# Tangled in the web that typology weaves...



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

Hi, I'm StunnedFox, and I have a type problem.

Three months ago, I stopped being sure; three months ago, uncertainty overtook certainty and I could no longer confidently state I was any one type (I had previously typed as ISTJ). That was when I made this thread: to seek out the views of others, to see if there was some perspective I was missing that could help me to regather the certainty I lost, ISTJ or another type...

Then things got messy. Every function and every preference has been suggested for me at some point; I think Fi is the only function no-one has suggested is dominant or auxiliary for me. I've considered Te-dom, INFJ, INTP, INTJ, ISTP... all without ever finding one that seems to fit well enough for me to claim it. Three months on, and eleven pages of discussion (plus some private messages) later, I'm - if anything - further from finding certainty on my type than I was when I began. So many arguments have been presented, of varying degrees of merit and from a variety of different angles...

So, what _can_ I be sure of? Arguably, nothing, but what seems surest is that I have a preference for both introversion and thinking. The few suggestions of feeling types in my previous thread were mostly made from the standpoint that I was exhibiting a dom-tert loop that saw me prefer tertiary Ti over auxiliary Fe. IxTx, then. From the standpoint that J/P is a legitimate dichotomy rather than a mere indicator - a standpoint I'm inclined to favour - I would say it's more likely that I'm a judger than a perceiver. Yet that leaves IxTJ; on a functions analysis, I struggle to see either Si or Ni as my dominant function: I suspect I use Si, and not Ni, but reasonably strong arguments to the contrary have been made to me. And with the IxTP types, I don't relate to Se at all (probably the function I'm least likely to be a user of, although it as inferior is plausible), and Ne I don't relate to enough to think it might be my dominant perceiving function. On the level of dichotomies alone, I find it hard to separate S/N; most suggested types have been N types, so read into that what you will.

Much discussion in my previous thread was about whether I used Ti or Te. To put it simply, opinion was divided and a sure conclusion was never reached. Similar was true for discussions on Fi or Fe, although the consensus as of late seems to be Fe. 

On the recommendation of @Reticence, I've started this new thread. The last is now three months old; a fresh start, perhaps, could prove beneficial. I've not included a questionnaire in this post, because quite frankly I struggle to answer the questions in them in any useful or even accurate way: I simply don't know for some of them. It'd be best, I think, if people pose the specific questions they think helpful, and I'll do my best to answer those; if anyone really, desperately needs to work from the template of a questionnaire, then there is the one I did three months ago in the first post in my previous thread, but anyone doing so should be aware that there's much in there I simply don't think really encapsulates me as a person. 

So yes. A new thread, perhaps, to find a new angle on a persistent dilemma. All suggestions, arguments, questions welcome. Peruse the old thread if you think that'll prove informative; avoid it if you find that a fresh, unencumbered analysis would be preferable. I have a type problem... and I need help.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

I would take your thoughts and queries to Socionics. As a system, it's fairly comprehensive about how the dynamics of the functions work in unison. This is how I became certain of my type. :kitteh:


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

Word Dispenser said:


> I would take your thoughts and queries to Socionics. As a system, it's fairly comprehensive about how the dynamics of the functions work in unison. This is how I became certain of my type. :kitteh:


I've got my concerns about a system that purports to say so much about human personality, with so little to justify the amount it wants to claim; I've enough trouble accepting type dynamics/cognitive functions as a theory as it is. Maybe there's something to be said for Socionics - and, so long as it's clear what they're claiming and why they're claiming it, I've no problem with people incorporating aspects of it into their attempts to type me - but I don't know that I want to delve fully into a type theory that seems unjustifiably complex when clarity on a simpler level seems so hard to come by.


----------



## TheOddRhombus (Jul 30, 2014)

I don't know man, you seem to be in quite a tough situation. If I took a shot, I'd suggest ISTP. Even though you said you don't use Se that much. Though, I don't really know that much about you, and I'm way too lazy to look through such a behemoth thread. In my learning experience, the ISTJ is the one who takes their obligations with intense commitment. The ISTP is the one who doesn't want to take part in confining obligations. How much do you relate to the ISTJ on the aspect of 'Duty Fulfiller'? Also, your siggy suggests that equality and fairness are very important to you as a person. In the words of personalitypage, "The istp is one who believes that everybody should be treated with equity and fairness." Let me ask you a few more Qs, if you don't mind. Do you do your best thinking alone, and how do you approach that thinking? Are you a loyal and faithful person to causes you assess good? (I'm just taking this straight from the ISTP profile, if it wasn't obvious beforehand.) Y'no, we could be in the very amusing, same boat. It's unlikely though. Perhaps we are both IXTPs who have developed their introverted version of their secondary(in yours Si, and in mine Ni), as a result of their extreme introversion or for some other reason that hasn't come to my mind at first thought. It's also said that people with two introverted functions are not confident in their abilities and are very skeptical because they both shoot stuff down, I think. I'm really bad at this stuff, though. I also recently had a great explanation of Ti made to me on my thread, and it might help you too. It's got me leaning back to INTP, now. Let me know your thoughts. - Jack


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

Pancreatic Pandora said:


> @StunnedFox Meh, I think your previous typing of ISTJ was the correct one (and if this was socionics, I'd type you as a Te-subtype). You relate to Ni dominance because you relate to being a dominant introverted perceiver, because you are lacking in Pe. But I don't think your inferior is Se, and neither is Ni your dominant. It's been my experience with a couple other ISTJs that they have trouble seeing which type seems like a more likely fit, or the correct one. They accumulate a big amount of information but then have a problem deciding what to do with it, where they can't quite make the math and see how everything is related and tell, based on a few factors, what their type is when there is no empirical or 100% acccurate method to determine it. Sometimes it happens with other sensors too. And I suspect you prefer the dichotomies because they are much more tangible and "simple" than the cognitive functions, which exist in an entirely intuitive level. For intuitives, usually, theories and stuff that are as abstract as cognitive functions feel very real, sometimes as much as the physical world, where sensors tend to have an opposite perspective. Which doesn't mean they are irreconciliable points of view and that understanding the opposite one is not possible, because it is.
> 
> Also, you didn't identify with Ni at all. Usually, at this point, an Ni-dom would have recognized Ni in him/herself and things might have just "clicked" for the person. I think identifying with Ni would be forcing it, honestly.
> 
> ...


Firstly, I've now started a new thread on my type - seeking fresh discussion and fresh perspectives, unencumbered by the first post containing a hit-and-miss 3-month-old questionnaire - and so, to keep all discussion in the one place, I'm quoting and responding to you in this thread rather than the old one...

I still have the same problem with this that I had at the beginning, namely that descriptions of Si do resonate with me - unlike much of what I hear in relation to Ni - but not to the extent that I could see it being my dominant function. The notion of abstracting from reality, rather that perceiving it as it is (and certainly rather than any sort of hedonistic tendency), certainly fits, as does reactivity (at least to some degree) and the general concept of taking in sensory data in a subjectively tinged fashion... but my dominant mode of living? I really don't see it. 

I also don't think my preference for the dichotomies as a means of typing is linked to tangibility; "intuition", "feeling", "introversion", &c. are theoretical and conceptual constructs whichever way you choose to look at them, I don't see that viewing them dichotomously really alters that. Simplicity, perhaps, but chiefly because the less the theory claims, the less it is capable of being incorrect. As I understand it, meaningful correlations can be drawn which imply that there is some validity to the dichotomies (potentially not as dichotomies so much as spectra), yet little, if anything, supports theories on type dynamics. So, whilst I find the cognitive functions theory an interesting one, and am loath to eschew it entirely given I can see it seemingly matching in some people quite clearly, ignoring the relevance of the dichotomies entirely seems a step too far to one side. I don't think that my problem with type dynamics is that it is more abstract, or at least, that is only my problem to the extent that the upshot of its abstract nature divorces it from the reality of human personality. 

All that said, ISTJ is by no means out of the question, and indeed is one of the closer-fitting types. It tallies well on the level of dichotomies (where I think IxTx is near-certain, IxTJ quite likely, S/N hard to split), and there is no high-ranking function that I find it implausible would be prominently present in my function stack (residual confusion about Te/Ti notwithstanding). It's just that the "lingering doubts" I titled the old thread about are very much still remaining, if not even stronger: Si-dominant doesn't seem to fit, I'm still unconvinced either way on Te/Ti (and, pursuant to that, Fe/Fi)...


----------



## TheOddRhombus (Jul 30, 2014)

Also, I just thought about rationalism/empiricism. I assume you favor empiricism. If you do, I don't think that's an issue for still preferring Ti more. The most famous empiricists are mainly Ti-doms. It would also make even more sense if you are a sensor. I'm thinkin' out loud again.


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

philosopherspidy said:


> I don't know man, you seem to be in quite a tough situation. If I took a shot, I'd suggest ISTP. Even though you said you don't use Se that much. Though, I don't really know that much about you, and I'm way too lazy to look through such a behemoth thread. In my learning experience, the ISTJ is the one who takes their obligations with intense commitment. The ISTP is the one who doesn't want to take part in confining obligations. How much do you relate to the ISTJ on the aspect of 'Duty Fulfiller'? Also, your siggy suggests that equality and fairness are very important to you as a person. In the words of personalitypage, "The istp is one who believes that everybody should be treated with equity and fairness." Let me ask you a few more Qs, if you don't mind. Do you do your best thinking alone, and how do you approach that thinking? Are you a loyal and faithful person to causes you assess good? (I'm just taking this straight from the ISTP profile, if it wasn't obvious beforehand.) Y'no, we could be in the very amusing, same boat. It's unlikely though. Perhaps we are both IXTPs who have developed their introverted version of their secondary(in yours Si, and in mine Ni), as a result of their extreme introversion or for some other reason that hasn't come to my mind at first thought. It's also said that people with two introverted functions are not confident in their abilities and are very skeptical because they both shoot stuff down, I think. I'm really bad at this stuff, though. I also recently had a great explanation of Ti made to me on my thread, and it might help you too. It's got me leaning back to INTP, now. Let me know your thoughts. - Jack





philosopherspidy said:


> Also, I just thought about rationalism/empiricism. I assume you favor empiricism. If you do, I don't think that's an issue for still preferring Ti more. The most famous empiricists are mainly Ti-doms. It would also make even more sense if you are a sensor. I'm thinkin' out loud again.


It's difficult. I can relate to both of those sentiments in relation to obligations: I don't like to be confined by obligations but I'm strongly committed to those that I am... on "fulfilment of duty", I'm probably not as good at it as I'd like to be, but, tying back to the obligations point, I'm definitely inclined to do that which I think I ought to do. I guess it depends on what is meant by duty, really...

Those are interesting quotes from the ISTP profile: interesting that my signature quote was so directly reflected... I would say I'm loyal to causes I find good, yes, and I would also say I do my best thinking alone (although that feels to me reflective of IxTx in general...). How do I approach that thinking? It's hard to really say... reading the profile, the stuff that really doesn't seem even a remote fit is the Se-related stuff.

