# So, I have no idea whether I'm dominant sensing or intuiting. HELP, SOS, ETC.



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

I haven't read much on this, but there seems to be a Se vs Ne problem :happy:
Luckily I found a good description earlier today, which is like the description of Ni vs Si that I've posted a few times, from a socionics site but should work well anyways.



> Simplicity of life is the cornerstone of the Se psyche, while for the Ne complexity is sublime. Ne will take a leap of faith while Se will first test the water. The sum total of stuff (opinions, feelings, beliefs and judgements about one's external world) accumulated defines who Se is, whereas a contextual understanding of stuff defines Ne.
> 
> Se builds an understanding of the world by amassing stuff - from the bottom up, starting with basics and progressing to the more diverse. Ne builds understanding from the top down - creates a process, sees whether or not stuff validates the process, and then modifies it until understanding is achieved; and Ne usually stores the process but discards the stuff.
> 
> ...


----------



## INTJellectual (Oct 22, 2011)

itsme45 said:


> Exactly why do you question 8w7 for her?
> 
> Also, "extremely aggressive" is pretty subjective, I find. E.g., I'm told I'm "extremely aggressive" even when I don't feel so. So I think people's perceptions differ on this.


Type 7 and Type 8 are two types dominant in her personality.

People perceived Type 8 as aggressive even though Type 8's doesn't feel so. I'm also very opinionated about Type 8s as the most aggressive of all the aggressive. But if you're just 'somewhat or moderately aggressive', perhaps Type 8 is just secondary, and it may come off as just a wing, or a second position in the tritype.





itsme45 said:


> What is the goal of this questionnaire? I related to a *lot* of what she said in answer to it.


To explore other parts of her personality.


----------



## INTJellectual (Oct 22, 2011)

Extraverted Delusion said:


> I don't really give much weight to the Enneagram as it tries to over-define behavioral patterns according to personality. Motivators can change much more frequently than preference for cognitive functionality.


Actually, Enneagram also rooted at an early developmental stage of a person. It is also as constant as MBTI. MBTI has type development wherein your other functions grow as you age. In Enneagram, there are different health levels, and it goes up and goes down, depending on a current situation of an individual. MBTI tells about a thought process of an individual and how he/she functions, but Enneagram tells more about a person. It carries the good, the bad, and the ugly, and the things we don't want to admit to ourselves.


----------



## Vesper (Sep 4, 2012)

*I remember my ENTP friend who I used to chat with online and how we talked hours about a topic, and we defended our opinion, then ended up at a different topic, then at a different topic again. Nice pal to stimulate my buried ideas and knowledge.*

That’s how my conversations go 

*1. You are at your very BEST self when:
*
I’m mentally stimulated, I have different ideas to play with, and I’m focused enough to get what I want to do, done. I generally have trouble with my focus, and indeed putting my grand ideas into action. The vast majority of them never get past the embryonic stage. 

*2. You are at your WORST when
*
I’m bored, out of control, and angry. I’m quite awful to be anywhere near when I’m like that.

*3. Top 3 things you LIKE the most*.

Understanding a subject, getting my own way, and expanding both my knowledge and experience.

*4. Top 3 things you DISLIKE the most.*


Mental sluggishness, being told to act a certain way because of my gender (recurring and current annoyance), and being pushed to do things I have no interest in doing.

*5. How would you want others to treat you?*


Depends on the circumstances. There are variables.

*6. You are at a STABLE position when
*
I’m in control, there are no external pressures on me, and I have the freedom to follow my whims/do what I’m interested in doing. 

*7. What are things that would put you in a very UNSTABLE (vulnerable) position?
*
Anything that makes me feel like my life is spiralling out of my control. I generally don’t feel vulnerable though, but on those occasions I do I react with anger.

*8. Tell me something about your childhood, and how you developed now that you're an adult.*

I found it very difficult to relate to people as child (going to a Christian school, and then an all-girls school, didn’t help), so I wouldn’t even try (I got kicked out of both). This really didn’t turn out to benefit me at all, so I learned to act when I needed to. I now have no trouble fitting in when I deem it prudent to. 

*9. You get addicted to things like
*
Does getting my own way count? Also, feeling mentally and physically stimulated.I like it in the early hours of the morning when my mind is whirling, it’s when I’m at my most creative, my most insightful, incisive, and philosophical. 

*10. Would you me mind telling me something about your biological parents and how they treat you.
(Note: This is optional. If you don't want to answer you can skip this.)*


Well, they’re together. They love me, and they’re very supportive of me. My father has always encouraged the more ‘eccentric’, non-conformist aspects of my character, whereas my mother is a little more rigid/mindful of societal judgements. That’s led to some conflicts with her, and some power battles, but overall we have a good relationship. I have a good relationship with them, we’re close.

*11. Your birth order. Are you the a. eldest b. middle child c. youngest d. only child?
*
Ah, technically I’m the youngest, but I was raised as an only child. I don’t have a relationship with my sister, we detest one another.

*12. You get IRRITATED when people
*
Bore me. When they’re mundane and uninteresting. When they ask me to do things I don’t want to do. When they try to dominate me and take me for a fool.

*13. What is your role in your family? 
*
Well, the vast majority of my family members live in Russia and Serbia, so I don’t interact with them a whole lot, but if I needed them they’d be there: it’s family and you stick together. I’’ve gone into the relationship with my parents somewhat already, I am obviously ‘the child’ (more so in the eyes of my mother who does have the tendency to try and treat me like I’m 12 at times), but they mostly respect and treat me as an adult

*14. You feel SECURED when
*
I’m in control.

*15. Which of these two do you relate more if stressed?
a. Having bizarre thoughts, being megalomaniac, beginning to get paranoid, or
b. Becoming depressed, begins to get sentimental over past events
*
No doubt about it: A.


----------



## Vesper (Sep 4, 2012)

*I think Ne is more okay with "it depends" answers. Afaik...*

Yeah, I don’t actually have a problem with it depending at all, I’ll take things as they come and if I’m not consistent? Well then, I’m not consistent. It’s just in relation to this that I know it isn’t very helpful. Well, I didn’t *think* it was very helpful.


*Sounds like me, hahaha  People do get confused by that, for sure.*

It’s funny to see them try to figure out exactly what’s happening. I managed to get myself the nickname Ruby Tuesday as a reflection on my personality, which, as a Stones fan, I find flattering. Wouldn’t have minded ‘Honky Tonk Woman’ either, but Ruby Tuesday’s good...

Total ego there, taking pride in being contrary 
*Hmm, okay. I guess we differ there, possibly I have more involvement with the debate topics. I mean I'm ok with going off into different directions but I will explore every direction, I don't leave things unanswered, I don't like to forget ideas, I want to deal with them to see if they make sense... afterwards I will drop them fast no problem if they are not that important. I do have breadth of knowledge myself but I've had time and the interest to specialise myself in some deeper ways too. At your age I didn't do that yet, though (I'm 5 years older). And I guess I could say I didn't get as deep in them as certain experts but I do consider myself as having expertise in some areas.*

Yeah, we’re quite different there. I may develop it, but I am definitely a lot more general than specific. If I try to study something in depth I will get so far, but then my mind will begin to wander and I’ll jump onto something else that interests me. As far as conversation goes I don’t tend to focus on the details, preferring an overview. If it does stay on track then the aforementioned general principle applies: I find myself getting bored with it.

*Yes but if I don't meet the goal with it I'll feel frustrated too. *

Yeah, we differ here. I don’t really look for an end goal, I just enjoy the mental stimulation of the discussion. I’m primarily in it for that.

*Makes sense for 8-7-3. *

*I don't know if context matters, but I assumed you are in general like that, not just in that one example. Aren't you? (With readiness and anticipation etc.)*

Okay, here I’m going to say: it depends. This is where I fouled up a lot in the original questionnaire, focusing on specific instances that don’t necessarily make the rule, rather than providing a general overview. I’ll put it at 50/50.

*Same, normal for me too, I was like that as a small kid too. Just some brain/genes thing  But disintegration to 5 did make me lose some of those few emotions temporarily. Note, by emotion I don't mean social feelings, more instinctual things.*

I’m the opposite there. I have to intellectualise the social emotions because they don’t come naturally to me.

*Maths as a staid subject  To me, it's enchanting to delve into really hard questions to solve them. Enchanting if I can feel the right way out with some intuitive logic and this usually happens this way or it would feel very dry logic.*

*What abysmal failure? In getting interested in maths?*

Yep, I just could not get myself interested in it. It was too regimented for me, too many rules.

If I did actually move my proverbial and applied myself to it, I could do it no problem and actually confused my teacher when I was going through those stages because I’d suddenly catapult from getting C and D grades, to getting A and A*. I’m sure she thought I was cheating. As a matter of fact I only paid someone to do my coursework once.

*I see. Hmm for me to kill boredom the best way is to socialize to have fun with people and then forums to argue on, heh. I imagine you relate to all that too? *

Yep, I do. I find socialising fires me up mentally and physically, the energy I get from it is predominantly mental/intellectual (ugh, best way to explain it when my brain is not in gear?!! Bear with me), more so than physical actually the more I pay attention to it. Hmmm. I may be physically present when I socialise, but at the same time I’ll find my brain to be whirring and part of me will disappear into my own head with renewed vigour to entertain myself there, with whatever thoughts and ideas have captured my imagination. That’s what I was trying to get at earlier when I was talking about thinking of possibilities when in a fast-paced environment, but of course I have to be sleep deprived to describe it (possibly not particularly coherently, but I’ve described it nonetheless).

*Hm okay... I do feel my thoughts are disorganized too, that's their natural state. Not a judging-dom for sure...*

*But by being disparate I meant connecting very different areas together by finding parallels. That's something I do rarely. I can do it within one large topic that I've previously explored a lot, so I can sometimes come up with parallels for certain things that seem far from each other. That could be Ne but limited use of it, for me. Limited because I don't do this all day with any object and topic and whatnot. How about you?*

I often think I need to work on my Judging. I really, really need to work on it. 

‘…by being disparate I meant connecting very different areas together by finding parallels’ – YES! Exactly that, that’s my natural inclination, whatever the topic. My de-facto mental impulse.


*Btw can I ask you, what do you do that counts as "shift a situation's dynamics"?*

An obvious example would be to switch from defensive to offensive. If someone is trying to put me on the defensive, I will quickly turn the situation around so I’m in the offensive position. I will also wrong-foot, if a person is expecting a certain reaction out of my when confronting me with something, I will deliberarely respond in a way they were not expecting, and force them to adapt to me (again, putting it on my terms).

*Another question, if you're told to think of as many ideas as possible about an object someone puts in front of you, what will you do? How will you feel about it?*

I will take it on with gusto. I will consider it a good opportunity to examine and let my imagination run wild.

*Before development of Si/Se/whatever, what was different about you?
*
I really wasn’t in touch with the concrete at all. I was head-in-the clouds. I didn’t start with my feet on the ground, that was a secondary consideration and something I had to consciously work at. I still am head-in-the-clouds in many ways, I’ll still indulge myself/waste great amounts of time indulging in flights of fancy and thinking up ideas that I’ll never put into practice.


----------



## Vesper (Sep 4, 2012)

Acerbusvenator said:


> I haven't read much on this, but there seems to be a Se vs Ne problem :happy:
> Luckily I found a good description earlier today, which is like the description of Ni vs Si that I've posted a few times, from a socionics site but should work well anyways.


Thanks! Again, Ne is spot on there for me, more so than Se.


----------



## Vesper (Sep 4, 2012)

*Yep. It's dreadfully annoying to see. x_X I know many Se-users who are brilliant and intellectual.  *

Yep! One of my best friends was ESTP and he was possibly the most intellectually brilliant guy I’ve ever met. I’ve had conversations with ESTPs in this thread too, as well as browsed that forum, and the negative stereotypes, that ESTPs are flat and unintellectual, are demonstrably false.


*Se users will usually explain the way the photo is, which @**Vesper** did. That is the focus. Sometimes you will see hints of whatever the judging function happens to be, and sometimes you'll see a bit of Ni, too. It's very easy to tell the difference between somebody who has a preference for Se or Si right off the bat. Well, I remember when I was looking at photos, here are some of the responses I gave: *


I don’t know if feeling factors into this, because generally feeling isn’t engendered in me. Talking about how something makes me feel isn’t natural for me, so I don’t know if that has any impact. I remember the picture well, and one of the things that occurred to me (that I didn’t go into in the original post, but that I now think I should have done), was that the photographer was primarily focused on the juxtaposition of colour and texture. You had the light purple flowers with vibrant orange centres (Hmmm, I wonder if that could allude to the sun itself), the vibrant red/orange of the wings, and the hint of the sun in the light blue sky juxtaposed with the black in the wings of the butterfly. I also noticed that there was a velvety quality to the black, in terms of texture, which again would contrast to the ‘smoothness’ of the rest of the photograph.

Anyway, I just felt the need to go back into the photograph again, because I did stupidly neglect to mention those details (I wasn't answering the questions one at a time, I was going back and forth between in no particular order, starting to answer one, stopping, moving onto another, and then going back etc - don't know if that suggests anything) that occurred to me, and they’re quite important.


----------



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

Acerbusvenator said:


> I haven't read much on this, but there seems to be a Se vs Ne problem :happy:
> Luckily I found a good description earlier today, which is like the description of Ni vs Si that I've posted a few times, from a socionics site but should work well anyways.


That's an interesting description of Ne versus Se, but it makes Se sound very... "brick by brick" and narrow. Actually, some of the stuff said about Se in that description look more like Si, to be honest. Like this: 



> Se keeps it simple: all the details to solve a problem are simply remembered for future reference.
> 
> Se notices everything but will only pick up new stuff that fits in with the stuff already possessed; knowledge is built one brick at a time.


Se does not do this. Se doesn't worry about keeping things simply, nor does it do the "remembering" thing. Se craves new stuff, just like Ne. It is an Extroverted Perception function, its focus is broad, and like Ne many Se-users say they see the "big picture". Both Se and Ne are all about change and new experience. That description of Ne could almost just as well apply to Se, really. 
@_Vesper_, I think what you are doing is seeing that imaginative, "big picture" and analytical part of you and attributing it to Ne. 

Here is something that might help you. If the dominant function is hard to see, look towards the inferior. 

************************************estp/4303-estp-jungian-cognitive-function-analysis.html
http://personalitycafe.com/entp-articles/76805-recognizing-inferior-function-entp.html

EDIT: I forgot, PerC won't let me post links from that place. Here's the article (it's long, sorry!): 



> *ESTP*, or _Extroverted Sensing Thinking Perceiver_, is a label borrowed from MBTI nomenclature and now applied to the Jungian Cognitive Function set *{Se, Ti, Fe, Ni}*.
> 
> 
> *Dominant: Extroverted Sensation (Se)*
> ...


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

Se craves new sensations
Ne craves new ideas.


----------



## Vesper (Sep 4, 2012)

It's Ne again there, and again slightly. If I had to choose between being mentally stagnant and physically stagnant, I would reluctantly choose to be physically stagnant. I get far more frustrated when I'm misfiring mentally.


----------



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

Vesper said:


> It's Ne again there, and again slightly. If I had to choose between being mentally stagnant and physically stagnant, I would reluctantly choose to be physically stagnant. I get far more frustrated when I'm misfiring mentally.


Ne isn't necessarily about "mental" stimulation. That's more Ti. However, it is about craving a new experience so that it may have new possibilities to wonder about. Ti is amazing. It makes connections, shifts perspectives, is analytical, and from what I've heard other Ti users say, it loves mental stimulation. Thinking about things, having debates, having intellectual conversations... However, that is not Ne. 

I'm still unsure of what draws you to Ne and steers you away from Se, to be honest.


----------



## Vesper (Sep 4, 2012)

Julia Bell said:


> Ne isn't necessarily about "mental" stimulation. That's more Ti. However, it is about craving a new experience so that it may have new possibilities to wonder about. Ti is amazing. It makes connections, shifts perspectives, is analytical, and from what I've heard other Ti users say, it loves mental stimulation. Thinking about things, having debates, having intellectual conversations... However, that is not Ne.
> 
> I'm still unsure of what draws you to Ne and steers you away from Se, to be honest.


Well, when I read all the literature on ENTP and ESTP, I'm finding ENTP is the one that fits me best. I see a lot of ESTP in myself, but ENTP is the one where I'm going 'yes, that's me EXACTLY'. Then there's the fact that I've scored ENTP in the majority of tests I've taken (lots, in the last couple of days).


----------



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

Vesper said:


> Well, when I read all the literature on ENTP and ESTP, I'm finding ENTP is the one that fits me best. I see a lot of ESTP in myself, but ENTP is the one where I'm going 'yes, that's me EXACTLY'. Then there's the fact that I've scored ENTP in the majority of tests I've taken (lots, in the last couple of days).


