# Concept, Abstract, Theory belong more to T than N



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Dastan said:


> Hmm, do you think that these steady statistical patterns suggest that e.g. all those questions you mentioned above together measure some real parameters of the human psyche and that these parameters depend on each other?


The questions on the official MBTI all got there by a process of elimination that started with many more questions, with the survivors being items that were found to cluster, to a substantial degree (based on thousands of tests), with the other items being scored for the same preference.

And meanwhile, twin studies have shown that identical twins _raised in separate households_ are much more likely to match with respect to their MBTI and Big Five types than less genetically-similar pairs, which suggests that, like the Big Five, the MBTI appears to be tapping into four multifaceted dimensions of personality that are relatively hardwired.

None of which means that the MBTI doesn't still have lots of room for further improvement, or that I think the MBTI is doing a great job discerning what the essential characteristics of each dimension are. (Anyone who wants a long reckful ramble on the possible messiness of T/F will find it here.)



Dastan said:


> When you want to answer the question if _introverted _correlates with _abstract_ in a JUNGIAN sense (-> also including abstract feelings, sensations ...) why then equate abstract THEORIES with Jungian abstract, for example, just for example. Feelings can surely not be theories and the semantic disconnection would make an answer impossible. That wording sounds like it refers more to Jungian thinkers than to others.


It sounds like you may have partly misunderstood me. I definitely hadn't intended to suggest that anyone today should be hanging onto Jung's conflation of introversion and abstraction. Myers rightly corrected him in that respect, in my view.

As a final note: You may be interested to know that, prior to publishing Psychological Types in 1921, Jung had published several earlier articles about type over a period of about 10 years and, in the introduction to Psychological Types, Jung confessed that he'd only recently come to the realization that T and F were separate from E/I. For a number of years, Jung thought that all introverts — and remember that, to Jung, introverts were the abstract theorists — were also thinkers, and all extraverts (who Jung viewed as concretistic, fact-oriented types) were also feelers.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

*Addressing the validity of typing questions
*
While sidestepping thinking = abstract for a moment, what I would first like to address with this point is the validity of asking questions such as "do you enjoy discussing theoretical and abstract topics" or "do you enjoy sports?"

The problem with these types of question is that they lose some meaning without a juxtaposition of preference, such as how the official MBTI is conducted. What I mean by this is that one does not have to be an intuitive to enjoy theoretical discussions, nor does one have to be a sensor to enjoy sports. For example, some people question whether they are an INTP or ISTP because they enjoy both theory and sports. What is more meaningful is if given the choice, which would they prefer to do. Preferring one does not mean that the other is not valued.

What if I can't decide between the two? What if the value of both options is equal? Well then that particular question will not be a determining factor for you. Which is why the MBTI asks 20+ questions for each dichotomy, because they are checking 20+ different determining factors.

The value in asking a one-sided question only increases the probability of one side or the the other, but as pointed out above, there is a flaw in that logic. So, liking one thing does not mean you dislike it's opposite. Which means asking one-sided questions do not determine as much as one thinks. There is more value in determining one or the other when you juxtapose factors from each side and are forced to choose one.

*

Addressing the "concept, abstract, and theory" as a determining factor of "N"
*
I agree that intuition does not equate to the "concept, abstract, and theory" because that is not what Intuition is.

Jung defined the functions in essence as:



> Sensation (i.e., sense perception) tells you that something exists; thinking tells you what it is; feeling tells you whether it is agreeable or not; and intuition tells you whence it comes and where it is going.


From this quote, you can see that intuition is more about the possibilities of where something came from and where it is going. He does not necessarily mean this in a literally linear manner either. 

Even the MBTI does not equate Intuition to the "concept, abstract, and theory" necessarily. In the MBTI manual:



> Intuition refers to perception of possibilities, meanings, and relationships by way of insight. Jung characterized intuition as perception by way of the unconscious. Intuition may come to the surface of consciousness as a "hunch" or as a sudden discovery of a pattern in seemingly unrelated events. Intuition permits perception beyond what is visible to the senses, including possible future events.


