# How... do people even do



## O_o (Oct 22, 2011)

How do people actually manage to pick a type and stick with it. 

Okay so it's supposed to result in our every thought (not the specific thought, but how we come aboot it, etc). It's not a chosen thing but an automatic... constantly running thing. The structure behind the process. 

I get how folk understand it. The concepts are easy to understand, how to recognize, distinguish etc. But how do folk... actually go about the application process. Do you just... read a bit, take a test and boom : this type. What if that's due to some sort of bias you're not aware of? What if it's a self- fulfilling prophecy occasionally; you believe you're a certain type and due to this... sort of unconsciously etc. 

How does one even go about recognizing that their actual cognitive functions are resulting in any sort of bias? And then the goddamn "type never changes part", no way in any way would some sort of unconscious suppression result in suppressing a function? what am I even talking about? 

I understand the thing. But I have no idea how on earth anyone can accurately apply it to the self and be certain that those specific cognitive functions are applying to us and our thoughts at all time, every time. What if you believe you have a certain function simply do to understanding it's description but it not necessarily applying to you? 

I mean the tests :
"Experience a premonition or foresee the distant future."  Ni oriented question. Alright so you understand Ni. You understand what it does. You too have occasionally experienced this! Now to decide to what degree (very subjective). Do your experiences even count? Would your experienced of "promotion" be a result of actually Ni? Maybe you actually suck ass at this but think you're good anyway and proceed to answering high

Feel strongly that something is good or bad.  Look at this Fi bad boy. Why yes! You are human and have experienced such at some point. Does it mean all the time? What if not all the time? So would it be... the third to last? If it's the very last feel you experienced may put higher, lower if haven't experienced in a while. Is this even Fi? Wut. 

Recognize and usually adhere to shared values, feelings, and social norms to get along Good old Fe. One sometime do, 1 sometime not do. So put in middle. How helpful, so is the function present? Is it somewhere in the third? Low Fe or high Fi? 

And then going about reading the actual definitions... would this not be a very similar sort of process?

It's absolutely phenomenal to me how individuals are capable of analyzing themselves and their thought processes to this extend. I understand that it's clearly possible but how do you even manage this with confidence while taking something so objective and though your subjective mind applying it to the self. 

How do you do this. What is your process of actually making sure it's accurate. 

Is this meant to be a simple thing and I just possibly have no sense of self. Because I GET IT just... how do you folk actually apply it to self?

Maybe my personality doesn't exist. 

Maybe you all don't exist.


----------



## O_o (Oct 22, 2011)

See, I always tell myself ", you will not post another huge block of ongoing random paragraphs of unorganized text again. Simple and concise. People don't have time for that shit"

But I always do anyway. I always do.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

I've been contemplating making an MBTI-like test that determines functions but has more features that prevent or show what happens when the test taker selects contradictory answers, for some very brief period of time.
Then it struck me, what if I just made someone else do it? I don't know, I haven't tried it yet.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

One problem I see is that as people start to learn the about the functions they start to see how they do all of them. You have to remember that you want to look at your general natural tendencies (removed from potential roles you might play--"spouse," "work 'me,'" etc). I mean this literally when I say that we all use all functions sometimes, but which are you habitually oriented by?

What traits did you attribute to yourself prior to learning all about this stuff? Maybe you can compare your former self-concept to your current conceptual understanding of the functions.


----------



## O_o (Oct 22, 2011)

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> I've been contemplating making an MBTI-like test that determines functions but has more features that prevent or show what happens when the test taker selects contradictory answers, for some very brief period of time.
> Then it struck me, what if I just made someone else do it? I don't know, I haven't tried it yet.


See, I was thinking if there was a way to possibly sort of... contribute that validity scale which they use for the MMPI-2 tests. But I guess that would have to be greatly altered to work since the two are questioning very different things, and how exactly to determine whether it's a "lie"... maybe strap on a lie detector test? But why on earth would someone feel nervous. That would make no sense. 

A way to possibly eliminate bias... possibly in a non-direct way (so the individual can't figure out what thing is being tested for) question them. Questions have to take into account multiple perceptions of the question (and how these differences in perception can alter results). 

