# Nice in depth questionnaire - do I fit any of the MBTI stuff though :o



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Please ignore the typing in my profile. Thanks for input 


*Short Effective Scenario Questionnaire 2.0*

*SCENARIO 1*_

FOCUS ON YOUR FEELING PROCESS HERE

Your significant other just ended your 2 year relationship quite suddenly and with no apparent explanation. Up until this point you had both been talking about marriage and last week you even went to look at rings together. Now he/she won't even return your phone calls or texts. After talking with his/her family you find out that he/she has just been diagnosed with terminal stage 4 cancer.

- Describe how this scenario would make you feel as well as what sort of influences and motivations lie behind those feelings. Why do you feel the way you do?

- In this scenario what would you honestly say the primary focus of your feelings would be?_

OK well, my first immediate reaction after him disappearing will be finding him to talk to him. Obviously even before I get to know about the issue from the family. This is because I want open communication on issues instead of just disappearing like that. Before knowing what the reason is I'd be feeling angry. 

OK, let's assume I somehow get to know this from the family first. Then I will have double the motivation to seek him out. The one I mentioned above and the other one is that I want to be there. It is hard to imagine what I'd actually feel beyond that I would be definitely very shocked. Immediate and complete disaster for both of us, is all I imagine I could think of. 

I just know that I'd be more focused on getting together first before I'd think of anything else. After perhaps a short while of spending time alone, I would definitely get this done. Also I would no longer feel angry about him disappearing like that. But, I think, I would fucking feel angry about the disaster itself whenever I'm not being in complete shock. I can imagine myself alternating between the shock and the anger though I'm not sure if the anger would only come later. 

Also thinking of how this can be solved, if there is really no way to get him to get better. I'd also think of how I could ensure we can spend all our time together while we can. This sort of thing.

So overall I'd be focused on shock, anger and on action related states. If this makes sense.

Note, I don't know what I'd be feeling after I finally manage to meet him, what I'm describing is what I'd feel before that. And I don't know what is meant by primary focus of my feelings, other than him being obviously a big focus?


*SCENARIO 2*_ 

FOCUS ON YOUR FEELING PROCESS HERE

You are in college and this semester both you and your roommate end up in the same class together. You and your roommate get along fairly well and the living situation works but you aren't particularly close. You both typically do your own thing and are rather indifferent to each other. As the semester progresses you excel and become one of the top students in the class whereas your roommate is struggling significantly to grasp the material. The professor assigns a fairly challenging take home test that is a significant portion of your grade. He/she makes it clear that while it is open book, students are to work alone. Later your roommate comes to you begging for help after struggling with the test most of the weekend. You have already completed the assignment and he/she isn't asking to copy your answers, just to help tutor and mentor them as they struggle to complete the test, so there is no way your professor would ever know. However, this is the first time your room-mate has asked you for help this semester. He/she makes it clear that how they do on this test could mean the difference between passing and failing this class.

- How do you respond to your roommate’s request and why?

- What sort of things in this scenario stand out to you as far as having a strong influence on your decision making and why?

- Describe the flow of your decision making process._

Well what I do depends on the following factors. If I find the subject really interesting, I would be glad to explain it in detail to anyone who asks about it, in which case I would do so with this roommate too. If not that interesting, then well, it depends on how much time this is going to take. If she asks nicely and it takes like just half an hour then sure why not, I can spend that much time on it. I'd only spend hours on it while it's not a very interesting topic if I'm really bored, if I have nothing else to do, if I'm in the mood somehow, whatever. The fact the roommate could fail the entire course would also factor in in terms of me willing to spend a bit longer on it than I would by default but the other factors as above still matter overall. 

Yet another thing that will count is whatever I find out after I do start working with the roommate on it. E.g. they seem completely hopeless at grasping the ideas or they are too lazy to even pay attention properly or they try to convince me to contribute to making the answers themselves too, in these cases I will stop helping them. 

Note: as for the rule of the students having to work alone, that to me doesn't mean the student can't ask for help in understanding the subject material. As long as I'm not telling them the answers themselves, I see no problem here. I'd just slightly prefer it if the roommate had asked me before seeing the actual questions in the test.

And, I don't understand why I needed to focus on my feeling process here. I'd hardly have any feelings here other than maybe feeling enthusiastic if it's an interesting subject. Also feeling somewhat uncomfortable for a second or so if I'm asked for such a favour knowing I'm going to have to refuse the request if I don't want to do it for the above mentioned reasons. Oh also, if they tried to insist even after me explaining I cannot do it for them, I'd get irritated or outright angry. That's because, them just being a random roommate, they don't really have the right to demand such a big favour.


_*SCENARIO 3*

FOCUS ON YOUR LOGIC AND THINKING PROCESS HERE

Your boss calls you into his/her office in order to assign you to a new project. He/she gives you a choice between two.

Project 1 is a rather broad, expansive project covering multiple areas of company operations. It has the potential to have a very significant impact on company operations but it would require a collective effort and an extensive amount of group work where you would be logically thinking through the project together with the group of individuals your boss has also assigned to it.

Project 2 has a much more specific and narrow focus and would require a significant amount of in depth individual analysis to work through the problem. You would be working alone and the completion of the project may or may not have much impact on company operations. However, after complete the process and problem you were working on will be streamlined and fundamentally understood.

- Which project appeals to you the most, as it relates to the way you prefer to logically process information? Why?

- What sort of things in this scenario, across either project, stood out to you as having a strong influence on your decision? Why?_

Hard to say which one I'd pick. 

If I could lead that group, ensuring people are organized to do what they need to do for the project, and am allowed to make the decisions myself based on analysis, of course including the input of the others if relevant, then I could consider the first project because I like the idea of making such an impact. If I'm just one of the many contributing to the project then I still want to follow everything by logically analyzing and still want to have some influence while interacting with the others, or I'd feel quite bored and the whole project option would have no advantages for me whatsoever. 

I also like how the second project needs deep analysis so this would have quite the appeal too. Working alone is ok too, it has its advantages but disadvantages as well, like feeling too unsociable. 

I've done both types of projects and it's really really hard to say which I prefer overall if it's set up the way I want it. 


_*SCENARIO 4*

FOCUS ON YOUR LOGIC AND THINKING PROCESS HERE

Your college professor has assigned you to a group project with 3 other individuals. All 3 of these individuals have a good strong work ethic and desire to contribute to the overall success of this project. You are at the first meeting of your group and the other members are tossing around valuable ideas as to the nature and direction of this project.

- Describe your behavior in this situation as you process and think about the ideas they are presenting.

- Describe what major influences drive this behavior._

Oh no no, I'm wasting time here. Why do I have to sit here for this brainstorming crap. Allow me to lead the whole thing or let me work alone. Yeah. But ok, if I'm forced to be here, I'll just sit and follow everything and analyze everything that I don't discard right away as bullshit upon hearing it. Again, I'd really prefer not having to process through all that bullshit. Anyway if I can see the purpose of the project then I'll just want to think along that purpose and I'll speak up if I have something in mind that I really find good. Or if someone else says something good, I'll make sure it gets considered properly. 


_*SCENARIO 5*

FOCUS ON THE SOURCES YOU DRAW NON-PHYSICAL ENERGY FROM HERE

It has been a very long week and you feel mentally and emotionally drained, but good news! It is Saturday and you have nothing significant that needs to be done. You FINALLY have some free time to yourself to recharge your batteries and do whatever you want.

- Describe what sort of activities would help you to recharge. What would you enjoy doing after a long week and why?

- What sort of things do you feel you draw non-physical energy from doing?_

What is non-physical energy?

I guess for outright relaxing purposes reading easy fiction works?

Otherwise I enjoy chatting to people online or meeting friends IRL to have fun.

Taking the idea of recharging literally: getting a bit of extra sleep.


_*SCENARIO 6*

FOCUS ON THINKING VS FEELING HERE

You have a meeting with your college career counselor to discuss potential careers that interest you. He/she offers you a list of the following careers and asks you to pick your TOP 3. He/she asks you to take money out of the equation. Imagine all of these careers received equal compensation. Focus instead on where you would truly feel most happy and fulfilled.

Artist, Scientist, Actor, Engineer, Musician, Lawyer, Counselor, Entrepreneur, Teacher, Manager, Psychologist, Computer Programmer / Analyst, Clergy, Child Care, Medical Doctor

- What were your top 3 choices and what aspects of these careers appeal to you?

- Was it difficult or easy to pick only 3 and why?

- Prioritize the aspects of your career choices that influenced your decision, what things mattered most to you, where do you imagine finding the most fulfillment and why?_

No idea at first sight, these choices sound way too general.. Like, exactly what sort of psychologist, what sort of MD, and so on? I had a hard time with this back then at the end of high school for the same reason. But ok, now that I have more experience about some things than I did back then, I can venture an answer. But I will have to go into details. 

Scientist: research exercise physiology and contribute to how to do training better for elite athletes and for competitive amateurs.
Mix of engineer and entrepreneur and computer programmer/analyst: having some engineering and programming experience owning a company that engineers and makes some really cool smartphones or other embedded hardware.
Mix of psychologist and MD and well, scientist again: figure out more on the brain's workings and put that to use somehow.

If I can't do the mix thingie, I'll just go with: scientist (this includes psychologist too), entrepreneur, engineer, while in practice still doing the same things as detailed above.

So why these 3 choices, also, explaining my highest priorities: these deal with analyzing hardware, getting an understanding I can use to manipulate things, and creating something that's a great contribution for people's good. Also for the 2nd choice, making money, heh. 

How easy it was to pick. It was easy to weed out the ones that are clearly not for me, the rest was okay too, because of having got enough experience in life to know what sort of things interest me. 


_*SCENARIO 7*

Click on the image below and pay close attention to the things that jump out to you, objects, thoughts, feelings, impressions, ideas etc. What do you see?

pic

- Describe the main things that stand out to you in this picture.

- Why do you think/feel you focused on those things?

- Describe the strength with which this photo did or did not appeal to you and why?_

Waow. Real cool pic, there are a lot of things in it, complex enough objects, impressive enough too, those rock walls. They most definitely stand out the most in the entire space, the complex shapes in them again, the coloured stripes all over, the material they were "made" out from, and then the water around so then my attention is quickly directed on how you get between the walls, swimming in the water or walking around on the shore at the base of the walls, wandering finding your way around. Also of course, climbing those walls... hmm looking at the ways and parts where I'd be able to do so, trying to see how doable it is, definitely not trivial all the way up/around, would be such a fun challenge too. 

Yeah that's all very appealing. No parts in this pic that are not appealing though I had less focus on the trees but I can still imagine walking around those trees/shrubs too as I am looking at the way they are placed at the base of one of the walls. Also just now I thought of what's higher up, are those walls much higher and what's up there, I'd be checking that out too. The things in foreground, I also didn't have as much focus on that, but looking at them now more, I can imagine myself going around there too, seeing how they connect to the walls beyond.. this is unclear from the pic, so again, if they don't connect, I'd have to swim across. Well ok I'm done trying to describe my thoughts. 

As to why I got so focused on this pic. The impressive complexity and size of the main objects and ways around/about them in a nice big space where you can move and explore, that's why. That's always stimulating to my brain. I also liked the colours and patterns


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

@Jinsei @Fenix Wulfheart @Jakuri

And anyone else who's willing to have a look  & Thanks! :ninja:


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

Will take a look after school


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

Will take a look tomorrow after school. Today was busy.


----------



## Jakuri (Sep 7, 2015)

Wow, I got tagged. Didn't see this coming 
It's a little crazier this time around due to Convocation next Friday but I anticipate having some time on this upcoming weekends.
Fingers crossed that's the case!


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

Starting now. Analysis generally takes me a half an hour to an hour or so.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

@myst91
I'm gonna go ahead and type based on the Grant model, as that is what this questionnaire was written for. I've learned some more things that make this particular questionnaire suspect in my eyes, but I believe I can keep bias out of my interpretations here.

*SCENARIO 1*_
You show the Fe Traits: May describe feeling overwhelmed, numb, or confused about their own emotions (almost overwhelmed, some confusion). Any decisions they make will be strongly influenced by what they perceive their SO is feeling as well as the outcome for themselves and their SO
You show the Fi Traits: May very clearly describe exactly what and how they would be feeling in response to their SO’s actions (Partially). Their own feelings will be clear and independent from whatever their SO might be feeling. Any decisions they make will be strongly influenced by what they feel is the right thing to do independent of the outcome on their SO.

I am seeing Fi influence here, although it could be Fe. The focus of your feeling is on what you would feel from what I can see, but it is also on what you would feel in relation to others. The mild confusion about what you would feel beyond the basic emotions tells me that you are either using Fe OR you have Fi with T stronger than F. Note that both Fe and Fi can care about the self and consider the self; strong Fi is unlikely to be confused about what they would feel in a situation like this, while strong Fe could be self confused or not depending on the person.

*SCENARIO 2* 
You show the Fe Traits: None, but prone to judge others for not fitting your own standard.
You show the Fi Traits: Will express value judgments about the situation ie: what they perceive is right or wrong. Determining what is right or wrong will be heavily influenced by personal values (not heavily).

I am seeing what appears to be Tertiary or Inferior F here, and I lean more towards it being Fi. I am thinking you are a T over F type most likely, and I haven't even seen your thinking answers yet! 
It could be Tertiary Fi or Inferior Fe I think are the most likely. Swapped if you are extroverted, which isn't clear yet.

*SCENARIO 3*
You show the Te Traits: Strong Te may express enjoyment in logically working through problems with outside influence / stimuli. Strong Te may express a desire for relevancy, real world application, effect on the company. 
You show the Ti Traits: Strong Ti may express enjoyment in logically digging in to a singular problem preferring to be left alone to “think”. Tert / Inf Ti being influenced by Ne may choose to work in a group because collective brainstorming appeals to them. The narrow focus of the individual project may bore them (maybe?). Tert / Inf Ti being influenced by Fe may choose to work in a group because the socialization aspect and group decision making sounds fun (sort of; I think the inverse is true).

I am seeing a lot of focus on overarching, broad reaching goal setting and impact-focus. You want to make a difference, and do it as part of a team that is indispensable. You want to be important. You don't have to be the leader, but you do need to be making a difference. That is Te (desire for effectiveness) ruling Fi (personal values and/or emotions). You don't seem introverted either, so I tentatively put forth Te > Se> Ni> Fi...OR...Te > Ne > Si > Fi (The ESTJ or the ENTJ)

*SCENARIO 4*
You show the Te Traits: Strong Te may try to step up and take leadership to try and logically put together the ideas being discussed. Strong Te may have a much more broad encompassing focus. Idea generation may be suppressed and more internal and narrowly focused (Ni)
You show the Ti Traits: Strong Ti may choose to sit back and absorb the ideas, piecing them together internally. They may or may not choose to speak out eventually describing what they have brought together. Strong Ti may have a much more narrow focus, internally picking and trying to unify the best of what was presented. Ni influence will increase the likelihood of silent observation as well as the internal unification process. Strong Ni influence will be much more driven to internally putting together the best possible course of action ie: deciding logically what they consider is the best direction for the group.

I am seeing a lot of Ti influence in both areas, but your reasons for it appear to be for Te aims. That means you are using Te but choosing not to be a dick about it and overwhelm people and show them why they are being wrong/stupid/inefficient or what have you. You definitely want the best idea.
I see strong S influence here, and a weak Ne. You'd rather have one good idea than a host of valid ideas, so your intuition takes the form of introversion and is likely Tertiary or Inferior. I put forth the ESTJ as likely.

*SCENARIO 5*
To relax, you focus on low energy activities that lead to sleep. To have fun, you go out and do things with friends or chat with people. You seem to ride the extroversion/introversion border, but I lean towards extrovert.

*SCENARIO 6*
Primary T: May express more desire for doing things that pertain to analysis and logical thought
I see a fair bit of focus on what experience has taught you, and how that matters for your decision. This is an indicator of S, possibly Se but more likely Si. I see a focus on impacting others by first understanding them, which reinforces Te. As an extrovert on the Te-Fi axis with Tert/aux S and N, that leaves two choices. The ESTJ (Te>Si>Ne>Fi) and the ENTJ (Te>Ni>Se>Fi). I lean towards the ESTJ for you.

*SCENARIO 7*
•	T influence: Will take a more analytical approach to interpreting the image
•	Si influence: May focus on and notice details, color contrast, textures, may also describe physical sensations they would feel if there
•	Ni influence: May seek a singular and fundamental meaning behind the image, may also have a desire to explore and see more than what is there and/or imagine what could be

Your answer here seems to confirm my analysis some more.

Ending thoughts: I am fairly sure you are the ESTJ. This means that you can use intuition and brainstorming with Ne, but you'd rather not. It also means you have strong emphasis on what works, and you give weight to things that you know has worked in the past. Memory is important to you, and you are not afraid to be wrong if you learn something out of the deal.

Here is a decent ESTJ description. Try to ignore the stereotypes (Such as they are traditionalists/uphold the law), although this one is light on them compared to most: https://www.personalitypage.com/ESTJ.html

Does that sound about accurate?_


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> @myst91
> I'm gonna go ahead and type based on the Grant model, as that is what this questionnaire was written for. I've learned some more things that make this particular questionnaire suspect in my eyes


What things?

I really do appreciate your efforts here, it gets me thinking for sure on some things. I'm however still unclear on some of it.

Below I'll ask a few questions to make sense of your analysis more. Hope that's ok 

I also got into a detailed breakdown of the description of the suggested type, just in case you find that relevant in terms of typing.




> *SCENARIO 1*
> You show the Fe Traits: May describe feeling overwhelmed, numb, or confused about their own emotions (almost overwhelmed, some confusion). Any decisions they make will be strongly influenced by what they perceive their SO is feeling as well as the outcome for themselves and their SO
> You show the Fi Traits: May very clearly describe exactly what and how they would be feeling in response to their SO’s actions (Partially). Their own feelings will be clear and independent from whatever their SO might be feeling. Any decisions they make will be strongly influenced by what they feel is the right thing to do independent of the outcome on their SO.


Where do you see me wanting to do the "right thing"?




> I am seeing Fi influence here, although it could be Fe. The focus of your feeling is on what you would feel from what I can see


Yeah because I'm alone and my SO isn't there so I don't see what they are feeling.




> Fe could be self confused or not depending on the person.


Confused in what way?




> *SCENARIO 2*
> You show the Fi Traits: Will express value judgments about the situation ie: what they perceive is right or wrong. Determining what is right or wrong will be heavily influenced by personal values (not heavily).


Where did I do judging like that?




> *SCENARIO 3*
> You show the Te Traits: Strong Te may express enjoyment in logically working through problems with outside influence / stimuli. Strong Te may express a desire for relevancy, real world application, effect on the company.


Is that strictly Te specific?




> You show the Ti Traits: Strong Ti may express enjoyment in logically digging in to a singular problem preferring to be left alone to “think”. Tert / Inf Ti being influenced by Ne may choose to work in a group because collective brainstorming appeals to them. The narrow focus of the individual project may bore them (maybe?).


The narrow focus doesn't bore me. That is actually my default for working so quite natural to me. I just may vaguely feel too unsociable if always working alone immersed in deep analysis. 




> Tert / Inf Ti being influenced by Fe may choose to work in a group because the socialization aspect and group decision making sounds fun (sort of; I think the inverse is true).


Well I don't relate to that




> I am seeing a lot of focus on overarching, broad reaching goal setting and impact-focus. You want to make a difference, and do it as part of a team that is indispensable. You want to be important. You don't have to be the leader, but you do need to be making a difference. That is Te (desire for effectiveness) ruling Fi (personal values and/or emotions). You don't seem introverted either, so I tentatively put forth Te > Se> Ni> Fi...OR...Te > Ne > Si > Fi (The ESTJ or the ENTJ)


How did we jump from focus on impacting the world to desire for effectiveness and a focus on personal values? Please explain. As I am not at all following here.

Why not introverted?




> *SCENARIO 4*
> You show the Te Traits: Strong Te may try to step up and take leadership to try and logically put together the ideas being discussed. Strong Te may have a much more broad encompassing focus. Idea generation may be suppressed and more internal and narrowly focused (Ni)


Where did my focus seem broad and encompassing?

Yes, I'd want to analyse all the - not bullshit - ideas and think up a solution along the purpose of the project. I'm not one to generate many ideas especially without analysis. Understatement there when I say I'm not one to... I very very much do not do this.




> You show the Ti Traits: Strong Ti may choose to sit back and absorb the ideas, piecing them together internally. They may or may not choose to speak out eventually describing what they have brought together. Strong Ti may have a much more narrow focus, internally picking and trying to unify the best of what was presented.


How does this differ from what you said about Te putting together ideas logically? Please explain. I relate to both but I don't see the difference between that and between logically piecing ideas internally together as described for Ti here so that's why.




> Ni influence will increase the likelihood of silent observation as well as the internal unification process. Strong Ni influence will be much more driven to internally putting together the best possible course of action ie: deciding logically what they consider is the best direction for the group.


Hm yeah, I like this, I relate to this quite well.




> I am seeing a lot of Ti influence in both areas, but your reasons for it appear to be for Te aims. That means you are using Te but choosing not to be a dick about it and overwhelm people and show them why they are being wrong/stupid/inefficient or what have you. You definitely want the best idea.


How did you see it was Ti for Te aims? I'd like to hear more on this.

It's not that I don't want to be a dick, it's more like, I just don't see the point in calling people stupid, I often don't even think they are stupid, but if I do think that then I think it would be really rude to say it to the person and it would not be doing any good to the person so why say it? I'd have to be really pissed off first and lose my head first to say something personal in an argument and I'd be upset about it afterwards.




> I see strong S influence here, and a weak Ne. You'd rather have one good idea than a host of valid ideas, so your intuition takes the form of introversion and is likely Tertiary or Inferior. I put forth the ESTJ as likely.


What was the strong S? If Ni is tertiary or inferior, that's not ESTJ is it?




> *SCENARIO 5*
> To relax, you focus on low energy activities that lead to sleep. To have fun, you go out and do things with friends or chat with people. You seem to ride the extroversion/introversion border, but I lean towards extrovert.


Well the chatting online is also a relatively low energy activity, there is much less stimuli than if going out and meeting people IRL. If I do go out that happens if one of the few people I know wants to go.




> *SCENARIO 6*
> Primary T: May express more desire for doing things that pertain to analysis and logical thought
> I see a fair bit of focus on what experience has taught you, and how that matters for your decision. This is an indicator of S, possibly Se but more likely Si. I see a focus on impacting others by first understanding them, which reinforces Te. As an extrovert on the Te-Fi axis with Tert/aux S and N, that leaves two choices. The ESTJ (Te>Si>Ne>Fi) and the ENTJ (Te>Ni>Se>Fi). I lean towards the ESTJ for you.


Why Si over Se?

As for impacting others: this is quite vague the way you put it, how is this specifically Te? I'm not saying it cannot be but I'd like to see your train of thought.




> *SCENARIO 7*
> •	T influence: Will take a more analytical approach to interpreting the image
> •	Si influence: May focus on and notice details, color contrast, textures, may also describe physical sensations they would feel if there
> •	Ni influence: May seek a singular and fundamental meaning behind the image, may also have a desire to explore and see more than what is there and/or imagine what could be
> ...


How did it seem Si over Se or did you just see S > N?




> Ending thoughts: I am fairly sure you are the ESTJ. This means that you can use intuition and brainstorming with Ne, but you'd rather not. It also means you have strong emphasis on what works, and you give weight to things that you know has worked in the past. Memory is important to you, and you are not afraid to be wrong if you learn something out of the deal.


Again, I'd rather not *ever* try to brainstorm with Ne. Just no. What do you mean by memory being important? What sort of memory?




> Here is a decent ESTJ description. Try to ignore the stereotypes (Such as they are traditionalists/uphold the law), although this one is light on them compared to most: https://www.personalitypage.com/ESTJ.html
> 
> Does that sound about accurate?


Lol these stereotypes don't fit me for sure. OK I'm done reading it, and I have to say, this description was pretty irritating with all the submissive "by the book" bullcrap. I have never had any interest in that sort of thing. So no, not accurate in that sense. I related to some other parts but overall, uhh..

OK I wrote up a long version of what I thought about it if that's more revealing, do read at least the part on what I strongly didn't relate to, so you can see why I don't find the description accurate enough. I did also explain why I related to some parts if you want to see that.


*What I did relate to:*

I don't often do the leadership thingie because I often work alone but if I do interact with others then yes I'm decisive and like to influence where things are going. Yep, good at systematic thinking and at figuring out the necessary steps for something. The adjectives confident and aggressive and straightforward and realistic and practical do apply to me. Yes I can get rigid pursuing what I want. The part about accidentally hurting other people's feelings and stuff like that, yeah, that all works too.


*What I related to somewhat but with significant differences:*

I don't really care if someone thinks different from me about things unless they are clearly wrong about their reasoning or if it affects me in some way. Competency is ok, sure, but I don't really need to see quick results for my efforts if it's a long term project.

I can easily be detail oriented but the goal takes precedence really if it's time sensitive or if I just see no reason to get into the details. For deep analysis of something however yes, I will do exactly this, quite detail oriented analysis but that's done with the primary focus being on the logical meaning I'll derive from the analysis. It also has a rather abstract part, that meaning I create from the analysis. 

Yes, I do put in a lot of effort in things I do. A lot of my focus, a lot of motivation, that sort of thing. And yes if I committed to something then I'll try to do that. Because I committed because there was a point to it or I would not have done so. But there is too many "should's" in this description for my liking. I already said I don't do things "by the book". I'm not a blind follower.

The advice on adding focus on other people's input and opinions is interesting as I do focus only on mine by default. I have a strong reluctance to spending too much time on considering all those other opinions and perspectives. That just eh, seems pointless, would hurt my head, why do all this for no reason. 

As for the stress part. No, I'm not very verbal by default, noo, I'm rather non verbal, I hardly speak on my own and I express myself much better in writing. Under stress I actually may want to talk more sometimes but not necessarily as I may completely withdraw too, even more than my default detached mode. Emotionally yes, it can be a problem being misunderstood in that sense. Yes it is hard to put into words the feelings I have. No problem with the issue of my efforts being taken for granted however because I'm more self centered than that, if I do help others, I know I don't expect anything in return because I already enjoyed giving my expertise, that's enough for me, and I only help to the degree that it doesn't disadvantage me so nah I won't be taken advantage of like that.



*What I strongly did not relate to:*

I'm not a model citizen, I'm not interested in that sort of bs, I couldn't care less about being the pillar of whatever bs community that is just a bs concept and not about real *felt* unity of people. Yeah I'm quite cynical about such things.

Interacting with people, oh, if they walk up to me and start to engage me, I do enjoy that for a short while. Longer while if the person is interesting enough. I'm not boisterous and fun out of my own initiative, I default to being reserved actually, though I have nothing against this sort of thing at all. The idea of going to a social event that's work related does not interest me though. And again I'd have to ask, "what community?!". Refer to above cynical view on such things.

Nah I don't give a fuck about security or social order, I'm not that social. If I cared to put effort towards such a thing as social order, it would be because I would get some advantage out of it. I find it hard to make myself to genuinely care about people as a unity via feelings so this social order concept is rather foreign to me but if somehow I could care in that way then I could see myself giving more of a fuck.

Oh though lol I'm not even sure I got the idea of what is meant by "social order", if it means all this crap: _"mow the lawn, vote, join the PTA, attend home owners association meetings, and generally do anything that they can to promote personal and social security"_, I couldn't care less no no no. This is boring as fuck and does not appeal to any sort of higher goal that I could be motivated about. This here just seems pointlessly running around and expending energy on mundane crap for no real reason.

Deciding on doing certain commitments is ok. But again, I couldn't care less about "good citizenship" let alone following such an idea to the letter. As I said, I don't do things "by the book" and whenever someone expresses that they do exactly that, I internally have a rather cynical and derisive judgment about that too. Because, I see absolutely no point to following someone else's laws or rules if they don't make sense to me, unless it affects me in some way if I break them.


----------



## Jakuri (Sep 7, 2015)

myst91 said:


> Please ignore the typing in my profile. Thanks for input
> 
> 
> *Short Effective Scenario Questionnaire 2.0*
> ...


Let's see, I am positing Fi>Fe here. Even though the F sign here is faint, I see primarily that things are written in terms of how you would feel. External values do seem to be 'pre-empted' by how you feel (internal, subjective moral compass). But the sign of feeling is faint, but rather the focus is on how you would act. So I am positing T>F with weak tert or inf Fi.



> *SCENARIO 2*_
> 
> FOCUS ON YOUR FEELING PROCESS HERE
> 
> ...


The objective was to see whether you put more weight on external moral values (social contract, relationship with your roommate, how your roommate would feel, etc) or on your internal moral compass. Confusion on why one needs to focus on feeling seems to imply T>F to me. But I see some sign of Fe (factoring into the possibility of roommate's failure...underneath I feel you are sympathizing (or empathizing?) with the hardship the roommate is going through), if weak.



> _*SCENARIO 3*
> 
> FOCUS ON YOUR LOGIC AND THINKING PROCESS HERE
> 
> ...


Ok, so you are strongly emphasizing logic here. I see a bit about needing deep analysis (this can be Ti or Pi+Te), but I see more emphasis on the desire to lead and organize people or resources for successful project completion, and also the desire for the broader impact. To me that's a strong Te. So here, I am leaning toward Te over Ti.



> _*SCENARIO 4*
> 
> FOCUS ON YOUR LOGIC AND THINKING PROCESS HERE
> 
> ...


Hmm, I see a sign of rejecting extraverted intuition(Ne). Strong Te with weak Fi can be Te > ?? > ?? > Fi, i.e., ExTJ. Can be Te > Ni > Se > Fi, since Ni isn't exactly a brainstorming process. Ni focuses on unifying ideas to come up with a bigger theme encompassing all of them. I don't see much emphasis on this "unification" I am talking about though. It's also possible to be an ESTJ, which would be Te > Si > Ne > Fi. Again, I see strong Te in the desire to lead. Take the lead, delegate, etc. You seem very confident about how this should be done, and you want to exert influence. I see Te written all over in Scenarios 3 and 4.

So yes, due to strong Te and faint sign of Fi indicating inferior Fi, ExTJ. I am still reserving my judgement on whether it's Si/Ne or Ni/Se combo. Perhaps I can get better ideas on Scenario 6 and/or 7.



> _*SCENARIO 5*
> 
> FOCUS ON THE SOURCES YOU DRAW NON-PHYSICAL ENERGY FROM HERE
> 
> ...


Hmm, a little bit of extravert and a little bit of introvert. Leaning toward extraverted I would say -- so far I have seen strong Te influence, and weak Fi, leaning toward inferior.



> _*SCENARIO 6*
> 
> FOCUS ON THINKING VS FEELING HERE
> 
> ...


Strong T focus here also. Again, strong Te. After all, Te and Fi are "partners in crime": Fi wants to express oneself, and to do so Te logically organizes the outside to express themselves. Even though Fi is inferior, dominant Te('I want to focus on analyzing and making things that works') is influenced by the unconscious Fi undercurrent('...thereby contributing to people's welfare'). Emphasis on what works, with contributing for people's good as an afterthought (or fainter as Fi is down in the stacking). Hmm I am not entirely sure on Si/Ne or Ni/Se combination though. Mention of "experience" implies S but I don't want to jump to the conclusion...yet.



> _*SCENARIO 7*
> 
> Click on the image below and pay close attention to the things that jump out to you, objects, thoughts, feelings, impressions, ideas etc. What do you see?
> 
> ...


Since I wasn't sure on S or N, I will focus on that part. While you are focused on sensory aspects of the picture, you emphasize on what particularly catches your interest and imagine yourself what would be like to be in that place yourself (Si), and based on your subjective sensory impressions you get from the photo you are generating multiple possibilities (Ne). Si and Ne are partners in crime, and from what I see a stronger emphasis is on expressing how you would feel as if you were there, hence Si>Ne.

Therefore, I would say Te>Si>Ne>Fi, i.e., ESTJ. I see strong Te throughout your entire post. 
I would be open to ISTJ (Si>Te>Fi>Ne) due to your expressing discomfort toward brainstorming as a whole (inferior Ne), but again I believe Te is too strong to be one. Again, it is your call.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Jakuri said:


> Let's see, I am positing Fi>Fe here. Even though the F sign here is faint, I see primarily that things are written in terms of how you would feel. External values do seem to be 'pre-empted' by how you feel (internal, subjective moral compass). But the sign of feeling is faint, but rather the focus is on how you would act. So I am positing T>F with weak tert or inf Fi.


Hey, thanks for the analysis 

What seems like an internal moral compass here? Do let me know where you saw that because I don't know.




> The objective was to see whether you put more weight on external moral values (social contract, relationship with your roommate, how your roommate would feel, etc) or on your internal moral compass. Confusion on why one needs to focus on feeling seems to imply T>F to me. But I see some sign of Fe (factoring into the possibility of roommate's failure...underneath I feel you are sympathizing (or empathizing?) with the hardship the roommate is going through), if weak.


Yes it is sympathizing of sorts. Wanting to help them though I don't really feel what they feel.

I just put limits on such help because I don't want to be taken advantage of. Though I can get very helpful so yeah, I watch out for this.




> Ok, so you are strongly emphasizing logic here. I see a bit about needing deep analysis (this can be Ti or Pi+Te), but I see more emphasis on the desire to lead and organize people or resources for successful project completion, and also the desire for the broader impact. To me that's a strong Te. So here, I am leaning toward Te over Ti.


Where did you see more emphasis on that? I myself said I was not able to choose between the two projects.




> Hmm, I see a sign of rejecting extraverted intuition(Ne). Strong Te with weak Fi can be Te > ?? > ?? > Fi, i.e., ExTJ. Can be Te > Ni > Se > Fi, since Ni isn't exactly a brainstorming process. Ni focuses on unifying ideas to come up with a bigger theme encompassing all of them. I don't see much emphasis on this "unification" I am talking about though. It's also possible to be an ESTJ, which would be Te > Si > Ne > Fi. Again, I see strong Te in the desire to lead. Take the lead, delegate, etc. You seem very confident about how this should be done, and you want to exert influence. I see Te written all over in Scenarios 3 and 4.
> 
> So yes, due to strong Te and faint sign of Fi indicating inferior Fi, ExTJ. I am still reserving my judgement on whether it's Si/Ne or Ni/Se combo. Perhaps I can get better ideas on Scenario 6 and/or 7.


I did not about talk about delegating things. My primary focus is on analysis in this scenario. I can delegate things of course if I deem it necessary though it's not my primary focus as I said. Taking the lead overall, eh, not necessarily, it is more like, I'm just focused on ensuring the project is going in the right direction. But I'm ok with explicitly taking the lead too if it somehow comes to that. I'm fine with that totally. Just my default is sitting back and watching. I intervene periodically if I really see the point to do so. I'm not one to keep talking and expend energy without a real reason for it.

As for the unification of ideas: it would be done with a focus on the purpose of the project, kind of in a visionary way. Like, what is really meaningful for the project. I don't like to waste my time on mundane crap. However while doing this unification of ideas it would be primarily done via logical analysis, what makes sense, how the stuff fits together, what has a point, stuff like that. Ideally it would be something inspiring enough though.




> Hmm, a little bit of extravert and a little bit of introvert. Leaning toward extraverted I would say -- so far I have seen strong Te influence, and weak Fi, leaning toward inferior.


As I said in my other response, the chatting online is also a relatively low energy activity, there is much less stimuli than if going out and meeting people IRL. If I do go out that happens if one of the few people I know wants to go. What seemed more extraverted here?




> Strong T focus here also. Again, strong Te. After all, Te and Fi are "partners in crime": Fi wants to express oneself, and to do so Te logically organizes the outside to express themselves. Even though Fi is inferior, dominant Te('I want to focus on analyzing and making things that works') is influenced by the unconscious Fi undercurrent('...thereby contributing to people's welfare').


How is Ti/Fe different from this?

I don't have a focus on expressing myself personally, btw, where did you interpret it as such?

What I have a focus on is 1) deep analysis 2) then I know how to make a product or result out of that 3) it will contribute to people's good, but this is just a nice abstract vision kinda, like, everyone is happy with the result. It is somewhat vague and in the background. But 1) is definitely first, after I got driven by 3). Though I quite enjoy deep analysis for its own sake too, 3) isn't required for it.




> Emphasis on what works, with contributing for people's good as an afterthought (or fainter as Fi is down in the stacking). Hmm I am not entirely sure on Si/Ne or Ni/Se combination though. Mention of "experience" implies S but I don't want to jump to the conclusion...yet.


Main emphasis is on: deep analysis. Not on what works. Though of course it does matter what actually works, I'm realistic in that sense.

Yes, contributing to people's good is in the background but it usually drives me from the start. So I would not say this is just an afterthought, no, no.




> Since I wasn't sure on S or N, I will focus on that part. While you are focused on sensory aspects of the picture, you emphasize on what particularly catches your interest and imagine yourself what would be like to be in that place yourself (Si), and based on your subjective sensory impressions you get from the photo you are generating multiple possibilities (Ne). Si and Ne are partners in crime, and from what I see a stronger emphasis is on expressing how you would feel as if you were there, hence Si>Ne.


Where did I say what it would be like if I was in the place? Where did I talk about how I would feel if I was there?




> Therefore, I would say Te>Si>Ne>Fi, i.e., ESTJ. I see strong Te throughout your entire post.
> I would be open to ISTJ (Si>Te>Fi>Ne) due to your expressing discomfort toward brainstorming as a whole (inferior Ne), but again I believe Te is too strong to be one. Again, it is your call.


You want to know my opinion on Ne? Fuck Ne. lol. But yeah it's that simple.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

myst91 said:


> What things?


This questionnaire does not look at all into the Shadow Functions, subtypes, and the Conscious/unconscious dichotomy for the functions. It asks me to grade based on which of the 4 functions you are using without making it clear that it only asks for your conscious functions.


myst91 said:


> Where do you see me wanting to do the "right thing"?


From here: "Also thinking of how this can be solved, if there is really no way to get him to get better. I'd also think of how I could ensure we can spend all our time together while we can. This sort of thing. So overall I'd be focused on shock, anger and on action related states." This is where you show a a focus on making things right, taking action on your feelings.


myst91 said:


> Yeah because I'm alone and my SO isn't there so I don't see what they are feeling.


This sounds like more Ni influence. If you are introverted you could be Ni > Te > Fi > Se, especially since you seem unaware of your own Si focus and Si is an unconscious tertiary strength function for the INTJ. Reserving judgment here.


myst91 said:


> Confused in what way?


*Concerned. Self concern. Type, sorry.


myst91 said:


> Where did I do judging like that?


This is rational Te-Fi judgment all over as best I can see: "If she asks nicely and it takes like just half an hour then sure why not, I can spend that much time on it. I'd only spend hours on it while it's not a very interesting topic if I'm really bored, if I have nothing else to do, if I'm in the mood somehow, whatever. The fact the roommate could fail the entire course would also factor in in terms of me willing to spend a bit longer on it than I would by default but the other factors as above still matter overall. "


myst91 said:


> Is that strictly Te specific?


