, they must dress in the latest fashion but not in an ESFP way to please theirselves or to feel pretty, to fit theirselves into the "standards(?)" of the society and to make theirselves seem superior than others in a way. They are also obsessed with the society's norms and they judge every little inappropriate act (this part could seem like I'm trying to defend N's and originality/eccentricity, but SP's also display those behavior ESFJ's disilike so I'm not referring to a S/N thing). They are also the most prone to gossip, back stab etc. It's ironic that even though they are Fe dom, they actually have zero compassion for people and their concerns and they are self-centered as fuck they actually behave like Fi inferior (adequate or well-developed Fi wouldn't display similar behavior). They always believe that they are princesses and are so psychopathically obsessed with posessing their exes/friends. Every time their ex that they dated for a second, decades ago, starts developing feelings about me, our lovely ESFJ fellows start planning my downfall in detail(they are the INTJ's of the girl world)
This might be biased towards NFJ's because they are my favourite type, especially ENFJ. I'm neutral towards ISFJ's but I just feel like they don't have the humanitarian/accepting/authenic vibe as much as NFJ's do. My idea of SFJ's being judgemental is more oriented towards ESFJ's. This wasn't a S/SJ attack in general or at least that wasn't my aim even if it could be interpreted that way. I don't think that an ISTJ would give a fuck about most of those stuff ESFJ's are concerned about. I'm not commenting on ESTJ's because Te doms are my archenemies (applies for the ENTJ as well) and I don't think that I can view them objectively.
This post just made me feel Fi dom. Well, now I'm confused about my type again:th_blush:


----------



## Ninjaws (Jul 10, 2014)

anony231 said:


> I don't have profound knowledge about ISFJ's to be honest or don't know them that well to analyze if they are accepting or not, but for ESFJ's: The Si+Fe combination probably makes them obsessed about normality, popularity etc and to judge everything that doesn't fit into their standards of "perfection". While the ENFJ's I knew are actually interested in people and their feelings and tend to love everyone and try to accept them with their mistakes/imperfections, all the ESFJ's seemed to care about was to obtain their queen bee status in the hierarchy, they must dress in the latest fashion but not in an ESFP way to please theirselves or to feel pretty, to fit theirselves into the "standards(?)" of the society and to make theirselves seem superior than others in a way. They are also obsessed with the society's norms and they judge every little inappropriate act (this part could seem like I'm trying to defend N's and originality/eccentricity, but SP's also display those behavior ESFJ's disilike so I'm not referring to a S/N thing). They are also the most prone to gossip, back stab etc. It's ironic that even though they are Fe dom, they actually have zero compassion for people and their concerns and they are self-centered as fuck they actually behave like Fi inferior (adequate or well-developed Fi wouldn't display similar behavior). They always believe that they are princesses and are so psychopathically obsessed with posessing their exes/friends. Every time their ex that they dated for a second, decades ago, starts developing feelings about me, our lovely ESFJ fellows start planning my downfall in detail(they are the INTJ's of the girl world)
> This might be biased towards NFJ's because they are my favourite type, especially ENFJ. I'm neutral towards ISFJ's but I just feel like they don't have the humanitarian/accepting/authenic vibe as much as NFJ's do. My idea of SFJ's being judgemental is more oriented towards ESFJ's. This wasn't a S/SJ attack in general or at least that wasn't my aim even if it could be interpreted that way. I don't think that an ISTJ would give a fuck about most of those stuff ESFJ's are concerned about. I'm not commenting on ESTJ's because Te doms are my archenemies (applies for the ENTJ as well) and I don't think that I can view them objectively.
> This post just made me feel Fi dom. Well, now I'm confused about my type again:th_blush:


I see where you are coming from. I've met plenty of those ESFJ queen bees. However, there are also plenty of unassuming ESFJs. One of my best female friends is an ESFJ and she is probably the most well liked person I know. She does her own thing but is extremely polite to everyone. The only downside she has is that she doesn't show her opinions, EVER. She is basically everyone else's person.

