# CS Joseph typing grid



## Lord Thanksalot

I've been listening to this youtuber talking about MBTI and cognitive functions the past few weeks on the way home,
and I got to the point where I found the typing grid, which seems to be specific to his name at first sight.
What do you think of him if you know him?









To explain what each word means:


Informative: would rather say "We're out of milk", silently adds connotation, hoping they got the message across
Direct: would rather say "Go get the milk (please)", it's the way it is, loud and clear


Initiating: extraverted people, preference for starting conversations (Exxx)
Responding: introverted people, starting conversations costs energy most of the time (Ixxx)


Movement: impulsive, quick to decide, cannot stand still
Control: patient, stagnant, especially if it brings in more gains


Concrete: what is it like, current state, observation (xSxx)
Abstract: possibilities, concepts, ideas, implications, introspections (xNxx)


Affiliative: being interdependent, inclusion, adapt to group, norms, roles, permission > forgiveness (xSxJ & xNFx)
Pragmatic: how can I be independent, self-determination, how to advance faster, forgiveness > permission (xSxP & xNTx)


Systematic: systems, organization, metaphoric puzzles, methodology, process, professional (xSxJ & xNTx)
Interest: interests, motivation, passion, arbitrary about rules, reasons (xSxP & xNFx)


Edit: if you can't read the image, following link shows it better: [Click here]


----------



## Dissymetry

He is a very bad source and listening to him is not advised in my opinion but you are free to do what you want. It looks like you are most interested in the interaction styles, these are from Linda Berens book _Understanding Yourself and Others: An Introduction to Interaction Styles_.


----------



## Lord Thanksalot

Dissymetry said:


> He is a very bad source and listening to him is not advised in my opinion but you are free to do what you want. It looks like you are most interested in the interaction styles, these are from Linda Berens book _Understanding Yourself and Others: An Introduction to Interaction Styles_.


Yup, I wanted to ask you guys what you think of him, just to have different perspectives because only my own will not suffice.
But what exactly is wrong with him then, is that book also bull? He mentioned her and also John Beebe (his big hero apparently).

I did notice on some videos that he's a creationist and claiming he's 100% sure, through reasoning, that it IS true (and said it would trigger Ti doms).
He wasn't wrong about that between brackets part, but didn't want to dismiss the somewhat unrelated stuff.

I did try the grid on myself before and it applies perfectly, asking my sister (who typed as INFP on the MBTI test) which interaction styles she has, has made her come out as my own type (Joseph claims it's 100% accurate!).
My brother gave combinations that don't match any on the grid. Would he be wrong?

But what sources are reliable then and is there any podcast on those? I love listening to them on the way home since it takes an hour anyway and I can't do much other stuff.


----------



## Red Panda

Well, here's what I think:
CSJ can't even type himself properly, he's not ENTP. Everything I've seen him say about the NP types betrays this, which becomes even more obvious when he talks about NFPs and how annoyed he is by behaviors which are actually shared by NTPs. His point of view of NPs is very J and he twists some of the behaviors to fit how he views himself, since with his system he can claim he was always an ENTP but in an "INTJ unconscious mode", as he was typing INJ in tests and believed he was one. Most of the explanations he gives seem to be anecdotes from his life filtered through his own perspective and then made fit in his model which stinks of confirmation bias.. 

Also super funny in a facepalm way: he says he likes to walk up to people he doesn't know on the street and say something to change the course of their lives, after he observes certain things about them for a bit, which couldn't be more J and almost as far away from ENTP as one can be lol. Oh and his face is J too.

The way he talks is super cringeworthy like he's on the brink of a nervous breakdown any moment now, but more importantly his model doesn't make much sense even theoretically, it's very prescriptive and robotic (4 sides of the mind having a different full type) which ironically betrays his J-ness too as he wants things in nice groupings with clear defined lines. Clearly that doesn't mean nothing of his model fits but a few right stuff doesn't make the whole thing correct.


----------



## reckful

"Interaction Styles" are a goofy bastard child of David Keirsey by way of Linda Berens.

For a long explanation of where they came from, and why they don't make sense, see this post.


----------



## Aridela

Red Panda said:


> Well, here's what I think:
> CSJ can't even type himself properly, he's not ENTP. Everything I've seen him say about the NP types betrays this, which becomes even more obvious when he talks about NFPs and how annoyed he is by behaviors which are actually shared by NTPs. His point of view of NPs is very J and he twists some of the behaviors to fit how he views himself, since with his system he can claim he was always an ENTP but in an "INTJ unconscious mode", as he was typing INJ in tests and believed he was one. Most of the explanations he gives seem to be anecdotes from his life filtered through his own perspective and then made fit in his model which stinks of confirmation bias..
> 
> Also super funny in a facepalm way: he says he likes to walk up to people he doesn't know on the street and say something to change the course of their lives, after he observes certain things about them for a bit, which couldn't be more J and almost as far away from ENTP as one can be lol. Oh and his face is J too.
> 
> The way he talks is super cringeworthy like he's on the brink of a nervous breakdown any moment now, but more importantly his model doesn't make much sense even theoretically, it's very prescriptive and robotic (4 sides of the mind having a different full type) which ironically betrays his J-ness too as he wants things in nice groupings with clear defined lines. Clearly that doesn't mean nothing of his model fits but a few right stuff doesn't make the whole thing correct.


Yes, I'm not convinced he's ENTP either. 

I've seen a bunch of his videos and been at his Discord server. Not sure what to make of him. On one hand it's good that he encourages people to look into MBTI a bit more, and he's looked into the functions rather systematically. On the other hand he tried to oversimplify it by using the personality grid, and claiming he can type people in minutes. Not sure anyone can do that.


----------



## Red Panda

Aridela said:


> Yes, I'm not convinced he's ENTP either.
> 
> I've seen a bunch of his videos and been at his Discord server. Not sure what to make of him. On one hand it's good that he encourages people to look into MBTI a bit more, and he's looked into the functions rather systematically. On the other hand he tried to oversimplify it by using the personality grid, and claiming he can type people in minutes. Not sure anyone can do that.


His model doesn't really convince me.. I can't relate to it at all, whereas I can relate much better to how Jung describes the types. CSJ's model is just way to rigid.. and his persona makes him even less convincing, when he speaks sometimes he does those weird movements and changes his voice which is somewhat theatrical and then claims he is engaging his ESFP super-ego or something as if we just flip a switch.. in those moments my intuition tells me there's something wrong with him lol. like, he's bullshitting himself and tries to do the same to us, he seems neurotic. Or he claims that's just him being ENTP, but actual ENTPs are much more chill, laid back, talk slow, think more, speak more logically/argue better and generally don't act like him. Oh this reminds me he claimed ENTPs always wear masks, but there's no good reason for that in theory, other than his wishful thinking. He's just so untrustworthy in my eyes.


----------



## Stevester

Red Panda said:


> ENTPs are much more chill, laid back, talk slow, think more, speak more logically/argue better and generally don't act like him.


Thank you! Been saying this about him forever.

His approach/style/personality seems WAY more TJ-ish to me what with the whole ''I'm right y'all are wrong, no more need to argue'' mentality that he displays constantly. Funny thing he seems to often look down on Te users which could easily be him repressing it. 

I'm sure he goes by ENTP because he likes to see himself as quirky, charismatic know-it-all which is a persona often associated with ENTPs. But I think he actually puts on a front, the way he tries to act all bitchy and arrogant. It seems really forced to me. 

He says that Deadpool is hardcore ENTP and gets all giddy about that and Lord knows anyone who throws a parade because they share the same type as a favorite celebrity/fictional character is a HUGE red flag. (I still maintain Deadpool is ESTP BTW). 

And don't get me started about typing celebrities in 5 minutes. That is complete bull. Unless someone is the poster boy for a certain type, anyone knows it's really more complex and fastidious to type someone, you can't lock it in after 3 quotes from them, WTF? He gets all pissy when someone rightfully calls him out on that, which again, is not really in line with ENTPs.


----------



## UltimaRatio

Red Panda said:


> he says he likes to walk up to people he doesn't know on the street and say something to change the course of their lives, after he observes certain things about them for a bit, which couldn't be more J and almost as far away from ENTP as one can be lol.


Giving an opinion or acting on an immediate event is an attitude of perception. Many magicians act by this unexpectedly way.


----------



## UltimaRatio

There is not even a common function between INTJ and ENTP.

Has he developed his own *conceptual planning* which might indicate an _extraverted thinking_ in a good position... No. His gestures are random and dynamic. His look is also random. He has this little funny dandy style in his gesture with the goal of the seduction. Characteristic of _extraverted feeling_. Then comes the fact that he seems developed his own *conceptual classification*, which is a characteristic of _introverted thinking_. And he talks a lot, really a lot about this... Many demonstration ideas. A characteristic of _extraverted intuition_ in a good position.

So why not ENTP...


----------



## Stevester

Well now you're starting to sound like him 


Not but seriously, reading up on a book and thinking you now cracked the personality code and can assess people in 5 minutes with no counter-arguments seems very anti-Ne to me, which is why I think IxTJ makes much more sense. 

And his playing up to the camera like I mentioned seems like forced behavior, almost as if he read up on ENTPs and got the idea that he needs to act a certain way to sell his persona. Seems about as genuine as an INFJ who wants to pass off an ESTP so he says _''bro''_ at the end of every sentence....


----------



## Aridela

Stevester said:


> Well now you're starting to sound like him
> 
> 
> Not but seriously, reading up on a book and thinking you now cracked the personality code and can assess people in 5 minutes with no counter-arguments seems very anti-Ne to me, which is why I think IxTJ makes much more sense.
> 
> And his playing up to the camera like I mentioned seems like forced behavior, almost as if he read up on ENTPs and got the idea that he needs to act a certain way to sell his persona. Seems about as genuine as an INFJ who wants to pass off an ESTP so he says _''bro''_ at the end of every sentence....


He behaves exactly like an INTJ friend of mine. 

I showed some of his videos to him, and he had to, begrudgingly, agree.


----------



## UltimaRatio

Stevester said:


> Not but seriously, reading up on a book and thinking you now cracked the personality code and can assess people in 5 minutes with no counter-arguments seems very anti-Ne to me, which is why I think IxTJ makes much more sense.
> 
> And his playing up to the camera like I mentioned seems like forced behavior, almost as if he read up on ENTPs and got the idea that he needs to act a certain way to sell his persona. Seems about as genuine as an INFJ who wants to pass off an ESTP so he says _''bro''_ at the end of every sentence....



Rather not very (Ti)... But very (Ne). Yet you must know that the _introverted feeling_ seeks authenticity. Not the seduction...


----------



## Aridela

UltimaRatio said:


> Rather not very (Ti)... But very (Ne). Yet you must know that the _introverted feeling_ seeks authenticity. Not the seduction...


I'll admit he does go on random tangents often, which I associate with Ne. And he does annoy me frequently, but then again, all types tend to annoy me.


----------



## Stevester

So then we should also believe DaveSuperPowers?

You know, he's a self-proclaimed INTJ but a really deep and emotional one, so he invented the function jumping theory which in his case means he's a heavy Ni-Fi INTJ, different from your typical one and DEFINITELY NOT because he also wanted to include INFP/INFJ elements to his personality rounding up the triad of the most popular personality types all in a neat little package with a bow slapped on it, so he found a way to have his cake and eat it too. 

I mean nobody would ever be that delusional enough for self-promotion and making themselves feel good that they would go out of their way to make stuff up, right?


----------



## Aridela

All I know is that I've been into the MBTI for around 13 years now and I don't have 1/1000 of the confidence this guy has when I'm attempting to type people. I doubt an Ne/Ti user would ever be that confident if I'm honest.


----------



## Stevester

Aridela said:


> All I know is that I've been into the MBTI for around 13 years now and I don't have 1/1000 of the confidence this guy has when I'm attempting to type people. I doubt an Ne/Ti user would ever be that confident if I'm honest.


Because no one should!

Hey, I'll be the first to admit I'm really pig-headed and stubborn when it comes to typing. I feel confident in it and hate to be challenged. But at the end of the day, I have to step back and remind myself how much of a subjective and inexact science this is.

That's why I get so annoyed with these internet gurus being so arrogant and like _''LOL, I totally understand this shit and the rest of you simpletons don't, unless you listen to ME....''_

They're like people who pick up a guitar, turn out to be really good at it but now think their name should rightfully be there over Jimmy Hendrix.


