# Emotions+abstract+logic: I think I might be INFJ... maybe INFP? I don't know.



## PhotoGeek (Apr 2, 2010)

I've been debating my personality type for a long time (see my earlier thread which is probably way too long for you to read), and have come to the conclusion that I don't fit in with Thinking types. I feel emotions too strongly, and I care too much about people and their feelings to call myself T. I can be very logical at times (I can beat many at a game of the purest logic), and I am good at math and science, and while I value logical correctness, I think I value my own feelings and the feelings of others more. I care too much about aesthetics (I like things that are beautiful, though not necessarily in the typical sense).

I'm also fairly sure that while I use Se, I am far too in love with abstract thought and the future to be a Senser. I can be impulsive, and I like to do things with my hands, but I don't think that it defines my personality. I am an artist. My art is conceptual. It is driven by my emotions, and I want to get emotional reactions from people, I want my artwork to relate to them on a personal level, and I want it to speak about myself, too. This goes for visual art, writing, and music. I love coming up with meanings beyond what is obvious (which is why I love my contemporary art history class and philosophy so much). Honestly, I think I can say that if I had to pick any one motivation for my life, it would not be logical correctness, it wouldn't be other people's feelings, it would be creating. I HAVE to be creative... I can't not be creative (or I start falling into a funk that I cannot easily escape). These are the aspects of my personality I truly enjoy, not how logical I am, not how good at science I am (and why I get so completely bored in my science classes), not how good I am at helping people. I love poetry (reading it and writing it). I love symbolism. I love reading beyond what's there to see what meanings things could have. I actually love dissecting literature and poetry to come up with meanings (i.e. writing papers for my english classes). I _must _be an intuitive.

I am not completely comfortable with the differences between Fe and Fi, Ne and Ni. I think I use Te to some extent while I am doing my photographs or painting, etc (What comes next? What's the next step?) I'm now thinking that Ti may be the thinking process that wears me out, even though I was forced to use it so often when I was taking my math/engineering classes (have a BS in Math, BTW, now I'm an art major--that is my real passion). I get extremely bored when I have to do mundane tasks which are probably Te related (usually I come into deep thoughts, or daydream, then my hands work away while my mind drifts...) My highly abstract math courses were the only ones I was really interested in. The others were just torture. But I suppose I was smart enough to make it through (usually with decent grades, and without trying too hard. It was very difficult on me emotionally/physically for me--compared to liberal arts courses which came much more naturally.)

I dislike being controlled. I don't like to control others. I want to be independent. I want to be unique. I want to be creative. I am always looking to what I can create next. 

I am not religious. It's not that I don't believe that there may be some kind of spiritual force, it's just that I don't like the confines of religion. I question everything. I respect authority to an extent, but don't believe in it unless there is a good (perhaps logical and/or intuitive?) reason to.

I am definitely introverted, but I enjoy being around people. I don't really talk a lot unless I am very comfortable with the group. I usually like to just listen, especially if philosophical or abstract subjects are being discussed, but sometimes if something strikes me, I like to mention my opinion.

I feel torn between practicality and idealism. I love living in the land of abstraction and introspection, but feel I must come down from the cloud at some point and face reality. I am indecisive, or perhaps more accurately, I often decide things very quickly, impulsively, yet before I have fulfilled the decision (or even taken the first step, in many cases) I have changed my mind. I am scatterbrained. I am extremely forgetful. I lose things (well, misplace them) all the time. I have a very hard time focusing on anything that I am not interested in (which is typically lots of details... or mundane tasks, such as the one I'm supposed to be doing now.) I get sidetracked very easily in those situations.

In stories, I get involved with the characters, and love great dialogue. If the characters are unmemorable, or if the dialogue is very bad or cheesy, I lose interest quickly. They are more important than plot. If I cannot relate to the characters, or if they do things that I feel are out of character or not realistic, usually don't finish the (book/story/game). I don't care about political strategies in stories (for example--I dislike Star Wars, and love Star Trek--it's the characters for me). I get bored with strategy and tactics, unless it's relevant to the development of the characters. However, I do love subtext, and can often get past "blah" characters if there is a lot of interesting depth in the story. By the way, I play video games, but get bored with anything that isn't plot/characters heavy. (Really, just give me a stack of Final Fantasy games, that's all the video games I need.)

I'm pretty sure I'm a 4w5 or 5w4 sx enneagram type. I score as "Free-wheeling Creator" on the Personal DNA quiz; although that exaggerates my extroversion quite a bit (even though it ranks me at 40% on the i-e scale--100% being most extroverted). I usually score between 30%-50% i--->e in most tests. I tend to be pretty animated when I talk (especially if it's something I'm excited about). I talk with my hands a lot. I am friendly and smile a lot (unless I am deep in thought...).

There I go rambling again. That's all I'm going to write for now. Sorry for the length. If anyone can get through this, I would really appreciate the insight... Hopefully that's enough meat (and not too much filler) to get some feedback. Please ask me lots of questions if you need to!

Thank you everyone who read this craziness. :laughing:


----------



## PhotoGeek (Apr 2, 2010)

BTW free-wheeling creator does quite a good job describing me, although not as deep as the MBTI maybe?

I am sort of concerned with the falsity of my confidence level. I am fairly certain that I am not as confident as this predicts (even though I am the one who slid the confidence bars up pretty high, for what reason I am not sure). I tend to be pretty hard on myself, and not recognize my efforts (although sometimes I fall into modes where I am really proud of myself for some things, and have lots of confidence... I usually always end up questioning my abilities in the end, though.)