That's probably where Fe and Fi differ. I (an Fi user) will be polite to people and go my own way, but if something conflicts with me I will fight it. I tend to be more vocal about my opinions, which obviously causes more tension with others.


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

Ninjaws said:


> I see where you are coming from. I've met plenty of those ESFJ queen bees. However, there are also plenty of unassuming ESFJs. One of my best female friends is an ESFJ and she is probably the most well liked person I know. She does her own thing but is extremely polite to everyone. The only downside she has is that she doesn't show her opinions, EVER. She is basically everyone else's person.
> 
> That's probably where Fe and Fi differ. I (an Fi user) will be polite to people and go my own way, but if something conflicts with me I will fight it. I tend to be more vocal about my opinions, which obviously causes more tension with others.


That tends to be my experience with ESFJs as well. Of the few ENFJ I know, I've had relatively bad experiences with them. One even cost me a job because she couldn't stop fucking around and it ended up on my shoulders.

Needlessly to say, I much prefer ESFJ to the ENFJ.


----------



## Kakorrhaphiophobia (Jun 6, 2015)

Ninjaws said:


> I see where you are coming from. I've met plenty of those ESFJ queen bees. However, there are also plenty of unassuming ESFJs. One of my best female friends is an ESFJ and she is probably the most well liked person I know. She does her own thing but is extremely polite to everyone. The only downside she has is that she doesn't show her opinions, EVER. She is basically everyone else's person.
> 
> That's probably where Fe and Fi differ. I (an Fi user) will be polite to people and go my own way, but if something conflicts with me I will fight it. I tend to be more vocal about my opinions, which obviously causes more tension with others.


In my mind an idea just popped out (probably bs but whatever) Because Si and Fe are both oriented on external acceptance (I think?) SFJ users, especially ESFJ's wouldn't be so accepting on individualism or a Fi perspective but NFJ's have Ni which is quite introspective, they can understand and tolerate Fi POV's as well, which would make an NFJ user more bearable according to a Fi user, maybe?


----------



## Kakorrhaphiophobia (Jun 6, 2015)

MNiS said:


> That tends to be my experience with ESFJs as well. Of the few ENFJ I know, I've had relatively bad experiences with them. One even cost me a job because she couldn't stop fucking around and it ended up on my shoulders.
> 
> Needlessly to say, I much prefer ESFJ to the ENFJ.


Maybe I'm just seeing problematic ESFJ's and well-developed ENFJ's in my life and your lucks shows you the opposite:th_blush:


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

anony231 said:


> In my mind an idea just popped out (probably bs but whatever) Because Si and Fe are both oriented on external acceptance (I think?)


Te and Fe are oriented on external acceptance, not Si. That's why they're extroverted judging elements. Fe is intrapersonally oriented ie: The good of the group matters more than the individual. While Te is impersonally externally oriented, ie: How well you're doing is based on a point system or what results you're managing.



> SFJ users, especially ESFJ's wouldn't be so accepting on individualism or a Fi perspective but NFJ's have Ni which is quite introspective, they can understand and tolerate Fi POV's as well, which would make an NFJ user more bearable according to a Fi user, maybe?


I don't think you know what you're talking about.


----------



## Ninjaws (Jul 10, 2014)

anony231 said:


> In my mind an idea just popped out (probably bs but whatever) Because Si and Fe are both oriented on external acceptance (I think?) SFJ users, especially ESFJ's wouldn't be so accepting on individualism or a Fi perspective but NFJ's have Ni which is quite introspective, they can understand and tolerate Fi POV's as well, which would make an NFJ user more bearable according to a Fi user, maybe?


No, Si is not concerned with the outside world as much as it is concerned with relating current events to past experiences. The way they perceive the world is different, but their way of acting in the world is rather similar. This is why I don't consider xSFJs to be very different from xNFJs. xSFJs will be more aware of their impressions of the surroundings and xNFJs will be more aware of where current situations could lead to in the future. Both can do what the other can, but you have to look at what comes naturally to find the type.