----------



## UltimaRatio

Stevester said:


> So then we should also believe DaveSuperPowers?
> 
> You know, he's a self-proclaimed INTJ but a really deep and emotional one, so he invented the function jumping theory which in his case means he's a heavy Ni-Fi INTJ, different from your typical one and DEFINITELY NOT because he also wanted to include INFP/INFJ elements to his personality rounding up the triad of the most popular personality types all in a neat little package with a bow slapped on it, so he found a way to have his cake and eat it too.
> 
> I mean nobody would ever be that delusional enough for self-promotion and making themselves feel good that they would go out of their way to make stuff up, right?


There is a _famous_ norwegian criminal who has been crying cried at his trial... In front of his own propaganda video. It is obvious that the INTJ are often idealistic focused on the vision. Sometimes neurotic or with a disorder...


----------



## Aridela

Stevester said:


> Because no one should!
> 
> Hey, I'll be the first to admit I'm really pig-headed and stubborn when it comes to typing. I feel confident in it and hate to be challenged. But at the end of the day, I have to step back and remind myself how much of a subjective and inexact science this is.
> 
> That's why I get so annoyed with these internet gurus being so arrogant and like _''LOL, I totally understand this shit and the rest of you simpletons don't, unless you listen to ME....''_
> 
> They're like people who pick up a guitar, turn out to be really good at it but now think their name should rightfully be there over Jimmy Hendrix.


If I may quote Dr House, "Everybody lies". 

Seriously. Most of us project an image of who we would like to be rather than who we really are. How often have you dated someone only to discover after a while (few days if you're lucky, few years if you're not), that they were not the person you thought they were? One cannot seriously suggest humans are so easy to read, and claim they are able to reduce them to the sum of their four functions that easily.


----------



## Stevester

Aridela said:


> If I may quote Dr House, "Everybody lies".
> 
> Seriously. Most of us project an image of who we would like to be rather than who we really are. How often have you dated someone only to discover after a while (few days if you're lucky, few years if you're not), that they were not the person you thought they were? One cannot seriously suggest humans are so easy to read, and claim they are able to reduce them to the sum of their four functions that easily.


Have to disagree with you there.

Taylor Swift in her Oprah interview, said she liked lemonade. That makes her direct/responding/affiliative, thus ESFP, I'm right and anyone who suggests otherwise is wrong wrong wrong!!

- CS Jospeh


----------



## Aridela

Dissymetry said:


> The age development seems to change depending on the source, I have also read that generally it is one function until 15, auxiliary develops from 15-30 so on and so forth. I do not know his age. If he is correctly typed as an ENTP then in theory his "Ti" might still be developing or it is possible he does not have "good Ti" and never will even if he is an ENTP or even if he was a "Ti" dominant type this does not mean he would be better at it than anyone else.
> 
> I change my mind frequently as well depending on what new information comes in. I think it is dumb to not adapt like that. Using myself as a comparison again as somebody that does return higher "Ne" results in cognitive-functions tests and types as a type that is supposed to use "Ne" in a function-stack according to my dichotomy preferences, I would not be so confident in my typings of anybody or anything. There is always more to learn and this could change many things. Closing off counter-arguments effectively closes off new information and that sounds very anti-me.
> 
> I do not think general statements like "an ENTP would counter this Ne tendency with Ti" are very useful because who is to say that his dominant function is even good yet alone a possible auxiliary function. There will be many IS-J people out in the world that have a bigger and broader and better use of their intuition in the E attitude than many people that _are _Extroverted Intuitive types.


We're all assessing a given system here. 

If someone claims to be a certain type his first two functions are bound to be developed enough to use adequately by age 30. Of course people have different interpretations and a whole lot of different theories have emerged. Unlike Youtube evangelists I do not claim to have an absolute truth. I take everything with a pinch of salt, including my own assessments. 

Now, whether that's Ne or another function, that's for the reader to verify on their own. 

In ISXJ user may have a well developed Ne- for an ISXJ type. They're highly unlikely to have a better use of their Ne than say their Si though. These are kind of mutually excluded. Always talking about the system in question. You may well choose to discard said system if you don't find it to your liking.


----------



## Queen Talia

UltimaRatio said:


> At 17 years old, posing in suggestive positions on your avatar, you explain me what is naivety in a known worldwide country or thousands young white girls are transformed into sex slaves by the pakistani gangs (Telford, Rotherdam). Curious that this only happens at in no other Europe country in these proportions, yet very multicultural ...
> 
> So learn to be polite and give up your white-trash style with people who can learn you to lace up your shoes.


Nice personal attacks. Next.


----------



## brightflashes

A good rule about personality development is, if one is talking about the adult personality, the person must be over the age of 25 as the brain is finished developing by age 25. 

Many personality development systems, though, allow for fluidity and tend to operate in "stages" with corresponding approximate ages. The consistent problem researchers are faced with, when looking at personality this way is that usually the stages and corresponding ages are only verifiable within the specific culture that the theorist came up with. For example, Erikson's psychosocial stages of development can only be replicated in Western cultures. 

Jung offers ages in works outside of Psychological Types (_Man and his Symbols, Archetypes & the Collective Unconscious, Aion, Symbols and Transformations, & Development of Personality_) as to when one typically integrates different aspects of personality and it seems to me that he does take into account multiple cultures and biological psychology as well. I'm certain his books on Psychic Alchemy also offer ages and such, but I haven't read them yet.

Sorry I didn't read the first post and I'm not into CS Joseph in any way, but I saw people discussing age and its relevance to personality and I just wanted to throw in biological age. I apologise if this is off topic.


----------



## Dissymetry

Aridela said:


> In ISXJ user may have a well developed Ne- for an ISXJ type. They're highly unlikely to have a better use of their Ne than say their Si though. These are kind of mutually excluded. Always talking about the system in question. You may well choose to discard said system if you don't find it to your liking.


You misunderstand me here. I am saying that an ISXJ user can have a better developed "Ne" than another person that types as an "Ne dominant". I am not saying they will have better use of "Ne" than their own "Si" because if this was the case they would be an Extrovert and an Intuitive and not an Introvert and a Sensation type. 

But the inferior extroverted intuition of an introverted Sensation type can definitely be better and more refined than _another person_ that leads with extroverted intuition.


----------



## Aridela

Dissymetry said:


> You misunderstand me here. I am saying that an ISXJ user can have a better developed "Ne" than another person that types as an "Ne dominant". I am not saying they will have better use of "Ne" than their own "Si" because if this was the case they would be an Extrovert and an Intuitive and not an Introvert and a Sensation type.
> 
> But the inferior extroverted intuition of an introverted Sensation type can definitely be better and more refined than _another person_ that leads with extroverted intuition.


Not sure I follow. 

I mean yes, people can learn to use all their functions to an extend, but for someone to develop their inferior function so well as to counter someone's dominant function there would have to be a massive age difference at play, or a learning/mental handicap of some sort. 

That's why I said above, it _is_ possible, but highly unlikely.


----------



## brightflashes

Aridela said:


> Not sure I follow.


He's talking about personality relative to one another. The fictitious ISXJ would have better use of Ne, for example, than a ENXP toddler.

Relative to all my friends, I might be the most Introverted. But relative to the entire world, I might fall more on the Extraverted side.


----------



## Dissymetry

Aridela said:


> Not sure I follow.
> 
> I mean yes, people can learn to use all their functions to an extend, but for someone to develop their inferior function so well as to counter someone's dominant function there would have to be a massive age difference at play, or a learning/mental handicap of some sort.
> 
> That's why I said above, it _is_ possible, but highly unlikely.


I disagree there would have to be a massive age difference at play, or a disability of any kind. I think some people are just better than other people and one of the things you can be better at than another, is how well your inferior function is developed and refined.

I do not see why for example Johnny the Extroverted Sensation type can not have a better and more refined introverted Intuition than Jenny the introverted Intuitive type, at the same age and with no learning disabilities or other handicaps. The same thing can be said of every other type and it's relevant opposite.


----------



## Aridela

brightflashes said:


> He's talking about personality relative to one another. The fictitious ISXJ would have better use of Ne, for example, than a ENXP toddler.
> 
> Relative to all my friends, I might be the most Introverted. But relative to the entire world, I might fall more on the Extraverted side.


Thanks, that makes more sense.


----------



## brightflashes

Aridela said:


> Thanks, that makes more sense.


Like he said, it wouldn't necessarily need to be a massive age difference, though. I just used that example since it exaggerated where one was developmentally.


----------



## Dissymetry

UltimaRatio said:


> At 17 years old, posing in suggestive positions on your avatar, you explain me what is naivety in a known worldwide country or thousands young white girls are transformed into sex slaves by the pakistani gangs (Telford, Rotherdam). Curious that this only happens at in no other Europe country in these proportions, yet very multicultural ...
> 
> So learn to be polite and give up your white-trash style with people who can learn you to lace up your shoes.


What is this racist, sexist trash? The avatar is obviously an anime character and not a picture of the actual poster. This post is uncalled for and disgusting.


----------



## Aridela

Dissymetry said:


> I disagree there would have to be a massive age difference at play, or a disability of any kind. I think some people are just better than other people and one of the things you can be better at than another, is how well your inferior function is developed and refined.
> 
> I do not see why for example Johnny the Extroverted Sensation type can not have a better and more refined introverted Intuition than Jenny the introverted Intuitive type, at the same age and with no learning disabilities or other handicaps. The same thing can be said of every other type and it's relevant opposite.


My argument goes like this. 

Se Johnny is busy using his Se most of the time, that's why his Se is his dominant function. There are only so many hours in the day, and he would have to also use the other functions in his stack to consistently type as say, ESTP. It's just a matter of logistics.


----------



## Dissymetry

Aridela said:


> My argument goes like this.
> 
> Se Johnny is busy using his Se most of the time, that's why his Se is his dominant function. There are only so many hours in the day, and he would have to also use the other functions in his stack to consistently type as say, ESTP. It's just a matter of logistics.


I am not arguing against this. But Se Johnny doing Se Johnny stuff does not provide any basis for Se Johnnys Ni to be worse than Ni Jennys. Se Johnny can do Se Johnny stuff every hour of the day and still have better Ni than Ni Jenny doing Ni Jenny stuff all day.

Johnny can prefer E, S, T and P, and still be better at I, N, F and J than Jenny.


----------



## UltimaRatio

Dissymetry said:


> Because it is all relating to the other person, is this not extroversion of intuition?


No, can be also the _extraverted thinking_ or the _extraverted sensory_



Dissymetry said:


> What is this racist, sexist trash? The avatar is obviously an anime character and not a picture of the actual poster. This post is uncalled for and disgusting.


Ok sjw... You really emotive. And very selective. And you go above the facts of my post to extrapolate according to your principles. That's (Fi-Ne). You react unkly to some keywords and orient them towards other concepts. racism, sexism... Rather than a education about the politeness, respect in a conversation.


----------



## Dissymetry

UltimaRatio said:


> No, can be also the _extraverted thinking_ or the _extraverted sensory_


Well, no. I am talking about intuition. I am not talking about Thinking or Sensation.


----------



## UltimaRatio

Dissymetry said:


> Well, no. I am talking about intuition. I am not talking about Thinking or Sensation.


In your case yes. Because you extrapolate very quickly; (sometimes badly) Good example above that shows what I What I wrote. Because basically you work with (Fi) and not (Ti). Even if you do not see it.

This has nothing to do with looking for logical inconsistency (Te) in the words or attitude of the other. That's said (Te) can be visible when you are analytic and non emotional. But your best functioning is the one of a emotional percever. Should try the arts...


----------



## brightflashes

Dissymetry said:


> Well, no. I am talking about intuition. I am not talking about Thinking or Sensation.


Something just popped into my head here. You're an F type by dichotomy. Does that mean you could have more developed T than a T type then, based on your previous examples with Johnny and Jenny (Someone should have given them better names like Ash and Anya)? The reason I ask is that I think I've seen a recent example of this, but I wonder if it applies with judging functions too?


----------



## Dissymetry

UltimaRatio said:


> In your case yes. Because you extrapolate very quickly; (sometimes badly) Good example above that shows what I What I wrote. Because basically you work with (Fi) and not (Ti). Even if you do not see it.
> 
> This has nothing to do with looking for logical inconsistency (Te) in the words of the other. Even ( Te) can be visible when you are analytic and non emotional. But your best functioning is the one of a emotional percever.