*About you:*

You are a Creator

Your imagination, confidence, willingness to explore, and appreciation of beauty make you a CREATOR.

You are independent, and you enjoy your self-sufficiency.

Defying convention, you are very innovative, and you have a vivid imagination.

The look of things is important to you, and you have a keen eye for aesthetic beauty in multiple arenas.

You have a strong interest in what is new and exciting—and that includes forging ahead with new ideas, not simply discovering what is already out there.

Your eagerness to seek new and varied experiences leads you into many different situations.

You're not set on one way of doing things, and you are creative when it comes to finding novel solutions to complex problems.

You trust yourself to be innovative and resourceful.

Your confidence allows you to take your general awareness and channel it into creativity.

You are balanced in your approach to problem-solving, not letting your emotions hold you up.

You tend to do things on the spur of the moment, not sticking to a set schedule.

You do your own thing when it comes to clothing, guided more by practical concerns than by other people's notions of style.

Generally, you believe that you control your life, and that external forces only play a limited role in determining what happens to you.

_If you want to be different:_

Appreciate the earthly, practical elements of things—there is beauty in form as well.

While you are good at thinking abstractly, focusing on details a bit more may help you discover things about the world.

--------

*How you relate to others:*

You are Free-Wheeling

Your charismatic nature, liveliness, and independence make you FREE-WHEELING.

You don't mind being in the spotlight, preferring social gatherings to quiet nights at home.

You take a practical approach to people, not getting too involved in their feelings—or their business.

At the same time, your acceptance of others leads you to be understanding of their life circumstances, even if you don't quite understand their emotional reactions to some things.

Although you have a wide circle of friends, you're very discerning as to whom you can trust.

You're not rigid in your beliefs about the world, and you don't want to impose your perspective on others, but at the same time, you know that plenty of people don't always act responsibly.

Engaging with others is a large part of how you live in the world, and most importantly, it plays a role in how you see yourself—you tend to learn a lot about yourself in situations where you are with other people.

You have an understanding of the complexities of situations, and you don't judge others too hastily.
*
If you want to be different:* 

Your open-mindedness about the world gives you a great perspective on things, but your lack of trust in others limits how close you can get with them. Try opening up to people a bit more without losing your healthy skepticism.

While being the life of the party will occasionally come naturally to you, be sure to reserve time for yourself—see what you can learn by spending some time observing the world rather than just by diving in.


----------



## Nearsification (Jan 3, 2010)

Wait wait. Who said Ts could not have emotions?


----------



## GreenCoyote (Nov 2, 2009)

UNfortunatly I cannot help you because I am in the same, unknown of my type position.

but I do relate personally to the description you have given yourself.

love FF games!
very creative, I have to create.
I smile a lot too, unless i am in deep thought.
I think of my self as an artist, however out of practice I am...
I am not really religious either, but I enjoy thinking about religions...viewpoints of spokesperson for them and such, creators of religions...
I always try to imagine what happened to them or think about why they created the story they did.
I think Imagination is one of the best words to describe me.
i have a fountain of ideas pouring within my head, and if I don't release them they get lost in the churning fountain when they don't come out.

I have the same regard for rules as you.
I might be a bit more extroverted than you but all in all we might be similar types.
It will be interesting to read what some others have to say because I would like to know for myself too.


----------



## Nearsification (Jan 3, 2010)

All I can say is you sound like an NF to me.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

PhotoGeek said:


> I've been debating my personality type for a long time (see my earlier thread which is probably way too long for you to read), and have come to the conclusion that I don't fit in with Thinking types. I feel emotions too strongly, and I care too much about people and their feelings to call myself T. I can be very logical at times (I can beat many at a game of the purest logic), and I am good at math and science, and while I value logical correctness, I think I value my own feelings and the feelings of others more. I care too much about aesthetics (I like things that are beautiful, though not necessarily in the typical sense).


Good luck Photo, but this is the reason that I urge people to go through the process and not depend on just an assessment, and many times on how we see ourselves. No one lies better to us, than ourselves. However there is a key matter that I would urge you not to overlook. Type is base on cognition and emotions do not come into play. We all have and use our emotions, therefore that is not relevant when determining type. This is not to discourage you from continuing to determine your best fit type, but I do not want to see you base your decisions on fallacies.


PhotoGeek said:


> I'm also fairly sure that while I use Se, I am far too in love with abstract thought and the future to be a Senser. I can be impulsive, and I like to do things with my hands, but I don't think that it defines my personality. I am an artist. My art is conceptual. It is driven by my emotions, and I want to get emotional reactions from people, I want my artwork to relate to them on a personal level, and I want it to speak about myself, too…..