What sort of literature, out of curiosity? If ENTP as a whole seems to fit you best, I suppose I won't force you to take on the label of ESTP -- I can't, after all.  Descriptions of ESTP will always overplay Se in a sort of odd way. Tests usually take somebody who enjoys theorizing and playing with abstract things (which Ti can do) and say they're a "N" because of that. 

I am warning you and being a bit on the pushy side because if it is simply a matter of: I think ENTP fits me better despite the fact that I relate to ESTP, there is a huge possibility that you are simply misunderstanding Ne or Se, or Ti or what have you. I am also being very much involved in this because there are already a lot of mistyped Sensors who go around as Intuitives around here because of this very same mindset. On top of this a lot of people misunderstand the Perception Functions. Any tests that asks questions like: big picture versus details, metaphor versus tell-it-as-it-is, step by step or skip around, etc... Those misunderstand the nature of Sensing versus Intuition. 

I'm being quite vocal because the fact is, if you've got dominant Ne, Se will be pretty much entirely repressed. Entirely. You cannot have one and have the other, so to speak. If you have well developed Sensing, it would _have_ to be Si, which when I see your questionnaire there is none of. You focus on what is. The way you describe the photo seriously pointed towards this. That question is very telling -- it directly sheds light on how a person thinks. You immediately focused on what was there, something a Ne user_ could not_ do even if they tried. 

I am simply pointing out that despite your cravings for new experiences, theorizing, analyzing, and mental stimulation, you don't just "appear" to have Se but the very nature of the way you thought (especially in your questionnaire) pointed towards that. The difference between the two does not lie within liking theory or preferring metaphor or whatever. 

It is important to ask, therefore: it is not a question of which descriptions fit you the best, but what turns you away from one and draws you to another. You have yet to tell me exactly what turns you away from ESTP descriptions.


----------



## Vesper (Sep 4, 2012)

The Sixteen Personality Types - High-Level - well this site was helpful. The description of ENTP there described me entirely. Also I've looked at these:
ENTP Personality Types
Psychological ("personality") Types
Personality Test and Types (Jungian Psychological Typology)

Amongst others.

What draws me away from ESTP? It just doesn't fit me in the way that ENTP does. What immediately sticks out is the theorising issue: I do theorise a lot without, and will contemplate things/take on projects solely because I'm curious, without a specific end goal in mind. I'm happy to drift without resolution. I'm general rather than specific. I'll also, on balance, rely more on instinct than on tangible facts, and I've had to develop the impulse to keep myself in the here-and-now/concentrate on the concrete, both are secondary rather than primary inclinations. 

I'm curious now about repression of Se/Ne depending on which one is dominant, because the tests that show a breakdown of my cognitive functions show that I have well developed Ne AND Se. I know it's a lot more complicated than simply 'if you prefer metaphor you're Ne, if not you're Se', so I'm not going by that.


----------



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

Vesper said:


> The Sixteen Personality Types - High-Level - well this site was helpful. The description of ENTP there described me entirely. Also I've looked at these:
> ENTP Personality Types
> Psychological ("personality") Types
> Personality Test and Types (Jungian Psychological Typology)
> ...


Yes, when I first got into personality theory, personality page (the first link you posted) was helpful. I would like to warn you that still, those descriptions have some flaws. Even though I'm ENFP, I relate to the ESFP, ENFJ, INFP, and even ESFJ descriptions, simply because the descriptions are so broad. They also focus more on behavioral aspects. Thus is the way of MBTI, but that is the problem with descriptions. They always make the Sensors more in-the-moment and less intellectual than the Intuitives. One of your links was to a Socionics site. Careful! Socionics really does _not _correlate to MBTI or JCF! It's an entirely different system with different takes on the descriptions of the functions. Mypersonality is an okay site, but overall has the same problem as personalitypage and oversimplifies things. Teamtechnology is okay-ish as well. 



> What draws me away from ESTP? It just doesn't fit me in the way that ENTP does. What immediately sticks out is the theorising issue: I do theorise a lot without, and will contemplate things/take on projects solely because I'm curious, without a specific end goal in mind. I'm happy to drift without resolution. I'm general rather than specific. I'll also, on balance, rely more on instinct than on tangible facts, and I've had to develop the impulse to keep myself in the here-and-now/concentrate on the concrete, both are secondary rather than primary inclinations.


Sounds like Pe + Ti to me. XD The thing that makes the dominant Extroverted Perception functions hard to differentiate is that they both are pretty "instinctive" and both describe having "gut instincts".  It could just be that you have well balanced functions and your Ni is fairly developed. ESTPs do have Intuition.  It's just not Ne. That's one thing you might want to keep in mind as a possibility. 

The tests are inaccurate. It's as simple as that. You cannot have two well developed Pe functions. One will always repress the other. When one -- either Se or Ne -- takes the seat of the dominant function, there is absolutely no need for another Pe function. Therefore the one that isn't dominant will be "kicked out" of the primary four functions, you could say. XD For a Ne-dom, Se is the shadow of their inferior function. This means that it is the most rejected area of the unconscious, as I've heard it put. And for Se-doms, Ne is a shadow function. _It is more unused than the inferior! _

It's isn't unheard of to have a Se-user score high on something like Ne. They are similar functions, after all. They serve the same purpose, but focus on different things. 

Something you might want to keep in mind is tha Ne-users are very clumsy with their Senses. They absolutely distrust them and can become paranoid about them. They do not trust _what is_. If I see or hear something, or see somebody acting a certain way I don't trust that. I automatically think of what could be. I ask _What is going on here really? _I ask questions and wonder about what it is in front of me. It's funny to ask this question because I'm already seeing these things and hearing them and yet I'm still questioning the reality of the situation. Also, this is very unconscious. It's like breathing. I am usually not conscious that I'm thinking this way. But I am overly conscious and unsure of my senses and what I am Sensing. This is typical of Ne-doms. 

I appreciate the fact that you are being open minded and aren't willing to drop Se as an option as of yet. Before on PerC there was a huge anti-Sensor bias, and it's nice to see this beginning to die down. ^_^


----------



## Vesper (Sep 4, 2012)

Julia Bell said:


> Yes, when I first got into personality theory, personality page (the first link you posted) was helpful. I would like to warn you that still, those descriptions have some flaws. Even though I'm ENFP, I relate to the ESFP, ENFJ, INFP, and even ESFJ descriptions, simply because the descriptions are so broad. They also focus more on behavioral aspects. Thus is the way of MBTI, but that is the problem with descriptions. They always make the Sensors more in-the-moment and less intellectual than the Intuitives. One of your links was to a Socionics site. Careful! Socionics really does _not _correlate to MBTI or JCF! It's an entirely different system with different takes on the descriptions of the functions. Mypersonality is an okay site, but overall has the same problem as personalitypage and oversimplifies things. Teamtechnology is okay-ish as well.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Fair enough on the cognitive function tests.

I've heard negative stereotypes about a few of the types, wasn't aware there was specifically an anti-Sensor sentiment, and I can't say I understand why there would be. My concluding that I'm ENTP is solely down to the fact that, so far, it applies to me more so than ESTP does, not because I'm pro being ENTP/ anti being ESTP (if anything I could do with a little more J influence). 

I had to laugh when you said about distrusting the senses. That's actually pretty spot on, although I will try not to do it, I can easily work myself into a paranoid lather questioning whether there is more to something than meets the eye. 'I am overly conscious and unsure of my senses and what I am Sensing' - yep, I'll try and figure what the unseen angle is, because I am naturally inclined to think there is one.


----------



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

Vesper said:


> Fair enough on the cognitive function tests.
> 
> I've heard negative stereotypes about a few of the types, wasn't aware there was specifically an anti-Sensor sentiment, and I can't say I understand why there would be. My concluding that I'm ENTP is solely down to the fact that, so far, it applies to me more so than ESTP does, not because I'm pro being ENTP/ anti being ESTP (if anything I could do with a little more J influence).
> 
> I had to laugh when you said about distrusting the senses. That's actually pretty spot on, although I will try not to do it, *I can easily work myself into a paranoid lather questioning whether there is more to something than meets the eye.* 'I am overly conscious and unsure of my senses and what I am Sensing' - yep, I'll try and figure what the unseen angle is, because I am naturally inclined to think there is one.


Perhaps Ne fits the bill, then, if you distrust your senses like you say. However, I don't work myself into being paranoid questioning whether there is more to something than meets the eye as you so put it. That is actually something more typical of inferior Ni. I'm paranoid that something just is. I'm not paranoid that it could be more than what is there, exactly. I _trust_ what's not there all the time. I'm never paranoid about what is not there, though. Something about those with inferior Ni is that they do in fact get paranoid about something being more than what it appears. It is their Ni saying that they have this personal impression about something being more than what it appears. Most often those with inferior Ni get "gut feelings" about things.


----------



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

Vesper said:


> *Se users will usually explain the way the photo is, which @**Vesper** did. That is the focus. Sometimes you will see hints of whatever the judging function happens to be, and sometimes you'll see a bit of Ni, too. It's very easy to tell the difference between somebody who has a preference for Se or Si right off the bat. Well, I remember when I was looking at photos, here are some of the responses I gave: *
> 
> 
> I don’t know if feeling factors into this, because generally feeling isn’t engendered in me. Talking about how something makes me feel isn’t natural for me, so I don’t know if that has any impact. I remember the picture well, and one of the things that occurred to me (that I didn’t go into in the original post, but that I now think I should have done), was that the photographer was primarily focused on the juxtaposition of colour and texture. You had the light purple flowers with vibrant orange centres (Hmmm, I wonder if that could allude to the sun itself), the vibrant red/orange of the wings, and the hint of the sun in the light blue sky juxtaposed with the black in the wings of the butterfly. I also noticed that there was a velvety quality to the black, in terms of texture, which again would contrast to the ‘smoothness’ of the rest of the photograph.
> ...


Sorry, I didn't see this before! Actually, now I'm seeing some Ni in your answers. Se+Ni. I don't know if you see this, but you are still focusing on what is there. You notice details that my eyes would never see. You talk of contrast, of lines and frames, of how things were positioned, etc. This is Se. And your comment about "I wonder if that could allude to the sun itself" -- yes, that is Intuition! But that is not Ne. That is Ni's area of expertise, getting to the underlying meaning that could be there. More specifically, the personal impression of what underlying meaning could be there. 

Yes, I talked much about the feeling the picture gave me. That wasn't even Fi, exactly (some of it was). Lots of that was my Si at work, giving me a "personalized impression", you could say, of the photo. Those with Si would not describe the photo as it is exactly, but more about the personal impression they got, like: "This gave me a happy feeling," or "That reminded me of ___" or something like that. They are more subjective in descriptions than those who have a preference towards Se. Si focuses on the fact that something is, but is not _objective_.


----------



## Vesper (Sep 4, 2012)

Julia Bell said:


> Perhaps Ne fits the bill, then, if you distrust your senses like you say. However, I don't work myself into being paranoid questioning whether there is more to something than meets the eye as you so put it. That is actually something more typical of inferior Ni. I'm paranoid that something just is. I'm not paranoid that it could be more than what is there, exactly. I _trust_ what's not there all the time. I'm never paranoid about what is not there, though. Something about those with inferior Ni is that they do in fact get paranoid about something being more than what it appears. It is their Ni saying that they have this personal impression about something being more than what it appears. Most often those with inferior Ni get "gut feelings" about things.


Nah, I'm not generally paranoid, that only occurs when it's a particularly stressful situation. However, the distrusting the senses thing *is* spot on, my natural inclination is to assume there is more to something that meets the eyes, and look for the hidden angle.


----------



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

Vesper said:


> *Nah, I'm not generally paranoid, that only occurs when it's a particularly stressful situation.* However, the distrusting the senses thing *is* spot on, my natural inclination is to assume there is more to something that meets the eyes, and look for the hidden angle.


Thus is the nature of inferior Ni, though. Just a warning there. 

What are some examples of you "distrusting your senses", out of curiosity?


----------



## Vesper (Sep 4, 2012)

Julia Bell said:


> Thus is the nature of inferior Ni, though. Just a warning there.
> 
> What are some examples of you "distrusting your senses", out of curiosity?


Well, I'm aware of the subjectivity of perception, that my sense of something is just that: mine. I won't therefore take something immediately at face value, I'll consider different possibilities/examine it from different angles to assess it and ascertain the bigger picture. I'm not sure if I can bring up specific examples, because it's something I just do generally without really thinking about it. 

I'm reminded here of Socrates' use of the stick. If you put a straight stick half in water it will appear to be bent, but the reality is that it isn't. Our senses can trick us, appearances can be deceptive etc. 

Okay, good example here is politics - I enjoy politics and I will always theorise about motivations behind actions. I see it as a proverbial iceberg: the majority of what goes on, goes on out of view. I'm interested in the unseen, and am naturally first drawn to examining that. That's an example of it on a macro level, but I do the same with individuals. I concentrate on their motivations.


----------



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

Vesper said:


> *Well, I'm aware of the subjectivity of perception, that my sense of something is just that: mine. *I won't therefore take something immediately at face value, I'll consider different possibilities/examine it from different angles to assess it and ascertain the bigger picture. I'm not sure if I can bring up specific examples, because it's something I just do generally without really thinking about it.


Well, those who are "objective" are aware that their sense is just that: theirs. That's not exactly subjectivity according to Jung, though. I doubt you take things at face value. That is not a trait of Se or anything. The examining and considering could be attributed to Ti. What you said could apply to Se or Ne, really. 



> I'm reminded here of Socrates' use of the stick. If you put a straight stick half in water it will appear to be bent, but the reality is that it isn't. Our senses can trick us, appearances can be deceptive etc.


Indeed.  



> Okay, good example here is politics - I enjoy politics and I will always theorise about motivations behind actions. I see it as a proverbial iceberg: the majority of what goes on, goes on out of view. I'm interested in the unseen, and am naturally first drawn to examining that. That's an example of it on a macro level, but I do the same with individuals. I concentrate on their motivations.


Hmm... that still seems more like Ni, really. Either inferior or something else. 

Perhaps just keep your eyes and mind open. Keep the label ENTP if you truly think it fits. I still see dominant Se, to be perfectly honest. It's your decision in the end. ^_^ At least knowing you are ExTP for sure is a big step forwards.


----------



## Vesper (Sep 4, 2012)

I do think ENTP is the one that fits, yeah. Still, I am definitely keeping an open mind. Thanks for the input, although we differ in conclusion you've definitely provided me with insight and given me stuff to think about


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Julia Bell said:


> Se users will usually explain the way the photo is, which @_Vesper_ did. That is the focus. Sometimes you will see hints of whatever the judging function happens to be, and sometimes you'll see a bit of Ni, too. It's very easy to tell the difference between somebody who has a preference for Se or Si right off the bat. Well, I remember when I was looking at photos, here are some of the responses I gave


Hmm ok but one single photo description doesn't have to be proof for dominant function. It could be possible that she "used" her Se for whatever reason even if not dominant. When I did the pic description, I was pretty general about it, I even got "accused of" having Fi based on it. (I said "cool" about the pic in a nonchalant way, because I was pretty disinterested in the pic as it was a boring one for me. That got attributed to Fi in my typeme thread by someone.)





> I hope that helps shed difference on how Ne users would describe and see things and experience things. Often those who had a preference towards Intuition would wonder about the thoughts of the photographer. Most of them didn't focus at all, really, on what was in the photos. They didn't focus on _what was _but something else.


Thank you, this too makes the Ne/Intuition idea more clear to me.





> I just got the feeling that the want for experiences was literal experiences for the sake of immersing herself into it... I don't know if that makes sense. At least for me, as much as I'd love to travel or something I mainly like going places and experiences things because I want more to wonder about. I want to gain more perspectives, more possibilities. See more. But I don't need to "live it" or become immersed in it per se. When I get to the point where I can see no more possibilities, when I've thought about something too long, I get bored, so I want to feed myself with something else. It's a different sort of craving.


This also is a very nice explanation thanks. Can OP relate to this I wonder?




> Ne is all about the possibilities of the present moment. It is all about "right here, right now" just like Se. But unlike Se it is not fully connected with its environment. In the present moment, it doesn't necessarily pay attention to the environment but the ideas and things that surround the environment at that moment, if that makes any sense whatsoever. Think of the pen-thing again.


Yes, ok, makes sense, Ne is in the present inasmuch as it is not in the past or the future but is a static function. Right? I'll still denote Se to be the most present-oriented function though. 