Perhaps you are deliberately avoiding the point. My post was about intuition and not Thinking or Sensation. I was suggesting that what I was talking about, and what you were talking about, is Extroverted and not Introverted due to the nature of the intuition, that being it is oriented towards something or someone in the outer world and is not oriented towards the introverted inner world. 

I think that if you can tell when somebody is lying intuitively, that this is Extroversion of intuition. If you can tell they are lying because you notice different things about them then this is Thinking or Feeling making a decision based on information gathered by whatever means. I do not think introverted Intuition perceives things in the way Extroverted intuition does. Extroverted intuition just knows a person is lying without seemingly knowing how, it just knows. This is intuition (knowing without knowing how you know) and extroversion (relating to something outside yourself).

Introverted intuition can know if somebody is lying in an indirect manner. The introverted intuitive might perceive a rat or some other symbolic imagery in their mind and this symbolism is where their intuition draws a "you are lying" conclusion from. They see in their mind something that they associate with lying. It is a very different intuitive hunch. Extroverted intuition is based on the outer world, the hunch is derived from an external source. Introverted intuition is based on the inner world, the hunch is derived from an internal perception.

I experience both, I can not pretend that I do not. It is more common for me to simply get the intuitive hunches without anything symbolic at play. The introverted intuition from my perspective is a bit too slow and subjective for me, I am faster than it. I just know immediately that a person is lying and then I intuit what it is about, why they are lying, all of these kinds of things. Introverted intuition perceives symbolic imagery in their mind and this is where there focus is. They might not focus much on why the person is lying or what it is about in favor of just perceiving the rat in their mind or whatever it is that they are seeing internally that is associated with the concept of lying.

I think the introverted Intuitive might start to dive deeper into their own intuitive perceptions if they can, observing their own mind as it relates the rat to various other things and concepts and develops some kind of overarching or universal understanding of liars or lying in general. The extroverted Intuition starts expanding out from the source (the _lie _you perceive - not the imagery that you perceive), the introverted Intuition starts going inside the subject.

I may very well be wrong about everything. I think that knowing someone is lying is most likely to be extroverted as far as intuition is concerned, strictly speaking.


----------



## Dissymetry

brightflashes said:


> Something just popped into my head here. You're an F type by dichotomy. Does that mean you could have more developed T than a T type then, based on your previous examples with Johnny and Jenny (Someone should have given them better names like Ash and Anya)? The reason I ask is that I think I've seen a recent example of this, but I wonder if it applies with judging functions too?


Theoretically yes. I do not believe the preferences represent skill whether that is learnt or innate. I do not see a reason why someone that _prefers _to use F as their decision-making function can not be more capable and better at Thinking than someone that _prefers _Thinking and vica versa. I do not think that _preferring _a dichotomy makes you _good _at it by default.


----------



## UltimaRatio

Dissymetry said:


> I think that if you can tell when somebody is lying intuitively, that this is Extroversion of intuition. If you can tell they are lying because you notice different things about them then this is Thinking or Feeling making a decision based on information gathered by whatever means. I do not think introverted Intuition perceives things in the way Extroverted intuition does. Extroverted intuition just knows a person is lying without seemingly knowing how, it just knows. This is intuition (knowing without knowing how you know) and extroversion (relating to something outside yourself).


We agree. In any case, _introverted intuition_ works rather on the synthesis of informations. So even if I see the inconsistencies, I need time to make sense about them, and explain it in a deeper scenario.


----------



## brightflashes

@Dissymetry

I am not claiming to be a human lie detector by any means, though I have some experience from childhood that I think upped my alert system to be hyper aware of clues in my environment to help me discern lying. But I _think_ I'm on the Ni-Se perceptive axis, that when I detect someone is lying, it's usually someone close to me and it just feels like there is something "off" in the environment.

Maybe their posture/gestures/movements/voice tone is different. But I see what was once fluid as being interrupted by some sort of sensory irregularity (this is deeply impressionistic and non literal - could even be more Si). It is then that I refer to my subjective iNtuition: certain symbolic archetypes like you say - not a rat as I associate those with plague and don't get me started - but something like a book that is locked, like a diary where someone has written something that I'm not supposed to know. Perhaps you may say that this is Ne and the whole process is Ne + some internal judgement. But I don't believe I ever leave the perceptive state until I detect on some level (some sort of instinct) that I have the perceptive information I need and then can make a judgement about what that information means.

I only mention this because you were talking about reaction times. I can understand how Ni might seem more slow than Ne in the description you provide. But for me I only know someone is lying if I have the sensory information as well. So, perhaps Ne is faster than Ni, but I think Se+Ni (even if the Se is very minimal) can be just as fast. I cannot just subjectively intuit if someone is lying to me in a conscious state (sometimes this might come from a dream or meditation, though). 

Surely even with Ne, there's got to be some sense impression, yes? It's a bit difficult for me to understand Ne, though. I mean even theoretically no matter how often I read the descriptions. In fact, I'd invite a discussion about the difference between Ne and Ni (unlike my insistence on putting on the breaks on any discussion of Fe lol). How do you know that there isn't any sense impression involving you using Ne to detect lying? Or do you not? Do you think that Ne is naturally more quick than Ni or do you think it's just more quick than Ni for you vs me? 

Again, I'm not a human lie detector. If I must be, I use certain techniques I've been trained in which demand sensory information pretty much exclusively. I can only tell with those I spend a lot of time around physically. There is one person I spend a lot of time around online? He could probably lie to me about anything and I'd believe him. But then, I accept that this is the reality of the relationship as it stands now and something inside of me ages ago told me I could trust him, even in the face of those who said I shouldn't. If anything, that was a spontaneous instance of Ni, but not exactly regarding specific pieces of information he shared, but just a general idea that I could trust. It wasn't related to symbolism that I remember. It was just something that popped up that I *knew* without much evidence other than my ... body? something "clicked" and felt true about it. I can't explain.


----------



## Elwinz

CSJ is nuts. From the start of his YT "carreer" some other ENTP youtuber kept calling him ENTJ. I also agree he is not an ENTP and he is some kind of Te user as well.
As for topic Se dom being better than Ni dom at Ni .. It doesn't make sense to me. If so what is inferior function ? Just least preferred? Didn't Jung himself call inferior archaic/primitive? (If i recall well)


----------



## Dissymetry

Elwinz said:


> As for topic Se dom being better than Ni dom at Ni .. It doesn't make sense to me. If so what is inferior function ? Just least preferred? Didn't Jung himself call inferior archaic/primitive? (If i recall well)


Even if the inferior function of one person is archaic/primitive, this does not suggest that it is not more skilled and better than another persons dominant function. The most primitive and archaic aspects of one person can still be better and more refined than another persons strongest and most developed aspects.


----------



## Aridela

Elwinz said:


> CSJ is nuts. From the start of his YT "carreer" some other ENTP youtuber kept calling him ENTJ. I also agree he is not an ENTP and he is some kind of Te user as well.
> As for topic Se dom being better than Ni dom at Ni .. It doesn't make sense to me. If so what is inferior function ? Just least preferred? Didn't Jung himself call inferior archaic/primitive? (If i recall well)


I've talked to the guy himself on his Discord server. 

Certainly gives off a Te vibe.


----------



## mistakenforstranger

Elwinz said:


> CSJ is nuts. From the start of his YT "carreer" some other ENTP youtuber kept calling him ENTJ. I also agree he is not an ENTP and he is some kind of Te user as well.


That would be Eric of Talking With Famous People. :laughing: Now he's definitely an ENTP. 






There's a lot more CS Joseph is ENTJ videos on his channel, if you want to search for it. I think it's funny that CS Joseph wouldn't even be an ENTP according to his own method of typing, because he's clearly direct not informative. "STOP IT! TYPE X STOP DOING THAT!" :bored: Why is he so worked up about cognitive functions/type? It's so bizarre. He's also embarrassingly bad at typing celebrities, but can never be told otherwise, and quite unaware of when he has contradicted himself, which suggests Ti is lacking.


----------



## Elwinz

Yup Eric, he called him ENTJ and got rebuttal from CSJ long before type police series was a thing. Though Eric is ENTP and he is awfully random and rambling a lot.
Some his Type police are quite decent and detailed some were total crap like with PEwdiepie he watched fro less thna 5 minutrs and concluded "too much NE for 4th slot, mistype".
CSJ does go off topic a lot, but also is direct and he is Fi-Te to me. I think ENFP makes sense for him. I don't think he is TJ. He is not really that organized, he have his videos divided into seasons, but he presents them in totally random order.


----------



## BitterSweet Blonde

I'm not sure C.S Joseph's bad typing comes from a bad intention, but as I've learned more about his typing proceeding, I think it didn't bring good results at all. 

First, I think the interaction style chart he uses is highly inaccurate and he uses it a LOT. I've watched a few of his "How to type" videos, where he types celebrities, and some were clearly mistyped. 
He took that method from other sources and he probably really believes it's accurate, but I just can't buy it personally. Too many inconsistencies. I'm very skeptical about the sources he uses as I've never seen that kind of method mentionned in Jung's theory. 

If you pay attention to it, a lot of the inteaction styles mentionned could conflict with the types associated, because of the use of the cognitive functions. At least that's my opinion. 

I didn't think his videos about type descriptions were bad (though I don't have enough knowledge about it to be sure yet), but I REALLY have a problem with all the interaction style thing.


----------



## Scoobyscoob

BitterSweet Blonde said:


> I'm not sure C.S Joseph's bad typing comes from a bad intention, but as I've learned more about his typing proceeding, I think it didn't bring good results at all.
> 
> First, I think the interaction style chart he uses is highly inaccurate and he uses it a LOT. I've watched a few of his "How to type" videos, where he types celebrities, and some were clearly mistyped.
> He took that method from other sources and he probably really believes it's accurate, but I just can't buy it personally. Too many inconsistencies. I'm very skeptical about the sources he uses as I've never seen that kind of method mentionned in Jung's theory.
> 
> If you pay attention to it, a lot of the inteaction styles mentionned could conflict with the types associated, because of the use of the cognitive functions. At least that's my opinion.
> 
> I didn't think his videos about type descriptions were bad (though I don't have enough knowledge about it to be sure yet), but I REALLY have a problem with all the interaction style thing.


Oh, that guy. I think he's a good person to listen to if you're looking to learn the more theoretical parts of MBTI. Especially the more Ti-oriented parts like when he relates MBTI types to the Beehe/Berens's 8 function model. Beehe/Beren's 8-function model is what he bases many of his grids on. When it comes to typing or talking about relationship compatibility, that seems to be his weak spot. He's good with Ti (theory and structure) but does poorly with Te (usage and execution of the logic and model).

So learn from him, but don't go to him as an authority on typing people and on relationship stuff. For that kind of stuff, you'd probably want to go with an actual MBTI consultant.


----------



## nablur

some of the information he has is good. some of its not. 

trouble is... his delivery is excessively verbose, petulant, and snarky.... making it difficult to listen to the entire video to get the tid bits of information i want.


----------



## Aridela

Scoobyscoob said:


> Oh, that guy. I think he's a good person to listen to if you're looking to learn the more theoretical parts of MBTI. Especially the more Ti-oriented parts like when he relates MBTI types to the Beehe/Berens's 8 function model. Beehe/Beren's 8-function model is what he bases many of his grids on. When it comes to typing or talking about relationship compatibility, that seems to be his weak spot. He's good with Ti (theory and structure) but does poorly with Te (usage and execution of the logic and model).
> 
> So learn from him, but don't go to him as an authority on typing people and on relationship stuff. For that kind of stuff, you'd probably want to go with an actual MBTI consultant.


I think his Ti is rather poor if I'm honest. 

Not convinced he knows his own type. And somehow he has convinced a good many people to pay him $200 for a typing session via Skype. Maybe I should change careers. I make less than that in a day.


----------



## Scoobyscoob

Aridela said:


> I think his Ti is rather poor if I'm honest.
> 
> Not convinced he knows his own type. And somehow he has convinced a good many people to pay him $200 for a typing session via Skype. Maybe I should change careers. I make less than that in a day.


I think he's an ESTP. The whole, "I'm teaching you MBTI to make a buck" is all very Se to me.