It's the same problem again, which theory do you end up believing? If we assume Ti dominance (which I'm not sure is a given), then Ti-Ni looping ISTP with developed Si vs. Ti-Si looping INTP - how does one separate the possibilities? It's certainly possible that we could be in similar situations; there are definitely areas in which the two dilemmas overlap...

I don't think the empiricism/rationalism distinction is really that useful in distinguishing Te and Ti anyhow; I would think the best-functioning of people would use both where each was appropriate. Reason and evidence both have their value. Are you referring to the left-/right-brain distinction that was mentioned (in your Ti/Te thread)? Just another odd link between our relative predicaments, I guess, but on-line tests on left-/right-brain usage score me the same as they've scored you, a 50/50 split...


----------



## TheOddRhombus (Jul 30, 2014)

StunnedFox said:


> It's difficult. I can relate to both of those sentiments in relation to obligations: I don't like to be confined by obligations but I'm strongly committed to those that I am... on "fulfilment of duty", I'm probably not as good at it as I'd like to be, but, tying back to the obligations point, I'm definitely inclined to do that which I think I ought to do. I guess it depends on what is meant by duty, really...
> 
> Those are interesting quotes from the ISTP profile: interesting that my signature quote was so directly reflected... I would say I'm loyal to causes I find good, yes, and I would also say I do my best thinking alone (although that feels to me reflective of IxTx in general...). How do I approach that thinking? It's hard to really say... reading the profile, the stuff that really doesn't seem even a remote fit is the Se-related stuff.
> 
> ...


In regards to when thinking alone, it says that ISTPs have a huge collected database for facts. When they are alone, they examine it best and more clearly and form judgements based upon those. I previously assumed that was an ISTJ thing, but apparently it's for any ISTx. I don't do this though, so I don't believe that it is a resemblance of all IxTx types. As you know from my Ti/Te thread, I reject the very concept of facts themselves(whatever that implies). Maybe another interesting theory would be to apply the simple dichotomies approach, but with the functions themselves, I.E. for me: Ti>Te, Ni>Ne, Fe>FI, Si>Se = INTP, seconded by INTJ. I'd call it "function dichotomies." I think it is probable we are in similar situations, which is probably why I'm so interested in your typing journey just as much as mine. It also says ISTPs are extremely dutiful to their causes and 'brothers'(wth is that about?), but avoid obligations in general. IDK, I see so much resemblence of the ISTJ as well. My father is an ISTJ I think, and I see resemblances in you. I couldn't really personally make you out as an N type, but don't let that stop you. With all your weariness in trusting the complex Socionics theory, and preference for sticking with the "tried and true" MBTI as a simple, first-thought example. Overall I see more ISTP, but what do I know though? Close to nothing xD. You're right about Se, I don't see much either. Maybe you could talk to an ISTP like skyrimorchestra about that and maybe clear up Se? *shrugs and tosses in two cents on the way out.* I'm off to go get some stuff done, hopefully I'll come up with some good input in the back of my mind. - Jack


----------



## Pancreatic Pandora (Aug 16, 2013)

StunnedFox said:


> I still have the same problem with this that I had at the beginning, namely that descriptions of Si do resonate with me - unlike much of what I hear in relation to Ni - but not to the extent that I could see it being my dominant function. The notion of abstracting from reality, rather that perceiving it as it is (and certainly rather than any sort of hedonistic tendency), certainly fits, as does reactivity (at least to some degree) and the general concept of taking in sensory data in a subjectively tinged fashion... but my dominant mode of living? I really don't see it.


But I clearly remember you saying, in the old thread, that you sometimes forget how subjective the things you perceive are and how they sometimes don't match reality. That's a problem with introversion, though it wouldn't surprise me if extroverts experienced that ocassionally.



> I also don't think my preference for the dichotomies as a means of typing is linked to tangibility; "intuition", "feeling", "introversion", &c. are theoretical and conceptual constructs whichever way you choose to look at them, I don't see that viewing them dichotomously really alters that. Simplicity, perhaps, but chiefly because the less the theory claims, the less it is capable of being incorrect. As I understand it, meaningful correlations can be drawn which imply that there is some validity to the dichotomies (potentially not as dichotomies so much as spectra), yet little, if anything, supports theories on type dynamics.


It's not about theoretical or conceptual constructs. It's more about concrete behaviours vs. what goes on behind people's heads. MBTI's dichotomies are linked to concrete, observable behaviour that can be confirmed by experience. Cognitive functions, save maybe for a few exceptions, aren't.



> So, whilst I find the cognitive functions theory an interesting one, and am loath to eschew it entirely given I can see it seemingly matching in some people quite clearly, ignoring the relevance of the dichotomies entirely seems a step too far to one side. I don't think that my problem with type dynamics is that it is more abstract, or at least, that is only my problem to the extent that the upshot of its abstract nature divorces it from the reality of human personality.


I'm not suggesting to discard the dichotomies entirely. Many times I type someone thinking "he must be a sensor" or "he seems like an extrovert", I just disagree with the way the dichotomies are defined or used sometimes because they describe something that does not refer to CFs. And I also "flip" the J/P for introverts for reasons you already know.

Maybe it was not clear how that definition of Si I offered earlier relates back to MBTI. Many of the behaviours associated with SJs like preferring past experiences over new ones happen due to weak Ne, though I think that aspect is often exaggerated. And if Si forms an ideal image of reality that they want to fit, and that image is formed by experience because it's sensing, then Si will attempt to recreate past experiences. I don't think Si types necessarily feel like they "live in the past" or are nostalgic people but they do create abstractions of that kind. They are abstract in the sense that they exist in place of a part of reality but not in the sense that they are idealistic the way intuition is.

Btw, I feel the need to add that empiricism can be equally linked to Se over Te. I mean, given the nature of empiricism it is clearly extroverted cognition in the sense that it derives information from the outside but it's not necessarily thinking. For instance, I think David Hume might have been a Se-dom. And in psychology, John Watson has been typed ESFP, which I agree with. Compare those thinkers to Decartes, who was an INTP. Also, if you want more examples, Jung typed Kant as Ti-dom and Darwin as Te.


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

@philosopherspidy - 

I still don't know if I could really say what it was I consider in thinking in solitude: perhaps I consider and judge facts, perhaps I don't... I'm more inclined to say that I do that but that it's not the whole of it, that consideration and judgement of facts is but one aspect of the thought process. Interesting re: "facts" not existing; I guess all truths are contingent, but it can still be understood that something is factual so long as we know what assumptions that "fact" relies upon. Sort of a canon for life, I guess.

Interesting notion, your "function dichotomies"; unfortunately I don't even feel I could comfortably make a call on each of those pairs My reticence to delve into Socionics is less to do with MBTI being "tried and true" - nothing in personality theory is really particularly assured, I wouldn't have thought - and more to do with both my understanding of the empirical veracity of elements of each theory and my unwillingness to learn the intricacies of a largely unfamiliar system when so much still seems unclear within a supposedly "simpler" theory. ISTP is an interesting one, because I can relate to more of it than I had previously thought, yet still I can't see anything to indicate Se, nor really Ni. What I find relatable, then, might be Ti... or it might be dichotomy-related (which would make particularly good sense if I were an ISTJ). S/N is still something I simply don't know on...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@Pancreatic Pandora - 

I don't actually recall saying that; I'll have to take a look through the thread and see what it was I was talking about. 

Thing is, I would say personality theory is, on a fundamental level, about "what is going on behind people's heads"; there is more to it than behavioural correlations. But in what way can the cognitive functions be affirmed? If people have differing conceptions as to what each cognitive function even entails - and as you've alluded to there's quite a bit of difference when it comes to Si descriptions - then the system becomes so vague and so imprecise that it tells us very little at all about what is going on inside a person's head. I'm still inclined to use it, principally because (similarly to Enneagram) I can see in others that I know traits and behaviours that so clearly evince particular functions (or point to particular Enneagram types) that the system can be useful in trying to understand them... but it would be silly to assume that we're dabbling in more than mere speculation when we talk about, say, whether a particular function could manifest in someone in a totally different manner to how it does in another - given that "how it manifests" is all we really can say about each function anyway, it destroys the very essence of the function to say that it can manifest in a wholly different way in one person than it does in another... the point I was trying to make being, my belief as to the relative worth that can be afforded to particular branches of MBTI theory is something I can't see as really indicative of any particular preference.

Either way, I still don't see Si as dominant. I can relate to much of what you're saying when describing it, but it doesn't feel in any way like something central to my being.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm growing tired - it's nearly 5am here now - so I'll sleep on it, and look over any replies/new responses when I wake...


----------



## something987 (Jul 20, 2014)

What _do_ you see as your dominant mode of living, if not Si?


----------



## AmandaLee (Aug 13, 2014)

I do think StunnedFox uses Ti to such an extent that it may very well be his dominant mode of living. IMO there's little doubt as to whether he favors Ti over Si. 

As for his second function, which he probably represses to an extent, I think Ne is more probable than Se, at least judging from what I have been able to unravel from my personal correspondence with him. 

StunnedFox, would it be alright with you if I reposted some quotes of yours (from your PMs to me) for the guys in this thread to analyze?


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

@AmandaLee - 

Sure, go ahead: the more information that's out there, the better. @Ksilva, I struggle to say with conviction that I see any particular function as my dominant, but I could most easily see it being a thinking function, and given my introversion, that would at least point partially to Ti. Just, I'm still not sure on Ti/Te...


----------



## something987 (Jul 20, 2014)

StunnedFox said:


> @AmandaLee -
> 
> Sure, go ahead: the more information that's out there, the better. @Ksilva, I struggle to say with conviction that I see any particular function as my dominant, but I could most easily see it being a thinking function, and given my introversion, that would at least point partially to Ti. Just, I'm still not sure on Ti/Te...


Alright, fair enough. Is it that you aren't familiar enough with the differences between Ti and Te to tell them apart, or that you can't tell which one is more prominent for you?


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

Ksilva said:


> Alright, fair enough. Is it that you aren't familiar enough with the differences between Ti and Te to tell them apart, or that you can't tell which one is more prominent for you?


A touch of both: I don't feel I've got as much of a grasp on the nature of the two functions as I'd like, but from what I do understand, I struggle to confidently select one over the other, and can see the arguments for either.


----------



## something987 (Jul 20, 2014)

One way I can think to describe Ti vs Te is in learning a new language, or learning to play music. Do you just memorize and learn step by step, or do you try to understand the principles/patterns behind the language (or chords or what have you) first and then use that framework to learn it?


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

Ksilva said:


> One way I can think to describe Ti vs Te is in learning a new language, or learning to play music. Do you just memorize and learn step by step, or do you try to understand the principles/patterns behind the language (or chords or what have you) first and then use that framework to learn it?


That's an interesting way to look at it... just thinking on times in the past where I've learnt such things, I think I begin by taking things in on a factual, memorisation level (e.g., "this is how you decline X-type of noun and conjugate Y-type of verb", or "this is how to play an F#"), until I have enough information that I can expand from what I have to understand the underlying principles at work (which then makes acquiring more factual data far easier; much easier to learn the concept of sequence of tenses if you understand the reasoning behind it, for instance). Most systems are too large to comprehend at the level of underlying principles without at least some data to build off - language is a great example of something like that, hard to understand things like participles and verb moods if you don't refer back to memorised data. But learning it wholly step-by-step robs me of a holistic understanding, which is what I'm striving for, so once I have enough facts/data to comprehend the underlying principles, the remainder of learning in that field will be done using that framework.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

From the MBTI perspective:

NOTE: Remember to try to separate from the roles and expectations you might employ in real life (ie Work 'me' or Spouse 'me' etc) and try to focus on your natural tendencies.