INTJellectual said:


> 15. Which of these two do you relate more if stressed?
> a. Having bizarre thoughts, being megalomaniac, beginning to get paranoid, or
> b. Becoming depressed, begins to get sentimental over past events


You know what, I'm going to mention this for kicks. And especially to show that the correlation here is not great and function concepts as they are on their own are probably *not* a real explanation to what stress symptoms someone is prone to. Though I'm not saying it is not related, I just think the truth is a bit different. 

Okay, so I've had both of these, I had an extremely stressful period once and I kept switching between these two modes! Oh you can't imagine how annoying that was. In general though, I never have either of these reactions when stressed as an ESTP. Perhaps I have b) at times but very little of it. Certainly never paranoid.




Acerbusvenator said:


> I haven't read much on this, but there seems to be a Se vs Ne problem :happy:
> Luckily I found a good description earlier today, which is like the description of Ni vs Si that I've posted a few times, from a socionics site but should work well anyways.


Socionics? Well maybe that's why I relate to the Se one here pretty well (I'm Se-dom in socionics too). Though I would say a few points don't apply to me. But overall it makes sense, I'd just refine wording in a few places to make it less ambiguous.
_
"Simplicity of life is the cornerstone of the Se psyche, while for the Ne complexity is sublime"_ - I would go with Ne view here.

_"The sum total of stuff (opinions, feelings, beliefs and judgements about one's external world) accumulated defines who Se is, whereas a contextual understanding of stuff defines Ne."_ - I have both. I rely on context a lot though this may be just the present context of MBTI Se.

_"Se builds an understanding of the world by amassing stuff - from the bottom up, starting with basics and progressing to the more diverse. Ne builds understanding from the top down - creates a process, sees whether or not stuff validates the process, and then modifies it until understanding is achieved; and Ne usually stores the process but discards the stuff."_ - Yes I build from the bottom up in this fashion. I then get to switch to top-down mode at times and it's nice. At the end I will have the overview and understanding and big picture that I feel is deeply ingrained in me by then. So, I discard details easily. My memory is not great for details if I try to consciously recall details. But if the present context is calling for a detail I will recall it with surprising ease.

_"Se keeps it simple: all the details to solve a problem are simply remembered for future reference."_ - See above, I don't really store all details in such a conscious way. But I will start listing them without effort if they relate to present context.

_"Se fears stuff that is not already on the farm while Ne fears not having gathered enough stuff. Se looks upon most Ne as lacking practical knowledge or ability while Ne looks upon Se as intransigent or narrow-minded."_ - Oh, I relate to both. I don't feel narrow-minded, open-mindedness is a very important quality to me, so I'm always ready to change my conclusions if new data compels me to do so (and I can't ignore new data in this fashion, at all). And I relate to lacking some practical knowledge because I'm disinterested enough in some boring everyday areas of life but if I decide to do something in those areas I approach it in a very practical manner naturally. And yeah in those situations I do feel more like Se about fearing stuff not already on the farm. I also hate myself before getting into those situations, I berate myself just like a stereotypical Se person would berate a stereotypical Ne dom.  Hm, let me also mention, as I age, I do notice moments where I'm more Ne hunter-gatherer and I find those very useful in general or if not, at least intellectually worth it. 

All the rest of this description about Se is me alright, quite a bit more than the Ne counterparts. Nice description overall!

Hope this is a useful contrast for OP and for anyone else who wants to dig deeper 




INTJellectual said:


> Type 7 and Type 8 are two types dominant in her personality.
> 
> People perceived Type 8 as aggressive even though Type 8's doesn't feel so. I'm also very opinionated about Type 8s as the most aggressive of all the aggressive. But if you're just 'somewhat or moderately aggressive', perhaps Type 8 is just secondary, and it may come off as just a wing, or a second position in the tritype.


I feel aggressive at times but less often than I'm told I am... This "somewhat or moderately aggressive" is incredibly subjective though. I don't think type 8 is equal to extreme aggressiveness, that's just a consequence of their fixation. 




> To explore other parts of her personality.


Yep, to type her, right? With the first questionnaire, it must be very fine differences, as I said I could have written 90% of her stuff while we may easily be different types. I'm not trying to criticize you here without reason, I'm just genuinely curious how it makes the difference between ENTP and ESTP... You could be asking more about her thinking style and about what she generally focuses on in things... IMO anyway  Ah and the second questionnaire is cool, we differ more there with her...




Vesper said:


> I’m mentally stimulated, I have different ideas to play with, and I’m focused enough to get what I want to do, done. I generally have trouble with my focus, and indeed putting my grand ideas into action. The vast majority of them never get past the embryonic stage.


Sounds pretty Ne-ish here... 




> Understanding a subject, getting my own way, and expanding both my knowledge and experience.


Must be something that Ne and Se can share, just the approach to it differs?




> Anything that makes me feel like my life is spiralling out of my control. I generally don’t feel vulnerable though, but on those occasions I do I react with anger.


Just curious but what are those things? 




> I found it very difficult to relate to people as child (going to a Christian school, and then an all-girls school, didn’t help), so I wouldn’t even try (I got kicked out of both). This really didn’t turn out to benefit me at all, so I learned to act when I needed to. I now have no trouble fitting in when I deem it prudent to.


Same with me, I guess not so Ne vs Se specific...




Vesper said:


> Yeah, I don’t actually have a problem with it depending at all, I’ll take things as they come and if I’m not consistent? Well then, I’m not consistent. It’s just in relation to this that I know it isn’t very helpful. Well, I didn’t *think* it was very helpful.


Oh then I misinterpreted that one. I'm not consistent myself either and don't care to be, I suppose that's ExxP.




> Yeah, we’re quite different there. I may develop it, but I am definitely a lot more general than specific. If I try to study something in depth I will get so far, but then my mind will begin to wander and I’ll jump onto something else that interests me. As far as conversation goes I don’t tend to focus on the details, preferring an overview. If it does stay on track then the aforementioned general principle applies: I find myself getting bored with it.


Ok, let me first say, I realised I misinterpreted your earlier answer about your thinking process. You do seem more disparate in a Ne way than me. We are not similar here. Well I mean, I can do the generalness and stuff but that's the secondary mode for me though I find it's helpful and illuminating. Also, I can do the getting into something then giving up by wandering somewhere else that you describe but I don't often get into something without a point to it so this is rare for me. And tbh, I totally hate the feeling of wandering away like this. I can seem scattered in my inconsistency and impulsivity and irrationalness (ExxP), but I'm actually not scattered at all in a certain way. That is, when I think, I prefer to do it deliberately, with a purpose. That doesn't mean I can't wonder about things without a purpose to myself to kill time but I'm not as satisfied with that, even though it can be certainly enjoyable in some cases, I don't know what that depends on, that is, whether I enjoy it or not. Often the same deliberateness with my actions if they are actions that require effort from my part... I actually prefer stuff that requires effort to keep my energy level high enough. (Paradoxical? Huh yeah...)




> Yeah, we differ here. I don’t really look for an end goal, I just enjoy the mental stimulation of the discussion. I’m primarily in it for that.


Well I can do that too when I'm socializing and it's pretty cool. I also like the mental stimulation very much. But outside that I usually have or prefer to have a goal with it.




> Okay, here I’m going to say: it depends. This is where I fouled up a lot in the original questionnaire, focusing on specific instances that don’t necessarily make the rule, rather than providing a general overview. I’ll put it at 50/50.


Awww, okay. That one did mislead me!  Big time! It all makes more sense now though.




> I’m the opposite there. I have to intellectualise the social emotions because they don’t come naturally to me.


Er I think I didn't really speak in a clear way there but nvm. How do you intellectualise the social emotions? :O




> Yep, I just could not get myself interested in it. It was too regimented for me, too many rules.


My luck was that I got introduced to math as a very small kid before school and I thought it of as a fun challenge  No school rules there...




> Yep, I do. I find socialising fires me up mentally and physically, the energy I get from it is predominantly mental/intellectual (ugh, best way to explain it when my brain is not in gear?!! Bear with me), more so than physical actually the more I pay attention to it. Hmmm. I may be physically present when I socialise, but at the same time I’ll find my brain to be whirring and part of me will disappear into my own head with renewed vigour to entertain myself there, with whatever thoughts and ideas have captured my imagination. That’s what I was trying to get at earlier when I was talking about thinking of possibilities when in a fast-paced environment, but of course I have to be sleep deprived to describe it (possibly not particularly coherently, but I’ve described it nonetheless).


Oh very interesting. Okay, this is again Ne > Se in line with the earlier stuff. Of course as I said earlier, I can also be in Ne mode when socializing. But I just feel we are quite different in emphasis here. I do feel like my brain is in gear and I often like to do be intellectual but I don't disappear into my own head for long, only for quick flashes. I can't say I always fully feel physically present as in general I pay little attention to my internal body sensations but otherwise I do feel present and synced with the outside world. Except when I get into my own head for those flashes  head in clouds then, hahaha.

This reminds me, I'm not sure how to put this but your style somehow feels a bit "removed" to me. I've seen other ENTP's be like that, eh, this is just a subjective feeling and could be wrong 




> I often think I need to work on my Judging. I really, really need to work on it.


Lol. I sometimes feel I'm leaning too much on Ti in some situations, the result of me having worked hard on the Ti stuff... I'm 5 years older than you. I think this can matter a lot in this life period 




> ‘…by being disparate I meant connecting very different areas together by finding parallels’ – YES! Exactly that, that’s my natural inclination, whatever the topic. My de-facto mental impulse.


Ok... Ne. -.- Me, I do this rarely, I do like it then, the feeling it brings with it, I think that I may really have found something but then I often feel disappointed, I feel like it wasn't as great an insight actually. I have a dislike for certain analogies for the same reason. Other analogies can be enchanting though. Maybe the more Ni ones 

If you don't relate to this, then I would say no way you are Se > Ne............




> An obvious example would be to switch from defensive to offensive. If someone is trying to put me on the defensive, I will quickly turn the situation around so I’m in the offensive position. I will also wrong-foot, if a person is expecting a certain reaction out of my when confronting me with something, I will deliberately respond in a way they were not expecting, and force them to adapt to me (again, putting it on my terms).


Do you do this consciously calculating? I do this out of instinct.




> I will take it on with gusto. I will consider it a good opportunity to examine and let my imagination run wild.


Ne!!!!!!!! Natural strong not limited Ne. I hate those tasks.




> I really wasn’t in touch with the concrete at all. I was head-in-the clouds. I didn’t start with my feet on the ground, that was a secondary consideration and something I had to consciously work at. I still am head-in-the-clouds in many ways, I’ll still indulge myself/waste great amounts of time indulging in flights of fancy and thinking up ideas that I’ll never put into practice.


Okay, this is Ne... 

See, I thought for so long that I was ENTP, unfortunately utilizing a very poor definition of Ne that I read on the site where I started out with MBTI... I then noticed ENTP's on some sites were more disparate in thinking than me and the randomness sometimes actually annoyed me though it can be fun too  But I didn't realize what that meant and kept ENTP label until I realised I started from Se as a kid. That's when I decided to examine things better and ended up at changing the ENTP to ESTP. You sound like you started from the opposite and then developed your S. I developed my N in the same way you developed your S.

Hey I'm curious how did you develop your S. Any life experience compelling you to do it?

I'm out of this at this point, as long as you were being truthful here and you did your introspection right, I'm convinced you are ENTP  

My confusion before... well, I thought you were more Ne than Se initially, until I misunderstood that debate thing by skimming the lines too fast and especially due to your London Se example.  If you are really only 50/50 on that anticipation thing, that's no way that it would be Se.




Vesper said:


> I don’t know if feeling factors into this, because generally feeling isn’t engendered in me. Talking about how something makes me feel isn’t natural for me, so I don’t know if that has any impact. I remember the picture well, and one of the things that occurred to me (that I didn’t go into in the original post, but that I now think I should have done), was that the photographer was primarily focused on the juxtaposition of colour and texture. You had the light purple flowers with vibrant orange centres (Hmmm, I wonder if that could allude to the sun itself), the vibrant red/orange of the wings, and the hint of the sun in the light blue sky juxtaposed with the black in the wings of the butterfly. I also noticed that there was a velvety quality to the black, in terms of texture, which again would contrast to the ‘smoothness’ of the rest of the photograph.


Gosh, I can't verbalize details like this about whatever photo I see. I'm really bad at that. I also can't analyse them in this fashion. I don't know what that means, just sayin'. I like your description though  I can imagine how it looked like 




> Anyway, I just felt the need to go back into the photograph again, because I did stupidly neglect to mention those details (I wasn't answering the questions one at a time, I was going back and forth between in no particular order, starting to answer one, stopping, moving onto another, and then going back etc - don't know if that suggests anything) that occurred to me, and they’re quite important.


Why so detail oriented here? Could be Si?  I have no idea about Si, I distrust most definitions of it. 




Julia Bell said:


> That's an interesting description of Ne versus Se, but it makes Se sound very... "brick by brick" and narrow. Actually, some of the stuff said about Se in that description look more like Si, to be honest.


Maybe because this is socionics Se, not MBTI Se.  Btw I'm like this myself. I'm not really narrow though because I'm so mentally intense and get a result at the top big-picture level after a while alright. But yes, brick by brick. 

Though in the background, there is some other process unconsciously working for the big picture hehe. The two together work pretty nicely, it's just more effort for abstract topics.

Also, when I'm actually sensing things in the environment, that is, not just a thinking process of seeing the world, I do work in a broad way. Embarrassingly broad really 




> Se does not do this. Se doesn't worry about keeping things simply, nor does it do the "remembering" thing. Se craves new stuff, just like Ne. It is an Extroverted Perception function, its focus is broad, and like Ne many Se-users say they see the "big picture". Both Se and Ne are all about change and new experience. That description of Ne could almost just as well apply to Se, really.


Yeah I don't remember details without the help of the present context. But then I do remember them well. I don't know how many slightly different versions of manifestations of Se in thinking processes and attitudes can exist in people but I'm not just about change. Though certainly I do like some kinds of change because by default it feels like everything is just the same old crap. So I need something that isn't 




> @_Vesper_, I think what you are doing is seeing that imaginative, "big picture" and analytical part of you and attributing it to Ne.


There can be different ways of getting to the big picture.



> ************************************estp/4303-estp-jungian-cognitive-function-analysis.html


Haha banned links...  Btw it describes me well, I like the article.




Acerbusvenator said:


> Se craves new sensations
> Ne craves new ideas.


No. Not just new sensations. Or at least my particular version of Se isn't just about that.




Vesper said:


> It's Ne again there, and again slightly. If I had to choose between being mentally stagnant and physically stagnant, I would reluctantly choose to be physically stagnant. I get far more frustrated when I'm misfiring mentally.


Mmmm, I missed that earlier. Hard to choose for me, physical stagnation (laziness right?) makes me feel really low energy. Mental stagnation is crap because I like intellectual challenges and my intellect is an important tool and I just like being this way  But I'll say I can go for long without thinking about anything, instead being physical and feel very good that way too. I don't have a compulsion to start thinking unless I'm bored with my environment.




Julia Bell said:


> Ne isn't necessarily about "mental" stimulation. That's more Ti. However, it is about craving a new experience so that it may have new possibilities to wonder about. Ti is amazing. It makes connections, shifts perspectives, is analytical, and from what I've heard other Ti users say, it loves mental stimulation. Thinking about things, having debates, having intellectual conversations... However, that is not Ne.


Yeah Ti is like that... Situations when I *actually* use Ne are much rarer than the using of Ti, for me. For her it seems like she's COMFORTABLE with Ne and defaults to it EASILY. I don't.




Vesper said:


> Well, when I read all the literature on ENTP and ESTP, I'm finding ENTP is the one that fits me best. I see a lot of ESTP in myself, but ENTP is the one where I'm going 'yes, that's me EXACTLY'. Then there's the fact that I've scored ENTP in the majority of tests I've taken (lots, in the last couple of days).


Yea those are not convincing at all, I can test ENTP on tests too, but the other things you said about your Ne use so far are convincing to me.




Julia Bell said:


> What sort of literature, out of curiosity? If ENTP as a whole seems to fit you best, I suppose I won't force you to take on the label of ESTP -- I can't, after all.  Descriptions of ESTP will always overplay Se in a sort of odd way. Tests usually take somebody who enjoys theorizing and playing with abstract things (which Ti can do) and say they're a "N" because of that.