----------



## Stevester

Nah, he says ESTPs are walking sex bombs/alpha males. Any ESTP whether they typed themselves correctly or not, would brag about that about themselves not about another type. 

Another thing I forgot that REALLY bugs me about him, is when I've been a huge fan of a celebrity for over 20 years, he comes in, says he *never* heard of them, but with two quotes from an interview on Joe Rogan's podcast, he assigns them I type that contradicts mine. 

Sooooo, all these years I've followed this celebrity, seeing them live, reading several bios, going through all their work, checking out documentaries about them and watching countless interviews + plus my knowledge on Jungian function theory.......nada, I was wrong all along because Mr. Joseph just disproved me in 4 minutes.

That's not insulting at all!


----------



## LeSangDeCentAns

Stevester said:


> Sooooo, all these years I've followed this celebrity...[but]... I was wrong [about their MBTI type] all along because Mr. Joseph just disproved me in 4 minutes.
> 
> That's not insulting at all!


It was his intention all along; to not try and insult Mr. Stevester. Exclamation mark. 

According to him. INTJ's are great dancers because demon SE is equivalent to taking meth and poppers when the time comes to dance.


----------



## Pippi

Dissymetry said:


> If I perceive that somebody is lying I get the feeling like I _know _they are lying, this is a fact to me. I then wonder why are they lying? What are they covering up or not telling me? What information is being withheld? Often I just know this on the spot without any thought. I would suggest this is closer to Extroversion than Introversion of Intuition, though. My intuitions are about the other person, this means it is Extroverted for these instances. I am not getting an internal intuition or immediately apprehending a general truth of the world and I am not perceiving anything symbolic. I just know the person is lying and on many occasions, I know what they are lying about and why they are lying about it. I just "know" the reasoning and the whole backstory behind the lie.
> 
> I would have thought this was Extroverted intuitions because it is all about the other person, it is an "objective" intuition in the sense that it is relating to the object and not myself. I do not often feel the need to ask questions because A) I already know and B) I already know how the conversation will turn out if I _do _ask questions. The times I ask questions are because I am not instantly intuiting why I am being lied to and I intuitively know that it is safe to ask questions. Knowing it is safe to ask questions means I already know that I will say the right words the right way (I can just feel ahead of time that it will come out right, the same way a singer knows they will be able to hit a certain note in a song that they will not even play for another 3 hours) and I know they will interpret my words the right way so as to not start an argument. Getting into a fight is not what I want so I intuitively bypass this, I want to know why I am being lied to and what about.
> 
> Because it is all relating to the other person, is this not extroversion of intuition?


I get that too sometimes. It hugely pisses me off to be lied to.

I don't know what it is, cognitive function-wise. It's certainly different from free-association/brainstorming type of Ne. However, it's also not necessarily true that you're going to be right about every detail you intuit regarding the backstory. There could be details that you overlook and never would think of without additional information.


----------



## Pippi

He reminds me in no way whatsoever of any ENTP I know. I've met hyper, yappy ones who go on at his pace with the same energy level and even a similar irritation in their voice, as well as ones who are very good at being directive. There's still a feel of a palpable _opposite_ in what he's doing. The similarity in the feel of the wiring is totally absent.


----------



## Aridela

Stevester said:


> Nah, he says ESTPs are walking sex bombs/alpha males. Any ESTP whether they typed themselves correctly or not, would brag about that about themselves not about another type.
> 
> Another thing I forgot that REALLY bugs me about him, is when I've been a huge fan of a celebrity for over 20 years, he comes in, says he *never* heard of them, but with two quotes from an interview on Joe Rogan's podcast, he assigns them I type that contradicts mine.
> 
> Sooooo, all these years I've followed this celebrity, seeing them live, reading several bios, going through all their work, checking out documentaries about them and watching countless interviews + plus my knowledge on Jungian function theory.......nada, I was wrong all along because Mr. Joseph just disproved me in 4 minutes.
> 
> That's not insulting at all!


He's a funny man alright. 

His fast typing method is a joke.


----------



## Strelnikov

Oh, look another CJ Joseph thread 

I think he has a con-man vibe. I won't even try to type him (maybe ENTP... he has that annoying trolling vibe some ENTPs have). He's quite annoying as a person, with the arrogant attitude that if you disagree with him, you're a moron. Of course, he has a matching smirk meant to be charming and edgy. I think he's trying to hide his BS in fast speaking and jargon to deceive the viewer. He uses ambiguous phrases to justify anything: "Oh, that type has blind Fe, that's why it does that"... Whoa there speedy! Explain what that means in precise terms, explain how it applies to this specific type, argue your case, don't throw statements and move on quickly.

Now, regarding his typings: I find them poorly thought out, only cherry picking details that support his views and ignoring the mountain of evidence contradicting his conclusion. Maybe he does know the theory, maybe he doesn't, but he's still wrong. Either the theory is wrong or he doesn't know the theory as well as he wants us to believe. But I see no evidence on his part, only claims. He was wrong about a lot of things he said about my type and how we function, so I reject him and his theory. And it makes sense to me that if he doesn't understand my type, chances are he doesn't understand the others.


----------



## The red spirit

Am I only the only one, who couldn't even watch a whole video?

I dunno, he doesn't really look like a nice person to me, plus some of his videos have really weird location choices.


----------



## Stevester

The red spirit said:


> Am I only the only one, who couldn't even watch a whole video?
> 
> I dunno, he doesn't really look like a nice person to me, plus some of his videos have really weird location choices.


Silly Se heroes! Always with the location, SoRRyyyy I couldn't give you a good experience Mr. ESTP, but you need to stop doing that! Seriously, STOP IT! JUST STOP IT!!

- C.S. Joseph


----------



## Daeva

He does not seem to value Se or Ni, that he is right about.

I think he is *ESTJ*. The observations in this thread on his Te use are good. This person is extremely directive and a Je heavy individual. Controlling information and the conversation, whilst being very resistant to impulse and clearly judging others for it. Extroversion is clear.

A great many self-typed ENTP's are in truth ESTJ's. This is no argument of course. Just an observation of mine.

Why not ENTJ then? He lacks the focus of the ENTJ. Too distractible and this shows in his eyes as well: his gaze is unfocused, unclear, doesn't "lock on" (which would be Ni-Se if this was present).

For contrast, the ENTJ "locking on" goes like this:
(though it is more obvious when looking at moving images)

* *























Ben Shapiro and CS Joseph. Images taken from their Twitter account avatar. Plenty of similarities in their expression and style, thanks to sharing the Te lead.





--

As for his methods... bad. "Intuitives value privacy," he goes, ignoring that it is more logically sound that the valuing of privacy is linked to general introversion - not speaking of cognitive Introversion. Just one dead fish among the many on his shores. Plenty of unfounded blanket statements, and the arguments that he does offer for them are rooted in wrong typings, mainly his own (as it goes).


----------



## Red Panda

Ben Shapiro is so ESTJ though.


----------



## Ocean Helm

JoetheBull said:


> He does have a verify service that is either $200 or $300.


Think of all you could do with that $200-300 instead of having somebody assign you a type that has minimal practical significance.


----------



## Lord Thanksalot

Stevester said:


> Anyhow, I watched his _If it weren't for his 2 minutes celebrity typings based on two and half words and a cough, I could actually take him seriously.
> 
> But THEN he started lamenting over and over again about how he doesn't make money doing this? Funny, because I could swear during his ''How to type'' videos, people keep dropping 10, 20 and 50 bucks to have him type the celebrity of their choice. Or did he forget about that? Probably because he has Ne Hero. You need to stop doing that Mr. ENTP, seriously, stop doing that!!_


_

I don't give a shit about celebrities, I don't even know all the local ones, and it's their life just as I have mine. Friends are far more interesting (and only because they're friends).
So yeah, never watched those and never will.

Just like the videos about masculine/feminine etc, it's very simplistic and repetitive (why so many minutes about this).
But he was still useful for individual functions, I wrote down some interactions in there, but not those who don't really make sense...



BitterSweet Blonde said:



Really, I don't think relying on his interaction styles chart is productive in any way, it contradicts cognitive functions and actual Jungian theories in so many ways, using it would actually be the best way to get someone mistyped.

Click to expand...

This was exactly my experience. Say that his chart is correct, it would be revolutionary and each combination of three should exist and no other "because then the typer has to be mistaken".
On the 16 personalities test, my sister typed as INFP. On this chart, she typed as... ISTP. No way that we're the same. I wouldn't say the test is more reliable though, but....I do. In comparison. (even though it worked for me, personally).

But you know what I find weird about his type? They seem to "love" what I hate for exactly the same reason. It's a bit off-topic though  I'd think they would love it because it's challenging to understand, sure there must be an interesting way this logic works._


----------



## Aridela

Stevester said:


> Anyhow, I watched his _''How to socially engineer ISFJs'' _video last night and it was.....eerily accurate? Over-dramatic and exaggerated, but otherwise it's like he knew the ISFJs in my life just as well as I do. So he does know what he's talking about under the right circumstances.


And that's where the problem lies with this guy. He regurgitates accurate info with the same ease as things he just pulled out of his ass.


----------



## Daeva

For those who commented on his Enneagram type, and for those interested, so far he has appeared to me as *So/Sp 6w5, 613* trifix. This explains the preacher-conman dichotomy that seems to make people uneasy with him.


----------



## Eric B

This new system is cropping up _everywhere_, apparently! It seems to have at least three tentacles, because there's "CS Joseph", (is he the leader or something?), then "Talking With Famous People" with a guy named Eric, and then "The "jumper" theory, which I see attributed to a "DaveSuperPowers"

I first heard of it from Turi (still over on TypoC), influenced by the Reynierse-based "anything but the Grant-Beebe model" thinking (based on rejecting the functions, but different people following it might re-accept the functions, but put a different spin on them; again, just as long as it's anything but Grant). So in yet another anti-Grant thread I was seeing back then, he pointed out he didn't really reject the functions (though they spend so much time making arguments against them), and then linked to the "Objective Personality" site. So I learned about stuff like "jumpers", which are supposed to be natural types whose dom. and aux. are the same attitude —to keep in with the whole anti-Grant argument that that was how Jung actually had them, yet they accept the aux. as opposite attitude as well, creating more types. (To me, a "jumper" would simply be explained by a strong tertiary).

So forward more recently, someone I know from both these boards, and Facebook, does a video interview on TWFP, and he made her ISTJ, when I believe she's INTP, like me. 

Among the mistakes I saw was Si as "creating order", as an argument for the person having dominant Si. But "creating order" is judgment. Now, of the person is Ti dominant, then that would be a dominant worldview of creating [internal] order, like he's attributing to Si.

And not realizing about the tertiary's "inflation", where it can seem very strong. So yes, there's "strong Si", as I also have. But clearly, the preferred perspective for both of us is an iNtuitive one.

Then, taking "weak Fe" as proof it was "shadow" (after considering "alpha quadra for some time, but then suddenly changing his mind). People forget that the inferior, while considered "primary" or "ego-syntonic" in the Grant-Beebe model, is nevertheless still usually "weak", and even considered "shadow" in the pure Grantian [pre-Beebe] four-function only model.

Also, this mixing of Socionics with MBTI as I see everyone doing, can add confusion. While there's parallels in the stack positions and quadras (especially with the new "International Styles" model added to Western type), the background concepts are different, and many of Socionics' descriptions of those units seems arbitrary. Beebe might as well, but when you realize it's all about complexes, and "compensation" (the more something is preferred, the more its opposite is suppressed, so the stack is but a "mirroring" dynamic, and type is formed by only the *first two* complexes and associated functions).

I left a long comment there and this, and the only thing he can say is "She's an ISTJ, no matter how many words you type. Undisputedly."

I discussed it with the person, and mentioned was the notion of "masculine" and "feminine" _functions_. (In Beebe's theory, it's really the archetypes [complexes] that bear gender, with the anima/animus, and also possibly the Opposing Personality [Warior/Amazon] being contrasexual.

I pointed out, interesting idea, but he's taking existing theories and just adding all this stuff. The person said maybe then one type in one system, and the other type in the other system; but to me, if their system is going to add all of this new stuff out of the blue, then maybe it should be a totally new system from scratch, and not built upon MBTI type, where you have to add and change things like that. It just creates more type confusion.