I stopped reading your thread because I am at work, but again you are missing some key components. What you describe as intuiting can only be done by one function (Ni):


> Introverted iNtuition - Foreseeing implications, conceptualizing, and having images of the future or profound meaning. Introverted iNtuiting often involves a sense of what will be. The details might be a little fuzzy, but when you tune in to this process, there is some sense of how things will be. Using this process, we often are able to get pictures about the future or at least a sense of what will happen before we have any data. Sometimes it is an awareness of what is happening in another location and we have no sensory data to go on. Other times introverted iNtuiting operates when we conceptualize and get a sense of a whole plan, pattern, theory, or explanation. These are the kinds of images that come to us in the shower, in meditative states, or in dreams and help us deeply understand something. Sometimes they are profoundly symbolic and even universally so. In using this process, we tune into a likely future or something universal. This infonnation can then be used to decide what to do next, what to plan for. Introverted iNtuiting involves synthesizing the seemingly paradoxical or contradictory, which takes a problem or situation to a new level. Using this process, we can have moments when a completely new, un-imagined realization comes to us. There is a disengagement from interactions in the room, followed by a sudden "aha!" or "that's it!" kind of experience. These kinds of experiences are often seen as if they are "psychic" in nature. The sense of the future and the realizations that come from introverted iNtuiting have a sureness to them and an imperative quality that seems to demand action.


 Ne does something entirely different. With that in mind, the position of Ni is different for the paired types:
1st - INJs
2nd – ENJs
3rd – ISPs
4th – ESPs
5th – ENPs
6th – INPs
7th – ESJs
8th - ISJs


----------



## PhotoGeek (Apr 2, 2010)

Game Master Near said:


> Wait wait. Who said Ts could not have emotions?


Haha, this is exactly why I think I might not be T...


----------



## PhotoGeek (Apr 2, 2010)

Functianalyst said:


> Good luck Photo, but this is the reason that I urge people to go through the process and not depend on just an assessment, and many times on how we see ourselves. No one lies better to us, than ourselves. However there is a key matter that I would urge you not to overlook. Type is base on cognition and emotions do not come into play. We all have and use our emotions, therefore that is not relevant when determining type. This is not to discourage you from continuing to determine your best fit type, but I do not want to see you base your decisions on fallacies. I stopped reading your thread because I am at work, but again you are missing some key components. What you describe as intuiting can only be done by one function (Ni): Ne does something entirely different. With that in mind, the position of Ni is different for the paired types:
> 1st - INJs
> 2nd – ENJs
> 3rd – ISPs
> ...


I suppose emotions may have been the wrong word to use, probably feelings was what I should have said. Haha, this is why i need your help! 

Yeah, I think it must be Ni and Se that are my two perception functions, I just am not sure of the order. I did not specify which type of intuiting because I am a little fuzzy of the defs, but yours makes sense to me, and feels like it is natural maybe.

Sigh, I just want to know which things are natural, which things I am tricking myself into thinking about myself, and which ones I just _want_ to believe so much that they become true....... It's so hard to tell which is which. :frustrating:


----------



## PhotoGeek (Apr 2, 2010)

I wonder if what I am calling "impulsive" decisions are really based on my feelings...?

You know, because deciding on something based on anything but logic must be impulsive, right? (Ok, I'm not saying this is true, but it seems to be the way the world wants us to think, maybe? Or at least my parents.) Just speculation...

Ok, so what if I am basing my feelings on Fi?? Now I am even more confused, because Fi and Ni don't go together except for INTJ, right? And I can't possibly be INTJ..... or could I? Maybe my Te isn't as suck as I think?

Meh, even more confused now. :sad:


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

PhotoGeek said:


> I wonder if what I am calling "impulsive" decisions are really based on my feelings...?
> 
> You know, because deciding on something based on anything but logic must be impulsive, right? (Ok, I'm not saying this is true, but it seems to be the way the world wants us to think, maybe? Or at least my parents.) Just speculation...
> 
> ...


Any time we do something impulsive, it's based on Se. That function takes in information so quickly, it appears the users take in little at all. ESPs are notorious for this. As for Ni and Fi, consider this: INTJ: Ni-Te-Fi-Se, ISFP: Fi-Se-Ni-Te, ENTJ: Te-Ni-Se-Fi, ESFP: Se-Fi-Te-Ni.


----------



## PhotoGeek (Apr 2, 2010)

Functianalyst said:


> Any time we do something impulsive, it's based on Se. That function takes in information so quickly, it appears the users take in little at all. ESPs are notorious for this. As for Ni and Fi, consider this: INTJ: Ni-Te-Fi-Se, ISFP: Fi-Se-Ni-Te, ENTJ: Te-Ni-Se-Fi, ESFP: Se-Fi-Te-Ni.


Oh yeah! I forgot about all those. ISFP seems possible, ESFP and ENTJ much less likely.

What I really meant was that I may be misunderstanding what actually is or isn't impulsive. I may be using the term "impulsive" incorrectly, and really mean that I am making decisions based on feelings I have at the time (but somewhat quickly), but then when my feelings change to backtrack. Does that sound like Fi, or is Fi more based on other people? Or am I missing it entirely?

What exactly is "impulsive"? How do I know if what I do is impulsive?

I decided at some point a year or so ago that I wanted to go into architecture (which I decided based on the practicality of liking and being good at both art and science, as well as the varied and less structured work environment--this decision sounds like one of the thinking functions considering my Se, to me). This decision was rather practical, but was decided very quickly, on the spur of the moment I started thinking about it. I was telling my (now) husband about it, and talked about grad school programs and moving out of the city (after accumulating a mountain of information). Here's what he told me "If you're serious about it in a year, then I'll consider it." Knowing full well that I would probably change my mind (if not sooner, then probably after we uprooted and I paid a bunch of money to take classes). Which has pretty much been the pattern of my life. 