Nothing is strictly specific to just one function. Hell Ti-Fe can work together to seem like Te. It's a murky field, typology.


myst91 said:


> The narrow focus doesn't bore me. That is actually my default for working so quite natural to me. I just may vaguely feel too unsociable if always working alone immersed in deep analysis.


Are you feeling unsociable here because you feel expected to socialize, or because you dislike being alone all the time and want at least a little socialization?


myst91 said:


> How did we jump from focus on impacting the world to desire for effectiveness and a focus on personal values? Please explain. As I am not at all following here.


We didn't. Te is all about effectiveness, and Fi is all about personal values. Te wants to affect and organize the world, and Fi working with it wants to organize it according to how you feel or what you think is best or most effective. Your leadership behavior and impact focus is the Te and it is ruling (IE suppressing or marginalizing) your Fi when Te determines it is inappropriate or not effective.


myst91 said:


> Why not introverted?


Because your communication style and choices are aggressive and outer world focus to such a strong degree (apparently from your post, anyway) that I would immediately assume extrovert. Only later did I start seeing some introvert tendencies and those are strong enough you are near ambiverted in my perspective. If you are an introvert, your auxiliary is Te and is very strong. You don't introvert your T, although you have the ability if you desire to; indeed, if you are an introvert then the only thing that I can think would explain your post is Ni-Te working together to strengthen Ti-like behaviors. This is all assuming I am correct and not completely off base, however.


myst91 said:


> Where did my focus seem broad and encompassing?


Umm...everywhere. Like, the whole post. It screams Te. Most especially is the dismissing of those things that don't work in favor of what does, and an overall hurried sense to your actions and choices. You don't want to face censure, but you really would rather get everything done and over with quickly and efficiently. That's Te, with an external focus. Such as this: "Oh no no, I'm wasting time here. Why do I have to sit here for this brainstorming crap. Allow me to lead the whole thing or let me work alone. Yeah. But ok, if I'm forced to be here, I'll just sit and f*ollow everything and analyze everything that I don't discard right away as bullshit upon hearing it.*"


myst91 said:


> Yes, I'd want to analyse all the - not bullshit - ideas and think up a solution along the purpose of the project. I'm not one to generate many ideas especially without analysis. Understatement there when I say I'm not one to... I very very much do not do this.


Sounds to me like you are either an S over N type, OR you are using Ni which is dismissing Ne in favor of the "best" option or the one that makes the most sense. You may not have weak Ne; if you have strong Ni your Ne is strong as well, but you certainly do not value Ne. This tells me your strong introverted perception tendencies as evidenced by internalizing all the ideas and deciding what is valuable or not after looking it all over is either Si or Ni, and it is a strong tendency as well. I see a lot of both, which tells me you likely have: Aux/tert S and N *OR* Dom S or N and unconscious Tert S or N.


myst91 said:


> How does this differ from what you said about Te putting together ideas logically? Please explain. I relate to both but I don't see the difference between that and between logically piecing ideas internally together as described for Ti here so that's why.


This is part of my issue with this questionnaire. Everyone has all functions, as the four functions are divided by preferred direction and strength. Anyone that has strong Te is going to also have strong Ti. For example, the ESTJ has Conscious Te > Si > Ne > Fi, but they also have unconscious Se > Ti > Fe > Ni. Meaning the ESTJ is strong in Te AND SE, but they don't realize their own strength in Se as well. The ENTJ has a similar stacking of Te/Ne > Ni/Ti > Se/Fe > Fi/Si.


myst91 said:


> How did you see it was Ti for Te aims? I'd like to hear more on this.


Honestly? I don't recall anymore.


myst91 said:


> It's not that I don't want to be a dick, it's more like, I just don't see the point in calling people stupid, I often don't even think they are stupid, but if I do think that then I think it would be really rude to say it to the person and it would not be doing any good to the person so why say it? I'd have to be really pissed off first and lose my head first to say something personal in an argument and I'd be upset about it afterwards.


This here shows that you may not be a Te dom as such. This sounds very much like a Perception dominant thing to say. I did notice what appeared to be strong Si and strong Ni in your initial post (though not as much Ni), so perhaps you are leading with Si or Ni. You seem to be too focused on internal rational conclusions based on what could be and what you can see or imagine to be a Si dom type, which means the introverted option that makes sense for you is the INTJ.


myst91 said:


> What was the strong S? If Ni is tertiary or inferior, that's not ESTJ is it?


For the ESTJ, they do not have Ni according to the Grant model this test is based on, although "shadow function" work expands upon it and attempts to explain it. In my view, the ESTJ does have Ni, but it is unconscious. This is information from Socionics. The ESTJ has Tertiary unconscious Ni in terms of relative strength according to this theory.


myst91 said:


> Well the chatting online is also a relatively low energy activity, there is much less stimuli than if going out and meeting people IRL. If I do go out that happens if one of the few people I know wants to go.


True. The rest of your post was so extroverted and, well, Te-ish that I may have been biased on this response.


myst91 said:


> Why Si over Se?


Because Si is about the past and what you have been able to observe, whereas Se is more focused on what is and can be used right now. Se won't as often reference the past when dealing with the present; it lives in the moment and learns to reference the past at such lightning quick speeds it can do so in the moment in the future. In other words, Se is "do first, learn from it and do it better next time" whereas Si is more "What has worked before, and is this situation different enough to warrant a different approach?"


myst91 said:


> As for impacting others: this is quite vague the way you put it, how is this specifically Te? I'm not saying it cannot be but I'd like to see your train of thought.


It is specifically T>F in the manner you are acting, and it is E>I in the way you choose to implement the idea with an eye towards external impact rather than internal understanding. Your desire to understand appears to come from a Pi function, not a Ji function like Ti.


myst91 said:


> Again, I'd rather not *ever* try to brainstorm with Ne. Just no. What do you mean by memory being important? What sort of memory?


Past experiences and the lessons you have learned. The ability to make good choices and plans going into the future due to having encountered something before.


myst91 said:


> *What I did relate to:*
> I don't often do the leadership thingie because I often work alone but if I do interact with others then yes I'm decisive and like to influence where things are going. Yep, good at systematic thinking and at figuring out the necessary steps for something. The adjectives confident and aggressive and straightforward and realistic and practical do apply to me. Yes I can get rigid pursuing what I want. The part about accidentally hurting other people's feelings and stuff like that, yeah, that all works too.


This sounds more like introversion holding Te in check to me.



myst91 said:


> *What I related to somewhat but with significant differences:*
> I don't really care if someone thinks different from me about things unless they are clearly wrong about their reasoning or if it affects me in some way. Competency is ok, sure, but I don't really need to see quick results for my efforts if it's a long term project.
> 
> I can easily be detail oriented but the goal takes precedence really if it's time sensitive or if I just see no reason to get into the details. For deep analysis of something however yes, I will do exactly this, quite detail oriented analysis but that's done with the primary focus being on the logical meaning I'll derive from the analysis. It also has a rather abstract part, that meaning I create from the analysis.
> ...


Now here I am seeing more hints of Ni. A strong future focus is laced throughout this answer. Ability to keep focused on the details hints at decently strong S as well. And again, I see a ton of T. You are clearly a T dom, no matter the direction. That means it is ExTJ or IxTP in all likelihood. I suppose you could be using Si or Ni with a lot of life experience to strengthen your T here, though. *frustrated groan*

However, with the future focus and the abstract focus you mention here, I am inclined to say N is over S with a probable Aux/Tert pairing.



myst91 said:


> *What I strongly did not relate to:*
> 
> I'm not a model citizen, I'm not interested in that sort of bs, I couldn't care less about being the pillar of whatever bs community that is just a bs concept and not about real *felt* unity of people. Yeah I'm quite cynical about such things.
> 
> ...


OK, now this ^ stuff is just flat out rejecting S altogether. Almost to the same degree that you reject Ne. You appear to be rejecting Si specifically. This tells me you are using Ni-Se or Se-Ni, which narrows it down a bit.

This is also positively OOZING with Te-Fi. You judge external things based on your internal value system and externalized logic together. I have got to say now that the two most likely things for you are probably the INTJ or the ENTJ. This is interesting since there is a J/P swapping between introvert and extrovert. I should note that there is a possibility that you are using Ti>Fe from this comment here, and it is seeming like Te because you are extroverting so much in this post. I judge that to be less likely based on your responses here, but if it is the case then the INTP is an option. The ISTP is a vague option as well.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> This questionnaire does not look at all into the Shadow Functions, subtypes, and the Conscious/unconscious dichotomy for the functions. It asks me to grade based on which of the 4 functions you are using without making it clear that it only asks for your conscious functions.


Ah, right.




> From here: "Also thinking of how this can be solved, if there is really no way to get him to get better. I'd also think of how I could ensure we can spend all our time together while we can. This sort of thing. So overall I'd be focused on shock, anger and on action related states." This is where you show a a focus on making things right, taking action on your feelings.


How does Fe work instead? Why would Ti/Fe want to spend time together, figure out solutions, etc?




> Are you feeling unsociable here because you feel expected to socialize, or because you dislike being alone all the time and want at least a little socialization?


I'm ok being alone all the time but then it vaguely feels like a bit of socialization would be nice...?

No I don't feel "expected to" socialize, I do what I want pretty much.




> We didn't. Te is all about effectiveness, and Fi is all about personal values. Te wants to affect and organize the world, and Fi working with it wants to organize it according to how you feel or what you think is best or most effective. Your leadership behavior and impact focus is the Te and it is ruling (IE suppressing or marginalizing) your Fi when Te determines it is inappropriate or not effective.


OK I noticed I skimmed that part of your previous post too fast; you mention things like an indispensable team and wanting to be important and wanting to make a difference. I still do not see how this is the same as focus on effectiveness and personal values. Ti/Fe types don't want to make a difference in the world? Importance equals Fi? Etc. 

Sure I do like to affect the world but I thought that's just extraverted functions in general? Hrm, organization, that's ok, I can do that fine. No problem with that at all. I'm quite organized in many things, though not all things because I can get a lot more focused on the goal in front of my mind's eyes instead. Then I just don't have the time to care about neat organization lol




> Because your communication style and choices are aggressive and outer world focus to such a strong degree (apparently from your post, anyway) that I would immediately assume extrovert. Only later did I start seeing some introvert tendencies and those are strong enough you are near ambiverted in my perspective. If you are an introvert, your auxiliary is Te and is very strong. You don't introvert your T, although you have the ability if you desire to; indeed, if you are an introvert then the only thing that I can think would explain your post is Ni-Te working together to strengthen Ti-like behaviors. This is all assuming I am correct and not completely off base, however.


Ah yeah I won't deny I have *quite some* aggressiveness. I'm kinda ambiverted in general yeah, but socially I'm definitely introverted.




> Umm...everywhere. Like, the whole post. It screams Te. Most especially is the dismissing of those things that don't work in favor of what does, and an overall hurried sense to your actions and choices. You don't want to face censure, but you really would rather get everything done and over with quickly and efficiently. That's Te, with an external focus. Such as this: "Oh no no, I'm wasting time here. Why do I have to sit here for this brainstorming crap. Allow me to lead the whole thing or let me work alone. Yeah. But ok, if I'm forced to be here, I'll just sit and f*ollow everything and analyze everything that I don't discard right away as bullshit upon hearing it.*"


Hurried hmm lol. In the emergency case you mean? Sure I will look like that then. I get things done quickly if the situation is clear, unambiguous and/or I already have the deep understanding that I can orient by. Then I truly like to maneuver around with ease. Or in emergencies, yeah, those are fun always lol.

Those things are not "everything" though. Some things are just about me analysing and not doing much in a visible fashion at all. In those cases, "getting things done quickly" is irrelevant because it's not about that. But something will always come out of it at the end  it's not fruitless mental masturbation.

What you quoted from me there, lol, I do indeed not like to waste time with unnecessary team meetings. Too much talk is, eh. And my idea of leading, is, eh, quite authoritarian in the sense that I like to decide on things myself. The less talk required to get the necessary input for that from others, the better.  Or at least, it should not be too many people that I need to get input from directly. I have a limit there kinda. This isn't a problem though, I'm easily able to organize things in a way fitting my style.




> This here shows that you may not be a Te dom as such. This sounds very much like a Perception dominant thing to say. I did notice what appeared to be strong Si and strong Ni in your initial post (though not as much Ni), so perhaps you are leading with Si or Ni. You seem to be too focused on internal rational conclusions based on what could be and what you can see or imagine to be a Si dom type, which means the introverted option that makes sense for you is the INTJ.


Hmmm, why's that a Perception dom thing? I'm genuinely curious. 

Well my so called internal rational conclusions are mostly based on either what I can see right there and then, that is, directly in front of me; or on what course I can see for the future. Well and I can also analyse things in retrospect, I'm pretty good at that too.




> Because Si is about the past and what you have been able to observe, whereas Se is more focused on what is and can be used right now. Se won't as often reference the past when dealing with the present; it lives in the moment and learns to reference the past at such lightning quick speeds it can do so in the moment in the future. In other words, Se is "do first, learn from it and do it better next time" whereas Si is more "What has worked before, and is this situation different enough to warrant a different approach?"


Well, I'm like, "do whatever, learn from it" and then I don't really consider consciously if a new situation is different enough. I'm not even sure what you meant by that. I just see whatever's in front of me. Every situation is "new" in a sense.

Then what I can do, I either just see and do things, where the doing happens just somehow directly from what I am seeing in front of me, no thinking required. Or if the situation needs more than that then I do a real quick analysis of the situation, then that either shows my previous understanding is relevant and then I will apply that real quick or it's a completely new situation with no understanding and then I'll just figure out something to do. Then if that didn't work out, I'll learn from it... Or, I'll try to analyse longer before acting, that means I'll constantly analyse and put things together and that can result in action at the right or most relevant points in time. 

Where I can mess up is if I rely on previous conclusions and yet it's not sufficient. :frustrating: That means stuff like, I didn't notice some variable that's to be taken into account, etc.




> It is specifically T>F in the manner you are acting, and it is E>I in the way you choose to implement the idea with an eye towards external impact rather than internal understanding. Your desire to understand appears to come from a Pi function, not a Ji function like Ti.


The thing is, I need that internal understanding first before I can enact any external impact. 

(This is obviously so in these cases of serious jobs, where simply looking and seeing and doing isn't enough or I'm not satisfied with that approach, anyway)

Why does it seem like Pi and not Ji/Ti? I'm really curious about this one, please explain.




> Past experiences and the lessons you have learned. The ability to make good choices and plans going into the future due to having encountered something before.


Lesson, lol, that word sounds boring.

I'm like I described above, in terms of using past experience. I can also make good choices based on a clear logical overview of the situation as well, without previous experience directly matching it.




> This sounds more like introversion holding Te in check to me.


OK so Se/Fe/Ne cannot be like that, just Te?




> Now here I am seeing more hints of Ni. A strong future focus is laced throughout this answer. Ability to keep focused on the details hints at decently strong S as well. And again, I see a ton of T. You are clearly a T dom, no matter the direction. That means it is ExTJ or IxTP in all likelihood. I suppose you could be using Si or Ni with a lot of life experience to strengthen your T here, though. *frustrated groan*


Lol I like your frustrated groan 




> However, with the future focus and the abstract focus you mention here, I am inclined to say N is over S with a probable Aux/Tert pairing.


Hm well, I'm like, that future focus is very important to me, it's what gets me moving a lot of the time. But I live in the moment while I'm moving.




> This is also positively OOZING with Te-Fi. You judge external things based on your internal value system and externalized logic together.


Examples of that please?




> I have got to say now that the two most likely things for you are probably the INTJ or the ENTJ. This is interesting since there is a J/P swapping between introvert and extrovert. I should note that there is a possibility that you are using Ti>Fe from this comment here, and it is seeming like Te because you are extroverting so much in this post. I judge that to be less likely based on your responses here, but if it is the case then the INTP is an option. The ISTP is a vague option as well.


Which part seemed Ti/Fe?

I wasn't following you on the J/P swap issue? Explain?


Oh also, for the last scenario (the photo analysis), you didn't say if you saw Se or Si in that one or just S in general. Can you please say more on that too? That was the scenario I was most at ease with answering in terms of it requiring the least effort. That just went real easy, no extra thinking needed and I really enjoyed it. There was a reason why I put the "Waow" to start that section with


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Uhm... I'm sorry but you guys don't know wtf Fi is if you think myst91 is an Fi type.


----------



## Serpent (Aug 6, 2015)

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> stuff


What you consider to be Te sounds like Se to me.

Also, just a personal thing, but I can't take it seriously whenever someone claims that something is oozing with some function. It just seems like such a lazy thing to say, no offense.


----------



## Apple Pine (Nov 27, 2014)

*First scenario.
*
I smell Fe.

Se, Ti, Fe. *E*STP imo


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

Yeah, I'm not going to go back and find examples for my thought process today. That takes a long while, and I have a test in the morning. Sorry.

As to my initial response, I filled it in using the answer key based on what I saw on my first read through. There are multiple interpretations for a questionnaire of this kind, and I went with the ones that made sense to me at the time. So, if it doesn't make sense to some then ehhh, it is what it is. I didn't write the answer key, I copied in what I saw and added some notes about what I thoughts. The sections titled "You showed X traits: *info here*" was from Jinesi's answer key. So, for example, in the picture analysis of Scenario 7 I didn't see a lot of the Se influence of "looking at the whole picture and potentially even being overwhelmed", so I didn't include that influence in that section. Stuff like that.

For the most part, I went with my gut. If I have not been much help, I apologize. I don't know that I can handle the sort of in depth logical analysis you seem to be looking for right now (which sounds more Ti than Te to me, by the way).

The second issue is that your questionnaire results seemed to have obvious function influences when I looked at it, but your responses here show different influences. So really I am confused and unsure as to what to type you as now.

Lastly, your most recent response here makes it seem like you live in the moment a lot, which is indeed Se.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Mantas said:


> *First scenario.*
> I smell Fe.
> 
> Se, Ti, Fe. *E*STP imo


Ah, why E? Does the Fe seem that strong or the Se?




Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Yeah, I'm not going to go back and find examples for my thought process today. That takes a long while, and I have a test in the morning. Sorry.


No worries it can wait 




> As to my initial response, I filled it in using the answer key based on what I saw on my first read through. There are multiple interpretations for a questionnaire of this kind, and I went with the ones that made sense to me at the time. So, if it doesn't make sense to some then ehhh, it is what it is. I didn't write the answer key, I copied in what I saw and added some notes about what I thoughts. The sections titled "You showed X traits: *info here*" was from Jinesi's answer key. So, for example, in the picture analysis of Scenario 7 I didn't see a lot of the Se influence of "looking at the whole picture and potentially even being overwhelmed", so I didn't include that influence in that section. Stuff like that.


Hmmm actually when I said _"The impressive complexity and size of the main objects and ways around/about them in a nice big space where you can move and explore"_, that didn't sound like perceiving the whole picture? I guess it's hard to convey that. But I'd like to know why it seemed not so to you. ...That's interesting for me actually, I perceive holistically by default but I can also tune into the precise details very easily. And I did some of that when describing that picture because I was spending more time with it than a second  




> For the most part, I went with my gut. If I have not been much help, I apologize. I don't know that I can handle the sort of in depth logical analysis you seem to be looking for right now (which sounds more Ti than Te to me, by the way).
> 
> The second issue is that your questionnaire results seemed to have obvious function influences when I looked at it, but your responses here show different influences. So really I am confused and unsure as to what to type you as now.
> 
> Lastly, your most recent response here makes it seem like you live in the moment a lot, which is indeed Se.


If my responses don't seem consistent in terms of function influences then that would mean the framework for the analysis is wrong as I was being myself each time I answered, answering as thoroughly as I could. 

As for the living in the moment thing, it's mixed with a bit of future orientation which to me is absolutely necessary just as you noted that before, but yes on the whole it's like you say.

And, don't worry, I do appreciate the analysis as I already said before. You may want to know why I posted this questionnaire; I got curious as in MBTI I never found a type that seemed satisfying: if just going by functions then okay, I could narrow it down to 1 or at most 2 types fine, but then if trying to match the type to descriptions, things seemed to fall apart and I do not mean the stereotypes, I mean descriptions that are generated by function based analysis and so they are supposedly filtered properly through the cognitive lenses. The same issue with matching to dichotomies. I do like to analyse where the problem is with this framework. One last question, you mentioned Socionics, are you into that theory much?


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

myst91 said:


> Hmmm actually when I said _"The impressive complexity and size of the main objects and ways around/about them in a nice big space where you can move and explore"_, that didn't sound like perceiving the whole picture? I guess it's hard to convey that. But I'd like to know why it seemed not so to you. ...That's interesting for me actually, I perceive holistically by default but I can also tune into the precise details very easily. And I did some of that when describing that picture because I was spending more time with it than a second


No, to be honest that sounds like "Start at point A, and then investigate each thing one after the other and then imagine what else could be as well" which seems like Si and Ni to me. Maybe a bit of Ti as well. It didn't seem like starting with the big picture and then breaking it down to me when I read it. For what its worth.



myst91 said:


> If my responses don't seem consistent in terms of function influences then that would mean the framework for the analysis is wrong as I was being myself each time I answered, answering as thoroughly as I could.


That could be. Indeed, personally I agree with you. However, there is an external factor here. I am quite stressed in my personal life right now due to a death in the family and midterms at the same time, hence the time delays. It may be affecting my judgment and interpretation here.



myst91 said:


> As for the living in the moment thing, it's mixed with a bit of future orientation which to me is absolutely necessary just as you noted that before, but yes on the whole it's like you say.


This yet again strikes me as either EJ or IP as you seem to lead with Je or Ji by this statement, since you seem to have aux/tert P influences. You appear to prefer S and N, and you hate Ne, so that means Se and Ni are probably in the middle. That means T > Se or Ni > Ni or Se > F. If not, then perhaps you have an inferior N that is unusually developed? Or perhaps you value your N despite it being undeveloped so you want future focus? Mrm...I really don't know.



myst91 said:


> And, don't worry, I do appreciate the analysis as I already said before. You may want to know why I posted this questionnaire; I got curious as in MBTI I never found a type that seemed satisfying: if just going by functions then okay, I could narrow it down to 1 or at most 2 types fine, but then if trying to match the type to descriptions, things seemed to fall apart and I do not mean the stereotypes, I mean descriptions that are generated by function based analysis and so they are supposedly filtered properly through the cognitive lenses. The same issue with matching to dichotomies. I do like to analyse where the problem is with this framework. One last question, you mentioned Socionics, are you into that theory much?


You aren't going to find a type that has descriptions that exactly match you in every way, because the descriptions are simply stereotypes or descriptions of functions, and the function descriptions are themselves subject to author bias as well because of things like a Te person trying to describe Fe or a Ni person trying to explain Se. It can be difficult when the functions are so differently utilized. The key is to understand the functions yourself. Like, some people in this thread have already posited you use Fe rather than Te. I don't see it myself, but it could be the case if you are using Fe and Ti in close collaboration. indeed, you focus on internal understanding so i could see it. I judged that to be somewhat less likely in my initial post and went with it from there. So really, it comes down to what is going on in your mind itself, and understanding it. To me, Socionics helps with that much more by going into the unconscious influences on behavior and how that impacts us as well, which really helps to narrow down the type.

To determine your MBTI type from Socionics, check the page for it and see what the type is. If Introverted, swap the J to P or vice versa. If extroverted, don't swap. This is because J in MBTI is looking at the first Extroverted function being a Rational (T/F) function and P has the first Extroverted function being Irrational (S/N) which gives the impression of J/P behavior to other people since the extroverted function is what they see first. Socionics looks at the first function and calls a type J if it is leading with an Extroverted function and P otherwise. Assuming I remember and understand correctly.
However, not all people agree Socionics and MBTI convert. There is some debate on the matter.

I adore Socionics compared to MBTI. It tries to explain what MBTI doesn't. That said, I am not well educated in it as of yet.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> No, to be honest that sounds like "Start at point A, and then investigate each thing one after the other and then imagine what else could be as well" which seems like Si and Ni to me. Maybe a bit of Ti as well. It didn't seem like starting with the big picture and then breaking it down to me when I read it. For what its worth.


I was not actually listing and investigating things one by one in the specific sentence I quoted. Yes I did that in the description otherwise because I wanted to cover everything in my description. But the sentence I actually quoted here, does not have any of that. I was giving you a summary of the entire impression. That impression is what I got into details about in the whole answer. As for the imagining what else "could be", I was actually describing my impulses arising from what I was seeing in the picture. 

Make sense?




> That could be. Indeed, personally I agree with you. However, there is an external factor here. I am quite stressed in my personal life right now due to a death in the family and midterms at the same time, hence the time delays. It may be affecting my judgment and interpretation here.


Oh. :shocked: So you are using PerC to distract yourself a bit?  No problem with delays really, you're actually answering pretty fast especially considering how lengthy this process of analysis has been getting.




> This yet again strikes me as either EJ or IP as you seem to lead with Je or Ji by this statement, since you seem to have aux/tert P influences. You appear to prefer S and N, and you hate Ne, so that means Se and Ni are probably in the middle. That means T > Se or Ni > Ni or Se > F. If not, then perhaps you have an inferior N that is unusually developed? Or perhaps you value your N despite it being undeveloped so you want future focus? Mrm...I really don't know.


Assuming you meant "Ni>Se" and "prefer Se and Ni", yeah I get your reasoning here. I actually have had the same questions before myself about the Ni, lol.




> You aren't going to find a type that has descriptions that exactly match you in every way, because the descriptions are simply stereotypes or descriptions of functions, and the function descriptions are themselves subject to author bias as well because of things like a Te person trying to describe Fe or a Ni person trying to explain Se.


Please note that I actually said I'm disregarding the stereotypes themselves. Author bias, for sure. But my issue is fundamentally deeper than that.




> It can be difficult when the functions are so differently utilized. The key is to understand the functions yourself. Like, some people in this thread have already posited you use Fe rather than Te. I don't see it myself, but it could be the case if you are using Fe and Ti in close collaboration. indeed, you focus on internal understanding so i could see it. I judged that to be somewhat less likely in my initial post and went with it from there. So really, it comes down to what is going on in your mind itself, and understanding it. To me, Socionics helps with that much more by going into the unconscious influences on behavior and how that impacts us as well, which really helps to narrow down the type.


Yeah I like Socionics for these reasons. As for the F, either way it's weak so I suppose you can read either Fi or Fe into my stuff.




> To determine your MBTI type from Socionics, check the page for it and see what the type is. If Introverted, swap the J to P or vice versa. If extroverted, don't swap. This is because J in MBTI is looking at the first Extroverted function being a Rational (T/F) function and P has the first Extroverted function being Irrational (S/N) which gives the impression of J/P behavior to other people since the extroverted function is what they see first. Socionics looks at the first function and calls a type J if it is leading with an Extroverted function and P otherwise. Assuming I remember and understand correctly.
> However, not all people agree Socionics and MBTI convert. There is some debate on the matter.


Lol well I think the J/P conundrum is a big part of the issues. Yes, Socionics derives such ways of seeing the world and resulting behaviour from the first function which is a tenet that's actually logically incompatible with the MBTI. So you shouldn't even use this method for translating between the two theories. 

But really, if you type as an introvert/introtim and you relate to, say, Rational lead in socionics, how do you suddenly become someone who has a highly Irrational way of seeing the world and hence behaving that way as per the MBTI P? Thing is the MBTI idea about how what you see about someone first is always the first extraverted function, is probably not true. 




> I adore Socionics compared to MBTI. It tries to explain what MBTI doesn't. That said, I am not well educated in it as of yet.


Well, good luck to further educating of yourself on it then


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

myst91 said:


> I was not actually listing and investigating things one by one in the specific sentence I quoted. Yes I did that in the description otherwise because I wanted to cover everything in my description. But the sentence I actually quoted here, does not have any of that. I was giving you a summary of the entire impression. That impression is what I got into details about in the whole answer. As for the imagining what else "could be", I was actually describing my impulses arising from what I was seeing in the picture.
> Make sense?


Not...really, no. It sounds to me like you are reiterating what I said, but at the same time saying that isn't how you saw it. "The impressive complexity and size of the main objects and ways around/about them in a nice big space where you can move and explore" sounds more like Ni. That's where I got the Si impression. It sounds like "sure, here are these things but there is also these others things I want to move around in and explore as if I was actually there". Looking at "main objects" is not the same to me as looking at the whole picture, although I can see how that sentence could be interpreted that way. In other words, to me at least, that was too vague.




myst91 said:


> Oh. :shocked: So you are using PerC to distract yourself a bit?  No problem with delays really, you're actually answering pretty fast especially considering how lengthy this process of analysis has been getting.


Yes, I had no intention of coming to this part of the forum but I think I was tagged. So here I am. I don't *feel* like I answer fast, but that probably has to do with a desire to be prompt and 'get things over with'.



myst91 said:


> Please note that I actually said I'm disregarding the stereotypes themselves. Author bias, for sure. But my issue is fundamentally deeper than that.


It is more than just the stereotyping author bias, there is also the bias of not truly understanding the functions the same way as someone else would. That is harder to spot at times. Although according to users that posted earlier in this thread I don't get Te-Fi or something.




myst91 said:


> Yeah I like Socionics for these reasons. As for the F, either way it's weak so I suppose you can read either Fi or Fe into my stuff.


I see a touch of both. I see so much Te that I assume Fi based on the Grant model. If you are Fe, then it is working with Ti to look like Te or I am just way off base. Or somethin. 



myst91 said:


> Lol well I think the J/P conundrum is a big part of the issues. Yes, Socionics derives such ways of seeing the world and resulting behaviour from the first function which is a tenet that's actually logically incompatible with the MBTI. So you shouldn't even use this method for translating between the two theories.
> 
> But really, if you type as an introvert/introtim and you relate to, say, Rational lead in socionics, how do you suddenly become someone who has a highly Irrational way of seeing the world and hence behaving that way as per the MBTI P? Thing is the MBTI idea about how what you see about someone first is always the first extraverted function, is probably not true.


Yeah, but the INFp in Socionics uses the same functions as the INFJ in MBTI - Ni blocked with Fe and Ti blocked with Se. I've verified that myself. So the core difference there is the functions don't mean...quite...the same thing in the two systems, and otherwise It is a reasonable conversion. I generally support it given the caveat "But it may not convert quite directly because different systems" and perhaps mention the debate...which I did 

I don't know what you mean about changing your lead function? The Ip types in Socionics and the IJ types in MBTI have the same four functions in the same order when you disregard the unconscious functions. And some MBTI theories use those in "shadow functions" that work similarly to the Socionics blocks too.

For ex, if you lead with a Rational function such as the INTP in MBTI, you will lead with the same rational function as the INTj in Socionics. The order doesn't change; MBTI bases J/P on the aux for introverts, Socionics bases it on the lead no matter what. They are sorta the same types, only not...quite. For the aforementioned reasons of definitions of the functions and how stacking should work and all that.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Not...really, no. It sounds to me like you are reiterating what I said, but at the same time saying that isn't how you saw it. "The impressive complexity and size of the main objects and ways around/about them in a nice big space where you can move and explore" sounds more like Ni. That's where I got the Si impression. It sounds like "sure, here are these things but there is also these others things I want to move around in and explore as if I was actually there". Looking at "main objects" is not the same to me as looking at the whole picture, although I can see how that sentence could be interpreted that way. In other words, to me at least, that was too vague.


If you are looking at the whole picture then the main objects are what will determine it most. It's really that simple.

I fail to see how you think it's specific to Si to be able to see the objects themselves beyond the holistic impression. Explain?

Also are you saying Se doesn't care to explore?




> It is more than just the stereotyping author bias, there is also the bias of not truly understanding the functions the same way as someone else would. That is harder to spot at times.


I did not say stereotyping was the author bias per se. Stereotyping is just stereotyping. Author bias is something else, it is meant in terms of the framework they construct to explain things. Yes, that includes not understanding the functions the same way as someone else would. I would however remove the word "truly" from this sentence.




> I see a touch of both. I see so much Te that I assume Fi based on the Grant model. If you are Fe, then it is working with Ti to look like Te or I am just way off base. Or somethin.


Unfortunately, you never explained how you equate desire for impact with a focus on efficiency and personal values. If you are up for telling me how you deduce that from the general desire to impact things, I'm all ears. 




> Yeah, but the INFp in Socionics uses the same functions as the INFJ in MBTI - Ni blocked with Fe and Ti blocked with Se. I've verified that myself.


Yes of course they use the same, otherwise my reasoning wouldn't make sense.




> So the core difference there is the functions don't mean...quite...the same thing in the two systems, and otherwise It is a reasonable conversion. I generally support it given the caveat "But it may not convert quite directly because different systems" and perhaps mention the debate...which I did


Not a reasonable conversion.

If the functions don't mean the same thing in the two systems then how can you expect to translate from MBTI NiFe into Socionics NiFe, for example. As you wish to change the MBTI J into Socionics p, that is your underlying expectation. So again, we end up at seeing how logically it's inconsistent overall.

So of course we do agree on how the two systems should not be seen in terms of a one to one correspondence. 




> I don't know what you mean about changing your lead function? The Ip types in Socionics and the IJ types in MBTI have the same four functions in the same order when you disregard the unconscious functions. And some MBTI theories use those in "shadow functions" that work similarly to the Socionics blocks too.


I did not talk about changing the lead function. 

It's only the same order in Socionics if you disregard devalued functions, that is, not the unconscious ones, but the devalued ones; just a small correction.




> For ex, if you lead with a Rational function such as the INTP in MBTI, you will lead with the same rational function as the INTj in Socionics. The order doesn't change; MBTI bases J/P on the aux for introverts, Socionics bases it on the lead no matter what. They are sorta the same types, only not...quite. For the aforementioned reasons of definitions of the functions and how stacking should work and all that.


I never said the order changes. Where on earth did you see that, please reread what I said. 

I don't know why you are explaining something that I clearly already expressed in my previous post.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

myst91 said:


> If you are looking at the whole picture then the main objects are what will determine it most. It's really that simple.
> 
> I fail to see how you think it's specific to Si to be able to see the objects themselves beyond the holistic impression. Explain?
> 
> Also are you saying Se doesn't care to explore?


Hm. In order:

1) I disagree. I see the whole picture as one thing and then break it down past that afterward. You appeared to start with the breakdown, so I didn't consider Se as much.

From this: "Waow. Real cool pic, there are a lot of things in it, complex enough objects, impressive enough too, those rock walls. They most definitely stand out the most in the entire space, the complex shapes in them again, the coloured stripes all over, the material they were "made" out from, and then the water around so then my attention is quickly directed on how you get between the walls, swimming in the water or walking around on the shore at the base of the walls, wandering finding your way around. Also of course, climbing those walls... hmm looking at the ways and parts where I'd be able to do so, trying to see how doable it is, definitely not trivial all the way up/around, would be such a fun challenge too. "

I saw this: "Si influence: May focus on and notice details, color contrast, textures, may also describe physical sensations they would feel if there"

Rather than this: "Se influence: Try to take in the big picture all at once, could express being overwhelmed sensory wise."
Within that comment there. I can see how it can be taken the other way now, but at the time that is not what I saw.

2) Not at all. Why would I think that? That doesn't make sense. I don't see where I said that :/. Whatever I said, I meant to say I didn't see noticeable Se in my initial analysis, which again may have been flawed. I will say that you are showing plenty of Se in your responses here though :/

3) I have no idea if Se wants to explore; I'd hazard a guess it wouldn't though, as Se users are also Ni users so why would they need Se for that? Se users would want to explore via Ni, wouldn't they? I'd think that desire to explore is Introverted, and acting on that desire is Extroverted. Hmm.... I'm not sure.



myst91 said:


> Unfortunately, you never explained how you equate desire for impact with a focus on efficiency and personal values. If you are up for telling me how you deduce that from the general desire to impact things, I'm all ears.


That is two separate issues to my mind, one leading to the other.

I see Te as desiring to apply thinking to the outside world in order to accomplish something - as in have an impact. Fe is the same in that particular regard but with an F focus instead. I equate this behavior with efficiency because it isn't enough for a Te user to impact something, they also want to do so as best they can. They want to be efficient. So would Fe for affecting values and such. Your apparent motivation seems to be to impact the world with logic and systems in a logical manner, so I posited Te. If Te, then Fi. I see little F and lots of T, so I went with T dom since I can see N and S. I hope that's all of the logic you were after 

Te rules Fi in Te doms. Therefore, effectiveness ruling personal values. I did not say you focus on personal values, I said your desire for efficiency (Which is one way of saying Te; Personality Hacker renames the functions and Effectiveness is what they call Te, which seems reasonable to me; with my current knowledge, I have accepted that word for use in describing Te) is ruling personal values. As in, personal values are overridden by a desire for efficiency, but Fi is conscious rather than unconscious so you know your values and what you stand for. That is what I am trying to say.



myst91 said:


> Yes of course they use the same, otherwise my reasoning wouldn't make sense.


??? That is why your reasoning didn't make sense, yes. Which is why I clarified?



myst91 said:


> Not a reasonable conversion.
> 
> If the functions don't mean the same thing in the two systems then how can you expect to translate from MBTI NiFe into Socionics NiFe, for example. As you wish to change the MBTI J into Socionics p, that is your underlying expectation. So again, we end up at seeing how logically it's inconsistent overall.
> 
> So of course we do agree on how the two systems should not be seen in terms of a one to one correspondence.


I partially disagree. I believe it is a reasonable conversion for the purpose of getting someone closer to discovering their type, as a guideline, provided you give the caveat and explanation as I mentioned before.



myst91 said:


> I did not talk about changing the lead function.
> 
> It's only the same order in Socionics if you disregard devalued functions, that is, not the unconscious ones, but the devalued ones; just a small correction.


It appears to me that you did: "But really, if you type as an introvert/introtim and you relate to, say, Rational lead in socionics, how do you suddenly become someone who has a highly Irrational way of seeing the world and hence behaving that way as per the MBTI P?"
This sounds like changing the lead function to me. Otherwise your lead didn't change; the definitions of the functions just slightly changed and the block structure is introduced or removed, therefore there is no "sudden change" as per this quote, but rather a change of definitions which may change the type or necessitate a tweaking to a similar type as the systems don't quite direct convert in that manner. It is a small tweaking of understanding rather than suddenly being one thing then being another. Really it is more an alternate method of describing the same thing using a different internally consistent but ultimately inadequate measurement system. If they were adequate systems, no conversion or differences would be necessary.

As to your correction, I didn't consider the Devalued functions. Looks like I need more study. This is why I give caveats ^^



myst91 said:


> I never said the order changes. Where on earth did you see that, please reread what I said.
> 
> I don't know why you are explaining something that I clearly already expressed in my previous post.


See above, where you are correct; the impression I got was that the lead changes is what you were saying, which is discussed above.