For instance, I've been using Te a lot for years which caused me to think I was a Te dom/aux user. Truth is, I did this to accomplish goals that I had set with Fi. It is not preferred, but I recognise its importance.

^This is basically what it is all about. What do you 'like' as opposed to what 'can' you do. I can write complicated programs, but I don't do this for Ti reasons. I do it because I want to create a beautiful game.

Focus on the 'Why' rather than the 'What'.


----------



## Kakorrhaphiophobia (Jun 6, 2015)

MNiS said:


> Te and Fe are oriented on external acceptance, not Si. That's why they're extroverted judging elements. Fe is intrapersonally oriented ie: The good of the group matters more than the individual. While Te is impersonally externally oriented, ie: How well you're doing is based on a point system or what results you're managing.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think you know what you're talking about.


I know that Si is introverted, but what I meant by external approval was the loyalty to the traditions, order etc. A Si + Fe user would probably want the people around him/her to adhere to Si behavior, but a Ni user wouldn't care that much if people obeyed to those notions. but idk i suspected that this theory could be bs from the beginning.
I don't think Te/Ti would have an impact on the person's acceptance in general


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

anony231 said:


> Maybe I'm just seeing problematic ESFJ's and well-developed ENFJ's in my life and your lucks shows you the opposite:th_blush:


I'm just providing contrast as your view is incredibly biased. I actually had a good ENFJ friend who worked (works?) in IT. We were kind of awkward together but we managed okay.

One of my current friends is an ESFJ and she's pretty much the sweetest, most non-assuming person I've gotten to know in a while. Academic MBTI talk tends toward uselessness as all of the stereotypes that're being portrayed would fall apart in the face of reality.


----------



## Kakorrhaphiophobia (Jun 6, 2015)

Ninjaws said:


> No, Si is not concerned with the outside world as much as it is concerned with relating current events to past experiences. The way they perceive the world is different, but their way of acting in the world is rather similar. This is why I don't consider xSFJs to be very different from xNFJs. xSFJs will be more aware of their impressions of the surroundings and xNFJs will be more aware of where current situations could lead to in the future. Both can do what the other can, but you have to look at what comes naturally to find the type.
> 
> For instance, I've been using Te a lot for years which caused me to think I was a Te dom/aux user. Truth is, I did this to accomplish goals that I had set with Fi. It is not preferred, but I recognise it's importance.
> 
> ...


I can relate to the idea of manipulating Te to reach Fi goals. Idk maybe it's the difference between the maturity/mental states of the NFJ's and SFJ's I encountered


----------



## Kakorrhaphiophobia (Jun 6, 2015)

MNiS said:


> I'm just providing contrast as your view is incredibly biased. I actually had a good ENFJ friend who worked (works?) in IT. We were kind of awkward together but we managed okay.
> 
> One of my current friends is an ESFJ and she's pretty much the sweetest, most non-assuming person I've gotten to know in a while. Academic MBTI talk tends toward uselessness as all of the stereotypes that're being portrayed would fall apart in the face of reality.


I'm in my late teens, and most people in my life are other teenagers, not the best test group to type according to MBTI + develop ideas about MBTI types about....


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

anony231 said:


> I know that Si is introverted, but what I meant by external approval was the loyalty to the traditions, order etc.


What you're saying is only partially correct. Si is most connected to the past and by proxy, past experience. So Si tends toward what they believe to be correct. An Si user may very well know that there are newer methods and ideas in existence but not be interested in them until it's demonstratable that the new way is a better way. It's in that way that Si is associated with traditions. A, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." type mentality.



