# Decision Making: The Contradiction at the Heart of J/P



## nestle_bird (Dec 24, 2015)

Well, of course it depends on the importance of the decision I'm about to make, but in any case I try to make up my mind as quickly as possible. I'm quick to make my decisions, and I usually go with my gut, even though I am more considerate when it's something more important.
I don't really like to change my mind once I've reached a final decision, but I always know I can improvise and switch to another path if I'll need to. I can quickly find another way and make another decision when things don't go as planned.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

nestle_bird said:


> Well, of course it depends on the importance of the decision I'm about to make, but in any case I try to make up my mind as quickly as possible. I'm quick to make my decisions, and I usually go with my gut, even though I am more considerate when it's something more important.
> I don't really like to change my mind once I've reached a final decision, but I always know I can improvise and switch to another path if I'll need to. I can quickly find another way and make another decision when things don't go as planned.


Wonder why you relate to I in MBTI if you go with SLE-Ti in Socionics 

What you wrote here sounds like ExxP according to the above theory anyway.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

@AllyKat

Can you reply to my last post here on Ti in my type thread instead? So it's not OT here  Thanks!


----------



## MisterPerfect (Nov 20, 2015)

Octavarium said:


> This is something that @StunnedFox and I have been puzzling over in his typing thread, and I'm just going to quote myself from that thread:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think J types are general sure if they planned and have a goal. Where if you offer them something they might take too long nawing it over since they are unsure. Where I think P tend to wait on stuff and often just figure it out as they go vs stressing any sort of plan. Just like "Well figure that out when we come t it".

I also think Extroverts in general probobly process things quicker than an introvert would.


----------



## counterintuitive (Apr 8, 2011)

Octavarium said:


> [*]People who come to conclusions quickly and often change those conclusions (EP).


Yeah, this is very accurate for me. I knew it was going to say this for EP, lol.

So yes. I approach situations in an exploratory/open manner first, but in the background there is usually a strong push for closure. So I form a judgment/decision/conclusion quickly. But I keep an open approach even once a judgment is formed, which means judgments are subject to change, and often do change.

Sometimes a quick judgment can turn out to be correct, in which case I won't change it, obviously. The point is that it's _subject_ to change.

I do make slower judgments too. The more information/viewpoints I consider before deciding, the less likely the judgment is to change. This is because I'm unlikely to encounter relevant information I've not already encountered.

So I basically have 2 modes:
Usual mode: Quick judgments + often changing those judgments (EP)
Backup mode: Slow judgments + not often changing those judgments (IJ)

In the MBTI Step II Facets, I relate to P more than J, but I'm not an extreme P. Makes perfect sense as I'm an EP with a strong auxiliary function.



StunnedFox said:


> Do people find that these categories seem to suit them? My impression is that it tallies well with the idea that extraverts favour action over reflection (vice versa for introverts) (...)


Yes, I do think the _Active_ rather than _Reflective_ tendency of extraverts might have something to do with this as well. (This is again going by MBTI Step II Facets, as you've noted.)


----------



## nestle_bird (Dec 24, 2015)

myst91 said:


> Wonder why you relate to I in MBTI if you go with SLE-Ti in Socionics


Because according to the stuff I looked up I was either e SLE-Ti or a LSI-Se, but I related to SLE-Ti a little bit more.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

nestle_bird said:


> Because according to the stuff I looked up I was either e SLE-Ti or a LSI-Se, but I related to SLE-Ti a little bit more.


SLE-Ti more than SLI then?


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

So the contradiction on official MBTI site on J/P:

Example. P is defined with:

_"Since this pair only describes what I prefer in the outer world, inside I may feel very planful or decisive (which I am)."_

So does that planful/decisiveness orientation just exist in some internal imagined world?


----------



## counterintuitive (Apr 8, 2011)

myst91 said:


> So the contradiction on official MBTI site on J/P:
> 
> Example. P is defined with:
> 
> ...


Exactly. How can an internal judgment not be connected to external behavior? Sure, sometimes it isn't, but much of the time it is.

Consider the stereotypical Fi-dom, who determines that X is wrong. Now they will not do X. Then the introverted judgment is directly connected to the external behavior.

As a real example, there are tons of Fi-dom vegans and vegetarians on this forum who are absolutely strict and unwavering in their judgment that consumption of animals or animal products is wrong. (I have seen some threads on this in the health and fitness subforum.) Then they act on it by not eating meat or otherwise purchasing animal products. So clearly, the judgment is connected to the external behavior.

In no practical sense can the internal world be separated from the external world in the fashion suggested by that quote.


----------



## Simpson17866 (Dec 3, 2014)

I think "What do the decisions look like: organized or disorganized?" is more useful than "How quickly do you make decisions?"

There are Judgers who make a comprehensive decision quickly and then stick to it for as long as it works

There are Judgers who take a long time to start their plan because they're spending so much time trying to make each step as perfect as possible

There are Perceivers who jump into something because they trust themselves to come up with the exact details later

There are Perceivers who spend so much time coming up with so many ideas that they never act on any of them​
Functional versus Procrastinatory doesn't seem like a very good measure of "how two can people be different without one being better than the other?" the way I/E, N/S, and T/F work.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Simpson17866 said:


> I think "What do the decisions look like: organized or disorganized?" is more useful than "How quickly do you make decisions?"


What do you mean by a "disorganized decision"?




> There are Judgers who make a comprehensive decision quickly and then stick to it for as long as it works
> 
> There are Judgers who take a long time to start their plan because they're spending so much time trying to make each step as perfect as possible
> 
> ...


I relate to the first three. Not the last one, wtf. 

I like the first one very much. Though the decision may not always be done so quickly, the rest fits.

The second one, I don't really as much because I'll prefer to get the details on the move unless me not having them before action would result in too much uncertainty in terms of how there could be bad outcomes or wasting of time. In this case, I am like this second option.

The third one is, I'm often like this, I'll start moving with a comprehensive draft of a plan in mind and get the details on the move.

Whatever all this means.




> Functional versus Procrastinatory doesn't seem like a very good measure of "how two can people be different without one being better than the other?" the way I/E, N/S, and T/F work.


No, lol, J/P was never about "Functional versus Procrastinatory". It did take me a while to understand how P's can be just as productive as J's, sure, but yes, they can be, in their free spontaneous way of going around can still get things done just fine. And J's can procrastinate as fuck, too, for various reasons.


----------



## jamaix (Sep 20, 2013)

Octavarium said:


> I think you're right to make a distinction between reaching conclusions quickly and being resolute in them, and you may also be right to say that it is the resoluteness that is associated with J. I'm going to tentatively suggest that I/E correlates with quickness to come to conclusions, so we have the following four groups:
> 
> *People who are slow to come to conclusions and frequently change their mind after a decision has been made (IP).*
> People who are slow to come to conclusions but tend to stick to their decisions once they have been made (IJ).
> ...


Interesting thread topic, trying to decide between J/P is something I've wrestled with a bit myself.

I definitely relate more to the *IP* description you provided when it comes to drawing conclusions, and it is not at all unusual for me to change my mind. Sometimes I change my mind multiple times. I often reach the point that I'm out of time and I am forced to make a decision. Even though I've looked at something from 20 different angles, I may still have this gnawing feeling that there is more that should be considered.

I can't claim that I'm completely decisive about my type, but I believe I come closer to ISTJ than other types. I've taken many different test and typically get either ISTJ, INTP or ISTP.


----------



## Simpson17866 (Dec 3, 2014)

myst91 said:


> I relate to the first three. Not the last one, wtf.
> 
> I like the first one very much. Though the decision may not always be done so quickly, the rest fits.
> 
> ...


 That was just the best description I could come up with for

Js who gets things done in organized ways
Js who procrastinate in organized ways
Ps who get things done in disorganized ways
Ps who procrastinate in disorganized ways​


> No, lol, J/P was never about "Functional versus Procrastinatory". *It did take me a while to understand how P's can be just as productive as J's, sure, but yes, they can be, in their free spontaneous way of going around can still get things done just fine*. And J's can procrastinate as fuck, too, for various reasons.


 That's what I meant by disorganized decisions :wink:


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

All of this is confounded and confused by the fact that we aren't always who we think we are. For myself, I have always liked to think of myself as a decisive and organized person. It's one of those things that seems to be essential to being successful, and I've tried hard to be that sort of person (never having heard of J/P, I/E, etc.). However, my fantasy has been frequently interrupted by the fact that everybody who knows me would laugh if you told them that I'm a decisive and organized and logical person. Turns out the only person I could deceive is myself. 

And I suspect I'm not alone in this. In fact, I have an ISFJ friend who lived in constant fear that he was disorganized and procrastinating and indecisive (and yet, he was the most organized and non-procrastinating person I knew. For instance, he had an early flight in the morning. He'd get up at 3am and test the battery in the car to make sure it'd start to get him to the airport, and he was the absolute worst for buyer's remorse). How we perceive ourselves and how we really are are not always consistent.

I've watched and contributed to bunches of threads here, reading stuff from people, about how they were thus and so (as an XXXX), and then, a few months later, I noticed that they had a different type, and they were talking how they were the opposite, as a thus and something other (XXYY or even YYYY). I realize we don't always know ourselves as well as we would think. And I suspect this is especially true the younger we are. And the confusion amongst some of the posters on this thread is certainly understandable.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

counterintuitive said:


> Exactly. How can an internal judgment not be connected to external behavior? Sure, sometimes it isn't, but much of the time it is.
> 
> Consider the stereotypical Fi-dom, who determines that X is wrong. Now they will not do X. Then the introverted judgment is directly connected to the external behavior.
> 
> ...


The difference between Fi and Fe in this case and why it's "internal" order is that Fe would want to convince everybody else they should eat vegan, while the Fi type, while maybe _wanting_ others to eat vegan, is not really going to work at it--decisively and with intent. They may rant and rave, even, but that's not the same thing as an extraverted judging action. The whole point is not that the Fi type eats only non-animal food, but that they must be internally consistent with their values. The external manifestation is actually, not really the goal. It's the point of relief--the pressure valve, so to speak, if the internal sense of what matters. Of course, to complicate things, if others find themselves within a certain sphere of an Fi-dominant's life, then they would find themselves within the introverted-feeling's rein, so to speak, wherein the Fi-dom considers them to be an essential part of self, and thus maybe find themselves also judged by the Fi-dom's introverted judgments. But this is not because the Fi dom is attempting to extravert their judgment, but rather as a fall-out of the expanded field of introverted feeling. It's hard for me to put it into words in a way that others maybe understand, but the circle I call "me" includes my family, and in particular, my children, and also, in some things, my closest associates and friends--not in all areas, but in some, so that circle that is "me" expands beyond the physical "me" so to speak. It is not intentional, I should add. I am quite often unaware of this influence until it gets pointed out to me. 

This all comes back to Jung and the terms "subjective" and "objective". Subjective judgment affects the subject--self. So, Fi or Ti may be expressed externally, but it does not express itself directly on the object--others. 

That said, there are a lot of things I "know" but do nothing about, simply because there has been no reason or need. However, it happens that something will occur, and suddenly I just "know" how I must act, or what I must say, or maybe more accurately, I have to put my foot down, stand my ground and say "no." To others, and even to myself, this may seem sudden and surprise everybody involved, but the truth is, it is a long-time thing but it's never needed to be acted upon. 