Does any of the following stand out more to you?

S vs N
P vs J

INTP
INTJ
ISTJ
ISTP


What about looking at it from a stress-inducing point of view?


*Stressors for Sensing Types**Stressors for Intuitive Types*Attending to own and others' insights
Having to do old things in new ways
Having to give an overview without details
Looking for the meaning in the facts
Focusing on possibilities
Too many complexitiesHaving to attend to realities
Having to do things the proven way
Having to attend to details
Checking the accuracy of facts
Needing to focus on past experience
Being required to be practical


*Stressors for Judging Types**Stressors for Pereceiving Types*Waiting for structure to emerge from process
Being expected to use "inner timing"
Too much flexibility around time frames and deadlines
Having to marshal energy at the last minute
Staying open to reevaluations of tasks
Dealing with surprisesHaving to organize selves' and others' planning
Working within time frames and deadlines
Others' distrust of last-minute energy
Having to finish and move on
Developing contingency plans
Being required to plan ahead


----------



## Pancreatic Pandora (Aug 16, 2013)

Ksilva said:


> One way I can think to describe Ti vs Te is in learning a new language, or learning to play music. Do you just memorize and learn step by step, or do you try to understand the principles/patterns behind the language (or chords or what have you) first and then use that framework to learn it?


Tbh, I don't think that's a good distinction between Ti and Te. I'm an INTJ and I hate memorizing stuff and I've never done it since I was like 15 years old. And I do look at the principles of any system, in fact, I think it's important for me to reduce any system to a few reductionistic principles to fully comprehend them. It might be related to Ni and grasping the "essence" of something. However, if I've just started learning something I would dislike to be introduced to a huge amount of information regarding how something works and the logic behind it, because it would be too much information at once and I might not really care about it if I'm not too into what I'm studying.

You know, something I haven't seen anyone ask the OP is wether he thinks of the practical application or potential usefulness of any theory he studies. For example, I have an INFJ friend, who is an amateur writer and loves world-building (she's writing a fantasy novel). To gather ideas regarding what the world in her story would be like she looked at epistemological theories and myths and stuff about a variety of subjects that resembled an idea she had of a kind of parallel dimension where the whole of human knowledge existed. She looked some stuff up and I briefly explained Plato's theory of forms and Jung's collective unconscious and archetypes to her. Now, I couldn't care less about Plato for different reasons but once I was done explaining it she called it "beautiful". There's this sense I get from Ti where it's oriented by the subjective and does not care so much about how it relates to things like a practical application or its feasibility. Instead, in this case the theory resonated with her simply due to its internal logic, or at least that's how it looked like from the outside. And she derives joy from building a logical system or a definition from scratch, which is something I've heard from another INFJ too. Because of that, Ti types can seem as if they were reinventing the wheel to Te types sometimes.

@Word Dispenser Any thoughts on his type?


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

@PaladinX - 

*Sensing vs. Intuition*
I still struggle to split S/N. From that first link, I don't think I could say I preferred either "present realities" or "future possibilities", nor choose between "factual and concrete" vs. "imaginative and verbally creative". What the data tells us > the data itself (suggesting N>S), but heed must be given to the fact that any data set can "mean" a number of things; it's a case of working out which interpretations validly arise from the data and which use the data to come to wrongful conclusions. "Observe and remember specifics" (S) seems to fit well, although those that fit within a pattern are obviously easier than those that don't. I'm probably more inclined to build thoroughly to conclusions (S) than to jump to them. I feel like I need to know the theory/idea prior to putting it into practice (N), although practical application _can_ be a subsidiary informative source. Experience ahead of inspiration, probably, but the gulf between the two isn't large.

On the "Gifts Differing" outlines: inspiration>enjoyment (N), though the former can well lead to the latter; no idea whether I admit only inspiration-related sense impressions or take it all in at imagination's expense; restless>contended (N); original and surroundings-independent (N); neither really fits but I'm really not the enterprising sort, so (S); hard to say I really "contribute to the public welfare" in either of the ways presented.

On the myersbriggs.org outlines: I definitely prefer thinking problems through than approaching them in a "hands-on" manner (N); however, what is actual, present and real is by no means something I treat as unimportant (S). Practical use for something is desirable (S) but not a necessity. I like to think I've a reasonably good factual/detail-focused memory (S); however, I feel my memories of events are often laden with impressions (N) and not always factually detailed: it does seem to differ depending on what I'm striving to remember. Similarly, I like to think I remember in snapshots of how things actually were (S), but I'm not convinced that I do. Problem-solving, I would think, needs to involve a balance of both facts and ideas; hard to say whether I lean towards either. What is new and different intrigues (although I'm loath to forgo the old for it without good reason); pragmatism is, in some ways, a necessary evil (N). Start with facts and form a big picture (S) seems to match the answer I gave to @Ksilva, but my focus is on getting to the "big picture" more than it is on merely obtaining discrete facts. What I experience is more immediate than symbolic/metaphorical impressions, and I'd be inclined to favour what is more immediate (S). Does an interest in the consideration of possibilities _need_ to lead to a desire to make them reality? I don't think attending to facts leads me to "miss new possibilities", nor vice versa.

*Judging vs. Perceiving*
I definitely appreciate order and structure (J). In some sense, I could say I were energised by getting things done (J), but I'm often more haphazard and less organised/structured than I'd like to be: I don't feel I organise myself too well. Systematic and methodical, perhaps. I do like to have things decided, but not at the expense of the decision being soundly made. Try to avoid last-minute stresses? Sure, with the emphasis on "try"... I would say experiencing and understanding the world (supposedly P) is often the basis for desiring to control it (J). Detailed plans and final decisions will feel confining if I don't concur with them, but I'm not uncomfortable with them on their own merits. I do prefer to stay open to new information and last-minute options (P), but I'd argue that it's the responsibility of a good planner to build their plan in a manner flexible enough to accommodate these, which seems more J-like. I'm not particularly "[resourceful] in adapting to the demands of the moment", nor are spontaneity or adaptability strong suits of mine, and I'm not energised by last-minute pressures - all of which would seem to suggest J.

From the "Gifts Differing" outlines: curiosity>decisiveness (P>J); prefer the situation of the moment to conform to plan rather than approach it spontaneously (J>P); neither making a definitive choice nor being masterful of the unexpected; surprised to see rationalism/empiricism show up here, and my response is the same as when Ti/Te are described like that, I honestly can't say one is preferred; prefer to keep things open when I feel there's an information deficiency, rather than making a decision for the sake of it (P); favouring "ought" over "is" (J); getting things done is more relieving than starting something new is exhilarating (J>P); more inclined to criticise aimlessness than stricture (J); aim both to be right and to miss nothing, surely these are concurrent goals? (J=P)..

From the myersbriggs.org outlines: I relate more to feeling satisfied with a situation that is controlled and structured that spontaneous and flexible (J), but I couldn't say whether I differed in my approach to my "inside" way of approaching things. As I've said, decision is great but not at the expense of accuracy. I'm not a "to-do list" maker (P), and I work in bursts of energy more than "work then play" (P). Task-oriented, perhaps (J); my plans are normally quite open, and I'm not sure whether I like that or not... I loathe my own tendency to defer tasks until the deadline fast approaches, because - whilst I might find myself able to produce something quickly knowing that a deadline is hanging over my head - I'm better off working to a self-imposed schedule (J), I'm just never really inclined to approach things like that... "sometimes I stay open to new information so long I miss making decisions when they are needed" (P) seems pretty fitting. 

So on the balance of it, J is more likely than P, but I could conceivably consider myself either.

*Stressors*:
Hard to say. The ones that stand out to me is "having to marshal energy at the last minute" and "dealing with surprises" (J), but conceivably "being required to plan ahead" (P) fits as well (even if, once the planning is done, if I've done it satisfactorily, I can often feel better). The S/N stressors seem to me almost contextual, like I could find some from each category stressful on some occasions but none stand out as being stressful in all/most situations or things that I might have a natural tendency to be stressed by.


----------



## randomshoes (Dec 11, 2013)

Pancreatic Pandora said:


> You know, something I haven't seen anyone ask the OP is wether he thinks of the practical application or potential usefulness of any theory he studies. For example, I have an INFJ friend, who is an amateur writer and loves world-building (she's writing a fantasy novel). To gather ideas regarding what the world in her story would be like she looked at epistemological theories and myths and stuff about a variety of subjects that resembled an idea she had of a kind of parallel dimension where the whole of human knowledge existed. She looked some stuff up and I briefly explained Plato's theory of forms and Jung's collective unconscious and archetypes to her. Now, I couldn't care less about Plato for different reasons but once I was done explaining it she called it "beautiful". There's this sense I get from Ti where it's oriented by the subjective and does not care so much about how it relates to things like a practical application or its feasibility. Instead, in this case the theory resonated with her simply due to its internal logic, or at least that's how it looked like from the outside. And she derives joy from building a logical system or a definition from scratch, which is something I've heard from another INFJ too. Because of that, Ti types can seem as if they were reinventing the wheel to Te types sometimes.


As I Ti user I want to put my seal of approval on this description of Ti. I couldn't care too figs for whether something is feasible for use in the real world. I just care if it's logically sound and produces interesting ideas. HOWEVER, as an xNTP I am going to be more disconnected from direct applications than an xSTP would be. 

@StunnedFox From what I've read in this thread, I would also lean towards Ti use. Your desire for the system to be as simple as possible looks like Ti (particularly Ti paired with sensing). Te users tend to want to consider all available systems and data and, if possible, reconcile everything. 

The fact that you desire simplicity so strongly but are unable to ignore the ways in which the cognitive functions match up to your experience of the world definitely points to ISTP for me. Could you be more specific about what makes you think you don't use Se? Is there anything in your cognition that you might connect with Ne? 

As for the J/P dichotomy, I do in fact think you are judging. However, I am firmly entrenched in the IxxPs-lead-with-a-judging-function-and-are-therefore-judging thing. It sounds like other people have given you the spiel, so I'll leave it at that, except to say that I would theorize that the major reason you're repeatedly rejecting the idea of being an Si-dom is that it's too reactive for you. Would you say that you actively structure the way you think?


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

Pancreatic Pandora said:


> You know, something I haven't seen anyone ask the OP is wether he thinks of the practical application or potential usefulness of any theory he studies. For example, I have an INFJ friend, who is an amateur writer and loves world-building (she's writing a fantasy novel). To gather ideas regarding what the world in her story would be like she looked at epistemological theories and myths and stuff about a variety of subjects that resembled an idea she had of a kind of parallel dimension where the whole of human knowledge existed. She looked some stuff up and I briefly explained Plato's theory of forms and Jung's collective unconscious and archetypes to her. Now, I couldn't care less about Plato for different reasons but once I was done explaining it she called it "beautiful". There's this sense I get from Ti where it's oriented by the subjective and does not care so much about how it relates to things like a practical application or its feasibility. Instead, in this case the theory resonated with her simply due to its internal logic, or at least that's how it looked like from the outside. And she derives joy from building a logical system or a definition from scratch, which is something I've heard from another INFJ too. Because of that, Ti types can seem as if they were reinventing the wheel to Te types sometimes.