> A Si + Fe user would probably want the people around him/her to adhere to Si behavior, but a Ni user wouldn't care that much if people obeyed to those notions. but idk i suspected that this theory could be bs from the beginning.
> I don't think Te/Ti would have an impact on the person's acceptance in general


What makes you think an Ni user wouldn't want people to adhere to "Ni behavior"? When someone perceives something internally, they expect reality to match their perceptions, otherwise they become angry or flustered and want to change what they're perceiving to be errant behavior. That's regardless of whether the person is "Si" or "Ni". So yeah, I think whoever told you that theory was giving you a half baked idea.


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

anony231 said:


> I'm in my late teens, and most people in my life are other teenagers, not the best test group to type according to MBTI + develop ideas about MBTI types about....


Ah, I forgot about the age difference. Yeah, you'll meet good and bad examples of every type the more people you meet and get to know.


----------



## ai.tran.75 (Feb 26, 2014)

ae1905 said:


> I am a J-dom and seem to have the most problems communicating with P-doms. They think I am too rational, to quick to judge, to closed off to alternative ways of looking at and understanding the world.
> 
> Do you have the same experience with J-doms? If so, what advice would you give them? What do you want to say about yourself and about them that might help them (and maybe you) to close the apparent divide between J and P?


I'm married to a J - Dom. I guess the only problem we have is that he has a tendency to try to rationalize and find a solution to everything . For example - my grandma was sick a cold few months ago - so I told him about it / instead of asking me are you ok or how are you feeling his response was she's 98 years old already what do you expect ? I wouldn't wish to live that long . If I were to share feelings with him - usually I just need an open ear- he'll end up giving me advice or tell me things I know already . Or he can go on with constructive criticisms non stop - but with him it's quite easy if he crosses any line or even on days where he's being a jerk I can say " hey you're being a jerk or what you said is quite offensive " and he'll understand and back off immediately - if he's wrong or if I prove him wrong he has no problem backing off so I admired that . My advice is just to listen when somebody is venting /sharing feelings with you unless opinion is asked . I know I annoy him with the fact that I don't finish things thoroughly - for ex : with him if he paints , build , clean , read/watch something he has to finish it regardless as to I tend to engage into something and the moment I lose interests in it I'll drop it quite easily . 
I don't usually have problems with Ji doms- I don't mind them so much - it's Je that drives me off the wall. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Kakorrhaphiophobia (Jun 6, 2015)

MNiS said:


> What you're saying is only partially correct. Si is most connected to the past and by proxy, past experience. So Si tends toward what they believe to be correct. An Si user may very well know that there are newer methods and ideas in existence but not be interested in them until it's demonstratable that the new way is a better way. It's in that way that Si is associated with traditions. A, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." type mentality.
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you think an Ni user wouldn't want people to adhere to "Ni behavior"? When someone perceives something internally, they expect reality to match their perceptions, otherwise they become angry or flustered and want to change what they're perceiving to be errant behavior. That's regardless of whether the person is "Si" or "Ni". So yeah, I think whoever told you that theory was giving you a half baked idea.


The second paragraph you wrote was sort of an enlightment. NFJ's I know tend to view people too positively and when someone they initially though was good-spirited and does a malicious act, they get very pissed off. It might be because of their Ni idea clashing with the reality.
I'm now convinced that the theory is BS, but wouldn't a SFJ be more likely to evaluate people's behavior according to the standards that the society has set and be reluctant to like eccentric people but a Ni dom would have more personalized standards about people? idk


----------



## Kakorrhaphiophobia (Jun 6, 2015)

MNiS said:


> Ah, I forgot about the age difference. Yeah, you'll meet good and bad examples of every type the more people you meet and get to know.


Even if it's the same people, teens haven't developed their personalities fully yet and probably not %100 suitable to be typed + teenage years bring out the bad in people usually?