And then, there's my wife (INTP), even more so than me, she has this need to "know." She will research something and learn it inside and out, to understand it, and to see how it fits into her system of "things," I'll call it. Once her curiosity is satisfied that she knows and understand it, she moves on. I'm similar, but honestly, for me it's a bit different. I would say she seeks knowledge. I seek clarity. She seeks to know why something is. I seek to know why it matters. All of this goes into my internal structure. In my case, it's more like a beaver dam. In my wife's case, it's more like a library. In other words, what you see on the outside is only a tiny fraction of the entire structure. So, in summary, Fi is _not_ directly linked to external behavior. It only _seems_ that way to those on the outside. Maybe think of a block and tackle or a series of fulcrums. The tiny bit of movement you see on the outside belies the vast amount of inner workings that worked together to create that small, and seemingly insignificant movement. Hope that clarifies. ;-)


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

jamaix said:


> Interesting thread topic, trying to decide between J/P is something I've wrestled with a bit myself.
> 
> I definitely relate more to the *IP* description you provided when it comes to drawing conclusions, and it is not at all unusual for me to change my mind. Sometimes I change my mind multiple times. I often reach the point that I'm out of time and I am forced to make a decision. Even though I've looked at something from 20 different angles, I may still have this gnawing feeling that there is more that should be considered.
> 
> I can't claim that I'm completely decisive about my type, but I believe I come closer to ISTJ than other types. I've taken many different test and typically get either ISTJ, INTP or ISTP.


Why do you change your mind though?




ferroequinologist said:


> The difference between Fi and Fe in this case and why it's "internal" order is that Fe would want to convince everybody else they should eat vegan, while the Fi type, while maybe _wanting_ others to eat vegan, is not really going to work at it--decisively and with intent.


Why couldn't it work at it?




> This all comes back to Jung and the terms "subjective" and "objective". Subjective judgment affects the subject--self. So, Fi or Ti may be expressed externally, but it does not express itself directly on the object--others.


That doesn't mean it can't do anything that results in something in the world.




> All of this goes into my internal structure. In my case, it's more like a beaver dam. In my wife's case, it's more like a library. In other words, what you see on the outside is only a tiny fraction of the entire structure. So, in summary, Fi is _not_ directly linked to external behavior. It only _seems_ that way to those on the outside. Maybe think of a block and tackle or a series of fulcrums. The tiny bit of movement you see on the outside belies the vast amount of inner workings that worked together to create that small, and seemingly insignificant movement. Hope that clarifies. ;-)


A library.. nice analogy. Anyway, sure, but just because not everything is seen, it doesn't mean whatever is seen/influences things (via extraverting with another function) has to be entirely insignificant.


----------



## jamaix (Sep 20, 2013)

myst91 said:


> Why do you change your mind though?


Often it is because there was a degree of uncertainty in the first place. I usually can't shake the feeling that I'm forgetting to consider something. It is not unusual for me to wait until the last minute to make a decision. After making a decision, I'm very prone to second guessing myself. I hate making mistakes, and I think this leads to a bit of obsession with getting everything perfect. Unfortunately, there is seldom a perfect answer/solution but that doesn't stop me from wanting to find one.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

jamaix said:


> Often it is because there was a degree of uncertainty in the first place. I usually can't shake the feeling that I'm forgetting to consider something. It is not unusual for me to wait until the last minute to make a decision. After making a decision, I'm very prone to second guessing myself. I hate making mistakes, and I think this leads to a bit of obsession with getting everything perfect. Unfortunately, there is seldom a perfect answer/solution but that doesn't stop me from wanting to find one.


Have you got some examples of where you second guess yourself even after the decision?


----------



## jamaix (Sep 20, 2013)

myst91 said:


> Have you got some examples of where you second guess yourself even after the decision?


I do this fairly regularly from the mundane and slightly important to those things of great importance. The problem is that even after I make a decision, I don't stop rolling the information that I've accumulated around in my head. For example when my husband and I decide to purchase a new appliance, I'll typically read consumer reports, consumer reviews, online comments, etc. I've found that there isn't a single appliance that someone doesn't have a complaint about. 

Sometimes I go back forth in my mind over which minor problem will annoy me the most over time. Knowing that I really need to replace the appliance, I force myself to decide which one I think I will be the happiest with. More than once my husband and I have headed to an appliance store with a specific model in mind, only to get there and have me start waffling. I start thinking that maybe I should have read more reviews, maybe the slight problem this one has will annoy me more than the slight problems the other one has. It is not unusual for me to look at my husband eventually and say, you're going to have to pick one if you want to go home anytime soon.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

myst91 said:


> > Originally Posted by ferroequinologist
> > The difference between Fi and Fe in this case and why it's "internal" order is that Fe would want to convince everybody else they should eat vegan, while the Fi type, while maybe _wanting_ others to eat vegan, is not really going to work at it--decisively and with intent.
> 
> 
> ...


Because that would/does require an extraverting judging function. For the Fi-dom, that's our inferior. Ironically, of all the stuff that people argue about re: function stacks, vs. dichotomies, etc. one thing holds solid, and that's the influence of the inferior function, insofar that IXFPs, for instance, do not do well with organization, execution of plans, etc. and it is, in fact, an area of weakness, or a symptom of stress when we attempt to organize and execute (hm, interesting word use). 

But having said all that, you are missing my point...




> > This all comes back to Jung and the terms "subjective" and "objective". Subjective judgment affects the subject--self. So, Fi or Ti may be expressed externally, but it does not express itself directly on the object--others.
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't mean it can't do anything that results in something in the world.


What "results" in the world has little resemblance to what is internal. This is the point I'm trying to make. That is because there is a very indirect relationship between what is internally judged, and what is externalized. IXFPs primarily externalize through their auxiliary function, which is an extraverting perceiving function. This means that we are much more passive when it comes to the external world. By "passive" I don't mean we just sit there, doing nothing, but rather that our actions are _our_ actions, not executive actions, attempting to organize and lead others. So, for instance, suppose I'm out with my family in town, and I see something I want us all to do. How will I most likely do that? I will first and foremost simply point out the thing, and start walking. If they don't catch that, I will next likely physically guide one of them, maybe taking their hand, or maybe putting my hand on their shoulder to guide them. Honestly, the last thing I would think of doing is saying, "Hey. Let's go here." Now, if they were totally oblivious, I might get down and dirty and say, "Hey dummies, go this way." But the instant I do _that_, there is a deeply-felt sense of overstepping boundaries, which is itself, stress-inducing, which can start a whole snowball effect of building stress, whereby external factors (the kids not listening) cause me to react in stress, which produces more stress, as I act in ways that instinctively feel wrong to me. It is much easier and safer and better for me to be able to _indirectly_ encourage/influence/set the example than it is for me to verbally direct or will. 





> A library.. nice analogy. Anyway, sure, but just because not everything is seen, it doesn't mean whatever is seen/influences things (via extraverting with another function) has to be entirely insignificant.


If you take, even a half-dozen books from the library, would you say you took a "significant" number of books out of the library? Maybe to you it's a lot to read, but in comparison to what the library holds, it's nothing, and compared to the overall, vast wealth of knowledge, you don't even hold a pea's worth in your hands. But maybe it seems significant to you! I remember when I was a kid, going to our local library, coming home with a high stack of books in my hand, I always felt like a wealthy man, and would be giddy with excitement, but what was even more exciting was the thought that the library was like a limitless supply of things to read, to learn and to know. I felt that to my core, and still do to this day. I'm playing in the tidal pools of a vast ocean, and want to swim in the deep where the whales are. The word "significant" hardly applies...

And that brings me back to this that I ended my previous post with:



> Fi is _not_ directly linked to external behavior. It only _seems_ that way to those on the outside. Maybe think of a block and tackle or a series of fulcrums. The tiny bit of movement you see on the outside belies the vast amount of inner workings that worked together to create that small, and seemingly insignificant movement.


You seem to want to make what you see (from an introverted judging dom--IP) to mean something to them as well? I am really not sure what you are trying to get at, or what your objection might be.


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

myst91 said:


> OK, let me preface this with.. you don't have to make notes on everything, feel free to only comment where you really find it relevant or something in my explanation is unclear
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I don't mind you commenting at length either if you feel it's relevant or interesting for whatever reason! I just talked a lot about some things simply to show you how I think these things are, not at all expecting you to try and improve on it if you don't have any ideas in particular.


Haha no worries.
Nah I have been enjoying this 



> That is possible but I'm not sure it must all be the exact same phenomenon. E.g. Jung did not have anything like ISxJ as a separate type. He singled out dominant functions instead, none of which lead to anything that's like ISxJ, possibly because he did not differentiate between dominant functions with different auxiliaries. Or the ISxJ pattern as observed on the whole doesn't have all that much to do with jungian cognitive functioning but is, at least partially, some other, unrelated aspect of how some people are. Or also, his pure Si type isn't very well worked out and of course it mentions aspects that are too pathological probably with inferior Ne leaking in. So, definitely some different patterns were elaborated on and analyzed by Jung.
> 
> So tbh, I don't just want to bash MBTI, it does have some additions and sometimes even an improvement there, with elaboration on some other patterns and overall more types than what Jung originally did. But I don't trust that all the patterns in MBTI are that meaningful for these cognitive functions.


Each have their merits, but as we have established two different systems.



> Thanks. Do you own this book then?
> 
> With it called "thinking" in ordinary speech, it's not the same as jungian Thinking, or is it?


No. Just what I find of his stuff online, or if another person has previously posted Jung stuff.
I think he may have intended thinking to be thinking in ordinary speech (at the time, words change meanings over time). Maybe Te, because he also talks about Ti not being like 'ordinary' thinking.



> True but as I indicated, some MBTI parts are a bit too generic... at least for my taste, seems too easy to try and apply parts on people where MBTI didn't intend to apply them due to assuming extra things coming from the jungian framework. Best to let go of the jungian stuff in MBTI, I think. But I see you did that anyway
> 
> OK. Just fyi, I see that in MBTI, Ti is indeed associated with the doubting and Te with firmness of judgment. I don't see that with Jung, Jung's Ti can be pretty fanatical, dogmatic. It's a Judging process after all and is introverted, making it go for subjective conviction even more than Te would.
> 
> ...


Sticking with MBTI, you are not an IxTP then 



> OK  ..I don't think that part was changed btw... they just got more detailed with the MBTI system, added Step II and they supposedly are planning to add even more refinement.
> 
> That's true in general, yes. Even if I don't always like to admit it. But too many people have told me about aspects that led me to this type eventually, barring some crappy stereotypes .


Have you tried the ISTJ hat on? seen how it fits, if you do relate.
Actually do you find you relate to other ISTJs?



> It's parts from what I saw but... it's mostly things that are already in a different form. *Rather verbal/symbols/notation based*. I do not have it with from my sensory impressions of physical objects, those just "are". But in ISTJ descriptions I never saw such direct reference to physical objects anyway when the Si processing aspect was discussed.
> 
> Actually, it somewhat seems to fit the sort of data from Lenore Thomson's description on this: _"Introverted Sensation gives us the will to accumulate information--names, dates, numbers, statistics, references, guidelines, and so forth"_
> 
> ...


What do you mean by the bolded?
Accumulation of information. That's when I think, maybe I use si, I accumulate facts (only in areas of interest, in a paraphrasing way, and with the doubt I have remembered wrong...and can't be bothered looking it up again half the time......)



> Well, actually, ISTJs are described as dealing with the facts _mentally _in a systematic and thorough way too. (In more detailed descriptions in MBTI sources.) No? Or I'm missing your point.


That was just the focus in gifts differing, the difference between the two types.
It was very general, and did not specifically talk about ISTJ dealing with facts mentally. Just accumulation, application, and missing nothing in between.

I want those sources lol



> Just what's usually called sensation internally for ISTJs, isn't really sensation, it's processed too much.
> 
> 
> I'm fine with an "analytical TJ" label


aye, but does it fit? 
(I think it seems to)



> Well, I don't want to assume *all* of them were mistyped. Too much of an assumption and they do fit the I, S, T, P dichotomies at least.
> 
> I agree with you, lol, by now my gut feel about this is screaming too loud for me to ignore it
> 
> ...


And I don't notice most people rhetoric lol 



> Yes I relate but of course, with my introversion muddling up the Te again! , as many of my rules and organization that I apply in my environment are from computing it internally myself. (Which neatly lines up with more Jungian Ti as dominant)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What does it even mean to analyse?
"detailed examination of the elements or structure of something." there we go



> Do you not see me as analytical?  This, what I'm doing here talking to you is what was too much anally analytical for them. :laughing:


See previous 
you seem to line up with that definition.
I don't see how placing facts side by side, then using them is analytical. I'm not seeing the examination you describe of the ISTPs. 