Where it connects to the theoretical and abstract is in the next line:



> People who prefer Intuition may develop the characteristics that can follow from that emphasis and become imaginative, theoretical, abstract, future oriented, and original or creative.


Essentially, xNxx types tend to develop an affinity for the theoretical and abstract.

I argue that it is related to people of an N preference rather than N itself. INFPs and INFJs are also fairly big on the abstract and theoretical, yet their Thinking is largely or somewhat repressed. So I fail to see how it is more of a Thinking thing.

Theory is more about possibilities and predictions (sounds like what Intuition is about). "Concept" is entirely the realm of thinking, I'll give you that. "Abstract" is a massively broad category that one cannot simply attribute to a given function when discussing the technicalities of semantics. The fact remains that Intuitive types are more likely to say that they prefer theoretical discussion to practical application and Sensors, vice versa. It does not mean that either type does not like or cannot do each other's preferred actions.


In summary, I believe it is false to automatically assume that the "abstract, concept, and theoretical" necessarily applies to Intuition or Intuitive types alone; however I would not necessarily attribute it to Thinking either. I agree that Intuitive types tend to prefer the "abstract, concept, and theoretical" more-so than Sensors might; however, I also think that Sensors enjoy theoretical discussions at times, just as I'm sure Intuitives enjoy practical applications at times.


EDIT: As a final note, I would like to point out that things like theoretical discussions, playing sports, going to parties, etc are not synonymous with the functions or letters they are largely related to; they are merely behavioural clues that *might *indicate a preference for said function.


----------



## Teybo (Sep 25, 2012)

Well said, @PaladinX


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

I think when describing functions, we will always run into these problems. I personally like to describe Ni as conceptual because the way I understand Ni as an Ni type isn't that I am dealing with the properties of an object as much as I am dealing with what the object actually represents. It has to do with ideas. So it's seeing what is not there, kind of like looking for the shadow the object casts behind it. I never liked to attribute imagination to intuition because it suggests something concrete I don't agree with. Intuition has nothing to do with being imaginative. 

Ultimately it boils down to how people understand their own cognition and how they choose to define it. Words themselves become meaningless since they all attempt to describe a specific impression or an idea of oneself. I also find that when it comes to the realms of Thinking, especially Ti types, that they have an entirely different idea of the word "conceptual" than I do. Case in point is how PaladinX described it here. I actually cannot agree though I see the point he's raising. 

With that said and how the critique applies to the MBTI system, yes, I wholeheartedly agree, which is why I find that the question items are often rather useless since there is never any given definition provided for words like these within the questionnaire, meaning people interpret things within their own given contexts. I understand this is to avoid bias, but it also undermines the questionnaire items' accuracy when we don't know what is being referred to with words such as "conceptual". Conceptual such as dealing with ideas or conceptual such as defining properties? Not the same.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

I decided to look up concept in the dictionary:



> con·cept [kon-sept]
> noun
> 
> 1. a general notion or idea; conception.
> ...




I thought that this was an interesting distinction coming from an independent source entirely separate from the personality typing world.


I also wanted to add that general thinking, ie ruminations, Jung referred to as intellectual intuition (or thinking-intuition).


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> I think when describing functions, we will always run into these problems. I personally like to describe Ni as conceptual because the way I understand Ni as an Ni type isn't that I am dealing with the properties of an object as much as I am dealing with what the object actually represents. It has to do with ideas. So it's seeing what is not there, kind of like looking for the shadow the object casts behind it. I never liked to attribute imagination to intuition because it suggests something concrete I don't agree with. Intuition has nothing to do with being imaginative.
> 
> Ultimately it boils down to how people understand their own cognition and how they choose to define it. Words themselves become meaningless since they all attempt to describe a specific impression or an idea of oneself. I also find that when it comes to the realms of Thinking, especially Ti types, that they have an entirely different idea of the word "conceptual" than I do. Case in point is how PaladinX described it here. I actually cannot agree though I see the point he's raising.