Yes, the overplaying of Se is tricky. I related more to ENTP than to ESTP because I have more Ti than average ESTP. I know only socionics has subtypes but if MBTI had them I'd be Ti subtype for sure and descriptions are often about the Se subtype.  Still I do see myself in those ESTP descriptions when I'm less heavy on Ti in some situations. Sim's ESTP description in particular that you quoted is very good, doesn't overdo the Se in a bad way 




> I am warning you and being a bit on the pushy side because if it is simply a matter of: I think ENTP fits me better despite the fact that I relate to ESTP, there is a huge possibility that you are simply misunderstanding Ne or Se, or Ti or what have you. I am also being very much involved in this because there are already a lot of mistyped Sensors who go around as Intuitives around here because of this very same mindset. On top of this a lot of people misunderstand the Perception Functions. Any tests that asks questions like: big picture versus details, metaphor versus tell-it-as-it-is, step by step or skip around, etc... Those misunderstand the nature of Sensing versus Intuition.


I like your reasoning and wish someone had told me these things earlier. It would have helped in figuring things out  But I think she's genuinely ENTP.




> I'm being quite vocal because the fact is, if you've got dominant Ne, Se will be pretty much entirely repressed. Entirely. You cannot have one and have the other, so to speak. If you have well developed Sensing, it would _have_ to be Si, which when I see your questionnaire there is none of. You focus on what is. The way you describe the photo seriously pointed towards this. That question is very telling -- it directly sheds light on how a person thinks. You immediately focused on what was there, something a Ne user_ could not_ do even if they tried.


I dunno... Ne is repressed for me, yes. But I can conjure up some Ne spontaneously here and there, the Ne that builds on parallels and whatnot. I just get disappointed in it most of the time 

But, I don't see why it couldn't be developed more if I wanted to. I just don't want to do that much, that's the thing  Anyway it is IMO possible and maybe she got somehow forced to develop Se. I'd like to know more about that and asked her above  

Btw, should I take this statement of yours at face value: _"You immediately focused on what was there, something a Ne user could not do even if they tried"_?? If that's true, I can't imagine how Ne-doms operate then in simple basic life matters. They MUST be able to focus in this way to survive. Sure it can be a limited ability that gets the job done and not go beyond that. But can be developed too maybe... just hard to go there 




> I am simply pointing out that despite your cravings for new experiences, theorizing, analyzing, and mental stimulation, you don't just "appear" to have Se but the very nature of the way you thought (especially in your questionnaire) pointed towards that. The difference between the two does not lie within liking theory or preferring metaphor or whatever.


Hmm dunno, maybe a brain can adapt to different situations in different ways?! Answer with Se to some, answer with Ne to others. But of course the default would be more easy to use than the alternative... I don't know how much of that is hardwired and how much is set up in the early years of life when the brain is still shaping itself before decreasing plasticity to a degree. Though the plasticity always remains, it's just hard to make yourself force to do it but it can be done... E.g. in accidents when a part of the brain gets injured and another part takes over to do the job. Though, that is just an analogy, and may not be accurate as I don't and can't know the physical workings of thinking processes..




> What draws me away from ESTP? It just doesn't fit me in the way that ENTP does. What immediately sticks out is the theorising issue: I do theorise a lot without, and will contemplate things/take on projects solely because I'm curious, without a specific end goal in mind. I'm happy to drift without resolution. I'm general rather than specific. I'll also, on balance, rely more on instinct than on tangible facts, and I've had to develop the impulse to keep myself in the here-and-now/concentrate on the concrete, both are secondary rather than primary inclinations.


I can drift too without resolution so that part is ESTP too, I'm not goal oriented 24/7 either  I rely on instinct too. But the rest does sound like definite ENTP to me. I generally only theorise when I have a project related to it... ok and when socializing 




> Sounds like Pe + Ti to me. XD The thing that makes the dominant Extroverted Perception functions hard to differentiate is that they both are pretty "instinctive" and both describe having "gut instincts".  It could just be that you have well balanced functions and your Ni is fairly developed. ESTPs do have Intuition.  It's just not Ne. That's one thing you might want to keep in mind as a possibility.


To me her Intuition seems broad and not deep. Ne > Ni.




> The tests are inaccurate. It's as simple as that. You cannot have two well developed Pe functions. One will always repress the other. When one -- either Se or Ne -- takes the seat of the dominant function, there is absolutely no need for another Pe function. Therefore the one that isn't dominant will be "kicked out" of the primary four functions, you could say. XD For a Ne-dom, Se is the shadow of their inferior function. This means that it is the most rejected area of the unconscious, as I've heard it put. And for Se-doms, Ne is a shadow function. _It is more unused than the inferior!_


I relate to that, Ni is more used than Ne.  But then who knows...... this is just a theory framework and while functions may exist as thinking processes/patterns, the true rules behind their workings may be entirely different from Jung's framework, that is, may require an entirely different framework.




> It's isn't unheard of to have a Se-user score high on something like Ne. They are similar functions, after all. They serve the same purpose, but focus on different things.


Similar? Perhaps outwardly but internally the thinking process seems entirely different. Have you seen keys2cog test questions? Ne questions are *entirely* different from the Se questions. There is a reason as to why I score low Ne on that test. I thought OP maybe misunderstood the questions but then she clarified for me that this was not the case.

Another thing, the Se questions don't aim at thinking processes in that test, only the Ne ones do. Maybe that's why she scored high Se?




> Something you might want to keep in mind is tha Ne-users are very clumsy with their Senses. They absolutely distrust them and can become paranoid about them. They do not trust _what is_. If I see or hear something, or see somebody acting a certain way I don't trust that. I automatically think of what could be. I ask _What is going on here really? _I ask questions and wonder about what it is in front of me. It's funny to ask this question because I'm already seeing these things and hearing them and yet I'm still questioning the reality of the situation. Also, this is very unconscious. It's like breathing. I am usually not conscious that I'm thinking this way. But I am overly conscious and unsure of my senses and what I am Sensing. This is typical of Ne-doms.


This is a really interesting look into a Ne-dom's mind!  I'm the complete opposite to this. I have a hard time imagining it is like breathing to you but okay I believe you 




> I appreciate the fact that you are being open minded and aren't willing to drop Se as an option as of yet. Before on PerC there was a huge anti-Sensor bias, and it's nice to see this beginning to die down. ^_^


This is why I like PerC, a lot of members are typed as S, so when I came here I thought there must be less S bias. I came here to see how I'm typed as I was dropping my original ENTP typing.




> I had to laugh when you said about distrusting the senses. That's actually pretty spot on, although I will try not to do it, I can easily work myself into a paranoid lather questioning whether there is more to something than meets the eye. 'I am overly conscious and unsure of my senses and what I am Sensing' - yep, I'll try and figure what the unseen angle is, because I am naturally inclined to think there is one.


How come people externally seem so similar and internally so different! :O Lol!




Vesper said:


> Well, I'm aware of the subjectivity of perception, that my sense of something is just that: mine. I won't therefore take something immediately at face value


I find the idea of being overly aware of the subjectivity of perception terrible. -.- Another difference between us, as you have no problem with this.

Btw when you talked about looking at a thing from another hidden angle, do you do more than one such angle easily, in a broad way? To differentiate between inferior Ni and dominant Ne.




> I'm reminded here of Socrates' use of the stick. If you put a straight stick half in water it will appear to be bent, but the reality is that it isn't. Our senses can trick us, appearances can be deceptive etc.


Eh, those are not so big tricks in terms of influence. In general sensing is pretty reliable, thanks to evolution. 




Julia Bell said:


> I doubt you take things at face value. That is not a trait of Se or anything.


No? I thought it was... I take them at face value by default but of course I see logical contradictions very well too so I am a skeptical person 




> Perhaps just keep your eyes and mind open. Keep the label ENTP if you truly think it fits. I still see dominant Se, to be perfectly honest. It's your decision in the end. ^_^ At least knowing you are ExTP for sure is a big step forwards.


Why would it be dominant Se, what is your strongest argument for her being dominant Se? I'm curious.


Two more things to @_Vesper_

1)


> I just got the feeling that the want for experiences was literal experiences for the sake of immersing herself into it... I don't know if that makes sense. At least for me, as much as I'd love to travel or something I mainly like going places and experiences things because I want more to wonder about. I want to gain more perspectives, more possibilities. See more. But I don't need to "live it" or become immersed in it per se. When I get to the point where I can see no more possibilities, when I've thought about something too long, I get bored, so I want to feed myself with something else. It's a different sort of craving.


Do you relate to this? (Julia Bell describing her Ne.)

2)
How about this ENTP desc? ...../entp/5508-entp-jungian-cognitive-function-analysis.html
(google that to find the actual link )
Do you relate to it well?


----------



## INTJellectual (Oct 22, 2011)

Too much Ne. Now, I am sure she is an ENTP. And she consistently lean towards more Intuition and Ne in favor of sensing in her answers. What I am not sure of, is about her Enneagram. Her answers pointed towards more Type 8 because of her being in-control and resisting to be controlled, BUT... don't be deceived by those descriptions. There's more to Type 8 than meets the eye. She has also answers that leans to Type 7 especially at the car scenario. Type 7's Jungian function is Se, that's why she confuses herself with ESTP. I'm guessing Type 8 might be her second type not the CORE type. We'll see. @Vesper I think you should keep an open-mind about Enneagram. It takes more time to know Enneagram than MBTI, because it goes deep within yourself, about your hidden true motivations, drives, desires, and fears, and some things about you that you unconsciously unaware of. Tests and Type Me Threads don't mean much, and if you answer in a conscious manner about some questions, it's always possible you won't get the exact real result even if you did answer truthfully. Often a person unconsciously do what she's doing, but if you get to the bottom core why a person do that, you would understand. Your self-introspection can answer it best. Look for misidentifications. Some types could be similar, but differ in style. Watch out for that.
@Julia Bell
Where did you get the information that Ne and Se cannot be on the high stack of Jungian functions? I haven't read a theory like that. Link?

I'm also high in Si along with Ni. I don't think Si correlates to memory but there are many misconceptions about it. I have a photographic memory about events, what happened to that year, remembering names, but about daily life especially where I last left my comb, I struggle with remembering it. I believe Ne and Se can be on the high stack of functions. But I don't believe Ne and Ni can be on the same high stack as well as Se and Si. One function of Sensing or Intuition must be repressed.

And about the picture, Se (and other functions) cannot be measured by just describing it. There are still more factors to consider. It's not a determining factor.


----------



## INTJellectual (Oct 22, 2011)

Note: My original response was lost. *sighs* Had to post again.



itsme45 said:


> You know what, I'm going to mention this for kicks. And especially to show that the correlation here is not great and function concepts as they are on their own are probably *not* a real explanation to what stress symptoms someone is prone to. Though I'm not saying it is not related, I just think the truth is a bit different.
> 
> Okay, so I've had both of these, I had an extremely stressful period once and I kept switching between these two modes! Oh you can't imagine how annoying that was. In general though, I never have either of these reactions when stressed as an ESTP. Perhaps I have b) at times but very little of it. Certainly never paranoid.


Letter a is an example of inferior Ni that negatively comes into play at moment of distress. Same with b inferior Si. Just wondering which would relate to OP.

I guess IMO it can happen to any type not just to specific types. But some types are more prone to experiencing those than others.



itsme45 said:


> I feel aggressive at times but less often than I'm told I am... This "somewhat or moderately aggressive" is incredibly subjective though. I don't think type 8 is equal to extreme aggressiveness, that's just a consequence of their fixation.


Maybe people perceived you as aggressive because you're too dominant? Am I right?

Consequence yes. But Type 8 can be the most aggressive of all types if the button was pushed. Some other types can be aggressive as well, and can get angry like a Type 8, but the underlying motivations, desires are very distinct.




itsme45 said:


> Yep, to type her, right? With the first questionnaire, it must be very fine differences, as I said I could have written 90% of her stuff while we may easily be different types. I'm not trying to criticize you here without reason, I'm just genuinely curious how it makes the difference between ENTP and ESTP... You could be asking more about her thinking style and about what she generally focuses on in things... IMO anyway  Ah and the second questionnaire is cool, we differ more there with her...


Exactly. 

Thinking style, plus how her brain process information, plus preference over the other function.

MY 2nd questionnaire you mean? Thanks.


----------



## Extraverted Delusion (Oct 23, 2011)

INTJellectual, this is something that has been far overdue:










Ok, maybe that was just some trickery to remind itsme that I still haven't forgotten to answer her questions. Let me get into hyperfocus, this happens 4-5 times a week as I am a logical vegetable otherwise! Probably tomorrow!


----------



## INTJellectual (Oct 22, 2011)

Vesper said:


> *I remember my ENTP friend who I used to chat with online and how we talked hours about a topic, and we defended our opinion, then ended up at a different topic, then at a different topic again. Nice pal to stimulate my buried ideas and knowledge.*


Haha! I tried to hide that message, but you still revealed it xD Memories...


----------



## Vesper (Sep 4, 2012)

*Socionics? Well maybe that's why I relate to the Se one here pretty well (I'm Se-dom in socionics too). Though I would say a few points don't apply to me. But overall it makes sense, I'd just refine wording in a few places to make it less ambiguous.*

*"Simplicity of life is the cornerstone of the Se psyche, while for the Ne complexity is sublime" - I would go with Ne view here.

"The sum total of stuff (opinions, feelings, beliefs and judgements about one's external world) accumulated defines who Se is, whereas a contextual understanding of stuff defines Ne." - I have both. I rely on context a lot though this may be just the present context of MBTI Se.

"Se builds an understanding of the world by amassing stuff - from the bottom up, starting with basics and progressing to the more diverse. Ne builds understanding from the top down - creates a process, sees whether or not stuff validates the process, and then modifies it until understanding is achieved; and Ne usually stores the process but discards the stuff." - Yes I build from the bottom up in this fashion. I then get to switch to top-down mode at times and it's nice. At the end I will have the overview and understanding and big picture that I feel is deeply ingrained in me by then. So, I discard details easily. My memory is not great for details if I try to consciously recall details. But if the present context is calling for a detail I will recall it with surprising ease.

"Se keeps it simple: all the details to solve a problem are simply remembered for future reference." - See above, I don't really store all details in such a conscious way. But I will start listing them without effort if they relate to present context.

"Se fears stuff that is not already on the farm while Ne fears not having gathered enough stuff. Se looks upon most Ne as lacking practical knowledge or ability while Ne looks upon Se as intransigent or narrow-minded." - Oh, I relate to both. I don't feel narrow-minded, open-mindedness is a very important quality to me, so I'm always ready to change my conclusions if new data compels me to do so (and I can't ignore new data in this fashion, at all). And I relate to lacking some practical knowledge because I'm disinterested enough in some boring everyday areas of life but if I decide to do something in those areas I approach it in a very practical manner naturally. And yeah in those situations I do feel more like Se about fearing stuff not already on the farm. I also hate myself before getting into those situations, I berate myself just like a stereotypical Se person would berate a stereotypical Ne dom.  Hm, let me also mention, as I age, I do notice moments where I'm more Ne hunter-gatherer and I find those very useful in general or if not, at least intellectually worth it. 

All the rest of this description about Se is me alright, quite a bit more than the Ne counterparts. Nice description overall!

Hope this is a useful contrast for OP and for anyone else who wants to dig deeper *

Very useful. I underlined those statements that applied to my personality, and again it’s Ne >Se. I will have to admit that Se is probably quite correct in some of those assessments on Ne, at least in my case.

*Must be something that Ne and Se can share, just the approach to it differs?*

Yeah, I’m (clearly) no expert but on the surface it seem that way.

*Just curious but what are those things? *

Instances that happened more a few years back than recently. I went to some schools that were rather, shall we say, _strict_ in their codes of conduct, that were rabidly focused on their desired results, and as such whilst I got good grades I also had some behavioural issues. I wouldn’t personally say it was anything particularly major, but I’d wind up the teachers by questioning conventional wisdom, and generally just being contrary for the sake of it. I did have one showdown with the art teacher in the middle of class which resulted in my throwing a chair over, walking out of class and vowing never to return – all very dramatic. 

At the last one there was a lot of pressure on me to go to take the ‘right’ subjects, to go to the ‘right’ University, with my own preferences discounted. I was involved in a lot of arguments in that time period as I very angrily kicked against it, and eventually the sum total of the frustration and rage just exploded out of me in a display of loud ‘eff it all’ and I quit school, ended up studying for my A Levels at home (okay, closer to the truth is that I indulged in last minute revision the night before I was due to take them) and taking them independently.

*Ok, let me first say, I realised I misinterpreted your earlier answer about your thinking process. You do seem more disparate in a Ne way than me. We are not similar here. Well I mean, I can do the generalness and stuff but that's the secondary mode for me though I find it's helpful and illuminating. Also, I can do the getting into something then giving up by wandering somewhere else that you describe but I don't often get into something without a point to it so this is rare for me. And tbh, I totally hate the feeling of wandering away like this. I can seem scattered in my inconsistency and impulsivity and irrationalness (ExxP), but I'm actually not scattered at all in a certain way. That is, when I think, I prefer to do it deliberately, with a purpose. That doesn't mean I can't wonder about things without a purpose to myself to kill time but I'm not as satisfied with that, even though it can be certainly enjoyable in some cases, I don't know what that depends on, that is, whether I enjoy it or not. Often the same deliberateness with my actions if they are actions that require effort from my part... I actually prefer stuff that requires effort to keep my energy level high enough. (Paradoxical? Huh yeah...)*

That makes sense, and I do relate to it, only that I come at it from the opposite direction. General is my primary mode, specific my secondary. I really have to fight to get myself focused at times, and fight my natural impulse to wander. It used to be a lot worse, but I have a better handle on it now.