> I just want an example already of such an "applied principle" that ISTP does.


examples of all this stuff would be good.



> Ha lol, I take nothing for granted either, I don't want assumptions. See what I am doing here lol, I'm checking for all the wrong assumptions.
> 
> But again, why isn't this called analysis too? (A different form of analysis of course.) I'm really curious why you didn't associate it with being analytical. Do see my thoughts below for more on this issue of different ways for analysis of facts.


I noticed 
Great for sifting through my BS, and pointing out wrong assumptions 

I just don't seem to have an intuitive understanding of some words and what it applies to. E.g. Logic --> math
So how is someone logical? are the Mathical haha. Just words I haven't used much in the correct context. Does not mean you aren't analytical 





> Well this isn't going to sound nice and, I readily admit, is biased from my POV, but I can see how it's a problem for ISTPs to have people be receptive to the subjective rambling full of irrelevant details that I've often heard from them. (Disclaimer - sorry to any ISTPs reading, just my POV, really. )
> 
> I do know my thoughts may not be interesting to all people so I only come forward with deeper thoughts or anything subjective when I know the talking partner is interested. Otherwise, if I want to push my opinions to correct someone or to move a real life situation forward, I will do so without much hesitation and I'm pushy enough to not worry about "receptiveness to ideas".
> 
> True, I take my time to get my head around new information. And that has its own drawback too, I'm sure.


I relate more to you in this aspect.
I may ramble, the other person is not receptive, I don't bother to bring up that topic again with them unless they show interest.
I like that pushiness, gets things done with others. Something I'm not that good with.



> Yes I get MBTI sources don't think it's just about grabbing facts, yet that's what it seems to me. In my own experience, with quite some ISTPs, and I do wonder why the discrepancy.
> 
> So, I've talked to ISTPs and if they did start to talk more in detail about whatever they had in their head, I've yet to hear more than either throwing facts/words around or ramble without checking how it all adds up and how to neatly connect the ideas logically without irrelevant stuff, or just some very simple practically oriented conclusion but nothing about a "core" beyond the superficial usable one. They are indeed good at summing things up in that way so maybe that's what seems like them getting to the core. I just find it some extremely practically oriented thing, directly related to practical utilization and not going deep in the way I want it.
> 
> ...


Well the lack of checks, I see the introverted factor of the fact itself making sense personally, then if it makes sense with other facts. Maybe there is also a form of personal logic (that won't make sense to others)?

Maybe summing up is finding the core?

I don't have enough experience with ISTP or ISTJ to agree or disagree.
I can see how ISTP are more related to the direct object/problem (Se aspect), so this reprocessing aspect to sort the facts first must be the Si aspect for ISTJ.



> Yeah, apparently I didn't tell you yet about how my thinking is more rigid compared to the ISTPs flexibility?
> 
> I compare current data but not necessarily to what's happened before, I compare to everything relevant that's already stored in my mind somewhere. Can be earlier experience, can be something I read about.
> 
> ...


yes you mentioned rigid.
I relate to how you compare data. I don't think for me it's consciously deduced, more automatically the connections pop nto my head.

To me this rigidness seems to fit with MBTI ISTJ. And how you change your point of view. It actually seems quite stable (unless something important enough changes it bit by bit) another ISTJ trait.



> So you said "yes". So eerr, what did you get out of it?
> 
> I'd understand you more there if I knew what you even meant by principles that you did see ISTPs using / that are _explicitly _described as ISTPs using them. Not simply deduced from ambiguous generalities or the original jungian framework, etc.


I have covered what I have gotten out of this above.
I wish I knew what i meant by principle.
"a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behaviour or for a chain of reasoning."

^ this is supposedly what ISTPs do, but I am taking this from MBTI generalities.



> Yes I do that. I don't know where the flexibility of the ISTPs's applying facts anytime comes from... well if I'm to believe what they described to me and what I told you above about their fact handling, then I actually know
> 
> Actually, I will quote one of them to you on it: _"Ti doesn't judge in the way you are describing or "want objective proof." in the way you are describing. This is not pure Ti. Pure Ti wants facts, raw material to work with. If you are building a house, it is the frame. *It's neutral. It just wants to acquire and collect more and more material* for framing.
> Proof and judgement of those facts and data is formulated using other functions. It is another matter. To keep with the house analogy (i.e. In what style do you prefer your house? Ne/Se. What color is this room going to be?) etc"_
> ...


I don't really get this way of thinking lol.
It seems very fluid.
Yes it makes sense Te uses other facts as proofs, I think that fits with ISTJ and seems very much inline with what you do.

Ti seems like it collects data, and plays with it. (for lack of better terms to describe this)

Yup I clearly see the difference and why they would see you as rigid 



> Why?


What you described to me before, how you reorient only when you come across reliable facts that contradict what you know.
I think that sums up why.




> Idk what you mean by impressions. Built from experience and other data I acquired from various sources
> 
> If by impression you just mean dealing with the mental data (I quoted from Lenore Thomson above) then sure, otherwise no.
> 
> ...


That analytical analysis to me seems thinking.

The impressions/experience more fluid, affecting how you see facts or select facts. It's what colors how the world is seen, more interested in how the world affects/impacts you. Overtime building up what is expected.
That's how I imagine MBTI Si.

How do you relate to ISFJs? What similarities/differences do you see??



> Yeah, umm. I can agree it's distrusted Ne.
> 
> But as you can see, the ISTP girl above also accumulates facts. And other ISTPs too that I've talked to. They however don't have a problem with randomness as much. They are experimental enough, willing to shift facts around in a flexible manner, on the go, at will on request (as situation requires it).


Perhaps this is an example of P vs J (ah hah just brought it back to the contex of this tread  )



> I can take it from science/other sources (what I saw/read earlier but didn't yet make sense) or I can just see it for myself. In general, it's about what makes sense, how the facts link. That link is the rule/principle really. It can become a deeper or main principle, too so it goes way beyond just the linking of some facts at that point.
> 
> Deduction or induction of it is fine yes, *I can reason it out deliberately but usually I work faster than the time required to painstakingly verbalize it all out.* Sometimes it comes out as a *mental image* on the side, most of the time I work faster than that though, it simply comes to me as a "logical impression" so to speak. As that's the fastest way to deal with things. I'm not a very visual or verbal thinker on the whole though I do sometimes rely on these aspects of encoding to organize things better in my head for subsequent processing.


This is what I relate to.
To some extent I find this to be mental effort.

My mind is much quicker to place facts among/connected to other facts. Either something is similar (makes sense) or it contradicts (makes no sense).
I don't consciously comb though my memory of what I know, it just comes quickly.

Even better when someone asks a question, and facts connect together and come to mind, reading in between them giving me the most likely answer. I say most likely as it is technically an assumption as I don not actually possess that knowledge.




> I make sense of data in context of everything  so facts too, yes, sure, and already known rules/principles, and whole understanding as relevant, apply to it as well. Just sum it up as fully contextual-linked!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


These known rules seem attached to the fact itself. A cat either is or isn't an animal. This is based on the properties it has which defines it as an animal, it can be linked to animal, and other animals with similar properties (e.g. fur)

I don't think this is the case for Ti, which seems more about "why is a cat called a cat", getting to the underlying concept of what cat 'is'.

Your ISTP example, seems like they play with these concepts haha, place a cat with a tree, or a rock. (I don't know why, maybe they see some underlying connection, or just experimentally place these things together just cause, forming a new concept outside of reality??)

This is more what I mean.




> I don't at all mind thinking things through. (My stronger T preference, I guess.) I can think it through if there's enough understanding from earlier already, though in that case I probably will just instantly see why the contradiction without that much thinking; otherwise I can't and won't speculate if the topic is not known enough yet to me. In that case, on the whole I will still be in my initial data absorbing and sorting out mode, things seemingly contradicting get dealt with in that process. So, I don't usually need to google specifically to figure out why something contradicts.


Yes, I know the contradiction, and i know why it contradicts. The google search is to find more information so I can understand which fact is 'more' correct, and which fact to disregard as being 'wrong'.



> Quoted ISTP girl now  who mentioned such a thing though I'm not sure if she only said it in response to my description to her about the systematic hierarchies


Honestly, I don't see the hierarchy. there is a system yes, but usually a hierarchy has something above and below at each level of the structure. It's a specific type of system.
The ISTP system seems so malleable.



> Err that doesn't make much sense as a direct comment to my line. I was talking about how ISTPs aren't thorough, now you link that to the outward perception not being thorough, so for some reason you've already justified Ti not being thorough as well?
> 
> Of course, if MBTI defined Ti in this way then that's what MBTI Ti is, I'm just curious how you justified/explained this idea for yourself?


Um... assumption that seems to make sense 
I wasn't quite making the link to Ti, however I believe MBTI Ti is informed by ITP

You have observed the ISTP as not thorough?
This to me is you perception of how you see them which would be their exterior. MBTI does refer to the exterior of an introvert is different to their inner world. And that P trait, that is defined by the outward perception of the individual. and ISTP should look like a P to others, and should not be observed as thorough.




> I don't know other than what I've said above
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Does not help if I'm asking repetitive questions lol.



> I don't mind the function based notation as long as it's clear it's MBTI. The "letters" don't really equal the functions via 1:1 correspondence, even though the functions are derived from them, it's a bit more complex relation than that, both perceiving and judging functions affecting it on the whole.
> 
> OK, I think a better way to summarize where I focus cognitively... I just concentrate on what I'm doing  (if I'm not at full rest but that doesn't really happen for long during the day.) And that's a mind state of being directed and ready, ready to process data by putting everything together to fit, and that's the part I talked of earlier but I tried to place it into a more whole context for you now. Make sense?


Yes I think it makes sense.



> Depends what you mean by common sense  I have it too btw, for very direct simple practical stuff, for everything else I have the rigid analytical nature that ISTP has made fun of before (innocent fun so it's OK haha).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes goals, and structure are buzz words for MBTI Te 



> I'm not aware of any that goes into detail to enough degree for my liking, other than Lenore Thomson, though maybe I should look at Berens more closely?


You could. I just know there was a discrepancy between Thomphson's and Beren's Ni.
Hard to find stuff on the internet though. I have through about purchasing the books.



> Yes that's again a part in MBTI where it differs from both Jung and Socionics, Se auxiliary not being rationally channelled by the judging dominant function in MBTI while it is directed as such in the other two systems. Yep so Ti+S auxiliary ends up more J in sources closer to Jung. Big substantial difference here.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sorry, that was Jung's Si. I don't think MBTI ISxJ's relate to it lol.



> What I _did _see however is (Lenore Thomson):
> 
> _"Si in the Inferior Position
> 
> ...


Sounds like my ENFP anyhow.



> I do listen to my gut level intuitive "Knowing" when it screams loud enough  That happens after it's got enough data (experience and other concrete data) I guess
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oh, I make time 
...probably should not always make time... haha



> It's a myth yup that I instantly saw as bullshit, but I think she more like, slapped this framework onto the already existing function categorizations. Though I'm sure she's discovered some extra details and added her own reasoning for those but on the whole it seems like she tried to go with the MBTI J/P tenet for defining functions so it's fine by me as a MBTI source.
> 
> I do see her e.g. Ti/Te distinction as ridiculous but it's again actually her aligning by other MBTI ideas already out there so that's what I find ridiculous actually  Basically for Lenore, Ti is body-based immediate nonverbal and Te is all verbalization of logic lolol. Again, aspects of general Thinking have got assigned rather arbitrarily to Ti vs Te.
> 
> ...


I think the stuff is tied up in books. i couldn't find much on the internet.



> I would think intuitive perspective is N stuff in general. Lenore Thomson emphasizes Ne broadens context which fits okay with Ne being extraverted. I certainly fail at it in the way she describes it working and I do know I have atrocious Ne :tongue:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Fair enough.


[/quote]
Did you take anything I said as criticism? I hope not. I was talking in general about how these typology systems are to be thought about/treated.