I wish one could brain scan this shit. Problem solved, can't get more objective than that........ but what is the brain scan is shit and made a mistake? How many times would you have to get brain scanned to be able to trust it (if possible, of course).


----------



## O_o (Oct 22, 2011)

PaladinX said:


> One problem I see is that as people start to learn the about the functions they start to see how they do all of them. You have to remember that you want to look at your general natural tendencies (removed from potential roles you might play--"spouse," "work 'me,'" etc). I mean this literally when I say that we all use all functions sometimes, but which are you habitually oriented by?
> 
> What traits did you attribute to yourself prior to learning all about this stuff? Maybe you can compare your former self-concept to your current conceptual understanding of the functions.


Yes. Some good points. 

Naturally, not as easily done as said. But good thing to consider in certain situations. 

I wonder if all people have a self-concept and consider who they are and such.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

duplicate


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

O_o said:


> I wish one could brain scan this shit. Problem solved, can't get more objective than that........ but what is the brain scan is shit and made a mistake? How many times would you have to get brain scanned to be able to trust it (if possible, of course).


What about Neuroscience of Personality: Brain Savvy Insights for All Types of People: Dario Nardi: 9780979868474: Amazon.com: Books ?

http://www.pdx.edu/sysc/sites/www.pdx.edu.sysc/files/neuro-systems.pdf



O_o said:


> Yes. Some good points.
> 
> Naturally, not as easily done as said. But good thing to consider in certain situations.
> 
> I wonder if all people have a self-concept and consider who they are and such.


I dunno. I assumed most people had some grasp of their self-concept. I was under the impression that this is normal (I have Asperger's Syndrome and difficulty with grasping my own self-concept).


----------



## O_o (Oct 22, 2011)

PaladinX said:


> What about Neuroscience of Personality: Brain Savvy Insights for All Types of People: Dario Nardi: 9780979868474: Amazon.com: Books ?
> 
> http://www.pdx.edu/sysc/sites/www.pdx.edu.sysc/files/neuro-systems.pdf


My God. Dat book appeal. 




> I dunno. I assumed most people had some grasp of their self-concept. I was under the impression that this is normal (I have Asperger's Syndrome and difficulty with grasping my own self-concept).


I guess it would depend on whether that self-concept is useful in this case. And whether it would be helpful is actually correlating the cognitive functions in an accurate way to apply.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

I more or less did it by process of elimination. I eliminated a bunch of types over time, narrowed it down to a few, and eventually decided that out of all of them, only one really fit in a significant way. It's not an exact science and if there was a science to it, I guarantee you there'd still be tons of people walking around who have mistyped themselves.

"Diagnosing" yourself with anything is not easy to do. It takes a lot of careful self-reflection and a lot of time. You have to be honest about the facts and not get caught up in what you want or don't want yourself to be. 

That said, I think when people have distinct psychological disorders of one kind or another, it muddies the process something fierce. Someone with a kind of Bipolar disorder, for example, may appear outgoing and extroverted about half of the time, and then appear withdrawn and aloof the other half. And with something like Cyclothymia, where the shifts in mood can be much faster and more subtle, it's even harder to pinpoint where the disorder ends and the personality begins.

That's why I'm such an advocate of the cognitive functions. Problem is, helping people figure out their own cognitive functions is a bit of a mess. I consistently find that the people with whom I have the most confidence concerning what their types are, are the people with whom I've interacted with a lot, in real-time (especially in multiple environments - work, play, etc.). Although that may seem like a no-brainer, the reason it works is because I can usually start to pick out a distinct lens through which the person is viewing the world.

That lens colors everything and I see the similar-looking lens sometimes when looking at two people of the same type. Like core starting points that branch out differently for each type, and often look similar when the starting point is the same.

So to illustrate somewhat visually, let's say Te-dom is RED, Fe-dom is BLUE, Ti-dom is GREEN, Fi-dom is YELLOW, Se-dom is PURPLE, Ne-dom is BROWN, Si-dom is ORANGE, and Ni-dom is PINK (because I'm running out of colors LOL).