I am explaining it because 1) I wanted to, and 2) I felt it relevant, and 3) I put it in my own words which checks for understanding. Whether it was expressed before hand or not doesn't matter to me so much as it helps me to keep my thoughts organized and consistent by drawing connections to things and keeping everything together. Apologies if it irritates you.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Hm. In order:
> 
> 1) I disagree. I see the whole picture as one thing and then break it down past that afterward. You appeared to start with the breakdown, so I didn't consider Se as much.


Ah, well, I see what you mean but I started with the whole picture actually  The first four words in my original answer  Then breaking it down then more explicit summary at the end. 

As for disagreeing, what did you disagree with? When I said the whole picture is mostly determined by the main objects I meant that that's just how it seems to work when you focus on the whole picture. What else would determine it, anyway?



> I saw this: "Si influence: May focus on and notice details, color contrast, textures, may also describe physical sensations they would feel if there"


OK, sure, I did note colour patterns though I will admit I find it strange to associate sensing of colours with just Si and not S in general.



> Within that comment there. I can see how it can be taken the other way now, but at the time that is not what I saw.


Yeah it can be hard to see exactly what mental context the words are coming from if you don't directly see inside the minds of people. Hard to remove ambiguity.



> 2) Not at all. Why would I think that? That doesn't make sense. I don't see where I said that :/. Whatever I said, I meant to say I didn't see noticeable Se in my initial analysis, which again may have been flawed. I will say that you are showing plenty of Se in your responses here though :/


It was just logically following (if using this as the decisive factor in typing me as Si) haha don't mind my nitpicking. 



> 3) I have no idea if Se wants to explore; I'd hazard a guess it wouldn't though, as Se users are also Ni users so why would they need Se for that? Se users would want to explore via Ni, wouldn't they? I'd think that desire to explore is Introverted, and acting on that desire is Extroverted. Hmm.... I'm not sure.


Umm, I meant physically explore space, the tangible world as it is.




> That is two separate issues to my mind, one leading to the other.
> 
> I see Te as desiring to apply thinking to the outside world in order to accomplish something - as in have an impact. Fe is the same in that particular regard but with an F focus instead. I equate this behavior with efficiency because it isn't enough for a Te user to impact something, they also want to do so as best they can. They want to be efficient. So would Fe for affecting values and such. Your apparent motivation seems to be to impact the world with logic and systems in a logical manner, so I posited Te. If Te, then Fi. I see little F and lots of T, so I went with T dom since I can see N and S. I hope that's all of the logic you were after


OK now I see why you said Ti/Fe can be resembling Te. Impacting the world in some way while having the main ability of logical thinking does not have to require direct focus on efficiency. I'm sure we can agree there?




> ??? That is why your reasoning didn't make sense, yes. Which is why I clarified?


Sorry I may have been too terse in putting my thoughts.



> I partially disagree. I believe it is a reasonable conversion for the purpose of getting someone closer to discovering their type, as a guideline, provided you give the caveat and explanation as I mentioned before.


Lol our standards for what is reasonable differ :laughing:



> It appears to me that you did: "But really, if you type as an introvert/introtim and you relate to, say, Rational lead in socionics, how do you suddenly become someone who has a highly Irrational way of seeing the world and hence behaving that way as per the MBTI P?"
> This sounds like changing the lead function to me.


No, this happens while keeping the lead/dominant function. Go from ISFj to ISFP for example. Fi-Se for both. Rational ISFj changes to Irrational ISFP.



> Otherwise your lead didn't change; the definitions of the functions just slightly changed and the block structure is introduced or removed, therefore there is no "sudden change" as per this quote, but rather a change of definitions which may change the type or necessitate a tweaking to a similar type as the systems don't quite direct convert in that manner. It is a small tweaking of understanding rather than suddenly being one thing then being another. Really it is more an alternate method of describing the same thing using a different internally consistent but ultimately inadequate measurement system. If they were adequate systems, no conversion or differences would be necessary.


I'm aware of such differences and changes in definitions. It is simply clear that there is no full logical consistency between the two systems so I don't find tips on directly translating types from one system to the other one sensible. Also, some of the changes are not simply small tweaks of understanding. Eh, MBTI vs socionics is always a hot topic :tongue:



> I am explaining it because 1) I wanted to, and 2) I felt it relevant, and 3) I put it in my own words which checks for understanding. Whether it was expressed before hand or not doesn't matter to me so much as it helps me to keep my thoughts organized and consistent by drawing connections to things and keeping everything together. Apologies if it irritates you.


Naah, no serious irritation, if doing this helps you in some way then cool


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

myst91 said:


> Ah, well, I see what you mean but I started with the whole picture actually  The first four words in my original answer  Then breaking it down then more explicit summary at the end.
> 
> As for disagreeing, what did you disagree with? When I said the whole picture is mostly determined by the main objects I meant that that's just how it seems to work when you focus on the whole picture. What else would determine it, anyway?


I see the fact that it is a picture first, which entails noticing it is confined within a box shape. Then I immediately notice it is composed of several sections (not objects necessarily; I may notice the rock formations as separate in some parts due to differences between them) and differentiate them a bit. Then I start focusing in on the small details, wondering why the artist chose various aspects, imagine what else would be in this area, ponder meanings, and reach a conclusion about what I think it means. I may relate it to other art I have seen, but that isn't too likely to be conscious if I do. Instead I just sort of have ideas pop into my head that when examined closely do come from things I have seen before.

As far as I have been able to determine, I have Inferior S with an Extroverted orientation, so your approach and mine should be somewhat similar in this regard with a clear strength difference. Based on your clarifications here, it appears it is to some degree. I think the issue here is that you so easily take in the whole picture all at once that it is obvious to you to take it in that way, and so the communication here is encountering a problem? I will admit I have a hard time understanding Se and Si, especially Si. It feels fairly foreign to me, although I can at least recognize the mindset of Se in myself (usually when stressed out really bad or when heavily focused like learning to drive).

Perhaps you have Se as your dominant function? It is my understanding that the dominant function is so strong and important to a person that they can occasionally have a hard time identifying it because it is difficult to differentiate it from the way other people think. Like, your mind uses that function so easily that it can be hard to understand that other people don't. I've had that problem, especially when I was young and people rarely understood me. I was "just that weird kid with the books".



myst91 said:


> OK, sure, I did note colour patterns though I will admit I find it strange to associate sensing of colours with just Si and not S in general.


It isn't necessarily. I used the criteria of the answer key without questioning its accuracy after having opened with the caveat "This is using the Grant Model I am starting to question". One can note my entire analysis to have been under a caveat 

Also, I would assume that Ni notices it too but for different reasons, and Ne would notice it as well for yet more different reasons. That's the point of a Perception function. I know I tend to look at color and associate the classic meanings of color with the author's intents in a cross reference, but I pay less attention to the overall aesthetic. I look for the meaning or purpose more than anything else.



myst91 said:


> Yeah it can be hard to see exactly what mental context the words are coming from if you don't directly see inside the minds of people. Hard to remove ambiguity.


That's for sure. Hopefully I can be less ambiguous in future discourse. 



myst91 said:


> Umm, I meant physically explore space, the tangible world as it is.


Sure, that it would. I bet both the S functions would do that. I see the picture as more of an idea than a place. I don't think in quite those terms, and I guess it didn't occur to me that you were thinking differently in this regard. 



myst91 said:


> OK now I see why you said Ti/Fe can be resembling Te. Impacting the world in some way while having the main ability of logical thinking does not have to require direct focus on efficiency. I'm sure we can agree there?


This is true. My impression of you was a strong desire for efficient and logical impact on the world around you. I noted some Fe when you talked about "feeling antisocial if you stay alone too much" which sounds like a desire to impact other people and the world with values. I decided it was more Te than Fe and went with that. Now I am not so sure. Indeed, the only thing I am sure of is, in my opinion, you have T stronger than F, and S stronger than N, and you are probably extroverted. That only leaves a few options. I am thinking the ESTP or the ESTJ. This is based on the whole thread collectively, not just the questionnaire. This debate does show how you think and communicate, which is helpful.



myst91 said:


> No, this happens while keeping the lead/dominant function. Go from ISFj to ISFP for example. Fi-Se for both. Rational ISFj changes to Irrational ISFP.


I still don't understand what you are saying. If you lead with Fi, you are Rational dominant. The Rational functions are T/F. If the J/P designation swaps but the function order does not, no swapping of Rational or Irrational has occurred. Instead the J and P dichotomy has been redefined. That's how I understand it. Do we not have the same definition of Rational and Irrational Functions? If it helps, my understanding of these terms comes from Michael Pierce, a popular Youtube guy on this subject.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> I see the fact that it is a picture first, which entails noticing it is confined within a box shape. Then I immediately notice it is composed of several sections (not objects necessarily; I may notice the rock formations as separate in some parts due to differences between them) and differentiate them a bit.


Lol that's interesting, I notice the objects themselves faster than that. Also I wasn't really paying attention to the shape of the picture frame because that was obviously an irrelevant detail in terms of the picture contents so that never stood out to me as much as the main objects. I mean I of course knew what it looked like but I sure didn't give it extra focus.




> Then I start focusing in on the small details, wondering why the artist chose various aspects, imagine what else would be in this area, ponder meanings, and reach a conclusion about what I think it means. I may relate it to other art I have seen, but that isn't too likely to be conscious if I do. Instead I just sort of have ideas pop into my head that when examined closely do come from things I have seen before.


Lol I did none of that whatsoever. Though when I looked at some INxJ's answer to this question (I forget who) who was pondering something about the location of certain shades, I was put in a rather Ni-ish mood and could see some symbolic meaning about the entire picture, wow. Well it was vague but still cool.

But yeah, otherwise I just saw the sensory aspect of the picture, the sensory details, the objects in an organized way. (That is, which object is where, that's somehow organized very quickly in my mind)




> As far as I have been able to determine, I have Inferior S with an Extroverted orientation, so your approach and mine should be somewhat similar in this regard with a clear strength difference. Based on your clarifications here, it appears it is to some degree. I think the issue here is that you so easily take in the whole picture all at once that it is obvious to you to take it in that way, and so the communication here is encountering a problem? I will admit I have a hard time understanding Se and Si, especially Si. It feels fairly foreign to me, although I can at least recognize the mindset of Se in myself (usually when stressed out really bad or when heavily focused like learning to drive).


Yeah it's possible, your explanation  I hope my descriptions help with understanding Se/Si more?




> Perhaps you have Se as your dominant function? It is my understanding that the dominant function is so strong and important to a person that they can occasionally have a hard time identifying it because it is difficult to differentiate it from the way other people think. Like, your mind uses that function so easily that it can be hard to understand that other people don't. I've had that problem, especially when I was young and people rarely understood me. I was "just that weird kid with the books".


Lol well it's certainly true for me that it's hard to understand what it is like if someone doesn't do Se. I conceptualized it by now by just assuming that people look and then instantly some associations come up and they cognitively don't have time to really focus on or immerse in the sensory data. But even now when I read certain things about low Se I can get surprised, like, some INTJ just ranted about how she took a long time to clean an aquarium and that she wouldn't have imagined that an aquarium can have so many little sensory details, lol. And she wasn't even sure of what material the aquarium was made of. 

In contrast, I thought it was clearer to me that someone doesn't do Ti that much. I have seen enough people who fail at maths in school, lol. Though maybe not, I mean, if I try to imagine what it is like to not focus on logic, I again see it as very weird. It even took me a while to really imagine that state, where you simply do not focus on it. Just externally it's very obvious if someone fails at logical things but the internal mental state belonging to that... that's easily at least as weird as someone who lacks in Se. I mean, when you're so emotional you don't think anymore, that's weird.




> It isn't necessarily. I used the criteria of the answer key without questioning its accuracy after having opened with the caveat "This is using the Grant Model I am starting to question". One can note my entire analysis to have been under a caveat


Lol right 




> Also, I would assume that Ni notices it too but for different reasons, and Ne would notice it as well for yet more different reasons. That's the point of a Perception function. I know I tend to look at color and associate the classic meanings of color with the author's intents in a cross reference, but I pay less attention to the overall aesthetic. I look for the meaning or purpose more than anything else.


That's a cool explanation.




> That's for sure. Hopefully I can be less ambiguous in future discourse.


Well I mean my lines were ambiguous when you were interpreting them  In terms of the original mental context from my mind being invisible.




> Sure, that it would. I bet both the S functions would do that. I see the picture as more of an idea than a place. I don't think in quite those terms, and I guess it didn't occur to me that you were thinking differently in this regard.


Right.




> This is true. My impression of you was a strong desire for efficient and logical impact on the world around you. I noted some Fe when you talked about "feeling antisocial if you stay alone too much" which sounds like a desire to impact other people and the world with values. I decided it was more Te than Fe and went with that. Now I am not so sure. Indeed, the only thing I am sure of is, in my opinion, you have T stronger than F, and S stronger than N, and you are probably extroverted. That only leaves a few options. I am thinking the ESTP or the ESTJ. This is based on the whole thread collectively, not just the questionnaire. This debate does show how you think and communicate, which is helpful.


OK so why extraverted?

As for feeling asocial.. hmm yeah it's a vague feeling though.

Not sure how I'd impact people with any kind of F.




> I still don't understand what you are saying. If you lead with Fi, you are Rational dominant. The Rational functions are T/F. If the J/P designation swaps but the function order does not, no swapping of Rational or Irrational has occurred. Instead the J and P dichotomy has been redefined. That's how I understand it. Do we not have the same definition of Rational and Irrational Functions? If it helps, my understanding of these terms comes from Michael Pierce, a popular Youtube guy on this subject.


The thing is, yes J and P are defined differently in theory in MBTI as they are linked to the first extraverted function while in Socionics they are linked to the first function overall; but I am talking about how the rules of the theory generate the descriptions of types from function order and this definitely results in different ones for the introverts if comparing MBTI to Socionics.


----------



## xraydav (Jan 3, 2013)

I would say the OP is Fi-dom, she also has this possibility function people like to label as Ne. 

INFP. Even your responses are something like a value -based dichotomy going on, it has that theme of 'That is not the real me' to it. Without any subjective reasons, as Ti user has. 

I read over half and saw multiple indicators for Fi, but I'm not 100% certain. Still probably more certain than most people here though! :laughing:



Entropic said:


> Uhm... I'm sorry but you guys don't know wtf Fi is if you think myst91 is an Fi type.


I don't know about that. What type do you think she is?

I don't think she is an Si type, she has little to no focus on the more concrete perceptions. I think her Sensing function is repressed, and her intuition function is pretty high up there.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

AverOblivious said:


> I don't know about that. What type do you think she is?


She's an ISTP or ESTP. 

Start with defining what you think Fi is, and we go from there. Chances are that your understanding of Fi is highly inaccurate, if you think the OP is one.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

AverOblivious said:


> I would say the OP is Fi-dom, she also has this possibility function people like to label as Ne.
> 
> INFP. Even your responses are something like a value -based dichotomy going on, it has that theme of 'That is not the real me' to it. Without any subjective reasons, as Ti user has.
> 
> ...


You must be trolling.

But just in case you are not, yeah, answer Entropic's question.




Entropic said:


> She's an ISTP or ESTP.


You are actually undecided on I/E for me?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

myst91 said:


> You must be trolling.
> 
> But just in case you are not, yeah, answer Entropic's question.
> 
> ...


Yup. I don't have a strong opinion outside that beta st makes sense for you. It's probably one of these things I'd have to observe irl as fe demonstrative is very different from suggestive.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

myst91 said:


> Lol that's interesting, I notice the objects themselves faster than that. Also I wasn't really paying attention to the shape of the picture frame because that was obviously an irrelevant detail in terms of the picture contents so that never stood out to me as much as the main objects. I mean I of course knew what it looked like but I sure didn't give it extra focus.
> 
> Lol I did none of that whatsoever. Though when I looked at some INxJ's answer to this question (I forget who) who was pondering something about the location of certain shades, I was put in a rather Ni-ish mood and could see some symbolic meaning about the entire picture, wow. Well it was vague but still cool.
> 
> But yeah, otherwise I just saw the sensory aspect of the picture, the sensory details, the objects in an organized way. (That is, which object is where, that's somehow organized very quickly in my mind)


Hmm. I still see that as strong S. Not sure orientation. I am inclined toward a T-S or an S-T type after all this thought. You come across as extroverted in this discourse, but that doesn't mean you are, and you did specify hobbies that are fairly low key that are common to introverts. I am leaning toward Se-Ti or Ti-Se at this moment. Perhaps the ESTP or the ISTP?

When I looked at the picture frame first, I did it to define the limits in a way. By looking at all of what is first and then focusing in deeper, I have a sense of what the artist actually made, what is, and then I focus on what it means and what else could be. That first step is very quick, I basically rotate my eye around the whole picture and note all the details and then start focusing on "the important stuff" (to me XD). Its almost a formality in a way. I don't want to be wrong by missing something is what it boils down to.



myst91 said:


> Lol well it's certainly true for me that it's hard to understand what it is like if someone doesn't do Se. I conceptualized it by now by just assuming that people look and then instantly some associations come up and they cognitively don't have time to really focus on or immerse in the sensory data. But even now when I read certain things about low Se I can get surprised, like, some INTJ just ranted about how she took a long time to clean an aquarium and that she wouldn't have imagined that an aquarium can have so many little sensory details, lol. And she wasn't even sure of what material the aquarium was made of.
> 
> In contrast, I thought it was clearer to me that someone doesn't do Ti that much. I have seen enough people who fail at maths in school, lol. Though maybe not, I mean, if I try to imagine what it is like to not focus on logic, I again see it as very weird. It even took me a while to really imagine that state, where you simply do not focus on it. Just externally it's very obvious if someone fails at logical things but the internal mental state belonging to that... that's easily at least as weird as someone who lacks in Se. I mean, when you're so emotional you don't think anymore, that's weird.


That is sort of like Ni, yeah. Here is a caricatured example I have experienced something similar to:
Yeah, of course I see the object and I know it spurred the thoughts and all....but was it cyan or blue? I don't remember. *looks again* Later....wait, was the top portion pyramidal or was it more spikeish at the top? *looks again* 50 ideas later...wow, this was fun, wait what was I doing? Oh yeah, this thingy needs to get put in that slot then the lever pulled. Wait, when was the thingy blue with a spike at the top? I don't remember that....oh wait, yeah, it was that was why I came up with these three ideas over here in the first place. 10 ideas later...object inserted and lever pulled.

I used to believe I was a thinker type of person, for a variety of reasons but mostly because I was told I had to be and that telling was reinforced when I didn't act on it. Now that I really know what a thinker is and what the functions are, the idea of me as a thinker is laughable. I use Ni to simulate rational thought, by reaching conclusions with Ni and knowing how to actually recognize how my own mind made the conclusion by watching the connections form. I've gotten good enough at it that I can usually tell someone the web of associations of exactly how I reached a conclusion step by step. This is what I thought Ti was back in the day. It's...not. Anywho, yeah I can rationally think things through and understand them logically in a Ti-ish way but I usually only do so when Ni is silent or needs some stimulating. That, or when I need to check for consistency of an idea or process before talking about it to someone else. Which I didn't do in my initial analysis very much =P



myst91 said:


> OK so why extraverted?
> 
> As for feeling asocial.. hmm yeah it's a vague feeling though.
> 
> Not sure how I'd impact people with any kind of F.


Extroversion discussed above, briefly.

Your F is vague and hard for me to define. The hints of it I see are in vaguely knowing how you would feel in a hypothetical situation with some confusion and having a vague feeling that you should be part of the group. Both of those could be seen as Fi or Fe, but only Fi if you value being part of something. Slightly more likely to be Fe. Probably Inferior.



myst91 said:


> The thing is, yes J and P are defined differently in theory in MBTI as they are linked to the first extraverted function while in Socionics they are linked to the first function overall; but I am talking about how the rules of the theory generate the descriptions of types from function order and this definitely results in different ones for the introverts if comparing MBTI to Socionics.


Hmm...I'd need examples to understand this. I guess my understanding is too limited and further research is needed.


----------



## xraydav (Jan 3, 2013)

Entropic said:


> She's an ISTP or ESTP.
> 
> Start with defining what you think Fi is, and we go from there. Chances are that your understanding of Fi is highly inaccurate, if you think the OP is one.


I try to rely on Jung's own words from psychological types, but I just see Fi in terms of 'deeply felt values' . It also may have an element of superiority to it. How do you define Fi? 

Also, it's not always a terrific approach to think that everyone is '100% this or that'. It is entirely up to the person in the end. 

ISTP or ESTP? Are you for real? What exactly up there, shows that process of 'reason'-finding that is common with ISTPs and also INTPs, ENTPs? Her whole post is covered with values, for example - "I'd only spend hours on it while it's not a very interesting topic". In this case, what is 'interesting' to one person is highly subjective, and is not backed up with any reasons, as would be in the ISTP. It is value-based, as 'interest' is a subjective value. 

Also, it's very hard to know what the OP is talking about sometimes, she speaks in intuitive figures and gestures about things, but really not absolute concrete perceptions - i.e. 'mental context' 'certain shades' instead of 'my friend who did x y z' . 

I can probably see ISTJ, but more INFP. Or Fi dom.


----------



## xraydav (Jan 3, 2013)

myst91 said:


> Hard to say which one I'd pick.
> 
> If I could_* lead *_that group, ensuring people are_* organized*_ to do what they need to do for the project, and am allowed to make the decisions myself based on analysis, of course including the input of the others if relevant, then I could consider the first project because I like the idea of making such an _*impact*_. If I'm just one of the many contributing to the project then I still want to follow everything by _*logically analyzing*_ and still want to have some _*influence*_ while interacting with the others, or I'd feel quite bored and the whole project option would have no advantages for me whatsoever.
> 
> ...


I'm going to use Entropic's definition of Fi to bring out what I see as , what you 'see' as your "logical function" and why I think it looks like Fi trying to organize its way through that level of rationalization. 

Entropic in his blog describes an Fi character as expressing


> that we need to consider the value another being brings to this world even if it’s very different from how we ourselves function and that _*we all possess our own value and worth*_:


 Your post in the question, shows more of a value function, almost everything you mentioned under the guise of 'Thinking' is your valuation of each of these experiences, where you express a desire to 'logically analyze' in a group situation, or any of the above. They are all value-based approaches to situations and new experiences. Also, your focus is mostly on intuitive dimensions - you have no concrete perceptions here, if you did your preference would be to state real life experiences or likewise, many more 'concrete' tangible things which colour a sensory reality, and appeal to vision, sights, sounds, etc. (i.e. "satisfying the demands of the structured school environment, which requires I put in every inch of sweat, to get all the work tabled and ready for letterbox at the RXY institute, that's what a group project meant to me in X Y Z experience") 

Also, you're an introvert, because it is very clear your focus is almost never concerned with external events, occurences, relationships with other people but more reflective ideas, abstractions, notions, etc which are subjective to yourself. While the times you do consider the former perceptions of extroversion, it is only in support of the primary subjective medium.


----------



## Serpent (Aug 6, 2015)

AverOblivious said:


> Also, your focus is mostly on intuitive dimensions - you have no concrete perceptions here, if you did your preference would be to state real life experiences or likewise, many more 'concrete' tangible things which colour a sensory reality, and appeal to vision, sights, sounds, etc. (i.e. *"satisfying the demands of the structured school environment, which requires I put in every inch of sweat, to get all the work tabled and ready for letterbox at the RXY institute, that's what a group project meant to me in X Y Z experience"*)


That's just awkward use of English in my opinion. Anyone can use generalizations and figures of speech, doesn't mean it has anything to do with some "intuitive dimension". Your idea of "concrete perceptions" sounds like a robot who takes everything literally. That bolded part? Who the hell talks like that? Sheldon Cooper?

I don't doubt you being an intuitive type because I can't understand what you're talking about when you say stuff like "primary subjective medium" because it's not rooted in reality. That's different from what you think is intuition, that's just English.


----------



## xraydav (Jan 3, 2013)

Quentyn said:


> That's just awkward use of English in my opinion. Anyone can use generalizations and figures of speech, doesn't mean it has anything to do with some "intuitive dimension". Your idea of "concrete perceptions" sounds like a robot who takes everything literally. That bolded part? Who the hell talks like that? Sheldon Cooper?
> 
> I don't doubt you being an intuitive type because I can't understand what you're talking about when you say stuff like "primary subjective medium" because it's not rooted in reality. That's different from what you think is intuition, that's just English.


I don't know why you are so persistent with these views. I've already told you why language is so damn important to determining functions. If you can't understand that, stop replying to my posts in a derogatory manner. (i.e. "You are like sheldon cooper"). I mean, I even gave you the research evidence in a previous forum. 

I guess we already know what type you are, something like a Gen Z 12 year old on a computer speaking derogatory comments about other people whom you don't know! :exterminate: Also, I've seen many xSFPs and xNTPs not get along here quite often, this would be a sign not to engage in conversation/pointless debate with some identified as this type.


----------



## Serpent (Aug 6, 2015)

AverOblivious said:


> I don't know why you are so persistent with these views. I've already told you why language is so damn important to determining functions. If you can't understand that, stop replying to my posts in a derogatory manner. (i.e. "You are like sheldon cooper"). I mean, I even gave you the research evidence.
> 
> I guess we already know what type you are, something like a Gen Z 12 year old on a computer speaking derogatory comments about other people whom you don't know! :exterminate:


I didn't compare you to Sheldon Cooper. I said your example of a Sensor sounded like Sheldon Cooper. 

Language may be important to determining functions but the way you go about it is ludicrous. It's like you eradicated everything you knew about the world when you were introduced to MBTI. You're out of touch with the real world. I mean, just read what you write. This may come off as derogatory to you but I'm just telling it like it is. This is my honest assessment of you.


----------



## xraydav (Jan 3, 2013)

Quentyn said:


> I didn't compare you to Sheldon Cooper. I said your example of a Sensor sounded like Sheldon Cooper.
> 
> Language may be important to determining functions but the way you go about it is ludicrous.


The fact that you have no real reason supporting you perceptions, (in the same analysis I did on the OP) makes me think you are a Fi/Te user of some sort.
The way I go about it can explain your personality as well lol



Quentyn said:


> You're out of touch with the real world. I mean, just read what you write. This may come off as derogatory to you but I'm just telling it like it is. This is my honest assessment of you.


Some 'honest opinions' are better kept to yourself. They may do more damage to the things you believe in or are 'fighting for', than you think. This is an issue I've come across with many other xSFP types, usually ISFPs actually. Well at least, on here, IRL they have a completely different effect when it comes to arguments lol


----------



## Serpent (Aug 6, 2015)

AverOblivious said:


> The fact that you have no real reason supporting you perceptions, (in the same analysis I did on the OP) makes me think you are a Fi/Te user of some sort.
> The way I go about it can explain your personality as well lol


Yeah, you don't really see people, do you? You just see systems.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

Interesting irrational arguments are interesting. Anyway, Averoblivious makes some interesting points. It is certainly an interesting argument. What do you think about his arguments, Myst? What about Quentyn's refutation? Do they strike home for you at all?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

AverOblivious said:


> I try to rely on Jung's own words from psychological types, but I just see Fi in terms of 'deeply felt values' . It also may have an element of superiority to it. How do you define Fi?
> 
> Also, it's not always a terrific approach to think that everyone is '100% this or that'. It is entirely up to the person in the end.
> 
> ISTP or ESTP? Are you for real? What exactly up there, shows that process of 'reason'-finding that is common with ISTPs and also INTPs, ENTPs?


To be honest, your username is kind of fitting; you really seem oblivious to what Fi is. Fi is not about values or even feeling deeply about them. Fe types can have strong values too and feel deeply about those, but it doesn't make them Fi. A lot of Fe types who for example value being authentic and expressing themselves authentically can have strong values they adhere to in the sense that it proves how authentic they are. Many of these often and easily mistype as Fi types as a result, exactly because of this jargon here. 

Fi isn't about values in itself, but it's about _how_ you derive them. Both Fe and Fi can deal with values. This is why socionics refer to the feeling function as ethics, rather than focusing on the nature of feeling and identifying feeling tones. I personally find it appropriate and less confusing. Fe derives ethical judgements from the external environment and Fi internally. 

Take for instance the sentence "It's wrong to murder." This isn't exemplary of Fi unless we understand the thought process as in, is this reasoning derived on a felt sense of feeling based on personal like/dislike or attraction/repulsion? Ti or even Te could arrive at this conclusion as well, though logically. Ti could hold it as a "law" they adhere to; not because they _feel_ it's wrong, but because it logically makes sense. For example, the Ti dom could agree with the principle that people have the right to life (agreeing with this statement could be a sign of the use of unconscious inferior feeling, however), and from there conclude that murder is wrong because logically speaking, if one thinks sanctity of life is important, it makes no sense to then agree that murder is right since murder is a clear contradiction of the former. 

Te could similarly recognize that there are societal laws in place that punishes murderers and from this vantage point agree with that murder is wrong; Fe doms may operate similarly but recognize the collective feeling tone/value of the matter e.g. "I think murder is wrong because of how people suffer from losing a dead one" (probably bad example, because I'm shit at reproducing Fe). Fi, on the other hand, would think, "Murder is wrong because it feels wrong _to me_. It feels wrong because it disgusts me and it creates this uncomfortable feeling in my body/chest/stomach. It revolts my insides and the thought of another human being dying is unjust and unfair, because what if that happened to me? I don't want to die, so why should you subject this experience upon anyone else? That's wrong. Because of this feeling inside, I want to psychologically move away from the thought and the action". Of course, for an Fi type, the process I just outlined is not very conscious and occurs instantaneously, but this is kind of how it goes. 

One thing you will find that separates Fe and Fi is that Fe types are attracted to outwards emotional expressions and tend to treat feelings as objects in themselves. This is because Fe, being extroverted, places emphasis on feelings outside of the self i.e. that which we find in the object world. It ignores the inner world of feeling and if there is a sense of inner feeling, this inner feeling has to be aligned with the outer. Hence you can may see Fe doms in particular often projecting their own inner feelings onto objects e.g. "I'm angry like a lion". They also often speak about passion or being passionate or treat subjects like love as a holistic concept that everyone has some kind of intrinsic connection to; to the Fe type, external connection of emotions is very important. Fi types, especially those who are introverted i.e. IxTJ and IxFP, shy away from this since their lead preference is introversion. They do not want to recognize the object environment as bearing any relevance on their psyche, including that of feeling tones. Love is not something which is we share externally via emotional signs of what it means to feel love, but love is something which we feel deeply within ourselves. Hence Jung's quote that feelings in the Fi dom is like "still waters run deep". It is unique to us and we can only truly understand the feeling of the other via what we feel within ourselves. Typical Fi interaction is that two people may simply silently share an emotional moment without doing anything; they aren't looking at each other, they aren't emoting, but they just stand/sit there. The feeling that both of them share is implied and only shown under the surface. This tends to unsettle Fe types because it makes them feel that they don't know what Fi types feel since again, the inner has to align itself with the outer. I found a great picture of this, recently:










Their intimacy and feeling for each other is implied but not emoted. 

I especially like Lenore Thomson's description of Fi, as I think it is very accurate: 



> Proposed definition #1
> Introverted Feeling (Fi) is the attitude that everything that is manifest (apparent, observable, described) is the expression of a soul or life force, in terms of which everything ultimately makes sense. Everything that happens is the result of a soul expressing its unique nature.
> 
> From this attitude, each living thing is completely unique, and has unique needs. Every living thing needs to express itself and grow in its unique way. None of this can be put into categories or measurements, at least not without blotting out that utter uniqueness of each living thing. Because we are all living things, even though each of us is unique we can still connect to the life force as it exists in others. From an Fi standpoint, the way to respond to things is in a way that is faithful to that underlying life force.
> ...


Personally, I strongly relate to both of these propositions of how I experience Fi. A great example of this playing out is this video:






You see how the focal point of the video is attempting to measure every being's unique needs against each other, and to find a compromise that works for everyone and does the least damage to all of them, which is what Lenore wrote here. 

I also like socionics' definition of Fi as understanding the [psychological] relationship distance between subject-object:



> This is the subjective relationship between two carriers of potential or kinetic energy that shows the level of attraction (or repulsion) between one object or subject and another object or subject. Thanks to this IM element a person feels which objects attract him and which repel him. You might say that this perceptual element conveys information about objects' need or lack of need of each other and about the presence or absence of mutual or one-way needs.
> 
> Such an individual perceives information about this facet of objective reality the individual perceives as a need for certain objects that satisfy physical wishes/desires, psychological or spiritual desires, and a need for other people — in other words, a person's wishes/desires and interests that are directed toward animate and inanimate objects. This includes feelings of like and dislike, love and hatred, the desire to obtain some thing/object, etc., and greed or the absense of greed. The higher feelings of this kind can be called ethical, because relationships between people's needs are mainly regulated by ethical normals.
> 
> When this perceptual element is in the leading position, the individual possesses the innate ability to perceive and evaluate wishes/desires — both his own and others'. He always knows who wants what from whom. He is able to set his awareness of subjective reality and his wishes in opposition to those of others. He has the ability to mould and perfect both his own and others' wishes. He possesses both the ability to provide himself with necessary relationships with others and confidence in his capacity to influence other people. His correct perception of human needs allows him to avoid risky collisions when satisfying his own needs. This engenders the ability to manipulate people's attachments, and the ability and desire to influence people's ethical feelings and bring these feelings closer to societal ideals.


When you feel strongly that you like something you want to (psychologically) move closer, but when you dislike something you want to (psychologically) move away from it, as I outlined in the example of how Fi could reason why it's wrong to murder. It is often understood as Ti being interested in measuring objects against each other in terms of logical value in order to understand their relationships; in socionics Ti is understood as being concerned about logical hierarchy e.g. 2 is greater than 1. Fi does the same thing but with relationships. I can make scales about how I feel about things and I can move people and things up and down this scale. I for example really like the movie Cell, and I like it a lot more than I like the movie Lord of the Rings, which I think is kind of ok but I don't like it as much as I like True Detective, which I think is one of the best things that's happened to TV in a long time, which makes it clearly superior to other TV series that are hyped like Game of Thrones which I kind of like but don't care so much about overall etc. You don't see Fe-Ti talking about stuff like this, generally speaking. I can't think of one example where I've seen two Fe-Ti types have a conversation that goes like this because it's not really how they naturally reason or care about how to think about things.

Fe-Ti types can talk about movies they enjoy, sure enough, everyone can, but making these overt scales of like/dislike where you for example rate movies from best to worst that's not really their thing. Ti may measure movies but not whether they like/dislike them, but more based on logical hierarchies e.g. how to organize a movie library or the like. That's a big difference between the two. 



> Her whole post is covered with values, for example - "I'd only spend hours on it while it's not a very interesting topic". In this case, what is 'interesting' to one person is highly subjective, and is not backed up with any reasons, as would be in the ISTP. It is value-based, as 'interest' is a subjective value.
> 
> Also, it's very hard to know what the OP is talking about sometimes, she speaks in intuitive figures and gestures about things, but really not absolute concrete perceptions - i.e. 'mental context' 'certain shades' instead of 'my friend who did x y z' .
> 
> I can probably see ISTJ, but more INFP. Or Fi dom.


That's not Fi but thinking. She doesn't at any point give off the intention that she cares about it due to an inner sense of feeling of attraction/repulsion. In fact, if she was an Fi type, she would probably phrase that particular sentence more, "I don't like to spend time on this because I don't like this subject and it bores me. I'd only do it if there was nothing better to do."

See the difference and how inserting some like/dislike feelings changes the entire nature and attitude of what was being expressed? Of course, Fe egos may sometimes speak in terms of like/dislike as well, but it tends to lack the inner conviction that you see in Fi types, since Fe types don't operate on inner feelings, as was mentioned, but emphasize external expressions of feelings over that of our inner felt reality.

That you think the OP is an INFP is ludicrous and makes me wonder if you've ever met one or spoken to one very intimately.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Hmm. I still see that as strong S. Not sure orientation. I am inclined toward a T-S or an S-T type after all this thought. You come across as extroverted in this discourse, but that doesn't mean you are, and you did specify hobbies that are fairly low key that are common to introverts. I am leaning toward Se-Ti or Ti-Se at this moment. Perhaps the ESTP or the ISTP?


OK, yeah, those are the two types that make the most sense to me too 

You say I come across as extraverted as I am talking to you? How?




> When I looked at the picture frame first, I did it to define the limits in a way. By looking at all of what is first and then focusing in deeper, I have a sense of what the artist actually made, what is, and then I focus on what it means and what else could be. That first step is very quick, I basically rotate my eye around the whole picture and note all the details and then start focusing on "the important stuff" (to me XD). Its almost a formality in a way. I don't want to be wrong by missing something is what it boils down to.


Wow, nice description; yeah I noticed Ni-doms do that checking out and noting all the details, while I only take a look and see it all in one (no rotating). I'm not sure what you meant by defining limits by the picture frame... what limits? 




> That is sort of like Ni, yeah. Here is a caricatured example I have experienced something similar to:
> Yeah, of course I see the object and I know it spurred the thoughts and all....but was it cyan or blue? I don't remember. *looks again* Later....wait, was the top portion pyramidal or was it more spikeish at the top? *looks again* 50 ideas later...wow, this was fun, wait what was I doing? Oh yeah, this thingy needs to get put in that slot then the lever pulled. Wait, when was the thingy blue with a spike at the top? I don't remember that....oh wait, yeah, it was that was why I came up with these three ideas over here in the first place. 10 ideas later...object inserted and lever pulled.


Thanks, that again helps me understand the internal process going on more  Sounds like your memory isn't exactly oriented towards retaining sensory details either, I mean I would take that quick look and then probably move on but then I would still remember at least the most relevant shapes and colours. If I try more then I can usually pull out more details beyond that from memory. I don't really think back by default though, I just tried that as an experiment.

As a comparison, if I was manipulating that slot machine you seemed to be describing or anything else, I would feel acutely uncomfortable if I was to tune out into whatever thoughts from the action itself. I'm basically the action itself while I'm acting. 




> I used to believe I was a thinker type of person, for a variety of reasons but mostly because I was told I had to be and that telling was reinforced when I didn't act on it. Now that I really know what a thinker is and what the functions are, the idea of me as a thinker is laughable. I use Ni to simulate rational thought, by reaching conclusions with Ni and knowing how to actually recognize how my own mind made the conclusion by watching the connections form. I've gotten good enough at it that I can usually tell someone the web of associations of exactly how I reached a conclusion step by step. This is what I thought Ti was back in the day. It's...not. Anywho, yeah I can rationally think things through and understand them logically in a Ti-ish way but I usually only do so when Ni is silent or needs some stimulating. That, or when I need to check for consistency of an idea or process before talking about it to someone else. Which I didn't do in my initial analysis very much =P


Yes this makes sense, I understand the difference between Ti and Ni. 




> Your F is vague and hard for me to define. The hints of it I see are in vaguely knowing how you would feel in a hypothetical situation with some confusion and having a vague feeling that you should be part of the group. Both of those could be seen as Fi or Fe, but only Fi if you value being part of something. Slightly more likely to be Fe. Probably Inferior.