I decided to go back and get my art degree in the meantime while he's finishing up his history degree (I was going to do graphic design, which I enjoyed fairly well the graph des classes I had previously taken, so I could "get a job" and hopefully boost my resume so that I could get into a good arch program--another practical decision: considering my income, skills, etc). Before I even took a single graphic design class, I decided that, screw it, I really love photography, and so what if it isn't practical??? I really like photography and "real" art better. Now I'm all about art (lately I've been dreaming about painting again... GAH my brain will not ever stop this "grass is greener" mode.) Architecture is not on my mind at this point at all, and I'm thinking seriously about teaching art (because, dammit, being a broke artist scares me... I guess I need some kind of stability... for as scattered as the whole rest of my life is.) I kind of expect to change my mind again, because I haven't stuck to anything in the past, EVER (barely long enough to get a degree I hate... just to finish _something_). Blah. Done with self-loathing section.

Based on that, what kind of decision making process is that? It would seem that my earlier decisions that I don't stick to, that are made out of the cold practicality of "having a job" or whatever, are thinking based... but spurred on by a restlessness, a boredom, a fear of future boredom? Are those feelings? I don't even know anymore. What is a feeling? How do I know what are feelings, what are instincts, what are impulses? I don't think I know anymore. 

Ok, help me out, people who make decisions from feelings (yours or others'). What would a typical decision making process for you be like? What kind of feelings do you get, and how do these help you to make decisions? I think if I can understand the process, I can figure out whether that's how I do it (or not).

Wow, every time I get on here to write a short response, I end up writing a novel instead... Sorry! :blushed:


----------



## Psilo (Apr 29, 2009)

Feeling is a reasoning process that uses personal, or subject oriented, information. 

Fe (FJ or TP) uses external sources of values to reason. It is based on the status quo (though not necessarily on maintaining the status quo, a misconception). 

Fi (FP or TJ) uses internal sources of values to reason. Subjective reasoning is based on an inner sense of evaluation. 

Evaluation meaning reasoning based on a "good to bad and everthing between" scale in opposition to Thinking's logical reasoning on a "true/false" scale. 

Te (FP or TJ) bases logical reasoning on external factors. Empirical evidence is very Te in nature in that external information proves the logic. 

Ti (FJ or TP) bases logical reasoning on an inner sense of how things work. Math is very Ti in that it is separate from the external (obviously it proves external conditions, but not using any external reasoning)

From only your posts above, you sound like you are on the Fi-Te axis. Of course, when describing themselves, generally people bias their descriptions on how they want to sound. 

I suggest INFP and ISFP
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## PhotoGeek (Apr 2, 2010)

Psilo said:


> Feeling is a reasoning process that uses personal, or subject oriented, information.
> 
> Fe (FJ or TP) uses external sources of values to reason. It is based on the status quo (though not necessarily on maintaining the status quo, a misconception).
> 
> ...


So if I were to say something to myself such as, "I don't want to go into graphic design because it contradicts my personal belief that consumerism and marketing is terrible/ruining society, etc and I want no part in it, I would rather teach a subject that is meaningful (to me) and what I believe to be valuable to society and individuals' development of critical thinking/whatever" then that would be a decision based on Fi, right? That was one of my criteria for deciding _against_ graphic design and for photography/painting (Fi said I enjoy doing graphic design, Te said it was practical, Fi also said that it contradicts my own personal moral code, therefore I decide against it?) I am very anti consumerist/materialism/mass media... hate marketing schemes and the attitude society has of "Buy buy buy!!!" (just read any of the papers I've written for my art history class this semester...). Oddly enough though, I don't care about politics (I used to be idealistic about politics, thinking we could change the world if we just all voted outside party lines, etc, etc, now I've pretty much given up on that... tangent, I know, but maybe insightful into my personality?) I don't hate capitalism, btw, I just hate people's attitudes towards materialism. So I guess more society related rather than political.

On that same note: these are the things I hate about my defense mechanical engineering job: I don't give a rat's behind about helicopters (I really don't care about how they work, what kind of stress load it will have, designing brackets to hold some widget onto them... whatever else, it all is uninteresting to me pretty much); I disagree with war from a moral standpoint and hate the idea that I am part of the machine that is furthering it (I've thought about this a lot and it bothers me quite a bit from time to time, depending on exactly what project I'm working on, I try to forget about it for awhile and convince myself that it is just temporary, so it doesn't really matter--now that I think about it, it makes me feel bad again...); it's boring sitting around in an office all day (I like the days when I have to go out onto the machine shop, or build things--rarely happens, generally being active, walking around); lack of creativity is absolutely stifling (unless I get to work on a design that I have total control over--which is rare, and much less exciting than art); and... it's not art. 

These are the bigger decisions, of course, so if I've got this right, I'll start paying attention to the smaller scale decisions I make during the day and notice how they fit in with these systems. But so far (if I'm right about the above) it sounds like I am considering things from a standpoint of my feelings towards the subject (Fi?), using perception of some kind (or a mixture) to look into the future to envision myself in the job (and, assuming a certain level of activity I want to maintain--Se--judging how I think I might enjoy it), balancing them with a certain amount of Te to make sure they are at least somewhat practical goals, even if I may eventually revoke a decision made with Te based on Fi...

It's starting to seem more and more like the Fi-Te, just like you mentioned... but I can't be too sure just yet. I hadn't noticed it before. I'm learning so much from all of you here! 