This is the way I understand conceptual. I usually pay attention to the general idea/gist/essence of a thing. Just like my post above. I wasn't talking about the MBTI. I was talking about some of the ideas used in testing, such as juxtaposition of ideas, and using multiple determining factors to compensate for misrepresented understanding or equally valued options.

I do not understand what you mean by conceptual as in dealing with the properties of an object. Could please elaborate on the difference in Ni vs Ti understanding of "conceptual?"

As for imagination, Jung said that it could be attributed to any function. They all have imagination. However, Intuitive types are more often described as imaginative.





> With that said and how the critique applies to the MBTI system, yes, I wholeheartedly agree, which is why I find that the question items are often rather useless since there is never any given definition provided for words like these within the questionnaire, meaning people interpret things within their own given contexts. I understand this is to avoid bias, but it also undermines the questionnaire items' accuracy when we don't know what is being referred to with words such as "conceptual". Conceptual such as dealing with ideas or conceptual such as defining properties? Not the same.


I find most self-report tests to be like this. Not just MBTI (and not just personality tests). The problem is that I can see many meanings in words and phrases and I'm usually unsure of which context by which they intend. This was a concern I raised when doing a different kind of personality test (I forget what it was called; it might have been big 5 related) proctored by a licensed psychologist. She told me that the test is designed for the layman. There is a general understanding of concepts that laypeople have. And she had to explain to me the intended meaning of most questions.

This kind of thing is normally compensated for by presenting many different questions that determine a given factor. Such compensation is not necessarily accounted for in forum typing sessions and questionnaires where one or two factors are considered of a given function or dichotomy.

I will be told time and time again that I am a sensor because I do not see anything more in a picture than what is literally there. It could very well be that I am a sensor, which I am ok with; however, I do not like, that despite any other evidence that suggests I'm intuitive, they hold on to that one determining factor.


----------



## phoenixpinion (Dec 27, 2012)

Brilliant post. I agree on your general conclusion, of T being highly abstract!

However, I'm not necessarily sure if T is really more abstract than N. I'd say they are actually equal in abstract potential.

One thing I guess everyone can agree on is that the SF group would be the least abstract, while the most abstract would be the NT group.

I'd say N is actually nothing more than the perceiving counterpart of T (abstract), while F is the judging counterpart of S (physical). I, as an NF, never found myself to be more abstract than the ST group (ISTP and perhaps ESTJ in particular), just abstract in a completely opposite way. While the ST group judges the abstract, and perceives the physical, I perceive the abstract and judge the physical.


----------



## phoenixpinion (Dec 27, 2012)

PaladinX said:


> I will be told time and time again that I am a sensor because I do not see anything more in a picture than what is literally there. It could very well be that I am a sensor, which I am ok with; however, I do not like, that despite any other evidence that suggests I'm intuitive, they hold on to that one determining factor.


Am I hearing this right? Someone actually wants to be INTP??

Also, INFP's are less abstract than ENFP's (however you are correct on the INFJ, who are more abstract than ENFJ's), while this is not necessarily true for the INTP vs ENTP.

Like the OP, I also do not believe Thinking can be done anywhere else than the abstract. I also find he did a very good job explaining that holistic =/= abstract. Sure, the thinker wanders the abstract planes in a very different manner than the intuitor (almost in opposite directions even), but he still wanders the abstract planes. That is the point the OP is making! MBTI tests/statistics often confuse holistic abstraction with abstraction in general. I'd argue that lineair abstraction is equally possible. I'd argue that T is lineair abstraction. Mathematics is an example of lineair abstraction. Numbers for example are completely abstract, just like symbols are. (If someone is unable to figure out the hidden meaning behind symbols/pictures, he is idd probably not an intuitive. However, this does NOT mean he is not an abstract being. He may be very good with numbers instead.) Hell, even facts are abstract. I don't personally think being factual is an S-thing, it's a T-thing, or atleast an ST thing.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

PaladinX said:


> This is the way I understand conceptual. I usually pay attention to the general idea/gist/essence of a thing. Just like my post above.