Again, there's a sense in which I feel I exhibit both perspectives. Practical application and potential usefulness are definitely considerations I think are important. I'd probably be interested enough in learning about something, and gathering information about it, even if it lacked a practical application, though. There is definitely a sense in which the "beauty" of a theory intrigues me - I was discussing with a friend recently how I found Latin's use of participles as adjectives, leading to large and potentially unwieldy adjective phrases in English, quite elegant: I like the idea of saying things like "the having-been-built-in-1923-and-reconstructed-after-the-having-been-lit-by-juvenile-delinquents-bushfires-of-1989 bridge", for instance; there's a compactness to it all, of phrases pocketed within phrases rather than flowing on from each other... but there's no way I would actually suggest that we switch to talking like that, because it's an impractical alteration to an already feasible system, requiring a change in the way we process speech or text... it simply doesn't make sense, it offers nothing new or useful. 

I do derive joy from building a system myself: many are the times, as a child, that I would use the IPA phonetic alphabet in a dictionary we had at home as a basis for building a new alphabet, or invented a new system for simulating quarter-by-quarter football results, or indeed my own dice sports or chance-created music charts, to the extent my parents often joked I was easy to buy for at Christmas, because all I needed was a pen, paper and a die. But, for all of this, the lack of practical application is something I'm only too keenly aware of; I do care about it, and derived greater satisfaction from, for instance, submitting a playing schedule to my local badminton association for use in roster matches where every player played one singles match (rather than some with one and some with none), principally because what I'd worked towards had an effect, achieved some end (ensuring that all players played one singles and three doubles matches - two same-sex, one mixed - each week). So I'm not sure what to make of that...



randomshoes said:


> As I Ti user I want to put my seal of approval on this description of Ti. I couldn't care too figs for whether something is feasible for use in the real world. I just care if it's logically sound and produces interesting ideas. HOWEVER, as an xNTP I am going to be more disconnected from direct applications than an xSTP would be.
> 
> @StunnedFox From what I've read in this thread, I would also lean towards Ti use. Your desire for the system to be as simple as possible looks like Ti (particularly Ti paired with sensing). Te users tend to want to consider all available systems and data and, if possible, reconcile everything.
> 
> ...


It's my thinking that, at least on some level, independent dichotomies and type dynamics aren't wholly compatible theories - if S/N and T/F are independent dichotomies, an ENFJ, say, could favour N more than they favour F, which would seem a little out with the more rigid functions theories' claims that they are feeling-dominant (and the looser functions theories seem almost too loose, too malleable...). Reconciling the theories, if possible, would be desirable; I'm just not convinced that it is.

If fact necessitated complexity, then complexity would be fine; it's that I can see no impetus for all the intrincacies the more complex systems propose, and that - when dealing with something still so imprecise as gauging human personality - it might be best for me to establish "truths", or at least likelihoods, in a simpler system, before seeing whether I, as a person, fit into a more complex personality schematic.

I do feel there's a level on which my perception is tinged, abstracted from the actual reality of external objects (though really, this is a hard claim to confirm or deny). That would seem to point to Si ahead of Se. Beyond that - which seems to me really the essential difference between the sensing functions - much of what is commonly associated with Se is so distantly removed from my personality that I can't really reconcile it: the impulsiveness, the love of the physical and of action, the relationship with hedonism... unlike with the similarly-commonly-associated traditionalism and dogmatism of Si users, where it doesn't seem to fit me but I can see how it could be perceived as doing so, these supposedly related Se phenomena are things I can in no capacity see as pertaining to me. As for Ne... when I typed as ISTJ, I probably unconsciously over-emphasised it, but there is an aspect of me which, when presented with the new or unfamiliar, immediately seems to run through all potential negative possibilities. I could probably ascribe aspects of my own shyness to this as well, an ability to perceive exactly what could potentially go wrong if interaction were engaged in. I'm more inclined, at least I think I am, to consider different likelihoods for future occurrences than to stringently believe that one particular one is going to eventuate... but I do feel I zero in on particular interpretations, rather than branching out into them, which would seem to count against Ne.

I'm not entirely convinced by the "for introverts, J/P essentially means the opposite" school of thought, given the point of it being a separate, independent dichotomy would be that specific traits align with having a preference either way on that dichotomy. Not sure on the active/reactive distinction you're drawing, but I'd lean towards reactive, perhaps. I would say I structure my thinking, yes, but not consciously... hard to say, really.


----------



## TyranAmiros (Jul 7, 2014)

I think you're ISTP or even ESTP, but you definitely have Ni in some inferior role. That's why this is such a burden for you in so many ways. I'm going to generalize here, but I've definitely noticed a pattern in terms of how different types of dominant perceivers respond to challenges to their self-typing:

NPs generally accept new typings; maybe they could be any type, but it's not that important. They tend to be seeking meaning.
NJs generally know their own type and want to check in before making decisions on that basis. They tend to be seeking confirmation.
SJs generally are open to the idea of being a new type, but like to make sure it's sensible. They tend to be seeking understanding.
SPs generally have types they want to be and argue if they don't get the type they think they are. They tend to be seeking certainty.

The obvious reason for this is their perception function pairs.

Ne-Si wants to use types to link threads, understand the significance in the connections between purpose, thought, and behavior. It takes in a lot of information using Si but primarily uses Ne to organize it using theories like MBTI to draw out the meaning.
Si-Ne wants to use types to make sense of the world. Their perceptions are raw and unfiltered, and have no intrinsic significance--why argue with reality? But typology satisfies their inferior Ne's desire to attribute meaning to help support primary Fe or Te, which is why SJs often know what you need before you do.
Ni-Se wants to demonstrate mastery over the facts, and uses something like typology to understand everyone's place in the world. Whether typology is true or not, it's part of the NJ's unified theory. Nevertheless, inferior Se in combination with dominant Fe or Te demands that this theory be put forward for confirmation.
Se-Ni wants to shape the world and uses typology in arguing its worldview. Inferior Ni gives them attraction to grand ideas, but dominant Se wants to perceive the truth of them. Many people focus on Se's pleasure-seeking, artistic, and physical dimensions and ignore that SPs use Ti and Fi--like NPs--which gives them a subjective filter for judging their own beliefs. NJs can be convinced that their ideas are wrong if the Te/Fe evidence is strong. The subjective nature of Ti/Fi means that SPs only have to justify their Ni ideas to themselves. 

If Se is bypassed, then the primary mechanism for tempering Ni convictions is broken. Intelligent SPs may learn in school to stamp down on Se: they can't bear the tedium of the SJ's process or the eccentricity of the NPs, so they emulate the NJs who use their Ni to learn concepts, then use Fi/Ti to break the concept into components that can be tackled. Maybe they even channel their Se into paths that look like Fe/Te, which it does imperfectly. So when the NJ and SP work together on an experiment, for example, the NJ is using Fe/Te to confirm their internal Ni suppositions in an objective manner, the SP has already evaluated the truth of the concept using Fi/Ti (but, hey, the experiment was fun!). 

Thus SPs--especially intelligent ones--tend to simultaneously overdevelop Ni and fail to understand how their subjective judging Fi/Ti is adding more weight to a house with a weak foundation. With mistyped SPs, I tend to note a focus on superficial criteria--"I spend too much time on a computer to have Se," "I'm too interested in history to have Se," "I think abstractly/I'm good at figuring out how people are feeling." There are many misconceptions that come from overgeneralizations--just like some of the material in this post--but I don't doubt they honestly think of themselves as intuitive because they've been drawing heavily on tertiary/inferior Ni to get them through the Se-unfriendly school environment. 

Well, that's all for now. I think you're ISTP, with a strongly developed Ni that's unhappy because its worldview is literally collapsing. But that's what Se is good for--get out there and let yourself use Se in some activities that are Ti-dom friendly. What have you been itching to try?


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

@TyranAmiros - 

I'm not convinced. I may have said it in my previous thread and not yet in here, but not only do I not see anything indicative of Se in myself currently, I can't think of a time where I ever could've said I displayed it. It would seem a bizarre conclusion to be a type with an auxiliary function I don't think I've ever had as a predominant aspect of my cognitive process.

Those are some interesting generalisations in regards to what each perceiving function acts like in terms of seeking out type. "Seeking certainty" fits from the SP description, and part of that process is raising every argument that calls into question each mooted type, finding what is wrong with suggestions made so that eventually a type that hasn't anything wrong with it can be found. But the NJ one fits, in a way, as well: when I started my previous thread, I was still fairly sure of ISTJ, but a few nagging concerns saw me seeking to check on whether others could see Si or Te; clarity had been lost and needed to be found. I'm as much "seeking understanding" and "seeking meaning" as I am "seeking certainty": I'm open to all suggestions, but there's no reason for me to accept the arguments people make if I can't myself see how they match up to my reality. Your description of the Ne-Si and Si-Ne pairs seems more fitting for me than Se-Ni or Ni-Se: type is a linking device, a way to understand disparate persons through commonalities, to make sense of what is in a manner more holistic than the merely individual. Phrases like "understand everyone's place in the world" don't resonate with me, but maybe it's just the terminology used. Shape the world? Well yes, in order to correct that which is wrong with it. But typology isn't a tool for that, at least not from my perspective: typology intends to categorise that which already is, not to change what is. What you describe about SPs in school simply doesn't seem to fit me. Largely, I was comfortable with the process and structure of the school system, and I adhered to it anyway when I wasn't (such as the strange elevation of tucked-in shirts to high disciplinary priority). 

I think it's a fair criticism to say I might be focusing on tangential or irrelevant criteria in trying to dispel the claim of Se - such as hedonistic or impulsive tendencies, or orientation towards action - but like I said I don't think my perception is so directly of physical objects independent of any abstraction from them: I relate far more to Si than Se in that regard, and that seems to get at the essence of Se in a way that saying "I'm not action-inclined" doesn't. Similarly, I don't feel I especially "live in the moment", even if I couldn't honestly say I "lived in the future" or "in the realm of possibilities" much either. The main point is, I don't see what evidence I've offered up, in this thread or elsewhere, for my being an Se-user. I don't see Ni as clearly as so many others trying to type me seem to; I can see the arguments being made, and they aren't all totally off the mark, but they're not fully convincing either. Ti-dom I can see, potentially, yet both Se and Ne I can see no more than ephemeral evidence for. I certainly don't feel as though I'm repressing any Se-like inclinations - in particular, I don't think I've been "itching to try" anything in particular. 

What evidence could you procure to suggest Se and Ni? I'm still not seeing a great deal of evidence for either.


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

I'll chime in for a moment, just because this dilemma seems somewhat familiar. I also identify with Ti and have trouble with seeing myself as an Si dom. I see that you're skeptical about Socionics (though its model, no matter how convoluted it seems at first sight, is much clearer and structured than MBTI, IMO), but I'll try to explain this from its point of view, using ISTJ as an example.