Yeah, how I do the data acquisition and analyzing it all, you are right about that.


> Oh no, no criticism haha. I could see you were looking for understanding. I noticed what you were asking about seemed to be about things that seemed to contradict. That's what I noticed about myself.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Ksara said:


> Haha no worries.
> Nah I have been enjoying this


Good 




> Sticking with MBTI, you are not an IxTP then


Nope, right. :laughing:




> Have you tried the ISTJ hat on? seen how it fits, if you do relate.
> Actually do you find you relate to other ISTJs?


Trying it on atm.  

I relate surprisingly well - maybe I don't have the same opinions/conclusions on stuff but I can totally follow their reasoning. Usually.




> What do you mean by the bolded?


Oh the "verbal/symbols/notation based" thing, it means it's something that can be expressed in words or other character based notation. Not physical objects. So for example, a mathematical symbol. Or a label in a system. That symbol is what will get some impression attached to it. Sometimes even outright synesthesia 

As I said in my previous post too: "The more conceptual something becomes in this sense, numbers, various signs for defined concepts from systems, etc". Remember, I said, you can call it "impression on top of Lenore's Te".  Since she defines Te in this way, dealing with symbolized logic stuff, numbers, concepts, blahblah.

It does facilitate very well memorizing, etc. 

By the way I've yet to see an ISTJ on the forum that claimed to have subjective sensory impressions about objects in front of them. They have so far all said they don't have that. They may recall some memory, association, whatever, that's relevant, it may be sensory data, but it's not impressionistic. One of them explicitly said "it's not impressionistic", another said it's a rather detached form, etc.




> Accumulation of information. That's when I think, maybe I use si, I accumulate facts (only in areas of interest, in a paraphrasing way, and with the doubt I have remembered wrong...and can't be bothered looking it up again half the time......)


Oh I always know if I remembered right or if I have doubts (in which case I check or if I can't check, I will note that I may not remember right). I don't really try to paraphrase when I recall stuff, it just happens anyway. I don't remember text word by word too readily.




> That was just the focus in gifts differing, the difference between the two types.
> It was very general, and did not specifically talk about ISTJ dealing with facts mentally. Just accumulation, application, and missing nothing in between.


Well surely it doesn't magically happen without mentally dealing with the facts. Facts go in, ..., then application, it's not like nothing happens between the input and output in this whole big brain. 

Tho' maybe for ISTPs it does work like that, nothing happens between input and output hahaha. Jk. Just my POV when dealing with them. Sometimes.  (It really is a joke, of course I can see they do some trick in their mind to be able to shift their facts around to adapt to a situation)




> I want those sources lol


Oh it's Lenore: The ISJ’s Inner World

Btw it's full of _apperceptive _Ji mixed in there. :laughing:




> aye, but does it fit?
> (I think it seems to)


It should :laughing:




> What does it even mean to analyse?
> "detailed examination of the elements or structure of something." there we go


Ahah right. It also says "examine (something) methodically and in detail, typically in order to explain and interpret it."

Don't see ISTPs being methodical in that way. More experimental.




> See previous
> you seem to line up with that definition.


Yes, as I said... anally analytical. :laughing:




> I don't see how placing facts side by side, then using them is analytical. I'm not seeing the examination you describe of the ISTPs.


Right




> examples of all this stuff would be good.


*Sigh*

But I can give you an example coming straight from the mouth of an ISTP:

_"Like I got interested in losing weight and just started reading and exercising. I don't follow plans, I switch between same old same old and new stuff. I hold onto a couple principles. Let muscle rest 48 hours between workouts for weights, push hard, switch up reps, keep core movements like squat, bench, pull up, rows, dips as main focus. They are full body, not isolation. Even with that I learned about everything, all types of workouts from German volume training to power lifting to body building to just one offs. Fast twitch, slow twitch, stretching hing, rotator cuff, I read article after article learning to the point where I knew more then alot of personal trainers and physical therapists."_ 

What do you think?




> I noticed
> Great for sifting through my BS, and pointing out wrong assumptions


I like doing that 




> I like that pushiness, gets things done with others. Something I'm not that good with.


Se seeking in Socionics 




> Well the lack of checks, I see the introverted factor of the fact itself making sense personally, then if it makes sense with other facts. Maybe there is also a form of personal logic (that won't make sense to others)?


The fact itself can't make sense if you are not checking it against something else. Against that personal logic, sure. But, it should make sense to others too, IMO. May take effort to explain it all but should be possible. Just in a more round-about way than with (jungian) Te.




> Maybe summing up is finding the core?


It's a way to find a "core", yes, I was just wondering if this kind of summing up is what's been seen as finding the Ti core by MBTI theorists. And, I think there is a difference between deep summary and surface summary.




> I can see how ISTP are more related to the direct object/problem (Se aspect), so this reprocessing aspect to sort the facts first must be the Si aspect for ISTJ.


The fun thing is, Socionics calls it Te, this direct relation to the _logical _object, not Se. Reprocessing facts first is Ti.




> I relate to how you compare data. I don't think for me it's consciously deduced, more automatically the connections pop nto my head.


Unconscious Ti in Socionics ;p




> To me this rigidness seems to fit with MBTI ISTJ. And how you change your point of view. It actually seems quite stable (unless something important enough changes it bit by bit) another ISTJ trait.


Yes, that's how it works for me. Exactly.

Though sometimes I can grab/pull "out of nowhere" some better unifying principle and then the whole system/my understanding of it may shift a level up. That's rare but awesome moments.




> I wish I knew what i meant by principle.
> "a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behaviour or for a chain of reasoning."
> 
> ^ this is supposedly what ISTPs do, but I am taking this from MBTI generalities.


I do it too, heh, uh, huh.




> I don't really get this way of thinking lol.


Lol you're not alone.




> It seems very fluid.
> Yes it makes sense Te uses other facts as proofs, I think that fits with ISTJ and seems very much inline with what you do.
> 
> Ti seems like it collects data, and plays with it. (for lack of better terms to describe this)
> ...


Right... btw, yes, fluid, that person I quoted from identifies as having Dynamic thinking (Te) in Socionics.

I think where it does my head in is _"with the pieces you choose in regards to what you are using them for"_ - FUCK that, that's random shifting of shit/facts to me  Disorienting as hell. And, I despise the playing, I look down on it as nonserious and inconsistent etc. It's also what allows the direct access to the object, it seems. Make sense?




> What you described to me before, how you reorient only when you come across reliable facts that contradict what you know.
> I think that sums up why.


OK, btw, "reliable facts"... it can also be my own observation.




> That analytical analysis to me seems thinking.
> 
> The impressions/experience more fluid, affecting how you see facts or select facts. It's what colors how the world is seen, more interested in how the world affects/impacts you. Overtime building up what is expected.
> That's how I imagine MBTI Si.


I don't have fluid experience/impressions, no, it's all static. The thing is, has anyone in MBTI ever checked if fluid impressions lead to building up what's expected - nope. Actually, I'm not even sure if this was ever stated for Si, I usually see MBTI Si as described as permanence, don't you? Where did you get the fluid impression idea? I'm genuinely curious. 

Btw, in Socionics, Si is indeed fluid but it does not result in such built-up _explicit expectations _as it remains a pure Perceiving function there. But that's too fluid and too Perceiving for me. What I do instead is, automatically stabilize the perception and have it static instead, or I'd be disoriented by too much "fluid flow". 

Also, how do you imagine the fluid impressions would lend themselves to the rigid analysis and the permanent view? I'm honestly not following you there. Why would I need to reorient with things and change if it was all so fluid anyway?

So, anyway, I relate to the building up, yes sure, of the details and facts from experience and from what I've read/heard. Facts are hard facts, not affected by impression for interpretation, I just may have the impression on the side for the more mentally packaged facts. (Helps me remember, maybe.) What's expected... well I'm not sure if I get this interpreted right here, how I relate to it is, I build up the structures in my environment and I expect those to be there. Were you thinking of that? (That's btw also what makes me so J in a lot of stuff.)




> How do you relate to ISFJs? What similarities/differences do you see??


Why two question marks? 

Similarity: we both do S stuff the same way.. like to get things done in a rather similar way.. that is, we both push ourselves and, we both, if started on a task, have a hard time with stopping, we keep working. And when there is an issue, we may both try to grab control over the object/situation to be dealt with. :laughing: It's not the most efficient seriously, if they would let me work in peace I'd figure it out faster without them vying for control too, but it only happens with the more aggressive version of ISFJ and only if I don't instantly manage to reassure them by showing I know what I'm doing.. I don't always know right away if it's a new thing :laughing:

Also, it's fun how I even as a kid/teenager could see I had the same kind of energy she does. (I link this to Sensing, too, at least in Socionics .)

Differences: they will panic much much easier than I do over unexpected issues where logic helps with seeing the right course fast enough. They are more pessimistic in general about possible problems. And of course they are more touchy-feely than I am  Warmer overall.




> Perhaps this is an example of P vs J (ah hah just brought it back to the context of this tread  )


:laughing: ...I think the whole topic we have been discussing is pretty relevant from this angle 




> To some extent I find this to be mental effort.


How much of an effort? For me it's small conscious effort but so small it's maintainable basically forever.




> Even better when someone asks a question, and facts connect together and come to mind, reading in between them giving me the most likely answer. I say most likely as it is technically an assumption as I don not actually possess that knowledge.


Yeah that's totally not how I work with assumptions. 




> These known rules seem attached to the fact itself. A cat either is or isn't an animal. This is based on the properties it has which defines it as an animal, it can be linked to animal, and other animals with similar properties (e.g. fur)


That's a fine rule and I do not see it as attached to the fact (cat) itself, naaah. It can easily be applied on other objects. I know, Lenore still calls this de-attached generalized rule Te. For whatever reason that I'm not aware of, other than her left brain/right brain tenet being linked with the MBTI J/P tenet for deducting functions. (Both tenets being pretty flawed.)




> I don't think this is the case for Ti, which seems more about "why is a cat called a cat", getting to the underlying concept of what cat 'is'.


Uhhh, how do you get to that without intuitive mental masturbation? I don't think ISTPs do this, just INTPs, so it has to be N. Or maybe I misunderstand what you are getting at because to me it's a simple everyday concept, a cat, that can be experienced without having to go back and create the unified Theory Of Everything In The Universe (which, again, is an INTP thing). That is, S can take care of that aspect just fine.

But, yes, I can give you its definition, which is certain important concrete traits with a reason for them, inside an organizational system. For that, I certainly don't to go to the unified Theory Of Everything. I can explain on an everyday life level. Or I can explain from a biology standpoint too where we have the taxonomy while explaining in a system why that taxonomy: cat is a mammal etc, that's the classification part, now how a mammal, and inside that the cat, works is the rest of the system.

If you still see all these rules/definitions as attached to the cat object... then please give me an example of that underlying concept that is not attached to it.




> Your ISTP example, seems like they play with these concepts haha, place a cat with a tree, or a rock. (I don't know why, maybe they see some underlying connection, or just experimentally place these things together just cause, forming a new concept outside of reality??)


 No, no, they use the facts for practical jobs.

This here explicitly sounds like Ne. Even in MBTI.

Though yes I saw an ISTP get playful too with concepts: he did this thing, took "scientific theory" and "conspiracy theory" and made up something about a "scientific conspiracy theory".




> Yes, I know the contradiction, and i know why it contradicts. The google search is to find more information so I can understand which fact is 'more' correct, and which fact to disregard as being 'wrong'.


I'm not following. If you already know why it contradicts, why would you need to google search to determine which facts are correct/wrong?




> Honestly, I don't see the hierarchy. there is a system yes, but usually a hierarchy has something above and below at each level of the structure. It's a specific type of system.
> The ISTP system seems so malleable.


I agree, I think she only mentioned it because I directly asked about it.




> Um... assumption that seems to make sense
> I wasn't quite making the link to Ti, however I believe MBTI Ti is informed by ITP


I agree MBTI Ti = ITP. 