If you want, you can ask me more about it 

What do you mean by valuing "being part of something"?




> Hmm...I'd need examples to understand this. I guess my understanding is too limited and further research is needed.


Enjoy the research 

Hm, examples, ok, take MBTI ISFJ and Socionics ISFp, both are Si/Fe but Si in MBTI is defined in a way that it includes some elements that sound like Ji and overall pretty rigid. Also Fe, of course, is defined as rather Rational. The result is of course a type who has J behaviour. In Socionics, Si is defined in a very Irrational way which is btw closer to how Jung defines it and this is what determines the Ip temperament for ISFp, also description of the type generated from that Si definition depicts clear P behaviour.


----------



## xraydav (Jan 3, 2013)

selena87 said:


> @_AverOblivious_
> 
> Are you serious or are you trolling with the INFP typing? hehehehe
> 
> OK so the Fi issue was discussed, can you tell me where you see Ne here? Btw is your name Jeremy by any chance?


LMAO dude, halfway I just gave up. The thing with that was, I even mentioned to these fellas over here, that I didn't really read any of her post (I read like half) and made an assertion that _*she may* be INFP

*_As can be seen in this post: 



> I read over half and saw multiple indicators for Fi, but I'm not 100% certain. Still probably more certain than most people here though! :laughing:


Key words: "I read over half" . Only half of her post In my previous post, this is literally the only reason* that I saw Fi in her post for. 



> ISTP or ESTP? Are you for real? What exactly up there, shows that process of 'reason'-finding that is common with ISTPs and also INTPs, ENTPs? Her whole post is covered with values, for example - "I'd only spend hours on it while it's not a very interesting topic". In this case, what is 'interesting' to one person is highly subjective, and is not backed up with any reasons, as would be in the ISTP. It is value-based, as 'interest' is a subjective value.


I think I also stated this same thing, with repetition a couple of times, except worded it in different ways. Basically, half of what she says is 'oh my god ! look at all my values!" :laughing:


----------



## xraydav (Jan 3, 2013)

It's even more hilarious when people here think that MBTI is an exact science. OH MY GOD I MET HERE SHE MUST BE ISTP :laughing:

I know for a fact, that people who 'absolutely are certain I am ISTP !' and nothing else, 2 years go by, they go onto 'unknown personality' and then leave this shit for good. lmao 
_*
No one here is absolutely anything. *_

What I was doing with @_Entropic_ is merely providing a different more justifiable way of looking at things in the Fi perspective. The argument still holds, I didn't really see any contradiction for that argument given by either side, but there is a good argument for ISTP nonetheless. The OP actually provides a lot of value-based thinking, uncommon in Ti users.

However, there is also the fact, that she is best described with Ti and is hence an ISTP. I can also see this, and I agree with this typing.

I just don't agree with the fact that anyone could be certain. I have been on these sites for over 5-7 years and I myself am still not sure of my own MBTI type. 

So when @_Entropic_ goes 'Anyone who thinks the OP has Fi, has no accurate understanding of Fi'. 

I'm just like...











What I did pretty much half way through this venture, is actually quoted his own blog - Entropic's own blog and his description of Fi. To see if he would contradict his own words (which I knew he would, because she is of course ISTP! :laughing

His reply was literally this :


> To be honest, your username is kind of fitting; you really seem oblivious to what Fi is. Fi is not about values or even feeling deeply about them.


The dude contradicted the stuff referenced from his own blog without even knowing it. :laughing: And if Entropic is reading this, this isn't a bad thing. It really it isn't. It just means you are human like the rest of us. I know this, I'm sure I've contradicted myself writing this post as well. 

Anyway, I said that the OP may be ISTP later on, after having a look at her *whole** post. And that's when I was like 'whatever'. Of course, there are other ways of looking at someone's psyche, and if you think someone is 'definitely Fi' or definitely Ti' - either is erroneous and stupid and highly inaccurate.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> *munches popcorn* *Watches people fighting over words* *munches more popcorn* *shakes head*
> 
> So, Myst, did you have any more questions for me? I think I have helped as much as I can at this time with my current knowledge, unless I am missing something.


Lol. Yes I asked you some things in my last response to you




selena87 said:


> @myst91 This thread cracks me up. I didn't know that you're an INFP too. Come to delta


No way, I'd rather save all of you lost betas from delta 




> Btw is your name Jeremy by any chance?


:crazy:




AverOblivious said:


> I think I also stated this same thing, with repetition a couple of times, except worded it in different ways. Basically, half of what she says is 'oh my god ! look at all my values!" :laughing:


Nope. That is not what I was saying anywhere. It only exists in your imagination. 




AverOblivious said:


> It's even more hilarious when people here think that MBTI is an exact science. OH MY GOD I MET HERE SHE MUST BE ISTP :laughing:


Definitions can be operationalized for research. Worst case, the theory gets refuted. 




> I know for a fact, that people who 'absolutely are certain I am ISTP !' and nothing else, 2 years go by, they go onto 'unknown personality' and then leave this shit for good. lmao
> _*
> No one here is absolutely anything. *_


You overly relativize this.




> What I was doing with @_Entropic_ is merely providing a different more justifiable way of looking at things in the Fi perspective. The argument still holds, I didn't really see any contradiction for that argument given by either side, but there is a good argument for ISTP nonetheless. The OP actually provides a lot of value-based thinking, uncommon in Ti users.


No. I do not provide "a lot of value-based thinking". Again, your imagination. 

And, if you mean, your argument for Fi holds, nope. You have never proven your imagination on it.




> However, there is also the fact, that she is best described with Ti and is hence an ISTP. I can also see this, and I agree with this typing.


So you mean to say I display both Ti and Fi but more Ti than Fi?




> I just don't agree with the fact that anyone could be certain. I have been on these sites for over 5-7 years and I myself am still not sure of my own MBTI type.


It's pointless if you cannot be certain.

Btw ENTP makes sense for you just fine.




> "Fi is not about values or even feeling deeply about them."
> 
> The dude contradicted the stuff referenced from his own blog without even knowing it. :laughing: And if Entropic is reading this, this isn't a bad thing. It really it isn't. It just means you are human like the rest of us. I know this, I'm sure I've contradicted myself writing this post as well.


I assume @Entropic meant that having values or feeling deeply is not specific to Fi as a cognitive perspective. So I don't see the problem? But he can explain what he meant. 




> Anyway, I said that the OP may be ISTP later on, after having a look at her *whole** post. And that's when I was like 'whatever'.


Alright now I at least understand what you meant by the "whatever" comment. 




> Of course, there are other ways of looking at someone's psyche, and if you think someone is 'definitely Fi' or definitely Ti' - either is erroneous and stupid and highly inaccurate.


What is the point of never ascertaining anything? Mental masturbation?!


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

AverOblivious said:


> It's even more hilarious when people here think that MBTI is an exact science. OH MY GOD I MET HERE SHE MUST BE ISTP :laughing:
> 
> I know for a fact, that people who 'absolutely are certain I am ISTP !' and nothing else, 2 years go by, they go onto 'unknown personality' and then leave this shit for good. lmao
> _*
> ...


Yeah, so go find the quotes on my blog that supports your argument that I contradicted myself and we are talking. Right now it just looks like you are pulling shit out from your ass and I can tell you this much that I am not very fond of this kind of intellectual dishonesty where you accuse someone else of contradicting themselves based on their own provided sources without showing how they are so. At this rate I believe that you a) is sorely misinterpreting the information on my blog and b) is doing it with the purpose of defaming my character so you can "win" this argument. Very petty, either way. 

Go find the quotes and provide how I contradict myself, and maybe we have something to discuss.



myst91 said:


> I assume @Entropic meant that having values or feeling deeply is not specific to Fi as a cognitive perspective. So I don't see the problem? But he can explain what he meant.


I assume, if he actually read my blog which I am not sure he did either lol, because I don't know how you can misinterpret the information there that badly, that he's basing it on my post about Parasyte: The Maxim:

http://typologist.blog.com/2015/04/17/how-the-anime-parasyte-the-maxim-teaches-us-about-fi/

In the opening paragraphs, I write this:



> As it turns out, Migi has a very different understanding of the world compared to Shinichi. Shinichi, at least early on in the plot, is characterized as an INFP and as such, has strong ideas concerning human value and worth; *a recurring theme in Shinichi’s presentation is his refusal to commit murder or to place other human beings in danger.*





> Migi understands the world through Te pragmatism and has difficulty understanding Shinichi’s focus on his sense of ethical *values*.


One could assume that I'm expressing that Fi is about values, except it is not the final sentence that is of relevance, but this particular line: "has strong ideas concerning human value and worth". Similarly, in the second sentence, the emphasis is not on the word "value", but "ethical". Seeing how @AverOblivious always literally nitpicks on particular buzzwords and interprets those to mean something functionally without being able to understand that their meaning is actually highly context-dependent i.e. the word value can be uttered by any kind of type, but how the value is reasoned and expressed makes a big darn difference about that person's cognitive preferences, I am not surprised he thinks my blog supports his case. It's cherrypicking at its finest, without understanding the total content of what is being presented. It's conscious misrepresentation to argue his case, and the intellectual dishonesty of the act seriously appalls me. If you do not understand the message of the content that is being delivered, it is better to admit that so is not the case, instead of arguing for something which is made up. At this rate, his presence in this thread is like an air balloon that is kept being filled up with helium. Sooner or later he'll go poof. 

Furthermore, if we keep on reading, we find this as my closing paragraph:



> From this perspective, we can see how Parasyte: The Maxim showcases the higher level of understanding Fi awareness brings us, and that Parasyte is not just a body horror story *as much as it is a story about the importance of recognizing what Lenore Thomson calls the life force or essence in every living being, and what happens when the needs and wants of these life forces or essences come into conflict with one another and how one reconciles these conflicts.*


So in actuality, the source I'm citing when building my argument is that of Lenore Thomson's definitions that I already posted in this thread. Pigeonholing my word use such as "values" is entirely missing the big picture and the total point of the message which is delivered. 

The main point is delivered, here:



> Parasyte wants to teach us that even though humans and parasites are widely opposing organisms who are more likely to see each other as a threat to their own being, are actually highly codependent and that we cannot live without each other and that *we need to consider the value another being brings to this world even if it’s very different from how we ourselves function and that we all possess our own value and worth*


The bolded part is an Fi-reasoned message. I don't see Ti ego types expressing stuff like this. In fact, I saw a good example of how Ti considers why murder is wrong and how they reason about morality in a very recent post:



> *What does moral mean? What is immoral? Does your understanding correlate with the others? How can you evaluate the correctness of your own understanding?*
> 
> There are plenty of factors that make an act immoral.
> 
> ...


This is understanding morality based on definitions, not recognizing some kind of ethical essence or static character that is innate in all life.



> What is the point of never ascertaining anything? Mental masturbation?!


I really don't know why Ti + intuition (I've seen this in betas as well, that over-emphasize Ni with Ti), often leads to a stupid position of extreme solipsism and how this argument is pulled when they've put themselves in a corner where their logical foundation is questioned and they can't get out of it. 

I have a somewhat solipsist attitude (it's really more ideological, though) in that I believe we cannot know objective reality because I think objective reality is up for too much interpretation (just look at this thread, where people cannot agree on what X is, despite there being clear definitions that we can rely upon to make our case). It doesn't make me into an extreme relativist, though, as I believe there is an objective reality, but we cannot objectively know it. 

The position either way, is kind of stupid, imo. If you cannot know anything you can also make up anything which means that all this becomes pointless and from there it spirals into absurdity. So why even give a fuck? You can't even know whether you are giving a fuck or whether that fuck is of relevance, lmao.


----------



## xraydav (Jan 3, 2013)

@Entropic Sorry man, I seriously dont have the time lol maybe you can put this one together yourself


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

AverOblivious said:


> @Entropic Sorry man, I seriously dont have the time lol maybe you can put this one together yourself


You have time to read my blog but you don't have time to go find quotes from my blog? Yeah man, admit more that you are making shit up. Maybe it's better to concede defeat next time, instead of accusing shit about people that they didn't say.


----------



## xraydav (Jan 3, 2013)

@Entropic Okay.. now you are imagining stuff . I actually don't have the time to look through everything and make it all very very clear for you wherever the confusion is


----------



## selena87 (Aug 15, 2014)

@AverOblivious

Since the point of this thread is to type the OP, we would have to first assume that she 1) has a type and 2) the system is valid. You going off on a tangent about what how nobody can be certain, is pretty much irrelevant and unnecessary, and not helpful at all to finding out OP's type. What's the point of MBTI then, if nobody can be certain of their type and hence apply it in their lives? Why are you even here on this site now? Aren't you wasting your time?



> What I was doing with @Entropic is merely providing a different more justifiable way of looking at things in the Fi perspective.


OK but how is your perspective "more justifiable"? I don't understand your reasoning



> *No one here is absolutely anything.*
> 
> I just don't agree with the fact that anyone could be certain. I have been on these sites for over 5-7 years and I myself am still not sure of my own MBTI type.


Just because you can't be certain of yourself, doesn't mean that others will be the same. And even if you wish to make a point about it - how about saying it directly first instead of drawing attention by distracting people with troll typings? Make your own thread will you?



> Sorry man, I seriously dont have the time lol maybe you can put this one together yourself





> Okay.. now you are imagining stuff . I actually don't have the time to look through everything and make it all very very clear for you wherever the confusion is


hehehehe rekt


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

AverOblivious said:


> @Entropic Sorry man, I seriously dont have the time lol maybe you can put this one together yourself


You do sound like your name is Jeremy lol


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Fwiw it took me like 10 minutes to find the relevant parts o from my blog or something, including the writeup that I added. The actual blog post is very brief and to the point. Any skim reader will quickly find what they are looking for.


----------



## xraydav (Jan 3, 2013)

selena87 said:


> @_AverOblivious_
> 
> Since the point of this thread is to type the OP, we would have to first assume that she 1) has a type and 2) the system is valid. You going off on a tangent about what how nobody can be certain, is pretty much irrelevant and unnecessary, and not helpful at all to finding out OP's type. What's the point of MBTI then, if nobody can be certain of their type and hence apply it in their lives? Why are you even here on this site now? Aren't you wasting your time?
> 
> OK but how is your perspective "more justifiable"? I don't understand your reasoning


The system is still valid, if people are not 'ascertained' 'certain' types. The thing with the system, is that it is not an exact science. I already explained that.

I'm probably wasting my time on here, but so are you, and Entropic and everyone else. We come one here to talk about our ideas, and really if Entropic is going to say 'Well I am the ultimate authority on this, and everyone else is wrong'. That really interferes with everyone's pursuit of the truth and ideas, and a community deserves better than that. 

I never really attacked your right to speak your ideas freely, whatever, 'attacks' i made, where in response to the attacks by Entropic specifically to me ('Anyone who understands her to be Fi, does not understand Fi at all!')



myst91 said:


> You do sound like your name is Jeremy lol


My name is not Jeremy. You are wrong. 



Entropic said:


> Fwiw it took me like 10 minutes to find the relevant parts o from my blog or something, including the writeup that I added. The actual blog post is very brief and to the point. Any skim reader will quickly find what they are looking for.


It will take me 10000 minutes to find whatever confusion you had with my side of the arguments here. I'm not sure how you see it, but I see it as if you have literally contorted or cherry picked as you would say, whatever arguments you wanted everyone to hear. Rather than building on mine. 

I actually really see no refutation of my original arguments. You keep making claims, but they are not directly linked to my arguments at all. SO, to put them all together would take time which I do not wish to waste. 

If this were a debate, I would have at it. But you did not give me that opportunity. Again, we are not going anywhere.


----------



## xraydav (Jan 3, 2013)

@_Entropic_ 

Of course, I "concede defeat". Does that make you happy, to 'Win?'. Although, you were talking about how I was merely trying to win in your last post


> is doing it with the purpose of defaming my character so you can "win" this argument. Very petty, either way.


The thing is you were being hypocritical, and malicious, by stating I was trying to win an argument, but on the other hand, attempting to 'win' an argument. 

Also, I do not think this is an "experiment" to be 'intellectually dishonest' about. There are no real results here. Just your opinions. To see it in the terms of an experiment, is to see it in the terms of results and scientific validity. None of this reigns here, and your authority, is the only thing that is being exerted.
*
In other words, you think you are actually an authority on MBTI. While I admit my stupidity over this whole matter. I also did before. That's a shame on you as well, for still attacking me personally. *

Please search up 'lexical hypothesis'. The stuff about words, is actually well founded. And it comes from the Big Five, so that whole thing about 'the word value can be uttered by any kind of type' , is a misunderstanding of what I had to say. Also, I did try to read it in context of her OP, just not all of it.

And yes, this is my 1/10000th of an attempt to try and argue your argument, which was pretty much all over the place, and not linked to my standing points in this so called 'argument' about the OP. I couldn't waste my time trying to find the rest, your posts are wayy too long. You spend too much time making them.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

AverOblivious said:


> The system is still valid, if people are not 'ascertained' 'certain' types. The thing with the system, is that it is not an exact science. I already explained that.
> 
> I'm probably wasting my time on here, but so are you, and Entropic and everyone else. We come one here to talk about our ideas, and really if Entropic is going to say 'Well I am the ultimate authority on this, and everyone else is wrong'. That really interferes with everyone's pursuit of the truth and ideas, and a community deserves better than that.
> 
> ...


I really don't care for your empty smokescreens and constant backpedaling. Either you provide a case for your reasoning or you don't, but if you don't, don't expect anyone to take what you say seriously because they won't. You could opt to challenge my claimed authority by pointing out how and where I'm wrong. I seriously wouldn't mind, especially when interpreting the op. You never did but just constantly evade the issue by painting yourself into a victim. Go ahead, but at this rate you've undermined any potential credibility you could have had, would you just have challenged people's claims seriously. 

I'm not mad at you or anything, though I'm kind of repulsed by what you did and then claim that I'm the one committing the crime. 

It's up to you whether you want to actually debate like a mature person or whether you'll continue to yell like an angry child whose candy cane was taken away from them. I'm not going anywhere.


----------



## xraydav (Jan 3, 2013)

I'm also apparently not good at wording my entire arguments under the heat of personal attacks. Surprise surprise, so maybe i said some things that were out of line along the way, which I can't back up. But the central reasoning for my arguments still stand.



Entropic said:


> It's up to you whether you want to actually debate like a mature person or whether you'll continue to yell like an angry child whose candy cane was taken away from them. I'm not going anywhere.


This is a personal attack. Whether you realize it or not.


----------



## xraydav (Jan 3, 2013)

Entropic said:


> I really don't care for your empty smokescreens and constant backpedaling. Either you provide a case for your reasoning or you don't, but if you don't, don't expect anyone to take what you say seriously because they won't. You could opt to challenge my claimed authority by pointing out how and where I'm wrong. I seriously wouldn't mind, especially when interpreting the op. You never did but just constantly evade the issue by painting yourself into a victim. Go ahead, but at this rate you've undermined any potential credibility you could have had, would you just have challenged people's claims seriously.


I don't know what those claims you made were. I am seriously looking through your posts to find ways that they link up to my previous arguments, so it's a bit difficult. lol 

Firstly, it was that 'value' words/argument/hoodoo that you heard me say. Secondly, I referenced that argument using the lexical hypothesis in my previous post. Put the two together, you have my argument. It's a weak argument, but it still stands, unless refuted with enough reasoning/evidence. 

It's all up there. 



> I'm not mad at you or anything, though I'm kind of repulsed by what you did and then claim that I'm the one committing the crime.


Mad? in the end, we are all Jung fans, with no where else to go but here to discuss our ideas. So why worry with being 'mad' at anyone? I'm sure it was quite an experience. Well with me being absolutely wrong and all . :tongue:


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

myst91 said:


> OK, yeah, those are the two types that make the most sense to me too


Oh good!!!! That means we are getting somewhere!



myst91 said:


> You say I come across as extraverted as I am talking to you? How?


Your open and inquisitive manner is one way. Your quite verbose initial answers to the questionnaire is another. Mostly, though, it is a gut feeling that I am getting that I can't decipher at this moment. I must have missed it when I made that conclusion? This is what happens when you drink and Ni. OK, that was just a joke, I wasn't drinking, but still. I don't recall exactly why I made that conclusion, so after I post this response I will reread your initial questionnaire and logically decipher where I see introversion and where I see extroversion.



myst91 said:


> Wow, nice description; yeah I noticed Ni-doms do that checking out and noting all the details, while I only take a look and see it all in one (no rotating). I'm not sure what you meant by defining limits by the picture frame... what limits?


The limits of that picture are:
Firstly, it is a static frame. There is no sense of motion inherently, only subjectively and in an abstract manner. It is confined to the edges of the box as well and only imagination can fill in details. When I examine these limits, my imagination fills in details as demonstrated below.

Secondly, the cliffsides are nice looking and all, but what is on top of them? Is there stuff up there out of frame? Maybe there is a village of indigenous peoples there that the artist was staying with. Is this a real place? I bet I could write a great story about the indigenous peoples of the Roanoke Divide. (I made that name up just now)

Thirdly, the tiny forest in the frame blocks view of what is behind the forest. What is over there? I bet there could be a neat campsite there. Or maybe more trees you can't see. 

Fourth, the river bends around and continues on out of frame in two directions. What is behind the cliffs up this river? What is beyond the artist coming towards the frame? What is the location that this transpires in? What is the significance of capturing this frame but not the *other* natural beauty of this location? I bet it has something to do with a feeling. The artist chose that view for a reason, and that means it is likely the best "Snapshot" of this location in the region. That means it is likely the artist traveled to reach that spot, unless of course it is all imagined.

Now that I have the limits defined, I can look at what actually is and decide why it is so and come up with the meaning of the picture. I recall that when I took this test, I saw the nature of existence and life itself within this photo, but since I am reciting this analysis entirely from memory without the picture i front of me I must admit I do not recall why. Something about the solitude of some trees and the way contrasts were used within the frame, as well as the sense of motion of the river and the fact that it is a fixed image all contributed to that impression I got.

Does that help show my reasoning?



myst91 said:


> Thanks, that again helps me understand the internal process going on more  Sounds like your memory isn't exactly oriented towards retaining sensory details either, I mean I would take that quick look and then probably move on but then I would still remember at least the most relevant shapes and colours. If I try more then I can usually pull out more details beyond that from memory. I don't really think back by default though, I just tried that as an experiment.
> 
> As a comparison, if I was manipulating that slot machine you seemed to be describing or anything else, I would feel acutely uncomfortable if I was to tune out into whatever thoughts from the action itself. I'm basically the action itself while I'm acting.


Oh, I hate trying to remember exact details. I mean...holy heck, I just realized I don't know what color my mom's eyes are. I can tell you about her smile, or the way she always keeps her hair smooth and flowing, or how she dresses in distinctive leopard print pregnancy pants and thinks that doing so is just fine and not ratty looking because that's how she feels about it, or how she likes cute little tweety birds and fat cows and chirping frogs and cute little turtles, and I can tell you she is blind without her glasses and I got my freckles from her but damned if I know what color her eyes are or what the proportions of her face or hands are. I think I know her height within like 2 inches, which is unusually good for me when it comes to remembering heights. My memory of those details is much poorer than that for most people.

The fact that you are uncomfortable when you are *not* engaging Se speaks volumes. That means it is both very high in your function stack *and* is valued and preferred. That makes it a conscious function, Lead if Extrovert or Aux if Introvert. So back to ESTP/ISTP we go. ^^



myst91 said:


> Yes this makes sense, I understand the difference between Ti and Ni.


Are you saying you understand because you didn't need the example, or are you just agreeing with what I said, or...both? Anyway, yeah, that is what I experienced in regards to Ti before I even knew about the existence of MBTI. Now I can see it when I want to. Hell, I used a touch of it above when I organized my thoughts and presented them about that picture. Not a lot, but I actually imposed some order on things and made a rudimentary list. Sarcasm - I'm so good at Ti! /sarcasm *rolleyes* 



myst91 said:


> If you want, you can ask me more about it
> 
> What do you mean by valuing "being part of something"?


The group, the society, a specific social circle, a state of getting along with others, whatever it is that is valued. Fe wants to engage values and morals outside the self, which means it values being part of something that can be affected usually. For example, as an INFJ I very highly value helping others directly because it shows my internal values of what is right in the outside world and helps form connections, but I also value being part of society and strive to improve it for all with some activism as time allows. I value both individual relationships and my own relationship to society itself as a group construct. That's a simplified description of course, there is a lot I could say about my thoughts on ethics and values and the relationships that it impacts, but anyway. That valuation to me is one way of manifesting Fe. So when you feel "vaguely antisocial" when you don't spend time with the group, that strikes me as weak Fe that wants to belong and fit in the group and/or form connections with others. Not all Fe users care about all of society, and not all Fe users care about specific people over society, and not all Fe users care about specific people (such as warped antisocial masterminds that want to rule the world "for the good of us all", who only care about society and not people).

Fe is at its core about imposing ethics on the world by interacting with it and by expressing these values. This may or may not take the form of trying to change people or the status quo depending on *what those values are*. Since you are T valuing and you dislike brainstorming, that means your F takes the form of supporting what you care about in that manner. If it is Fi, then it is internal values guiding extroverted thinking to achieve goals. If it is Fe, then it is awareness of the group and what is expected and/or fits in supporting internal logic and understanding.




myst91 said:


> Enjoy the research
> 
> Hm, examples, ok, take MBTI ISFJ and Socionics ISFp, both are Si/Fe but Si in MBTI is defined in a way that it includes some elements that sound like Ji and overall pretty rigid. Also Fe, of course, is defined as rather Rational. The result is of course a type who has J behaviour. In Socionics, Si is defined in a very Irrational way which is btw closer to how Jung defines it and this is what determines the Ip temperament for ISFp, also description of the type generated from that Si definition depicts clear P behaviour.


This is intriguing. I'd like to do a comparison/contrast between the two. Can you provide a link to the type description that you are using for the MBTI ISFJ and the Socionics ISFp, and perhaps a link to the Si descriptions you refer to? I can easily google it, sure, but I would prefer to use the most reliable ones that are informing your own informed statement here that you believe to be, um, the most true as it were. If I can do this and see how the systems differ in this particular manner, then perhaps I could understand better why you say a direct conversion is inadvisable.



myst91 said:


> It's pointless if you cannot be certain.


THIS. This is from your most recent post, and I pulled it because it is a great example of Ti. This statement is all about having a rational, logical understanding within yourself.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

myst91 said:


> Please ignore the typing in my profile. Thanks for input


I/E analysis as requested.



myst91 said:


> *SCENARIO 1*_
> OK well, my first immediate reaction after him disappearing will be finding him to talk to him. Obviously even before I get to know about the issue from the family. This is because I want open communication on issues instead of just disappearing like that. Before knowing what the reason is I'd be feeling angry.
> 
> OK, let's assume I somehow get to know this from the family first. Then I will have double the motivation to seek him out. The one I mentioned above and the other one is that I want to be there. It is hard to imagine what I'd actually feel beyond that I would be definitely very shocked. Immediate and complete disaster for both of us, is all I imagine I could think of.
> ...


_

OK, this strikes me as distinctly introverted here. The first focus is on getting the self ready to deal with what is going is, which sounds like an introverted action to take. I also note that the response is being run through a T lens, asking for clarification, despite being an F scenario, and despite being a disaster in your own words. T>F introversion. In Enneagram terms, I am noting SX/SP or SP/SX behavior here, which is somewhat more common in introverts. Not conclusive though.



myst91 said:



*SCENARIO 2* 
Well what I do depends on the following factors. If I find the subject really interesting, I would be glad to explain it in detail to anyone who asks about it, in which case I would do so with this roommate too. If not that interesting, then well, it depends on how much time this is going to take. If she asks nicely and it takes like just half an hour then sure why not, I can spend that much time on it. I'd only spend hours on it while it's not a very interesting topic if I'm really bored, if I have nothing else to do, if I'm in the mood somehow, whatever. The fact the roommate could fail the entire course would also factor in in terms of me willing to spend a bit longer on it than I would by default but the other factors as above still matter overall. 

Yet another thing that will count is whatever I find out after I do start working with the roommate on it. E.g. they seem completely hopeless at grasping the ideas or they are too lazy to even pay attention properly or they try to convince me to contribute to making the answers themselves too, in these cases I will stop helping them. 

Note: as for the rule of the students having to work alone, that to me doesn't mean the student can't ask for help in understanding the subject material. As long as I'm not telling them the answers themselves, I see no problem here. I'd just slightly prefer it if the roommate had asked me before seeing the actual questions in the test.

And, I don't understand why I needed to focus on my feeling process here. I'd hardly have any feelings here other than maybe feeling enthusiastic if it's an interesting subject. Also feeling somewhat uncomfortable for a second or so if I'm asked for such a favour knowing I'm going to have to refuse the request if I don't want to do it for the above mentioned reasons. Oh also, if they tried to insist even after me explaining I cannot do it for them, I'd get irritated or outright angry. That's because, them just being a random roommate, they don't really have the right to demand such a big favour.

Click to expand...



I am seeing a lot of externalized judgments here, such as commenting that a random room mate does not have the right to demand such a big favour. I am also seeing internalized judgments about whether it is worth your time, and that precedes the external judgments. The question is if it also supersedes them as well? I am also noting another instance of T over F asking for clarification. I/E inconclusive here.




myst91 said:



*SCENARIO 3*
Hard to say which one I'd pick. 

If I could lead that group, ensuring people are organized to do what they need to do for the project, and am allowed to make the decisions myself based on analysis, of course including the input of the others if relevant, then I could consider the first project because I like the idea of making such an impact. If I'm just one of the many contributing to the project then I still want to follow everything by logically analyzing and still want to have some influence while interacting with the others, or I'd feel quite bored and the whole project option would have no advantages for me whatsoever. 

I also like how the second project needs deep analysis so this would have quite the appeal too. Working alone is ok too, it has its advantages but disadvantages as well, like feeling too unsociable. 

I've done both types of projects and it's really really hard to say which I prefer overall if it's set up the way I want it. 

Click to expand...



I see a strong focus on external impact here, so a Je function. Your desire for external impact appears to supersede all other considerations in the first project based on the language you use - "or I'd feel quite bored and the whole project option would have no advantages for me whatsoever". As I see strong T influence in the first two responses and I see Je here, this would be where I first decided on Te. I realize I did that because I see Je being in the top two based on your strong desire for impact here and I see strong T>F, so that is the source of the Te conclusion.

On second examination, I do see that the mention of boredom is more in line with Ti and internal stimulation, which means you see the first project - as an expansive and large project - as something to engage Se with supported by Ti rather than Te. Your focus is on the immediate task, and on understanding and analysis. It did not occur to me before that this could be; indeed, this has never occurred to me before, and I do not think I have before typed someone using an Extroverted Sensation lead. This is somewhat of a growth point for me, I think....assuming I understand what this is indicating correctly this time! 
Oh, and someone even told me what I think is Te is actually Se in this very thread, so there you go. I have someone agreeing with what I am saying here already I think 

I also note that you don't prefer to be alone or to be in a group very strongly in this one, which is where i got the impression of E/I being close. You don't seem Introverted, and you don't seem super Extroverted either, but I lean Extroverted based somewhat on the comment that you view being alone as a disadvantage and also based on your strong extroverted emphasis in this scenario - what I now believe to be Se. 



myst91 said:



*SCENARIO 4*
Oh no no, I'm wasting time here. Why do I have to sit here for this brainstorming crap. Allow me to lead the whole thing or let me work alone. Yeah. But ok, if I'm forced to be here, I'll just sit and follow everything and analyze everything that I don't discard right away as bullshit upon hearing it. Again, I'd really prefer not having to process through all that bullshit. Anyway if I can see the purpose of the project then I'll just want to think along that purpose and I'll speak up if I have something in mind that I really find good. Or if someone else says something good, I'll make sure it gets considered properly. 

Click to expand...



This is strong Ji. It's all about what you think and what you decide is or is not worthwhile. This speaks of introversion to me, which is why I went from extroverted in 3 to unsure here. Considering what you say in 5 as well, I am leaning somewhat introverted for you.



myst91 said:



*SCENARIO 5*
What is non-physical energy?

I guess for outright relaxing purposes reading easy fiction works?

Otherwise I enjoy chatting to people online or meeting friends IRL to have fun.

Taking the idea of recharging literally: getting a bit of extra sleep.

Click to expand...



More Ti seeking definitions. Also some literalism, concrete rather than abstract. S>N, T>F, I or E. I see introversion in reading and sleeping and chatting online, I see extroversion in going out to have some fun. The frequency of going out versus these others activities would be useful information for a final conclusion. I am leaning more introverted just by the numbers game of hobbies in this section, which added to the introverted leaning from earlier makes I>E a tentative possibility.



myst91 said:



*SCENARIO 6*
No idea at first sight, these choices sound way too general.. Like, exactly what sort of psychologist, what sort of MD, and so on? I had a hard time with this back then at the end of high school for the same reason. But ok, now that I have more experience about some things than I did back then, I can venture an answer. But I will have to go into details. 

Scientist: research exercise physiology and contribute to how to do training better for elite athletes and for competitive amateurs.
Mix of engineer and entrepreneur and computer programmer/analyst: having some engineering and programming experience owning a company that engineers and makes some really cool smartphones or other embedded hardware.
Mix of psychologist and MD and well, scientist again: figure out more on the brain's workings and put that to use somehow.

If I can't do the mix thingie, I'll just go with: scientist (this includes psychologist too), entrepreneur, engineer, while in practice still doing the same things as detailed above.

So why these 3 choices, also, explaining my highest priorities: these deal with analyzing hardware, getting an understanding I can use to manipulate things, and creating something that's a great contribution for people's good. Also for the 2nd choice, making money, heh. 

How easy it was to pick. It was easy to weed out the ones that are clearly not for me, the rest was okay too, because of having got enough experience in life to know what sort of things interest me. 

Click to expand...



Ti seeking clarifications again. I completely skipped over the definition seeking on my first analysis, I think I didn't know what to do with them at the time so I ignored them? Anyway, I note Se influence on your scientist choice. I see more Se influence in your Engineer choice. Both times you are emphasizing making something cool that is immediately visible as cool in the present moment, such as better bodies for athletes or better smartphones. 

I noted Je in a desire to create something good for society, and also in being able to easily choose what you want and weed out the rest, and a strong T influence on this whole response, and so I thought at first that this was Te. I don't know about that now, it seems more like a vague Fe influence that is telling you "hey wouldn't it be cool if everyone was able to benefit from what you did?" which works out to a smaller influence.



myst91 said:



*SCENARIO 7*
Waow. Real cool pic, there are a lot of things in it, complex enough objects, impressive enough too, those rock walls. They most definitely stand out the most in the entire space, the complex shapes in them again, the coloured stripes all over, the material they were "made" out from, and then the water around so then my attention is quickly directed on how you get between the walls, swimming in the water or walking around on the shore at the base of the walls, wandering finding your way around. Also of course, climbing those walls... hmm looking at the ways and parts where I'd be able to do so, trying to see how doable it is, definitely not trivial all the way up/around, would be such a fun challenge too. 

Yeah that's all very appealing. No parts in this pic that are not appealing though I had less focus on the trees but I can still imagine walking around those trees/shrubs too as I am looking at the way they are placed at the base of one of the walls. Also just now I thought of what's higher up, are those walls much higher and what's up there, I'd be checking that out too. The things in foreground, I also didn't have as much focus on that, but looking at them now more, I can imagine myself going around there too, seeing how they connect to the walls beyond.. this is unclear from the pic, so again, if they don't connect, I'd have to swim across. Well ok I'm done trying to describe my thoughts. 

As to why I got so focused on this pic. The impressive complexity and size of the main objects and ways around/about them in a nice big space where you can move and explore, that's why. That's always stimulating to my brain. I also liked the colours and patterns

Click to expand...



This strikes me as Se rationally, in the way you say you would behave. From the standpoint of the test answer key, it is Si. I am not sure why wanting to explore the space of the picture is Se but not Si in the answer key. Perhaps I misread? Perhaps the answer key is not detailed enough about Si/Se? I wonder if @Jinsei has any comment on this?

Conclusion: The first time I was too tired/upset to see beyond the surface and to draw a rational conclusion. I saw something and reached one conclusion, saw conflicting evidence, didn't know what to make of it, made some notes that I saw other alternatives, and hit post. This is also why I relied heavily on the answer key. My judgment was not too good, but hey at least I wasn't all like "Yeah, you are TOTALLY this and there isn't anything else you could be" about it. 

My final conclusion is, to put it in a numeric format, roughly 70% ISTP over 30% ESTP, pending your response to the Scenario 5 question I posed._


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

Entropic said:


> I really don't know why Ti + intuition (I've seen this in betas as well, that over-emphasize Ni with Ti), often leads to a stupid position of extreme solipsism and how this argument is pulled when they've put themselves in a corner where their logical foundation is questioned and they can't get out of it.
> 
> I have a somewhat solipsist attitude (it's really more ideological, though) in that I believe we cannot know objective reality because I think objective reality is up for too much interpretation (just look at this thread, where people cannot agree on what X is, despite there being clear definitions that we can rely upon to make our case). It doesn't make me into an extreme relativist, though, as I believe there is an objective reality, but we cannot objectively know it.
> 
> The position either way, is kind of stupid, imo. If you cannot know anything you can also make up anything which means that all this becomes pointless and from there it spirals into absurdity. So why even give a fuck? You can't even know whether you are giving a fuck or whether that fuck is of relevance, lmao.


I have done this before. It is sometimes a defence mechanism, I will admit. I don't want to admit that my Ni is wrong when pressed by others, I want to reach that conclusion myself, if that makes any sense? Such as in my recent post to this thread above this one, where I indicate that I believe I have isolated where my understanding of Te was crossed with Se.

At other times, however, it is also a way to point out to someone else who is entirely certain of their argument that they are ignoring the other potential interpretations (At least apparently) and to question if they have considered all of the possibilities before reaching their conclusion, which then opens up a path for healthy debate in which I can share my contrasting viewpoint and any other viewpoints I had considered at some point. This is in order to see more viewpoints and consider more perspectives in order to better understand my own perspective. In other words, it is central to the way I believe Ni-Ti learns, but on the downside it can be turned to a refutation of new input and a closed mind when the Ni-Ti user feels pushed.

I am unsure how Ne differs in this regard. I note you are referring to Ti + Intuition, not just Ti-Ni. What are your thoughts in this regard, Entropic?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> I have done this before. It is sometimes a defence mechanism, I will admit. I don't want to admit that my Ni is wrong when pressed by others, I want to reach that conclusion myself, if that makes any sense? Such as in my recent post to this thread above this one, where I indicate that I believe I have isolated where my understanding of Te was crossed with Se.
> 
> At other times, however, it is also a way to point out to someone else who is entirely certain of their argument that they are ignoring the other potential interpretations (At least apparently) and to question if they have considered all of the possibilities before reaching their conclusion, which then opens up a path for healthy debate in which I can share my contrasting viewpoint and any other viewpoints I had considered at some point. This is in order to see more viewpoints and consider more perspectives in order to better understand my own perspective. In other words, it is central to the way I believe Ni-Ti learns, but on the downside it can be turned to a refutation of new input and a closed mind when the Ni-Ti user feels pushed.
> 
> I am unsure how Ne differs in this regard. I note you are referring to Ti + Intuition, not just Ti-Ni. What are your thoughts in this regard, Entropic?