If one is leading with sensing and thinking it means that automatically he/she is good with both aspects within each information element - it is easy to use both Si and Se, as well as Te and Ti. One pair Si-Te remains in the Ego as strong and valued, the other one Se-Ti goes deeper into the Id as strong and unvalued. The first element is as strong as the last one, hence Si and Ti, which are both 4-dimensional, are two strongest elements for an ISTJ. The fact that Ti is placed in the Id doesn't make it weaker, on the contrary, it is natural and easy to use, and mostly it works within a range of automatic responses, since element is unconscious.

Your example with learning new language is similar to my experience. At first I study basics, rules, patterns, when I have enough information I start seeing this beautiful internal system that is language, and then, proceeding from the internal structure, I apply it and easily incorporate new elements into it. Others just need Step 1, Step 2, Step 3 and don't care about the essence of the process, which I don't get, 'cause to me it is much easier to understand the principles behind and then apply that knowledge and predict things in miscellaneous areas.

These are both Te (creative) and Ti (background) working together. To learn the facts and basics (Te) in order to form the internal meaningful structure (Ti) in order to apply knowledge across numerous fields (Te).

I know that Te would be my primary concern, because I don't strive to learn systems just for the sake of them. Even this whole typology thing: it seems I'm not applying it in real life and it doesn't yield any tangible fruits, which seems anti-Te, but that's not true, because at the end of the day I understand myself better, understand better how people's minds work, how similar and at the same time different we all are.


----------



## TyranAmiros (Jul 7, 2014)

In general, I don't see a lot of Ne-users who spend this much time arguing with people about their types. INTPs, for example, often think they might be other types, but the Ne-Si process is generally internal, with constant updating of Ne based on changing Si evidence. ENTPs are likely to verbalize their uncertainty, but they tend to focus on the importance of connection-building more broadly because of dominant Ne--how does me being ENTP help me get a handle on my insecurity and need for change? How would it differ if I was INTP? ESTP? 

STJs are likely to feel insecure because they also have Ne in an inferior role, but when they get external evidence STJ is correct, they settle into it (at least on the surface), because their dominant Te is satisfied. But in general, I find that when either NPs or SJs come on to their Myers Briggs type, they're more interested in what it means--it doesn't really matter what type they get initially, because Ne-Si and Si-Ne are function pairs that update connections based on new evidence. There's no Ni saying "everyone must have one True Type" (capitals intentional).

Where do I see Se-Ni? The fact that you've been arguing about this for a long time suggests Se. You are putting yourself and your beliefs (Ni) out there (extraverted perception) to obtain feedback and clarity. You want to get information from others to arrive at a conclusion. That's practically the definition of how Se-Ni works, especially in ISTPs. And I do see a lot of Ni. For example:



> If fact necessitated complexity, then complexity would be fine; it's that I can see no impetus for all the intricacies the more complex systems propose, and that - when dealing with something still so imprecise as gauging human personality - it might be best for me to establish "truths", or at least likelihoods, in a simpler system, before seeing whether I, as a person, fit into a more complex personality schematic.


Establishing "truths" and probabilities is a very Ni behavior. Note that you want to do that before you fit yourself in--this is common ISTP behavior--begin with a goal/"truth" (Ni) and use that to interpret what's going on (Ti). In addition, it's quite Ni to simplify. Ne-Si embraces complexity because you miss things when you pre-judge, while Si-Ne sees how complex the world is, but brings order to their corner of it. 



> Practical application and potential usefulness are definitely considerations I think are important. I'd probably be interested enough in learning about something, and gathering information about it, even if it lacked a practical application, though. There is definitely a sense in which the "beauty" of a theory intrigues me ... but there's no way I would actually suggest that we switch to talking like that, because it's an impractical alteration to an already feasible system, requiring a change in the way we process speech or text... it simply doesn't make sense, it offers nothing new or useful.
> 
> I do derive joy from building a system myself: many are the times, as a child, that I would use the IPA phonetic alphabet in a dictionary we had at home as a basis for building a new alphabet, or invented a new system for simulating quarter-by-quarter football results, or indeed my own dice sports or chance-created music charts, to the extent my parents often joked I was easy to buy for at Christmas, because all I needed was a pen, paper and a die. But, for all of this, the lack of practical application is something I'm only too keenly aware of; I do care about it, and derived greater satisfaction from, for instance, submitting a playing schedule to my local badminton association for use in roster matches where every player played one singles match (rather than some with one and some with none), principally because what I'd worked towards had an effect, achieved some end (ensuring that all players played one singles and three doubles matches - two same-sex, one mixed - each week).


As a Ti-dom myself, I see a lot of Ti here--thinking through the logical repercussions, the system building, the love of learning (I'm convinced all the introverted judgers love to learn). But the focus on applications isn't just not Ne, it's Ni. INTPs don't need a reason or goal other than "I was interested". If there's a way of using it later, great, but it's not going to stop me from doing it. On the other hand, Se-Ni users need motivation. One of the big differences between ISTPs and INTPs is with respect to "success" and "failure". ISTPs seek external, Se-driven benchmarks and standards by which to judge their systems. INTPs need Ne-driven ways of applying their knowledge. So an ISTP will develop a ConLang but if there's no where to use it, they'll drop it. An INTP will develop a ConLang and use it five years later to make a point in a debate on gender issues. 



> Most systems are too large to comprehend at the level of underlying principles without at least some data to build off - language is a great example of something like that, hard to understand things like participles and verb moods if you don't refer back to memorised data. But learning it wholly step-by-step robs me of a holistic understanding, which is what I'm striving for, so once I have enough facts/data to comprehend the underlying principles, the remainder of learning in that field will be done using that framework.


Your focus on the system indicates STJ is wrong. STJs have trouble seeing the forest for the trees, if for no other reason than Ne keeps changing how they perceive that forest, so they stick to the trees. But when you say "memorized" your examples aren't really rote memorization. "This is how you play an F#" is about developing the motor skills and the experience to play that note whenever it occurs, regardless of what song it's it. Language works the same way. You're practicing the conjugations (I'm betting you use Se techniques like thinking of situations in which you would use them) because they're feeding into the "holistic understanding" (again, that's a sign of Ni). Your word choice is very Te, but the meaning I see underneath is very Ti--when you say you have "enough facts/data to comprehend the underlying principles", I wonder if you really mean you have "enough familiarity with the system to intuit the underlying principles".


----------



## AmandaLee (Aug 13, 2014)

Pancreatic Pandora said:


> You know, something I haven't seen anyone ask the OP is wether he thinks of the practical application or potential usefulness of any theory he studies.


I asked him precisely that question in a PM, and since he's given me permission to quote things he said in our private conversations, I'll go ahead and post what he said.

My question:

_If you get a new software for your computer, do you normally learn to use it just enough to produce useful content, or do you want to understand the software in depth?_

His answer:


> My answer to the software question would be that I'd want to know enough about the operation of the software that I could use it for the purposes I needed it for without difficulty. That would seem, actually, probably the clearest indicator of Te yet... it's not as though esoteric knowledge isn't worthwhile, but it comes a necessary second to knowledge with direct and obvious value.


I'm INTJ and thus a Te-user, and I can see evidence of Te in this statement... clearly he uses it sometimes and is quite good at it, but does he prefer Te over Ti? "A necessary second" in this case may imply societal pressure to favor Te (results!) over the holistic-knowledge of Ti.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Pancreatic Pandora said:


> Tbh, I don't think that's a good distinction between Ti and Te. I'm an INTJ and I hate memorizing stuff and I've never done it since I was like 15 years old. And I do look at the principles of any system, in fact, I think it's important for me to reduce any system to a few reductionistic principles to fully comprehend them. It might be related to Ni and grasping the "essence" of something. However, if I've just started learning something I would dislike to be introduced to a huge amount of information regarding how something works and the logic behind it, because it would be too much information at once and I might not really care about it if I'm not too into what I'm studying.
> 
> You know, something I haven't seen anyone ask the OP is wether he thinks of the practical application or potential usefulness of any theory he studies. For example, I have an INFJ friend, who is an amateur writer and loves world-building (she's writing a fantasy novel). To gather ideas regarding what the world in her story would be like she looked at epistemological theories and myths and stuff about a variety of subjects that resembled an idea she had of a kind of parallel dimension where the whole of human knowledge existed. She looked some stuff up and I briefly explained Plato's theory of forms and Jung's collective unconscious and archetypes to her. Now, I couldn't care less about Plato for different reasons but once I was done explaining it she called it "beautiful". There's this sense I get from Ti where it's oriented by the subjective and does not care so much about how it relates to things like a practical application or its feasibility. Instead, in this case the theory resonated with her simply due to its internal logic, or at least that's how it looked like from the outside. And she derives joy from building a logical system or a definition from scratch, which is something I've heard from another INFJ too. Because of that, Ti types can seem as if they were reinventing the wheel to Te types sometimes.
> 
> @_Word Dispenser_ Any thoughts on his type?


I would argue _not _Te. Definitely not. Higher order Ti seems likely. IxTP, or ExTP. Simply far too inconclusive and meandering for IxTJ.

IxFJ is also very-very possible-- And quite easy to confuse IxTJ for IxFJ.



> (probably the function I'm least likely to be a user of, although it as inferior is plausible),


IxFJ, or INTP, in this case.


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

Post #1000, best make it a good one...
------------------------------------------------------------ @To_august - the idea of possessing both thinking functions to a largely equal level but with one "valued" and one "unvalued" intrigued me, so I caved in and looked through some Socionics material, specifically in relation to blocks and how functions in each position are said to act. I'm still highly skeptical of it as a system - so many intricacies, however structured they might be, seem almost doomed to failure when applied to the realities of human variance - but the suggestion is an intriguing one. 

If I understand correctly, were I an SLI, my relationship with Se would supposedly be one of ignorance, yes? Of being fundamentally capable of using it and doing so quite well, but sparsely, if ever, actually deploying it? To some degree, that would allay my concerns about it being a prominent part of my function stack... but still Si-dom seems an ill fit, even taking into account the different definitions and associations that Socionics seems to have for Si in contrast to MBTI (not that certainty and clarity are easy to find when it comes to function definitions anyway). Can't say I'm clear on what exactly the relationship between the two thinking functions is supposed to be: is an SLI supposed to be more proficient in Ti but more aware and more comfortable with Te? 

I skim-read some SLI and LSI descriptions; aspects of both seemed to fit somewhat, but other aspects of both rankled, and it's hard to see either as my type. It's not a given that I'm a sensor, though... and I really don't know on the two thinking functions. Maybe I'll dig further into the Socionics side of things at some point in the future, but when even things like whether I prefer sensing or intuition aren't decided, trying to fit myself into a framework of that complexity looks to me like it'd be an even more difficult endeavour, and thus one that my skepticism about the whole system leads me to steer clear of, at least for now.
------------------------------------------------------------ @TyranAmiros - I'm not really comfortable with taking something as general as time taken to determine type, or the fact that I've started threads asking for assistance in typing me, as somehow indicative of Se-Ni. A bit like claiming anybody seeking help finding their Enneagram type is a Type 6 because they showed doubt and a dependency upon others to guide them... let's not forget, also, that I typed as ISTJ for six months. During that time - certainly during the latter half of that time period - I had some nagging concerns about aspects of that typing. Me starting my previous typing thread was the result of yet another instance where I couldn't explain how my supposedly dominant Si worked, coupled with my increasing uncertainty surrounding Te and Ti. 