> You have observed the ISTP as not thorough?


They are not anally analytical for sure. :laughing: Also, not thorough with organizing their way of doing things to not waste time, I saw this too.




> This to me is you perception of how you see them which would be their exterior. MBTI does refer to the exterior of an introvert is different to their inner world. And that P trait, that is defined by the outward perception of the individual. and ISTP should look like a P to others, and should not be observed as thorough.


If the inner thinking is thorough then why wouldn't it show signs to other people? That's silly to me




> Does not help if I'm asking repetitive questions lol.


:laughing:




> You could. I just know there was a discrepancy between Thomphson's and Beren's Ni.


What was it?




> Sorry, that was Jung's Si. I don't think MBTI ISxJ's relate to it lol.


True, they don't tend to relate to it. To the fluid impressionistic stuff either, so where did you get that from?

I suppose some of the MBTI Si parts that are actually its perceptual side and not just Ji, they do still relate to and I do too, but I don't see it as conscious as my Socionics dominant function... that Si perceptual side in Socionics is still as strong as the dominant function but is really a helper to the ego and only bits of it get conscious. Though it's close to being in ego, some of its processes determining part of the ego worldview.




> I'm just able to mentally step back an observe. Patterns emerge, and there are things I notice mental I find interesting. I see it as vital because it allows for a complete change up mentally, effectively shifting my perception.


How often do you like it to shift?




> Yeah, Ok an introverted thinking dominant with sensation auxiliary (Jung) and ISTJ in mbti.


Yah that's in my profile now =)


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

@Ksara

one more thing I noticed

You say...



> The impressions/experience more fluid, affecting how you see facts or select facts. It's what colors how the world is seen, more interested in how the world affects/impacts you. Overtime building up what is expected.
> That's how I imagine MBTI Si.


...You called the ISTP thinking fluid too with selecting their facts. Of course, the part on building up of expectations doesn't match ISTP. I do have my tentative interpretation as to why not. And I have had more thoughts on this whole Si topic but I'd better msg you on that instead of this thread.


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

@myst91 I haven't had the chance to digest and reply to this yet. I will be getting to it


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

Ok part one of the quote 



myst91 said:


> Good
> 
> Nope, right. :laughing:
> 
> ...


I think there is some similarity there then. A shared perspective.



> Oh the "verbal/symbols/notation based" thing, it means it's something that can be expressed in words or other character based notation. Not physical objects. So for example, a mathematical symbol. Or a label in a system. That symbol is what will get some impression attached to it. Sometimes even outright synesthesia


I just see symbol containing meaning.. is that Ni?



> As I said in my previous post too: "The more conceptual something becomes in this sense, numbers, various signs for defined concepts from systems, etc". Remember, I said, you can call it "impression on top of Lenore's Te".  Since she defines Te in this way, dealing with symbolized logic stuff, numbers, concepts, blahblah.


So how does this impression symbol differ from an Ni symbol? Is it due to having some relatedness to the world/what was sensed?



> It does facilitate very well memorizing, etc.
> 
> By the way I've yet to see an ISTJ on the forum that claimed to have subjective sensory impressions about objects in front of them. They have so far all said they don't have that. They may recall some memory, association, whatever, that's relevant, it may be sensory data, but it's not impressionistic. One of them explicitly said "it's not impressionistic", another said it's a rather detached form, etc.


Then what's the deal with dom Si? lol
Ah well, maybe MBTI gave up on functions a long time ago.



> Oh I always know if I remembered right or if I have doubts (in which case I check or if I can't check, I will note that I may not remember right). I don't really try to paraphrase when I recall stuff, it just happens anyway. I don't remember text word by word too readily.


I have a good memory for interesting facts (e.g. the hottest planet in our solar system is Venus). It gets tied to the why, or how it works. When I come across more data I can infer between such data points.
On the other hand I don't actually have a good memory for events that have happened in my life. I doubt the events that actually unfolded.
I don't do rote memory well. SO no i can't remeber something word for word, that's why I paraphrase lol.



> Well surely it doesn't magically happen without mentally dealing with the facts. Facts go in, ..., then application, it's not like nothing happens between the input and output in this whole big brain.
> 
> Tho' maybe for ISTPs it does work like that, nothing happens between input and output hahaha. Jk. Just my POV when dealing with them. Sometimes.  (It really is a joke, of course I can see they do some trick in their mind to be able to shift their facts around to adapt to a situation)


Well it seems like they shift facts around constantly, where you seem to place them in a rigid framework.



> Oh it's Lenore: The ISJ’s Inner World
> 
> Btw it's full of _apperceptive _Ji mixed in there. :laughing:


Yuppers haha.



> It should :laughing:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hmm.. so experimental analysts? maybe lol




> Yes, as I said... anally analytical. :laughing:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think I just had insight.
Hmm It seems for you you will take in as much data and fit it to a frame work to understand it. facts comparing to facts. 
Where as the ISTP takes a couple of facts here and there and applies it as the situation needs it. Kind of reasoning logically (something goes on in their head right? Joking lol) between the facts.

It's hard to explain.
Actually it's weird, I do the same as what is the above example here. When cooking, I will look at three to five recopies, look for what's in common, apply a few cooking principles (e.g. beating adds air, sifting adds air, hmm I want light and fluffy), and then I just cook and it works ... most of the time.

... i think I may have found Ti...
O.O



> I like doing that


I think you like it more than I do lol 



> Se seeking in Socionics


Interesting.

Oh was at a stand still with my sister late last night. Just could not get her to budge. The not being able to use Se to apply just the right amount of pressure. Hours later I realized what I should have done.
... yeah always after the fact do i see what I should have done...


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

Apologies for the delay 



myst91 said:


> The fact itself can't make sense if you are not checking it against something else. Against that personal logic, sure. But, it should make sense to others too, IMO. May take effort to explain it all but should be possible. Just in a more round-about way than with (jungian) Te.


That's true, things tend to make sense in context of other things.

I keep seeing subjective logic --> INTP --> being overly precise and not making any sense to others (yet make all the sense to themselves).
Not sure about ISTP.
But it may be not actually be about not making sense in this case, but the communication itself. Perhaps others can get lost with the round about way.



> It's a way to find a "core", yes, I was just wondering if this kind of summing up is what's been seen as finding the Ti core by MBTI theorists. And, I think there is a difference between deep summary and surface summary.


What difference would this be?



> The fun thing is, Socionics calls it Te, this direct relation to the _logical _object, not Se. Reprocessing facts first is Ti.


I keep seeing MBTI's interpretation of functions opposite to Socionics in some aspects. I do believe the functions are informed by the dichotomies, and the J/P aspect is supposed to be about ones relation to the world.
Yet for you ISTJ and ISTj fit.
Perhaps it really is what MBTI defines as Se is the same aspect that Socionics defines as Te.



> Unconscious Ti in Socionics ;p


Awesome, saves me time trying to deduce everything.
... though sometimes I wish I had more answers when I need them...



> Yes, that's how it works for me. Exactly.
> 
> Though sometimes I can grab/pull "out of nowhere" some better unifying principle and then the whole system/my understanding of it may shift a level up. That's rare but awesome moments.


Those are great moments 



> I do it too, heh, uh, huh.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I see the direct access, the facts align to the object as to what is needed. I can see the dynamic side of it.
Where as for you everything seems to fit neatly into a large structure and has it's place.



> OK, btw, "reliable facts"... it can also be my own observation.


Yes, I would expect your own observations have merit, S is good with this 



> I don't have fluid experience/impressions, no, it's all static. The thing is, has anyone in MBTI ever checked if fluid impressions lead to building up what's expected - nope. Actually, I'm not even sure if this was ever stated for Si, I usually see MBTI Si as described as permanence, don't you? Where did you get the fluid impression idea? I'm genuinely curious.


Well imagine you are extremely observant with how things affect you. You are sensitive to your senses, everything is intense, everything has an affect, be it how things feel, taste, look. 
Now say you have grown up in the same house, with a similar routine, same sorts of textures, foods, sounds, surroundings.
Initially it was a sensing mess, some new sensation you did not know that felt intense. Over time it becomes familiar, to be expected. This is what's right, what's comfortable, what is secure. Day by day these sensations build upon each other, becoming more permanent.
Any large change is noticed. It is not what has been, it is not what is comfortable, it is not what is expected. The smell of the house is not right, the new carpet is too fuzzy, the changed lights dull, the newly painted walls change the whole atmosphere. What is sensed is not right, and the individual wants to change things back to their equilibrium. Anything too much is reduced, any thing too little is amped up.

However this equilibrium can never be static. It is formed by what is sensed and what is current is aways layering on top of itself. If something small changes this be placed on top of what is previously sensed. With times this sense of equilibrium shifts to a new sense of normal. Over stretches of time what an individual perceives as comfortable/secure has shifted as it accumulates all of what has been sensed.

This affects the selection of facts. If something is comfortable, it's not going to readily accept facts that jeopardise this. Even if these facts a true, there personal bias will stick to what is known, and what maintains their equilibrium.

Well that's how I imagine it...




> Btw, in Socionics, Si is indeed fluid but it does not result in such built-up _explicit expectations _as it remains a pure Perceiving function there. But that's too fluid and too Perceiving for me. What I do instead is, automatically stabilize the perception and have it static instead, or I'd be disoriented by too much "fluid flow".
> 
> Also, how do you imagine the fluid impressions would lend themselves to the rigid analysis and the permanent view? I'm honestly not following you there. Why would I need to reorient with things and change if it was all so fluid anyway?


Its about the perception of equilibrium. Actually I think this terms is better then expectation.
It's a sense of what is 'normal' and the individual works to maintain this sense of 'normality' for themselves. Such a person can outwardly appear rigid. Things must look/feel/taste/etc. a certain way.

What is considered 'normal' over time does change.
It's like when winter comes around. Initially it feels very cold. But Being exposed to the cold for a couple of weeks you grow to become 'used' to the cold. It begins to feel normal. Then summer comes back and everything is too hot again.


Hmm, maybe i'm not describing what Si is in the MBTI system :/



> So, anyway, I relate to the building up, yes sure, of the details and facts from experience and from what I've read/heard. Facts are hard facts, not affected by impression for interpretation, I just may have the impression on the side for the more mentally packaged facts. (Helps me remember, maybe.) What's expected... well I'm not sure if I get this interpreted right here, how I relate to it is, I build up the structures in my environment and I expect those to be there. Were you thinking of that? (That's btw also what makes me so J in a lot of stuff.)


To me this seems like a judgment process, building a framework of what its true, fitting what you come across into this structure.
The more it builds the more rigid it becomes, unless you have a huge shift in understanding as you mentioned.

To me Si would be more affected by the impression of the facts.



> Why two question marks?


I asked two questions 



> Similarity: we both do S stuff the same way.. like to get things done in a rather similar way.. that is, we both push ourselves and, we both, if started on a task, have a hard time with stopping, we keep working. And when there is an issue, we may both try to grab control over the object/situation to be dealt with. :laughing: It's not the most efficient seriously, if they would let me work in peace I'd figure it out faster without them vying for control too, but it only happens with the more aggressive version of ISFJ and only if I don't instantly manage to reassure them by showing I know what I'm doing.. I don't always know right away if it's a new thing :laughing:
> 
> Also, it's fun how I even as a kid/teenager could see I had the same kind of energy she does. (I link this to Sensing, too, at least in Socionics .)
> 
> Differences: they will panic much much easier than I do over unexpected issues where logic helps with seeing the right course fast enough. They are more pessimistic in general about possible problems. And of course they are more touchy-feely than I am  Warmer overall.


I see a lot in common here. To me this suggests that ISTJ could be a good MBTI fit.



> :laughing: ...I think the whole topic we have been discussing is pretty relevant from this angle






> How much of an effort? For me it's small conscious effort but so small it's maintainable basically forever.


It's when I don't know the answer. I will mentally reason through what it could be. It feels forced and often enough I give up, look up the answer or simply forget about it until a week later I realise what it is. That light bulb moment when it just makes sense lol.