*Awww, okay. That one did mislead me!  Big time! It all makes more sense now though.*

Ha! I was reading back and quickly realised my mistake, definitely needed to clarify that.

*Er I think I didn't really speak in a clear way there but nvm. How do you intellectualise the social emotions? :O*

I’m not naturally attuned to how other people are feeling, I can’t just slip into someone’s emotional headspace. I have to rely on paying close attention the wider environment as well as to body language and social cues. 

*My luck was that I got introduced to math as a very small kid before school and I thought it of as a fun challenge  No school rules there...*

That would have been pretty good for me too, I think. 

*Oh very interesting. Okay, this is again Ne > Se in line with the earlier stuff. Of course as I said earlier, I can also be in Ne mode when socializing. But I just feel we are quite different in emphasis here. I do feel like my brain is in gear and I often like to do be intellectual but I don't disappear into my own head for long, only for quick flashes. I can't say I always fully feel physically present as in general I pay little attention to my internal body sensations but otherwise I do feel present and synced with the outside world. Except when I get into my own head for those flashes  head in clouds then, hahaha.*

*This reminds me, I'm not sure how to put this but your style somehow feels a bit "removed" to me. I've seen other ENTP's be like that, eh, this is just a subjective feeling and could be wrong *

There’s always a part of me that’s stood back and observing. I’ll calculate possibilities: i.e: I’ll look at a specific occurrence, consider the chain of events that led to it, and consider the ways the situation could evolve with an eye on what is most likely to occur. It’s almost like I’m playing chess. Yes, there is a definite sense of me being ‘removed’ from the situation in this.

*Do you do this consciously calculating? I do this out of instinct.*

Both. It’s a natural instinct, but one I am very much aware of so yes, I do consciously calculate.

*Ne!!!!!!!! Natural strong not limited Ne. I hate those tasks.*

LOL, yeah, they’re fun for me.

*Okay, this is Ne... *

*See, I thought for so long that I was ENTP, unfortunately utilizing a very poor definition of Ne that I read on the site where I started out with MBTI... I then noticed ENTP's on some sites were more disparate in thinking than me and the randomness sometimes actually annoyed me though it can be fun too  But I didn't realize what that meant and kept ENTP label until I realised I started from Se as a kid. That's when I decided to examine things better and ended up at changing the ENTP to ESTP. You sound like you started from the opposite and then developed your S. I developed my N in the same way you developed your S.

Hey I'm curious how did you develop your S. Any life experience compelling you to do it?*

No specific life experience, more a gradual realisation, through introspection, that having my head in the clouds was all well and good, but if I carried on neglecting practicality as I had been doing then I’d just be sat daydreaming for the rest of my life without achieving anything. I didn’t find this a particularly attractive prospect, so I worked on focusing on what was tangible and actually _doing_ rather than theorising. It’s was, is, a gradual process. Obviously I’m very aware of it because it doesn’t come naturally to me, unfortunately. I’m doing similar when it comes to developing my endurance, but that needs a LOT more work.

I will analyse myself a lot, I like to look at my own patterns of behaviour as well as those of others, and I go through periods where I will work to deconstruct myself, in order to then rebuild an improved version (or at least attempt to). It’s very robotic and dispassionate; I’ll look at my good qualities and my negative ones (without succumbing to ego or self-pity, respectively), and consider what room there is for improvement.

*Why so detail oriented here? Could be Si?  I have no idea about Si, I distrust most definitions of it. *

I thought the more details I could provide, the better the insight gained. I know there was/is some confusion so I figured it couldn’t hurt to elaborate, maybe clear some things up. I don’t know about Si, it could be. I’ve skimmed some definitions but I do want to look at it more in detail.

*How come people externally seem so similar and internally so different! :O Lol!*


xD It’s funny, on the surface we appear to be very much alike, yet internally we’re opposites.

*I find the idea of being overly aware of the subjectivity of perception terrible. -.- Another difference between us, as you have no problem with this.

Btw when you talked about looking at a thing from another hidden angle, do you do more than one such angle easily, in a broad way? To differentiate between inferior Ni and dominant Ne.*

Ha! I can see why it would be annoying, sometimes I think I’d be doing myself a favour if I could be a little more concrete in that regard, and not end up giving myself a massive headache. For the more part though I am fine with it!

Yes, I find I can calculate a number of possibilities very quickly,

*Eh, those are not so big tricks in terms of influence. In general sensing is pretty reliable, thanks to evolution. *

I’ve found it I’ve had to work at trusting my senses more, and it’s still an ongoing process 


*Two more things to @Vesper

1)*
*I just got the feeling that the want for experiences was literal experiences for the sake of immersing herself into it... I don't know if that makes sense. At least for me, as much as I'd love to travel or something I mainly like going places and experiences things because I want more to wonder about. I want to gain more perspectives, more possibilities. See more. But I don't need to "live it" or become immersed in it per se. When I get to the point where I can see no more possibilities, when I've thought about something too long, I get bored, so I want to feed myself with something else. It's a different sort of craving.*
*Do you relate to this? (Julia Bell describing her Ne.)
*
Yes. That rings very true. I will have a detachment still, one foot back so I won’t fully immerse myself into in the sense that I’m totally in the moment. I also relate to what Julie’s said about boredom, once the possibilities are exhausted I move on.

*2)
How about this ENTP desc? ...../entp/5508-entp-jungian-cognitive-function-analysis.html
(google that to find the actual link )
Do you relate to it well?
*
Almost entirely. I see myself very clearly in that description, past and present.


----------



## Vesper (Sep 4, 2012)

INTJellectual said:


> Too much Ne. Now, I am sure she is an ENTP. And she consistently lean towards more Intuition and Ne in favor of sensing in her answers. What I am not sure of, is about her Enneagram. Her answers pointed towards more Type 8 because of her being in-control and resisting to be controlled, BUT... don't be deceived by those descriptions. There's more to Type 8 than meets the eye. She has also answers that leans to Type 7 especially at the car scenario. Type 7's Jungian function is Se, that's why she confuses herself with ESTP. I'm guessing Type 8 might be her second type not the CORE type. We'll see. @_Vesper_ I think you should keep an open-mind about Enneagram. It takes more time to know Enneagram than MBTI, because it goes deep within yourself, about your hidden true motivations, drives, desires, and fears, and some things about you that you unconsciously unaware of. Tests and Type Me Threads don't mean much, and if you answer in a conscious manner about some questions, it's always possible you won't get the exact real result even if you did answer truthfully. Often a person unconsciously do what she's doing, but if you get to the bottom core why a person do that, you would understand. Your self-introspection can answer it best. Look for misidentifications. Some types could be similar, but differ in style. Watch out for that.
> @_Julia Bell_
> Where did you get the information that Ne and Se cannot be on the high stack of Jungian functions? I haven't read a theory like that. Link?
> 
> ...


Noted, about the enneagram. I'm apparently wing 7, so that may account for that, but yeah, I'll keep an open mind.

*edit* I'll add my breakdown:
Type 8 - 14
Type 7 - 11
Type 3 - 8.7
Type 9 - 3

Interesting what you've said about your memory, the bolded part I relate to strongly. I wouldn't say mine was photographic, but my long term memory at least is very strong. I can recall things easily, and in rich detail.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

INTJellectual said:


> What I am not sure of, is about her Enneagram. Her answers pointed towards more Type 8 because of her being in-control and resisting to be controlled, BUT... don't be deceived by those descriptions. There's more to Type 8 than meets the eye.


How would you sum that up? 




> She has also answers that leans to Type 7 especially at the car scenario. Type 7's Jungian function is Se, that's why she confuses herself with ESTP. I'm guessing Type 8 might be her second type not the CORE type. We'll see.


I'm Se but I don't relate to type 7's hedonism... I saw RH's site connecting type 7 to Se and type 8 to Ne, but that also doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I guess it's just correlations about all this -.-




> Where did you get the information that Ne and Se cannot be on the high stack of Jungian functions? I haven't read a theory like that. Link?


That's the thing, I can imagine someone's brain is divided like this on stuff. Until I see some more convincing and empirical explanation as to why the brain must so strongly prefer one function over its opposition (I have ideas on how it would work on brain level but those are just ideas), I don't discard the possibility of preferences being divided that way. But it seems like for lots of people the preference is pretty clear between Ne and Se, even for me... I originally confused Ne with Se/Ni but with understanding Ne's thinking, it's clear I have a strong preference for Se as opposed directly to Ne. Ni fits Se's ways of thinking much more than Ne. But it doesn't mean someone can't do one in one situation and another in another, ending up at around 50/50 preference... maybe it's impossible due to some way about the brain's fundamental workings but again, no direct evidence for this atm. Also against this is, the brain is pretty flexible, can learn new things. 

In general though, Jung, Beebe, Socionics, and a few other theory variants claim that Ne and Se can't be both high.




INTJellectual said:


> Letter a is an example of inferior Ni that negatively comes into play at moment of distress. Same with b inferior Si. Just wondering which would relate to OP.
> 
> I guess IMO it can happen to any type not just to specific types. But some types are more prone to experiencing those than others.


But the thing is I had both very strongly and equally! And in general I default more to b), though it's rare. I'm either an outlier or the correlations are less reliable than they are made out to be. And if correlations are weak, it's most likely that the theory doesn't explain things in the right way. (I'm quite the reductionist btw)




> Maybe people perceived you as aggressive because you're too dominant? Am I right?


Yes, there's several reasons for that perception, that's often one of them. I'm not trying to dominate every situation though, it just.. happens I guess?  And then I sometimes don't, at all.




> Consequence yes. But Type 8 can be the most aggressive of all types if the button was pushed. Some other types can be aggressive as well, and can get angry like a Type 8, but the underlying motivations, desires are very distinct.


Well, the thing is my button is not pushed that often, I matured a lot, not that I'm totally mature  But if a 8 really gets into the virtue of 8, then maybe the aggression manifestations are less frequent thus making them appear not that extremely aggressive. Btw, when I perceive someone who's "extremely aggressive", I think of very explicit things including readiness for heavy physical violence, so maybe we are differing on word usage here 




> MY 2nd questionnaire you mean? Thanks.


Yes. 




Extraverted Delusion said:


> Ok, maybe that was just some trickery to remind itsme that I still haven't forgotten to answer her questions. Let me get into hyperfocus, this happens 4-5 times a week as I am a logical vegetable otherwise! Probably tomorrow!


LOL. Okay and thanks 




Vesper said:


> *Ne fears not having gathered enough stuff. *Very useful. I underlined those statements that applied to my personality, and again it’s Ne >Se. I will have to admit that Se is probably quite correct in some of those assessments on Ne, at least in my case.


What is your fear about that like? Just curious. How do you mean Se is more correct as opposed to Ne in your case?




> Instances that happened more a few years back than recently. I went to some schools that were rather, shall we say, _strict_ in their codes of conduct, that were rabidly focused on their desired results, and as such whilst I got good grades I also had some behavioural issues. I wouldn’t personally say it was anything particularly major, but I’d wind up the teachers by questioning conventional wisdom, and generally just being contrary for the sake of it. I did have one showdown with the art teacher in the middle of class which resulted in my throwing a chair over, walking out of class and vowing never to return – all very dramatic.


Hehe in one school I had those sorts of showdowns though not to this extreme degree, just fierce debates. Actually it wasn't even about the rules, just when something didn't make sense to me.




> At the last one there was a lot of pressure on me to go to take the ‘right’ subjects, to go to the ‘right’ University, with my own preferences discounted. I was involved in a lot of arguments in that time period as I very angrily kicked against it, and eventually the sum total of the frustration and rage just exploded out of me in a display of loud ‘eff it all’ and I quit school, ended up studying for my A Levels at home (okay, closer to the truth is that I indulged in last minute revision the night before I was due to take them) and taking them independently.


Why let people try and pressure you .




> I’m not naturally attuned to how other people are feeling, I can’t just slip into someone’s emotional headspace. I have to rely on paying close attention the wider environment as well as to body language and social cues.


I relate as far as I don't really try to imagine how they are feeling personally, I just have Fe that reacts in the right way, I don't really think about it. Maybe to do with Se too, as I don't consciously try to pay attention like that. 




> There’s always a part of me that’s stood back and observing. I’ll calculate possibilities: i.e: I’ll look at a specific occurrence, consider the chain of events that led to it, and consider the ways the situation could evolve with an eye on what is most likely to occur. It’s almost like I’m playing chess. Yes, there is a definite sense of me being ‘removed’ from the situation in this.


Yeah that's what seems to come off in your style in a way. Maybe.




> No specific life experience, more a gradual realisation, through introspection, that having my head in the clouds was all well and good, but if I carried on neglecting practicality as I had been doing then I’d just be sat daydreaming for the rest of my life without achieving anything. I didn’t find this a particularly attractive prospect


Why not? Not that I disagree with your evaluation 




> I will analyse myself a lot, I like to look at my own patterns of behaviour as well as those of others, and I go through periods where I will work to deconstruct myself, in order to then rebuild an improved version (or at least attempt to). It’s very robotic and dispassionate; I’ll look at my good qualities and my negative ones (without succumbing to ego or self-pity, respectively), and consider what room there is for improvement.


Must be some ENTP/NT thing, this robotic mode.  It's hard for me to look at it this way. I actually find I can't make myself conform to some imaginary improved version of me. What works for me in terms of self-improvement is just dealing with practical issues and improve my handling of them in a more direct way.




> Yes, I find I can calculate a number of possibilities very quickly,


Did you forget to finish that part? (The question was _Btw when you talked about looking at a thing from another hidden angle, do you do more than one such angle easily, in a broad way? To differentiate between inferior Ni and dominant Ne_.)




> I’ve found it I’ve had to work at trusting my senses more, and it’s still an ongoing process


What is hard about trusting them? Are you actually unsure in some way at what you're seeing in a physical sense or is it just that you tend to run away with the possibilities thing and thus forget about the sensation and end up confused that way?




Vesper said:


> Noted, about the enneagram. I'm apparently wing 7, so that may account for that, but yeah, I'll keep an open mind.
> 
> *edit* I'll add my breakdown:
> Type 8 - 14
> ...


What are those numbers, some enneagram test? Can I see?


----------



## Vesper (Sep 4, 2012)

*What is your fear about that like? Just curious. How do you mean Se is more correct as opposed to Ne in your case?*

I 'fear' that I haven’t collected enough information, accumulated enough knowledge, that I’ve overlooked things that I need. I’ll relate it here to reading a situation: I’ll get a good grasp, but I’ll still have lingering thoughts that there is something I’ve overlooked, something I’ve failed to consider. I can, when particularly stressed, tie myself in knots over it.

*Hehe in one school I had those sorts of showdowns though not to this extreme degree, just fierce debates. Actually it wasn't even about the rules, just when something didn't make sense to me.*

I had a flair for the violent outburst *ahem*. Same with the fierce debates too though, if something seemed wrong to me I was willing to argue my point aggressively.

*Why let people try and pressure you .*

I was interacting with other dominant personalities, so intense power struggles ensued. Suffice to say they didn't manage to dominate me.

*I relate as far as I don't really try to imagine how they are feeling personally, I just have Fe that reacts in the right way, I don't really think about it. Maybe to do with Se too, as I don't consciously try to pay attention like that. *

I’ve been conscious of it from a young age. Both my Fe and Fi are weak (Apparently. According to the cognitive function test, anyway) and thus I need to put the effort in.

*Why not? Not that I disagree with your evaluation *

I have a head full of fantasies, and I want to make them reality, or at least try to. I want experience too. I don’t want to get to the end of my life and have nothing to show for it. I don’t want to regret that I didn’t make efforts to experience, that I didn’t least attempt to put my talents to good use and realise my dreams. 

*Did you forget to finish that part? (The question was Btw when you talked about looking at a thing from another hidden angle, do you do more than one such angle easily, in a broad way? To differentiate between inferior Ni and dominant Ne.)*

Yep, didn’t finish that part. Oops. To answer is fully: yes, I can look at a number of different angles, and indeed it will be a broad overview of possibilities.