Yes, you describe it the same but it's clear you don't understand it the same. To me the general idea, gist or essence of a thing has to do with what something represents. The idea of the idea. I am not sure I am making sense. I am not so interested in understanding the idea itself as much as I am interested in understanding what caused the idea. By understanding the cause we also understand its effect. I find that Ti types focus on the idea itself, to define it and narrow it down. I am not so much interested to define the idea as much as I am interested to understand what it represents beyond its immediate presentation. 



> I wasn't talking about the MBTI. I was talking about some of the ideas used in testing, such as juxtaposition of ideas, and using multiple determining factors to compensate for misrepresented understanding or equally valued options.


I know. I wasn't talking about the MBTI either, but I was talking about the general idea of functions. Do you see how we approach it differently? 



> I do not understand what you mean by conceptual as in dealing with the properties of an object. Could please elaborate on the difference in Ni vs Ti understanding of "conceptual?"


See the above. Properties as in trying to define it, finding logical definitions of it and so on. 



> As for imagination, Jung said that it could be attributed to any function. They all have imagination. However, Intuitive types are more often described as imaginative.


Yes, and I disagree with that. I find, that knowing the people I do and also knowing myself, that it's a false correlation. I don't think I'm terribly imaginative per se, in that my imagination is extremely vivid or I constantly think of things out of this world that seems unrealistic. I find myself to be a very grounded and realistic person in terms of thought, or at least that's how I experience it. I don't daydream for example, I have difficulties understanding the concept of daydreaming itself. What it means. Something people would likely attribute to imagination. And I don't necessarily always create a lot of out there scenarios to explain something or make stories. I also know a fair deal of sensors who I am quite certain are Jungian sensors and they are actually more imaginative than I am in this sense.


> I find most self-report tests to be like this. Not just MBTI (and not just personality tests). The problem is that I can see many meanings in words and phrases and I'm usually unsure of which context by which they intend. This was a concern I raised when doing a different kind of personality test (I forget what it was called; it might have been big 5 related) proctored by a licensed psychologist. She told me that the test is designed for the layman. There is a general understanding of concepts that laypeople have. And she had to explain to me the intended meaning of most questions.


I agree. And yes, I understand it's meant for laypeople and that's fine, but the problem is when people assume all laypeople share the same understanding. That's not true. Just because they're laypeople it doesn't mean they experience their reality the same. Case in point is the paragraph I just wrote about why I think it's a false correlation to draw that intuitive types are described as imaginative. If I took a test all focusing on that correlation, I'd end up a sensor despite the fact I'm an Ni dom. 



> This kind of thing is normally compensated for by presenting many different questions that determine a given factor. Such compensation is not necessarily accounted for in forum typing sessions and questionnaires where one or two factors are considered of a given function or dichotomy.


Yes, but that assumes all other items meant to test this avoid doing that mistake. I am not sure that's true either. 


> I will be told time and time again that I am a sensor because I do not see anything more in a picture than what is literally there. It could very well be that I am a sensor, which I am ok with; however, I do not like, that despite any other evidence that suggests I'm intuitive, they hold on to that one determining factor.


Which is why understanding of the functions cannot hinge on one given criterion even though that criterion is a part of the overall understanding of the function.


----------



## Ploppz (Sep 29, 2013)

Thanks for these thoughts!

Especially, this is a good point.



> Artistic creative lively imaginations of rich detail that are produced by intuition *are not abstract*. They are highly concrete (mingled, connected) otherwise they can't be lively. In this case intuition at first has to make the material of its creations abstract and then it "re-concretes" it. And the conscious result, the actual intuition here is concrete.


Very interesting

As an INFP I seem to grasp logic and abstract things like math very good, with my Ne apparently. One of my features in math class is that I just can't take what I've been said and write it down in my mind for future reference. I need to have a full understanding of it, and be able to visualize it and the connections it has to other elements. So beyond a very big portion of my understanding of abstract things, lies not words but meaning. Most of the time in math class it may look as if I'm just staring helplessly at the desk, while I'm in fact just thinking through everything in a livid way -- somewhat recursively, trying to find any aspect around it I can't fully understand, and will think about until I understand it (and my definition of understanding is pretty strict) And pretty much kind of dream away, though not really away, but around it, seeing other possibilities.. ah

Or something. I don't really know.