How is "seeking information from others" practically the definition of how Se-Ni works? Surely any person uncertain of their type might or might not turn to others to gauge their viewpoints, consider the responses they receive, take suggestions on board... I can't see how that could in any way be type-specific (or function-specific): uncertainty and using human resources (not a term I'm fond of, I must admit) to try and resolve that uncertainty strike me as things far too broad to be the domain of only Se/Ni users. In a similar vein, I struggle to see what makes establishing "truths" an Ni trait. Simplification I can see, perhaps - taking a broader overview and distilling it to perceived "key" elements - but even then it seems such a general thing.

I can see the Ti in that paragraph myself - it's that interest in system-building and in the structure itself that seems the strongest argument for my being a Ti user. But I think you're mistaking my interest in applicability for something different to what it is: my doing any of those things I mentioned will always come down to the simple justification "I was interested". Even with the badminton example, I had considered that we might need a new structure (last time we'd requested every player play singles, we were told - too late to change it - that they hadn't a structure to accommodate that), but it was only after others encouraged me to actually put my proposed system to those in charge of having the playing books printed that I actually sought to put what I'd worked on into practical use. My point was that I found greater satisfaction in having done that, knowing that it had achieved something externally, than I did in, say, creating a viable means for simulating reasonably realistic football scorelines using a die. And, returning to that point now, I'm not even sure I agree with it: it's definitely true that I derived a lot of satisfaction from seeing a system I'd devised actually being implemented, but I'm not sure that it has quite the supremacy I afforded it previously... 

I'm still seeing the Ti as quite plausible, but neither Se nor Ne in any obvious or apparent capacity. Have you read through my previous thread? Maybe there are some clearer examples in that thread you could work from, rather than using qualities like the amount of time I've spent on this without coming to a conclusion as an indicator of type/function/preference.
------------------------------------------------------------
I'm interested in that angle, actually, @AmandaLee. Lots have opined, recently, that I'm showing clear signs of being a Ti-user, and this suggestion is one I can quite easily see. I've no obvious reason to suppose that my cognitive preferences might've been shaped strongly by societal pressures, but that I might be a Ti-user whom society has pressured into seeking results (and thus I might give off the appearance of being a Te user) seems quite plausible. If true, the pressure's been there for an awfully long time... I definitely think that it's a possibility worthy of consideration, though.


----------



## Pancreatic Pandora (Aug 16, 2013)

randomshoes said:


> As I Ti user I want to put my seal of approval on this description of Ti. I couldn't care too figs for whether something is feasible for use in the real world. I just care if it's logically sound and produces interesting ideas. HOWEVER, as an xNTP I am going to be more disconnected from direct applications than an xSTP would be.


True, plus in the case of my INFJ friend, she's Te-porl in socionics which means it's one of the types that is the most disconnected from Te.



StunnedFox said:


> Again, there's a sense in which I feel I exhibit both perspectives. Practical application and potential usefulness are definitely considerations I think are important. I'd probably be interested enough in learning about something, and gathering information about it, even if it lacked a practical application, though. There is definitely a sense in which the "beauty" of a theory intrigues me - I was discussing with a friend recently how I found Latin's use of participles as adjectives, leading to large and potentially unwieldy adjective phrases in English, quite elegant: I like the idea of saying things like "the having-been-built-in-1923-and-reconstructed-after-the-having-been-lit-by-juvenile-delinquents-bushfires-of-1989 bridge", for instance; there's a compactness to it all, of phrases pocketed within phrases rather than flowing on from each other... but there's no way I would actually suggest that we switch to talking like that, because it's an impractical alteration to an already feasible system, requiring a change in the way we process speech or text... it simply doesn't make sense, it offers nothing new or useful.
> 
> I do derive joy from building a system myself: many are the times, as a child, that I would use the IPA phonetic alphabet in a dictionary we had at home as a basis for building a new alphabet, or invented a new system for simulating quarter-by-quarter football results, or indeed my own dice sports or chance-created music charts, to the extent my parents often joked I was easy to buy for at Christmas, because all I needed was a pen, paper and a die. But, for all of this, the lack of practical application is something I'm only too keenly aware of; I do care about it, and derived greater satisfaction from, for instance, submitting a playing schedule to my local badminton association for use in roster matches where every player played one singles match (rather than some with one and some with none), principally because what I'd worked towards had an effect, achieved some end (ensuring that all players played one singles and three doubles matches - two same-sex, one mixed - each week). So I'm not sure what to make of that...


I thought all of this was a good example of Ti and what I meant earlier but apparently @To_august relates to your experience too?



Word Dispenser said:


> I would argue _not _Te. Definitely not. Higher order Ti seems likely. IxTP, or ExTP. Simply far too inconclusive and meandering for IxTJ.
> 
> IxFJ is also very-very possible-- And quite easy to confuse IxTJ for IxFJ.
> 
> ...


Well, I originally thought rationality. Even when I considered ISTJ that thought still buzzed in my mind and now it's becoming clearer to me. Rationality would point towards INTP. IxFJ sounds unlikely to me because, besides what I've just said, I haven't seen anything resembling a feeling function from him so far.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Pancreatic Pandora said:


> True, plus in the case of my INFJ friend, she's Te-porl in socionics which means it's one of the types that is the most disconnected from Te.
> 
> 
> I thought all of this was a good example of Ti and what I meant earlier but apparently @_To_august_ relates to your experience too?
> ...


Makes a great deal of sense, to me.


----------



## AmandaLee (Aug 13, 2014)

When asked about his future plans regarding his education and career, StunnedFox demonstrated an attitude of wanting to keep his options open, which could suggest use of Ne. 

Also from our private conversations:



> I don't know exactly what field I'd want to go into, or even how directly law-related I want where I end up to be: whether I'd prefer to become a barrister or solicitor, whether I'd look at some role as a legal advisor, whether I look at politics, whether I avoid a legal career entirely... definitely fair to say I lack any certainty in that regard. Even my selection of a course at university was a hesitant and uncertain one: doing a combined degree (Arts and Law) seemed to give more flexibility, a better means of hedging bets given my lack of sureness.


----------



## TyranAmiros (Jul 7, 2014)

Long response here. I do want to say that if this is really that important to you to the point where you're struggling with it, you may want to consider talking to someone with a professional degree in this (I'm a political scientist). I try to help because of my own mistyping and how I've been able to thrive as a result of understanding myself better. If you have a type that makes you happy, that you can learn from and grow, go for it. We're never 100% stereotypical any type. Hell, I love fashion--does that mean I can't be an INTP? Of course not, no more than an ESFP can't be a theoretical physicist or an ESTJ a peregrinating hippie. We use our functions to analyze the world each in our own unique way, and you're never going to fit 100% of the time.



StunnedFox said:


> TyranAmiros - I'm not really comfortable with taking something as general as time taken to determine type, or the fact that I've started threads asking for assistance in typing me, as somehow indicative of Se-Ni. A bit like claiming anybody seeking help finding their Enneagram type is a Type 6 because they showed doubt and a dependency upon others to guide them... let's not forget, also, that I typed as ISTJ for six months. During that time - certainly during the latter half of that time period - I had some nagging concerns about aspects of that typing. Me starting my previous typing thread was the result of yet another instance where I couldn't explain how my supposedly dominant Si worked, coupled with my increasing uncertainty surrounding Te and Ti.


Because this is what Se does: it gathers information by doing something--let me do this and see what happens. Oh, that happened? Let me try this instead. What if I do this? It then sends it to either a Ti or Fi filter for interpretation. I'm just drawing on not only on the text of your answers, but also on your own behavior as part of the typing; it's not like we become different people when we talk meta.
I believe @Ksilva is right in the previous thread--there's an unhealthy Ti-Ni cycle going on here. You're using Se to gather more information, but Ni says "I don't like it" and Ti explains it away. I don't think you have an open mind (Se) about this process because you’re bypassing that function.

IMO, you're not using Si very much. I don't see anything in this or your previous thread that would indicate you rely on Si. You're not focused on the past, you don't care about routine, traditions, or getting in touch with the physical world, you don't draw extensively on personal or collective experience in justifying yourself.

I really sympathize with mistyping. Thanks a test we had to do in 7th grade, I believed I was INTJ for years. It never felt quite right, but nearly 15 years later, I discovered cognitive functions and that my tertiary Si meant I was giving the "J" answer on questions like "do you prefer going to a restaurant you know you enjoy or a new, trendy location?" And frankly, reading INTP type descriptions is almost uncannily accurate to me. I was always too social for INTJ. I was not scientific enough. I was too into the technicalities--I couldn't write a utopian story in 11th grade because I was too focused on how to provide sewage treatment and trash collection in a more capitalist yet environmentally-responsible way.



StunnedFox said:


> How is "seeking information from others" practically the definition of how Se-Ni works? Surely any person uncertain of their type might or might not turn to others to gauge their viewpoints, consider the responses they receive, take suggestions on board... I can't see how that could in any way be type-specific (or function-specific): uncertainty and using human resources (not a term I'm fond of, I must admit) to try and resolve that uncertainty strike me as things far too broad to be the domain of only Se/Ni users. In a similar vein, I struggle to see what makes establishing "truths" an Ni trait. Simplification I can see, perhaps - taking a broader overview and distilling it to perceived "key" elements - but even then it seems such a general thing.


I’m confused here—isn’t the whole point of typing based on the premise that individuals don’t all respond the same way and how they think and process is intrinsically part of what makes each type unique? I wouldn’t expect an ESFJ to ask or respond to questions in the same way an INTJ does. So, yes, I do consider how a person asks and responds to be an intrinsic part of the typing process. An INTJ says, “I’m an INTJ. Convince me I’m not using logic.” An ESFJ says, “ESFJ sounds really spot-on, but what if I’m more ISFJ? Would that be okay?” An INFP says, “That’s an interesting perspective. Let me try it on for size. But I also think I could be a Thinker, but I don’t seem to use my Ti, so maybe I’m an INTJ? And what about sensing? When I was younger, I used to love hiking in the woods. Isn’t that more ISFP?” 
SPs tend to be far more skeptical than other types. I find they generally don’t buy into typing much, because Se rejects the theoretical approach. As you say yourself, wouldn’t any type turn to others for guidance? Yes, but the way in which an ENFJ does it is not the same as an ISTJ. 
This brings me to Ni. What do you think Ni is, if not goal-oriented, truth-seeking perception? If you’re not sure, why are you rejecting it?