*What is hard about trusting them? Are you actually unsure in some way at what you're seeing in a physical sense or is it just that you tend to run away with the possibilities thing and thus forget about the sensation and end up confused that way?*

The latter. I’ll run away with the possibilities, I can end up overcomplicating matters and losing sight of the original thing I was confronted with.

*What are those numbers, some enneagram test? Can I see?*

Sure: Eclectic Energies Enneagram Tests (free)


----------



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

INTJellectual said:


> Too much Ne. Now, I am sure she is an ENTP. *And she consistently lean towards more Intuition and Ne in favor of sensing in her answers.* What I am not sure of, is about her Enneagram. Her answers pointed towards more Type 8 because of her being in-control and resisting to be controlled, BUT... don't be deceived by those descriptions. There's more to Type 8 than meets the eye. She has also answers that leans to Type 7 especially at the car scenario. *Type 7's Jungian function is Se, that's why she confuses herself with ESTP.* I'm guessing Type 8 might be her second type not the CORE type. We'll see. @_Vesper_ I think you should keep an open-mind about Enneagram. It takes more time to know Enneagram than MBTI, because it goes deep within yourself, about your hidden true motivations, drives, desires, and fears, and some things about you that you unconsciously unaware of. Tests and Type Me Threads don't mean much, and if you answer in a conscious manner about some questions, it's always possible you won't get the exact real result even if you did answer truthfully. Often a person unconsciously do what she's doing, but if you get to the bottom core why a person do that, you would understand. Your self-introspection can answer it best. Look for misidentifications. Some types could be similar, but differ in style. Watch out for that.


There used to be a time when it was said Ne correlated to type 7 even more than Se. Where does she constantly lean more towards Intuition? I saw the tests you gave her, but honestly some of the answers didn't cross out Se by any means. 



> @_Julia Bell_
> Where did you get the information that Ne and Se cannot be on the high stack of Jungian functions? I haven't read a theory like that. Link?


I don't have a link at my hands at the moment that directly say that. If I find one I'll give it to you. In MBTI and JCF and according to Jung, Ne users always must have inferior Si -- thus is the way the theory goes. If you are going by the theory, you have to accept this. You can find it especially in Jung. I've never read anything that contradicts this. If dom Ne must have inferior Si, then the person not only already has a dominant Pe function but also prefers Si. Se, of course, is now entirely repressed because of Ne's dominance as well as Si being preferred. Preferring both Si and Se would be like preferring both Fe and Fi when Te is the dominant function. 



> I'm also high in Si along with Ni. I don't think Si correlates to memory but there are many misconceptions about it. I have a photographic memory about events, what happened to that year, remembering names, but about daily life especially where I last left my comb, I struggle with remembering it. I believe Ne and Se can be on the high stack of functions. But I don't believe Ne and Ni can be on the same high stack as well as Se and Si. One function of Sensing or Intuition must be repressed.


Or you could simply be misunderstanding Si. I don't pretend to understand Si perfectly, and I don't think it correlates to memory either. I know some people use the argument 'I've got rich memory, therefore I must have Si'. I do not believe these arguments. However, Si is subjective and more about the personal impression of what is. It is focusing on one aspect of an experience, as an example. It's the difference between the fire being red, flickering, and hot and the fire being comforting and warm. It's the difference between seeing and wondering what is there and focus on the impression it gives you. 

EDIT: Actually, I made a thread about being confused about Si, once. Somehow it got resurrected again. http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/98487-confused-about-introverted-sensing-again.html



> And about the picture, Se (and other functions) cannot be measured by just describing it. There are still more factors to consider. It's not a determining factor.


I was one of those who helped suggest things for the questionnaire (although most of the others came up with the questions, truly), and the purpose of that question was to directly shed light on Se versus Si, _specifically_. Not only did she describe it that way once, but then she added on later details in which I didn't see just Se but Ni.

Oh yeah, @Vesper, definitely have a good look at the Enneagram. Remember not to rely too much on the tests (same thing I say about any typing system, lol). It might be good to note that a counterphobic Six looks eerily similar to type Eight, so if you feel like you fit one of those, it's a good idea to take a fair look at the other as well.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

Vesper said:


> Need some assistance figuring out whether I most resemble an ESTP or an ENTP. I score both on tests, and one breakdown had me 50/50 on sensing and intuition, which really cleared matters up. Right! The questionnaire:
> 
> *0. Is there anything that may affect the way you answer the questions? For example, a stressful time, mental illness, medications, special life circumstances? Other useful information includes sex, age, and current state of mind.*
> Nope, not that I'm aware of. Mind is running on neutral right now, I'm only curious as to finding out where I fit. I'm not doing much today so I anticipate boredom, my threshold for that is pretty low. I'm female, 24.
> ...


ENTP, you are just confusing yourself with the fact that your intuition has a relationship with whats in reality, giving the illusion of being grounded


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Julia Bell said:


> There used to be a time when it was said Ne correlated to type 7 even more than Se. Where does she constantly lean more towards Intuition? I saw the tests you gave her, but honestly some of the answers didn't cross out Se by any means.


Yeah, on some forums they say if you are E7 you must be Ne, and if E8 then Se, lol. RH's official enneagram site says E7 is Se and E8 is Ne. Personally I think this is not as clear-cut. I do believe they say on the site that it's only correlated to some degree, anyway.

Yeah okay, if her answers didn't exclude Se, but they also didn't exclude Ne, did they? So that's not a good argument for ESTP in her case.

To answer your question from how I see it, she seems to consistently lean to Ne over Se when being asked about thinking patterns and about where her focus is.


----------



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

itsme45 said:


> Yeah, on some forums they say if you are E7 you must be Ne, and if E8 then Se, lol. RH's official enneagram site says E7 is Se and E8 is Ne. Personally I think this is not as clear-cut. I do believe they say on the site that it's only correlated to some degree, anyway.
> 
> Yeah okay, if her answers didn't exclude Se, but they also didn't exclude Ne, did they? So that's not a good argument for ESTP in her case.
> 
> To answer your question from how I see it, she seems to consistently lean to Ne over Se when being asked about thinking patterns and about where her focus is.


I saw what could be inferior Ni. To be honest, I could see what all the questions of those extra little tests were attempting to get at, and some of them I could tell were trying to get at something but were also based on misconceptions. They largely only proved that she uses a great amount of Ti and some Pe function as dom. I can see where Ne could be seen. 

I have said my opinion -- I think there are things in her questionnaire that truly rule out Ne entirely. A lot of what she has said which she attributes to Ne could be attributed to Ti, including thirst for more ideas and things to toy with and analyze. One thing you might want to keep in mind is that just because you do not relate to all of her thinking process does not mean she doesn't use Ne. I have to tell myself that too when I see somebody who shows signs of Ne and I cannot really relate to them in all aspects.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Julia Bell said:


> I saw what could be inferior Ni. To be honest, I could see what all the questions of those extra little tests were attempting to get at, and some of them I could tell were trying to get at something but were also based on misconceptions. They largely only proved that she uses a great amount of Ti and some Pe function as dom. I can see where Ne could be seen.
> 
> I have said my opinion -- I think there are things in her questionnaire that truly rule out Ne entirely. A lot of what she has said which she attributes to Ne could be attributed to Ti, including thirst for more ideas and things to toy with and analyze. One thing you might want to keep in mind is that just because you do not relate to all of her thinking process does not mean she doesn't use Ne. I have to tell myself that too when I see somebody who shows signs of Ne and I cannot really relate to them in all aspects.


Yes I'm sure there are misconceptions floating around... 

I'm really curious as to what things in her questionnaire rule out Ne entirely in your opinion. Can you give me some examples of that?

You say I don't relate to "all of her thinking process", well that tbh is an understatement. I don't relate to her way of thinking at all about in debates. I don't find it enjoyable to play a side that is against of how I truly think* things are. Also I don't relate to how she keeps making up a lot of ideas on what things could be done. I do think of ideas to do but I don't do this think-up-ideas-mode all day and I'm pretty serious about my ideas, I prefer to actually do them.

*: Truly think so at a given moment because I'm focused on "what is", of course my opinion can and will change if I get more information in terms of which I need to change my conclusions.

You are right though that maybe I'm wrong and functions shouldn't be interpreted in terms of how the thinking processes of a person work but then I guess I don't have any other way to anchor function concepts to reality... I mean I already found that focusing on behaviour elements doesn't work but examining how someone thinks inside their mind, what they focus on, seemed to make sense in terms of functional analysis...


----------



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

itsme45 said:


> Yes I'm sure there are misconceptions floating around...
> 
> I'm really curious as to what things in her questionnaire rule out Ne entirely in your opinion. Can you give me some examples of that?


I've already said them. The picture, for one thing. Later she added even more details. You commented that you saw Ne because she saw things you wouldn't think of putting there. However, there was no focus on what could be, or Si-impressionism, or any of the sort. I did see Intuition -- but it was Ni. The fact that I didn't see any Si was a huge hint, as well as the way she analyzed it. She continued to pick out details within the picture that Ne-users never see. Truly. Ne-users do use Sensing, but their sensing is Si, not Se. The literal way she thought through and analyzed things was with Se. I saw it in the answer number 2. Usually Ne-users focus on past and future or predict what certain people do or something to that effect, but they never really focus: Here's what I would do in such a situation. Usually Ne-users start spinning out the possibilities and what could happen, etc. However, the focus was entirely on then, and the literal things she would do. There was no hint of "what could be" in the whole of her questionnaire. Nor did I see any hint of inferior Si. 



> You say I don't relate to "all of her thinking process", well that tbh is an understatement. I don't relate to her way of thinking at all about in debates. I don't find it enjoyable to play a side that is against of how I truly think* things are. Also I don't relate to how she keeps making up a lot of ideas on what things could be done. I do think of ideas to do but I don't do this think-up-ideas-mode all day and I'm pretty serious about my ideas, I prefer to actually do them.


I think that is because her Ti is very well developed, and I think her Ni is well balanced. 



> *: Truly think so at a given moment because I'm focused on "what is", of course my opinion can and will change if I get more information in terms of which I need to change my conclusions.
> 
> You are right though that maybe I'm wrong and functions shouldn't be interpreted in terms of how the thinking processes of a person work but then I guess I don't have any other way to anchor function concepts to reality... I mean I already found that focusing on behaviour elements doesn't work but examining how someone thinks inside their mind, what they focus on, seemed to make sense in terms of functional analysis...


You're right about focusing on thought processes, but another thing that ought to be done is knowing how a certain type's functions work together and where they can be seen working together in a person. Even if you think somebody uses Ne, you ought to look for Si as well. Detailed-oriented does not mean Si, by the way (I saw you mention that). A person won't have instances where they solely use one function -- they use them all, all the time. That's why it is necessary to look for not just Fi or Ne, but Fi-Te and Ne-Si working together. They will taint the overall feel of how the person thinks. I most easily spot perception functions simply because I've spent most of my time studying those.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Julia Bell said:


> I've already said them. The picture, for one thing. Later she added even more details. You commented that you saw Ne because she saw things you wouldn't think of putting there.


Er, I didn't say that. I said I was surprised she got so many details listed that I would not have cared about so much to put them into words when describing a picture. I mean when I look at something like a photo, I have a more broad focus than that, I look at the (concrete) whole more. I don't know what that means in terms of Se or other function use, I never tried practicing analysis of these photo descs.




> However, there was no focus on what could be, or Si-impressionism, or any of the sort. I did see Intuition -- but it was Ni. The fact that I didn't see any Si was a huge hint, as well as the way she analyzed it. She continued to pick out details within the picture that Ne-users never see. Truly. Ne-users do use Sensing, but their sensing is Si, not Se. The literal way she thought through and analyzed things was with Se.


Ok, let's assume she somehow was really in "Se-mode" at that moment. The question would be what her motive was for doing that. Maybe she just tried really hard? We would have to ask @Vesper about this 




> I saw it in the answer number 2. Usually Ne-users focus on past and future or predict what certain people do or something to that effect, but they never really focus: Here's what I would do in such a situation. Usually Ne-users start spinning out the possibilities and what could happen, etc. However, the focus was entirely on then, and the literal things she would do. There was no hint of "what could be" in the whole of her questionnaire. Nor did I see any hint of inferior Si.


Yeah if she didn't think of these possibilities, then I can agree she wasn't in the Ne mindset there.




> I think that is because her Ti is very well developed, and I think her Ni is well balanced.


But TiNi mode is a very deep focused mode. What she describes isn't like that. Or I misunderstood her perhaps?




> You're right about focusing on thought processes, but another thing that ought to be done is knowing how a certain type's functions work together and where they can be seen working together in a person. Even if you think somebody uses Ne, you ought to look for Si as well. Detailed-oriented does not mean Si, by the way (I saw you mention that). A person won't have instances where they solely use one function -- they use them all, all the time. That's why it is necessary to look for not just Fi or Ne, but Fi-Te and Ne-Si working together. They will taint the overall feel of how the person thinks. I most easily spot perception functions simply because I've spent most of my time studying those.


Okay that makes sense.


----------



## INTJellectual (Oct 22, 2011)

@itsme45



> How would you sum that up?


Most of her answers revolve around being in-control and dominating, plus her answer to my stress scenarios also pointed to 8. But it’s just the tip of the iceberg for me. Some thing’s not quite right, especially how she tells about adrenaline rush, thrill-seeking, and the car scenario. 7w8 is also known by the label as “The Thrill-Seeker”. I don’t know, but I could tell if she posts more posts from another threads. In MBTI you can hide behind those four letters and play the stereotypes. But in Enneagram, no. You can tell what type a person is, by just examining a writing style. Ti and Te’s writing style are discernible too.

She answered in a conscious way. I think Type 8 is her secondary or if not, she may not be 8w7 but 8w9. In my experience, Enneagram deals with your subconscious or pre-conscious, rather than the conscious self. I would’ve asked her what her basic fears and desires are, but it would be useless. Because even though the answers would be truthfully honest, the psyche, the soul, the inner self might tell otherwise that are not being aware of. That’s why it’s best that she does not rely to the tests and Type Mes. Many older members here found out that it’s not their CORE type. Only their research and introspection could decide what their true type is.




> I'm Se but I don't relate to type 7's hedonism... I saw RH's site connecting type 7 to Se and type 8 to Ne, but that also doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I guess it's just correlations about all this -.-


Hedonism is just but a stereotype attached to Type 7. I’m not sure about Type 8 if it’s Jungian function is Se or Ne, have to review again. But some articles say tha Type 8 has no Jungian function equivalent, only relies on gut/instinctual type. More often than not, the Enneagram messes with MBTI that’s why many get confused. I also did the Type Me thread and I was in the T/F divide. And I was also confused about my Jness because it’s not too strong. So I maybe INFP, INTP, INTJ or INFJ. But I was confused more about the T/F divide. The tests are consistent with answers along with JCF. I tested many times and the answers were pretty much the same. My introspection, reviews, and other people’s point of view are also the same. But I was still wondering why I don’t seem like my MBTI type. But my confusion and lots of questions were answered by Enneagram. And it made perfect sense. It answered why I acted feelerish or not so J-ish sometimes.

And I guess (not yet sure), that she might be 7w8. He Enneagram Type 7 with a Jungian function Se is messing up with MBTI. Type 7 and Type 8 are both aggressive dominating types and female 8s usually are more prone to mistyping than male 8s. But Type 8's are more focused and physically grounded than the Type 7 who displays much more quick mental energy.




> That's the thing, I can imagine someone's brain is divided like this on stuff. Until I see some more convincing and empirical explanation as to why the brain must so strongly prefer one function over its opposition (I have ideas on how it would work on brain level but those are just ideas), I don't discard the possibility of preferences being divided that way. But it seems like for lots of people the preference is pretty clear between Ne and Se, even for me... I originally confused Ne with Se/Ni but with understanding Ne's thinking, it's clear I have a strong preference for Se as opposed directly to Ne. Ni fits Se's ways of thinking much more than Ne. But it doesn't mean someone can't do one in one situation and another in another, ending up at around 50/50 preference... maybe it's impossible due to some way about the brain's fundamental workings but again, no direct evidence for this atm. Also against this is, the brain is pretty flexible, can learn new things.
> 
> In general though, Jung, Beebe, Socionics, and a few other theory variants claim that Ne and Se can't be both high.


Yup.

Have to look for that theory. But I’m seeing some flaws to that theory. There are people here who are high in Ne and also high in Se. There are some who are high in Ne and also high in Ni. That theory is still debatable for me. No clear explanation and consistent results.




> But the thing is I had both very strongly and equally! And in general I default more to b), though it's rare. I'm either an outlier or the correlations are less reliable than they are made out to be. And if correlations are weak, it's most likely that the theory doesn't explain things in the right way. (I'm quite the reductionist btw)


Seems like it. I would’ve expected that she answered the other option and you answer the other option. Maybe the theory about the inferior functions may also be right, but we’re not sure if those things also happen to people with a different function stack. In your case and her case, it didn’t give any clear back up to the theory.