I must use Ti in there somewhere (I did major in math...), and I'm not sure where it fits... but I think it may be falsely high because of the (Te) telling me to do what is practical (from my dad... I'm sure) and use the skills in logic that I have in mathy ways (with Ni helping my Ti with the abstract math problems, maybe). Surely FP people can do logic, right? Even if Ti is way at the bottom of the list of functions for that type? Pure logic does not require Ti, does it? Can you use Te instead? If not, then there's a conundrum with calling myself an FP.

I know people describe themselves how they want to be seen, but at this point I just want to know the truth about myself. Those things (such as, I am morally opposed to graphic design) were things I hadn't really considered in my personality quest until now... Anyway, it doesn't really matter whether you or anyone else believes I am being honest, so much as it matters that I am truly being honest with myself.

(Man, work is boring today... this is another thing I hate: no work. :sad: )


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

Psilo said:


> Feeling is a reasoning process that uses personal, or subject oriented, information.
> 
> Fe (FJ or TP) uses external sources of values to reason. It is based on the status quo (though not necessarily on maintaining the status quo, a misconception).
> 
> ...


I think that Photo has a prefernce for Ni, so I would rule out INFP. I did not want to persuade her one way or another but I hope she recieved my hint in how the Ni function is used that although she may not be ISTP, she could very well be ISFP. This is based on her affinity to art as opposed to engineering. As always Psilo, thanks for your great insights. I wished I saw you here more with your posts.:wink: ***Edit***: Photo seems to be leaning toward ISFP (not INFP in my opinion since she has a strong preference for Ni), but on the other hand, there is a sense of urgency in a need for movement that I notice in her need to determine her type that is not always pervasive in "Behind the Scenes" types.


----------



## PhotoGeek (Apr 2, 2010)

Ok, so I found a few definitions of Ne, because I wonder whether I am limiting myself if I only think about Ni:



> Extraverted Intuition (Ne) is the attitude that what is manifest (apparent, observable) is a reflection of a greater reality. The dinosaur bone hints at the dinosaur, the cloud hints at the coming thunderstorm, the thunderstorm is a reflection of the rotation of the Earth within its atmosphere. Whatever you find, there is something more to find: a broader context, a whole, which will change your understanding of the part.


This is what I do when I read articles for my art history classes (well, and lots of other things--poetry, literature, especially in art history, though), look at what is there and try to determine what kind of broader context is underneath (what I was describing as "hidden meanings"). This definition is probably closely related to Ni, no? While that particular forest example in the one article I thought was weird, it makes more sense to me with writings and poetry, etc, rather than real world things (although that isn't completely out of the question for me either.) I don't feel drained by it, I'm good at it (at least my professors think so!), and it actually kind of excites me to think about!



> Extraverted Intuition (Ne) is the attitude that the unknown is filled with wonderful things. To make use of them, you must be flexible in your goals. If you try to set things up so that only something known to be good can happen, you close your eyes to the zillions of opportunities that you can't know or define in terms of what you know now. As more of the unknown becomes clear, the more it changes your understanding of the (currently) known.
> To live, then, you need to continuously welcome the unknown, by always being ready to adjust in unanticipatable ways. What seems like a mistake is not a mistake when viewed in a larger pattern--and it's your job to find that larger pattern.
> (Compare Introverted Sensation, which leads to the exact opposite attitude toward the unknown. Ne says to anchor yourself nowhere, so you can continuously adapt to exploit unknown opportunities; Si says to anchor yourself firmly to what matters regardless of change, in order to keep out the unknown and its attendant, unknowable risks.)


This feels very much like me, as well, and maybe related to Se? Or, it may be confusing me with Se. Or at least might explain my "grass is greener" modes.




> Extraverted Intuition (Ne) is orientation by what is outside the box and how it could change the way people are thinking if the box were expanded.
> "The box" means the _context_ that governs the way people are giving meaning to objects of attention. Going "outside the box" means broadening the context: exploring or including things that are outside the currently accepted definitions and assumptions.
> Some examples: How would the restaurant industry change if really good, healthy food became available very cheaply? How would physics change if the speed of light were a constant in every reference frame? How would our culture change if we had portable phones that we could carry with us everywhere, instead of having each phone tied to a specific location? How would this organization change if we brought in my friend Terry? Terry brings a peculiar focus on the bottom line: that will alienate some people and endear him to others, likely causing various relationships and alliances to shift.


 Do this all the time... (see the end of this post). I think about how the world could change if a certain thing that people thought they knew was up-heaved. Not just people's ideas, but if something (object, principle) were different. Again with the art history, I not only have to think about this stuff all the time, but I love it! Best class I've ever taken. Ahhh.  I really want to take some philosophy courses!




> Extraverted Intuition seems to be about forming a larger context based on specific experiences and their emerging relations to one another. My main argument is that there isn't enough emphasis on how this process evolves, both on an individual level, and on the the level of collective knowledge that we learn within a group.
> In essence, we first create a context by inferring generalities from consistent behavior between related components. ( example: We see two elements engaged in physical interaction, and this leads to both elements being damaged. This creates the context of 'violence'. From this context, we can potentially create inferences.
> We can observe other precursors that contain meaning based on the end result; perhaps there were limited resources available, or that two elements with similar features were more violent than others, leading to more damage. We've created a larger context such as, physical interaction leads to damage, but we're expanding upon it, and have new sets of potential clues that will indicate this general context from other specific instances that we can illuminate by back-tracking from the initial final product.
> This all can be looked at as feedback, and it becomes a loop when we attempt to identify this context again, but with a wider palette of possible triggers for blossoming this classification. This wider palette of finely-tuned clues that are associated as preceding the result of "violence", also of course becomes very important when dissociating the type of physical interaction that we may leap to judging as leading to "violence" from physical interaction that may in fact lead to "affection".
> The examples here are very closely related to a partnering with "introverted thinking", but of course, examples could also be provided that would align with introverted feeling. Either way, I believe the principle of this being a cumulative remains.