There's a big difference offering a different perspective or point of view and saying that we can make up anything, though.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

*clears throat*

In regards to the ongoing argument:


* *




val·ue, ˈvalyo͞o/, noun
noun: value; plural noun: values
1.
the regard that something is held to deserve; the importance, worth, or usefulness of something.
"your support is of great value"
synonyms:	worth, usefulness, advantage, benefit, gain, profit, good, help, merit, helpfulness, avail; More
importance, significance
"the value of adequate preparation cannot be understated"
the material or monetary worth of something.
"prints seldom rise in value"
synonyms:	price, cost, worth; More
market price, monetary value, face value
"houses exceeding $250,000 in value"
the worth of something compared to the price paid or asked for it.
"at $12.50 the book is a good value"
2.
a person's principles or standards of behavior; one's judgment of what is important in life.
"they internalize their parents' rules and values"
synonyms:	principles, ethics, moral code, morals, standards, code of behavior
"society's values are passed on to us as children"
3.
the numerical amount denoted by an algebraic term; a magnitude, quantity, or number.
"the mean value of x"
4.
Music
the relative duration of the sound signified by a note.
5.
Linguistics
the meaning of a word or other linguistic unit.
the quality or tone of a spoken sound; the sound represented by a letter.
6.
Art
the relative degree of lightness or darkness of a particular color.
"the artist has used adjacent color values as the landscape recedes"

verb
verb: value; 3rd person present: values; past tense: valued; past participle: valued; gerund or present participle: valuing
1.
estimate the monetary worth of (something).
"his estate was valued at $45,000"
synonyms:	evaluate, assess, estimate, appraise, price, put/set a price on
"his estate was valued at $345,000"
2.
consider (someone or something) to be important or beneficial; have a high opinion of.
"she had come to value her privacy and independence"
synonyms:	think highly of, have a high opinion of, hold in high regard, rate highly, esteem, set (great) store by, put stock in, appreciate, respect; More




As a result, Entropic is correct in that every type can discuss values. And Averoblivious is correct in that Fi is indeed more focused on values than anything else. However, it is important to note that Fe users *also* have values. They externalize their value systems to affect the world outside themselves. They usually construct those values based on what they find in the world outside themselves, but according to the definition above that *is still valuation*.

So Averoblivious, I disagree with your initial statement that Fi is being used by Myst, even though I held that belief before. However, I do note that you contradicted your own argument later after a secondary analysis and declared that you were wrong. Very mature of you in that particular regard. So I see we are on the same page here.

Entropic, I believe you may have missed that Averoblivious did say that he was wrong about the Fi. I could be wrong of course. Perhaps the annoyance with his supposed intellectual dishonesty masked that? It is rather hard to note such things when the personal attacks are flying back and forth. I know that when a person attacks what you believe without a reason which you can understand it can be quite upsetting. Especially when you are the sort of person that is willing to change but wishes to do so based on logical and rational reasons with supporting evidence and so forth. Since Averoblivious lacks the time to locate the evidence you seek, perhaps the best solution is to drop this debate? We don't really need to worry about who "won" or anything. I'm sure that it is the knowledge that is more important to you than the winning, anyway. Am I right?

And Averoblivious, perhaps you can disregard the personal attacks and sarcastic belittling behaviors this time in favor of agreeing to disagree at this time? Without some supporting evidence, I doubt you will convince Entropic. He is not as rigid and unchanging as it may appear to be that he is; I believe based on my impressions of him that he is the sort that enjoys a lively - even heated - debate as long as it results in some tangible proofs or change or evidence of some kind. His argumentation style is clearly aggressive, and it appears to have hit you in a way that is upsetting to you. I can sympathize. I really don't think he genuinely wants to upset you nearly as much as he wants you to engage in proof and reasoned debate, and I believe he is frustrated that you are not doing it the way he would want - or, to use a variation of his words, being "intellectually honest" about it. I believe he would rather you make claims with evidence in the first place. That seems to me to be why this argument is going on.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

Entropic said:


> There's a big difference offering a different perspective or point of view and saying that we can make up anything, though.


I can agree with that. I would prefer to entertain all ideas, but to only share those that are...erm...at least possible. XD

Do you have any comments on how Ti + Intuition used in this way is manifested differently between Ni and Ne?


----------



## piano (May 21, 2015)

@Entropic your post distinguishing Fi from Fe was spot on. thanks for posting it


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

selena87 said:


> @myst91 This thread cracks me up. I didn't know that you're an INFP too. Come to delta
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Wtf? LMAO


----------



## xraydav (Jan 3, 2013)

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> As a result, Entropic is correct in that every type can discuss values. And Averoblivious is correct in that Fi is indeed more focused on values than anything else. However, it is important to note that Fe users *also* have values. They externalize their value systems to affect the world outside themselves. They usually construct those values based on what they find in the world outside themselves, but according to the definition above that *is still valuation*.
> 
> So Averoblivious, I disagree with your initial statement that Fi is being used by Myst, even though I held that belief before. *However, I do note that you contradicted your own argument later after a secondary analysis and declared that you were wrong.* Very mature of you in that particular regard. So I see we are on the same page here.
> 
> ...


That's absolutely correct. Only with analysis from the standpoint of the person's actual life, behaviours, thoughts IRL and experiences* can the MBTI type of a person be concluded.

So Entropic knowing the OP, is in fact correct about the OP, more than anyone speculating here. In a way, I am thinking why did we even post, if the OP could have just messaged Entropic and got it all together 

I was being intellectually honest about it. I think the problem he had is that he thought I was attacking his ideas (I don't necessarily find anything wrong his ideas of Fi or any of that), and that didn't go down too well - the truth is I was attacking his approach. 'I am certain that she is Fi, everyone who says she is Fi is wrong'. 

Also I'm also guessing that since the OP knows Entropic, this would of course, be something to defend, so I don't want to get in the way of his real life connections with people. That's why I said I don't have time, so I can be a bit more respectful of that. Apparently I don't have the opportunity to 'run from making a reasoned argument', even if it means respecting them, and those actions may have been misinterpreted as being 'running away due to having no reasoned argument'. 

That all being said, thank you for the arbitration. You are very good at that.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

AverOblivious said:


> That's absolutely correct. Only with analysis from the standpoint of the person's actual life, behaviours, thoughts IRL and experiences* can the MBTI type of a person be concluded.


Hmm, I don't know about only. I would argue it can also be concluded by showing the person what the type information means and explaining what could be. In that case, people who know how they operate and think/feel can then be typed in that manner, which is of course most of what we do here on this site. We can type by showing the person being typed how to recognized their type. That is my argument 



AverOblivious said:


> So Entropic knowing the OP, is in fact correct about the OP, more than anyone speculating here. In a way, I am thinking why did we even post, if the OP could have just messaged Entropic and got it all together.


I believe that Myst91 is enjoying this topic, possibly sans the argument, and more than wanting to know the type also wants to have more than one perspective. It could be seen as "data-mining" or something like that. I could be wrong though. ^^



AverOblivious said:


> That all being said, thank you for the arbitration. You are very good at that.


Why thank you. That is a kind thing of you to say.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

AverOblivious said:


> The system is still valid, if people are not 'ascertained' 'certain' types. The thing with the system, is that it is not an exact science. I already explained that.


No, the system is about each person having a type. You are contradicting yourself heavily within one single sentence.




> I'm probably wasting my time on here, but so are you, and Entropic and everyone else. We come one here to talk about our ideas, and really if Entropic is going to say 'Well I am the ultimate authority on this, and everyone else is wrong'. That really interferes with everyone's pursuit of the truth and ideas, and a community deserves better than that.


No, you are always allowed to refute statements but do it directly, not indirectly by jumping around.


You also said this to @Entropic:



> It will take me 10000 minutes to find whatever confusion you had with my side of the arguments here. I'm not sure how you see it, but I see it as if you have literally contorted or cherry picked as you would say, whatever arguments you wanted everyone to hear. Rather than building on mine. There are no real results here. Just your opinions. To see it in the terms of an experiment, is to see it in the terms of results and scientific validity. None of this reigns here, and your authority, is the only thing that is being exerted


Nope, no such thing here as one single authority. Don't be paranoid lol. And you either didn't build on anyone's argument like you requested here. So why accuse Entropic of not attempting to do so.


But then you did here finally explain a bit of your stance to make it clear and so now let me respond to it: 



> Firstly, it was that 'value' words/argument/hoodoo that you heard me say. Secondly, I referenced that argument using the lexical hypothesis in my previous post. Put the two together, you have my argument.


The thing is, the lexical hypothesis is about something else. So you cannot apply it here for typing, not relevant. The only way you could apply it is if you performed a frequency analysis of all words coming from someone over a LONG time period in MANY different life situations. You cannot apply that method in any other meaningful way for typing. That is because there is no guarantee that whatever is in a small sample taken from the person being analysed will stay consistent over different situations. Comprende?

And don't get evasive again, answer me directly.




> My name is not Jeremy. You are wrong.


You did not get the joke. Anyway you may not know what it is about so don't worry  Jeremy has posted in this thread since then btw. 




> I actually really see no refutation of my original arguments. You keep making claims, but they are not directly linked to my arguments at all. SO, to put them all together would take time which I do not wish to waste.


I've given you an actual REFUTATION above. Respond.




AverOblivious said:


> That's absolutely correct. Only with analysis from the standpoint of the person's actual life, behaviours, thoughts IRL and experiences* can the MBTI type of a person be concluded.


Then why use the lexical hypothesis on one half of one single post?! You are indeed readily contradicting yourself all the time. Before you say that you weren't saying you were 100% sure, recall that you did claim you should be closer to the truth than anyone else who posted before you.




> So Entropic knowing the OP, is in fact correct about the OP, more than anyone speculating here. In a way, I am thinking why did we even post, if the OP could have just messaged Entropic and got it all together


Lol, actually, we don't know each other IRL, anyway, I assume all he meant was that he's seen some more of me and so he's rather clear on Ti>Fi. The rest is just your paranoia.


All in all, I will be happier with your contribution to this thread if you are willing to directly respond to my (and other people's) arguments. Otherwise your posts are worthless and will never amount to more than attempts at trolling. Respect my wish to conform to this thread as the thread starter or leave.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Oh good!!!! That means we are getting somewhere!







> Your open and inquisitive manner is one way. Your quite verbose initial answers to the questionnaire is another. Mostly, though, it is a gut feeling that I am getting that I can't decipher at this moment. I must have missed it when I made that conclusion? This is what happens when you drink and Ni. OK, that was just a joke, I wasn't drinking, but still. I don't recall exactly why I made that conclusion, so after I post this response I will reread your initial questionnaire and logically decipher where I see introversion and where I see extroversion.


Gut feeling, mm, that sounds interesting. If you can ever put it into words a bit, let me know.




> The limits of that picture are:


You got a lot of thoughts there I'd never think of, cool stuff 



> Does that help show my reasoning?


Sure




> Now that I have the limits defined, I can look at what actually is and decide why it is so and come up with the meaning of the picture. I recall that when I took this test, I saw the nature of existence and life itself within this photo, but since I am reciting this analysis entirely from memory without the picture i front of me I must admit I do not recall why. Something about the solitude of some trees and the way contrasts were used within the frame, as well as the sense of motion of the river and the fact that it is a fixed image all contributed to that impression I got.


Interesting, when (with a delay as I explained earlier) I took a symbolic view of the picture it was less inclusive of everything, wasn't about the whole nature of existence and life. I related it more to some psychological ideas.




> Are you saying you understand because you didn't need the example, or are you just agreeing with what I said, or...both? Anyway, yeah, that is what I experienced in regards to Ti before I even knew about the existence of MBTI. Now I can see it when I want to. Hell, I used a touch of it above when I organized my thoughts and presented them about that picture. Not a lot, but I actually imposed some order on things and made a rudimentary list. Sarcasm - I'm so good at Ti! /sarcasm *rolleyes*


I meant I already understood Ni vs Ti, yeah, agreeing for sure. Lol and nice attempt at Ti 

Interesting you say these jungian theories helped you see your less conscious functioning more. I think I've experienced a similar effect myself both for Ni and Fe. 




> The group, the society, a specific social circle, a state of getting along with others, whatever it is that is valued. Fe wants to engage values and morals outside the self, which means it values being part of something that can be affected usually.


Right so you made a typo originally yes? When you said _"Both of those could be seen as Fi or Fe, but only Fi if you value being part of something"_.




> Fe is at its core about imposing ethics on the world by interacting with it and by expressing these values. This may or may not take the form of trying to change people or the status quo depending on *what those values are*. Since you are T valuing and you dislike brainstorming, that means your F takes the form of supporting what you care about in that manner. If it is Fi, then it is internal values guiding extroverted thinking to achieve goals. If it is Fe, then it is awareness of the group and what is expected and/or fits in supporting internal logic and understanding.


Explain the last sentence a bit more in terms of Fe fitting in supporting the Ti?

Not sure why you mentioned brainstorming here.




> This is intriguing. I'd like to do a comparison/contrast between the two. Can you provide a link to the type description that you are using for the MBTI ISFJ and the Socionics ISFp, and perhaps a link to the Si descriptions you refer to? I can easily google it, sure, but I would prefer to use the most reliable ones that are informing your own informed statement here that you believe to be, um, the most true as it were. If I can do this and see how the systems differ in this particular manner, then perhaps I could understand better why you say a direct conversion is inadvisable.


Sites like personalitypage.com should work fine for MBTI and sociotype.com or wikisocion.org for the Socionics types. As for definitions, wikisocion again.




> THIS. This is from your most recent post, and I pulled it because it is a great example of Ti. This statement is all about having a rational, logical understanding within yourself.


Yeah 




Fenix Wulfheart said:


> I/E analysis as requested.


Thanks! :wink:




> OK, this strikes me as distinctly introverted here. The first focus is on getting the self ready to deal with what is going is, which sounds like an introverted action to take. I also note that the response is being run through a T lens, asking for clarification, despite being an F scenario, and despite being a disaster in your own words. T>F introversion. In Enneagram terms, I am noting SX/SP or SP/SX behavior here, which is somewhat more common in introverts. Not conclusive though.


Yes I first have at least a very short phase of consideration which may be wordless actually or it can be longer and can be verbal a bit. The very short version is less detectable. I'm borderline on sx vs sp actually. 




> I am seeing a lot of externalized judgments here, such as commenting that a random room mate does not have the right to demand such a big favour. I am also seeing internalized judgments about whether it is worth your time, and that precedes the external judgments. The question is if it also supersedes them as well? I am also noting another instance of T over F asking for clarification. I/E inconclusive here.


As for it superseding in terms of being a higher priority overwriting other ones if necessary, yes that's how I experience it.




> I see a strong focus on external impact here, so a Je function. Your desire for external impact appears to supersede all other considerations in the first project based on the language you use - "or I'd feel quite bored and the whole project option would have no advantages for me whatsoever". As I see strong T influence in the first two responses and I see Je here, this would be where I first decided on Te. I realize I did that because I see Je being in the top two based on your strong desire for impact here and I see strong T>F, so that is the source of the Te conclusion.


Well if I choose to engage with people and take the effort to actually do so, I don't like to be a follower without influence. Whatever that means in terms of cognitive functioning.




> On second examination, I do see that the mention of boredom is more in line with Ti and internal stimulation, which means you see the first project - as an expansive and large project - as something to engage Se with supported by Ti rather than Te. Your focus is on the immediate task, and on understanding and analysis. It did not occur to me before that this could be; indeed, this has never occurred to me before, and I do not think I have before typed someone using an Extroverted Sensation lead. This is somewhat of a growth point for me, I think....assuming I understand what this is indicating correctly this time!
> Oh, and someone even told me what I think is Te is actually Se in this very thread, so there you go. I have someone agreeing with what I am saying here already I think


Yeah that's exactly what my focus is on. I think I would not enjoy it if there was no analysing going on at all.

Did you type ISTPs before?




> I also note that you don't prefer to be alone or to be in a group very strongly in this one, which is where i got the impression of E/I being close. You don't seem Introverted, and you don't seem super Extroverted either, but I lean Extroverted based somewhat on the comment that you view being alone as a disadvantage and also based on your strong extroverted emphasis in this scenario - what I now believe to be Se.


It would also be a disadvantage to be with people in the project just for the sake of running around senselessly. 




> This is strong Ji. It's all about what you think and what you decide is or is not worthwhile. This speaks of introversion to me, which is why I went from extroverted in 3 to unsure here. Considering what you say in 5 as well, I am leaning somewhat introverted for you.


Yeah, again, no running around senselessly 




> More Ti seeking definitions. Also some literalism, concrete rather than abstract. S>N, T>F, I or E. I see introversion in reading and sleeping and chatting online, I see extroversion in going out to have some fun. The frequency of going out versus these others activities would be useful information for a final conclusion. I am leaning more introverted just by the numbers game of hobbies in this section, which added to the introverted leaning from earlier makes I>E a tentative possibility.


Well I don't know that many people who I'd happily hang out with because I'm a bit selective... I'm alone a lot more often.




> I noted Je in a desire to create something good for society, and also in being able to easily choose what you want and weed out the rest, and a strong T influence on this whole response, and so I thought at first that this was Te. I don't know about that now


I don't think choosing something is just Je.




> it seems more like a vague Fe influence that is telling you "hey wouldn't it be cool if everyone was able to benefit from what you did?" which works out to a smaller influence.


Yeah.




> This strikes me as Se rationally, in the way you say you would behave. From the standpoint of the test answer key, it is Si. I am not sure why wanting to explore the space of the picture is Se but not Si in the answer key. Perhaps I misread? Perhaps the answer key is not detailed enough about Si/Se? I wonder if @Jinsei has any comment on this?


?! I still don't get what that answer key wants to mean. I've seen it but yeah idk.




> My final conclusion is, to put it in a numeric format, roughly 70% ISTP over 30% ESTP, pending your response to the Scenario 5 question I posed.


Ah so how does that change now.




Fenix Wulfheart said:


> I believe that Myst91 is enjoying this topic, possibly sans the argument, and more than wanting to know the type also wants to have more than one perspective. It could be seen as "data-mining" or something like that. I could be wrong though. ^^


I don't mind arguing as long as it's constructive.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

I see @_Entropic_ is using his usual typing methods of insulting others, telling them they don't know what they are talking about, and his way is the only right way by his own subjective logic. Why even bother?

OP only wants to hear certain opinions and discard others. Make it a private thread then. Keep it in PM.

I don't think others are complaining about 100% knowledge, they are complaining that an individual claims 100% knowledge and is SO damn certain. People should be weary of those people. Especially in a subject like this.

Entropic said that anybody who believes X, doesn't understand Fi. Dismisses them. I have recently seen Entropic associate assembling furniture, an outside logical standard, with Ti. I believe that is Te, and anybody who says otherwise has no clue what Te or Ti is. See how easy that is?


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

FearAndTrembling said:


> OP only wants to hear certain opinions and discard others. Make it a private thread then. Keep it in PM.


You're full of bullshit. It is not true at all that I only want to hear certain opinions. It's as simple as, I have a right to ask for the reasoning behind an opinion if something does not make sense to me right away. So stop saying bullshit about me.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

myst91 said:


> You're full of bullshit. It is not true at all that I only want to hear certain opinions. It's as simple as, I have a right to ask for the reasoning behind an opinion if something does not make sense to me right away. So stop saying bullshit about me.


I disagree. It is my opinion. You have a history with certain posters that you give preference to. 

You are also authoritarian imo. "Respect MY will or get out of MY thread." is what you essentially said in an earlier post.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

FearAndTrembling said:


> I disagree. It is my opinion. You have a history with certain posters that you give preference to.


Nope, only in your imagination. Anyone who's able to come up with sensible reasoning is welcome. Now of course, if someone is consistently unable to do so, they shouldn't be surprised if they don't get to convince me of anything.




> You are also authoritarian imo. "Respect MY will or get out of MY thread." is what you essentially said in an earlier post.


Don't try to claim that I expect anything unreasonable.


----------



## xraydav (Jan 3, 2013)

myst91 said:


> No, the system is about each person having a type. You are contradicting yourself heavily within one single sentence.


The system describing certain types, and the MBTI theory being an exact science are two different things. There is no contradiction in asserting both. 




> Nope, no such thing here as one single authority. Don't be paranoid lol. And you either didn't build on anyone's argument like you requested here. So why accuse Entropic of not attempting to do so.
> 
> But then you did here finally explain a bit of your stance to make it clear and so now let me respond to it:


 "paranoid" etc, these are all personal attacks, whether you get it or not. I thought this stuff was done but apparently not. So I am replying. 


> The thing is, the lexical hypothesis is about something else. So you cannot apply it here for typing, not relevant. The only way you could apply it is if you performed a frequency analysis of all words coming from someone over a LONG time period in MANY different life situations. You cannot apply that method in any other meaningful way for typing. That is because there is no guarantee that whatever is in a small sample taken from the person being analysed will stay consistent over different situations. Comprende?


You are finally replying to my actual statements, but only after a dozen personal attacks at my identity on here. The foundation of the lexical hypothesis, impacted the Big Five. The Big Five is used to determine personality traits, and still is. While the MBTI has gone into the background in research studies across populations over the years, the Big Five is still present (Check Watson's Personality Insights page). Therefore, it can also be applied here to determine personality traits and then to determine MBTI type. 

The frequency analysis thing is incorrect, then you will also have to use MBTI to determine one's personality in the same way. There is an even ground between MBTI and Big Five in the same determinations of personality. 


> I've given you an actual REFUTATION above. Respond.
> 
> Then why use the lexical hypothesis on one half of one single post?! You are indeed readily contradicting yourself all the time. Before you say that you weren't saying you were 100% sure, recall that you did claim you should be closer to the truth than anyone else who posted before you.


More inputs lead to a better and more impartial result, and less inputs lead to a more biased and inaccurate result. I don't see how this contradicted anything, I can admit that I wasn't 100% sure because I only read half of the post. There is no contradiction there. 



> Lol, actually, we don't know each other IRL, anyway, I assume all he meant was that he's seen some more of me and so he's rather clear on Ti>Fi. The rest is just your paranoia.


Entropic said you did know him IRL, and now you are telling me you don't know him IRL? For someone who was just previously accusing me of intellectual dishonesty. The guy actually was being hypocritical like I said before, and in fact, being intellectually dishonest, by saying he knew you IRL, as it would purely give him an upper hand in the typing process (knowing IRL ~ accurate analysis and better arguments) . Much like I deducted and suspected before, he was projecting his issues onto me, by saying I was being intellectually dishonest, while simultaneously lying about knowing you IRL.



> All in all, I will be happier with your contribution to this thread if you are willing to directly respond to my (and other people's) arguments. Otherwise your posts are worthless and will never amount to more than attempts at trolling. Respect my wish to conform to this thread as the thread starter or leave.


I don't want to contribute to a thread, where the people have already attacked me personally in a myriad of ways. I was done talking until you brought my old post up from the remains, which are the first pages of this thread. I don't think I will reply more after this, especially now that I know some here were even lying about knowing each other IRL. I'll get to my 'done being talking' position again.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

AverOblivious said:


> The system describing certain types, and the MBTI theory being an exact science are two different things. There is no contradiction in asserting both.


You said the system is valid even if no one has a type. That is not correct. See my problem?




> "paranoid" etc, these are all personal attacks, whether you get it or not. I thought this stuff was done but apparently not. So I am replying.


You were no less personal yourself. Btw you talk below about attacks on your identity, I'm not following what you mean by that but I did not read those parts in the thread much. I was not doing any such thing to you. 




> You are finally replying to my actual statements, but only after a dozen personal attacks at my identity on here.


I fail to see how you have the cheek to even say this after you originally failed to respond to my previous statements. I could say the same to you basically.

Also, I only had the chance to reply to your actual statements after you ACTUALLY made them, as for a long time you did not do that, you remained evasive for a long time. As soon as I saw you made them, I replied. So don't blame me for any delays here.

Anyway I don't have anything against you personally, see below for more. 




> The foundation of the lexical hypothesis, impacted the Big Five. The Big Five is used to determine personality traits, and still is. While the MBTI has gone into the background in research studies across populations over the years, the Big Five is still present (Check Watson's Personality Insights page). Therefore, it can also be applied here to determine personality traits and then to determine MBTI type.


You are making logical jumps here. 




> The frequency analysis thing is incorrect, then you will also have to use MBTI to determine one's personality in the same way. There is an even ground between MBTI and Big Five in the same determinations of personality.


No study declares there is such an even ground, no, no, just some correlations between MBTI dichotomies and Big 5 dimensions. You however have performed a function based analysis. Logical jumps again.

My point really is that I think you should work on your typing methods.




> More inputs lead to a better and more impartial result, and less inputs lead to a more biased and inaccurate result. I don't see how this contradicted anything, I can admit that I wasn't 100% sure because I only read half of the post. There is no contradiction there.


There is, you declared you are more sure than anyone else. Remember?




> Entropic said you did know him IRL, and now you are telling me you don't know him IRL?


He never said he knew me IRL just that he had interacted with me, not specifically mentioning it being IRL, as far as I can see.


Anyway I do appreciate it that you made the effort to reply to my arguments.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

myst91 said:


> All in all, I will be happier with your contribution to this thread if you are willing to directly respond to my (and other people's) arguments. Otherwise your posts are worthless and will never amount to more than attempts at trolling. Respect my wish to conform to this thread as the thread starter or leave.


Well, that is some clear Inferior Fe. It is imposing values on others in a clearly extroverted manner that is, no offense, an immature way for the Fe function. It appears to be Se and/or Te saying what is worthwhile and then using Fe to impose rules as you see them on others.

Arguments can be useful in some ways on this sort of thread.



myst91 said:


> Gut feeling, mm, that sounds interesting. If you can ever put it into words a bit, let me know.


The I/E analysis points it out. It is where I said that I saw Te when it was Se. I saw strong Se-Ti working together and thought Te and Se, so then I thought Te>Ni>Se>Fi, and that is how I wound up so convinced of Te at first. Then the rest didn't fit and I didn't see which of my assumptions was wrong and I wound up confused. Since it was a gut feeling, I couldn't isolate the logic and locate the hole in it, so I needed to reread it with a fresh perspective. It's a thing that happens when my Ti fails.



myst91 said:


> I meant I already understood Ni vs Ti, yeah, agreeing for sure. Lol and nice attempt at Ti
> 
> Interesting you say these jungian theories helped you see your less conscious functioning more. I think I've experienced a similar effect myself both for Ni and Fe.


Sure, it helped by giving a definition. I've always been aware of what goes on in my mind that I can remember. I didn't truly know what to call it though. Like, I learned addition bu visualizing apples like the textbook said. But once I understood that if Mary has 3 apples and I have 4 apples then we have 7 apples, I also automatically understood right away that if Benjamin has a crate of 35 apples and I have a bag of 17 apples, then we have 52 apples. I then understood multiplication not long later once I made the connection that multiplication is "I have this many groups of this number, how many do I have?" which meant it was just advanced addition. Basic math was easy for me.

But later on I couldn't explain how I was getting answers to the teacher. So I had to really stop and think about how I was thinking to do so. Then I drew it out for her, in a little web of associations. I showed her the apple scenario that we had covered for the 3+4 situation, and then extrapolated it to the problem we were working on which was something like 18 plus 9. Then I explained the logical rules I had come up with, such as the adding 10 rule, the adding 9 is adding 10 and subtracting 1 rule, the adding 5 rule, and so forth. I came up with patterns of what happens when you add or subtract various numbers and extrapolated from those as we went into higher numbers and more digits in the problems. Once I was able to show my work, I was at the top of the class. So while other students were using the written method with working top down and carrying numbers, I was breaking the number to be added into smaller chunks and adding it with my rules associations. I add 23 to 45 by adding 2 to the 4 spot in 45 to get 65 and then adding 3 to get 68 in that order; but if I had something like add 19 to 189 I would add 20 to 189 to get 209 and then subtract 1 because of the adding 9 rule - so 208.

The main trick I used was these patterns. It actually took me a day longer than most to get multiplication because I wasn't seeing the link to addition and how it fit the overarching pattern. I didn't put any work into getting it; instead it suddenly clicked in the middle of class when we had moved on to social studies I think it was.

So the point of all that is, this is what Ni looked like in my learning process, and to me it seemed all very logical and ordered because that is how my mind works and I was performing a lot of logical tasks in school, so I thought of myself as very logical. I essentially saw it as Ti, and I thought (mistakenly) that everyone in the class was doing it the same way. Even though the teacher gave me very strange looks when I would show her my work, I didn't really 'get it' at the time that I was different. And sure, Ti may work that way for math for some I suppose, but I note that my mind works by these patterns and associations for almost everything. Math is the easiest to demonstrate. When you point out the similarities and differences of different years and events in history class that makes the teacher's face go all shocked....yeah. Let's just say I didn't know what was socially appropriate to say back then.

These days? I can see what Ti really is in my mind, and I don't use it near as often as I would have thought. I mostly use it for the Ti check in, where you pause while speaking and organize your thought in a split second before speaking, possibly rewording what you were going to say and checking everything for logical consistency.



myst91 said:


> Right so you made a typo originally yes? When you said _"Both of those could be seen as Fi or Fe, but only Fi if you value being part of something"_.
> 
> Nah, that means that both interpretations can be Fi or Fe, but Fi can still be Fi and yet value being part of a group. That manifests as wanting to be a unique and appreciated individual who is a member of a group and wanting to share what you think is cool and what makes you special and everyone revel in the cool stuff that makes you all unique. When a bunch of Fi users wind up banding together you can get that kind of group dynamic. It is introverted feeling, yeah, but everyone wants to be accepted, at least in some ways. Not a typo per se, but somewhat clumsily worded I suppose. It should have been "but it could only be Fi if you value being part of something I think."
> 
> ...


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

Jeremy8419 said:


> Wtf? LMAO


You have become a meme. I give you congrats or condolences. I'm not really sure which is appropriate.



Fenix Wulfheart said:


> No, not at all. Indeed, I have only typed a Sensor once before. It has been...interesting.


This statement worries me. Either you haven't typed many people at all, or you're somehow magically in a world with no sensers, or you can't tell the difference.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Fried Eggz said:


> You have become a meme. I give you congrats or condolences. I'm not really sure which is appropriate.
> 
> 
> This statement worries me. Either you haven't typed many people at all, or you're somehow magically in a world with no sensers, or you can't tell the difference.



Sweet. Start making meme pics lol. I was a meme on my last forum too lol. Had like 30k posts in 3 years, I think.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

Fried Eggz said:


> This statement worries me. Either you haven't typed many people at all, or you're somehow magically in a world with no sensers, or you can't tell the difference.


The former. I have typed...I think 5 people now? I have guessed at the types of sensors I know, but that isn't typing as I received no input from them or verification of any kind.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Well, that is some clear Inferior Fe. It is imposing values on others in a clearly extroverted manner that is, no offense, an immature way for the Fe function. It appears to be Se and/or Te saying what is worthwhile and then using Fe to impose rules as you see them on others.
> 
> Arguments can be useful in some ways on this sort of thread.


Haha the irony in the last sentence. 

Immature Fe in the sense that it's not well polished nice manners?




> The I/E analysis points it out. It is where I said that I saw Te when it was Se. I saw strong Se-Ti working together and thought Te and Se, so then I thought Te>Ni>Se>Fi, and that is how I wound up so convinced of Te at first. Then the rest didn't fit and I didn't see which of my assumptions was wrong and I wound up confused. Since it was a gut feeling, I couldn't isolate the logic and locate the hole in it, so I needed to reread it with a fresh perspective. It's a thing that happens when my Ti fails.


Interesting, that's not how I work for sure, lol, if I have a gut feeling that cannot be retraced to concrete data, it's never about logical topics. My default gut feeling is logical. And easily retraced to logical steps performed on concrete data. 

(I do sometimes get gut feelings, premonitions, etc about areas to do with feeling instead of logic.. those are not easily retraced to anything concrete. In fact the only thing I can retrace them to with much difficulty is certain feelings that were not conscious in-the-moment when they happened ...Interesting nonetheless)




> Sure, it helped by giving a definition. I've always been aware of what goes on in my mind that I can remember. I didn't truly know what to call it though.


I wasn't aware of everything too well. Some things maybe but even those just vaguely. And for me the definitions do more than just having definitions and understanding based on them, they actually allow me to see and process more things.




> Like, I learned addition bu visualizing apples like the textbook said. But once I understood that if Mary has 3 apples and I have 4 apples then we have 7 apples, I also automatically understood right away that if Benjamin has a crate of 35 apples and I have a bag of 17 apples, then we have 52 apples. I then understood multiplication not long later once I made the connection that multiplication is "I have this many groups of this number, how many do I have?" which meant it was just advanced addition. Basic math was easy for me.


You have a good memory lol if you remember all this. Btw I do remember too how I got some basic maths but I did it differently from you. I abstracted numbers from objects, I didn't really deal with apples as examples.




> The main trick I used was these patterns. It actually took me a day longer than most to get multiplication because I wasn't seeing the link to addition and how it fit the overarching pattern. I didn't put any work into getting it; instead it suddenly clicked in the middle of class when we had moved on to social studies I think it was.


Why do you think these weren't Ti, though? It seems logical Ti just fine to me. You didn't show any web of associations here. 




> When you point out the similarities and differences of different years and events in history class that makes the teacher's face go all shocked....yeah. Let's just say I didn't know what was socially appropriate to say back then


Haha lol I argued with teachers a lot, being socially appropriate wasn't on my radar *at all* until I turned 13 or so




> These days? I can see what Ti really is in my mind, and I don't use it near as often as I would have thought. I mostly use it for the Ti check in, where you pause while speaking and organize your thought in a split second before speaking, possibly rewording what you were going to say and checking everything for logical consistency.


OK, I can imagine the way it works for you is you see those associations, concepts and events coming from each other, etc, but you aren't instantly checking for the logical consistency, no direct and constant processing of how they add up logically, right? That's how I am, I instantly "arrest" data in general to process in this way.




> myst91 said:
> 
> 
> > Right so you made a typo originally yes? When you said _"Both of those could be seen as Fi or Fe, but only Fi if you value being part of something"._
> ...


_

OK, I see. You mean Fi makes this personal judgment that they should value being part of the group instead of it just happening because of the external focus that Fe has?





The perfect example is the statement you made to Averoblivious. You demanded that he logically support his arguments in a way you can understand and evaluate logically (Ti) in a direct manner that is to the point, and then imposed an ultimatum as a rule that he should leave the thread if he won't (Fe used for Ti ends). If you valued Fe, you would not create rules for Ti reasons, you would create them for Fe reasons. So your Fe supports Ti. You see?

Click to expand...

Which part of it is the Fe? Where you say Fe is being used for Ti ends. I see the Ti just fine, yeah :tongue:

By "if you valued Fe" you meant "if you preferred Fe over Ti", yeah?





I mentioned brainstorming because you use Fe to support your dislike of Ne. You actively state your disinterest and distaste for it in an openly derisive manner that makes it very clear your dislike for Ne is a relative value based decision. Whether you dislike it for Ti reasons or Fe reasons, you are displaying your dislike of it in an Fe manner. So with the same reasoning that Fe supports Ti, it also removes support from Ne.

Click to expand...

Can you explain more on how it was displayed in an Fe manner? I'm not questioning you, I just don't have the slightest idea.





That is a commander attitude. Usually Se/Te, one of those being valued and conscious the other being unconscious but both being the strongest functions. This points to ESTJ or ESTP, the types that lead with Se or Te with the other of the two being just as strong but unconscious.

Doesn't mean it can't be your aux attitude or anything; these two functions being strong is indicated by that attitude. That's why I see Te; Because I see extroverting Ti things through Se and I think "oh look its Te"; but also because it will be unconsciously strong for you and used for the aims of your valued functions.

Click to expand...

Makes sense.





No, not at all. Indeed, I have only typed a Sensor once before. It has been...interesting.

Click to expand...

Interesting?! What does that mean :tongue:





Ending thoughts: Yeah, I'd have to say you are an introvert, your input makes up my mind in that regard. It is hard for me to see I will admit. That Se comes across as so extroverted to me. Hmmm....perhaps Se seems so extroverted to me because Se is my own Inferior, and I am not extroverted, so I am seeing "not me" behavior that appears a bit extroverted so I just assume extrovert?

Click to expand...

Well a lot of people here/on another forum have seen my Se the same way you do it  Are you not like this with the ISTPs on this forum (the ones that type ISTP by function based analysis), if you have ever looked at them?_


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

myst91 said:


> Haha the irony in the last sentence.
> 
> Immature Fe in the sense that it's not well polished nice manners?


In a sense. Fe doesn't need to be well mannered, but if it is mature then it is used for its own ends rather than to support your other Rational Function. From what I can see, you are using it to institute social rules that pertain to applying the "correct" logical framework, aka using it for Ti reasons. That doesn't make it 'wrong' or 'bad' or anything, but it does mean that it isn't a highly developed and sensitive instrument with high priority of its own merit, aka "mature".

I'm not interested in seeing if you have manners, to be honest. I am interested in helping you in the way you have asked to be helped, which means discarding some of my own usual manners in favor of directness. 

I am not seeing the irony of which you speak unless it is in reference to the fact that I relaxed my own Fe in order to make such a direct and potentially offensive statement in the first place?



myst91 said:


> You have a good memory lol if you remember all this. Btw I do remember too how I got some basic maths but I did it differently from you. I abstracted numbers from objects, I didn't really deal with apples as examples. Why do you think these weren't Ti, though? It seems logical Ti just fine to me. You didn't show any web of associations here.


I have excellent selective memory. I remember best when I learned something that was either difficult or profound. To me, math was profound in that I never even considered that sort of concept before it came up in class.

It is a web of associations in my head. I know by associative thinking that all of these rules work because I can picture it. I see the rules in my head as abstract entities. Does it help if I mention that the teacher didn't explain these rules, but that I figured them out myself? I have a scene in my head about when 7 meets 9 and go out to a party, and when they get home the 7 is missing part of his head and the 9 is upside down (because the answer is 16). That's one of the examples I came up with in my head to make the rule that adding 10 is adding 9 and subtracting 1. Whenever I think about that rule I remember that story. I noticed the pattern and basically worked it out both logically and intuitively. Then i could logically explain it because I could see its truth and then I proved it on paper several times to be sure I was right (And THAT was the Ti ^^)



myst91 said:


> OK, I can imagine the way it works for you is you see those associations, concepts and events coming from each other, etc, but you aren't instantly checking for the logical consistency, no direct and constant processing of how they add up logically, right? That's how I am, I instantly "arrest" data in general to process in this way.