Finally, just last weekend, at a typology meetup, ran into someone who thought she was INFJ, but CS Joseph said ESTP (she looked a lot like a typical INFJ to me), and used his concepts (forgot how it went exactly, but it seems they can take this stuff and make any person any type they want).




Aridela said:


> Yes, I'm not convinced he's ENTP either.





Aridela said:


> I've seen a bunch of his videos and been at his Discord server. Not sure what to make of him. On one hand it's good that he encourages people to look into MBTI a bit more, and he's looked into the functions rather systematically. On the other hand he tried to oversimplify it by using the personality grid, and claiming he can type people in minutes. Not sure anyone can do that.







Stevester said:


> Thank you! Been saying this about him forever.





Stevester said:


> His approach/style/personality seems WAY more TJ-ish to me what with the whole ''I'm right y'all are wrong, no more need to argue'' mentality that he displays constantly. Funny thing he seems to often look down on Te users which could easily be him repressing it.
> 
> And don't get me started about typing celebrities in 5 minutes. That is complete bull. Unless someone is the poster boy for a certain type, anyone knows it's really more complex and fastidious to type someone, you can't lock it in after 3 quotes from them, WTF? He gets all pissy when someone rightfully calls him out on that, which again, is not really in line with ENTPs


 Reminds me of somebody else I've dealt with in the past, with this "type someone at first sight" approach, including typing from the Shadows, and to confuse people about their type so they can hopefully become clients. (That's what it's all about, and also what these new guys seem to be doing).

At first, all the wild ideas seems Ne (and perhaps "overdominating", and not grounded enough with Ti), but then these attitudes we're describing do seem more Ni and Te (Ni says "yes" to internal perceptions that may not make sense to anyone else, and then says "no" to other people's reasoning, and Te provides the "bottom line" motivation, of course).
But if there's more than one people running this system, then there's probably both type perspectives involved.


----------



## Pippi

Eric B said:


> This new system is cropping up _everywhere_, apparently! It seems to have at least three tentacles, because there's "CS Joseph", (is he the leader or something?), then "Talking With Famous People" with a guy named Eric, and then "The "jumper" theory, which I see attributed to a "DaveSuperPowers"
> 
> I first heard of it from Turi (still over on TypoC), influenced by the Reynierse-based "anything but the Grant-Beebe model" thinking (based on rejecting the functions, but different people following it might re-accept the functions, but put a different spin on them; again, just as long as it's anything but Grant). So in yet another anti-Grant thread I was seeing back then, he pointed out he didn't really reject the functions (though they spend so much time making arguments against them), and then linked to the "Objective Personality" site. So I learned about stuff like "jumpers", which are supposed to be natural types whose dom. and aux. are the same attitude —to keep in with the whole anti-Grant argument that that was how Jung actually had them, yet they accept the aux. as opposite attitude as well, creating more types. (To me, a "jumper" would simply be explained by a strong tertiary).
> 
> So forward more recently, someone I know from both these boards, and Facebook, does a video interview on TWFP, and he made her ISTJ, when I believe she's INTP, like me.
> 
> Among the mistakes I saw was Si as "creating order", as an argument for the person having dominant Si. But "creating order" is judgment. Now, of the person is Ti dominant, then that would be a dominant worldview of creating [internal] order, like he's attributing to Si.
> 
> And not realizing about the tertiary's "inflation", where it can seem very strong. So yes, there's "strong Si", as I also have. But clearly, the preferred perspective for both of us is an iNtuitive one.
> 
> Then, taking "weak Fe" as proof it was "shadow" (after considering "alpha quadra for some time, but then suddenly changing his mind). People forget that the inferior, while considered "primary" or "ego-syntonic" in the Grant-Beebe model, is nevertheless still usually "weak", and even considered "shadow" in the pure Grantian [pre-Beebe] four-function only model.
> 
> Also, this mixing of Socionics with MBTI as I see everyone doing, can add confusion. While there's parallels in the stack positions and quadras (especially with the new "International Styles" model added to Western type), the background concepts are different, and many of Socionics' descriptions of those units seems arbitrary. Beebe might as well, but when you realize it's all about complexes, and "compensation" (the more something is preferred, the more its opposite is suppressed, so the stack is but a "mirroring" dynamic, and type is formed by only the *first two* complexes and associated functions).
> 
> I left a long comment there and this, and the only thing he can say is "She's an ISTJ, no matter how many words you type. Undisputedly."
> 
> I discussed it with the person, and mentioned was the notion of "masculine" and "feminine" _functions_. (In Beebe's theory, it's really the archetypes [complexes] that bear gender, with the anima/animus, and also possibly the Opposing Personality [Warior/Amazon] being contrasexual.
> 
> I pointed out, interesting idea, but he's taking existing theories and just adding all this stuff. The person said maybe then one type in one system, and the other type in the other system; but to me, if their system is going to add all of this new stuff out of the blue, then maybe it should be a totally new system from scratch, and not built upon MBTI type, where you have to add and change things like that. It just creates more type confusion.
> 
> Finally, just last weekend, at a typology meetup, ran into someone who thought she was INFJ, but CS Joseph said ESTP (she looked a lot like a typical INFJ to me), and used his concepts (forgot how it went exactly, but it seems they can take this stuff and make any person any type they want).
> 
> 
> 
> Reminds me of somebody else I've dealt with in the past, with this "type someone at first sight" approach, including typing from the Shadows, and to confuse people about their type so they can hopefully become clients. (That's what it's all about, and also what these new guys seem to be doing).
> 
> At first, all the wild ideas seems Ne (and perhaps "overdominating", and not grounded enough with Ti), but then these attitudes we're describing do seem more Ni and Te (Ni says "yes" to internal perceptions that may not make sense to anyone else, and then says "no" to other people's reasoning, and Te provides the "bottom line" motivation, of course).
> But if there's more than one people running this system, then there's probably both type perspectives involved.


Can you post the link to the TWFP INTP/ISTJ interview?


----------



## jetser

I think the guy is genius.

I know it's not his work but his typing grid really works as far as I am concerned.

I saw him type people on Youtube channels and he got it mostly right.

I don't really care about his type or what Te-users think of his type because it just affirms the typing grid itself. Te's think in group. They think out loud, they don't like people who think for themselves.

...hence CS Joseph, who does this primarily.


So yeah, I think his typing grid is valid.


----------



## jetser

Aridela said:


> He regurgitates accurate info with the same ease as things he just pulled out of his ass.


Makings of an ENTP.


----------



## jetser

JoetheBull said:


> One trouble I have with the milk part is what if the person rather just go and get the milk themselves to avoid interacting and/or depending on the other person


I guess you just have to imagine a scenario where communication is absolutely inevitable?

For example, imagine that you're stuck in a room with your friends - like an escape room, where you have to escape.

You open a dark room which looks like a secret room to somewhere.

What would you rather say?

_informative_: "there is dark in here and I can't see shit!"

_direct_: "go get the flashlight."

Which one are you?


----------



## JoetheBull

jetser said:


> I guess you just have to imagine a scenario where communication is absolutely inevitable?
> 
> For example, imagine that you're stuck in a room with your friends - like an escape room, where you have to escape.
> 
> You open a dark room which looks like a secret room to somewhere.
> 
> What would you rather say?
> 
> _informative_: "there is dark in here and I can't see shit!"
> 
> _direct_: "go get the flashlight."
> 
> Which one are you?


both and in different order depending on the day. 

in D&D
Cleric\wizard: I cast light
Dwarf\gnome: I'm fine. I have dark vision.


----------



## Strelnikov

jetser said:


> I think the guy is genius.
> 
> I know it's not his work but his typing grid really works as far as I am concerned.
> 
> I saw him type people on Youtube channels and he got it mostly right.
> 
> I don't really care about his type or what Te-users think of his type because it just affirms the typing grid itself. Te's think in group. They think out loud, they don't like people who think for themselves.
> 
> ...hence CS Joseph, who does this primarily.
> 
> 
> So yeah, I think his typing grid is valid.


 He's a con-man! He is dead wrong about a lot of things, but he compensates with confidence and he charges people for it... con-man!


----------



## Tucker

jetser said:


> I think the guy is genius.
> 
> I know it's not his work but his typing grid really works as far as I am concerned.
> 
> I saw him type people on Youtube channels and he got it mostly right.
> 
> I don't really care about his type or what Te-users think of his type because it just affirms the typing grid itself. Te's think in group. They think out loud, they don't like people who think for themselves.
> 
> ...hence CS Joseph, who does this primarily.
> 
> 
> So yeah, I think his typing grid is valid.


I agree. 

“What is the source of all cognition?” is absolutely brilliant. Of course, I can see why he has all these haters, because this type of stuff will go right over their heads.

“There is a fine line between genius and insanity.” - Oscar Levant


----------



## Aridela

Tucker said:


> I agree.
> 
> “What is the source of all cognition?” is absolutely brilliant. Of course, I can see why he has all these haters, because this type of stuff will go right over their heads.
> 
> “There is a fine line between genius and insanity.” - Oscar Levant


Ah, yes, cause this guy is harder to understand than, say, Jung.


----------



## Ziegel

His information is often invalid but guess what, is MBTI valid? Not more than his assumptions.
His movies are at least interesting to listen to while doing something. While digging holes with a shovel, perhaps.


----------



## jetser

Strelnikov said:


> He's a con-man! He is dead wrong about a lot of things, but he compensates with confidence and he charges people for it... con-man!


I would never actually pay money for someone to type me.

But his videos on Youtube are absolutely remarkable.

I finally understand what Te means and so...


----------



## jetser

Tucker said:


> I agree.
> 
> “What is the source of all cognition?” is absolutely brilliant. Of course, I can see why he has all these haters, because this type of stuff will go right over their heads.
> 
> “There is a fine line between genius and insanity.” - Oscar Levant


He reminds me of Steve Jobs. (also an ENTP)

When he went back to Apple he grabbed a board, divided into four sections and declared that this would be the four distinct products Apple needed to be focusing on.

I see the same thinking job here.


----------



## SirCanSir

I dont know shit about this guy and not really in the mood to look into his stuff but being confident about something he pulled out of his own ass and being wrong because he doesnt trust official sources more than himself is mostly him being immature or not that knowledgeable. And admitting he is wrong would ruin his reputation so... 
I dont really see how that counters him being Ne/Ti or whatever. Who said ENTPs are always thoughtful enough to be accurate. Thats another typology bias if anything. He is him and he making money by the attention you guys give him. Whether thats good or bad, decide for yourselves.


----------



## Strelnikov

jetser said:


> I would never actually pay money for someone to type me.
> 
> But his videos on Youtube are absolutely remarkable.
> 
> I finally understand what Te means and so...


I agree I wouldn't pay either. Maybe for an official MBTI assessment only... maybe, but it's unlikely I'll do that. Well... what's remarkable about his videos?

Going beyond his arrogance and generally unpleasant personal demeanour, I've watched some of his videos about my type, ENTJ and just about everything he was saying was wrong, especially regarding the type compatibility... He placed ESFJs and ISFJs really high on the list and what's funny is that in my entire personal experience with them, I can barely make them understand the sentences I'm saying. They interpret abstractly things that I mean concretely and vice versa, but placed other types like INFJ and ENTJ near the bottom of the list... My personal experience is the exact opposite. My best friend is an INFJ and I always make fast friends with them and they really get me. I have a lot of ENTJs as friends...

My mum is an ISFJ and our relationship over time was... tolerable, but never close. We never got each other. I know an ENTJ guy who is married to an ISFJ and after 2 years (I think to the day, they were married in late August 2017... 26-28 August... something like that) they are in the middle of divorce proceedings and the hate between them is like 1000 burning suns... They always argued, but the hate I see now is something going beyond anything I've ever seen. So everything I see around me and in my life contradicts what the guy is saying... If he does indeed know the theory, then the theory is wrong or useless at best.

Then I watch his videos about typing people... Donald Trump... he typed him as an ENTJ. Trump is absolutely not an ENTJ, I think he's one of the most stereotypical ESTPs I've ever seen in my life. He's clearly an Se-dom and you can see it throughout his political and business career. I think on the first page on "The Art of the Deal" he says something like... he starts his day by coming into the office, grabbing the phone and seeing what happens. He frequently says this: "we'll see what happens"... It's obvious that he relies on Se too much to have it only tertiary. He improvises too much and doesn't have a clear plan for anything. ENTJs wouldn't rely as much on: "we'll see what happens", at least he would have a general idea of a plan and an objective, while with Trump it seems that everything is improvised. Even in his opinions, he changes them frequently, which is something Te-doms don't do... Our opinions are fixed for the most part and only change with new concrete data.