StunnedFox said:


> I can see the Ti in that paragraph myself - it's that interest in system-building and in the structure itself that seems the strongest argument for my being a Ti user. But I think you're mistaking my interest in applicability for something different to what it is: my doing any of those things I mentioned will always come down to the simple justification "I was interested". Even with the badminton example, I had considered that we might need a new structure (last time we'd requested every player play singles, we were told - too late to change it - that they hadn't a structure to accommodate that), but it was only after others encouraged me to actually put my proposed system to those in charge of having the playing books printed that I actually sought to put what I'd worked on into practical use. My point was that I found greater satisfaction in having done that, knowing that it had achieved something externally, than I did in, say, creating a viable means for simulating reasonably realistic football scorelines using a die. And, returning to that point now, I'm not even sure I agree with it: it's definitely true that I derived a lot of satisfaction from seeing a system I'd devised actually being implemented, but I'm not sure that it has quite the supremacy I afforded it previously...
> 
> I'm still seeing the Ti as quite plausible, but neither Se nor Ne in any obvious or apparent capacity. Have you read through my previous thread? Maybe there are some clearer examples in that thread you could work from, rather than using qualities like the amount of time I've spent on this without coming to a conclusion as an indicator of type/function/preference.


I’m not mistaking anything here. I think you have Ti. That gives you the interest in and ability to design and promulgate new, innovative systems. You’re able to judge the necessary components and make it work. But the way you define working, the way you find your satisfaction, suggests Se—“Practical use,” “achieved something externally,” “actually being implemented.” These are Se’s standards. As an ISTP, remember that your Se would be filtered through Ti—so your evaluation of the world is a Thinker’s, not a Sensor’s.
I have read your questionnaire from the previous thread. 
Question 2 is very Ti—“I strive to have things make sense, and be accurate.” 
3 suggests Se and Fe—feeling at your best when you “felt more immediate than…in real life”. 
4 is pure Ti overanalysis. 
5 is Ti, and Sensing—not answerable in the abstract?
6 is Se-Ni—“ My emphasis is generally on attaining a certain outcome, achieving some goal - it doesn't make sense for me to take on a task if I don't intend to achieve something from it. I like to have control of the outcome in the sense that I want that goal to be achieved.” Goal oriented behavior, but you like to have control of the outcome. Se wants control over the world, and tertiary Ni gives you focus on the outcome
7. Se and Ti—you value your sensory experiences, especially when they involve thinking, even at the expense of personal well-being. Si-doms say, “it’s time to go. I need to go to bed.”
8. Again, sensing-dominant, the way you talk about constructing the idea suggests Ni in inferior role.
9. Not Te, then. Ne or Se.
10. Ti, with “underlying principles. The inability to separate information is indicative of Ti as well.
11. Inferior Fe
12. Ti in dominant role. Your reasoning for liking one-on-one conversations seems to have an Xe-bent. Extraverted perceivers often have trouble if they don’t focus their energy on one thing at a time.
13. Ti
14. Inferior Fe
15. Se-Ni. “Isn’t functioning as it ought to” suggests an Ni belief in what the true state should be and an Se impatience to fix it. NTPs go into “robot mode” when they get stressed out. STJs go into “whiny mode”.
16. Not NTJ, then. Fe, though
17. Ti, with an Se focus on “naturally and without awkwardness.”
18. Se. Intuitives generally have ideas about what they should be paying more attention to (though they’re often wrong because they can’t see the forest for the trees). And not Si—they nitpick these details because of inferior Ne: “I should be doing…” This is exactly the kind of answer an Se-dominant user would give off the cuff.
19. Fe. And not Ne—you struggle to guess what they might say.


----------



## randomshoes (Dec 11, 2013)

StunnedFox said:


> It's my thinking that, at least on some level, independent dichotomies and type dynamics aren't wholly compatible theories - if S/N and T/F are independent dichotomies, an ENFJ, say, could favour N more than they favour F, which would seem a little out with the more rigid functions theories' claims that they are feeling-dominant (and the looser functions theories seem almost too loose, too malleable...). Reconciling the theories, if possible, would be desirable; I'm just not convinced that it is.


This is exactly where I was on Socionics six months ago. It sounds like Ti processing to me. Trying to decide what belongs and what doesn't in the system, and whether two systems can be reconciled. I agree that the basic dichotomies don't quite mesh, as a system, with the functions. I personally have just determined that the function system is more useful and interesting to me. 



> If fact necessitated complexity, then complexity would be fine; it's that *I can see no impetus for all the intrincacies* the more complex systems propose, and that - when dealing with something still so imprecise as gauging human personality - it might be best for me to establish "truths", or at least likelihoods, in a simpler system, before seeing whether I, as a person, fit into a more complex personality schematic.


I also see a lot of Ni here and absolutely no Ne. Take what I have bolded: Ne doms and auxiliaries do not need an impetus for complexities in abstraction. We're always complexifying; that's what Ne is for. Searching for some kind of certain truth is an Ni thing, as is thinking of things in terms of likelihoods or probabilities. Ne heavy people see way too many possibilities to hold onto an ideal of truth being something you can establish with any kind of permanency. Basically we don't weight probabilities much, even when we maybe should. Ni looks for the grand unifying theory that takes all its Se information into account. 



> I do feel there's a level on which my perception is tinged, abstracted from the actual reality of external objects (though really, this is a hard claim to confirm or deny). That would seem to point to Si ahead of Se. Beyond that - which seems to me really the essential difference between the sensing functions - much of what is commonly associated with Se is so distantly removed from my personality that I can't really reconcile it: the impulsiveness, the love of the physical and of action, the relationship with hedonism... unlike with the similarly-commonly-associated traditionalism and dogmatism of Si users, where it doesn't seem to fit me but I can see how it could be perceived as doing so, these supposedly related Se phenomena are things I can in no capacity see as pertaining to me.


I find both those descriptions of the sensing functions too simplistic. We're talking cognition here and yet descriptions of sensing functions seem to so easily drift into associations with things like hedonism or traditionalism, which IMO belong more in the Enneagram system.



> As for Ne... when I typed as ISTJ, I probably unconsciously over-emphasised it, but there is an aspect of me which, when presented with the new or unfamiliar, immediately seems to run through all potential negative possibilities. I could probably ascribe aspects of my own shyness to this as well, an ability to perceive exactly what could potentially go wrong if interaction were engaged in. I'm more inclined, at least I think I am, to consider different likelihoods for future occurrences than to stringently believe that one particular one is going to eventuate... but I do feel I zero in on particular interpretations, rather than branching out into them, which would seem to count against Ne.


I agree. This is Se/Ni thinking, not Ne/Si.



> I'm not entirely convinced by the "for introverts, J/P essentially means the opposite" school of thought, given the point of it being a separate, independent dichotomy would be that specific traits align with having a preference either way on that dichotomy.


It's a way to help it line up with function theory, because ISTPs do exhibit "judging" behaviors. Frankly, however, I've always found the J/P divide extremely shallow compared to the others. My ISTJ girlfriend had a lot of trouble finding her type because all of the descriptions harp on them being traditional and structured and all that stuff, when Si in practice is much softer than that.


----------



## TheOddRhombus (Jul 30, 2014)

Wow! this thread is a hot mess, isn't it? I'm just looking through all this and thinking to myself, "What on earth happened here." - Jack


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

TyranAmiros said:


> Long response here. I do want to say that if this is really that important to you to the point where you're struggling with it, you may want to consider talking to someone with a professional degree in this (I'm a political scientist). I try to help because of my own mistyping and how I've been able to thrive as a result of understanding myself better. If you have a type that makes you happy, that you can learn from and grow, go for it. We're never 100% stereotypical any type. Hell, I love fashion--does that mean I can't be an INTP? Of course not, no more than an ESFP can't be a theoretical physicist or an ESTJ a peregrinating hippie. We use our functions to analyze the world each in our own unique way, and you're never going to fit 100% of the time.


It would probably be fair to say this is weighing on my mind far more than it ought to. Obviously, it must be remembered that personality theory is an attempt to categorise, not to mould: it's simply that I'm finding it frustrating that I can't quite work out which category I most closely fit within. But I can't imagine that talking to someone well-qualified in the matter would satisfy my concerns any more than this process is: concerns about the system itself, and which aspects of it are applicable/accurate, or concerns about methodology, a need for me to see that the reasoning used to come to a particular conclusion is good reasoning...



> Because this is what Se does: it gathers information by doing something--let me do this and see what happens. Oh, that happened? Let me try this instead. What if I do this? It then sends it to either a Ti or Fi filter for interpretation. I'm just drawing on not only on the text of your answers, but also on your own behavior as part of the typing; it's not like we become different people when we talk meta.
> I believe @Ksilva is right in the previous thread--there's an unhealthy Ti-Ni cycle going on here. You're using Se to gather more information, but Ni says "I don't like it" and Ti explains it away. I don't think you have an open mind (Se) about this process because you’re bypassing that function.
> 
> IMO, you're not using Si very much. I don't see anything in this or your previous thread that would indicate you rely on Si. You're not focused on the past, you don't care about routine, traditions, or getting in touch with the physical world, you don't draw extensively on personal or collective experience in justifying yourself.
> ...


By no means did I intend to imply that my behaviour should be excluded from analysis; indeed, how a person answers is often more likely to yield useful information that the actual answer they give. My dispute was with the specific data you were using, or more specifically the extrapolations you were drawing from that data: trying to find truths, or seeking assistance as to what type I might be, seem to me so all-encompassing as to not really indicate any particular function preference (or at the very least not especially clearly to indicate them). 

Ni defined as "goal-oriented, truth-seeking perception"... that seems to me to call into question exactly how far a function of perception can go in terms of desiring particular ends. Surely a perception function, in isolation, doesn't seek truths or orient towards goals: surely that is the role of a judging function? Which is not to say that use of Ni mightn't influence judging functions to focus on finding universal truths, or on achieving particular ends... it's this sort of thing, I think, that fuels my skepticism; there is so little clarity around exactly where the boundaries lie between one function and the next, so many external traits that it seems can, with a little imagination, be tethered to almost any function desired. I'm by no means rejecting Ni, merely establishing that I'm still uncertain about it's presence.

I'm growing more and more intrigued by my relationship with Si. It feels like one of the few functions I can be sure of, yet no-one else seems able to see it, either in the answers I give or the behaviours I exhibit. This is almost the same wall I ran up against when I typed as ISTJ and tried to explain how I experienced Si: I don't seem to be capable of expressing it in anything but the vaguest terms. Perhaps in part I've mistaken a desire for order and structure arising from Ti for a desire for order and structure arising from Si; different notions, I guess, but again there is that element of overlap, of a lack of clarity as to what behaviours most closely match to which functions. But I do feel that I'm at least in part quite past-focused and driven to understand things through what I've personally experienced - although that seems open to the same criticism I gave earlier, that it's something so broadly applicable that it hardly seems function-specific.

Your main argument for my being in a Ti-Ni loop is that I'm dismissing information out of hand (using Ni) and using Ti more as a rationalisation of that dismissal rather than as a proper evaluation mechanism, yes? It's a difficult claim to falsify, but it seems to me that Ni would at least have some certainty in its convictions, wouldn't it? All I'm finding is uncertainty, which doesn't seem to match with what I know of Ni... or is the argument that it's working this way for me because Ni is a lower-order function? Hmm...