Oh, I rarely care about being logically consistent these days. I focus on whether something makes sense and fits in with what I understand, but it doesn't have to be logical to make sense to me. Like, i am pretty into metaphysical studies (much more so earlier in life than now) and I decided what I wanted to believe based on what all of the different religions were saying. I invented my own faith by putting it all together. Logic played some role, but it wasn't the focus. 

When I am highly logically consistent, it is almost always for one of two reasons. Either it is to understand a concept I don't 'just get', or it is when I am interacting with someone. I do the Ti-check in the latter situation.



myst91 said:


> OK, I see. You mean Fi makes this personal judgment that they should value being part of the group instead of it just happening because of the external focus that Fe has?


I'm saying that Fi *can* make that judgment, based on the person. Which is one reason why it can occasionally be difficult to decipher which it is.



myst91 said:


> Which part of it is the Fe? Where you say Fe is being used for Ti ends. I see the Ti just fine, yeah :tongue:
> 
> By "if you valued Fe" you meant "if you preferred Fe over Ti", yeah?
> 
> Can you explain more on how it was displayed in an Fe manner? I'm not questioning you, I just don't have the slightest idea.


Yes, I should have said preferred not valued. Also, more on this at the top of this post.

The Fe manner is that attempting to claim ownership of a public thread on a site when that is not what the rules are for that site is counter to usual Fe goals yet it is also a value based judgment being projected onto others in an extroverted manner. It could be - and indeed I believe is more common to - Fi ruling Te, but we have established that you are using Ti, so...

To m, it seems you are not checking inside yourself for logical consistency or understanding or evaluating the quality or usefulness of a concept; but instead imposing a value judgment when the value in question is one of the type that the F functions deal with. That is, it is dealing with "proper behavior" or "expected social norm". This is a case of choosing not to suppress F in favor of cold logic, but instead what appeared to be lashing out, which to me speaks of Fe being used in an immature manner. I say immature in part because that is not the culture here on PerC, nor is it in the rules or the unwritten rules. If I had to guess, I'd say that it is a rule that you have used before in other sites, or you simply don't care if it is an aggressive use of Fe as long as it makes some kind of sense to you (Ti ruling Fe).

Had it been me, I would have answered in quite a different manner. Does that mean my way is 'better'? No. Just different. Different is not deficient.



myst91 said:


> Well a lot of people here/on another forum have seen my Se the same way you do it  Are you not like this with the ISTPs on this forum (the ones that type ISTP by function based analysis), if you have ever looked at them?


I do not believe I have interacted with another ISTP other than you on this forum before. If I have, it wasn't an interaction that left a long lasting impression. I spend most of my time in NF forum. I feel...understood...over there.


----------



## xraydav (Jan 3, 2013)

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> But later on I couldn't explain how I was getting answers to the teacher. So I had to really stop and think about how I was thinking to do so. Then I drew it out for her, in a little web of associations. I showed her the apple scenario that we had covered for the 3+4 situation, and then extrapolated it to the problem we were working on which was something like 18 plus 9. Then I explained the logical rules I had come up with, such as the adding 10 rule, the adding 9 is adding 10 and subtracting 1 rule, the adding 5 rule, and so forth. I came up with patterns of what happens when you add or subtract various numbers and extrapolated from those as we went into higher numbers and more digits in the problems. Once I was able to show my work, I was at the top of the class. So while other students were using the written method with working top down and carrying numbers, I was breaking the number to be added into smaller chunks and adding it with my rules associations. I add 23 to 45 by adding 2 to the 4 spot in 45 to get 65 and then adding 3 to get 68 in that order; but if I had something like add 19 to 189 I would add 20 to 189 to get 209 and then subtract 1 because of the adding 9 rule - so 208.


This is not necessarily a part of cognitive preferences such as Ti. What you described is a natural consequence of having executive functions and a certain degree of intelligence. 
However, not being able to 'explain your reasoning' is something more of introversion, than it is Ti. Introversion would posit that understandings, reflections, etc are all subjectively contemplated, and would be harder to express that reflective level of thinking. It could range from any function - Ni, Ti, Si, which is introverted. 



> The perfect example is the statement you made to Averoblivious. You demanded that he logically support his arguments in a way you can understand and evaluate logically (Ti) in a direct manner that is to the point, and then imposed an ultimatum as a rule that he should leave the thread if he won't (Fe used for Ti ends). If you valued Fe, you would not create rules for Ti reasons, you would create them for Fe reasons. So your Fe supports Ti. You see?


I wouldn't always say that this is a Ti thing. There are many types which are capable of issuing certain statements or 'demands' for reason. Also, the fact that 'answer or leave this thread' was used, is more indicative of the Fi/Te axes, where Te would posit that someone fits a logically consistent perception of events, while measuring against the inconsistencies of events A and events B, etc. In doing so, the Te perception attempts to get to an objective position (i.e. 'get out of this thread' or 'stay in this thread') while Ti does not warrant such objectivity. Subjectivity is a big component of Ti.



> I mentioned brainstorming because you use Fe to support your dislike of Ne. You actively state your disinterest and distaste for it in an openly derisive manner that makes it very clear your dislike for Ne is a relative value based decision. Whether you dislike it for Ti reasons or Fe reasons, you are displaying your dislike of it in an Fe manner. So with the same reasoning that Fe supports Ti, it also removes support from Ne.


Dislike/like has little to do with functions. Sure, they are cognitive preferences, but that is for something much deeper than what you just described. I really don't get what you mean by 'disliking for Ti reasons or Fe reasons'. Ti is a subjective reasoning function, it provides reasons for events, perceptions and delves into an internally energized landscape based on these things. For example, in my writing you will see the reason, either followed by my statement, but it won't always mean 'logic' or 'logically sound', it just means anything which justifies another thing as a characteristic of a perception.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

AverOblivious said:


> This is not necessarily a part of cognitive preferences such as Ti. What you described is a natural consequence of having executive functions and a certain degree of intelligence.
> However, not being able to 'explain your reasoning' is something more of introversion, than it is Ti. Introversion would posit that understandings, reflections, etc are all subjectively contemplated, and would be harder to express that reflective level of thinking. It could range from any function - Ni, Ti, Si, which is introverted.


Interesting. I'll reserve judgment on that; it doesn't jive well with my understanding so I want to reflect.



AverOblivious said:


> I wouldn't always say that this is a Ti thing. There are many types which are capable of issuing certain statements or 'demands' for reason. Also, the fact that 'answer or leave this thread' was used, is more indicative of the Fi/Te axes, where Te would posit that someone fits a logically consistent perception of events, while measuring against the inconsistencies of events A and events B, etc. In doing so, the Te perception attempts to get to an objective position (i.e. 'get out of this thread' or 'stay in this thread') while Ti does not warrant such objectivity. Subjectivity is a big component of Ti.


True, although I make that same point regarding Te-Fi elsewhere in the post. Since we have determined Myst uses Ti, I went with the other interpretation. All types can make that sort of judgment as a matter of course.



AverOblivious said:


> Dislike/like has little to do with functions. Sure, they are cognitive preferences, but that is for something much deeper than what you just described. I really don't get what you mean by 'disliking for Ti reasons or Fe reasons'. Ti is a subjective reasoning function, it provides reasons for events, perceptions and delves into an internally energized landscape based on these things. For example, in my writing you will see the reason, either followed by my statement, but it won't always mean 'logic' or 'logically sound', it just means anything which justifies another thing as a characteristic of a perception.


Liking has plenty to do with it in my opinion. If you like doing something a certain way (or 'prefer' it), then you are more likely to do it that way. Same thing goes for people's use of the given preferred orientations of their functions. By valuing Ti and devaluing Fe, a person subverts Fe in usage to support the more preferred function of Ti, using it in a distinctly different manner than they would if the function were both more developed and more preferred. I believe that is the point of the function stack, really.

Now, if I don't understand a given function, then ok cool I have more to learn. I definitely see liking or disliking being part of what is going on. This of course depends on whether you see the use of functions as something that is automatic and unchanging or if you see them as ways of interpreting things that you can choose to use with distinct preferences for doing so.

As for Ti, yes it is subjective reasoning. When that internal reasoning is then expressed outwardly, it get run through that person's preferred method of objective reasoned communication as well. Hence Fe used for Ti reasons - the internal judgment is being expressed outwardly as best as the person can communicate the idea based on their skill at outwardly communicating a reasoned judgment. That's my understanding. Is that not how it works?


----------



## xraydav (Jan 3, 2013)

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> True, although I make that same point regarding Te-Fi elsewhere in the post. Since we have determined Myst uses Ti, I went with the other interpretation. All types can make that sort of judgment as a matter of course.


I still don't agree that Myst uses Ti, there is much indicators of Te/Fi axes. Her whole responses and her unmoving stance, and her focus on 'logical jumps' and finding inconsistencies in others arguments, rather than putting for reasons for her own perceptions - does not strike me as a Ti user. Ti users live in the subjective world of reason, so far, she has not really given much reason to any perceptions of her own, but rather provided logical inconsistencies with others perceptions of events, people ,etc which is more indicative of Te/Fi. Not saying that is a bad thing, sometimes, it is a personality trait. In this case, I would say it may be her style. 



> Liking has plenty to do with it in my opinion. If you like doing something a certain way (or 'prefer' it), then you are more likely to do it that way. Same thing goes for people's use of the given preferred orientations of their functions. By *valuing Ti* and devaluing Fe, a person subverts Fe in usage to support the more preferred function of Ti, using it in a distinctly different manner than they would if the function were both more developed and more preferred. I believe that is the point of the function stack, really.
> Now, if I don't understand a given function, then ok cool I have more to learn. I definitely see liking or disliking being part of what is going on. This of course depends on whether you see the use of functions as something that is automatic and unchanging or if you see them as ways of interpreting things that you can choose to use with distinct preferences for doing so.


No. Liking/dislike is a literal interpretation of 'cognitive preferences'. Cognitive preferences are patterns of thought, behaviours and feelings. Much like the people on here, they have totally misunderstood that same point - they equate 'emotion' to Feeling dimension, and 'self worth' to Fi, the understanding is that liking/preferring perceptions of 'worth' in terms of the self, would be 'self worth', and is something common to any type who has good self esteem. 

You can't consciously devalue or value a function, the whole process of 'valuing' is in fact, Fi. This is more indicative of Fi than Ti. Ti users don't value perceptions, they give reasons for those perceptions. The value function is repressed, and sure can sometimes be given a description or some focus in a user, but even in those times, its best described as part of the Ti reasoning process.

You can't choose the functions you want, that is not correct. The tertiary and inferior are posited to be 'unconscious functions' and you definitely can't choose them. That is overgeneralizing if you were to say one can choose their functions. 



> As for Ti, yes it is subjective reasoning. When that internal reasoning is then expressed outwardly, it get run through that person's preferred method of objective reasoned communication as well. Hence Fe used for Ti reasons - the internal judgment is being expressed outwardly as best as the person can communicate the idea based on their skill at outwardly communicating a reasoned judgment. That's my understanding. Is that not how it works?


No, that's not how Ti is expressed. Ti is expressed as Ti, not through other functions. Fe is repressed upon Thinking, either does not exist in the presence of the other (those are Jung's own understandings of the F/T dimension). For example, in my communication, you can see that there is a 'reasoning' function, where each perception is given some _reason_, for the initial perception (the possibilities) of Ne. I just don't see this in the OP, and now looking on, later in this thread, it doesn't appear to have that either - however, there have been a lot of attacks against me personally on this thread, and also charged by some sort of ulterior motive (the person attacking had argued in a similiar manner before, a couple of years ago). So I'm not at liberty to agree with my own reasoning, apparently.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> *clears throat*
> 
> In regards to the ongoing argument:
> 
> ...


No offense man, but please don't try to brush things over and read my motivations and feelings for something they are not. 

1) No, I do not agree with or believe in that Fi is more focused on values than anything else. That is not what Fi is about and suggesting that I should agree with this statement just to make up with AverOblivious is honestly offensive to me. It goes against my intellectual integrity to even remotely agree with such a claim. 

2) My annoyance with his intellectual dishonesty is most definitely not the source with AverOblivious. That is more like the cherry on top of the cake. 

3) I already left the ball in his court so I really don't give a fuck what happens after this since it is evident he cannot produce anything of value to me, or meet me equally halfway. He should contact me when he feels he's up for snuff; until then he can do whatever the fuck he wants. I don't care.

4) No, honestly? Knowledge? I can't learn from that guy lol. No offense, but really, I can't. I can't learn from you either for the matter. My understanding is too advanced which is why you are still insisting Fi is somehow about values. Maybe you should listen to an Fi type what it is like to reason with Fi instead of holding onto a theoretical description that may not at all apply in reality and may come across not only as overly stereotypical but at worst, typist. Again, the only snarky remark I did was commenting on his username which was not done with the intent to be hurtful; playful perhaps, but I would have expected someone to rise more to the challenge of being implied to be oblivious and prove to me that they are not. Instead he got defensive and begin to read shit I didn't intend. Not just to me, fyi, but to everyone he was arguing with in this thread. Typical. 

5) The only thing I can really agree with is your final paragraph that seems to be more on spot than the rest. Not overly appreciative of trying to brush this over with Fe and reading shit into what I think and feel that I don't, though, so next time, just don't. If you want to comment on what I think, ask me and I'll offer my input. Don't read shit for me in order to please someone else. I decide whether I think it is in my best interest to make up with someone or not.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

I disagree with you on several points. I have attempted to make this post as clear as possible without edging over into unnecessary argumentativeness. I have failed to a degree in that a couple of spots are still...emphatic...in a manner that is not intended to be as combative as it could be interpreted. I failed to think of a way to emphasize strongly without coming across that way. Bear with me, please.



AverOblivious said:


> I still don't agree that Myst uses Ti, there is much indicators of Te/Fi axes. Her whole responses and her unmoving stance, and her focus on 'logical jumps' and finding inconsistencies in others arguments, rather than putting for reasons for her own perceptions - does not strike me as a Ti user. Ti users live in the subjective world of reason, so far, she has not really given much reason to any perceptions of her own, but rather provided logical inconsistencies with others perceptions of events, people ,etc which is more indicative of Te/Fi. Not saying that is a bad thing, sometimes, it is a personality trait. In this case, I would say it may be her style.


I don't think Te-Fi is the only way to have an unmoving stance and certitude in one's correctness over the attitudes of others. And the questioning can also be interpreted as gathering information to internalize understanding, too, so the conclusion there does depend on Myst's reason for it.



AverOblivious said:


> No. Liking/dislike is a literal interpretation of 'cognitive preferences'. Cognitive preferences are patterns of thought, behaviours and feelings. Much like the people on here, they have totally misunderstood that same point - they equate 'emotion' to Feeling dimension, and 'self worth' to Fi, the understanding is that liking/preferring perceptions of 'worth' in terms of the self, would be 'self worth', and is something common to any type who has good self esteem.


F is not just emotion, nor is it worth alone. It is judgment based on the impressions of something's ethical or relative value outside of a purely logical framework. It is the ability to weigh ideas based on morals, ethics, emotions, impact on the self, impact on others, taste, aesthetic valuation, and so on.

Without valuing, you cannot have self worth. Self worth is not an F function or a T function, it is a *Ji* function - literally Judging the Self (in part). One can have a cognitive preference and not like it, and can have such a function and also like it. The two are not exclusive nor are they synonymous. However, a person with a healthy attitude that has self esteem will like their own functions as a natural side effect of liking themselves, and they will value the way that they process information - or value their functions, put another way - if they trust their own judgment. To like is to place value on, and valuation is not Fi alone. To reason out that something is so in a Ti manner and then decide that it is correct based on all the available evidence is inherently a process of evaluation in the same manner as Fi but with different end results and initial goals. A Ti user feels good when they fulfill Ti behavior, when they feel reasoned and/or correct in understanding; that's value.

In other words, *what* is valued is being changed, but valuing still occurs. Evaluation is not based on reason or ethics alone, it is more than that. People do not isolate one and ignore the other, they use both with a preference for one, often suppressing the other - but the other still impacts them and shows through. This is why as a person grows and approaches individuation they begin to overcome their weaknesses and use the functions together more ably and holistically. In this manner, liking is but one element of the J matrix, but it *is* a valid one.



AverOblivious said:


> You can't consciously devalue or value a function, the whole process of 'valuing' is in fact, Fi. This is more indicative of Fi than Ti. Ti users don't value perceptions, they give reasons for those perceptions. The value function is repressed, and sure can sometimes be given a description or some focus in a user, but even in those times, its best described as part of the Ti reasoning process.
> 
> You can't choose the functions you want, that is not correct. The tertiary and inferior are posited to be 'unconscious functions' and you definitely can't choose them. That is overgeneralizing if you were to say one can choose their functions.


I disagree strongly. A person can in fact choose how they shall think. They can engage in a function they are unused to or usually do not prefer. Putting yourself in another's shoes is one example. Now, a person may start life with a set of functions that are *natural* to them, and that includes unconscious functions. But that does not mean the person is incapable of developing or using the others.

People change over time. A person can decide that they do not like the way that they think about things, and learn a new method, and then practice and reinforce that new method to change their ingrained habits. It would be more accurate to say that one cannot *immediately* change their function preferences. Embracing the idea that people are inherently static and unchanging on a basic mental level is an idea that encourages nihilism and stagnation. Plus empirical evidence gathered over my entire lifetime tells me that it is simply incorrect. So yes, I strongly disagree on this point.



AverOblivious said:


> No, that's not how Ti is expressed. Ti is expressed as Ti, not through other functions. Fe is repressed upon Thinking, either does not exist in the presence of the other (those are Jung's own understandings of the F/T dimension). For example, in my communication, you can see that there is a 'reasoning' function, where each perception is given some _reason_, for the initial perception (the possibilities) of Ne. I just don't see this in the OP, and now looking on, later in this thread, it doesn't appear to have that either - however, there have been a lot of attacks against me personally on this thread, and also charged by some sort of ulterior motive (the person attacking had argued in a similiar manner before, a couple of years ago). So I'm not at liberty to agree with my own reasoning, apparently.


I disagree for the reasons outlined above. I would add that no function engages alone. We'd have to be pretty weird machine entities to selectively engage that way. It also follows that no function always engages every time (which is of course why we have loop behavior).

The ad hominem attacks are unfortunate, though your reasoning appears sound given a set of assumptions I think you may be holding. Do you think the attacks are affecting your judgment? Is that what you mean by "not being at liberty to agree with your own reasoning?" Or are you referring to your opinion being rejected if you state it? If it helps, I could certainly see an argument that Myst is a Te user. I choose to assert Ti here based on the intent behind the answers that Myst is portraying through discussion and Myst's own input.

As to Jung thinking it works that way, that is an interesting thing he said, but I am unsure why you shared it. Are you assuming that Jung is correct? Are you saying you agree with his description on this point? Or what?


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> In a sense. Fe doesn't need to be well mannered, but if it is mature then it is used for its own ends rather than to support your other Rational Function. From what I can see, you are using it to institute social rules that pertain to applying the "correct" logical framework, aka using it for Ti reasons. That doesn't make it 'wrong' or 'bad' or anything, but it does mean that it isn't a highly developed and sensitive instrument with high priority of its own merit, aka "mature".


That makes sense.




> I'm not interested in seeing if you have manners, to be honest. I am interested in helping you in the way you have asked to be helped, which means discarding some of my own usual manners in favor of directness.
> 
> I am not seeing the irony of which you speak unless it is in reference to the fact that I relaxed my own Fe in order to make such a direct and potentially offensive statement in the first place?


Just the irony in terms of the whole thread :laughing: I thought you implied that intentionally 

You don't have to let go of your Fe btw unless I misunderstand what you mean by that...? Explain more?




> I have excellent selective memory. I remember best when I learned something that was either difficult or profound. To me, math was profound in that I never even considered that sort of concept before it came up in class.
> 
> It is a web of associations in my head. I know by associative thinking that all of these rules work because I can picture it. I see the rules in my head as abstract entities. Does it help if I mention that the teacher didn't explain these rules, but that I figured them out myself? I have a scene in my head about when 7 meets 9 and go out to a party, and when they get home the 7 is missing part of his head and the 9 is upside down (because the answer is 16). That's one of the examples I came up with in my head to make the rule that adding 10 is adding 9 and subtracting 1. Whenever I think about that rule I remember that story. I noticed the pattern and basically worked it out both logically and intuitively. Then i could logically explain it because I could see its truth and then I proved it on paper several times to be sure I was right (And THAT was the Ti ^^)


OK I see the differences now in our ways of thinking. I also thought of such rules myself but it was not via imagining these stories. Just directly via the numbers and directly "feeling" how they fit together. I put that in quotes because it's not an emotion, it's just feeling the logic. Hard to find words for this. It's also got a kinetic element if I visualize it. I don't visualize by default. So yes the rules are abstract entities for me too but not in the way as it is for you. I actually don't understand how you could originally figure them out without logic?!




> The Fe manner is that attempting to claim ownership of a public thread on a site when that is not what the rules are for that site is counter to usual Fe goals yet it is also a value based judgment being projected onto others in an extroverted manner. It could be - and indeed I believe is more common to - Fi ruling Te, but we have established that you are using Ti, so...


I actually thought it was not in contradiction with the site rules. Is it?

How does Fi/Te do this?




> To me, it seems you are not checking inside yourself for logical consistency or understanding or evaluating the quality or usefulness of a concept; but instead imposing a value judgment when the value in question is one of the type that the F functions deal with. That is, it is dealing with "proper behavior" or "expected social norm". This is a case of choosing not to suppress F in favor of cold logic, but instead what appeared to be lashing out, which to me speaks of Fe being used in an immature manner. I say immature in part because that is not the culture here on PerC, nor is it in the rules or the unwritten rules. If I had to guess, I'd say that it is a rule that you have used before in other sites, or you simply don't care if it is an aggressive use of Fe as long as it makes some kind of sense to you (Ti ruling Fe).


I don't really know what the culture is like on PerC... I've seen people before do this though on this same site.

It makes sense to me because I want fair treatment of everyone by everyone, simple as that.

What does that reasoning sound like to you?




AverOblivious said:


> This is not necessarily a part of cognitive preferences such as Ti. What you described is a natural consequence of having executive functions and a certain degree of intelligence.
> However, not being able to 'explain your reasoning' is something more of introversion, than it is Ti. Introversion would posit that understandings, reflections, etc are all subjectively contemplated, and would be harder to express that reflective level of thinking. It could range from any function - Ni, Ti, Si, which is introverted.


Yeah, anyone can utilize Ti to a degree even if it is not highly preferred in a cognitive sense.

It is just like Jung's undifferentiated functions. Those functions still work to serve whatever agenda of the ego, they are just not highly differentiated and won't be conscious much.




> I wouldn't always say that this is a Ti thing. There are many types which are capable of issuing certain statements or 'demands' for reason. Also, the fact that 'answer or leave this thread' was used, is more indicative of the Fi/Te axes, where Te would posit that someone fits a logically consistent perception of events, while measuring against the inconsistencies of events A and events B, etc. In doing so, the Te perception attempts to get to an objective position (i.e. 'get out of this thread' or 'stay in this thread') while Ti does not warrant such objectivity. Subjectivity is a big component of Ti.


I do not see why looking for logic in things would be strictly the realm of Te. That's Ti just as much.

Subjective logic can also determine the position of things. It will just come from logic that is not oriented by external consensus. 




> Dislike/like has little to do with functions. Sure, they are cognitive preferences, but that is for something much deeper than what you just described. I really don't get what you mean by 'disliking for Ti reasons or Fe reasons'. Ti is a subjective reasoning function, it provides reasons for events, perceptions and delves into an internally energized landscape based on these things. For example, in my writing you will see the reason, either followed by my statement, but it won't always mean 'logic' or 'logically sound', it just means anything which justifies another thing as a characteristic of a perception.


Now you say Ti also provides reasoning for events. Above you said only Te does so. 

Also are you trying to say that the justifications Ti creates are not always logically sound? I will have to disagree with you on that point if that's what you really tried to claim.




Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Interesting. I'll reserve judgment on that; it doesn't jive well with my understanding so I want to reflect.


Does the comment I added above for him help you in understanding it more?




> Liking has plenty to do with it in my opinion. If you like doing something a certain way (or 'prefer' it), then you are more likely to do it that way. Same thing goes for people's use of the given preferred orientations of their functions. By valuing Ti and devaluing Fe, a person subverts Fe in usage to support the more preferred function of Ti, using it in a distinctly different manner than they would if the function were both more developed and more preferred. I believe that is the point of the function stack, really.


By like/dislike you just mean cognitive attraction or aversion, yeah?

Btw you again wanted to say "prefer" instead of "value" 




> Now, if I don't understand a given function, then ok cool I have more to learn. I definitely see liking or disliking being part of what is going on. This of course depends on whether you see the use of functions as something that is automatic and unchanging or if you see them as ways of interpreting things that you can choose to use with distinct preferences for doing so.


I don't think you can make yourself choose a preference, this is just how your brain developed prenatally and then in your early developmental years. 




> As for Ti, yes it is subjective reasoning. When that internal reasoning is then expressed outwardly, it get run through that person's preferred method of objective reasoned communication as well. Hence Fe used for Ti reasons - the internal judgment is being expressed outwardly as best as the person can communicate the idea based on their skill at outwardly communicating a reasoned judgment. That's my understanding. Is that not how it works?


I don't follow very well yet how tertiary or inferior Fe works for Ti aims so I'll be happy to follow you two debating about it. I do suspect I don't have the skills to do it in a way that is "Fe enough" for most people except other Ti types. The exception from that rule seems to be if someone provides enough Fe first for me to be able to pay more attention to that.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

Entropic said:


> No offense man, but please don't try to brush things over and read my motivations and feelings for something they are not.


None taken. I did try to be inoffensive about it.




Entropic said:


> 1) No, I do not agree with or believe in that Fi is more focused on values than anything else. That is not what Fi is about and suggesting that I should agree with this statement just to make up with AverOblivious is honestly offensive to me. It goes against my intellectual integrity to even remotely agree with such a claim.


*arches eyebrow*

On Fi...Neither do I, nor did I assert that it is *solely* about that or even *mostly* about that. Further, I did not suggest you agree with anything. I suggested dropping it. "Since Averoblivious lacks the time to locate the evidence you seek, perhaps the best solution is to drop this debate?"

I can see that my attempt to smooth things over has upset you as well. I apologize. I didn't want to alert forum moderators and get the thread on the watch list. That is....underhanded and distasteful to me. So I chose a more direct route. It appears that you find that distasteful yourself.



Entropic said:


> 2) My annoyance with his intellectual dishonesty is most definitely not the source with AverOblivious. That is more like the cherry on top of the cake.


Unfortunate. I am guessing you two must have a history.



Entropic said:


> 3) I already left the ball in his court so I really don't give a fuck what happens after this since it is evident he cannot produce anything of value to me, or meet me equally halfway. He should contact me when he feels he's up for snuff; until then he can do whatever the fuck he wants. I don't care.


That's quite a statement. I confess to wondering why you feel that way.



Entropic said:


> 4) No, honestly? Knowledge? I can't learn from that guy lol. No offense, but really, I can't. I can't learn from you either for the matter. My understanding is too advanced which is why you are still insisting Fi is somehow about values. Maybe you should listen to an Fi type what it is like to reason with Fi instead of holding onto a theoretical description that may not at all apply in reality and may come across not only as overly stereotypical but at worst, typist. Again, the only snarky remark I did was commenting on his username which was not done with the intent to be hurtful; playful perhaps, but I would have expected someone to rise more to the challenge of being implied to be oblivious and prove to me that they are not. Instead he got defensive and begin to read shit I didn't intend. Not just to me, fyi, but to everyone he was arguing with in this thread. Typical.


There is no use denigrating me, I'll just brush it off with some amusement 

Now, anyway, I believe I understand Fi and can spot it in several people within my life, but how can I be truly sure? I am not omniscient, and I would consider myself quite arrogant if I tried to say I understand it and thus shouldn't listen to others. So if I do not seem to understand Fi to you, please, enlighten me. I would love to learn more and test the limits of my knowledge.



Entropic said:


> 5) The only thing I can really agree with is your final paragraph that seems to be more on spot than the rest. Not overly appreciative of trying to brush this over with Fe and reading shit into what I think and feel that I don't, though, so next time, just don't. If you want to comment on what I think, ask me and I'll offer my input. Don't read shit for me in order to please someone else. I decide whether I think it is in my best interest to make up with someone or not.


You may notice on a second reading that I did in fact state that I could be wrong and then ended by asking if I was right. As in, I was not asserting what you think and feel but rather guessing in an attempt to understand where you are coming from in order to bring the argument to a close. Seems to me you are more irritated that I made the attempt at all than you are about me "reading shit into what I think and feel" as you put it. Would you say that you find peacemaking irritating in itself if it doesn't bring forth what you asked for?


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

AverOblivious said:


> I still don't agree that Myst uses Ti, there is much indicators of Te/Fi axes. Her whole responses and her unmoving stance, and her focus on 'logical jumps' and finding inconsistencies in others arguments, rather than putting for reasons for her own perceptions - does not strike me as a Ti user. Ti users live in the subjective world of reason, so far, she has not really given much reason to any perceptions of her own, but rather provided logical inconsistencies with others perceptions of events, people ,etc which is more indicative of Te/Fi. Not saying that is a bad thing, sometimes, it is a personality trait. In this case, I would say it may be her style.


Do you think ISTJ then instead of ISTP?

I honestly want to hear about your thoughts regarding that.

I will agree I constantly check for consistency of logic in everything. I do not see why you think that's specific to Te though and that Ti does not do this. Do explain more on this.




> No. Liking/dislike is a literal interpretation of 'cognitive preferences'. Cognitive preferences are patterns of thought, behaviours and feelings. Much like the people on here, they have totally misunderstood that same point - they equate 'emotion' to Feeling dimension, and 'self worth' to Fi, the understanding is that liking/preferring perceptions of 'worth' in terms of the self, would be 'self worth', and is something common to any type who has good self esteem.


I have good self esteem but I don't ever think of things in terms of "worth" if I cannot logically justify such. 




> No, that's not how Ti is expressed. Ti is expressed as Ti, not through other functions. Fe is repressed upon Thinking, either does not exist in the presence of the other (those are Jung's own understandings of the F/T dimension). For example, in my communication, you can see that there is a 'reasoning' function, where each perception is given some _reason_, for the initial perception (the possibilities) of Ne. I just don't see this in the OP, and now looking on, later in this thread, it doesn't appear to have that either - however, there have been a lot of attacks against me personally on this thread, and also charged by some sort of ulterior motive (the person attacking had argued in a similiar manner before, a couple of years ago). So I'm not at liberty to agree with my own reasoning, apparently.


Inferior function can still complement the dominant function but it does require development.

You are free to think in whatever way you want to think but if it is not logical, do expect that others will not always agree with you. And that is not for a personal reason at all. I'm not attacking people per se, only the incorrect reasonings. I also don't have a problem with you personally and I'm fine with discussion of points with you. Make sense?

If you are referring to @Entropic, well all I can say to you as advice is, man up instead of playing the victim. A little arguing and confrontation will not hurt you. As long as it remains constructive in the long run. I indeed also do not see the point in all of it devolving into just personal attacks without keeping any focus on logical reasoning. That is when it is no longer constructive.

"it doesn't appear to have that either" - If you mean you do not see Ji in me in the entire thread, then INFP is out yeah?




Fenix Wulfheart said:


> I don't think Te-Fi is the only way to have an unmoving stance and certitude in one's correctness over the attitudes of others. And the questioning can also be interpreted as gathering information to internalize understanding, too, so the conclusion there does depend on Myst's reason for it.


Well my agenda for this thread is to understand more. Comparing MBTI to socionics as well to see more on how things work. I relate to part of ISTP just fine but I relate to the J dichotomy as well. I however don't relate to a lot of SJ stuff. For cognitive functions, in tests I score highest in Ti, Se, Te. Lowest in Fe, Fi, Ne.




> Without valuing, you cannot have self worth. Self worth is not an F function or a T function, it is a *Ji* function - literally Judging the Self (in part). One can have a cognitive preference and not like it, and can have such a function and also like it. The two are not exclusive nor are they synonymous. However, a person with a healthy attitude that has self esteem will like their own functions as a natural side effect of liking themselves, and they will value the way that they process information - or value their functions, put another way - if they trust their own judgment. To like is to place value on, and valuation is not Fi alone. To reason out that something is so in a Ti manner and then decide that it is correct based on all the available evidence is inherently a process of evaluation in the same manner as Fi but with different end results and initial goals. A Ti user feels good when they fulfill Ti behavior, when they feel reasoned and/or correct in understanding; that's value.


This is interesting. I'm not sure if I "like" being a Ti-dom. It can be hard to accept somehow because of its downsides. Se-dom is something I can see myself being less conflicted about but at the same time I don't think my Fe is that high to justify an ESTP typing.




> In other words, *what* is valued is being changed, but valuing still occurs. Evaluation is not based on reason or ethics alone, it is more than that. People do not isolate one and ignore the other, they use both with a preference for one, often suppressing the other - but the other still impacts them and shows through. This is why as a person grows and approaches individuation they begin to overcome their weaknesses and use the functions together more ably and holistically. In this manner, liking is but one element of the J matrix, but it *is* a valid one.


This makes a lot of sense 




> I disagree strongly. A person can in fact choose how they shall think. They can engage in a function they are unused to or usually do not prefer. Putting yourself in another's shoes is one example. Now, a person may start life with a set of functions that are *natural* to them, and that includes unconscious functions. But that does not mean the person is incapable of developing or using the others.


I can't really do this though at will. I'm rather skeptical about such ideas, as it seems functions you highly differentiated won't go away that easily. There seems to be a cognitive barrier to doing so. I don't really believe in this being possible at all. I think a more sensible way to go about developing yourself is try to see and manage your lower functions through your more developed functions. This will still have its limitations but that's just how things are.




> People change over time. A person can decide that they do not like the way that they think about things, and learn a new method, and then practice and reinforce that new method to change their ingrained habits. It would be more accurate to say that one cannot *immediately* change their function preferences. Embracing the idea that people are inherently static and unchanging on a basic mental level is an idea that encourages nihilism and stagnation. Plus empirical evidence gathered over my entire lifetime tells me that it is simply incorrect. So yes, I strongly disagree on this point.


Sure, you can decide to use a new method but it will not amount to changing an entire function preference. The latter is a much more profound thing than just one or even a few changes in methods.


----------



## xraydav (Jan 3, 2013)

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> I don't think Te-Fi is the only way to have an unmoving stance and certitude in one's correctness over the attitudes of others. And the questioning can also be interpreted as gathering information to internalize understanding, too, so the conclusion there does depend on Myst's reason for it.


I didn't say it was the only about an 'unmoving stance'. It is merely a symptomatic trait of Te-Fi, in comparison to Ti-Fe. I don't really understand what you mean by 'gathering information to internalize understanding', and that just doesn't not make sense to me. Any type is capable of doing this, through any function. Either of the functions are perceptions which have a component of understanding the reality that surrounds them. 



> *F is not just emotion, nor is it worth alone*. It is judgment based on the impressions of something's ethical or relative value outside of a purely logical framework. It is the ability to weigh ideas based on morals, ethics, emotions, impact on the self, impact on others, taste, aesthetic valuation, and so on.


The bolded is exactly what I was saying. F is not necessarily an ability to 'weigh ethical judgements',any type is capable of that. F does have tendency toward being more focused on what is 'ethical' or 'unethical' in situations, and looking at things in those terms, but not necessarily as a core characteristic of their underlying perception. Those are symptoms not core characteristic patterns in the conscious perception, you look at the symptoms as a result, not as the underlying cause of the cognition. 



> Without valuing, you cannot have self worth. Self worth is not an F function or a T function, it is a *Ji* function - literally Judging the Self (in part). One can have a cognitive preference and not like it, and can have such a function and also like it. The two are not exclusive nor are they synonymous. However, a person with a healthy attitude that has self esteem will like their own functions as a natural side effect of liking themselves, and they will value the way that they process information - or value their functions, put another way - if they trust their own judgment. To like is to place value on, and valuation is not Fi alone. To reason out that something is so in a Ti manner and then decide that it is correct based on all the available evidence is inherently a process of evaluation in the same manner as Fi but with different end results and initial goals. A *Ti user feels good when they fulfill Ti behavior*, when they feel reasoned and/or correct in understanding; that's value.


The bolded is incorrect, a Ti user 'feels good' when they fulfill Ti behaviour. There is no indication of 'feeling good' on using functions, and emotions can be made in passing for anything, it is not an indicator of underlying cognitive preferences. 

You stated that 'to like is to value something and valuation is not Fi alone'. Values are not 'liking' something, values do not mean, having an inclination toward something. Values by definition, are things like 'peace of mind', while a person will inherently be inclined to be predisposed to positions which warrant the protection, realization or actualization of these values. This is also something that many others on this thread got wrong about my arguments, thinking I was equating value to 'assigning importance to things or even words'. Having a preference toward something does not make that person 'prefer it' - it is a code for a deeper understanding regarding patterned thinking. I prefer people who use 'Fi' as they symptomatically have a feature of 'backbone' when it comes to their own opinions, beliefs, etc but that doesn't always mean that I am Fi. People with Ti, can also have 'backbone' in different ways, and I appreciate that as well, that doesn't make me more Ti either. 

You also are assuming that the functions are something we can 'realize' and 'choose' and that's not necessarily correct. We have to objectively look at experiences and determine whether those functions are reflected in our underlying patterns of cognition in those experiences and perceptions. 



> In other words, *what* is valued is being changed, but valuing still occurs. Evaluation is not based on reason or ethics alone, it is more than that. People do not isolate one and ignore the other, they use both with a preference for one, often suppressing the other - but the other still impacts them and shows through. This is why as a person grows and approaches individuation they begin to overcome their weaknesses and use the functions together more ably and holistically. In this manner, liking is but one element of the J matrix, but it *is* a valid one.


I already agree with you there. I know it's more than just ethics, as I stated above. I was in fact, saying that 'value'-based thinking, is much more than just emotions, etc. That's actually one of the reasons why you can't just use 'like/dislike' criteria to categorize a person into Fi or Ti. 

Of course, one suppresses the other, while the animus (the inferior function) is much more unconscious than the anima (the dominant)


> I disagree strongly. A person can in fact choose how they shall think. They can engage in a function they are unused to or usually do not prefer. Putting yourself in another's shoes is one example. Now, a person may start life with a set of functions that are *natural* to them, and that includes unconscious functions. But that does not mean the person is incapable of developing or using the others.





> People change over time. *A person can decide that they do not like the way that they think about things*, and learn a new method, and then practice and reinforce that new method to change their ingrained habits. It would be more accurate to say that one cannot *immediately* change their function preferences. Embracing the idea that people are inherently static and unchanging on a basic mental level is an idea that encourages nihilism and stagnation. Plus empirical evidence gathered over my entire lifetime tells me that it is simply incorrect. So yes, I strongly disagree on this point.