Another thing with Joseph is his frequent use of throw-away explanations, when something doesn't match his views... Like "Oh, that type has Fe blind spot so that's why it does that"... and moves on... This is something con men do, they throw these short explanations and move on, instead of stopping and explaining in a detailed manner what they mean by it and how it fits with the other elements... They also use jargon or ambiguous language to confuse you so that you immediately don't question what they're saying... He also uses a condescending tone towards people who disagree with him, suggesting they're stupid, another thing which is more like gaslighting and less like an actual rational argument. So, yes... Joseph is a con man by my book.

I think that better explanations of the functions and types on YouTube are given by Michael Pierce (he is a bit too abstract at times, but with patience I think you'll get a lot from them), but also others like Meghan LeVota (she has some great accurate insights, although maybe not the best structured content). And of course Jung himself: "Psychological Types" is the book which started all of this, so go straight to the source.


----------



## Eric B

Wow, does he say SFP is the best match for an NTP too?


----------



## jetser

Strelnikov said:


> I agree I wouldn't pay either. Maybe for an official MBTI assessment only... maybe, but it's unlikely I'll do that. Well... what's remarkable about his videos?
> 
> Going beyond his arrogance and generally unpleasant personal demeanour, I've watched some of his videos about my type, ENTJ and just about everything he was saying was wrong, especially regarding the type compatibility... He placed ESFJs and ISFJs really high on the list and what's funny is that in my entire personal experience with them, I can barely make them understand the sentences I'm saying. They interpret abstractly things that I mean concretely and vice versa, but placed other types like INFJ and ENTJ near the bottom of the list... My personal experience is the exact opposite. My best friend is an INFJ and I always make fast friends with them and they really get me. I have a lot of ENTJs as friends...
> 
> My mum is an ISFJ and our relationship over time was... tolerable, but never close. We never got each other. I know an ENTJ guy who is married to an ISFJ and after 2 years (I think to the day, they were married in late August 2017... 26-28 August... something like that) they are in the middle of divorce proceedings and the hate between them is like 1000 burning suns... They always argued, but the hate I see now is something going beyond anything I've ever seen. So everything I see around me and in my life contradicts what the guy is saying... If he does indeed know the theory, then the theory is wrong or useless at best.
> 
> Then I watch his videos about typing people... Donald Trump... he typed him as an ENTJ. Trump is absolutely not an ENTJ, I think he's one of the most stereotypical ESTPs I've ever seen in my life. He's clearly an Se-dom and you can see it throughout his political and business career. I think on the first page on "The Art of the Deal" he says something like... he starts his day by coming into the office, grabbing the phone and seeing what happens. He frequently says this: "we'll see what happens"... It's obvious that he relies on Se too much to have it only tertiary. He improvises too much and doesn't have a clear plan for anything. ENTJs wouldn't rely as much on: "we'll see what happens", at least he would have a general idea of a plan and an objective, while with Trump it seems that everything is improvised. Even in his opinions, he changes them frequently, which is something Te-doms don't do... Our opinions are fixed for the most part and only change with new concrete data.
> 
> Another thing with Joseph is his frequent use of throw-away explanations, when something doesn't match his views... Like "Oh, that type has Fe blind spot so that's why it does that"... and moves on... This is something con men do, they throw these short explanations and move on, instead of stopping and explaining in a detailed manner what they mean by it and how it fits with the other elements... They also use jargon or ambiguous language to confuse you so that you immediately don't question what they're saying... He also uses a condescending tone towards people who disagree with him, suggesting they're stupid, another thing which is more like gaslighting and less like an actual rational argument. So, yes... Joseph is a con man by my book.
> 
> I think that better explanations of the functions and types on YouTube are given by Michael Pierce (he is a bit too abstract at times, but with patience I think you'll get a lot from them), but also others like Meghan LeVota (she has some great accurate insights, although maybe not the best structured content). And of course Jung himself: "Psychological Types" is the book which started all of this, so go straight to the source.


Well I agree with you on a lot of things.

First of all ISFJ and ENTJ does not go well together. It's a match made in hell - you have each other's blind spots, you could never trust the other one.
I don't understand why he suggested that.

And I agree with you on Donald Trump being an ESTP. I didn't see him type like that so I wouldn't probably like that either.

But on the other hand...

Arrogance and unpleasant demeanour is something I can get by if I get something in return.
You probably value your S more than me. (which makes sense)

For example:
Anywhere on the Net they will tell you that duality relationship is the best you can have. If you're an INTJ, go find an ESFP. If you're an ISFJ, go find an ENTP.
That may actually work as a sexual relationship but nothing else.
Why? Because you have each other's functions, you probably will get bored by each other or rivalize too much.

What he says is that you're better off with someone with your opposing function. If you have Fe, go find someone with Fi. If you're Te, find someone with Ti.
Because that way you'll always have a source of Feeling and/or Thinking.
Because Te doesn't really _"think"_ and Fe doesn't really _"feel"_. At least not on his/her own. They need other people's thinking or feeling to be stimulated.

So I don't actually have the same experiences with him. I never tried to contact him whatsoever. In fact, I just discovered him like a week ago, so I don't know much about him anyway.
He really looks like an arrogant guy but as I said I can put up with it, and that he's actually ENTP makes a lot of sense.
_He doesn't have feelings at all._ You can't blame a guy who doesn't have feelings. lol. (actually he has but he doesn't know about them at all)

What I really value about him is his systematic thinking. _Everything is connected_ in some way and in a way that actually makes a lot of sense to me.

And his explanations of functions is really the best I've seen in a while.
Te = how people think.
Ti = how you think.
Fe = how people feel.
Fi = how you feel.
Ne = what people want.
Ni = what you want.

...etc.

Is there any simpler than that?


----------



## bremen

It seems inaccurate like most other stuff I saw him talking about. Don't you just love people creating their own typology system and groups


----------



## Strelnikov

jetser said:


> Anywhere on the Net they will tell you that duality relationship is the best you can have. If you're an INTJ, go find an ESFP. If you're an ISFJ, go find an ENTP.
> That may actually work as a sexual relationship but nothing else.
> Why? Because you have each other's functions, you probably will get bored by each other or rivalize too much.
> 
> What he says is that you're better off with someone with your opposing function. If you have Fe, go find someone with Fi. If you're Te, find someone with Ti.
> Because that way you'll always have a source of Feeling and/or Thinking.
> Because Te doesn't really _"think"_ and Fe doesn't really _"feel"_. At least not on his/her own. They need other people's thinking or feeling to be stimulated.
> 
> So I don't actually have the same experiences with him. I never tried to contact him whatsoever. In fact, I just discovered him like a week ago, so I don't know much about him anyway.
> He really looks like an arrogant guy but as I said I can put up with it, and that he's actually ENTP makes a lot of sense.
> _He doesn't have feelings at all._ You can't blame a guy who doesn't have feelings. lol. (actually he has but he doesn't know about them at all)
> 
> What I really value about him is his systematic thinking. _Everything is connected_ in some way and in a way that actually makes a lot of sense to me.
> 
> And his explanations of functions is really the best I've seen in a while.
> Te = how people think.
> Ti = how you think.
> Fe = how people feel.
> Fi = how you feel.
> Ne = what people want.
> Ni = what you want.
> 
> ...etc.
> 
> Is there any simpler than that?


So for me ENTJ, the ideal would be INTP or ISTP... I don't think I've ever met an INTP girl... so maybe, maybe not. ISTPs? I don't think so... The thing is it's simple, too simple... simplistic to be honest.

The reason I'm saying this, is that there is an underlying assumption there which is wrong. It assumes that Te is seeking the same thing, which is to say all Te-doms want the same thing... aaand... it's not the case. And by the way, you are all your functions, not just the dominant one... and they're all looking for different things and there is a balance between them. I assume this is also connected to Enneagram type and other personal experiences. This is why I don't believe in these formulaic solutions of having one ideal type just based on your MB type. There are INTJs who fall head over heels for ENFPs and there are INTJs who can't stand them. There's more to it that just MB type. To me, this is like only having a hammer, so you see nails everywhere, you apply MBTI to everything. MB type is only a part of what makes your personality and this is why I think applying MBTI as a way to explain everything is wrong.

This is why I simply prefer to use my own personal observations resulting from my life experience. For some reason, I really like INFJs, I get along very well with them, although most theories would say that it shouldn't work... well, it does in my case, maybe it's because my Enneagram complements nicely with theirs or my life experiences have made me sensitive to something they have to offer, either way I'm drawn to them and also (but to a lesser degree) to INTJs. I'm drawn to Ni. This is what it's like for me and it's not necessarily the same for other ENTJs. There are in-type differences and these simplistic systems don't account for them.

You say that he doesn't have feelings or that he doesn't know how to deal with them, well I don't think that's an excuse. MB type explains, but doesn't excuse. What do I mean by this? Your MB type indicates your natural, general preferences. You can think of it as your starting line in life. But there is no excuse for not using it to grow and develop yourself. It would be just like standing still on the starting line. Yes, indeed, he and I for that matter have a weakness regarding feelings. It's undeniably there, it's true, but at the same time you can still work on it to develop some empathy or at least respect for other people's feelings. Fun fact: the Te/Fi axis can be empathetic, it just needs supplementary explanations. Especially, when you (ok, I keep saying you, you... I mean him) pretend to be a guru charging people for this information, you should be aware that others do have feelings and that's how they operate, instead of just shrugging and being all like: "Yeah! I'm a smug dick! I'm an ENTP... so yeah, I'm a smug dick!" Work on it! Improve yourself! I've met ENTPs who weren't dicks and they were no less ENTP than him. So, I see it as a personal character flaw, instead of an irreversible excusable personality characteristic.


----------



## SirCanSir

Wow i cant believe your main argument against him right now are his matchmaking theories just because they derail from the official MBTI ones. Believing in typology based matchmaking of any kind is just as cringe worthy no matter the case. Your personal experiences disagree with him because surprise surprise - both your personal experiences and his theories are something that doesnt apply to all people. 

"Oh ive dated ISFJs and as an ENTJ i can tell they were never meant for me". Ever heard of personal preferences? How much you tolerate some people of a specific type is just you. Not to mention people of the same type also differ to the point some can be very likeable and some cant - even when biased against a type. 

Im derailing here but seriously people dont try to judge someone's shit with arguments that drop your own standing as low as his.


----------



## angelfish

That table is based on Keirsey temperament and probably a dose of Berens' interaction styles... sure, useful for a quick reference, but not new. I skimmed the guy's website and chose an article to read. First - looks like a lot of his material of any quality is aggregated information from theorists. The article I read contained empty conjecture and no real examples, and I was very disappointed to immediately find negative stereotyping of SJs. So far what I am finding is mostly near-plagiarism. I am not seeing the value of his site or information over many others, _especially_ when/if he's charging money for it.

The guy presents well on his website and he has some nice merchandise. I will also give him that he presents his name well. Reminiscent of CS Lewis and Carl Jung. It comes off sagely.



jetser said:


> I know it's not his work but his typing grid really works as far as I am concerned.


Why would you want to give him credit for work that is not his?