This definition gets a bit confusing for me (I think, due to word choice mostly). What I think this could relate to is viewing art as something other than just paint/emulsion on paper/whatever, but seeing it in terms of separate parts that interact with each other in ways that are not necessarily readily apparent. (For example, maybe in an abstract painting, you would see some shapes interacting with each other in a certain way, that would give off a meaning to you of, say, violence, by the way they are positioned/colored, etc, but then being able to look at it in another way simultaneously that reveals something that is perhaps the exact opposite. Or maybe something that is most obviously recognizable as violence, I might view by association some sort of subtext, that has a deeper general meaning, a broader context beneath it (though not necessarily a universal). You might see it as a representation of a concept, maybe?

There was a lot more floating in my head that I wasn't able to properly verbalize, but I actually do think I relate to Ne (although I still feel that I understand Ni strongly, too). I think I use Ne more when I am in school, or conceptualizing my artwork, viewing artwork... maybe that's why I'm so drawn to it (and also because of my love of aesthetics). But then, I also feel like I use a great deal of extraverted sensing, too in my everyday life.


Ok, this may get way out of the realm of discussion here, but I'm curious. I see how Jung came up with the idea that you would regularly draw from 2 introverted functions and 2 extraverted functions. If someone were to have all introverted functions at the top, he would virtually never talk, never socialize, never perceive anything outside of himself, which is essentially impossible. If someone were to have all extraverted functions, he would be constantly looking outside himself for information, for decisions, would have virtually no inner monologue, also basically impossible. However, I do not understand why he chose the patterns he did. Why must we gather externally from intuition and internally from sensation (or the vice-versa), and externally for logic, and internally for feelings (or vice-versa)? Why can't we gather all our sensory and intuitive data from the outside, then make all our decisions internally? There may be an explanation, but I don't know what it is. If I could choose any set of functions I wanted, it would be Fi and Ti, Ne and Se, with Ni following close behind.

Were Ne and Si chosen to be together because of the tension of the dichotomy? The freedom of thought of Ne coupled with the grounding of Si? The tension that we feel between what we want to do, what we want to see, and what is real, what is stable, what is practical? The same goes for Ni and Se too, I suppose, but it seems like less of a contradiction. Maybe the freedom of being coupled with the grounding of intuition? That doesn't really make sense, exactly... but maybe somehow Ni brings Se out of the present real world, the touching tasting, feeling, and into the head? Into the future? So I guess it is another dichotomy, but an opposite one to the Ne/Si... but why must there be one? That's what I'm curious about.

Anyway. This took me a long time to write, haha. I was busy daydreaming.... and visualizing, and trying to get it out of my head and into writing. Honestly, writing things down helps me to understand myself, which is my goal here.


----------



## PhotoGeek (Apr 2, 2010)

Ne interpretation:


> For example, suppose you hear that a toaster company has declared bankruptcy. What does that tell you about the management of the toaster company? What does that tell you about the toaster company's market? Perhaps this happened because the management was awful. Or corrupt. Or because the market changed in ways that management was unable to keep up with. Nothing is certain here, except that there is something interesting there waiting to be found out. The declaration of bankruptcy tells you that there is something to be learned by looking into it further: it suggests all sorts of possibilties for the total process that caused this meager sign to appear.
> 
> Later, you discover that the toaster company declared bankruptcy because it was actually a money-laundering organization. The "management" suspected that it was about to get caught and decided to bail out. From the standpoint of Extraverted Intuition, the tiny news story that you read about the bankruptcy, which gave no details, _always meant_ the money-laundering process and its collision with the law-enforcement process. You didn't know that when you read the story, but the story meant those processes even then.


Ni interpretation:


> For example, if you read the news blurb about the toaster company going bankrupt, you would refuse to see that as evidence of any interpretation whatsoever. Instead, you would mentally explore conceptual alternatives for what could have produced that news story. Maybe the reporter was lying: maybe he made the whole thing up in order to meet a deadline. Maybe the toaster company declared bankruptcy not because they were in financial trouble but just as a way to get into the news and thereby attract publicity.
> 
> Such possible interpretations can never be refuted by empirical evidence--at least not by surface-level interpretations of empirical evidence. If you asked the reporter if he was lying, of course he'd say no. But that doesn't prove anything. Suppose you ask the reporter who he talked to. He tells you, and when you try to track down this person, you discover that he's left the country. Ah, how convenient.





> What distinguishes Extraverted Intuition from other attitudes, then, is the principle that all interpretations leave out some of the whole reality--and therefore every sign is opening up new information to you, showing you new paths by which to discover more about the context of that sign, and giving you new hypotheses to entertain. Every interpretation of a sign is provisional. Each interpretation reflects what you (think you) know right now, but the whole reality that the sign really reflects may be quite different from that. Nor does this process ever end. When you get new information, that suggests new possibilities; nothing is ever definitive. Nor should it be: if you ever tried to state anything definitively, you would be closing yourself off to new and interesting possibilities.