> Yeah that's totally not how I work with assumptions.


Haha, Let me guess, you don't work with assumptions?
Assumptions do save a lot of time, and can cut straight to the point. By the same token they can completely miss what i important at times.



> That's a fine rule and I do not see it as attached to the fact (cat) itself, naaah. It can easily be applied on other objects. I know, Lenore still calls this de-attached generalized rule Te. For whatever reason that I'm not aware of, other than her left brain/right brain tenet being linked with the MBTI J/P tenet for deducting functions. (Both tenets being pretty flawed.)


Yes the left/right brain thing was a complete miss there.



> Uhhh, how do you get to that without intuitive mental masturbation? I don't think ISTPs do this, just INTPs, so it has to be N. Or maybe I misunderstand what you are getting at because to me it's a simple everyday concept, a cat, that can be experienced without having to go back and create the unified Theory Of Everything In The Universe (which, again, is an INTP thing). That is, S can take care of that aspect just fine.


Ti seems to want to be precise with definitions which is arbitrary, and subjectively determined (though it has been standardised by a dictionary)?
Te is more concerned with how the object is utilised which is based one the object?
Maybe I just don't get ISTPs haha.



> But, yes, I can give you its definition, which is certain important concrete traits with a reason for them, inside an organizational system. For that, I certainly don't to go to the unified Theory Of Everything. I can explain on an everyday life level. Or I can explain from a biology standpoint too where we have the taxonomy while explaining in a system why that taxonomy: cat is a mammal etc, that's the classification part, now how a mammal, and inside that the cat, works is the rest of the system.
> 
> If you still see all these rules/definitions as attached to the cat object... then please give me an example of that underlying concept that is not attached to it.


Hmm, well taxonomy is arbitrary. Saying a cat is a mammal is arbitrary. We give a certain sound a certain definition to then distinguish and classify objects. Yes there is logic to the system as to why it is classified a certain way. There are how ever many other systems to classify what a cat is and where it fits in relation to other objects based on a different logical criteria (as you mention).


Actually I think my Te cat example sucks. Either the cat is in my room or it isn't. That's better.
Or either I can sit on a chair or I cant. It comes back to the object and what is true for the object.



> No, no, they use the facts for practical jobs.
> 
> This here explicitly sounds like Ne. Even in MBTI.
> 
> Though yes I saw an ISTP get playful too with concepts: he did this thing, took "scientific theory" and "conspiracy theory" and made up something about a "scientific conspiracy theory".


Hmm, so more like understanding how a car engine works and applying the same principles to how a lawnmower engine works to fix it.



> I'm not following. If you already know why it contradicts, why would you need to google search to determine which facts are correct/wrong?


Because I don't know if the fact I have is correct, or if the new fact is correct.
New stuff is always being discovered, I could very well have an outdated fact.



> I agree, I think she only mentioned it because I directly asked about it.


Haha maybe just a different idea if what hierarchy is.



> I agree MBTI Ti = ITP.


And Jung Ti =/= MBTI Ti
And socionics Ti =/= MBTi Ti

Someone could have used a different label here but no they didn't. Could of made everyones life easier but no, lets call both a table and chair a 'squib' so that everyone thinks both 'squibs' are the same -.-



> They are not anally analytical for sure. :laughing: Also, not thorough with organizing their way of doing things to not waste time, I saw this too.


I relate more to organising myself. A mental plan can save a huge amount of time, and I lack the energy to be wasting time. Especially in practical matters. I can not 'enjoy the moment' when I know there is an easier way to do something but I don't have the tools.



> If the inner thinking is thorough then why wouldn't it show signs to other people? That's silly to me


*shrugs*
MBTI is externally administered. It's about what the administrator can see. I guess introverts are good at hiding their dominant process most of the time?



> :laughing:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thompson talks a lot about Ni being able to change it's point of view/perspective.
Beren's has this defined as an Ne trait not Ni. Ni is more about inner realisations, inner symbols of profound meaning, and forecasting the future. Ne is about exploring multiple possiblities which included exploring perspectives.



> True, they don't tend to relate to it. To the fluid impressionistic stuff either, so where did you get that from?
> 
> I suppose some of the MBTI Si parts that are actually its perceptual side and not just Ji, they do still relate to and I do too, but I don't see it as conscious as my Socionics dominant function... that Si perceptual side in Socionics is still as strong as the dominant function but is really a helper to the ego and only bits of it get conscious. Though it's close to being in ego, some of its processes determining part of the ego worldview.


I keep coming across Si is a sensed impression. Judgment is rigid, sensation isn't.

Interesting. Socionics really has a dynamic system there with each function playing a role.



> How often do you like it to shift?


Often enough.
I aim to seek inner truth.
It is very easy to blame someone when I am upset by something. This is not helpful, nor does it empower myself. Actually taking a step back from my emotions and seeing the connection to an inner conflict I hold is beneficial.
It's the difference of being frustrated with my partner knocking down my idea, to realising I am upset due not fully fleshing out my idea and it may not actually work. The former allows for blame in the moment, the latter I can actually take the criticism and improve what I have.

I do need to practice this mindfulness more often. Due to life's stresses I have become much more emotional then my preferred neutral self.



> Yah that's in my profile now =)


Nice


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Ksara said:


> Apologies for the delay


No worries and same 




> I think there is some similarity there then. A shared perspective.


Apparently. I didn't change my opinion on this since then. (Wrt ISTJ forum)




> I just see symbol containing meaning.. is that Ni?


I don't know. It's an impression but it's not necessarily fully abstract like Ni is. Then, I do have fully abstract ones too at times. But that's not the default. It does not have much direct relatedness to the outside world as sensed either, though, since it always "hides" behind the "Lenore Te" stuff. I'm not gonna call this Si either, not in any of the typology systems (you could force that conclusion though in MBTI JCF), just saying I have this phenomenon. 




> Then what's the deal with dom Si? lol
> Ah well, maybe MBTI gave up on functions a long time ago.


Official MBTI did to a degree (they didn't entirely cut them out but no focus on them, more on Step II and the even newer version of that in development).

Forum fanfiction and some MBTI book authors still play with them and that's MBTI JCF.




> I think I just had insight.
> Hmm It seems for you you will take in as much data and fit it to a frame work to understand it. facts comparing to facts.
> Where as the ISTP takes a couple of facts here and there and applies it as the situation needs it. Kind of reasoning logically (something goes on in their head right? Joking lol) between the facts.
> 
> ...


I do more than just compare fact to fact but I already explained that... no? You also say I fit it to a framework.

I think what you found in yourself and in ISTPs is Dynamic property of IEs in Socionics (of Si, Ni, Te, Fe). My version is Static, on the other hand (of Ti, Fi, Se, Ne). Socionics, of course, again, not MBTI.




> Oh was at a stand still with my sister late last night. Just could not get her to budge. The not being able to use Se to apply just the right amount of pressure. Hours later I realized what I should have done.
> ... yeah always after the fact do i see what I should have done...


If you still remember, what was this?




> That's true, things tend to make sense in context of other things.
> 
> I keep seeing subjective logic --> INTP --> being overly precise and not making any sense to others (yet make all the sense to themselves).
> Not sure about ISTP.
> But it may be not actually be about not making sense in this case, but the communication itself. Perhaps others can get lost with the round about way.


I hear ISTJ is also round-about so let's stick with Introversion for this one.




> > And, I think there is a difference between deep summary and surface summary.
> 
> 
> What difference would this be?


I showed that quote from the ISTP on exercise etc. That was a surface summary. I'd like to think mine's deeper  But some people have called it surface too, so this is all subjective. 

So let's drop this topic ;p




> I keep seeing MBTI's interpretation of functions opposite to Socionics in some aspects. I do believe the functions are informed by the dichotomies, and the J/P aspect is supposed to be about ones relation to the world.
> Yet for you ISTJ and ISTj fit.
> Perhaps it really is what MBTI defines as Se is the same aspect that Socionics defines as Te.


The functions are informed by the dichotomies yes but then MBTI makes the mistake of only assigning certain parts of the dichotomy to functions e.g. to Ti vs to Te. And the J/P mistake, etc.

Some Socionics descriptions also don't emphasize the commonalities enough between Ti and Te but on the whole it's better put together.

Socionics Se is similar to MBTI Se when it's a dominant function. Function positions are what are interpreted differently for the most part beyond the above mentioned issues. So Se as the second function is different in Socionics than in MBTI. Make sense?




> I see the direct access, the facts align to the object as to what is needed. I can see the dynamic side of it.
> Where as for you everything seems to fit neatly into a large structure and has it's place.


Yes




> Well imagine you are extremely observant with how things affect you. You are sensitive to your senses, everything is intense, everything has an affect, be it how things feel, taste, look.
> Now say you have grown up in the same house, with a similar routine, same sorts of textures, foods, sounds, surroundings.
> Initially it was a sensing mess, some new sensation you did not know that felt intense. Over time it becomes familiar, to be expected. This is what's right, what's comfortable, what is secure. Day by day these sensations build upon each other, becoming more permanent.
> Any large change is noticed. It is not what has been, it is not what is comfortable, it is not what is expected. The smell of the house is not right, the new carpet is too fuzzy, the changed lights dull, the newly painted walls change the whole atmosphere. What is sensed is not right, and the individual wants to change things back to their equilibrium. Anything too much is reduced, any thing too little is amped up.


Sounds like weak but probably valued Si. (Not for the kids part, that could be anything.) In Socionics. Definitely not Si base as that is not this helpless to sensations and is more variable than this, the body can and actually desires to take more than just one single routine. Variation is more important for Irrational functions in general than for Rational functions.




> However this equilibrium can never be static. It is formed by what is sensed and what is current is aways layering on top of itself. If something small changes this be placed on top of what is previously sensed. With times this sense of equilibrium shifts to a new sense of normal. Over stretches of time what an individual perceives as comfortable/secure has shifted as it accumulates all of what has been sensed.


This is a nice description - I really liked it and got inspired by it. So I have tried to watch for this after reading your ideas on this and here's my conclusion, Si without anything else filtering/channelling it will get bored real fast with "always the same". It is not simply layering on top of itself, it is changing all the time, since if it was to layer on top of itself it would lead to boredom real quick. Si if filtered enough by a Rational function, will not be focused on boredom with sameness since it no longer has the main say in things.

Sameness in general is Rational function dominating + S auxiliary (jungian or Socionics).

If you need me to explain why I think Si as a "pure" dominant function (jungian or Socionics) will feel boredom from sameness and will need more hedonism than this, let me know, but a quick summary is that the body just does not want sameness on its own. Also the body wants enjoyable sensations, not just "secure" sameness. This is what I can sense rather well if I care to. I usually don't care to but for your description I was interested in observing this more.




> This affects the selection of facts. If something is comfortable, it's not going to readily accept facts that jeopardise this. Even if these facts a true, there personal bias will stick to what is known, and what maintains their equilibrium.


I would really like to correct you on this one. No, just no. Having bias is not specific to any function.




> Its about the perception of equilibrium. Actually I think this terms is better then expectation.
> It's a sense of what is 'normal' and the individual works to maintain this sense of 'normality' for themselves. Such a person can outwardly appear rigid. Things must look/feel/taste/etc. a certain way.


That's again Rationality + S ny jung.




> Hmm, maybe i'm not describing what Si is in the MBTI system :/


Actually you are, but it's also what's bs in MBTI :laughing:




> To me this seems like a judgment process, building a framework of what its true, fitting what you come across into this structure.
> The more it builds the more rigid it becomes, unless you have a huge shift in understanding as you mentioned.
> 
> To me Si would be more affected by the impression of the facts.


Yeahh MBTI Si goes with J as we know already 

Your last line here is jungian Si




> Haha, Let me guess, you don't work with assumptions?
> Assumptions do save a lot of time, and can cut straight to the point. By the same token they can completely miss what i important at times.


Right, I don't like to...




> Ti seems to want to be precise with definitions which is arbitrary, and subjectively determined (though it has been standardised by a dictionary)?