----------



## Kakorrhaphiophobia (Jun 6, 2015)

ai.tran.75 said:


> I'm married to a J - Dom. I guess the only problem we have is that he has a tendency to try to rationalize and find a solution to everything . For example - my grandma was sick a cold few months ago - so I told him about it / instead of asking me are you ok or how are you feeling his response was she's 98 years old already what do you expect ? I wouldn't wish to live that long . If I were to share feelings with him - usually I just need an open ear- he'll end up giving me advice or tell me things I know already . Or he can go on with constructive criticisms non stop - but with him it's quite easy if he crosses any line or even on days where he's being a jerk I can say " hey you're being a jerk or what you said is quite offensive " and he'll understand and back off immediately - if he's wrong or if I prove him wrong he has no problem backing off so I admired that . My advice is just to listen when somebody is venting /sharing feelings with you unless opinion is asked . I know I annoy him with the fact that I don't finish things thoroughly - for ex : with him if he paints , build , clean , read/watch something he has to finish it regardless as to I tend to engage into something and the moment I lose interests in it I'll drop it quite easily .
> I don't usually have problems with Ji doms- I don't mind them so much - it's Je that drives me off the wall.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Sounds like a Te dom.
Idk can it be because Ji's would keep most of these ideas to theirselves but Je's would try to endorse them on you?


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

anony231 said:


> The second paragraph you wrote was sort of an enlightment. NFJ's I know tend to view people too positively and when someone they initially though was good-spirited and does a malicious act, they get very pissed off. It might be because of their Ni idea clashing with the reality.


Yeah, that can happen. The person might become incredibly angry or very despondent that the actual doesn't match their conception. That's why the best approach is to not disappoint them to begin with. :bwink:



> I'm now convinced that the theory is BS,


Yes.



> but wouldn't a SFJ be more likely to evaluate people's behavior according to the standards that the society has set and be reluctant to like eccentric people


That's such a broad statement that it's incorrect. Society has many standards that different people evaluate differently. For some people, the standard of society is how much money you make or how much money you have (Se and Te). For others, it might be how popular you are (Fe). For others still, it may be how many different things one has experienced (Ne) or accomplished (Te). There's no one set standard of society.



> but a Ni dom would have more personalized standards about people? idk


I don't really understand what you mean by that.


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

anony231 said:


> Even if it's the same people, teens haven't developed their personalities fully yet and probably not %100 suitable to be typed


Yes, and that's especially true for guys whose frontal cortex usually don't finish developing until their mid to late 20s and sometimes on into the 30s.



> teenage years bring out the bad in people usually?


For me that was certainly true, although for most people probably not.


----------



## Tezcatlipoca (Jun 6, 2014)

J doms tend not to like uncertainty so they tend to find an answer and stick to it. The problem is that most interesting questions have multiple causes and so they tend to ignore data for other interesting solutions in order to select data for that undergirds the support for the answer they have already chosen. Let me give you an example. Quantum mechanics and the wave function and how to interpret it. Most old guard more Jish scientists will go with something like the copenhagen interpretation or a revised version of it. Alternatives are "too weird" and dismissed casually without evidence against them. They perceive P types as advocating FOR the opposite of their view say bohmian mechanics or some other hidden variable theory or say quantum bayesianism, but mostly (except when playing devil's advocate) we are advocating for viewing these systems as indeterministically true, because we don't know which one is correct or if elements from the options will lead to a greater systhesis that was unforseen. That makes J types feel rather uncomfortable.


----------



## mushr00m (May 23, 2011)

Tezcatlipoca said:


> J doms tend not to like uncertainty so they tend to find an answer and stick to it. The problem is that most interesting questions have multiple causes and so they tend to ignore data for other interesting solutions in order to select data for that undergirds the support for the answer they have already chosen. Let me give you an example. Quantum mechanics and the wave function and how to interpret it. Most old guard more Jish scientists will go with something like the copenhagen interpretation or a revised version of it. Alternatives are "too weird" and dismissed casually without evidence against them. They perceive P types as advocating FOR the opposite of their view say bohmian mechanics or some other hidden variable theory or say quantum bayesianism, but mostly (except when playing devil's advocate) we are advocating for viewing these systems as indeterministically true, because we don't know which one is correct or if elements from the options will lead to a greater systhesis that was unforseen. That makes J types feel rather uncomfortable.