> What distinguishes Introverted Intuition from the other attitudes, then, is its principle that any particular interpretation of a sign leaves out some of the whole reality--and that therefore one must either refrain from making interpretations or interpret in a way that transcends observation. Heuristically, Introverted Intuition leads you to explore a world of conceptual imagination, especially to imagine explanations for signs that go outside the assumptions of any given interpretation.


Ah crap.


----------



## PhotoGeek (Apr 2, 2010)

Hmm, I think I feel most strongly the catalyst/idealist (NF) temperament, although I see glimpses of the artisan and rational temperaments as well.

The part about the catalyst temperament that got me was the talk about abstract language use (which may not be as evident with my forum talk as with my creative writings/poetry), desire to live _authentically_, understand motivations of people, and hate of conflict. I'm not sure I agree with the 3 intelligence types associated with the temperaments, I don't really think any of them really completely apply to me (and I think I exhibit some of all of them, don't know which one outweighs the others). Overall, though... I think I am leaning toward NF.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

PhotoGeek said:


> Hmm, I think I feel most strongly the catalyst/idealist (NF) temperament, although I see glimpses of the artisan and rational temperaments as well.
> 
> The part about the catalyst temperament that got me was the talk about abstract language use (which may not be as evident with my forum talk as with my creative writings/poetry), desire to live _authentically_, understand motivations of people, and hate of conflict. I'm not sure I agree with the 3 intelligence types associated with the temperaments, I don't really think any of them really completely apply to me (and I think I exhibit some of all of them, don't know which one outweighs the others). Overall, though... I think I am leaning toward NF.


Ever thought that it would be beneficial to just step away for a minute to allow what you have learned so far to digest? You went to the complete end of the spectrum and I am still not sure you are completely understanding how type works. Both SP and NF share the desire to understand other peoples motives. SJ and NTs desire to focus on the overall system. 

As for the intelligence type, you described your use of tactical intelligence to a tee initially. Catalyst use the diplomatic intelligence. You will exhibit parts of each temperament, but one is your core temperament and you should be capable of seeing it in you. I resonate with NT and SJ, but I cannot deny that I am SP. If you are resonating with NF, it could be as Orange said that you may be IFP. But even then you went to the extreme other end (Ti to Fi). Granted you could be INFJ since again you said you have a healthy dose of Ni, but that would eliminate INFP since they do not use Ni, instead Ne and Si. I may have confused my type in the past, but I never thought that I could be an Fi dominant type no matter how much some of the ISFP descriptions fit me.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

PhotoGeek said:


> So if I were to say something to myself such as, "I don't want to go into graphic design because it contradicts my personal belief that consumerism and marketing is terrible/ruining society, etc and I want no part in it, I would rather teach a subject that is meaningful (to me) and what I believe to be valuable to society and individuals' development of critical thinking/whatever" then that would be a decision based on Fi, right?


Don’t confuse values with principles. Fi types decide based on their values; Ti types on their ruling principles.


> val·ue –noun
> values, Sociology. the ideals, customs, institutions, etc., of a society toward which the people of the group have an affective regard. These values may be positive, as cleanliness, freedom, or education, or negative, as cruelty, crime, or blasphemy.





> prin·ci·ple –noun
> 1.an accepted or professed rule of action or conduct: a person of good moral principles.
> 2.a fundamental, primary, or general law or truth from which others are derived: the principles of modern physics.
> 3.a fundamental doctrine or tenet; a distinctive ruling opinion: the principles of the Stoics.
> ...


There has been a discussion I think on this forum, or another one. I think the consensus was values can be very general and principles, focused on specifics. It is one reason that descriptions of ITPs state that they are curiously detached and adaptable until one of their ruling principles are violated. Then they stop adapting. You may want to re-read *this article*, in particularly the part where the Analyzer Operator says:


> In my work, I don’t want to be just doing stuff for the sake of doing stuff. I like to accomplish things—make a contribution. That’s real important…. I cannot stand just busy work. It has to be meaningful. I have an incredible amount of enthusiasm and passion for certain things that I do and want to see done.


You can find those descriptions again at bestfittype.com.


PhotoGeek said:


> That was one of my criteria for deciding _against_ graphic design and for photography/painting (Fi said I enjoy doing graphic design, Te said it was practical, Fi also said that it contradicts my own personal moral code, therefore I decide against it?) I am very anti consumerist/materialism/mass media... hate marketing schemes and the attitude society has of "Buy buy buy!!!" (just read any of the papers I've written for my art history class this semester...).


You were given the tools to answer your dilemmas such as *this one* regarding the SP-Improvisers. Remember what it said about motives:


> [People expressing Artisan] can be cynical about human motives… they harbour no illusions about people being noble or saintly – “come off it”, says the [archetypal Artisan], no matter how virtuous we think ourselves, we all have feet of clay, we are all ultimately corruptible and self-serving. [K]
> 
> Although this focus on Motives is shared with the Idealist pattern, the interpretation of motivations by someone expressing Artisan is more down-to-earth than by someone expressing Idealist. Viewed through the Artisan pattern, people’s motives might be a source of suspicion, but viewed through the Idealist pattern, motives express the unique identities of individuals.


 It is still your choice Photo, but so far you have said nothing to show that you're not ISTP. That does not mean you can't be another type although personally I would rule out IFP types. You could be any introverted type.