You tell me.


----------



## firedell (Aug 5, 2009)

I believe all introverted functions are abstract.


----------



## phoenixpinion (Dec 27, 2012)

I wonder, could this be something close to the truth?








Which implies that from most to least abstract (but also from most I to most E):
1) Ni - Ti
2) Ne - Fi - Te - Si
3) Fe - Se

Thoughts?


----------



## phoenixpinion (Dec 27, 2012)

Scelerat said:


> I think it has more to do with static vs dynamic (not in the typing sense):
> 
> Si - What is supposed to be there.
> Se - What is there.
> ...


I resonate with this.


----------



## phoenixpinion (Dec 27, 2012)

firedell said:


> I believe all introverted functions are abstract.


Obviously introverted functions are more abstract than their extraverted counterparts. But the question is, "Is Fi/Si more or less abstract than Te/Ne?"


----------



## phoenixpinion (Dec 27, 2012)

reckful said:


> As a final note: You may be interested to know that, prior to publishing Psychological Types in 1921, Jung had published several earlier articles about type over a period of about 10 years and, in the introduction to Psychological Types, Jung confessed that he'd only recently come to the realization that T and F were separate from E/I. For a number of years, Jung thought that all introverts — and remember that, to Jung, introverts were the abstract theorists — were also thinkers, and all extraverts (who Jung viewed as concretistic, fact-oriented types) were also feelers.


Yes, by the definition of introvert you would imagine Ni and Ti and by the definition of extravert you would imagine Se and Fe. 

Also, I don't agree on the idea that T and F have no I/E spectrum. You may aswell conclude the same for N and S, since obviously, pure intuition is I while pure sensation is E.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> Yes, you describe it the same but it's clear you don't understand it the same.


 It is not clear to me. I don't know how one would categorize this in Jungian terms, but my perception is such that I see everything as the same or similar. It is not always apparent to me how things are different. Personally, I believe myself to be a perceiving dominant with a weak judging function. Everything I "know" is mostly grounded in perception. I don't really have judgments (opinions, conclusions, decisions) that I'm aware of. It's difficult for me to describe. Whenever I engage in discussion, I throw out whatever relevant facts, ideas, and possibilities that I can think of; not to push a stance or agenda, but merely to play devil's advocate and usually point by point rather than necessarily against the argument or stance as a whole.



> To me the general idea, gist or essence of a thing has to do with what something represents. The idea of the idea. I am not sure I am making sense. I am not so interested in understanding the idea itself as much as I am interested in understanding what caused the idea. By understanding the cause we also understand its effect. I find that Ti types focus on the idea itself, to define it and narrow it down. I am not so much interested to define the idea as much as I am interested to understand what it represents beyond its immediate presentation.


And I'm not? Please tell me how you think you can see how I think.  Otherwise, I would say that the mere act of "understanding" is an act of Thinking, regardless if it's the idea of a thing, the idea of an idea of a thing, or an idea of an idea of an idea of a thing. For me, I don't need to understand cause and effect, I "see" it. I "see" it in a literal way, and in a big picture way. Perhaps Ti types do need to define an idea, which then I'm definitely not a Ti type. I can see how this applies to INTPs especially.





> I know. I wasn't talking about the MBTI either, but I was talking about the general idea of functions. Do you see how we approach it differently?


No. Care to point it out to me, please?




> Yes, and I disagree with that. I find, that knowing the people I do and also knowing myself, that it's a false correlation. I don't think I'm terribly imaginative per se, in that my imagination is extremely vivid or I constantly think of things out of this world that seems unrealistic. I find myself to be a very grounded and realistic person in terms of thought, or at least that's how I experience it. I don't daydream for example, I have difficulties understanding the concept of daydreaming itself. What it means. Something people would likely attribute to imagination. And I don't necessarily always create a lot of out there scenarios to explain something or make stories. I also know a fair deal of sensors who I am quite certain are Jungian sensors and they are actually more imaginative than I am in this sense.