> Yes, there's several reasons for that perception, that's often one of them. I'm not trying to dominate every situation though, it just.. happens I guess?  And then I sometimes don't, at all.


Unconsciously ? Type 8 doesn’t even realize that they’re dominating but it happens.




> The thing is my button is not pushed that often, I matured a lot, not that I'm totally mature  But if a 8 really gets into the virtue of 8, then maybe the aggression manifestations are less frequent thus making them appear not that extremely aggressive. Btw, when I perceive someone who's "extremely aggressive", I think of very explicit things including readiness for heavy physical violence, so maybe we are differing on word usage here


Yeah that’s it. The physical violence at unhealthy levels. Type 8 naturally gravitates towards that especially if at the unhealthy levels.



> Yes.


----------



## INTJellectual (Oct 22, 2011)

@_Julia Bell_



> There used to be a time when it was said Ne correlated to type 7 even more than Se. Where does she constantly lean more towards Intuition? I saw the tests you gave her, but honestly some of the answers didn't cross out Se by any means.


Many articles about Type 7 being correlated to Jung’s Se. In MY first questionnaire, her answers were consistent that leads to N in favor of S (in those 3 questions). In MY second questionnaire, I didn’t expect it but she showed more Ne.



> I don't have a link at my hands at the moment that directly say that. If I find one I'll give it to you. In MBTI and JCF and according to Jung, Ne users always must have inferior Si -- thus is the way the theory goes. If you are going by the theory, you have to accept this. You can find it especially in Jung. I've never read anything that contradicts this. If dom Ne must have inferior Si, then the person not only already has a dominant Pe function but also prefers Si. Se, of course, is now entirely repressed because of Ne's dominance as well as Si being preferred. Preferring both Si and Se would be like preferring both Fe and Fi when Te is the dominant function.
> 
> 
> Or you could simply be misunderstanding Si. I don't pretend to understand Si perfectly, and I don't think it correlates to memory either. I know some people use the argument 'I've got rich memory, therefore I must have Si'. I do not believe these arguments. However, Si is subjective and more about the personal impression of what is. It is focusing on one aspect of an experience, as an example. It's the difference between the fire being red, flickering, and hot and the fire being comforting and warm. It's the difference between seeing and wondering what is there and focus on the impression it gives you.


In the Dom-Inferior theory pairing, that’s always the rule. The second one, it could be. But in my case I also score high in Si function. Se is my inferior. Or maybe there has some flaws in the test I’ve taken that correlates Si to memory (which I have a strong one). But Si’s recollection of past data are concrete like, you could remember what dress color someone wore at the party. But if I have to remember it, I may or may not remember the dress color (more often than not, I would not remember the color). But I would be more focused about what happened and what the person said ( though not in his/her exact wording, but the general meaning of that person’s statement). Another example, experience: I cried once because I didn't know where I left my money and my friends were worried, only to find out later that it is in my pocket *blush*. I didn't tell them anyway. I don't know if you could count that as inferior Si. My understanding of Si is like this: Ex. Someone teaches me how to operate a machine. Then I will forget it the next day and had to try again. Then I will forget again, and again and again until I am comfortable enough using it. Si-dominants don't have trouble remembering such learning of some tangible things. But when the information is an idea, I could remember it down from its details - even specific dates of when such event happened. 

My JCF results were like this: Ni Si---------------Ne Se. I was a bit disappointed I got low on Ne. Again the test, has a limited scope of Ne, and I would always answer, I don't like changes (insert Type 9 here). But I guess I could relate too to Ne's seeing multiple possibilities at a time, though I don't put much into action though. I guess I have a moderate use of Ne.



> EDIT: Actually, I made a thread about being confused about Si, once. Somehow it got resurrected again. Confused about Introverted Sensing... Again


I’m gonna take time to look at that.



> I was one of those who helped suggest things for the questionnaire (although most of the others came up with the questions, truly), and the purpose of that question was to directly shed light on Se versus Si, specifically. Not only did she describe it that way once, but then she added on later details in which I didn't see just Se but Ni.


I see. But if I was disinterested to answer it, I would've described it in its most literal sense too. I guess the functions that would be conspicuous in describing a picture are Se, Ni, Fi.

But it would be more be fun if they had added 2 more pictures. I could make a story out of it.


----------



## INTJellectual (Oct 22, 2011)

Vesper said:


> Noted, about the enneagram. I'm apparently wing 7, so that may account for that, but yeah, I'll keep an open mind.
> 
> *edit* I'll add my breakdown:
> Type 8 - 14
> ...


Type 7 and Type 8 are two types dominant in you. And I'm not sure if you're a 8w7 or 7w8 or 8w9. I took the test. I scored as Type 5 sx. INACCURATE! I answered in my best possible honest answers but it turned out differently. The reason is, I was in my conscious state when answering it. Whenever I take Enneagram, test, I never score as a Type 9, yet it is my core. Just treat Enneagram as it is rooted in the SUBCONSCIOUS. You should research more and know the distinctions. There are also subtypes between Enneagrams like variant stackings. Ex. 8w7 and 8w9 are different. 8w7 sx/sp is different from 8w7 sp/sx and also different from 8w7 so/sp.

Here's one example of differences between 8 and 7 from many articles online.

_Female Eights are far more likely to mistype than male Eights, as many of the traits typical to the type Eight personality have been discouraged in females. For the most part, however, it is other types who mistake themselves for Eights. This is especially common in male counterphobic Sixes who fail to recognize that their agression is a cover for a very deep seated anxiety. Sevens too, are prone to mistype as Eights, but Sevens lack the intensity of focus typical of the type Eight, and while both Sevens and Eights have high energy personalities, Eights have a physically based energy whereas the Seven's energetic pattern has a nervous, mental quality to it._


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

INTJellectual said:


> Most of her answers revolve around being in-control and dominating, plus her answer to my stress scenarios also pointed to 8. But it’s just the tip of the iceberg for me. Some thing’s not quite right, especially how she tells about adrenaline rush, thrill-seeking, and the car scenario. 7w8 is also known by the label as “The Thrill-Seeker”. I don’t know, but I could tell if she posts more posts from another threads. In MBTI you can hide behind those four letters and play the stereotypes. But in Enneagram, no. You can tell what type a person is, by just examining a writing style. Ti and Te’s writing style are discernible too.


When I do things that can be adrenaline heavy I don't do it for feeling the adrenaline directly... I just do it because it's a challenge. Actually I don't even like or try to focus on internal feeling of adrenaline consciously, I'm more focused on the activity itself... How are type 8's with this or is this not even related?

Btw I'm so curious because for a while I thought I was 7 because I do think quick and am open to stuff, curious, whatnot, but then I realized that the 7's core stuff is actually something totally foreign to me. So I find this interesting that she has the same issues deciding between 7 and 8.




> She answered in a conscious way. I think Type 8 is her secondary or if not, she may not be 8w7 but 8w9. In my experience, Enneagram deals with your subconscious or pre-conscious, rather than the conscious self. I would’ve asked her what her basic fears and desires are, but it would be useless. Because even though the answers would be truthfully honest, the psyche, the soul, the inner self might tell otherwise that are not being aware of. That’s why it’s best that she does not rely to the tests and Type Mes. Many older members here found out that it’s not their CORE type. Only their research and introspection could decide what their true type is.


That makes sense, the 8 stuff is not really that conscious for me by default. :S




> Hedonism is just but a stereotype attached to Type 7. I’m not sure about Type 8 if it’s Jungian function is Se or Ne, have to review again. But some articles say tha Type 8 has no Jungian function equivalent, only relies on gut/instinctual type. More often than not, the Enneagram messes with MBTI that’s why many get confused. I also did the Type Me thread and I was in the T/F divide. And I was also confused about my Jness because it’s not too strong. So I maybe INFP, INTP, INTJ or INFJ. But I was confused more about the T/F divide. The tests are consistent with answers along with JCF. I tested many times and the answers were pretty much the same. My introspection, reviews, and other people’s point of view are also the same. But I was still wondering why I don’t seem like my MBTI type. But my confusion and lots of questions were answered by Enneagram. And it made perfect sense. It answered why I acted feelerish or not so J-ish sometimes.


Or maybe you are P-ish because your dom function is irrational? Ugh too many ways to explain one thing...




> Have to look for that theory. But I’m seeing some flaws to that theory. There are people here who are high in Ne and also high in Se. There are some who are high in Ne and also high in Ni. That theory is still debatable for me. No clear explanation and consistent results.


My issue exactly  




> Seems like it. I would’ve expected that she answered the other option and you answer the other option. Maybe the theory about the inferior functions may also be right, but we’re not sure if those things also happen to people with a different function stack. In your case and her case, it didn’t give any clear back up to the theory.


Lol funny you expected it to be the other way around. Maybe other functions and non-function related things affect this too...




> Unconsciously ? Type 8 doesn’t even realize that they’re dominating but it happens.


Oh. Yeah I don't tell myself "ok let me try and dominate" lol.




> Yeah that’s it. The physical violence at unhealthy levels. Type 8 naturally gravitates towards that especially if at the unhealthy levels.


But my point was that healthier 8's don't necessarily do this much. I mean I myself learnt some self-control and I do have some integration to 2 as well. So I don't see myself as "extremely aggressive" by default in the way I define the word. It would be in only specific situations. So this is why I don't think 8's must look "extremely aggressive". But then maybe it's because I'm female and also because I don't often get too overly conscious of someone's aggression, I mean I don't consider it consciously like "awww this looks sooo crazy aggressive", I just react to it.




INTJellectual said:


> Many articles about Type 7 being correlated to Jung’s Se. In MY first questionnaire, her answers were consistent that leads to N in favor of S (in those 3 questions).


Can you tell me which 3 questions?




> In the Dom-Inferior theory pairing, that’s always the rule. The second one, it could be. But in my case I also score high in Si function. Se is my inferior. Or maybe there has some flaws in the test I’ve taken that correlates Si to memory (which I have a strong one). But Si’s recollection of past data are concrete like, you could remember what dress color someone wore at the party. But if I have to remember it, I may or may not remember the dress color (more often than not, I would not remember the color). But I would be more focused about what happened and what the person said ( though not in his/her exact wording, but the general meaning of that person’s statement). Another example, experience: I cried once because I didn't know where I left my money and my friends were worried, only to find out later that it is in my pocket *blush*. I didn't tell them anyway. I don't know if you could count that as inferior Si. My JCF results were like this: Ni Si---------------Ne Se. I was a bit disappointed I got low on Ne. Again the test, has a limited scope of Ne, and I would always answer, I don't like changes (insert Type 9 here). But I guess I could relate too to Ne's seeing multiple possibilities at a time, though I don't put much into action though. I guess I have a moderate use of Ne.


Hey there are theories where you would be high only in Ni in tests. =)




> _Sevens too, are prone to mistype as Eights, but Sevens lack the intensity of focus typical of the type Eight, and while both Sevens and Eights have high energy personalities, Eights have a physically based energy whereas the Seven's energetic pattern has a nervous, mental quality to it._


Ah yes the focus difference is a very good way to differentiate between 7 and 8... @Vesper did say she had trouble with focusing.


----------



## Vesper (Sep 4, 2012)

*Most of her answers revolve around being in-control and dominating, plus her answer to my stress scenarios also pointed to 8. But it’s just the tip of the iceberg for me. Some thing’s not quite right, especially how she tells about adrenaline rush, thrill-seeking, and the car scenario. 7w8 is also known by the label as “The Thrill-Seeker”. I don’t know, but I could tell if she posts more posts from another threads. In MBTI you can hide behind those four letters and play the stereotypes. But in Enneagram, no. You can tell what type a person is, by just examining a writing style. Ti and Te’s writing style are discernible too.

She answered in a conscious way. I think Type 8 is her secondary or if not, she may not be 8w7 but 8w9. In my experience, Enneagram deals with your subconscious or pre-conscious, rather than the conscious self. I would’ve asked her what her basic fears and desires are, but it would be useless. Because even though the answers would be truthfully honest, the psyche, the soul, the inner self might tell otherwise that are not being aware of. That’s why it’s best that she does not rely to the tests and Type Mes. Many older members here found out that it’s not their CORE type. Only their research and introspection could decide what their true type is.*

For what it’s worth I’m not hiding behind the mbti, or playing the stereotypes. There’s little point I can see in doing that when I wanted to know what my Type was, screwing around in that fashion would defeat the purpose.

I don’t know a lot about the enneagram (indeed, I only have an immature knowledge of the mbti), but I’ve read similar that it deals in the subconscious and preconscious, areas that an individual is hardly in a position to plumb for the required knowledge. Incidentally my inclination to dominate/control was something I wasn’t initially aware of, it was pointed out to me, and caused me to examine my own behaviours and realise that it is major aspect of my personality, hence my speaking of it.

Reading through the descriptions of the types on the Enneagram Institute site. Again, like with ENTP and ESTP, I can see myself in both 7 and 8, but as I'm ostensibly 8w7 this is hardly surprising. The unhealthy levels of type 8 I definitely relate to having been in the past, whatever my own observations are worth. I do relate to type 8 more so than 7, but I'm keeping a question mark over it because my knowledge of the Enneagram is scant. For what it's worth, like with the mbti, I have no bias.

*Female Eights are far more likely to mistype than male Eights, as many of the traits typical to the type Eight personality have been discouraged in females. For the most part, however, it is other types who mistake themselves for Eights. This is especially common in male counterphobic Sixes who fail to recognize that their agression is a cover for a very deep seated anxiety. Sevens too, are prone to mistype as Eights, but Sevens lack the intensity of focus typical of the type Eight, and while both Sevens and Eights have high energy personalities, Eights have a physically based energy whereas the Seven's energetic pattern has a nervous, mental quality to it.

*
The underlined is particularly interesting to me. Throughout my life I've been criticized for not being stereotypically feminine (I think this also applies to Thinking females). I often comment that I should have been born with a penis, because I do have a personality type that is encouraged in men, yet in women is seen as defective. It angers me, and have got quite combative in defending myself from such criticism, see: my behaviour in school. I reacted to such criticism by kicking against it, as opposed to being discouraged. I was not going to allow myself to be forced into the role of 'good female' that society prescribed.

I am secure in those traits: my father is a quintessential type 8 and he has always encouraged and supported those aspects of my personality.


----------



## Vesper (Sep 4, 2012)

*Oh. Yeah I don't tell myself "ok let me try and dominate" lol.

*Same. I just end up doing it, and then it gets pointed out to me afterwards. I am more aware of myself doing it now because it's been brought to my attention, and depending on the situation I will either tone it down or accentuate it. I've been told a few times (I went into this before I know) that I do come across as intimidating to onlookers, I have friends and acquaintances who have said straight out that they wouldn't have approached me first because of this, a statement which always manages to surprise me, even though I am aware that I can be perceived this way.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Vesper said:


> Sevens too, are prone to mistype as Eights, but Sevens lack the intensity of focus typical of the type Eight, and while both Sevens and Eights have high energy personalities, Eights have a physically based energy whereas the Seven's energetic pattern has a nervous, mental quality to it.


I'm curious about what you think about this part...?




> The underlined is particularly interesting to me. Throughout my life I've been criticized for not being stereotypically feminine (I think this also applies to Thinking females).


Haha, I actually take this sort of "criticism" as a praise.




> I was not going to allow myself to be forced into the role of 'good female' that society prescribed.


Prescribed to who? HAHAH.


----------



## INTJellectual (Oct 22, 2011)

itsme45 said:


> When I do things that can be adrenaline heavy I don't do it for feeling the adrenaline directly... I just do it because it's a challenge. Actually I don't even like or try to focus on internal feeling of adrenaline consciously, I'm more focused on the activity itself... How are type 8's with this or is this not even related?
> 
> Btw I'm so curious because for a while I thought I was 7 because I do think quick and am open to stuff, curious, whatnot, but then I realized that the 7's core stuff is actually something totally foreign to me. So I find this interesting that she has the same issues deciding between 7 and 8.