I could just as easily see this in Pi doms tbh.


----------



## Tezcatlipoca (Jun 6, 2014)

The difference is the response when you point it out to them.


----------



## Quernus (Dec 8, 2011)

I don't think I've ever thought about it in these terms before. And it's hard to say.

What and ISTJs might not "get" about me is very different than what an ENFP might not "get" about me, for example.

Grand generalization but: An ISTJ might not get why I am feeling so strongly about doing things in a certain way that is not "obviously" the most efficient. An ENFP might not understand why I'm so high-strung about certain situations or choices instead of going with the flow and allowing new opportunities to work things out. 

I guess the common theme is that they think it makes sense to go in a direction based on how they're taking in and processing the world/situation, which is based on what seems obvious to them in a given circumstance. Whereas I'm stuck on going in a direction that makes sense with my pre-existing.... values or whatever, even if it causes more anxiety and work.


----------



## aendern (Dec 28, 2013)

anony231 said:


> I wish I was a J only when I procastinate every assigment and exam...


literally what I'm doing right now :laughing:


----------



## KevinHeaven (Apr 6, 2015)

anony231 said:


> I wish I was a J only when I procastinate every assigment and exam...


so me


----------



## ai.tran.75 (Feb 26, 2014)

anony231 said:


> Sounds like a Te dom.
> Idk can it be because Ji's would keep most of these ideas to theirselves but Je's would try to endorse them on you?


No quite certain he's a Ti Dom- it's just he has a tendency to rationalize everything - but you are correct on the latter  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Tezcatlipoca said:


> J doms tend not to like uncertainty so they tend to find an answer and stick to it. The problem is that most interesting questions have multiple causes and so they tend to ignore data for other interesting solutions in order to select data for that undergirds the support for the answer they have already chosen. Let me give you an example. Quantum mechanics and the wave function and how to interpret it. Most old guard more Jish scientists will go with something like the *copenhagen interpretation* or a revised version of it. Alternatives are "too weird" and dismissed casually without evidence against them. They perceive P types as advocating FOR the opposite of their view say bohmian mechanics or some other hidden variable theory or say quantum bayesianism, but mostly (except when playing devil's advocate) we are advocating for viewing these systems as indeterministically true, because we don't know which one is correct or if elements from the options will lead to a greater systhesis that was unforseen. That makes J types feel rather uncomfortable.


But I think Niels Bohr, the physicist most closely associated with the Copenhagen interpretation, was INFJ. Or do you think he was INTP? Or do you think Ni is different than Ne and also prefers deterministic solutions like Ji does?

Einstein certainly disliked indeterministic interpretations of quantum mechanics, so he would support your view.

But what about present-day physicists? How do you know this is still true?


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

It's not Te or Fe that causes me trouble. INTJ's or INFJ's (IJ's) can get a little defensive but you can find something to work with in each other, to keep moving forward even on a bumpy road.

The Si factor makes a person discredit anything my Ti has to say, unless I can give them a million examples, or at least 5 examples where they have had the exact same experience as me. *Or*, I've reached a conclusion because of pulling information from several different resources, just from living life - but they don't hear my point - at all, because they have filed it according to a category, like fox news or liberal media. Notice I'm not choosing what group, I'm saying they grasp for something familiar to equate with what you say instead of following your actual concept. It makes me mad as hell, because I don't think that way! I wouldn't bother to say something if I didn't have a particular nuance, of my own mind or spin, that I wanted someone to hear!


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Atrium Strutionum said:


> Bold is more of an accurate statement.
> 
> Now your behavior in our discussion wasn't too bad, I have seen you act worse so I guess I would say you handled yourself better than your prior discussions with other people. With that said, it must be noted that your behavior does tend to come off, not only rigid at a trollish kind of level, but also extreme. Once you have made your conviction it's like you're adamant at not wanting to be wrong, you'll toss out ad hominems or assume your opponent is wrong but not because reason dictates but because your passion is holding you to your conviction to an unreasonable level.
> 
> That's just my personal opinion though


Yes, I have gotten more "animated" in other threads, but I disagree that I have no reasons to be that way. In fact, I only get animated when I have shown the other side why it is wrong but they continue to repeat the same errant arguments or they themselves resort to ad hominems because that is the only "argument" they have left. 