----------



## jetser

Strelnikov said:


> So for me ENTJ, the ideal would be INTP or ISTP... I don't think I've ever met an INTP girl... so maybe, maybe not. ISTPs? I don't think so... The thing is it's simple, too simple... simplistic to be honest.
> 
> The reason I'm saying this, is that there is an underlying assumption there which is wrong. It assumes that Te is seeking the same thing, which is to say all Te-doms want the same thing... aaand... it's not the case. And by the way, you are all your functions, not just the dominant one... and they're all looking for different things and there is a balance between them. I assume this is also connected to Enneagram type and other personal experiences. This is why I don't believe in these formulaic solutions of having one ideal type just based on your MB type. There are INTJs who fall head over heels for ENFPs and there are INTJs who can't stand them. There's more to it that just MB type. To me, this is like only having a hammer, so you see nails everywhere, you apply MBTI to everything. MB type is only a part of what makes your personality and this is why I think applying MBTI as a way to explain everything is wrong.
> 
> This is why I simply prefer to use my own personal observations resulting from my life experience. For some reason, I really like INFJs, I get along very well with them, although most theories would say that it shouldn't work... well, it does in my case, maybe it's because my Enneagram complements nicely with theirs or my life experiences have made me sensitive to something they have to offer, either way I'm drawn to them and also (but to a lesser degree) to INTJs. I'm drawn to Ni. This is what it's like for me and it's not necessarily the same for other ENTJs. There are in-type differences and these simplistic systems don't account for them.
> 
> You say that he doesn't have feelings or that he doesn't know how to deal with them, well I don't think that's an excuse. MB type explains, but doesn't excuse. What do I mean by this? Your MB type indicates your natural, general preferences. You can think of it as your starting line in life. But there is no excuse for not using it to grow and develop yourself. It would be just like standing still on the starting line. Yes, indeed, he and I for that matter have a weakness regarding feelings. It's undeniably there, it's true, but at the same time you can still work on it to develop some empathy or at least respect for other people's feelings. Fun fact: the Te/Fi axis can be empathetic, it just needs supplementary explanations. Especially, when you (ok, I keep saying you, you... I mean him) pretend to be a guru charging people for this information, you should be aware that others do have feelings and that's how they operate, instead of just shrugging and being all like: "Yeah! I'm a smug dick! I'm an ENTP... so yeah, I'm a smug dick!" Work on it! Improve yourself! I've met ENTPs who weren't dicks and they were no less ENTP than him. So, I see it as a personal character flaw, instead of an irreversible excusable personality characteristic.


As I said I don't really care for him as a person.

His typology works for me.

You mentioned Jung. This is how Jung describes Ni:

"They move from image to image, chasing after every possibility in the teeming womb of the unconscious"

"persons of this type tend to be mystical day-dreamers"

"The perception of the images of the unconscious, produced in such inexhaustible abundance by the creative energy of life, is of course fruitless from the standpoint of immediate utility"

"But since these images represent possible views of the world which may give life a new potential, this function, which to the outside world is the strangest of all, is as indispensable to the total psychic economy as is the corresponding human type to the psychic life of a people."

I don't know about you but this just sounds like a bunch of bull to me.
You're better off by saying that Ni is just plain old _willpower_.

It is. It is simple, comes from within and usually ambigous to everyone else.
There's no need for big words.


As for his matchmaking theories: his explanations of functions runs much deeper than that, you should really check that out.


----------



## Stevester

jetser said:


> And his explanations of functions is really the best I've seen in a while.
> Te = how people think.
> Ti = how you think.
> Fe = how people feel.
> Fi = how you feel.
> Ne = what people want.
> Ni = what you want.
> 
> ...etc.
> 
> Is there any simpler than that?



I actually find his definitions to be a little wonky.

His definitions of the judgment functions are fine, because they are classic and the way we've always learned them _''Ti/Fi processes logic and emotions respectively in their own subjective way, impervious to what the outside world says''_ etc. 



But his take on perceiving functions??

Si is discipline and loyalty? No, they are just character traits often associated with Si, not the definition of it. Most ESTPs I know are WAY more disciplined than me when it comes to their work out routine and regimen for instance and I've seen all types be blindly loyal to someone for a myriad of reasons. Although I surmise he probably means discipline and loyalty in that SJs take care of household chores and do their jobs at work.......which, again, while mostly true, is a really shallow way of looking at it. 

And then Se is about.....giving people a good experience, WTF?? Look, I love my SPs but they are fucking *notorious* for bailing on your ass because something better came along and seeking pleasure for themselves, others more often then not others just happen to be passengers. Giving people a good experience sounds MUCH more like Fe IMO _''I want us all to have a good time''_. So then he takes that flawed logic in his 2 minute typings of celebrities. T-Swift recalls that one concert where she and the audience really connected and romanticizes hard about it, so she's Se!! Lock it in! Except.....counter-argument: Could that not very well be Fe/Si??? Have you ever talked to an SFJ girl who just came back from a trip abroad??? It's literally ALL about how much she and her friends had the best time ever in every little detail. If anything an Se would probably just summarize that trip as being the dopest. Which again, is a flawed argument that leads him to half ass typing. Celebrity says he and his friend had a blast doing this project: He's including someone else in those memories so Se!! Because apparently Si excludes everyone else who was present when they recall an anecdote. I get that he's saying Si is personal experience and Se is collective experience, but narrowing it down to.....loyalty vs. wanting to give a good experience? Really??

And then his take on intuition: What I want vs. What others want?? Okay, since when is *desire* the same thing as intuition?? Soooooooo NPs have no idea what they want but on the other hand they can tell you what you want? In that case _Wannabe_ from the Spice Girls is the most Ni song ever. Ne is outwardly speculative, yes. Ni can picture an end goal yes, but his spin on it is really weird. So any celebrity who says in an interview _''I always knew I wanted to....''_ is automatically NJ?


----------



## Eric B

I agree the judgment descriptions are roughly good, but iNtuition is :shocked:
I would extend them to the perception functions as such:

Se: What the environment impresses on our senses
Si: What your own sensory impressions recall
Ne: What the environment implies
Ni: What you infer

Note, for extraverted perception, it's not what _people_ do as it might be with [“rational”] judgment; it's about us taking in the information, so I don't know where in sam hilll that “what you/people want” came from; yeah, that would be the same as how you/people “feel”, and thus F.


----------



## jetser

Stevester said:


> I actually find his definitions to be a little wonky.
> 
> His definitions of the judgment functions are fine, because they are classic and the way we've always learned them _''Ti/Fi processes logic and emotions respectively in their own subjective way, impervious to what the outside world says''_ etc.
> 
> 
> 
> But his take on perceiving functions??
> 
> Si is discipline and loyalty? No, they are just character traits often associated with Si, not the definition of it. Most ESTPs I know are WAY more disciplined than me when it comes to their work out routine and regimen for instance and I've seen all types be blindly loyal to someone for a myriad of reasons. Although I surmise he probably means discipline and loyalty in that SJs take care of household chores and do their jobs at work.......which, again, while mostly true, is a really shallow way of looking at it.
> 
> And then Se is about.....giving people a good experience, WTF?? Look, I love my SPs but they are fucking *notorious* for bailing on your ass because something better came along and seeking pleasure for themselves, others more often then not others just happen to be passengers. Giving people a good experience sounds MUCH more like Fe IMO _''I want us all to have a good time''_. So then he takes that flawed logic in his 2 minute typings of celebrities. T-Swift recalls that one concert where she and the audience really connected and romanticizes hard about it, so she's Se!! Lock it in! Except.....counter-argument: Could that not very well be Fe/Si??? Have you ever talked to an SFJ girl who just came back from a trip abroad??? It's literally ALL about how much she and her friends had the best time ever in every little detail. If anything an Se would probably just summarize that trip as being the dopest. Which again, is a flawed argument that leads him to half ass typing. Celebrity says he and his friend had a blast doing this project: He's including someone else in those memories so Se!! Because apparently Si excludes everyone else who was present when they recall an anecdote. I get that he's saying Si is personal experience and Se is collective experience, but narrowing it down to.....loyalty vs. wanting to give a good experience? Really??
> 
> And then his take on intuition: What I want vs. What others want?? Okay, since when is *desire* the same thing as intuition?? Soooooooo NPs have no idea what they want but on the other hand they can tell you what you want? In that case _Wannabe_ from the Spice Girls is the most Ni song ever. Ne is outwardly speculative, yes. Ni can picture an end goal yes, but his spin on it is really weird. So any celebrity who says in an interview _''I always knew I wanted to....''_ is automatically NJ?


Well the guy is ENTP. So S is probably not his biggest forte.

But his description of N is one of the most eloquent things I've seen in a while.

I'm so F tired of the same bullshit descriptions of intuition like it's some mystical mambo jumbo.
No, N is just what you want vs what everyone else wants.

Ne people jump around with their thoughts because they're so concerned about what everyone else wants around them.
That makes them a fast mover and a first in many areas.

Ni people are so fixated on what they want that they shut out everything else in their heads. (inferior Se)
It makes perfect sense.


And yes, probably a lot of people (I'd say the majority) that say things like ''I always knew what I wanted to do..." are Ni;
and a lot of people with Ne jump around aimlessly in life until they find their reason and purpose that they're fit in.


If you think about it it makes a lot of sense that INTJs are just very strong-willed people (Ni) who know what others think around them (Te).
And ISFPs have their childish Ni desires who want to prove their self-worth because they're unsure about what people think about them (inferior Te).
...

I wouldn't be so hung up on literal translations as the whole thing makes a perfect system - in my opinion.


----------



## jetser

angelfish said:


> Why would you want to give him credit for work that is not his?


Oh I forgot to reply to this.

I don't usually pay much attention to whose work or idea is that I'm using. As long as it works.

So I don't really give credit to him as much as I give credit to the idea itself.
And it can be anyone's. I'm not interested.


----------



## Stevester

Bumping this thread because this week Joseph typed Frank James (another Youtube MBTI ''expert'') and completely lost his shit because James types himself as INFJ and Joseph was adamant that he's actually INFP then subsequently accused him of spreading misinformation and even took shots at DaveSuperPowers, essentially calling him a hack.

Now, while this seems to be a great moment to get out the popcorn, sit back and watch the mud slinging unfold.....unfortunately it proves my point that every single one of these internet MBTI guru is full of shit. The fact that they all think they are the ultimate reference on knowledge about this stuff then accuse one another of being mistyping morons who don't know what the hell they're talking about just shows that ultimately some of, if not all of them are wrong. Sure they understand this stuff and can all be decent reference but at the end of the day they don't understand that's still a fucking *theory! *It's not math; some people are obviously better than others at math.

The fact that all of these morons are super arrogant and keep claiming they are the utmost experts makes me wanna personally piss on every single one of them. Like, just admit that you all have your own different interpretations and that no one can hold all the answers? How fucking hard is it to do that? Be open to counter-arguments instead of shutting people down and retaliating with personal insults, no?? And mind you all these guys are big time Intutives of course. You'd think the first thing they should understand about intuition is that people have different interpretations of theoretical work, NO???



Sorry, shit pisses me off and needed to rant. Please resume...


----------



## jetser

Stevester said:


> even took shots at DaveSuperPowers, essentially calling him a hack.


He's actually right about that.


----------



## BitterSweet Blonde

jetser said:


> He's actually right about that.


Why do you think that? Can you explain?


----------



## jetser

BitterSweet Blonde said:


> Why do you think that? Can you explain?


DaveSuperPowers never backs up the things he says.
He's actually the one without super powers.

He's right about tribe vs individual values. It's a nice take on extraversion vs introversion but he doesn't go much beyond that.

And his take on perceiving functions (N/S) is ridiculous. He defines N as pattern reading or gathering while S as experience gathering and taking in.

And he doesn't even take into account that you have different states of mind. Like super-ego and subconscious.
He keeps referring inferior function as _"demon"_ function.

Demon is your most reserved function that you (almost) never hit willingly. The inferior function is not a demon. It causes uncertainty and it's shaky to use but it's _not _a demon function.

There's a lot of stuff he gets wrong but he fails at the most basic of all. _Explanation_.

And he's arrogant as hell. He doesn't even bother to make you understand the way things are according to him - CJ always explains things in the most elaborate way.

I could go on but other than the idea of a function serving tribe needs vs individual needs he never gets anything right.


----------



## Dr Whoresy

Also, the fact that he charges $200 for half an hour pisses me the fuck off. 

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk


----------



## Stevester

jetser said:


> And he's arrogant as hell.


And your cult leader Jospeh isn't??

Again I'll repeat myself. That's_ precisely _what pisses me off about both of them. This arrogant attitude of _''Thanks you old farts like Jung for bringing this to light, now move the f*ck over so I can tell people how this really works''_ And of course charge people for it....

It's great that they are enthusiastic about it and devote a lot of time and energy to it, but they need to get their heads out of their own asses and stop assuming they have cracked the code for everyone else in the universe. Sorry but I missed the part where Harvard funded them to do research on this because of years of study and professionalism on the subject. I know right!! That was such a Te statement I just made: Credentials, sources!!! But seriously, yeah. 

At best these guys are politicians, all vying for your approval and trying to convince you they hold the answers even though they partially do.