Well I'm unsure how to respond to this without picking on your typing. I'd just like to throw out there that being imaginative is to be creative and/or seeing what is not readily apparent. I would never describe some who daydreams as being imaginative. I would call them slackers.  Also, Jung would describe an intuitive as being the furthest from reality (not necessarily far-fetched), whereas you describe yourself as grounded and realistic.



> I agree. And yes, I understand it's meant for laypeople and that's fine, but the problem is when people assume all laypeople share the same understanding. That's not true. Just because they're laypeople it doesn't mean they experience their reality the same. Case in point is the paragraph I just wrote about why I think it's a false correlation to draw that intuitive types are described as imaginative. If I took a test all focusing on that correlation, I'd end up a sensor despite the fact I'm an Ni dom.


So if you thought of yourself as imaginative, you would then believe yourself to choose concrete over abstract and practical application to theoretical discussion? Fact to possibility? Etc?




> Yes, but that assumes all other items meant to test this avoid doing that mistake. I am not sure that's true either.


It's not about the individual questions avoiding "that mistake" it's that you drown out that mistake by other ways or contexts with which to determine that dimension.




> Which is why understanding of the functions cannot hinge on one given criterion even though that criterion is a part of the overall understanding of the function.


Which goes to my first point in my earlier post.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

PaladinX said:


> It is not clear to me. I don't know how one would categorize this in Jungian terms, but my perception is such that I see everything as the same or similar. It is not always apparent to me how things are different. Personally, I believe myself to be a perceiving dominant with a weak judging function. Everything I "know" is mostly grounded in perception. I don't really have judgments (opinions, conclusions, decisions) that I'm aware of. It's difficult for me to describe. Whenever I engage in discussion, I throw out whatever relevant facts, ideas, and possibilities that I can think of; not to push a stance or agenda, but merely to play devil's advocate and usually point by point rather than necessarily against the argument or stance as a whole.


So why do you type as an ISTP?


> And I'm not? Please tell me how you think you can see how I think.  Otherwise, I would say that the mere act of "understanding" is an act of Thinking, regardless if it's the idea of a thing, the idea of an idea of a thing, or an idea of an idea of an idea of a thing. For me, I don't need to understand cause and effect, I "see" it. I "see" it in a literal way, and in a big picture way. Perhaps Ti types do need to define an idea, which then I'm definitely not a Ti type. I can see how this applies to INTPs especially.


You type as an ISTP so I assume you identified as a Jungian Ti type. But must knowing strictly be?


> No. Care to point it out to me, please?


I tend to think of things in general terms, very broad but yet very honing. So when I think of functions I don't think of this is how it is in MBTI or even Jung, but I think of the functions more according to a very archetypal understanding I have arrived at over time. 



> Well I'm unsure how to respond to this without picking on your typing. I'd just like to throw out there that being imaginative is to be creative and/or seeing what is not readily apparent. I would never describe some who daydreams as being imaginative. I would call them slackers.  Also, Jung would describe an intuitive as being the furthest from reality (not necessarily far-fetched), whereas you describe yourself as grounded and realistic.


How is imagination necessarily seeing what is not readily apparent? Then we end up in a discussion about what imagination is. 

And yes, I think of myself as grounded and realistic, but the question is if my thinking is perceived as such in actuality by others? I think when one contrasts to Se types, it's apparent it's not. I however desire realistic goals for instance, and I don't deal with what I find to be nonsense of simply thinking of ideas for the same of thinking of them. It doesn't rule out the fact that my thinking is defined by archetypal images. That's the problem when we study the difference between personal experience and how others perceive you. They don't always overlap. To someone who always lives entrenched in the world of intuition, would that seem imaginative to them? Necessarily not, because that is the natural state of mind. 



> So if you thought of yourself as imaginative, you would then believe yourself to choose concrete over abstract and practical application to theoretical discussion? Fact to possibility? Etc?