> I’m not mistaking anything here. I think you have Ti. That gives you the interest in and ability to design and promulgate new, innovative systems. You’re able to judge the necessary components and make it work. But the way you define working, the way you find your satisfaction, suggests Se—“Practical use,” “achieved something externally,” “actually being implemented.” These are Se’s standards. As an ISTP, remember that your Se would be filtered through Ti—so your evaluation of the world is a Thinker’s, not a Sensor’s.


This makes more sense to me than previous explanations have: needing the system to make sense in the wider context of the real world, "real world" having been established through Se (for what is directly observable) and Ni (for what is not). Certainly, one advantage of the IxTP types is that it explains why T>F seems so clear to me whilst S/N feels like it's a weaker preference either way (distinguishing the two not exactly helped by the suggestion that my tertiary function might be being favoured by me at the expense of my auxiliary). Like with Ti and Si before, perhaps I've been confusing Se for Te - again, there appears to be some overlap. Reticent though I am to delve into it, this definitely piques my interest in the Socionics claims that @To_august raised with regards to how the opposite orientation of a person's two main functions are equal in strength but unvalued: then the question becomes, which ones are the valued ones, and which the unvalued? Even as we (seemingly) progress, it seems we're only raising more questions...



> I have read your questionnaire from the previous thread.
> Question 2 is very Ti—“I strive to have things make sense, and be accurate.”
> 3 suggests Se and Fe—feeling at your best when you “felt more immediate than…in real life”.
> 4 is pure Ti overanalysis.
> ...


Thanks for the analysis: I'm never great with questionnaires so anything people can extract from the meandering responses I give is worth having a look over. After all of this, I don't think Ti is in question, and I can definitely see what you're angling at with that; likewise, if there's one function that's become more obvious the more I go on with this process, it's Fe. I think I'm going to need to keep looking on Se, everything so far seems either to do with ordinary human perception or something I'd linked a little more with Te than anything else (although I guess Se being used principally in support of Ti is especially prone to looking like Te...). Interestingly, you didn't observe a great deal by way of evidence for Ni in the questionnaire... on Q15, wouldn't "isn't functioning as it ought to" be just as much a chance to be evidence for Si as Ni? The only difference, I would think, would be how what it "ought to" be doing is determined, where an Si-user would lean more heavily on what they've experienced as its purpose whilst an Ni-user would be more inclined to think of its purpose in a less experiential and more abstract manner. Nonetheless, I do think that what I was getting at in that question is more of the Ni variety than the Si... have you looked at the summary @Reticence did of the same questionnaire (on page 9 of the old thread)? Just found it quite interesting that both of you took me to be ISTP but drew such vastly different conclusions from each of the questions...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------



randomshoes said:


> This is exactly where I was on Socionics six months ago. It sounds like Ti processing to me. Trying to decide what belongs and what doesn't in the system, and whether two systems can be reconciled. I agree that the basic dichotomies don't quite mesh, as a system, with the functions. I personally have just determined that the function system is more useful and interesting to me.


Sure, I can see that as Ti-related. I think my inability to settle upon exactly which system, and which aspects of that system, I want to use is probably down to the difficulties I've faced in being able to evaluate which offers greater accuracy when it comes to gaining an understanding of people in general. No doubt functions are probably more interesting, but that's not really my principal concern...



> I also see a lot of Ni here and absolutely no Ne. Take what I have bolded: Ne doms and auxiliaries do not need an impetus for complexities in abstraction. We're always complexifying; that's what Ne is for. Searching for some kind of certain truth is an Ni thing, as is thinking of things in terms of likelihoods or probabilities. Ne heavy people see way too many possibilities to hold onto an ideal of truth being something you can establish with any kind of permanency. Basically we don't weight probabilities much, even when we maybe should. Ni looks for the grand unifying theory that takes all its Se information into account.


That's an interesting take on it; certainly, if you're right on how each function is working, I'd concur with Ni>Ne. Likelihoods and probabilities are things I'd consider essential in my analysis of how things work; ultimately, my reasoning is, personality is a system for categorising, so layers of theory without much to substantiate them seems to make the matter needlessly more complex that it perhaps needs to be. It's not that complexity is a problem for me, but rather complexity that I can't see a reason for... food for thought, at any rate.



> I find both those descriptions of the sensing functions too simplistic. We're talking cognition here and yet descriptions of sensing functions seem to so easily drift into associations with things like hedonism or traditionalism, which IMO belong more in the Enneagram system.


Sure; I've lambasted enough people in my time on here for the stereotypes they perpetuate, and I don't want to be a part of that. But my point was that, if I'm an SJ, I could see _why_ descriptions might form the stereotypes they do about people like me (even though they're well wide of the mark); if I'm an SP, then the stereotypes are so far apart from my identity that they might as well have looked at me and written the description in antonyms. Not only do I not fit the stereotype (which is obviously pretty meaningless and like you say, too simplistic), but I can't even fathom it in relation to myself (in the way that I could when typing as ISTJ).



> It's a way to help it line up with function theory, because ISTPs do exhibit "judging" behaviors. Frankly, however, I've always found the J/P divide extremely shallow compared to the others. My ISTJ girlfriend had a lot of trouble finding her type because all of the descriptions harp on them being traditional and structured and all that stuff, when Si in practice is much softer than that.


Potentially, but I'm still not convinced by it, and I still have issues lining up the dichotomies with function theory outside of that (type dynamics either insinuates that, say, no ESFJ is more of a sensor than they are a feeler, or it is so malleable that function order becomes largely meaningless, too fluid to think of in terms of discrete types). I'm still not sure I can see myself, on a dichotomies analysis alone, as a perceiver: it's not implausible, and there are definitely ways in which I exhibit P traits, but on the whole I fit the judger mould more. 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

So I'm a little more able to see ISTP now, having looked over it and mulled it over a bit, but I'm still far from sure. I feel as though my understanding of Se must be a touch deficient, perhaps Ni as well. Any advice?


----------



## randomshoes (Dec 11, 2013)

StunnedFox said:


> No doubt functions are probably more interesting, but that's not really my principal concern...


I gotta say I think this pretty much rules out INTP. I seriously can't imagine an xNTP saying they don't care what's more interesting. Basically I don't think you use Ne.


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

randomshoes said:


> I gotta say I think this pretty much rules out INTP. I seriously can't imagine an xNTP saying they don't care what's more interesting. Basically I don't think you use Ne.


Potentially correct, but it's not that I "don't care" which is the more interesting system, simply that I don't find that a relevant evaluation characteristic as to which variant of a theory is the better one: surely the relevant criteria are those to do with which variant comes closest to attaining truth? I think you have a point here, though; certainly, it's evidence against my being an Ne-user, I'm just not sure it's quite as definitively so.

Moving back to Ti/Te: to what extent do people on this thread think that it corresponds to "rationalism (Ti) vs. empricism (Te)"? I raise it having just read this post, which if correct seems a little out from what we've been discussing in this thread. I would definitely say the noumenon is the most important thing - observable and quantifiable data arising from something are highly relevant in ascertaining information _about_ the thing, but that doesn't take the focus away from the thing itself - so that fits with Ti under this metric. But that which has been tested, that which is falsifiable, has inherently a more solid base: it is not that the untestable is to be rejected or dismissed, but that it is called into perennial question, unable to be confirmed or denied... I'm unconvinced by the distinction drawn at the end of the post, that Ti-users are drawn to logical validity rather than logical soundness; it seems obvious to me, and I would like to think most others as well, that anything established via syllogism is contingent upon the truth of the premises, and that a premise we cannot support via some method (with testability being an obvious means for establishing support for a premise, but by no means the only one) calls into question the entire syllogism. Thoughts on this? And how might the perceiving functions play into this? This seems, in a way, key to understanding how whatever type it's suggested I am fits me: for all the arguments in favour of Ti in this thread, and for all that I can concur with them, I still don't feel anywhere near as sure as I'd like to...


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

StunnedFox said:


> Post #1000, best make it a good one...
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> @_To_august_ - the idea of possessing both thinking functions to a largely equal level but with one "valued" and one "unvalued" intrigued me, so I caved in and looked through some Socionics material, specifically in relation to blocks and how functions in each position are said to act. I'm still highly skeptical of it as a system - so many intricacies, however structured they might be, seem almost doomed to failure when applied to the realities of human variance - but the suggestion is an intriguing one.
> 
> ...


General type descriptions are hard to relate for me too, I wouldn't put much weight on them. The same with functions, which are understood differently between systems, but so far they all seem to stem from common source - Jung, and the latter I prefer for definitions of functions. What is interesting in Socionics, at least for me personally, is their Model.

SLI has Se ignoring, which means that the function is ignored for the sake of the leading one. It's true to any other type. Leading function "The Boss" pushes its counterpart to the Id as something unnecessary and redundant and this aspect becomes ignored. For instance, Ti-dom is primarily concerned with logical connections and how meaningful and internally logical their system is and tend to overlook or don't pay attention to objective facts (Te) that don't match or contrast with their system.

Until everything runs smoothly 7th function is ignored, sits silently in the Id with no observable traces of its existence and is believed to be activated in situations of informational conflict as a mechanism of defense. Again Ti-dom (LSI) as an example, when their Ne (vulnerable/PoLR) tells that their orderly system doesn't provide them with any new possibilities and their beautiful theory only makes everything worse, Te turns on and allows factual objectivation. As long as everything is OK no type cares about their ignoring function.

In theory SLI is more proficient in Ti, but the thing is - both function of the Id Block are unconscious, and thus cannot be controlled or become consciously useful in some productive way, they both respond automatically within framework of their aspects. 8th function plays a major part in person's worldview and constitutes background for the whole life of a person. It is turned on nearly always and works on a level of unconscious automatisms. Person naturally and automatically, without making any reasoning or explanations, produces something within its framework. Creative function, on the other hand, consciously complement the leading one and creates new informational products, changes and manipulates the world. Metaphorically 1st function is a person himself/herself and 2nd is their hands, eyes, ears; leading function is a master and creative one is their tools.


----------



## randomshoes (Dec 11, 2013)

StunnedFox said:


> Potentially correct, but it's not that I "don't care" which is the more interesting system, simply that I don't find that a relevant evaluation characteristic as to which variant of a theory is the better one: *surely the relevant criteria are those to do with which variant comes closest to attaining truth?* I think you have a point here, though; certainly, it's evidence against my being an Ne-user, I'm just not sure it's quite as definitively so.


You're still making my point. The relevant criteria for me IS that it's interesting. However, you have convinced me with this that a) you use far too much Ni to be an ISTP and b) that you use Te. I'm changing my vote to INTJ.



> I'm unconvinced by the distinction drawn at the end of the post, that Ti-users are drawn to logical validity rather than logical soundness; it seems obvious to me, and I would like to think most others as well, that anything established via syllogism is contingent upon the truth of the premises, and that a premise we cannot support via some method (with testability being an obvious means for establishing support for a premise, but by no means the only one) calls into question the entire syllogism.


No, I'd say that's an accurate description of Ti. We're more focused on flaws in logic than flaws in information. I really think you're using Te.

*Edit* Te is essentially the scientific method. Take an hypothesis and test it in a verifiable manner. Ti users are at base more philosophical or inventive: what if? It's important to remember that Ti is subjective, and not just in the way that every person is subjective.


----------