The ISTPs I talked to didn't really care about that




> Te is more concerned with how the object is utilised which is based one the object?
> Maybe I just don't get ISTPs haha.


Heh well ISTPs do this, think of the craftsman stereotype.




> Hmm, well taxonomy is arbitrary. Saying a cat is a mammal is arbitrary. We give a certain sound a certain definition to then distinguish and classify objects. Yes there is logic to the system as to why it is classified a certain way. There are how ever many other systems to classify what a cat is and where it fits in relation to other objects based on a different logical criteria (as you mention).


I don't agree that it's arbitrary since it's based in the real world.




> Actually I think my Te cat example sucks. Either the cat is in my room or it isn't. That's better.
> Or either I can sit on a chair or I cant. It comes back to the object and what is true for the object.


The room example could be Se too. The chair is Te alright in Socionics (direct relation to the _logical object_). Socionics only since MBTI does not separate Te from Ti in this manner in a clear or consistent enough way but I do like your way of doing it better.

Anyway the point was: "If you still see all these rules/definitions as attached to the cat object... then please give me an example of that underlying concept that is not attached to it."

I'm interested in this still. 




> Hmm, so more like understanding how a car engine works and applying the same principles to how a lawnmower engine works to fix it.


Yeah, I can do some of that too if I have to do it, but I can find it a bit boring too




> Someone could have used a different label here but no they didn't. Could of made everyones life easier but no, lets call both a table and chair a 'squib' so that everyone thinks both 'squibs' are the same -.-


Right. :dry:




> *shrugs*
> MBTI is externally administered. It's about what the administrator can see. I guess introverts are good at hiding their dominant process most of the time?


The problem is that this is actually stated as a tenet in the MBTI theory. It's not simply them mentioning that it may be hard to see it for introverts... they claim it's not there, at all, the influence on the world from the introverted function. That's what's idiotic.




> Thompson talks a lot about Ni being able to change it's point of view/perspective.
> Beren's has this defined as an Ne trait not Ni. Ni is more about inner realisations, inner symbols of profound meaning, and forecasting the future. Ne is about exploring multiple possiblities which included exploring perspectives.


Berens is more sensible then.




> I keep coming across Si is a sensed impression. Judgment is rigid, sensation isn't.


Exactly... MBTI is fucked up there. Also your Si description above didn't emphasize the fluidness enough, I think. Seemed to be too influenced by MBTI ideas. So I hope my addition helps there.




> Often enough.
> I aim to seek inner truth.
> It is very easy to blame someone when I am upset by something. This is not helpful, nor does it empower myself. Actually taking a step back from my emotions and seeing the connection to an inner conflict I hold is beneficial.
> It's the difference of being frustrated with my partner knocking down my idea, to realising I am upset due not fully fleshing out my idea and it may not actually work. The former allows for blame in the moment, the latter I can actually take the criticism and improve what I have.


Pretty good approach about discovering the inner conflict  




> I do need to practice this mindfulness more often. Due to life's stresses I have become much more emotional then my preferred neutral self.


Hope it's getting better though!


----------



## Peace Maker (Mar 22, 2016)

I am quite clear that I am not INTJ and that I am INTP. I believe I am externally P because

1. I hate making decisions for other people. This doesn't stop me from informing them which decision I think is more logical. This trait goes to the extent of prefering to solve other peoples problems by hinting/inspiring rather than telling

2. I find it very hard to commit to something other people can see. For example, I am currently finding it impossible to tell my mother which university I want to attend because that will mean I can't go back on it without explaining. When something stays


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

myst91 said:


> No worries and same
> 
> 
> 
> ...


maybe it's just some other aspect of our brains?



> Official MBTI did to a degree (they didn't entirely cut them out but no focus on them, more on Step II and the even newer version of that in development).
> 
> Forum fanfiction and some MBTI book authors still play with them and that's MBTI JCF.


Lol forum fanfiction.



> I do more than just compare fact to fact but I already explained that... no? You also say I fit it to a framework.
> 
> I think what you found in yourself and in ISTPs is Dynamic property of IEs in Socionics (of Si, Ni, Te, Fe). My version is Static, on the other hand (of Ti, Fi, Se, Ne). Socionics, of course, again, not MBTI.


Well you appear to fit things to a framework. You come across as very mentally ordered with what I have read.

That's what it is to be dynamic.. huh.. Ok possibly increase my awareness somewhat.



> If you still remember, what was this?


Well I wanted to have a shower, I think I had somewhere to be. Just as I had planned to go to the bathroom, my sister hops into the shower. Ok no worries, I didn't declare I wanted the use of the bathroom. So I waited.
She finishes, I wait. I ask when she'll be finished, Soon she said. After all that she then decided to dry her hair in the bathroom.

Now I was annoyed. "I asked could I use the shower you could do that in your room"
She said "no, I'll only be five-ten minutes".
I said "I don't have five minutes, I have something else I was planning on doing"

eventually we are at a stand still. Me upset by the fact she could have done her hair in her room and save me some time.


What I realised later, I should have just gone and had a shower anyway and made things awkward for her. SHe would have left the room then haha.

I don't have the time now to finish the rest of the thread. I hope to get to it tomorrow


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

myst91 said:


> I hear ISTJ is also round-about so let's stick with Introversion for this one.


Haha ok 



> I showed that quote from the ISTP on exercise etc. That was a surface summary. I'd like to think mine's deeper  But some people have called it surface too, so this is all subjective.
> 
> So let's drop this topic ;p


Hmm, perhaps one who calls something 'surface' is one who lacks the ability to understand the deeper components 



> The functions are informed by the dichotomies yes but then MBTI makes the mistake of only assigning certain parts of the dichotomy to functions e.g. to Ti vs to Te. And the J/P mistake, etc.
> 
> Some Socionics descriptions also don't emphasize the commonalities enough between Ti and Te but on the whole it's better put together.
> 
> Socionics Se is similar to MBTI Se when it's a dominant function. Function positions are what are interpreted differently for the most part beyond the above mentioned issues. So Se as the second function is different in Socionics than in MBTI. Make sense?



Oh yes, the commonalities I see often get lost.
Like people will spend large amounts of time debating what makes Ti/Te different, etc. and forget both have thinking in common 

Yeah makes sense. That is MBTI Se in the second position is often treated as Se in the first position just to a lesser extent, where as Socionics will describe how Se is used/experienced which is different and it's level of mastery (1D - 4D)... right?



> Yes
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Kids??
Interesting, so I got Si...just not Dominant well used Si lol. I'm trying haha.

I thought the variation was more of an Se thing. What makes Se different to a desire to experiences different sensations.. to experience different objects?



> This is a nice description - I really liked it and got inspired by it. So I have tried to watch for this after reading your ideas on this and here's my conclusion, Si without anything else filtering/channelling it will get bored real fast with "always the same". It is not simply layering on top of itself, it is changing all the time, since if it was to layer on top of itself it would lead to boredom real quick. Si if filtered enough by a Rational function, will not be focused on boredom with sameness since it no longer has the main say in things.
> 
> Sameness in general is Rational function dominating + S auxiliary (jungian or Socionics).
> 
> If you need me to explain why I think Si as a "pure" dominant function (jungian or Socionics) will feel boredom from sameness and will need more hedonism than this, let me know, but a quick summary is that the body just does not want sameness on its own. Also the body wants enjoyable sensations, not just "secure" sameness. This is what I can sense rather well if I care to. I usually don't care to but for your description I was interested in observing this more.


Thanks, nice to have an idea tested 

I thought I was onto something with equilibrium. I'll add my observations here (though they are external, maybe you have a closer perspective?)
I have noticed a few things my partner, one of his brothers, and my mum have in common. Is this an aspect of Si i have identified?

My partner (MBTI ENFP) is sensitive to his environment. He often attaches worth to what is sensed (I'd say thats the strong feeling coming in), that is either its good for his health or it's bad for his health. He is happy to experience new situations however he is either often unaware of how something is physically affecting him, or so aware of how it is affecting him (and using lost of Ne) leading to almost hypochondrial tendencies. It's like he pays so much attention he perceives how things are affecting his body. 
This would be more a weak but valued Si socionics wise?


His brother (i'm not sure on his type) is actually very rigid when it comes to comfort. Thing have to be a certain way to be comfortable. A place must have a certain cleanliness, there can not be fur around (allergies), the bed must have a certain comfort level otherwise he will have a bad sleep. He commented once on how the house my partner is in (living with his dad) has an 'old' feel to it but when you walk to the back end where my partner has set up the end rooms it has this 'slick modern feel' to it that was completely unexpected when you walk through the front door.

My mum (I think MBTI ESFJ may fit best) can be similar to may partners brother. The house has to be a certain way, objects in certain places, and the house a certain temperature...warm! .. or else it's uncomfortable for her. I find she does project what she finds comfortable onto others, often thinking they could be hungry, or cold if they go outside, etc.

Both the brother and my mum could be rational function first + sensing?

What would a pure Si dom look like?
Ok beyond sameness, it's an individual who enjoys experiencing sensations, gravitates towards those that are favourable in some way and is able to understand things like their sense of comfort?, how their environments impacts them?
They can also adjust their environment to better suit the subjective experience they are aiming for and how it can impact another?






> I would really like to correct you on this one. No, just no. Having bias is not specific to any function.


Yes you're right, any type can be biased.
Could a specific type of bias be an attribution to a particular functional perspective?



> That's again Rationality + S ny jung.


Interesting. So including the above individuals mentioned, I am actually identify rational + S

An I guess naturally I would find this somewhat irksome as I'm less rigid and more fluid. I just feel I naturally challenge the idea when someone says something 'should' be a certain way lol.


I will get the rest of the post done soon. It's been good getting back into all this stuff since my exams are over


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

myst91 said:


> Actually you are, but it's also what's bs in MBTI :laughing:
> 
> 
> 
> ...






> The ISTPs I talked to didn't really care about that


I just seem to come across people pointing to Ti --> Precision, Te --> Utility
or something like that.



> Heh well ISTPs do this, think of the craftsman stereotype.






> I don't agree that it's arbitrary since it's based in the real world.


Yes the cat does exists as an object in the world, the name cat is arbitrary.
It could have been called a tac, or limb, or Fred, etc. the name 'cat' is just a label to identify or distinguish the animal cat, from other things.



> The room example could be Se too. The chair is Te alright in Socionics (direct relation to the _logical object_). Socionics only since MBTI does not separate Te from Ti in this manner in a clear or consistent enough way but I do like your way of doing it better.
> 
> Anyway the point was: "If you still see all these rules/definitions as attached to the cat object... then please give me an example of that underlying concept that is not attached to it."
> 
> I'm interested in this still.


Yes mot definitely the room could be Se. Sensation is about what exists. The experience the object gives.
Te is more concerned about what it is, which could be the qualities of the objects, what makes up the object, what the object can do or can't do, etc.



> Yeah, I can do some of that too if I have to do it, but I can find it a bit boring too


Hmm, but is it boring to do that process, or is it boring because it's about engines?




> Right. :dry:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I see, that is very absolute to claim no influence by the introverted function.
I mean, aren't introverts often attempting to shape or change their environment to better fit with their inner image? If that can't be done they move to an environment that better aligns with who they are?
That's what I remember reading of Lenore Thomson.

That would have to have some impact.



> Berens is more sensible then.


Or more inline with Jung.



> Exactly... MBTI is fucked up there. Also your Si description above didn't emphasize the fluidness enough, I think. Seemed to be too influenced by MBTI ideas. So I hope my addition helps there.


Yeah. I'm note entirely sure where I stand on all the theories.
I think MBTI can be used as a measuring tool.
I think it gets sticky relating it to functions, simply because (and a lot base done our conversations  ) there isn't consistency between their functions and the functions by function theorist (Jung, Socionics, Berens, etc)



> Pretty good approach about discovering the inner conflict


Yeah. I try lol.
Really I would like to reach a point where pretty much no situation or person can impact me. That is I am aware of my own insecurities and accepting of them that I can deal with the situation rather than just reacting.