Abstract over concrete, and discussion of theory that leads to practical results which is why choosing either one is a bit nonsensical to me, but I am not the one who is going to implement them. Someone else can do the actual practical stuff that comes as a result of my thinking. And when it comes to fact vs possibility, I think I prefer facts, because I don't like to deal with uncertainties pertaining ideas. I see ideas as more possible or less possible, so why invest in the ideas that have no real possibility of being true? Furthermore though, I would say, depending on how one understands this, one could argue that seeking many possibilities is more evident of Ne than it is Ni, Ni preferring to focus on one or a few, which is why I again don't like these ways of trying to figure out someone's cognition because it doesn't say anything. I think that the N letter overall in the MBTI is more akin to Ne, and the S often confused with Te. For example, a fact could equally simply evident to Te preference, since Te actually deals with facts that are generally established. Similarly, Te also prefers actions that lead to concrete results. 



> It's not about the individual questions avoiding "that mistake" it's that you drown out that mistake by other ways or contexts with which to determine that dimension.


Yes, but that assumes again that those other ways are also good ways to establish type, and I disagree. See the above paragraph in response to that.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> So why do you type as an ISTP?


I was typed as such on this forum. I couldn't see how I didn't fit into the description of ISTP in the MBTI description. Berens' description particularly resonated. Unlike others on this forum, I am not so hung up on being Intuitive vs Sensing. There were other reasons that I don't quite remember now. Unfortunately, I can see myself in all types and in all functions. I do not really have a general sense of self as most people do. Which is how the ego vs shadow comes into play. The ego is essentially how you define yourself and the shadow is what you consider to not be yourself. I struggle with defining myself. I don't understand it. I feel like it's limiting. I also think this has to do with my difficulty making judgments. I think all my problems stem from this, my learning disabilities, sense of self, social dysfunction (I'm autistic) etc. I just "see" a sea of endless possibilities and try to swim through it by predicting probabilities.



> You type as an ISTP so I assume you identified as a Jungian Ti type. But must knowing strictly be?


I also type as ENTP and ENFP as in my signature below (unless you have signatures turned off...). I used to type as INFJ.



> I tend to think of things in general terms, very broad but yet very honing. So when I think of functions I don't think of this is how it is in MBTI or even Jung, but I think of the functions more according to a very archetypal understanding I have arrived at over time.


Interesting. 



> How is imagination necessarily seeing what is not readily apparent? Then we end up in a discussion about what imagination is.





> *Imagination *- the faculty of imagining, or of forming mental images or concepts of what is not actually present to the senses.


^^^



> And yes, I think of myself as grounded and realistic, but the question is if my thinking is perceived as such in actuality by others? I think when one contrasts to Se types, it's apparent it's not. I however desire realistic goals for instance, and I don't deal with what I find to be nonsense of simply thinking of ideas for the same of thinking of them. It doesn't rule out the fact that my thinking is defined by archetypal images. That's the problem when we study the difference between personal experience and how others perceive you. They don't always overlap. To someone who always lives entrenched in the world of intuition, would that seem imaginative to them? Necessarily not, because that is the natural state of mind.
> 
> Abstract over concrete, and discussion of theory that leads to practical results which is why choosing either one is a bit nonsensical to me, but I am not the one who is going to implement them. Someone else can do the actual practical stuff that comes as a result of my thinking. And when it comes to fact vs possibility, I think I prefer facts, because I don't like to deal with uncertainties pertaining ideas. I see ideas as more possible or less possible, so why invest in the ideas that have no real possibility of being true? Furthermore though, I would say, depending on how one understands this, one could argue that seeking many possibilities is more evident of Ne than it is Ni, Ni preferring to focus on one or a few, which is why I again don't like these ways of trying to figure out someone's cognition because it doesn't say anything. I think that the N letter overall in the MBTI is more akin to Ne, and the S often confused with Te. For example, a fact could equally simply evident to Te preference, since Te actually deals with facts that are generally established. Similarly, Te also prefers actions that lead to concrete results.
> 
> Yes, but that assumes again that those other ways are also good ways to establish type, and I disagree. See the above paragraph in response to that.