My reasoning abilities are well developed and if you can show me why I'm wrong, I will stop and admit it. There's no point arguing further since the truth has been established and making a wrong argument would only make me look bad.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

Tezcatlipoca said:


> J doms tend not to like uncertainty so they tend to find an answer and stick to it. The problem is that most interesting questions have multiple causes and so they tend to ignore data for other interesting solutions in order to select data for that undergirds the support for the answer they have already chosen. Let me give you an example. Quantum mechanics and the wave function and how to interpret it. Most old guard more Jish scientists will go with something like the copenhagen interpretation or a revised version of it. Alternatives are "too weird" and dismissed casually without evidence against them. They perceive P types as advocating FOR the opposite of their view say bohmian mechanics or some other hidden variable theory or say quantum bayesianism, but mostly (except when playing devil's advocate) we are advocating for viewing these systems as indeterministically true, because we don't know which one is correct or if elements from the options will lead to a greater systhesis that was unforseen. That makes J types feel rather uncomfortable.


I think this is linear vs lateral thinking. I'ts a cliche but sometimes what you need to find is the other context, or the combination of factors, the sequence, somehow you need to re-frame the data, -something outside the box. - life in general, I'm not pretending to solve a scientific mystery here.


----------



## Cesspool (Aug 8, 2014)

anony231 said:


> In my mind an idea just popped out (probably bs but whatever) Because Si and Fe are both oriented on external acceptance (I think?) SFJ users, especially ESFJ's wouldn't be so accepting on individualism or a Fi perspective but NFJ's have Ni which is quite introspective, they can understand and tolerate Fi POV's as well, which would make an NFJ user more bearable according to a Fi user, maybe?


You don't understand what Si is.


----------



## Cesspool (Aug 8, 2014)

Lol do people seriously believe in ghosts? 

If you're over the age of 8 and you seriously believe in ghosts, you're a moron. No, I'm not being closed minded, YOU are, for sticking to your erroneous belief of ghosts. I mean seriously, how stupid can you be?


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Cesspool said:


> Lol do people seriously believe in ghosts?
> 
> If you're over the age of 8 and you seriously believe in ghosts, you're a moron. No, I'm not being closed minded, YOU are, for sticking to your erroneous belief of ghosts. I mean seriously, how stupid can you be?


Logic dictates that if formal or empirical proof can't be presented for either end of the argument, then one should reserve judgement rather than making an assumption about something they themselves have no proof or evidence to back such a claim. Believing in things is a waste of time, either something is a fact or it is not a fact, if you can't prove it either way, then the most intellectual, professional thing one can do in that situation is to reserve judgement until proof or evidence presents itself that either proves or disproves the whether a thing is a fact or not. 

I for one reserve my judgement, because I don't care to waste my time and mental space having beliefs, especially since I see beliefs as a childish concept. Something for children to fantasize about, and/or feel like they belong to something bigger than themselves. As an adult and hopefully as a professional, If you can't provide empirical evidence or logical/formal proof, then you too should reserve your judgement in order to look a little more intelligent, which is much better than clowning on someone else's beliefs because your belief differs from theirs. If you nor they can't provide proof for your claims, then your beliefs are meaningless, and you are equally as much of a moron as those you yourself deem as morons.