I do know it is possible.


> Hope it's getting better though!


That would be nice haha
Thanks 






Oh and in relation to Socionics Si.
Would an example of Si used to it's full potential seen in a person, would that person be like a monk?

Like when I read up about it, they live very sparse and simple lives, The practice being present to the moment, and some types of meditation are about concentrating on the body. The are about taking their time, and living a peaceful existence.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Sorry for the delay in replying!




Ksara said:


> Yeah makes sense. That is MBTI Se in the second position is often treated as Se in the first position just to a lesser extent, where as Socionics will describe how Se is used/experienced which is different and it's level of mastery (1D - 4D)... right?


Yes, exactly.




> I thought the variation was more of an Se thing. What makes Se different to a desire to experiences different sensations.. to experience different objects?


Sure, I think it correlates most with 1) Irrationality 2) Extraversion 3) Intuition
...so Ne will want the most variety, yup. And Ne PoLR in Socionics will need it the least.

As for Se, yeah, it's more object oriented, Jung himself notes how the Se type does not feel they are subject to their sensations.




> Thanks, nice to have an idea tested


Well it's just my observations but at least they aren't just theory 




> I have noticed a few things my partner, one of his brothers, and my mum have in common. Is this an aspect of Si i have identified?


It seems like Si kinda, yes.




> My partner (MBTI ENFP) is sensitive to his environment. He often attaches worth to what is sensed (I'd say thats the strong feeling coming in), that is either its good for his health or it's bad for his health. He is happy to experience new situations however he is either often unaware of how something is physically affecting him, or so aware of how it is affecting him (and using lost of Ne) leading to almost hypochondrial tendencies. It's like he pays so much attention he perceives how things are affecting his body.
> This would be more a weak but valued Si socionics wise?


Very weak Si. Can be valued too, yes but not sure on that. 




> His brother (i'm not sure on his type) is actually very rigid when it comes to comfort. Thing have to be a certain way to be comfortable. A place must have a certain cleanliness, there can not be fur around (allergies), the bed must have a certain comfort level otherwise he will have a bad sleep. He commented once on how the house my partner is in (living with his dad) has an 'old' feel to it but when you walk to the back end where my partner has set up the end rooms it has this 'slick modern feel' to it that was completely unexpected when you walk through the front door.


Si HA?




> My mum (I think MBTI ESFJ may fit best) can be similar to may partners brother. The house has to be a certain way, objects in certain places, and the house a certain temperature...warm! .. or else it's uncomfortable for her. I find she does project what she finds comfortable onto others, often thinking they could be hungry, or cold if they go outside, etc.
> 
> Both the brother and my mum could be rational function first + sensing?


Yes they could be. Your mother sounds like she has more of a handle on Si so it can be ego Si.




> What would a pure Si dom look like?
> Ok beyond sameness, it's an individual who enjoys experiencing sensations, gravitates towards those that are favourable in some way and is able to understand things like their sense of comfort?, how their environments impacts them?
> They can also adjust their environment to better suit the subjective experience they are aiming for and how it can impact another?


As for references to sameness, in Socionics I only saw this for the Si of Rationals. Which makes sense to me. (Jung does not make this reference for Si or the Si dominant type, or I did not see it, but in any case it would not fit his view of Si either.)

Yes to the rest.




> Yes you're right, any type can be biased.
> Could a specific type of bias be an attribution to a particular functional perspective?


It could 




> I just seem to come across people pointing to Ti --> Precision, Te --> Utility
> or something like that.


That's not a bad distinction but "Utility" for Te I don't find specific enough, Thinking itself is practical in a sense.




> Yes the cat does exists as an object in the world, the name cat is arbitrary.
> It could have been called a tac, or limb, or Fred, etc. the name 'cat' is just a label to identify or distinguish the animal cat, from other things.


The name doesn't count, really. 




> Hmm, but is it boring to do that process, or is it boring because it's about engines?


The process. I couldn't care less about thinking in this way. Part of my relative lack of interest is definitely that it is direct logic of how an object works so it's Te. 

Yes it can be analyzed with Ti too but it's gonna be a bit roundabout compared to Te especially if done without Intuition.

So another part of it is that I don't start with the abstract concept since I'm an S type. So to draw the parallel between the two different kinds of engines, I have to start from the details. 




> I see, that is very absolute to claim no influence by the introverted function.
> I mean, aren't introverts often attempting to shape or change their environment to better fit with their inner image? If that can't be done they move to an environment that better aligns with who they are?
> That's what I remember reading of Lenore Thomson.
> That would have to have some impact.


Yup.




> Yeah. I'm not entirely sure where I stand on all the theories.
> I think MBTI can be used as a measuring tool.


For the function dichotomies, yes, it's not bad.




> Really I would like to reach a point where pretty much no situation or person can impact me. That is I am aware of my own insecurities and accepting of them that I can deal with the situation rather than just reacting.
> I do know it is possible.


How do you know it's possible?




> Oh and in relation to Socionics Si.
> Would an example of Si used to it's full potential seen in a person, would that person be like a monk?
> Like when I read up about it, they live very sparse and simple lives, The practice being present to the moment, and some types of meditation are about concentrating on the body. The are about taking their time, and living a peaceful existence.


Monk stuff seems more Ni to me. At least the things I read about. My Ni ego friends also approach it in a way that the meditation while it focuses on the body originally, takes them to some really detached imaginative place. At the same time they are supposedly staying in connection with something in the moment too but this is the learned part for them. For me (not Ni ego lol) that part is definitely the default, not learned. I'm not Si ego either, though.


----------



## Jeffrei (Aug 23, 2016)

From my understanding the P stands for Procrastination, and the J people like to plan/work ahead of time to reach their goal. Very non sciency. I know. XD


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

BloxezCola said:


> From my understanding the P stands for Procrastination, and the J people like to plan/work ahead of time to reach their goal. Very non sciency. I know. XD


No, P has nothing to do with procrastination.


----------



## Stevester (Feb 28, 2016)

BloxezCola said:


> From my understanding the P stands for Procrastination, and the J people like to plan/work ahead of time to reach their goal. Very non sciency. I know. XD


More like rigidity vs. flexibility

With neither being negative or positive in nature, because it's a case by case thing.


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

myst91 said:


> Sorry for the delay in replying!


No worries 



> Yes, exactly.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Not subjected to their sensations?
Does that mean Se types whilst have a desire to seek out objects don't perceive it as the object cultivating this desire? Or simply what they experience is external to them and an inherent property of the object? 



> Well it's just my observations but at least they aren't just theory
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think he values it.



> Si HA?


*shrugs* I don't know?
I keep seeing Si HA described as a desire to be healthy. He does want to be healthy but it doesn't seem to be a strong priority for him.
I see this desire a lot more with my ENFP (and often failing lol).




> Yes they could be. Your mother sounds like she has more of a handle on Si so it can be ego Si.


Hmm, so ESFJ seems more a possibility.



> As for references to sameness, in Socionics I only saw this for the Si of Rationals. Which makes sense to me. (Jung does not make this reference for Si or the Si dominant type, or I did not see it, but in any case it would not fit his view of Si either.)
> 
> Yes to the rest.


So any rational who values Si?



> It could
> 
> 
> That's not a bad distinction but "Utility" for Te I don't find specific enough, Thinking itself is practical in a sense.


There was a post in the Socionics forum which may better highlight what is meant:
http://personalitycafe.com/socionics-forum/908002-correct-te-vs-ti.html

(I believe the OP is a Ti user)

In the above I guess utility in the aspect of what the object/s can do or be used for. Ti seemed more concerned with the object conforming to the definition or rule.



> The name doesn't count, really.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It sounds like you would have to build up each engine piece by piece. 




> Yup.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I know it's possible to an extent as I have been able to achieve it in the past based on the mindset I have had.
Growing up I have always been able to rationalize other peoples comments. Seeing truth rather than making it personal (and/or seeing a personal flaw in myself). If what someone says something I question is true. If it is either I can change it or accept it. If it isn't true then it isn't my problem and move on. There is no point getting upset or making it into a personal attack. That's a waste of energy and changes nothing.

Late teens/early 20s has come with greater awareness, realizing I have over looked my feelings and perhaps shouldn't ignore my emotions, and more emotional stressors, and in return I have noticed how things seem to impact me more.


I also have friend who's studying counselling. One of her instructors runs a session where the group are open an honest about what they don't like about other people. It does not seem to matter what someone says to the instructor, she is able to acknowledged it and then ask 'ok how can we work together'. The is no offence taken, she appears calm and in control, fully able to take the criticism.




> Monk stuff seems more Ni to me. At least the things I read about. My Ni ego friends also approach it in a way that the meditation while it focuses on the body originally, takes them to some really detached imaginative place. At the same time they are supposedly staying in connection with something in the moment too but this is the learned part for them. For me (not Ni ego lol) that part is definitely the default, not learned. I'm not Si ego either, though.


It just seems the focusing on the body seems Si.
I thought whilst meditating when the mind wanders you were suppose to gentle bring it back to focusing on the body?


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Ksara said:


> Not subjected to their sensations?
> Does that mean Se types whilst have a desire to seek out objects don't perceive it as the object cultivating this desire? Or simply what they experience is external to them and an inherent property of the object?


The latter. Not dependent on how something affects them subjectively - this has its advantages 




> So any rational who values Si?


I saw it explicitly mentioned for those, yes, but I noticed xSIs do the same thing (at least superficially it looks the same). 




> In the above I guess utility in the aspect of what the object/s can do or be used for. Ti seemed more concerned with the object conforming to the definition or rule.


That's fine. Tbh though Ti would have practical enough rules so it's not like it's totally antagonistic to Te. 

I saw that post btw and that kinda is a typical example of Socionics Te creative lol yes




> It sounds like you would have to build up each engine piece by piece.


It's not that extreme, maybe Ti HA with Te PoLR would be?




> I know it's possible to an extent as I have been able to achieve it in the past based on the mindset I have had.
> Growing up I have always been able to rationalize other peoples comments. Seeing truth rather than making it personal (and/or seeing a personal flaw in myself). If what someone says something I question is true. If it is either I can change it or accept it. If it isn't true then it isn't my problem and move on. There is no point getting upset or making it into a personal attack. That's a waste of energy and changes nothing.


The problem is if it's the case where it isn't true, it does matter what the other person said and why. It's not good to let others step over basic boundaries and disrespect you if it's a case of that.




> Late teens/early 20s has come with greater awareness, realizing I have over looked my feelings and perhaps shouldn't ignore my emotions, and more emotional stressors, and in return I have noticed how things seem to impact me more.


Sure that's good to an extent.




> I also have friend who's studying counselling. One of her instructors runs a session where the group are open an honest about what they don't like about other people. It does not seem to matter what someone says to the instructor, she is able to acknowledged it and then ask 'ok how can we work together'. The is no offence taken, she appears calm and in control, fully able to take the criticism.


Afaik, this is a hard task even for most well-practiced therapists even tho' they know the client isn't really in a personal relation with them (which should help a lot by default). I hear there are support groups for dealing with it long term 




> It just seems the focusing on the body seems Si.
> I thought whilst meditating when the mind wanders you were suppose to gentle bring it back to focusing on the body?


I mentioned this topic to an IEI friend and we agreed it could be Se seeking via Si role. Let me know on Skype if this doesn't make sense - don't wanna go more off topic here lol. Same applies to the other off topic stuff above about the dealing with people stuff etc


----------



## Eset (Jun 7, 2016)

I mean there's a big difference between:
(Pi + Je) to (Pe + Ji)

Doesn't take a genius to note the differences.


----------



## Kuraokami (Aug 31, 2016)

Couldn't you just say something like hmm I'm more feeling than sensing and skip the last part? I haven't seen much for functions or anything, but they all seem like they have one first and then a second with just the introvert or extravert being different. Like I'm INFP but even without the P I know I'm introverted and that the F is way more important to me than the N so that kinda just leaves me with the function stack without even looking at any kinda JP stuff.


----------