This is the misidentification of 7 and 8 in Enneagram forums article:



_Type Eight-Type Seven
_ 
_
 Sevens and Eights are both aggressive types (PT, 433-36) and can resemble each other in certain respects. Both are powerful personalities who are able to go after what they want in life, but what they want, and how they attempt to get it, are different. 
 Sevens are primarily interested in variety–they want to sample as many different experiences as possible and become practical in as much as their practicality gives them the means to pursue the experiences they want to try. 
 Eights, by contrast, are more interested in intensity–they care less about variety than about having intense experiences that they enjoy. Eights are also interested in power, both as a way to maintain their independence and as a way of asserting their dominance in the environment. Sevens are not particularly interested in having power, seeing the work necessary to maintain it as possibly infringing on their freedom. 
 Eights are an Instinctive type, and as such, make decisions from their "gut" instincts. They prefer dealing with practical matters, and although emotionally volatile at times, generally remain grounded and down to earth. Sevens are Thinking types, and can have brilliant, quick minds. At the same time, Sevens can get ahead of themselves with their plans, schemes, and interests: they can have trouble staying grounded and on track with their projects. Sevens see themselves as idealistic optimists, while Eights see themselves as hard-nosed realists. Compare Sevens Mike Myers and Goldie Hawn with Eights Danny DeVito and Roseanne Barr. 

_


> Or maybe you are P-ish because your dom function is irrational? Ugh too many ways to explain one thing...


LOL.

Here's my own observation:
The T/F divide in SJ and SP temperaments is not that strong. I've seen so many romantic ESTPs and ESTJs. In general, STs are more expressive with their emotions than NTs. My husband (ESTJ) is more verbally and physically expressive when it comes to love than me. The J/P divide of NTs and NFs is not that strong. There are many NPs who have strong work ethic, and there are also NJs who are lazy. That's only my own observation.

In Lenore Thomson's theory, he said that the J/P divide of Extroverts is strong, while Introverts' J/P divide is weak.

In this theory which I believe to be the most accurate so far, the reason why I seem to P-ish is because of Type 9's influence over my whole personality. Type 9s have low energy and have problems with _inertia_. Most of the type 9s are very particular about "comfort". They emphasize getting comfort, though they do this unconsciously. And it gave clear view about my T/F confusion, because even though I decide using T preference over F, I can still have F's attributes like wanting Harmony and having a Broad Understanding in everything. Traits that belong to Type 9. If they are at growth levels -growth arrows to Type 3- they begin to "wake up" and exhibit Type 3's goals and motivations, and energy to attain goals.




> Lol funny you expected it to be the other way around. Maybe other functions and non-function related things affect this too...


Yeah, that's what I thought.




> Oh. Yeah I don't tell myself "ok let me try and dominate" lol.


Type 8s have this "do it my way" attitude. They make sure their opinions are heard and followed. And they don't just need to be in-control all the times. They have the desire to dominate other people. They want to make sure they are the leader, the boss.




> But my point was that healthier 8's don't necessarily do this much. I mean I myself learnt some self-control and I do have some integration to 2 as well. So I don't see myself as "extremely aggressive" by default in the way I define the word. It would be in only specific situations. So this is why I don't think 8's must look "extremely aggressive". But then maybe it's because I'm female and also because I don't often get too overly conscious of someone's aggression, I mean I don't consider it consciously like "awww this looks sooo crazy aggressive", I just react to it.


The reaction to stress of Type 8's, is what I meant when they become extremely aggressive. ANGER is their most powerful emotion.




> Can you tell me which 3 questions?


The questions about step-by-step vs. skipping procedure, metaphor vs. direct answers, new ideas vs. new experience. All of those questions, she leaned towards N > S, and Ne > Se.

And in the very first questionnaire, she answered how she would trust her instinct/hunches more than logic if there's no other way. And from her other response, she said she would still like to learn new things (Akkadian language) and enjoy it even though it may have no direct practical application. N > S. And also about debates, I notice when ESTPs get in debates, they make sure they "win". But in her case, win or lose, she enjoys the process more than the end result of the debate, because it stimulates ehr mental energy. This is typial of Ne-Ti.




> Hey there are theories where you would be high only in Ni in tests. =)


Theories about what Julia Bell gave seems vague and has no direct application in real life.




> Ah yes the focus difference is a very good way to differentiate between 7 and 8... @_Vesper_ did say she had trouble with focusing.


Yes, and look again at other descriptions, there are still more


----------



## INTJellectual (Oct 22, 2011)

Vesper said:


> For what it’s worth I’m not hiding behind the mbti, or playing the stereotypes. There’s little point I can see in doing that when I wanted to know what my Type was, screwing around in that fashion would defeat the purpose.


That's not aimed towards you. I meant there are people that like the stereotype of a certain type and they are content with the result without having to analyze. And they can easily play along the stereotype, only to find out later that they are another type.
In my eyes, no type is more superior than the other type.



> I don’t know a lot about the enneagram (indeed, I only have an immature knowledge of the mbti), but I’ve read similar that it deals in the subconscious and preconscious, areas that an individual is hardly in a position to plumb for the required knowledge. Incidentally my inclination to dominate/control was something I wasn’t initially aware of, it was pointed out to me, and caused me to examine my own behaviours and realise that it is major aspect of my personality, hence my speaking of it.


Another way to type a person's enneagram is through the use of defense mechanism in times of stress. When I gave you the questions about me being an acquaintance and you were going through a rough situation, you use the DENIAL defense mechanism. Type 8s do this, but they are unaware they'd do it. Your use of defense mechanism will be tested in a real tough crisis or situation. Type 8s use DENIAL to maintain their image of being strong. They negate the negative event that is happening to their lives. Type 7 however use, RATIONALIZATION to avoid suffering, to maintain an image of being OK. They use positive reframing about what's happening to them.

And also about talk styles. Type 7 would always insert jokes, anecdotes, moving on to another topic etc. Type 8's talk styles are commanding, winning, "do it my way" etc.



> Reading through the descriptions of the types on the Enneagram Institute site. Again, like with ENTP and ESTP, I can see myself in both 7 and 8, but as I'm ostensibly 8w7 this is hardly surprising. The unhealthy levels of type 8 I definitely relate to having been in the past, whatever my own observations are worth. I do relate to type 8 more so than 7, but I'm keeping a question mark over it because my knowledge of the Enneagram is scant. For what it's worth, like with the mbti, I have no bias.
> 
> *Female Eights are far more likely to mistype than male Eights, as many of the traits typical to the type Eight personality have been discouraged in females. For the most part, however, it is other types who mistake themselves for Eights. This is especially common in male counterphobic Sixes who fail to recognize that their agression is a cover for a very deep seated anxiety. Sevens too, are prone to mistype as Eights, but Sevens lack the intensity of focus typical of the type Eight, and while both Sevens and Eights have high energy personalities, Eights have a physically based energy whereas the Seven's energetic pattern has a nervous, mental quality to it.
> 
> ...


LOL. Yeah Type 8 and being a Thinker is not seen as very feminine. When you told about your childhood, about your school, I began to think that maybe you're an 8. But other type with a wing 8 can be like Type 8 also when someone pushed the button. They become enraged like an erupting volcano. A have a wing 8 also, and lord knows, how many poor things, have been destroyed because of my intense anger. In those times I don't see it as anger, but rage or wrath. I also see myself as transforming as someone when I get angry, or I see myself like I get angry like a male do. But in normal times, I'm passive and nice. 9w8 is a paradox subtype: passive-aggressive.

Take also a look at this one about Enneagrams:

Enneagram Type Description


----------



## Vesper (Sep 4, 2012)

*That's not aimed towards you. I meant there are people that like the stereotype of a certain type and they are content with the result without having to analyze. And they can easily play along the stereotype, only to find out later that they are another type.*
*In my eyes, no type is more superior than the other type.*

Right. I imagine a lot of people will have a preference towards a specific enneagram or mbti type and manipulate their answers accordingly. Don’t see the point in doing that, not if it’s an insight you’re after, anyway. Totally defeats the purpose. 

*Another way to type a person's enneagram is through the use of defense mechanism in times of stress. When I gave you the questions about me being an acquaintance and you were going through a rough situation, you use the DENIAL defense mechanism. Type 8s do this, but they are unaware they'd do it. Your use of defense mechanism will be tested in a real tough crisis or situation. Type 8s use DENIAL to maintain their image of being strong. They negate the negative event that is happening to their lives. Type 7 however use, RATIONALIZATION to avoid suffering, to maintain an image of being OK. They use positive reframing about what's happening to them.*

*And also about talk styles. Type 7 would always insert jokes, anecdotes, moving on to another topic etc. Type 8's talk styles are commanding, winning, "do it my way" etc.*

Type 8 fits on denial versus rationalization. I’ve had a few crises in my life that I can refer back to, and negation of the event is a constant. I won’t rationalize or spend time spinning the event, I’ll just straight out deny its impact.

Not sure on the second one. If I’m not invested in a topic then I’ll treat it lightly, but if I am? If there’s something I want at stake? Then it’s ‘do it my way’, and whatever I need employ to guarantee that outcome. I have difficulty yielding in those situations, and by ‘having difficulty’ I mean ‘I won’t’.

*LOL. Yeah Type 8 and being a Thinker is not seen as very feminine. When you told about your childhood, about your school, I began to think that maybe you're an 8. But other type with a wing 8 can be like Type 8 also when someone pushed the button. They become enraged like an erupting volcano. A have a wing 8 also, and lord knows, how many poor things, have been destroyed because of my intense anger. In those times I don't see it as anger, but rage or wrath. I also see myself as transforming as someone when I get angry, or I see myself like I get angry like a male do. But in normal times, I'm passive and nice. 9w8 is a paradox subtype: passive-aggressive.*

*Take also a look at this one about Enneagrams:*

*Enneagram Type Description
*
I at least have an 8 wing, yeah. The description of 8 that link provides *is* pretty spot on, more so than seven. 
It generally doesn’t bother me *that* much anymore, but it can still severely…annoy me if I think about it and I’m in a bad mood anyway. There’s a righteous indignation there in regards to the unjustness of it. It’s the principle. I don’t feel sorry for myself over it, because I’m just going to carry on, and if that bothers anyone who think I should be a certain way based solely on my biology, that’s their problem, not mine.

I’ve always liked de Sade’s words on the subject: ‘Kill me again or take me as I am, for I shall not change.’ I’ve used that one a few times as final words on the topic.


----------



## Vesper (Sep 4, 2012)

*I'm curious about what you think about this part...?*

If my interests are at stake, then I am intensely focused. Generally though, when they aren’t? The former. 
Mental versus physical energy: I would say physical here. I mentioned earlier about appearing intimidating to people, and that’s been in relation to my physical presence. According to those I’ve spoken to about it, I appear ‘bigger’ than I actually am, physically dominating my environment.

*Haha, I actually take this sort of "criticism" as a praise.*

Yep, there is something quite satisfying in defying expectations. It can annoy me though, as I said in reply to INTJellectual:

t generally doesn’t bother me *that* much anymore, but it can still severely…annoy me if I think about it and I’m in a bad mood anyway. There’s a righteous indignation there in regards to the unjustness of it. It’s the principle. I don’t feel sorry for myself over it, because I’m just going to carry on, and if that bothers anyone who think I should be a certain way based solely on my biology, that’s their problem, not mine.

*Prescribed to who? HAHAH.
*
My thoughts exactly. I’m not bending to it.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

INTJellectual said:


> The reaction to stress of Type 8's, is what I meant when they become extremely aggressive. ANGER is their most powerful emotion.


Okay then it was bad wording originally because it sounded like they are supposed to always seem ready to anger  Sounded a bit too black-and-white.




> The questions about step-by-step vs. skipping procedure, metaphor vs. direct answers, new ideas vs. new experience. All of those questions, she leaned towards N > S, and Ne > Se.


Ah, well, I'd answer with the option of skipping procedure too, preference for the procedure crap is maybe more like SJ than SP? But while my replies would have been similar to many of the questions in the 1st questionnaire, the latter two here (metaphor > direct and ideas > experience) is indeed where I would answer a bit differently. So I guess those are good to tell N > S.




> And in the very first questionnaire, she answered how she would trust her instinct/hunches more than logic if there's no other way. And from her other response, she said she would still like to learn new things (Akkadian language) and enjoy it even though it may have no direct practical application. N > S.


Yeah I did notice the Akkadian language example myself as out of character for an ESTP. 




Vesper said:


> If my interests are at stake, then I am intensely focused. Generally though, when they aren’t? The former. Mental versus physical energy: I would say physical here. I mentioned earlier about appearing intimidating to people, and that’s been in relation to my physical presence. According to those I’ve spoken to about it, I appear ‘bigger’ than I actually am, physically dominating my environment.


Interesting that part about focus. I default to focus, and it seems like you don't, but you can do it when you need it.

Curious how your evaluation is about these parts that INTJellectual quoted:

1) _Sevens are primarily interested in variety–they want to sample as many different experiences as possible and become practical in as much as their practicality gives them the means to pursue the experiences they want to try. Eights, by contrast, are more interested in intensity–they care less about variety than about having intense experiences that they enjoy. 
_
2) _Eights are also interested in power, both as a way to maintain their independence and as a way of asserting their dominance in the environment. Sevens are not particularly interested in having power, seeing the work necessary to maintain it as possibly infringing on their freedom. _

3) _They prefer dealing with practical matters, and although emotionally volatile at times, generally remain grounded and down to earth. Sevens are Thinking types, and can have brilliant, quick minds. At the same time, Sevens can get ahead of themselves with their plans, schemes, and interests: they can have trouble staying grounded and on track with their projects. _

4) _Sevens see themselves as idealistic optimists, while Eights see themselves as hard-nosed realists. _




> Yep, there is something quite satisfying in defying expectations.


I don't feel like I'm intentionally defying expectations. By default I tend to ignore expectations, not even notice them really (unless of course they tangibly try to get in my way). I just am the way I am...




> ...generally doesn’t bother me *that* much anymore, but it can still severely... annoy me if I think about it and I’m in a bad mood anyway. There’s a righteous indignation there in regards to the unjustness of it. It’s the principle. I don’t feel sorry for myself over it, because I’m just going to carry on, and if that bothers anyone who think I should be a certain way based solely on my biology, that’s their problem, not mine.


I wonder what caused you to be so much upset about this topic, did people explicitly try to make fun of you a lot for you not being feminine?


----------



## Vesper (Sep 4, 2012)

*1) Sevens are primarily interested in variety–they want to sample as many different experiences as possible and become practical in as much as their practicality gives them the means to pursue the experiences they want to try. Eights, by contrast, are more interested in intensity–they care less about variety than about having intense experiences that they enjoy.
*
This is an interesting one. I would say intensity>variety. Intensity is something I look for predominantly, my desire for variety is secondary.

*2) Eights are also interested in power, both as a way to maintain their independence and as a way of asserting their dominance in the environment. Sevens are not particularly interested in having power, seeing the work necessary to maintain it as possibly infringing on their freedom.
*
Eight, definitely eight on that one.

*3) They prefer dealing with practical matters, and although emotionally volatile at times, generally remain grounded and down to earth. Sevens are Thinking types, and can have brilliant, quick minds. At the same time, Sevens can get ahead of themselves with their plans, schemes, and interests: they can have trouble staying grounded and on track with their projects.
*
Ah, difficult. I lean more towards seven, on balance, but again with the selective focus: If I am heavily invested in something, and it is my interest, I can focus like a laser. This is part of what confused me with Se/Ne, because I can relate to both.

*4) Sevens see themselves as idealistic optimists, while Eights see themselves as hard-nosed realists.
*
More Eight, out of those opinions.

*I wonder what caused you to be so much upset about this topic, did people explicitly try to make fun of you a lot for you not being feminine?
*
More due to people trying to make me fit, from a young age, into the stereotypically female role (I mentioned before that I went to conservative schools). Not so much family, although that said I do come from a culture where gender roles are quite rigid.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Vesper said:


> More due to people trying to make me fit, from a young age, into the stereotypically female role (I mentioned before that I went to conservative schools). Not so much family, although that said I do come from a culture where gender roles are quite rigid.


What sort of stuff were they doing to try and make you fit?

Btw, we are similar with respect to the answers to those 8 vs 7 differences  Except that I don't have a problem with staying grounded and don't lose myself in planning. I guess you would have more 7 on that part, but I don't know if that's enough to make you 7 core. Maybe you are very much in the middle between the two types?


----------



## themartyparade (Nov 7, 2010)

10 page late but if that picture description isn't the core definition of Se then I don't know what is.


----------



## Vesper (Sep 4, 2012)

*What sort of stuff were they doing to try and make you fit?

Btw, we are similar with respect to the answers to those 8 vs 7 differences  Except that I don't have a problem with staying grounded and don't lose myself in planning. I guess you would have more 7 on that part, but I don't know if that's enough to make you 7 core. Maybe you are very much in the middle between the two types?*

Oh, for instance separating me from my friends because they were boys, and ‘girls should play with other girls’, and preventing me from playing ‘rough sports’ because, you know, a girl might get bruised. Stuff like that, and quite a bit of it. Petty perhaps, but it made me keenly aware of gender roles, and resentful of them.

I would hesitantly agree with more 7 on that particular point (but not consistently, it *does* depend, hence the hesitation), but I do think my core type is 8.


----------