----------



## jetser

Stevester said:


> And your cult leader Jospeh isn't??
> 
> Again I'll repeat myself. That's_ precisely _what pisses me off about both of them. This arrogant attitude of _''Thanks you old farts like Jung for bringing this to light, now move the f*ck over so I can tell people how this really works''_ And of course charge people for it....
> 
> It's great that they are enthusiastic about it and devote a lot of time and energy to it, but they need to get their heads out of their own asses and stop assuming they have cracked the code for everyone else in the universe. Sorry but I missed the part where Harvard funded them to do research on this because of years of study and professionalism on the subject. I know right!! That was such a Te statement I just made: Credentials, sources!!! But seriously, yeah.
> 
> At best these guys are politicians, all vying for your approval and trying to convince you they hold the answers even though they partially do.


The whole idea of MBTI is to get you free. To get to know yourself better so you can make better decisions and such.

It doesn't make sense if the whole thing stops at _"oh you do this and this for your tribe and by the way you're very useful.."_

No thank you.



> That was such a Te statement I just made


It was.


----------



## Stevester

Well then you need to look for Te in your boy as well.

He constantly cites Linda Barrens as a genius with her interactions styles, tells people he read this book and that book and it was the dopest because it's 100% accurate. He won't entertain counter-arguments and is pretty condescending when someone brings them up. If someone said _''We had a lot of fun''_ They used the pronoun _''We''_ therefore Se shared experience, lock in it and don't even try to dispute it. Could be actually Fe speaking or the person being interviewed on Leno so you know, different circumstances, but NOPE _''We had fun''_ is Se and nothing else. Locking in types in under 5 minutes with as little information as possible, quick, efficient, no need for arguing. He also organized a full website/system using everything he's learned from other people to make profit. 

If that's not Te in the flesh, I don't know what the hell is.


----------



## jetser

Stevester said:


> Well then you need to look for Te in your boy as well.
> 
> He constantly cites Linda Barrens as a genius with her interactions styles, tells people he read this book and that book and it was the dopest because it's 100% accurate. He won't entertain counter-arguments and is pretty condescending when someone brings them up. If someone said _''We had a lot of fun''_ They used the pronoun _''We''_ therefore Se shared experience, lock in it and don't even try to dispute it. Could be actually Fe speaking or the person being interviewed on Leno so you know, different circumstances, but NOPE _''We had fun''_ is Se and nothing else. Locking in types in under 5 minutes with as little information as possible, quick, efficient, no need for arguing. He also organized a full website/system using everything he's learned from other people to make profit.
> 
> If that's not Te in the flesh, I don't know what the hell is.


It's not Te.

And what difference would it make if it was?

Not only Te users can organize and make something profitable. It would be extremely unfair if that was the case.

And no, he organizes by Fe, through emotional manipulation. Not Te.


I don't know why we argue about him and not about his method. I don't care about the dude.


----------



## DavidGH

Lord Thanksalot said:


> I've been listening to this youtuber talking about MBTI and cognitive functions the past few weeks on the way home,
> and I got to the point where I found the typing grid, which seems to be specific to his name at first sight.
> What do you think of him if you know him?
> 
> View attachment 823369
> 
> 
> To explain what each word means:
> 
> 
> Informative: would rather say "We're out of milk", silently adds connotation, hoping they got the message across
> Direct: would rather say "Go get the milk (please)", it's the way it is, loud and clear
> 
> 
> Initiating: extraverted people, preference for starting conversations (Exxx)
> Responding: introverted people, starting conversations costs energy most of the time (Ixxx)
> 
> 
> Movement: impulsive, quick to decide, cannot stand still
> Control: patient, stagnant, especially if it brings in more gains
> 
> 
> Concrete: what is it like, current state, observation (xSxx)
> Abstract: possibilities, concepts, ideas, implications, introspections (xNxx)
> 
> 
> Affiliative: being interdependent, inclusion, adapt to group, norms, roles, permission > forgiveness (xSxJ & xNFx)
> Pragmatic: how can I be independent, self-determination, how to advance faster, forgiveness > permission (xSxP & xNTx)
> 
> 
> Systematic: systems, organization, metaphoric puzzles, methodology, process, professional (xSxJ & xNTx)
> Interest: interests, motivation, passion, arbitrary about rules, reasons (xSxP & xNFx)
> 
> 
> Edit: if you can't read the image, following link shows it better: [Click here]


Some of those words are kinda goofy. MBTI has that issue too. Like they can’t think of the right words so just use really bad words.

The Big Five will give a more accurate typing, in my opinion.


----------



## jetser

So I checked myself in his grid and according to him

I'm either ESTP, ENFJ, ISFP or an INFP.

Shocker 

Not anything I've identified with.

According to him I'm definitely Control and Interest. NOT Systematic and not Movement.

Which narrows it down to four types, as mentioned above.

I also have a strong feeling that I'm pragmatic and not affiliative which would mean that I'm either an _ESTP _or an _ISFP_.

Out of whom I would be either Direct + Intitiating in which case I'm an ESTP, or Informative + Responding and then I'm an ISFP.

I'm leaning towards Direct + Intitiating which would make the fantastic realization that I'm an ESTP.

But somehow I feel closer to an ISFP.

In any case I'm not an NT, probably not an NF and definitely not an SJ.

According to his grid I'm an SP.


----------



## Stevester

Yeah I simply cannot subscribe to that grid. 





Initiating and Responding are just a rehash of introverted vs. extroverted. 

Concrete vs. Abstract is literally Sensing vs. Intuition.

Informative vs Direct sounds more like assertiveness issues or some may argue some form of T vs. F. what with Ts hating to beat around the bush and Fs not wanting to come off as too abrasive and more prone towards the passive-aggressive. 

Movement vs. Control _sounds_ like it's P vs. J expect it doesn't match up. ISTJs for example are movement so they thrive in chaos and ESTPs are control so they need everything to be settled, like.....what in the actual fuck?? Someone really needs to explain this one to me.

Affiliative vs. Pragmatic also sounds like another version of P vs. J because it's essentially making judgments on your own vs. needing to validate with others, but again, it doesn't line up with J/P types in theory and I don't know why. 

Finally Systematic vs. Interest is just a mess. It sounds like yet another take on J vs. P. but it's about following the rules vs. fuck it I do my own thing and for some reason NFs identify with the latter but NTs are apparently system followers and......?? You know what my head hurts. 



And all of this is 100% accurate, non-disputable and can be done in 5 minutes based on 3 sentences someone utters. 

I feel like there's some _''Trump'' _strategy here: Throw so much shit at people, they won't know where to focus anymore and they'll be so caught up trying to tie up all the loose ends that at the end of the day they'll just have to take your word for it.


----------



## Strawberry Lemonade

I still arrive at ENTJ, with the only doubtful one being Direct/Informative, but that might just be my personal learned behavior of how best to get the results you want from people without offending. There is a correlation though between the types generally seen as being more assertive there.

Overall I think it's more accurate than inaccurate from my limited exposure to it, having watched a dozen or so of Joseph's videos.


----------



## jetser

Stevester said:


> Movement vs. Control _sounds_ like it's P vs. J expect it doesn't match up. ISTJs for example are movement so they thrive in chaos and ESTPs are control so they need everything to be settled, like.....what in the actual fuck?? Someone really needs to explain this one to me.


As I understand it is about how you contain yourself.
Control people "move at their own pace", while Movement guys just go how the events go.

Truth to be told though I don't understand why ISTJs are Movements either. In my experience they're pretty contained although on a different level than ESTPs.




> Affiliative vs. Pragmatic also sounds like another version of P vs. J because it's essentially making judgments on your own vs. needing to validate with others, but again, it doesn't line up with J/P types in theory and I don't know why.


That sounds more like a T vs F thing in my opinion.



> Finally Systematic vs. Interest is just a mess. It sounds like yet another take on J vs. P. but it's about following the rules vs. fuck it I do my own thing and for some reason NFs identify with the latter but NTs are apparently system followers and......?? You know what my head hurts.


Actually I think it's the most interesting one. Systematic means that you follow a system that you have created for certain situations. It's like a question of professionalism.
In my experience it's right. NTs and SJs are the most professional of all types, they all crave a system which they see as the "working model" and they trust that instead of listening to their own heartbeat.
NFs follow their own heartbeats and SPs test rules all the time.


When me and my ESTJ friend play online he's always the one who sets up rules which he sees as working and I'm the guy who goes rouge. He always tells me when and what he does and wants to keep up some system while I just do whatever I feel like and I don't care about any rules as long as we win.

It's about what you trust. A system that always works some way (NTs, SJs), or your intellect or any other skills to handle the situation.
Apparently SPs (not surprisingly) are the latter and NFs - due to ideological reasons I think - do the same.





> I feel like there's some _''Trump'' _strategy here: Throw so much shit at people, they won't know where to focus anymore and they'll be so caught up trying to tie up all the loose ends that at the end of the day they'll just have to take your word for it.


Well you have to put up with it in any case with MBTI, at least this got a system which - to my experience - works.


----------



## Eric B

I need to backtrack; CS Joseph, Dave Superpowers (Objective Personality), Talk With Famous People (Eric Strauss; his full name) aren't connected, right? I just saw CS's Instagram, and it looked interesting with with posts on Beebe's model, though he often changes some of the names of the archetype positions. But he doesn't seem to use "jumpers" theory, though.
I guess they were all being discussed here together, and the INTP who was typed by TWFP used all three I think, so I thought they were all the same "movement", so to speak. Are CS and TWFP associated?

So a large consensus is that CS is no good? ("arrogance and generally unpleasant personal demeanour", which is what I experienced with Strauss, and mistyping people, even himself, etc. ? (Looking back at the thread, it's hard to tell who of these three is being talked about sometimes).


----------



## Pippi

Eric B said:


> I need to backtrack; CS Joseph, Dave Superpowers, Talk With Famous People (Eric Strauss; his full name) aren't connected, right? I just saw CS's Instagram, and it looked interesting with with posts on Beebe's model, though he often changes some of the names of the archetype positions. But he doesn't seem to use "jumpers" theory, though.
> I guess they were all being discussed here together, and the INTP who was typed by TWFP used all three I think, so I thought they were all the same "movement", so to speak. Are CS and TWFP associated?
> 
> So a large consensus is that CS is no good? ("arrogance and generally unpleasant personal demeanour", which is what I experienced with Strauss, and mistyping people, even himself, etc. ? (Looking back at the thread, it's hard to tell who of these three is being talked about sometimes).


As far as I know, CS and TWFM aren't associated, but TWFM has an issue with CS typing himself as ENTP, and they both have videos about their disagreement over it.

I don't know who Dave is.


----------



## integra

i'm still #### but no one will believe it anyway.


----------



## jetser

It's a good example of Informative, Initiating and Movement type: (ENTP in this case)

Initiating: Initiating points

Informative: keeps adding additional info

Movement type: it's all about activity it's not about outcome


----------



## goodvibe

There are some interesting and worthwhile info one can gain from his videos, but does his system work?
It appears that most of the analysis on anything CS Joseph is about the man, his credibility, etc...but hardly about his work. 

And for me, I have nothing against the man, but I am not sold on the system. 

There are some people that I attempt to type using this grid/quiz and it comes up short. 

For instance, I think the system fails when you try to fit personality neatly into these boxes. According to the CS Joesph grid/test, you can't be direct, initiating and movement? That is odd to me, because I have met and even lived with such people. 

However, if I were to type that same person using a test, it at least generates an answer based upon different scenarios. The test would say, yes...such a person exists who are these things and the result is eSFP, but with only a slight preference for extroversion.

But with the CS Joesph system, it will force me into picking responding and the BS result will come up as ISTP — because a concrete, extroverted feeler can't be primarily direct in behavior? Sure. 

Thus far, my conclusion is that you can get a much better idea of who the person is by taking the online test, or even just by reading the 16 type descriptions.

Not everyone is an ideal archetype that must fit squarely into a certain combination of boxes. If A and B, then must be A, B and D, but not A, B and C according to the system. But why not? Forcing to choose an incorrect box will yield an incorrect reult. 

A type 5 eNFp personality is much different than a type 7 ENFP, but CS Joseph might falsely type this same person as an INTJ because he is not taking into consideration the wide spectrum within each personality type. I think this is the major flaw in his system.


----------