I think this is more a problem due to your high intelligence and "over-thinking" things.  Which is the same problem I have.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

PaladinX said:


> I was typed as such on this forum. I couldn't see how I didn't fit into the description of ISTP in the MBTI description. Berens' description particularly resonated. Unlike others on this forum, I am not so hung up on being Intuitive vs Sensing. There were other reasons that I don't quite remember now. Unfortunately, I can see myself in all types and in all functions. I do not really have a general sense of self as most people do. Which is how the ego vs shadow comes into play. The ego is essentially how you define yourself and the shadow is what you consider to not be yourself. I struggle with defining myself. I don't understand it. I feel like it's limiting. I also think this has to do with my difficulty making judgments. I think all my problems stem from this, my learning disabilities, sense of self, social dysfunction (I'm autistic) etc. I just "see" a sea of endless possibilities and try to swim through it by predicting probabilities.


Did you ever look into enneagram? Type 9 seems like a good starting point for you, based on this. This logic here is all very typical for 9s. Not that it helps figuring out your function preference, but at least it might help explain some other things in your life.


> I also type as ENTP and ENFP as in my signature below (unless you have signatures turned off...). I used to type as INFJ.


I saw, but I don't tend to take test results very seriously. 



> Imagination - the faculty of imagining, or of forming mental images or concepts of what is not actually present to the senses.


A more Jungian understanding rather than general then? All right, then I can buy that imagination is more linked to intuition, but just coming up with random ideas or images that we often otherwise attribute to imagination is not what I think intuition is about. Anyone can do that. Or even come up with fantastical stories, for the matter.


> I think this is more a problem due to your high intelligence and "over-thinking" things.  Which is the same problem I have.


Possibly, and I guess I feel flattered you think I am of high intelligence. I tend to think rather lowly of myself even though I know it's higher than average. I just think that it could also be higher because of this.


----------



## Dastan (Sep 28, 2011)

ephemereality said:


> I never liked to attribute imagination to intuition because it suggests something concrete I don't agree with. Intuition has nothing to do with being imaginative.
> 
> Ultimately it boils down to how people understand their own cognition and how they choose to define it.


Indeed. Interesting, your understanding of intuition is totally another than mine for example, yet we surely refer to more or less real things. What I got from your posts here is that your idea of intuition has very much do to with the property/nature/quality of information/data/things (like abstract vs. concrete) that would define intuition or sensing.

I also used to think like this. But now (still with doubts), trying to take Jungs words more literal, I think that intuition and sensing are simply two different _activities_ - one that transmits sense perceptions and another that unconsciously processes (apart from regular sense perception) information and lets them appear in your mind. The differences of the quality/nature of information produced by N or S are further effects of this activity-difference, not the defining property to my opinion and under circumstances N-and S-data can have many similarities in nature.

The reasons why I don't agree on the idea that the original S/N opposite is an opposite of information-quality (especially abstract vs. concrete), are these:

The abstract/concrete thing is a *parameter with graded values* (I don't know a proper term now)... I find it very hard to imagine two _basic psychic activities _that impede each other basing on something that is graded. 

Also, if Jung says the functions are basic psychic phenomena and N/S are two kinds of perception, then I think that* all cases of perception should be distinguishable into them, if his ideas are realistic. *

And here comes the problem of concrete, imaginative ideas that are not produced by regular sense perception. If N=abstract and S=concrete and still the regular sense perception, imagination would neither fit in with intuition nor with sensation. I would not solve this by saying imagination is S because it is not transmitted through the senses and furthermore perfectly (to my mind) fits in with "perceptions through unconscious processes". Processes of dissolving and creatively recombinating as one possible variety of intuition.

Which is why I see the abstract-parameter not in line with an N-parameter (my interpretation of Jungs N). But I see that from the MBTI perspective, which is full of mixed parameters and meanings, any interpretation is somehow reasonable, the more so as Jung is not 100% reliable, apparently.


----------