----------



## Cesspool (Aug 8, 2014)

Atrium Strutionum said:


> Logic dictates that if formal or empirical proof can't be presented for either end of the argument, then one should reserve judgement rather than making an assumption about something they themselves have no proof or evidence to back such a claim. Believing in things is a waste of time, either something is a fact or it is not a fact, if you can't prove it either way, then the most intellectual, professional thing one can do in that situation is to reserve judgement until proof or evidence presents itself that either proves or disproves the whether a thing is a fact or not.
> 
> I for one reserve my judgement, because I don't care to waste my time and mental space having beliefs, especially since I see beliefs as a childish concept. Something for children to fantasize about, and/or feel like they belong to something bigger than themselves. As an adult and hopefully as a professional, If you can't provide empirical evidence or logical/formal proof, then you too should reserve your judgement in order to look a little more intelligent, which is much better than clowning on someone else's beliefs because your belief differs from theirs. If you nor they can't provide proof for your claims, then your beliefs are meaningless, and you are equally as much of a moron as those you yourself deem as morons.


Bullshit. If you are claiming that something exists, you are the one that needs to prove it. It does not cut both ways.

I don't need to disprove the existence of something that doesn't exist.

Also, your little shtick about "I don't have beliefs they are childish" makes you look insanely immature, like an angsty teenager who just learned about nihilism. 

I have made my decision. You are lower than me. Don't respond to this post, I won't respond to you. To my ignore list you go.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Cesspool said:


> Bullshit. If you are claiming that something exists, you are the one that needs to prove it. It does not cut both ways.
> 
> I don't need to disprove the existence of something that doesn't exist.


That you *believe* doesn't exists, never state an absolute without formal or empirical proof to back up such a claim. Now if someone was to ask you why don't you believe in ghosts, and they themselves have no belief whether or not ghosts exist, then would you just state "I don't need to disprove the existence of something that doesn't exist". If so, then you inevitably avoided the question, failed to provide formal proof or empirical evidence to either prove or back up your claim, and you pretty much would said this "I don't have to explain to you why I believe what I believe, and nor will". If you have no intentions on backing up your claim, then your point is moot, nor intellectual, and far from being considered a logical train of thought.

Now as I already said, I reserve my judgement on the existence of ghosts, because I have failed to see formal proof or empirical evidence as to whether or not they exist. Therefore, in the absence of essential knowledge, I can not make a claim as to whether or not they exists, and any claim I do make will not be a fact but an opinion until I have either proven or disproved the existence of ghosts. This is how a logical thought process works, it doesn't assume, it doesn't give opinions, and it doesn't have beliefs. You either know something is a fact or not a fact, and you have formal proof or empirical evidence to prove or back up your claim. If you can not provide these key points of information, then your claim whether if it's for or against the existence of ghosts is unsubstantiated, which is just as illogical as those who believe or disbelieve in ghosts and also can not provide formal proof or empirical evidence to substantiate their claim.

This isn't science, this is logic, if your going to make a claim then be an intellectual and provide proof or evidence. If not then why voice your opinion in the first place, all you did was waste precious time criticizing others when it couldve been spent elsewhere more productive, or do you just like voicing unsubstantiated claims while looking down or mocking those who don't share your beloved beliefs? Either way you are no better than those you have mocked.


----------



## Eventive (Sep 27, 2014)

Cesspool said:


> Lol do people seriously believe in ghosts?
> 
> If you're over the age of 8 and you seriously believe in ghosts, you're a moron. No, I'm not being closed minded, YOU are, for sticking to your erroneous belief of ghosts. I mean seriously, how stupid can you be?


Lol do people seriously believe in God? 

If you're over the age of 8 and you seriously believe in God, you're a moron. No, I'm not being closed minded, YOU are, for sticking to your erroneous belief of God. I mean seriously, how stupid can you be?


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

Quernus said:


> I don't think I've ever thought about it in these terms before. And it's hard to say.
> 
> What and ISTJs might not "get" about me is very different than what an ENFP might not "get" about me, for example.
> 
> ...


I think you are making the point that a leading introverted judging functioned person is still a J type in their own way even though MBTI labels them P type.

Types that lead with Ni or Si, have simultaneous openness and areas of being extremely closed minded or unaware of bias in themselves, because both work with stored rather than real time information, even though they lead with a P function.


----------