----------



## PhotoGeek (Apr 2, 2010)

Hmm, I disagree with your definitions of values and principles, as they relate to type. I think the "value" def you gave sounds more like Fe, to me, as it says it is related to society, rather than a personal belief. There is no reason, according to society, that I should dislike consumerism (now, if I were religious, you could take that it is not a personally held value, but rather, a value of the religion that I am trying to adopt--however, that does not work in my case, since I don't prescribe to morals of religion.) But, maybe this is a Ti process that I am confused on, still. I always assumed Ti to be concerned with logic, but maybe I am mistaken.

I think what is happening is that I am not saying everything I am thinking, and it's leading you to think I don't understand things that I actually do. But I do know I am confused on some things (such as the exact defs for the different functions, I keep reading stuff and it varies a lot from site to site) Meh, I don't really liked being called out for not knowing something (uh oh... rational temperament...... haha), but I know you are trying to help. Hmmmmm. 

Maybe I am misunderstanding tactical intelligence. I will go back and look at it. But I think my problem with choosing from the 4 temperaments is that I really relate to certain parts of each to a huge extent, it's just a matter of what my main focus is. I read some descriptions of the ISFP type, and poked around the sub forum for a bit, and I just didn't really see it as exactly me... Maybe too sensitive, heart on their sleeves, umm... "girly"?

One of the things that didn't fit w/ the NF temperament was that I am not such a people person, I help when I can, but don't go out of my way... but how does that mean that I can't be intuitive and a feeling type? Sometimes I ignore other people's feelings and focus on myself... maybe I'm really confusing what Ti is.

Blah, why do thinking types on forums always try to act like they don't have feelings, emotions, values?? It just really confuses me... I just can't see how I fit in with ISTP... but I really need to not let other people (of any of the types) who are different from me dissuade me from any type... I'm trying not to do this. :/  And I need to remember that everyone has feelings and emotions, even if they try to act like they don't.

It's just really hard to sort out what things I have learned and adapted to, and what things are natural.

(PS - today I worked on this project for school: a mutoscope. I designed it, and my bro was helping me build it--but I was better at using the bandsaw than he was. It was really fun, and it's going to look amazing. roud: So basically, I guess I'm telling you that I am really ISTP-like. Haha.) 

(PhotoGeek is going crazy..... I think I do need a break from all this stuff!)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutoscope


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

You really going to blow a gasket, if you're not careful. Not everything is type related, so stop attempting to make it so. The definitions were not mine. They're from the dictionary and there are no special terms for many words in type, except those which we know. When the system refers to values and principles, they're meaning the literal word, the same as practical, or pragmatic..... 

Why do you believe you're not ISTP again? You have yet to say anything that shows different. Not all ISTPs are mechanically inclined or interested in the subject. In fact Myers-Briggs says there are two types of ISTPs the mechanical and the non-mechanical. I have yet to see too many who are including me. Have you actually gone through the archives to read some of the older posts? Many of your questions will probably be answered there. As for learning the functions. You're not going to learn them by reading, you have to expereince them. But they can't tell you who you are, just how you use them. As for the temperaments, of course you're going to relate to all of them, because they all represent different institutions we deal with everyday of our lives. 

If you reading descriptions, keep in mind that most are written in the third person, by someone who is not fifteen of the types, so they're speculating. They're also using bits and pieces of other descriptions, so they throw in the stereotypes as well. The only description that I find is accurate is the best fit types because they're written by people who have confirmed themselves, in a controlled environment, as that type. 

Idiots who run around saying they do not use their emotions are lying and have no idea how type works. Emotions do not come into play since the system is based purely on cognition. Feeling is not an emotion in type, it's as cognitive as thinking. In fact Jung says that Te and Fe are the most rational types because Ti like all introverted functions are subjective and Se and Ne are irrational types.


----------



## PhotoGeek (Apr 2, 2010)

Yeah I know. I'm going to chill.

FYI, when I'm not writing about this stuff on the forum, or reading, it's pretty much not on my mind. Which is most of the time. I'm not quite that crazy as you might think. Mostly I'm out doing stuff, not caring. 

I am not ruling out ISTP, and I'm actually probably leaning towards it. I know that most things in life can't be described by type, which is why I'll probably forget about this stuff in a month or 2.


----------



## PhotoGeek (Apr 2, 2010)

Slept on it, worked on some things this weekend, and came to the conclusion: holy crap, I'm definitely T...

Ahh Ti, I missed you... you are my natural, most comfortable, favorite function. 

ISTP it is.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

PhotoGeek said:


> Slept on it, worked on some things this weekend, and came to the conclusion: holy crap, I'm definitely T...
> 
> Ahh Ti, I missed you... you are my natural, most comfortable, favorite function.
> 
> ISTP it is.


Well, for now at least. But you will question it again, and again, and again.... It's what Ne and Se users do. SJs and NJs know their types, whether they're wrong or not. They're the epitome of the notion "Don't confuse me with the facts, I have already made up my mind." NP and SP types take in information continuously, so are apt to change their type based on the new found information. At some point you will learn enough about yourself and the functions to realize that descriptions and other people cannot dictate who you are. It will come.


----------



## PhotoGeek (Apr 2, 2010)

Yep, I'm sure I will. Thanks, Funct.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

PhotoGeek said:


> Yep, I'm sure I will. Thanks, Funct.


:wink: Welcome.


----------