The way* that they do this, will show more about their underlying cognition, than does what they throw away. I would say it's much deeper than that, as you said, it relates to their whole life time - it can just be something one chooses. No one is inherently static, and that's not what I was saying. So don't add evidence. Don't do that, this is what others on this thread were doing when they said, I was trying to say one thing but not another. They were adding evidence, so they could 'win' and now I realize that this was happening. 



> I disagree for the reasons outlined above. I would add that no function engages alone. We'd have to be pretty weird machine entities to selectively engage that way. It also follows that no function always engages every time (which is of course why we have loop behavior).


Again, you are adding evidence. I never said that a function engages alone. I in fact said, the existence of one suppresses another, etc. 



> The ad hominem attacks are unfortunate, though your reasoning appears sound given a set of assumptions I think you may be holding. Do you think the attacks are affecting your judgment? Is that what you mean by "not being at liberty to agree with your own reasoning?" Or are you referring to your opinion being rejected if you state it? If it helps, I could certainly see an argument that Myst is a Te user. I choose to assert Ti here based on the intent behind the answers that Myst is portraying through discussion and Myst's own input.


Do you really think personal attacks won't affect your judgment in a situation? I know from engaging in formal debates, that personal attacks are issued by types who do not know how to engage in them or feel inadequate about their own arguments/skills. I would say Myst is on the Fi/Te axes, as well. The content of her words would obviously suggest she is T, when that is not always true. One can liken themselves to a 'logical analyzer' but not actually approach any situations in this manner. Analyze their approach. 



> As to Jung thinking it works that way, that is an interesting thing he said, but I am unsure why you shared it. Are you assuming that Jung is correct? Are you saying you agree with his description on this point? Or what?


lmao if you don't agree with Jung, then why are you here? He pretty much invented Jungian functions. Who's authority are you referring to?


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

myst91 said:


> You don't have to let go of your Fe btw unless I misunderstand what you mean by that...? Explain more?


Erm....INFJ masking. I am trying to speak in a more logical manner and come across as less feelsy. Which is actually engaging Fe, but I am attempting to engage Fe into looking more like Ti so as to meet you halfway. I'm not being super successful right now from what I can see. ><



myst91 said:


> OK I see the differences now in our ways of thinking. I also thought of such rules myself but it was not via imagining these stories. Just directly via the numbers and directly "feeling" how they fit together. I put that in quotes because it's not an emotion, it's just feeling the logic. Hard to find words for this. It's also got a kinetic element if I visualize it. I don't visualize by default. So yes the rules are abstract entities for me too but not in the way as it is for you. I actually don't understand how you could originally figure them out without logic?!


Thats easy - I didn't. The very first instance of understanding the bare concept had to be logic. Otherwise there wouldn't have been a concept to extrapolate from with Ni. As I said, I'd never even considered math before then except for just counting. It didn't occur to me you could manipulate numbers like that, I was too busy reading.

I don't remember the exact moment I did that, but I remember how it went down sort of. The teacher did some basic addition on the board drawing the apples and such and showing what addition is visually and also saying it. At some point, it clicked for me what it was conceptually - that was logic - and then I started skipping ahead. That night I read through the book and saw where the lessons were going, and started noting the patterns. Then with the patterns noted I started envisioning how the whole thing fit together and it moved from there. It took some logic to get the ball rolling, but the rest was patterning and "making it real to me". That making it real with stories and associations element is more Ni than Ti as best as I can see. Especially as it developed more and became very abstract as the concept was less new. I learned division by understanding it was multiplication reversed, but I had learned multiplication by knowing it was addition expanded, so to divide I visualized the patterns of adding being extrapolate through the advanced patterns of being multiplied and then reversed. It is...very difficult to describe at this moment.



myst91 said:


> I actually thought it was not in contradiction with the site rules. Is it?
> 
> How does Fi/Te do this?


It is not against the rules, no, but is nevertheless a breach of the expected behavior of a forum goer. At least it is to me. Could be I'm wrong.

Outwardly, it would manifest similarly, really. A Fe user is not conscious of Fi though, so they may not notice they are doing it if it is Fi influence. Inwardly, well, you understand the functions, yes? I confess to not being up to explaining the functional difference at this moment after the posts above. *tired*



myst91 said:


> I don't really know what the culture is like on PerC... I've seen people before do this though on this same site.
> 
> It makes sense to me because I want fair treatment of everyone by everyone, simple as that.
> 
> What does that reasoning sound like to you?


I can't speak for the culture of all of PerC, but I can say I have not seen that behavior be accepted in any place but this particular thread. I have seen maybe 30% of the areas on this site (not 30% of threads though - I'd have no life!). However, by inference from the forum rules it can be stated that doing that is bad form (but not against the rules). I can explain that later if you want more details; I'd need to go grab sections of rules for that.

Anyway. Honestly? Sounds like Fi. Possibly Ti if it is being done with a different sort of reason. I don't see your mental processes here. Can you detail exactly why you made that decision? What method of evaluation did you use?



myst91 said:


> Does the comment I added above for him help you in understanding it more?


Not really, but I reached that conclusion myself after I reflected so....yeah.



myst91 said:


> By like/dislike you just mean cognitive attraction or aversion, yeah?
> 
> Btw you again wanted to say "prefer" instead of "value"


Honestly? Preferring something is placing value on it. It is appreciating it above another thing. I use the two interchangeably in this specific context. Is that wrong to you?



myst91 said:


> I don't think you can make yourself choose a preference, this is just how your brain developed prenatally and then in your early developmental years.


I am a psych student. One thing I have learned is that the brain does not ever stop growing and adapting. Habits change. Methods of thinking change. I will just have to agree to disagree for this moment, unless you have some evidence you care to share?



myst91 said:


> I don't follow very well yet how tertiary or inferior Fe works for Ti aims so I'll be happy to follow you two debating about it. I do suspect I don't have the skills to do it in a way that is "Fe enough" for most people except other Ti types. The exception from that rule seems to be if someone provides enough Fe first for me to be able to pay more attention to that.


If it helps, I have not been offended by anything you have said. My mother is an E S/N TJ, and my early years consisted of a great deal of debates on philosophy and the meaning of life. She can be extremely aggressive on certain points. For that and some other reasons, I am used to heated debates. I also worked as a peer moderator in fourth grade and have been doing it unofficially most of my life. I take things with a heavy dose of salt.

Also, I am a philosopher in the purest sense of the word. It translate loosely as the "love of wisdom". I love wisdom. Wisdom entails understanding that you do not know everything, and being open to new ideas. I may not always succeed, but I certainly try. So, sure, go ahead and participate if you like or don't if you don't want to. You are unlikely to offend me, and if you do I have a self imposed rule where I walk away from the computer and calm down before composing a response so I can see things clearly.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

AverOblivious said:


> No, that's not how Ti is expressed. Ti is expressed as Ti, not through other functions. Fe is repressed upon Thinking, either does not exist in the presence of the other (those are Jung's own understandings of the F/T dimension).


Actually what Jung meant was, the inferior function still exists, repressed into the unconscious, the more the dominant is emphasized, the more this will happen, it does not "kill" the inferior function, it just increases its power in the unconscious.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

AverOblivious said:


> You stated that 'to like is to value something and valuation is not Fi alone'. Values are not 'liking' something, values do not mean, having an inclination toward something. Values by definition, are things like 'peace of mind', while a person will inherently be inclined to be predisposed to positions which warrant the protection, realization or actualization of these values. This is also something that many others on this thread got wrong about my arguments, thinking I was equating value to 'assigning importance to things or even words'. Having a preference toward something does not make that person 'prefer it' - it is a code for a deeper understanding regarding patterned thinking. I prefer people who use 'Fi' as they symptomatically have a feature of 'backbone' when it comes to their own opinions, beliefs, etc but that doesn't always mean that I am Fi. People with Ti, can also have 'backbone' in different ways, and I appreciate that as well, that doesn't make me more Ti either.
> 
> You also are assuming that the functions are something we can 'realize' and 'choose' and that's not necessarily correct. We have to objectively look at experiences and determine whether those functions are reflected in our underlying patterns of cognition in those experiences and perceptions.


Relevant definitions: Value

* *




noun: value; plural noun: values
1. the regard that something is held to deserve; the importance, worth, or usefulness of something.
"your support is of great value"
synonyms:	worth, usefulness, advantage, benefit, gain, profit, good, help, merit, helpfulness, avail; More
importance, significance

2. a person's principles or standards of behavior; one's judgment of what is important in life.
"they internalize their parents' rules and values"
synonyms:	principles, ethics, moral code, morals, standards, code of behavior
"society's values are passed on to us as children"

verb: value; 3rd person present: values; past tense: valued; past participle: valued; gerund or present participle: valuing

2. consider (someone or something) to be important or beneficial; have a high opinion of.




I am not talking solely about assigning importance. Indeed, I would argue that assigning importance is a little more an element of the Perception functions than the Judging functions. I am referring to standards of behavior as well as assigning importance. A Ti user values - standardizes the behavior of - rational thought. It is still part of the process of evaluating. I use the term value in aggregate, the whole definition.

Preferring Fi in the manner you mention is not what I am referring to. The topic is supposed to be on preferring in the MBTI sense, as in preferring to use. Apologies for the miscommunication here. Like can be taken to mean preferring in the sense that you are saying, but it is not the sense in which I am us it.

What you say is true in that my view of the functions being something that is trained is not necessarily correct. It is also not necessarily incorrect. I have yet to see real proof one way or the other, so I choose to believe what common sense and studies of the human mind in other arenas are telling me, which is that understanding can impact the way your mind works and effort can change it.



AverOblivious said:


> I already agree with you there. I know it's more than just ethics, as I stated above. I was in fact, saying that 'value'-based thinking, is much more than just emotions, etc. That's actually one of the reasons why you can't just use 'like/dislike' criteria to categorize a person into Fi or Ti.


You don't 'just' use like/dislike. I'm sorry, I thought I was clear. Take a look at this part I said earlier:

"F is not just emotion, nor is it worth alone. It is judgment based on the impressions of something's ethical or relative value outside of a purely logical framework. It is the ability to weigh ideas based on morals, ethics, emotions, impact on the self, impact on others, taste, aesthetic valuation, and so on. "

In that framework, like/dislike is weighing ideas based on impact on the self and emotions. Maybe impact on others. It is the evaluation on that level. Ti does something similar with weighing if it is logical within the system it is a part of, and whether it is workable towards the purpose of that system. In other words, you "like" it in the sense of how I am using like if you "value" it, again with the sense indicated earlier.

I am not arguing like/dislike is the only element, or even most of, any function. I am arguing it is one part of it.



AverOblivious said:


> The way* that they do this, will show more about their underlying cognition, than does what they throw away. I would say it's much deeper than that, as you said, it relates to their whole life time - it can just be something one chooses. No one is inherently static, and that's not what I was saying. So don't add evidence. Don't do that, this is what others on this thread were doing when they said, I was trying to say one thing but not another. They were adding evidence, so they could 'win' and now I realize that this was happening.
> 
> Again, you are adding evidence. I never said that a function engages alone. I in fact said, the existence of one suppresses another, etc.


Sorry, but I have to say no on this one. This is not adding "evidence", this is supporting my own view with my reasoning as well as directly stating the assumptions that underly my reasoning in an effort to be understood and to differentiate exactly why I think the way I do. Please don't take offense at it. I consider it necessary for conveying a logical framework in a way I can feel will be understood. If the "evidence" is disagreeable to you, then don't address it. I won't require you to.

Yes, it does relate to the whole life time. Yes, changing a lifetime's pattern would be difficult. No, it would not be impossible for the aforementioned reasons. And your statement that one function suppresses another is debatable. I believe logic and ethics are both necessary for a solid understanding of the full ramifications of a decision. Can you explain why you say this?



AverOblivious said:


> Do you really think personal attacks won't affect your judgment in a situation? I know from engaging in formal debates, that personal attacks are issued by types who do not know how to engage in them or feel inadequate about their own arguments/skills. I would say Myst is on the Fi/Te axes, as well. The content of her words would obviously suggest she is T, when that is not always true. One can liken themselves to a 'logical analyzer' but not actually approach any situations in this manner. Analyze their approach.


I rather think such attacks would, but I did not want to assume that you feel that they would affect you. Just in case.



AverOblivious said:


> lmao if you don't agree with Jung, then why are you here? He pretty much invented Jungian functions. Who's authority are you referring to?


I didn't say that; I asked what you are saying.

Also, no, in some respects I do not, nor do I disagree necessarily. Understand that the MBTI system and the work that has been done on it does not *all* agree with Jung. His work is a starting point and a reference, but if we take MBTI to be Jung's work entirely we are not speaking the same language. MBTI is based on Jung's work, but it is not Jung's work in itself. It was changed and adapted and molded and debated and so on.

The authority I refer to is the collected works of all of the materials I have read and the opinions I have heard in aggregate. If I am wrong about something or could be wrong about something, I just research more and try to understand. I do not claim to be an authority on any of this, so the authority I refer to is only the specific things I quote whenever I do that. Which I haven't that I recall. So everything I have said is my own personal understanding.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Erm....INFJ masking. I am trying to speak in a more logical manner and come across as less feelsy. Which is actually engaging Fe, but I am attempting to engage Fe into looking more like Ti so as to meet you halfway. I'm not being super successful right now from what I can see. ><


Why do you think you aren't successful at it? I thought we were communicating rather well?




> I learned division by understanding it was multiplication reversed, but I had learned multiplication by knowing it was addition expanded, so to divide I visualized the patterns of adding being extrapolate through the advanced patterns of being multiplied and then reversed. It is...very difficult to describe at this moment.


Haha interesting. So the difference is that I did not get into Ni, I stayed with Ti 




> It is not against the rules, no, but is nevertheless a breach of the expected behavior of a forum goer. At least it is to me. Could be I'm wrong.


I don't really pay attention well to expected behaviours by default...




> Outwardly, it would manifest similarly, really. A Fe user is not conscious of Fi though, so they may not notice they are doing it if it is Fi influence. Inwardly, well, you understand the functions, yes? I confess to not being up to explaining the functional difference at this moment after the posts above. *tired*


Next time then?




> I can't speak for the culture of all of PerC, but I can say I have not seen that behavior be accepted in any place but this particular thread. I have seen maybe 30% of the areas on this site (not 30% of threads though - I'd have no life!). However, by inference from the forum rules it can be stated that doing that is bad form (but not against the rules). I can explain that later if you want more details; I'd need to go grab sections of rules for that.


Sure when you have the time.

I've seen this behaviour accepted in other threads.




> Anyway. Honestly? Sounds like Fi. Possibly Ti if it is being done with a different sort of reason. I don't see your mental processes here. Can you detail exactly why you made that decision? What method of evaluation did you use?


Explain what is Fi to you about this?

The "why" is already laid out clearly - everyone deserves the same treatment. This is just a basic rule of mine as I don't see the point in differentiating between people in terms of what treatment is used. So, rules of treatment should equally apply to all. That is how things are fair for everyone. Again, I do not see a reason to exclude anyone from such. There's a few such rules that I have about how to treat people on the whole.




> Not really, but I reached that conclusion myself after I reflected so....yeah.


I guess I was too terse again :| I'd explain more but you already arrived to the same conclusion so OK.




> Honestly? Preferring something is placing value on it. It is appreciating it above another thing. I use the two interchangeably in this specific context. Is that wrong to you?


Incorrect in a sense, depending. If you are sticking with MBTI and it is clear that you are sticking with that system then it's not really a problem. Valuing a function is a technical term in the Socionics system where it means something different from how you used it. If you assume Socionics has any relevance here then this is a problem. This site deals with both systems and I like to stay clear on which system I am referring to in one given moment.

You can of course define your own terms anytime if you wish so for whatever reasons you may have for it; but you'll have to be clear on how your system differs from other ones that other people are focused on. I don't at all mind if you use your own terms and in this case I could easily guess what you meant by it; but on the whole everything better be clear and unambiguous or communication breaks down. So that's why I felt the need to correct you. It is not very important, really, as long as it's clear what you mean, I just like precision.




> I am a psych student. One thing I have learned is that the brain does not ever stop growing and adapting. Habits change. Methods of thinking change. I will just have to agree to disagree for this moment, unless you have some evidence you care to share?


I don't have direct evidence but it makes sense logically. The plasticity of your brain is the highest in your first 3-5 years of life, of course some plasticity always remains but the basic structures will be in place by then. Stuff like which hemisphere is dominant gets determined early on. Afterwards, only brain trauma or other profound chemical trauma will really change these structural "decisions" made early on. 

Now if you consider that for a highly differentiated function (high dimensional functions in Socionics, btw), how many things have to work together in the brain's neural networking, it's only logical to conclude that changing that requires such profound changes as above. 

Btw are you majoring in psychology in college or is it going beyond basic college stuff? Just curious.




> If it helps, I have not been offended by anything you have said. My mother is an E S/N TJ, and my early years consisted of a great deal of debates on philosophy and the meaning of life. She can be extremely aggressive on certain points. For that and some other reasons, I am used to heated debates. I also worked as a peer moderator in fourth grade and have been doing it unofficially most of my life. I take things with a heavy dose of salt.
> 
> Also, I am a philosopher in the purest sense of the word. It translate loosely as the "love of wisdom". I love wisdom. Wisdom entails understanding that you do not know everything, and being open to new ideas. I may not always succeed, but I certainly try. So, sure, go ahead and participate if you like or don't if you don't want to. You are unlikely to offend me, and if you do I have a self imposed rule where I walk away from the computer and calm down before composing a response so I can see things clearly.


Sounds like your mom is ENTJ, then.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

AverOblivious said:


> I didn't say it was the only about an 'unmoving stance'. It is merely a symptomatic trait of Te-Fi, in comparison to Ti-Fe. I don't really understand what you mean by 'gathering information to internalize understanding', and that just doesn't not make sense to me. Any type is capable of doing this, through any function. Either of the functions are perceptions which have a component of understanding the reality that surrounds them.


For Ti it is understanding of the Ti reality.




> The bolded is exactly what I was saying. F is not necessarily an ability to 'weigh ethical judgements',any type is capable of that. F does have tendency toward being more focused on what is 'ethical' or 'unethical' in situations, and looking at things in those terms, but not necessarily as a core characteristic of their underlying perception. Those are symptoms not core characteristic patterns in the conscious perception, you look at the symptoms as a result, not as the underlying cause of the cognition.


Then what is the core characteristic of the underlying way of seeing reality of an F type if not ethical judgments?




> The bolded is incorrect, a Ti user 'feels good' when they fulfill Ti behaviour. There is no indication of 'feeling good' on using functions, and emotions can be made in passing for anything, it is not an indicator of underlying cognitive preferences.


Reward system of the brain may contribute to the preferred function "feeling good"?




> You stated that 'to like is to value something and valuation is not Fi alone'. Values are not 'liking' something, values do not mean, having an inclination toward something. Values by definition, are things like 'peace of mind', while a person will inherently be inclined to be predisposed to positions which warrant the protection, realization or actualization of these values. This is also something that many others on this thread got wrong about my arguments, thinking I was equating value to 'assigning importance to things or even words'. Having a preference toward something does not make that person 'prefer it' - it is a code for a deeper understanding regarding patterned thinking. I prefer people who use 'Fi' as they symptomatically have a feature of 'backbone' when it comes to their own opinions, beliefs, etc but that doesn't always mean that I am Fi. People with Ti, can also have 'backbone' in different ways, and I appreciate that as well, that doesn't make me more Ti either.


So what is Fi to you then. Give me a concise definition, no more no less. 




> Do you really think personal attacks won't affect your judgment in a situation?


You may get angry, sure, but it does not *have to* affect your logic. Of course, full objectivity at *all times* is just a nice goal that you can fall short of but you can make attempts at it.




> lmao if you don't agree with Jung, then why are you here? He pretty much invented Jungian functions. Who's authority are you referring to?


Now who's the Te user, you are referring to external authority like Te does :kitteh:

(I'm not retyping you, just joking here.)


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

myst91 said:


> Why do you think you aren't successful at it? I thought we were communicating rather well?


Because I am still worrying if I am being Ti enough like a little Fe worrywart. 



myst91 said:


> Haha interesting. So the difference is that I did not get into Ni, I stayed with Ti


I guess so 



myst91 said:


> I don't really pay attention well to expected behaviours by default...


Fe often but not always manifests as understanding of expected behaviors because it is concerned with objectivity and what is outside the self, and those are some of the easiest Fe concerns to notice and evaluate. People will generally tell you what they expect; when you get good at it, their body language does so even when they are silent.

You manner could indicate Fi preference and consequently ignoring Fe or it could indicate Fe being low in the function stack. I lean either way with you at this particular moment.



myst91 said:


> Next time then?


Sure, drop me a reminder tomorrow if I don't address it on my own. You are pretty good about the reminders from what I have seen.



myst91 said:


> I've seen this behaviour accepted in other threads.


I find this distressing but believable.



myst91 said:


> Explain what is Fi to you about this?
> 
> The "why" is already laid out clearly - everyone deserves the same treatment. This is just a basic rule of mine as I don't see the point in differentiating between people in terms of what treatment is used. So, rules of treatment should equally apply to all. That is how things are fair for everyone. Again, I do not see a reason to exclude anyone from such. There's a few such rules that I have about how to treat people on the whole.


It is apparent Ji and focused on behavior and value. That is a common trait of Fi, but not exclusive to it. The why is more important. So is the how. That's why I asked for more info.

The why you describe could be Fi, Ti, Te, or Fe. I'd need to know *how* you reached that decision. What do you think about as you reach that conclusion? It is clearly a judgement, but it appears to both be internal and external judgment.

I will note that Ti users with Fe low in their stack are commonly concerned with what is "fair". The ISTP and INTP are the introverts that worry about fairness from an extremely young age, when Ti is very visible. There is an article on this site about the development of INTP children. Maybe one about ISTP too? Anyway, it talks about this in that article.



myst91 said:


> I guess I was too terse again :| I'd explain more but you already arrived to the same conclusion so OK.


Ehh, not really. I am getting more terse myself as a side effect of all this logical analysis. Apologies for leading you to think your manner was wrong or something.

Aver_oblivious says that you can't engage two opposed functions together, and he has a point, but I don't think it is correct because I am sitting here using Fe and Ti together. I am choosing to focus more on Ti than usual and it is impacting Fe, but it isn't shutting it down entirely as it seems he is saying. I look forward to see why he says that about the functions.



myst91 said:


> Incorrect in a sense, depending. If you are sticking with MBTI and it is clear that you are sticking with that system then it's not really a problem. Valuing a function is a technical term in the Socionics system where it means something different from how you used it. If you assume Socionics has any relevance here then this is a problem. This site deals with both systems and I like to stay clear on which system I am referring to in one given moment.
> 
> You can of course define your own terms anytime if you wish so for whatever reasons you may have for it; but you'll have to be clear on how your system differs from other ones that other people are focused on. I don't at all mind if you use your own terms and in this case I could easily guess what you meant by it; but on the whole everything better be clear and unambiguous or communication breaks down. So that's why I felt the need to correct you. It is not very important, really, as long as it's clear what you mean, I just like precision.


Aaaaah, now see that explains something. If value is also a technical term that explains why some objections to its use are being raised. This is a good thing to know, and will help me clarify my points in future.

What exactly does value mean in Socionics? I have been treating the term as, you know, what the word actually means. Which has led to some confusion on Socionics, let me tell you. That's why I only mention small parts of the system and don't claim knowledge of it. 



myst91 said:


> I don't have direct evidence but it makes sense logically. The plasticity of your brain is the highest in your first 3-5 years of life, of course some plasticity always remains but the basic structures will be in place by then. Stuff like which hemisphere is dominant gets determined early on. Afterwards, only brain trauma or other profound chemical trauma will really change these structural "decisions" made early on.
> 
> Now if you consider that for a highly differentiated function (high dimensional functions in Socionics, btw), how many things have to work together in the brain's neural networking, it's only logical to conclude that changing that requires such profound changes as above.
> 
> Btw are you majoring in psychology in college or is it going beyond basic college stuff? Just curious.


The fact that plasticity remains is my own support for my view, in small part anyway. The mind can change profoundly. But what really hits home for me on this score is that higher brain function and decision making occurs in areas that can change greatly over the course of your life even without injury. This is why people can change so dramatically over the course of a lifetime, but in other ways still be who they are. Indeed, I think T/F are much more capable of change than N/S for this reason, because the Judging functions are conscious in usage. That gets into some of the more hypothetical elements of my thoughts here 

An example, a person that is Ti-dominant may choose to develop their Fi alongside their Ti and bring out this function into conscious decision making over the course of years. This does not make Ti weaker, but it does strengthen Fi. In my opinion, this would have a side effect of increasing that person's value of and subsequent usage of Fi. Ti is still central and is very important to that person, yes. But the person has changed, has grown. That is what I am saying here.

It is a way of explaining self-actualization and individuation, and also a way to show people that they can learn to use a function their type does not use much. Some people use their type as an excuse as to why they cannot do something, which in my opinion just lacks common sense. Others say that you learn to use a function to cover for the normal usage of other functions, which makes sense to a point but also fails to encompass gaining real skill at the function itself which I believe does happen eventually. A person that is Ti dominant is not incapable of using Fe, nor are they incapable of Fi or Te or any of the other functions, even if it is not in their type. I would go so far as to argue that a type can consciously choose to use a function not in their type.

That said, I must admit that as a Ni dominant this may be cognitive bias on my part. Take it with a grain of salt; I am not convinced I am correct 100% or anything, but I do believe that the statements that "type doesn't change" and so forth are not correct. So I attempt to explain why with my own theories and so forth.

It is my major. I plan on pursuing 4 or 8 years. I think being a counselor or therapist would be fantastic for me.



myst91 said:


> Sounds like your mom is ENTJ, then.


Possibly. She seems to use Ni more than Ne to me, which would be ESTJ. Especially since she has a strong S side to her, and she appears to enter Si-Fi loops at times - but is that a loop, or is it her PTSD/Bipolar/other stuff? Jury is still out on her type. We discuss it at times.


----------



## xraydav (Jan 3, 2013)

myst91 said:


> Actually what Jung meant was, the inferior function still exists, repressed into the unconscious, the more the dominant is emphasized, the more this will happen, it does not "kill" the inferior function, it just increases its power in the unconscious.


You are putting words in your mouth. I never said anything about 'killing' functions. I also did not say any of what you said here. I merely said Jung posited that the more inferior functions are more related to the unconscious, and cannot be consciously 'chosen'. None of the functions are like that and cannot be chosen, they are the lenses of perception, and are much more ingrained than just something you can 'choose' on a whim. 

This is what I couldn't really stand about this thread, where I was being placed into a position, where only you and some others were defining what I had to say, and making it seem I was saying things I was not saying. This is a form of cognitive bias, you should know as a psychology student not to do this.


----------



## xraydav (Jan 3, 2013)

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Relevant definitions: Value
> 
> * *
> 
> ...



I don't know why you keep doing this. This is what i meant by 'hearing only what you want to hear' from my perspective. I was not saying 'value' as in the literal definition of value. I already told you that. Values are generally thing we are protected, in this case, something like 'peace of mind'. I am repeating myself to you, I felt like this is what I would have immediately deducted from any other of the users on this thread, if I had to stand a "debate" from them. 



> I am not talking solely about assigning importance. Indeed, I would argue that assigning importance is a little more an element of the Perception functions than the Judging functions. I am referring to standards of behavior as well as assigning importance. A Ti user values - standardizes the behavior of - rational thought. It is still part of the process of evaluating. I use the term value in aggregate, the whole definition.


You say perception and judging functions, but that is a great way to get too caught up in the way a person is presenting themselves. You need to determine their four functions, before anything. You also need to work from their perception so far as it extends from their experiences, rather than get into the mess of 'writing up descriptions' and going 'hey that applies to me' and falling into the cognitive bias of self-report bias. You shouldn't just be using definitions, again, this is something which has been cultured to you and others on this thread, you should be analyzing objectively the fully encompassing core characteristics in terms of the experience. 



> What you say is true in that my view of the functions being something that is trained is not necessarily correct. It is also not necessarily incorrect. I have yet to see real proof one way or the other, so I choose to believe what common sense and studies of the human mind in other arenas are telling me, which is that understanding can impact the way your mind works and effort can change it.


There is nothing wrong with that. That's the only thing someone can do, but I look at studies of the human mind as well (despite what people here might think). So far, I try to use as much indicators to ascertain the functions as possible. 



> You don't 'just' use like/dislike. I'm sorry, I thought I was clear. Take a look at this part I said earlier:
> 
> "F is not just emotion, nor is it worth alone. It is judgment based on the impressions of something's ethical or relative value outside of a purely logical framework. It is the ability to weigh ideas based on morals, ethics, _*emotions*_, impact on the self, impact on others, taste, aesthetic valuation, and so on. "
> 
> ...


Sure 'emotions' are a part of the symptom of Fi, however it is not a core characteristic. Emotions such as fear, anger, they can be generated in any of the types. It's rather how they approach emotions which differs from person to person. 

A 'judgement' makes the definition sound like you have something like free conscious control over your functions, and this is exactly why I don't think this is any cognitive function. Also if you identify with using both Fe and Ti, then you are describing the functions wrong or applying them wrong, in this system. Those two functions don't occur together in conscious perception, unless either is repressed. I can link you the psychological types book by Jung, where he in fact states this. 



> Sorry, but I have to say no on this one. This is not adding "evidence", this is supporting my own view with my reasoning as well as directly stating the assumptions that underly my reasoning in an effort to be understood and to differentiate exactly why I think the way I do. Please don't take offense at it. I consider it necessary for conveying a logical framework in a way I can feel will be understood. If the "evidence" is disagreeable to you, then don't address it. I won't require you to.
> 
> Yes, it does relate to the whole life time. Yes, changing a lifetime's pattern would be difficult. No, it would not be impossible for the aforementioned reasons. And your statement that one function suppresses another is debatable. I believe logic and ethics are both necessary for a solid understanding of the full ramifications of a decision. Can you explain why you say this?
> 
> I rather think such attacks would, but I did not want to assume that you feel that they would affect you. Just in case.


Okay, so I don't really know where the confusion is here. The thing is, that I am thinking of functions directly from Jung. Also, you were adding evidence to what i was saying in my previous post. It does not mean, you are false, it just means, you were commenting on something other than what I was saying. 



> I didn't say that; I asked what you are saying.
> 
> Also, no, in some respects I do not, nor do I disagree necessarily. Understand that the MBTI system and the work that has been done on it does not *all* agree with Jung. His work is a starting point and a reference, but if we take MBTI to be Jung's work entirely we are not speaking the same language. MBTI is based on Jung's work, but it is not Jung's work in itself. It was changed and adapted and molded and debated and so on.
> 
> The authority I refer to is the collected works of all of the materials I have read and the opinions I have heard in aggregate. If I am wrong about something or could be wrong about something, I just research more and try to understand. I do not claim to be an authority on any of this, so the authority I refer to is only the specific things I quote whenever I do that. Which I haven't that I recall. So everything I have said is my own personal understanding.


We would be speaking in the exact same language. Jung is the basis of MBTI theory. The people who made MBTI, were basing it directly off Jung's words. There is historical evidence to suggest this.

It's good you do not claim to be an authority on all of this, people who claim to be an authority and have absolutely 'certain' answers, are generally incorrect. Simply because, Jung was the authority and did not convey absolute certainty over the theory of functions either.


----------



## xraydav (Jan 3, 2013)

myst91 said:


> For Ti it is understanding of the Ti reality.


You say 'Ti understanding Ti reality' , what do you mean by that? Since you value 'logical thinking' so much higher than everyone else on this thread. Also, you seem to value very deeply the ability to 'give your arguments on a topic of interest to oneself' or 'responses' which are 'concise' and hence, related closely to one's own perception which is personally significant or whatever other thing, I don't really care about in others myself, and all these things that I am not naturally attuned to which are more on the Fi/Te axes of cognitive preferences. 



> Then what is the core characteristic of the underlying way of seeing reality of an F type if not ethical judgments?


'ethical judgments' are not a core characteristic of Fi. No function has a core characteristic of ethics, lmao. The differentating factor of Fi, is it's ability to perceive the world in the lens, which is both subjectively made, and has the ability to sift through datum, in a way that a majority focus is placed upon deeply felt values. ("Deeply felt" only so far, as the values which are being protected, or defended, not purely emotion-appraisal, i.e. I felt sad..). Likewise, this definition can only be truly defined, within the limits of the psychological types theory by Jung and his own words. The differentiation point of Fi from other functions, is in fact only Fe (you can only pick one from either, as they are of an independent axes), where Fe is based more on 'group values', and is much more focused on external events, where such objective values can be sorted through the perception of the person's view of themselves, others, events or the world. 



> Reward system of the brain may contribute to the preferred function "feeling good"?


Well yeah, you just proved my point. That's what I was saying, that it is not just cognitive preferences which determine 'feeling good' about something. That's more neurobiological. 



> So what is Fi to you then. Give me a concise definition, no more no less.
> 
> You may get angry, sure, but it does not *have to* affect your logic. Of course, full objectivity at *all times* is just a nice goal that you can fall short of but you can make attempts at it.


You rely on definitions and that will lead to severe self-report bias. Where you end up going 'hey i am this type' rather than actually being that type. Also your approach is starkly different from any Ti user on here, and especially in the Ti user thread. (where you may or may no feel comfortable there due to this, so your loss for not listening). If you want a definition, go read psychological types by Carl Jung, and that's what I am basing my conclusions off. Nothing concise about it. 

You're just conceptualizing a false idea with no real evidence to support it - anger can really affect cognitive processing skills, and lead to bias. Emotions tend to blur your reasoning skills, this is something that can be proven in research, and I've even linked it in previous threads. I advise you to search up those journal articles, likewise, 'emotions, threats and executive functions'. 


> Now who's the Te user, you are referring to external authority like Te does :kitteh:
> 
> (I'm not retyping you, just joking here.)


You are oversimplifying function theory. This is why I cannot help you.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Because I am still worrying if I am being Ti enough like a little Fe worrywart.


Lol you are fine 




> Fe often but not always manifests as understanding of expected behaviors because it is concerned with objectivity and what is outside the self, and those are some of the easiest Fe concerns to notice and evaluate. People will generally tell you what they expect; when you get good at it, their body language does so even when they are silent.
> 
> You manner could indicate Fi preference and consequently ignoring Fe or it could indicate Fe being low in the function stack. I lean either way with you at this particular moment.


Yeah so you want to see me as ISTP or ISTJ now? :shocked:

This btw would tie very well into the issue of translating between the two systems that we've been discussing 




> Sure, drop me a reminder tomorrow if I don't address it on my own. You are pretty good about the reminders from what I have seen.


Hahah you're not the first who says that.




> I find this distressing but believable.


I'll be honest here, I actually don't like seeing it by default. But.. I can understand and justify it by believing that people need to work together where everyone is treated in the same fair way and if that's violated, something needs to be done about it. Even if not done happily.




> It is apparent Ji and focused on behavior and value. That is a common trait of Fi, but not exclusive to it. The why is more important. So is the how. That's why I asked for more info.
> 
> The why you describe could be Fi, Ti, Te, or Fe. I'd need to know *how* you reached that decision. What do you think about as you reach that conclusion? It is clearly a judgement, but it appears to both be internal and external judgment.


Being focused on value is just F, yes? How is it Fi then? Just because you see 1) Ji 2) Values? Where 1) and 2) are not necessarily directly connected? And, if it was just behaviour+values then it would be either Fe or Fi, yeah?

Which part is the external judgment? I do not see that part. I only see the internal judgment consciously. Because, I'm focused on what I think. I'm not really focused directly on the other people while making these judgments. They are kinda... a distant background? So I'm really interested in where you see the external judgment, let me know please 

And what I think of, I already explained, not sure how I can get even more detailed about it, hm. It was really quick, actually. But ok, let me try to get more detailed 

When I said originally "It makes sense to me because I want fair treatment of everyone by everyone, simple as that". What I see mentally at the same time, is a universal rule in an abstract form. The sense of it being universal is just neat, clear, simple, with no unnecessary exceptions made to the rule. It's also so symmetrical in terms of how it applies from both directions (of everyone and by everyone). Of course that clearly logically follows, I'm just trying to emphasize how I like this aspect  Then this rule is applied on all people as objects. The distant background :laughing: So that it will be good for everyone, then. That is the intent, anyway. In the specific case, I was also a bit upset that not everyone was treated in the same way. So that's where I started from.

I know you also asked about *how* I decided on this way of thinking but it is something I've had for a long time. I had this already as a small kid. I did give you some details above about how I applied it in the specific situation, though.

Also... You know what, list me some Fi values as opposed to Fe values. 




> Ehh, not really. I am getting more terse myself as a side effect of all this logical analysis. Apologies for leading you to think your manner was wrong or something.


It's my default and btw don't worry I just noticed before that people will not always magically know what I mean. A bad habit of mine is that I do not explain all my thinking by default.




> Aver_oblivious says that you can't engage two opposed functions together, and he has a point, but I don't think it is correct because I am sitting here using Fe and Ti together. I am choosing to focus more on Ti than usual and it is impacting Fe, but it isn't shutting it down entirely as it seems he is saying. I look forward to see why he says that about the functions.


The stronger the dissociation is between two opposing function is, the harder it will be to do what you do here, that is, readily engaging both at the same time. Try it with your Ni and Se. Any luck with that?




> Aaaaah, now see that explains something. If value is also a technical term that explains why some objections to its use are being raised. This is a good thing to know, and will help me clarify my points in future.
> 
> What exactly does value mean in Socionics? I have been treating the term as, you know, what the word actually means. Which has led to some confusion on Socionics, let me tell you. That's why I only mention small parts of the system and don't claim knowledge of it.


Glad it helps. 

Valued functions in socionics are the same functions as the preferred functions are in MBTI. It is not entirely with the same meaning though. In socionics, it's the functions that you have a cognitive attraction for, your ego functions that you are attracted to consciously and their complementary functions in superid that you are attracted to unconsciously. In MBTI the inferior function is often seen as rejected. I think the truth is kinda in between, the same function in socionics I think is partially rejected still but socionics theory likes to emphasize the positive side, the attraction, though it is certainly noted that degree of dualization has an effect on how well accepted that function is. For you that function is Se, to give an example.




> The fact that plasticity remains is my own support for my view, in small part anyway. The mind can change profoundly. But what really hits home for me on this score is that higher brain function and decision making occurs in areas that can change greatly over the course of your life even without injury. This is why people can change so dramatically over the course of a lifetime, but in other ways still be who they are. Indeed, I think T/F are much more capable of change than N/S for this reason, because the Judging functions are conscious in usage. That gets into some of the more hypothetical elements of my thoughts here


Plasticity has limits is what you must take into account.

I do not see how T/F is any different than N/S here. Both can be just as conscious or unconscious. Logically nothing necessitates such a difference. I think it is possible you are biased from your own functions here, as your perceiving Se is much much harder to access consciously than your judging Ti.




> An example, a person that is Ti-dominant may choose to develop their Fi alongside their Ti and bring out this function into conscious decision making over the course of years. This does not make Ti weaker, but it does strengthen Fi. In my opinion, this would have a side effect of increasing that person's value of and subsequent usage of Fi. Ti is still central and is very important to that person, yes. But the person has changed, has grown. That is what I am saying here.


Would however the Ti-dom become a Fi-dom ever? IMO there are limits.




> It is a way of explaining self-actualization and individuation, and also a way to show people that they can learn to use a function their type does not use much. Some people use their type as an excuse as to why they cannot do something, which in my opinion just lacks common sense.


They can also use type to accept themselves more and not berate themselves for not being perfect in every area of life. It would also go against common sense to think that you can change everything in your brain at will... in theory it does sound like a cool way of control over your own mind but how possible is it, uh. I don't think so but I already explained why.




> I would go so far as to argue that a type can consciously choose to use a function not in their type.


I really do not think so. Well, you can try and then crash and burn real fast.




> It is my major. I plan on pursuing 4 or 8 years. I think being a counselor or therapist would be fantastic for me.


Good luck 




> Possibly. She seems to use Ni more than Ne to me, which would be ESTJ. Especially since she has a strong S side to her, and she appears to enter Si-Fi loops at times - but is that a loop, or is it her PTSD/Bipolar/other stuff? Jury is still out on her type. We discuss it at times.


Uh, ENTJ is the one that uses Ni more, not ESTJ. The loop theory as I've seen it presented on these sites is bullshit IMO. I find it a really terrible way of trying to read shallow reasons into why someone behaves in whatever way. It's possible there are such loops but it is not to be analysed from behaviour like that.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

AverOblivious said:


> You are putting words in your mouth. I never said anything about 'killing' functions. I also did not say any of what you said here. I merely said Jung posited that the more inferior functions are more related to the unconscious, and cannot be consciously 'chosen'. None of the functions are like that and cannot be chosen, they are the lenses of perception, and are much more ingrained than just something you can 'choose' on a whim.
> 
> This is what I couldn't really stand about this thread, where I was being placed into a position, where only you and some others were defining what I had to say, and making it seem I was saying things I was not saying. This is a form of cognitive bias, you should know as a psychology student not to do this.


I don't think it's a sin to misunderstand what you mean. Why do you get so upset over that? Why get so personal over a simple impersonal misunderstanding?

I'm sure everyone has some cognitive bias, you included.

You are allowed to state your own reasoning to explain where you disagree and I have repeatedly told you this. So what is your problem, I do not see it, why you are saying this. ?!?!??!

PS: You also made it seem like I was saying things that I was not, when you repeatedly declared I'm all about showing values. To use your own wording, you were putting stuff in my mouth.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

You are putting words in my mouth in this whole post of yours. :ninja:

So let me explain where you misunderstood me. Also, please reply to my post to you in post #107. Where I ask if you see me as ISTJ now over ISTP and if so, why?




AverOblivious said:


> You say 'Ti understanding Ti reality' , what do you mean by that? Since you value 'logical thinking' so much higher than everyone else on this thread. Also, you seem to value very deeply the ability to 'give your arguments on a topic of interest to oneself' or 'responses' which are 'concise' and hence, related closely to one's own perception which is personally significant or whatever other thing, I don't really care about in others myself, and all these things that I am not naturally attuned to which are more on the Fi/Te axes of cognitive preferences.


You put words in my mouth in the following places:

_"Since you value 'logical thinking' so much higher than everyone else on this thread."_ --> I never stated this. I never thought this.

_"you seem to value very deeply the ability to 'give your arguments on a topic of interest to oneself' or 'responses' which are 'concise' and hence, related closely to one's own perception which is personally significant or whatever other thing"_ --> I never stated anything like this either. I do get into discussions and arguments a lot, sure. That's a fact as you can see it. No more no less, just a fact.

Overall, I am not following how you got into Fi/Te axis from this. I see you adding the assumption of "personally significant". This is an unverified assumption. How do you verify it? Are you sure you are not doing any cognitive bias here?

Ti reality: the Ti aspect of reality inside your mind. I was adding this as a comment to your statement of _"Either of the functions are perceptions which have a component of understanding the reality that surrounds them"_. There is a reality that we can process in different ways, Ti in a Ti way. 




> 'ethical judgments' are not a core characteristic of Fi. No function has a core characteristic of ethics, lmao.


I meant Feeling judgments. As you define it yourself later. 




> The differentating factor of Fi, is it's ability to perceive the world in the lens, which is both subjectively made, and has the ability to sift through datum, in a way that a majority focus is placed upon deeply felt values. ("Deeply felt" only so far, as the values which are being protected, or defended, not purely emotion-appraisal, i.e. I felt sad..).


Alright we can use this as a definition. Where do you see me deeply feeling anything, via seeing words in text?




> Well yeah, you just proved my point. That's what I was saying, that it is not just cognitive preferences which determine 'feeling good' about something. That's more neurobiological.


Yes, I was commenting on your point from the same POV.




> You rely on definitions and that will lead to severe self-report bias. Where you end up going 'hey i am this type' rather than actually being that type. Also your approach is starkly different from any Ti user on here, and especially in the Ti user thread. (where you may or may no feel comfortable there due to this, so your loss for not listening). If you want a definition, go read psychological types by Carl Jung, and that's what I am basing my conclusions off. Nothing concise about it.


How is my approach different from Ti users? Please be a bit more specific on this.

My loss for not listening? That now sounds like you are putting words in my mouth again. I have repeatedly asked you to tell me what type you think I am right now so why assume things like this about me. Be more fair here.




> You're just conceptualizing a false idea with no real evidence to support it - anger can really affect cognitive processing skills, and lead to bias. Emotions tend to blur your reasoning skills, this is something that can be proven in research, and I've even linked it in previous threads. I advise you to search up those journal articles, likewise, 'emotions, threats and executive functions'.


I know anger affects the way you process things. E.g. you get more impulsive as your priorities may shift in terms of what consequences you are willing to bear later. 

Emotions are indeed in opposition to pure objective reason, which is why I said it's a very very hard task to always keep fully objective even when angry. Actually if you manage to stay on the side of objectivity it will decrease the intensity of your anger at least partially. This topic is of course rather complex so I'd rather not delve in it right now.




> You are oversimplifying function theory. This is why I cannot help you.


I was joking. Understand that? And how exactly am I oversimplifying anything? I repeat, it was a joke. You used buzzwords for Fi before, now I use buzzwords for Te :kitteh: :crazy: 

The joke is on the seeming inconsistency, nothing personal, I just always find these things hilarious roud:


----------



## xraydav (Jan 3, 2013)

myst91 said:


> Oh and yeah @_AverOblivious_ - you never replied to my last post to you, does that mean you don't know how to explain why you think the lexical hypothesis is fully relevant here in typing? (This is a challenge here for you to explain, yes.) Also, when you imagined the deeply felt whatever thingies inside me, did you ever finally manage to realize that you skipped past a lot of reasoning I actually made that was not about the deeply felt Fi stuff.



Judging from the consistent mentions where I had not replied, you clearly wanted a possibly heated reaction rather than a rational response from me. Maybe, some day you will consider my opinions on the subject are also as valid as anyone else's opinions here. 

People on this thread other than myself have received infractions for attacking me and others on PerC. So, I'm not really into participating in this thread anymore. Also, I think it's best you don't mention me because you've been doing that a lot. I have no intention of adding more to this thread. _This is going to be my last response. _


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> ISTPs are not automatically apathetic
> 
> Not sure what to say about being more feeling. I'd need to invest some thought in that.
> 
> ...


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

AverOblivious said:


> Judging from the consistent mentions where I had not replied, you clearly wanted a possibly heated reaction rather than a rational response from me. Maybe, some day you will consider my opinions on the subject are also as valid as anyone else's opinions here.


The fuck? You sound like you did not even read what I said. 

But seriously, are you BLIND?

I was actually asking you here for a RATIONAL ARGUMENT. "This is a challenge here *for you to explain*, yes"

Do not expect me to accept your opinion as valid if you neglect to provide reasoning.

You cannot weasel your way out of this like you tried above. Feel free to not provide reasoning for your opinions but then do not expect anyone to take you seriously. Simple as that.

So no, if you do not provide it, do not hope that I will see your opinion as valid "some day". Dream on.




> People on this thread other than myself have received infractions for attacking me and others on PerC. So, I'm not really into participating in this thread anymore. Also, I think it's best you don't mention me because you've been doing that a lot. I have no intention of adding more to this thread. _This is going to be my last response. _


I do not see why you care whoever else posted in this thread when the thread is about my type.

I always use the mention feature when I mention someone else.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

FearAndTrembling said:


> I just wanted to add that I think Keirsey and others are wrong by making ISTP "the mechanic" type, or Se the arts and crafts function. I believe that is wrong. That is more Si. And Te.
> 
> Si is tidiness. It is replicating past experiences and making them fit perfectly. It is a steady hand. I mentioned surgery as a Si activity. Music too. Like record producing. Finding the sounds. Matching them. Matching clothes/colors. Art in general. Drawing, painting, etc. whatever.
> 
> The burger on the left was made by a Si user, the burger on the right was made by a Se user.


Haha the picture... my default is the burger on the right because I just push stuff around, make energetic movements that are not entirely precise but does the job fine but sometimes I get into being more precise and then I can do neat perfect stuff. But that requires me specifically tuning into precise details. It can be fine if I feel like doing this challenge because I'm bored or idk :shrug 
Though I also use smooth precise moves for delicate objects needing it without even paying extra attention because that somehow just works on autopilot. 

I think I can easily switch between right brained and left brained modes in general.... my default is right brained holistic though. Hm.

PS: Why did you quote that load of text from various posts in the thread?


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

I would appreciate if you stop tagging AverOblivious now, @myst91. The discussion is not going to resume with him, and he has good reason in my book. This thread is a fairly heated debate zone. Some people don't find value in this sort of debate style.

I will respond to your points after school today as per usual.

Also, some notes on ISTP from the Lenore Thompson thread make a lot of sense to me. But what the heck is perceptual logic?


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

myst91 said:


> Haha the picture... my default is the burger on the right because I just push stuff around, make energetic movements that are not entirely precise but does the job fine but sometimes I get into being more precise and then I can do neat perfect stuff. But that requires me specifically tuning into precise details. It can be fine if I feel like doing this challenge because I'm bored or idk :shrug
> Though I also use smooth precise moves for delicate objects needing it without even paying extra attention because that somehow just works on autopilot.
> 
> I think I can easily switch between right brained and left brained modes in general.... my default is right brained holistic though. Hm.
> ...



"There is no mystery about my style. My movements are simple, direct and non-classical. The extraordinary part of it lies in its simplicity. Every movement in Jeet Kune-Do is being so of itself. There is nothing artificial about it. I always believe that the easy way is the right way. Jeet Kune-Do is simply the direct expression of one's feelings with the minimum of movements and energy. The closer to the true way of Kung Fu, the less wastage of expression there is."

-Bruce Lee

This thread and that post I quoted are a morass. That is just one post quote. The way this thread is carrying on has so many wasted motions. I think you do care about precision more than I do. Not sure what that means exactly. It seems like everything has to be explicit for you.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> I would appreciate if you stop tagging AverOblivious now, @_myst91_. The discussion is not going to resume with him, and he has good reason in my book. This thread is a fairly heated debate zone. Some people don't find value in this sort of debate style.
> 
> I will respond to your points after school today as per usual.
> 
> Also, some notes on ISTP from the Lenore Thompson thread make a lot of sense to me. But what the heck is perceptual logic?


Perceptual logic may be subjective logic perhaps? Internal logic. 

I have likened Ti to a perpetual motion machine. It doesn't need outside input. It can sustain itself within its system perpetually.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

myst91 said:


> OK, so this innovation aspect is Ni for you? How do you see ISTPs doing this innovating? Say more on this please.


It'd be more accurate to say it is Ti-Ni. In my case Ni-Ti.



myst91 said:


> I don't like it when people make assumptions on what I may think or not think without verifying it first with me (btw I understand now that you didn't actually do that). @AverOblivious was doing it a lot worse and that was really irritating too. Does this make sense to you?


Yeah, it does.



myst91 said:


> I see, maybe that's how Fe does it different from Fi?


Probably. 



myst91 said:


> Not sure on what? That sentence is incomplete and I don't feel like guessing what you may have meant


Erm...no, my thought was complete. Not sure what you mean? I was expressing that I was unsure and posited some guesses. :/



myst91 said:


> Knowledge of the body can be Se too, I think. It's just S, really, with an objective and a subjective side.


I disagree, but only because those that use Se strongly also use Si strongly and so the conclusion that you draw about S types is true anyway. However, there is no real way for me to prove that, so...eeeeeh.



myst91 said:


> Do you find some of the discussion interesting too?


Sometimes.



myst91 said:


> The Grant model is about the order of the 4 preferred functions? Is it about anything else beyond that? I'm not following your issue with it.


Less an issue, more that I don't think the rules it posits are 100% true all the time. I specify when I use it because not everyone thinks that model is useful.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> I would appreciate if you stop tagging AverOblivious now, @myst91. The discussion is not going to resume with him, and he has good reason in my book. This thread is a fairly heated debate zone. Some people don't find value in this sort of debate style.


I will consider your input here - let alone acting based on it - only if you first hear me out too and acknowledge how he treated this in an entirely unfair way. Yes if you want me to cooperate then I do expect you to take into account MY side too. Not just his. That's fair only that way. 

I'll explain more if you do not see it. I posted a reply to @AverOblivious earlier where I reasoned out in detail why I disagreed with what he said and I asked him to take into account a few points that he seemed to have skimmed past. I was ready to hear out what he thought. He never responded which on its on is OK, I can understand if someone doesn't have time right away, etc. Now, when I asked him again to address those points, he got evasive again and tried to make me look bad by ascribing the wrong motivations to me. Instead of just explaining his stances as to why he may still hold his opinion. He directed the focus away from that for some reason. If he had a problem with the style he could've asked me to tone it down. Instead of accusing me of shit like that. So no, I do not think he had good reason for posting what he posted. Do you see that? If you don't, then I'm sorry but we will not be on the same page.

All in all, if he had good reasoning for his original opinion why not just post that. Or simply admit it if he realized he was wrong. Yeah I know that for some people it can be hard to admit but it does not justify accusing me of bullshit motivations. I don't accept intellectual dishonesty.

PS: and yes I'm tagging him again because I don't talk behind anyone's back so I always tag/mention people. If he doesn't like that I'm not shutting up after him posting his bullshit about me then that's his own problem if he cannot see that this is a quite natural consequence.




> Also, some notes on ISTP from the Lenore Thompson thread make a lot of sense to me. But what the heck is perceptual logic?


Yeah same question, heh.




FearAndTrembling said:


> This thread and that post I quoted are a morass. That is just one post quote. The way this thread is carrying on has so many wasted motions.


Who asked you to criticize? Why do you even care?




> I think you do care about precision more than I do. Not sure what that means exactly. It seems like everything has to be explicit for you.


Yeah, those are good observations. As for precision though, that may only apply in specific areas or periodically. So e.g. when I make a sandwich, I usually don't bother with precision as explained above.




Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Erm...no, my thought was complete. Not sure what you mean? I was expressing that I was unsure and posited some guesses. :/


This one: _"Not sure if my bias from weak Si or yours from unconsciously being very connected to Si or...misunderstanding"_. 




> I disagree, but only because those that use Se strongly also use Si strongly and so the conclusion that you draw about S types is true anyway. However, there is no real way for me to prove that, so...eeeeeh.


I've seen Se types go about it differently and also Jung connects Se too to it.




> Less an issue, more that I don't think the rules it posits are 100% true all the time. I specify when I use it because not everyone thinks that model is useful.


Oh yeah I recall you expressed skepticism about the types themselves earlier. 


So what about the Ne thing? I mean this one:

_"I read the link but it says the same thing I said Ne is, just more nicely detailed.

Maybe there's been a misunderstanding?"_


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

myst91 said:


> I will consider your input here - let alone acting based on it - only if you first hear me out too and acknowledge how he treated this in an entirely unfair way. Yes if you want me to cooperate then I do expect you to take into account MY side too. Not just his. That's fair only that way.
> 
> I'll explain more if you do not see it. I posted a reply to AverOblivious earlier where I reasoned out in detail why I disagreed with what he said and I asked him to take into account a few points that he seemed to have skimmed past. I was ready to hear out what he thought. He never responded which on its on is OK, I can understand if someone doesn't have time right away, etc. Now, when I asked him again to address those points, he got evasive again and tried to make me look bad by ascribing the wrong motivations to me. Instead of just explaining his stances as to why he may still hold his opinion. He directed the focus away from that for some reason. If he had a problem with the style he could've asked me to tone it down. Instead of accusing me of shit like that. So no, I do not think he had good reason for posting what he posted. Do you see that? If you don't, then I'm sorry but we will not be on the same page.
> 
> All in all, if he had good reasoning for his original opinion why not just post that. Or simply admit it if he realized he was wrong. Yeah I know that for some people it can be hard to admit but it does not justify accusing me of bullshit motivations. I don't accept intellectual dishonesty.


Interesting that you seem to think I didn't take your perspective into account. I've been reading the thread the whole time except for a couple posts I skipped when it started getting really heated.

The way I see it: Both sides have been insulted and insulting. Both sides made statements about their beliefs about a system of essentially elaborate guesswork. Both sides dismissed the opinions of the other side, albeit for very different reasons. One side demanded explanation, the other demanded courtesy. One side got fed up and left. The other side continues to call after the side that left trying to get answers.

All in all, I found the majority of it overly argumentative and combative. He didn't ask you to tone it down, he demanded it, which was of course just more fuel for the fire. Also, seriously, you don't actually have the right to make him "be less evasive" or anything like that - more demanding. If he isn't going to support his points, then why not dismiss his input as unsupported and move on? I really don't see the point of continuing to aggressively chase after the guy. He made it very clear he won't be back.



myst91 said:


> PS: and yes I'm tagging him again because I don't talk behind anyone's back so I always tag/mention people. If he doesn't like that I'm not shutting up after him posting his bullshit about me then that's his own problem if he cannot see that this is a quite natural consequence.


How unnecessary - he expressed a desire for you to specifically not do that, aka he *wants* any talking about him in this thread to be behind his back. I find this mildly disrespectful. *sad head shaking*



myst91 said:


> This one: _"Not sure if my bias from weak Si or yours from unconsciously being very connected to Si or...misunderstanding"_.


Yeah. not sure if the issue was my bias from weak Si or yours from unconsciously being very connected to Si or...maybe a misunderstanding? That's a thought. I'm not sure what the problem is, but I added a couple words there that may help.



myst91 said:


> I've seen Se types go about it differently and also Jung connects Se too to it.


Then perhaps I am just wrong.



myst91 said:


> So what about the Ne thing? I mean this one:
> 
> _"I read the link but it says the same thing I said Ne is, just more nicely detailed.
> 
> Maybe there's been a misunderstanding?"_


I have no response to that because I don't even understand how what you said and what that link said is at all alike. Mind=Blown.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Interesting that you seem to think I didn't take your perspective into account.


Yes because you were only supporting him and you seemed to think he was being entirely fair.




> I've been reading the thread the whole time except for a couple posts I skipped when it started getting really heated.


Then you missed how I took the effort to explain my stance to him and how he never bothered to take any of it into account.




> The way I see it: Both sides have been insulted and insulting. Both sides made statements about their beliefs about a system of essentially elaborate guesswork. Both sides dismissed the opinions of the other side, albeit for very different reasons. One side demanded explanation, the other demanded courtesy. One side got fed up and left. The other side continues to call after the side that left trying to get answers.


I did not see him demanding courtesy. I don't know where he did that, I only saw him putting words into my mouth, ascribing bullshit motivations to me, putting a red herring instead of addressing my points etc.

If he had said something along the lines of "I'd like you to talk in a nicer style", I would have seen and understood that.

Btw, do please note, he was not using a nicer style than mine. At all. But I saw that as not really that relevant to the argument itself. Again, if someone else in the argument feels like and tells me that they need that, I can take that need into account of course.

As for the system being "elaborate guesswork". Maybe, but it doesn't justify assuming things about someone without verifying them first. It doesn't mean you can just randomly bring up ideas without proving it logically.

Also, how come you do not mention where he was doing more than just giving thoughts on the system? You are not giving the full picture here.

Also, what would his reason be for getting "fed up". My last reply to him a few days ago was asking him to explain his reasoning. He could not respond to that. And I was not attacking him personally in that post (or elsewhere before it). 

He actually said before it that he is happy to continue the debate with me. He said the same I was thinking myself and I told him I agreed: _"I actually don't mind talking to you either and don't take my criticisms as anger, I just prefer objective analysis, and I haven't ever really attacked your character or identity"_ (I'm quoting from his last sensible post in this thread, to which I replied in #126)

Ah and you say both sides were dismissing the opinions of the other side for different reasons - what do you think his reason was?




> All in all, I found the majority of it overly argumentative and combative. He didn't ask you to tone it down, he demanded it, which was of course just more fuel for the fire. Also, seriously, you don't actually have the right to make him "be less evasive" or anything like that - more demanding. If he isn't going to support his points, then why not dismiss his input as unsupported and move on? I really don't see the point of continuing to aggressively chase after the guy. He made it very clear he won't be back.


My problem is, I guess, that I try too hard to make people communicate their reasoning. I can dismiss the entire opinion immediately of course but that seems so unfair doing it right away without first hearing their thoughts and actually judging if it is correct or not. I can only do it with the disclaimer that they are always free to give their reasoning to show it is actually correct. Which I've already done here btw, see below.

I'm not seeing your point here at all actually about still chasing after him, did you read my last reply to him. In it I do make it clear that his opinion isn't going to be accepted as valid unless he explains it. I told him it is his choice to be not taken seriously otherwise. So why are you beating a dead horse? I'm already done and over with it.

Also, you say I don't have the right to do X without giving a real reason for that... going by that way of thinking, he also does not have the right to do anything. No one has any right to do anything.




> How unnecessary - he expressed a desire for you to specifically not do that, aka he *wants* any talking about him in this thread to be behind his back. I find this mildly disrespectful. *sad head shaking*


And what he posted was not disrespectful??? Answer me on this. How come you only criticize me for it? See why I think you are not taking into account my side on the matter?

Also I find it hard to imagine that people do want others to talk about them behind their backs. Of course if he explicitly says so I'll believe him..




> Yeah. not sure if the issue was my bias from weak Si or yours from unconsciously being very connected to Si or...maybe a misunderstanding? That's a thought. I'm not sure what the problem is, but I added a couple words there that may help.


Yep got it




> I have no response to that because I don't even understand how what you said and what that link said is at all alike. Mind=Blown.


Mine is blown too. :tongue:

Due to not seeing why you'd think they were so completely different, what I said vs the link.

Here is what I said: "OK so as far as I understand, Ne is that consideration of what "could be", um, somehow seeing things in a way that you can see whatever possibilities are available, regardless of how realistic. Some associative network of objects."

Here is what your link says, I bolded it where it matches what I said: 



> Inferring
> *Hypothesizing*
> *Seeing possibilities*
> Wondering and brainstorming
> ...


What I didn't bold is of course still not in opposition to what I said, I just did not see a complete enough picture of Ne. But I believe I had the core idea down, if not, explain why you don't think so? I don't mind being wrong here but I'm not following you so far.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

myst91 said:


> Yes because you were only supporting him and you seemed to think he was being entirely fair.


I did at first, earlier in the thread. Now I am more neutral after he engaged in a few attacks himself. Part if the miscommunication we are having here is that I simply don't see "Evading the issue" or "refusing to answer" as any kind of a problem at all. It doesn't bother me in the slightest, so I have to try to put myself into your shoes to even grasp why you are frustrated by it. It is all guesswork here on my end. Which is of course why you saw me trying to guess at your motivations and figure out what is going on. I am. I sort of have to be; I don't often avoid getting the perspectives of other people and trying to see both sides.



myst91 said:


> Then you missed how I took the effort to explain my stance to him and how he never bothered to take any of it into account.


Entirely possible. But then, if he didn't take it into account then I don't think he will do so now .



myst91 said:


> I did not see him demanding courtesy. I don't know where he did that, I only saw him putting words into my mouth, ascribing bullshit motivations to me, putting a red herring instead of addressing my points etc.
> 
> If he had said something along the lines of "I'd like you to talk in a nicer style", I would have seen and understood that.
> 
> ...


When he told off people (including you at one point) about the personal attacks, that was a demand for courtesy by negating the attacks. Of course, the 'attacks' were more akin to aggression and picking apart ideas with a couple of insults in two or three posts as I recall. The only attacks were the insulting phrases in my opinion. Every time he mentioned the attacks and asked for them to stop, he was stating a desire for courtesy. It got more potent nearer to the end of the thread, and then he left.

I didn't say he is nicer than you. I am just not addressing his behavior except as it pertains specifically to you. As I recall, his behavior to you was to dismiss and insult in response to perceived attacks, which I can understand because your communication style can be read that way at times. I take it with a grain of salt; I'm used to heated debates, I was raised by an ESTJ or ENTJ (not sure which she is). Anyway, *I AM NOT SAYING HE WAS RIGHT AND YOU ARE WRONG OR VICE VERSA*.

I did mention when he did more than discuss the system. I mentioned the behaviors that were occurring on both sides. I figured that was enough, since I am talking to you about you, not to him about him.

He left because he had said he was going to stop responding.

I think he was dismissing yours because of the manner in which you were communicating with him and your challenging address to him. I also think some of the argument with Entropic *may* have bled over onto you. Reference the parts where he aimed addresses at the thread in general in regards to the personal attacks, rather than to specific people. Know what I mean? Generalizing and such.



myst91 said:


> My problem is, I guess, that I try too hard to make people communicate their reasoning. I can dismiss the entire opinion immediately of course but that seems so unfair doing it right away without first hearing their thoughts and actually judging if it is correct or not. I can only do it with the disclaimer that they are always free to give their reasoning to show it is actually correct. Which I've already done here btw, see below.
> 
> I'm not seeing your point here at all actually about still chasing after him, did you read my last reply to him. In it I do make it clear that his opinion isn't going to be accepted as valid unless he explains it. I told him it is his choice to be not taken seriously otherwise. So why are you beating a dead horse? I'm already done and over with it.
> 
> Also, you say I don't have the right to do X without giving a real reason for that... going by that way of thinking, he also does not have the right to do anything. No one has any right to do anything.


Every time you tag him, you draw his attention back to this. It comes across as taunting and attempting to kindle an argument (especially if said person is already upset). That is what I mean by chasing after him. Considering how he responded to this behavior, I don't think you are going to get the response you seem to desire from doing this. Now, if you attempted a different means of communicating with him you might get somewhere. Unfortunately, you are correct - he *isn't* telling you how you could communicate with him better. Instead he just points to the things you say that are argumentative and says you are attacking him, and it progresses from there. Since he isn't telling you how you could better talk to him, you either have to guess at it or continue as you have been.

You have no more right to treat him that way than he has a right to treat you badly or I have a right to chide you for it, so in that sense you are correct. What I should have said is *I* feel like *you shouldn't* do that, and that is *my opinion*. Very judgmental of me. My apologies for the way I put that.



myst91 said:


> And what he posted was not disrespectful??? Answer me on this. How come you only criticize me for it? See why I think you are not taking into account my side on the matter?
> 
> Also I find it hard to imagine that people do want others to talk about them behind their backs. Of course if he explicitly says so I'll believe him..


What he said was disrespectful as well, yes. Indeed, I pointed this out in my first address to him much earlier in the thread when it was directed at Entropic. However, I am not telling him what he could do better in this thread because he isn't in it any more. I am trying to ask you to stop tagging him so that his wish to not be involved any more will be honored. And that's all. If we stop talking about him entirely then the tagging should stop anyway. Would you be willing to do that?



myst91 said:


> What I didn't bold is of course still not in opposition to what I said, I just did not see a complete enough picture of Ne. But I believe I had the core idea down, if not, explain why you don't think so? I don't mind being wrong here but I'm not following you so far.


I'm referring to the other half of what you said about Ne, where you said that you see Intuition as inherently introverted even when it is Ne. That set off alarm bells in my head. I don't see how that could be the case, so i provided the link and the video. The second half of what you said was fine, but somewhat vague to my tastes, the other reason i provided a link. If you say you get it, then cool. Must just be the difference in how we communicate.


I am getting weary of this. It takes a lot of my time. I'd like to get to a close on this topic. How do you feel about your type right now? Would you say you are confident or not in your type as suggested here?


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> I did at first, earlier in the thread. Now I am more neutral after he engaged in a few attacks himself. Part if the miscommunication we are having here is that I simply don't see "Evading the issue" or "refusing to answer" as any kind of a problem at all. It doesn't bother me in the slightest, so I have to try to put myself into your shoes to even grasp why you are frustrated by it. It is all guesswork here on my end. Which is of course why you saw me trying to guess at your motivations and figure out what is going on. I am. I sort of have to be; I don't often avoid getting the perspectives of other people and trying to see both sides.


I guess it's not simply the refusal to answer but the way he did that. Not taking my input into account, assuming that I had a biased way of looking at things while not acknowledging his own biases, motivations, etc...

Does this help in understanding?




> Entirely possible. But then, if he didn't take it into account then I don't think he will do so now .


I don't really worry about that - I already concluded the matter in my last post to him above.




> When he told off people (including you at one point) about the personal attacks, that was a demand for courtesy by negating the attacks. Of course, the 'attacks' were more akin to aggression and picking apart ideas with a couple of insults in two or three posts as I recall. The only attacks were the insulting phrases in my opinion. Every time he mentioned the attacks and asked for them to stop, he was stating a desire for courtesy. It got more potent nearer to the end of the thread, and then he left.


As for the last part of your analysis - No, I do think you missed part of it. Where he said he's not directing his angry seeming criticism personally at me and that he likes objective analysis and I agreed with that and gladly posted a reply addressing his points in details and waiting on his input on that. We were seemingly totally fine at that point. Then he disappeared; then later the topic came up again and so I challenged him on it, and then the rest you saw. 




> I didn't say he is nicer than you. I am just not addressing his behavior except as it pertains specifically to you. As I recall, his behavior to you was to dismiss and insult in response to perceived attacks, which I can understand because your communication style can be read that way at times.


The funny thing is his communication style is the same with regard to this. He had a reason for pointing out earlier that he wasn't doing personal attacks :tongue: (I also pointed out the same to him myself before that, that is, that I wasn't doing any attacks at his person)




> Now, if you attempted a different means of communicating with him you might get somewhere


I did tell him repeatedly - in a polite style too in some posts - that I'm open to hearing his thoughts. Don't know what else I can do in these cases.




> I think he was dismissing yours because of the manner in which you were communicating with him and your challenging address to him. I also think some of the argument with Entropic *may* have bled over onto you. Reference the parts where he aimed addresses at the thread in general in regards to the personal attacks, rather than to specific people. Know what I mean? Generalizing and such.


Yeah that's annoying, thart sort of generalizing...




> Every time you tag him, you draw his attention back to this. It comes across as taunting and attempting to kindle an argument (especially if said person is already upset). That is what I mean by chasing after him.


Did you not understand when I said in my previous post (the one you were responding to here) that I've concluded the matter already? The "beating a dead horse" note. 




> You have no more right to treat him that way than he has a right to treat you badly or I have a right to chide you for it, so in that sense you are correct. What I should have said is *I* feel like *you shouldn't* do that, and that is *my opinion*. Very judgmental of me. My apologies for the way I put that.


No worries




> What he said was disrespectful as well, yes. Indeed, I pointed this out in my first address to him much earlier in the thread when it was directed at Entropic. However, I am not telling him what he could do better in this thread because he isn't in it any more. I am trying to ask you to stop tagging him so that his wish to not be involved any more will be honored. And that's all. If we stop talking about him entirely then the tagging should stop anyway. Would you be willing to do that?


Would be nice if he honored me equally. Anyway see as above about my conclusion. Due to that, I'll probably have no reason to mention him again.




> I'm referring to the other half of what you said about Ne, where you said that you see Intuition as inherently introverted even when it is Ne. That set off alarm bells in my head. I don't see how that could be the case, so i provided the link and the video. The second half of what you said was fine, but somewhat vague to my tastes, the other reason i provided a link. If you say you get it, then cool. Must just be the difference in how we communicate.


:sad: OK I think you indeed missed it when I explained in an earlier post (post #159):

_"The first part was a rant from my own POV, the second paragraph was the actual answer to your asking me to define Ne. The first part is obviously not that, and it just indicates that I have much more of a natural focus on Ni than on Ne, with me explaining intuition in the introverted mode as the only sensible version for me  and the only version really experienced by me.

The second part, the actual answer, it is just a theoretical understanding of Ne by me, btw. It is too vague to me by default."_

Do you understand now? I did not state that Ne is introverted. ... it was a rant on how I myself see intuition, not Ne, just intuition.

I don't know what alarm bells you are talking about, lol.. taking my rant too seriously? 




> I am getting weary of this. It takes a lot of my time. I'd like to get to a close on this topic. How do you feel about your type right now? Would you say you are confident or not in your type as suggested here?


I'm confident in my socionics and jungian types - they are consistent with each other. MBTI, well.... sure, with the caveats mentioned earlier.

One last thing I'd like to bring up about that if you are interested. Anyone else can chime in too. Can you imagine Ti-dom displaying the MBTI J behaviour? How about your ISTP(Ti/Se) friend?


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

myst91 said:


> I guess it's not simply the refusal to answer but the way he did that. Not taking my input into account, assuming that I had a biased way of looking at things while not acknowledging his own biases, motivations, etc...
> 
> Does this help in understanding?


Yes, it does a bit. I thought it was something like that, but I wasn't sure enough to be confident about it.



myst91 said:


> I don't really worry about that - I already concluded the matter in my last post to him above


Fair enough then.



myst91 said:


> As for the last part of your analysis - No, I do think you missed part of it. Where he said he's not directing his angry seeming criticism personally at me and that he likes objective analysis and I agreed with that and gladly posted a reply addressing his points in details and waiting on his input on that. We were seemingly totally fine at that point. Then he disappeared; then later the topic came up again and so I challenged him on it, and then the rest you saw.


I did miss that, yes. I wonder what happened to cause that then....



myst91 said:


> Did you not understand when I said in my previous post (the one you were responding to here) that I've concluded the matter already? The "beating a dead horse" note.


ye-es...but if you wanted the conversation to end why did you respond in detail to each section of what I said? That's why I responded to each part...



myst91 said:


> :sad: OK I think you indeed missed it when I explained in an earlier post (post #159):
> 
> _"The first part was a rant from my own POV, the second paragraph was the actual answer to your asking me to define Ne. The first part is obviously not that, and it just indicates that I have much more of a natural focus on Ni than on Ne, with me explaining intuition in the introverted mode as the only sensible version for me  and the only version really experienced by me.
> 
> ...


No, I didn't miss it. Yes. I did take it seriously, even after you said it was a rant, because what is a rant but an impassioned statement of what you believe? Anyway, if you feel you understand the two then that's all that matters to me. 



myst91 said:


> I'm confident in my socionics and jungian types - they are consistent with each other. MBTI, well.... sure, with the caveats mentioned earlier.


Fair enough. If you have any more questions or comments, let me know, and otherwise - have a good one, see you around the forum


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Yes, it does a bit. I thought it was something like that, but I wasn't sure enough to be confident about it.
> 
> Fair enough then.
> 
> I did miss that, yes. I wonder what happened to cause that then....


Cool we understand each other. I wonder too, btw 




> ye-es...but if you wanted the conversation to end why did you respond in detail to each section of what I said? That's why I responded to each part...


I meant him in terms of concluding the matter, not our convo (=>yours and mine)




> No, I didn't miss it. Yes. I did take it seriously, even after you said it was a rant, because what is a rant but an impassioned statement of what you believe? Anyway, if you feel you understand the two then that's all that matters to me.


Well it was sorta tongue in cheek, that rant.




> Fair enough. If you have any more questions or comments, let me know, and otherwise - have a good one, see you around the forum


Uhh I think you didn't see my edit, let me copy:

_One last thing I'd like to bring up about that if you are interested. Anyone else can chime in too. Can you imagine Ti-dom displaying the MBTI J behaviour? How about your ISTP(Ti/Se) friend? (Does he have it?)_

And of course thanks for everything


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

myst91 said:


> Uhh I think you didn't see my edit, let me copy:
> 
> _One last thing I'd like to bring up about that if you are interested. Anyone else can chime in too. Can you imagine Ti-dom displaying the MBTI J behaviour? How about your ISTP(Ti/Se) friend? (Does he have it?)_
> 
> And of course thanks for everything


You mean outwardly like extroverting behaviors that seem J-like? Sure, when the person is willing to display it. Being an introvert means that you will keep your thoughts to yourself more often than not, but you certainly won't always do so. An IP can come across as J at times, but usually only when they are confident or comfortable at showing that side of them. Or when they are passionate about something. Then they can make their Ti or Fi look an awful lot more E. XD

When the auxiliary function develops strongly, an Introvert type becomes more able and/or comfortable with stepping into extrovert behaviors too.

If you mean more like being organized and planning and being on time, then I'd still say yes. INFPs are actually known for being clean and organized and good at maintaining their home; I've heard theories it is partly due to their Si. INFJs are likewise known for being a bit scattered and having "organized mess" by default. I am like that. I know exactly where I keep things, but to others who know the J/P dichotomy then - looking at my space - people would assume I am a P type. This is part of the reason that I think MBTI J/P is silly.

My friend I think is ISTP is clean and organized at home, but scattered in certain areas. His car is a mess of papers and spare clothes from work and stuff. He cleans it every 3 or 4 days.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> You mean outwardly like extroverting behaviors that seem J-like? Sure, when the person is willing to display it. Being an introvert means that you will keep your thoughts to yourself more often than not, but you certainly won't always do so. An IP can come across as J at times, but usually only when they are confident or comfortable at showing that side of them. Or when they are passionate about something. Then they can make their Ti or Fi look an awful lot more E. XD


Yeah you're describing me there roud:




> If you mean more like being organized and planning and being on time, then I'd still say yes. INFPs are actually known for being clean and organized and good at maintaining their home; I've heard theories it is partly due to their Si. INFJs are likewise known for being a bit scattered and having "organized mess" by default. I am like that. I know exactly where I keep things, but to others who know the J/P dichotomy then - looking at my space - people would assume I am a P type. This is part of the reason that I think MBTI J/P is silly.
> 
> My friend I think is ISTP is clean and organized at home, but scattered in certain areas. His car is a mess of papers and spare clothes from work and stuff. He cleans it every 3 or 4 days.


Right, makes sense


----------