Then if we use the 4-function model with INTJ, it'd be: Ni-Te-Fi-Se, or PINK > RED > YELLOW > PURPLE. On the way through those colors, it hits lots of different shades and although the reverse (ESFP - PURPLE > YELLOW > RED > PINK) is all the same shades, it's seeing them play out in the opposite direction. 

So while many of the colors are similar, the starting point and ending point are very different. And in that sense, I recommend looking at where people start from and where they end up.


----------



## O_o (Oct 22, 2011)

LostFavor said:


> I more or less did it by process of elimination. I eliminated a bunch of types over time, narrowed it down to a few, and eventually decided that out of all of them, only one really fit in a significant way. It's not an exact science and if there was a science to it, I guarantee you there'd still be tons of people walking around who have mistyped themselves.
> 
> "Diagnosing" yourself with anything is not easy to do. It takes a lot of careful self-reflection and a lot of time. You have to be honest about the facts and not get caught up in what you want or don't want yourself to be.
> 
> ...


It's interesting that you're comparing it to colors and shades. Something which are in themselves distinct... yet when put together and viewed as a whole, seem to mix into each other to form different, separate colors of their own. 

I agree with so much of what you said though.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

O_o said:


> It's interesting that you're comparing it to colors and shades. Something which are in themselves distinct... yet when put together and viewed as a whole, seem to mix into each other to form different, separate colors of their own.
> 
> I agree with so much of what you said though.


Right, I think colors came to mind in part because of that sort of "dual" nature of them - distinct on their own and yet blending to become new shades (and a cohesive-looking pattern) when many are placed next to each other. Not unlike the way we think about human traits and processes.


----------



## absylution (Aug 8, 2014)

tests suck. Read the most in depth shit about all the functions. Found the ones that were most like me (Ne and Fi) then ordered by strength which I apply em


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

I'm struggling with this myself.
You can know and understand the theory, but actually knowing what you experience is related to a particular function is completely different.
Then there is the extent you use the particular function. You may think you use it a lot, but if you could then compare you subjective experience with another's you may actually realize you utilize very little

And to make things more complicated no function works in a vacuum. All the functions work together, what you see yourself using is where the conscious mind directs its attention.

And how do you know what you see is the particular function? Could it be a manifestation of other functions?


And where does one draw the line between the common human experience and something more specialized?

If you find a simple answer, please let me know


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

LostFavor said:


> Right, I think colors came to mind in part because of that sort of "dual" nature of them - distinct on their own and yet blending to become new shades (and a cohesive-looking pattern) when many are placed next to each other. Not unlike the way we think about human traits and processes.



I like looking at them in terms of sound haha

More like an orchestra, the stronger functions taking the role of a soloist. This is what you will hear the loudest, where your attention is drawn to, but the rest of the orchestra is still playing, supporting the solo act.


----------



## O_o (Oct 22, 2011)

Ksara said:


> I'm struggling with this myself.
> You can know and understand the theory, but actually knowing what you experience is related to a particular function is completely different.
> Then there is the extent you use the particular function. You may think you use it a lot, but if you could then compare you subjective experience with another's you may actually realize you utilize very little
> 
> ...


Ah yes. Yes, this is familiar. 

And honestly, of course an answer is "don't look at tests, look at the descriptions" and same exact deal. Because all the tests are doing is taking bits from these descriptions. So whether you're looking at the whole rather than just the test, it's still fairly similar just with more date. So I understand why more data=easier to get result, but not necessarily since the application process of it is the same. 

And then I wonder. Maybe it's because of a cognitive function that I'm having difficulty determining my type to begin with. And say I do find a type I think I am, who's to say I'm not just going to second guess it again for the billionth time and result in "unknown" once again. 

Anyways, yes. Relate is strong.


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

O_o said:


> Ah yes. Yes, this is familiar.
> 
> And honestly, of course an answer is "don't look at tests, look at the descriptions" and same exact deal. Because all the tests are doing is taking bits from these descriptions. So whether you're looking at the whole rather than just the test, it's still fairly similar just with more date. So I understand why more data=easier to get result, but not necessarily since the application process of it is the same.
> 
> ...




The thing I've been personally experiencing more recently is every now and then the pieces fall together and I get a kick in the face. That my understanding is wrong. I've misinterpreted the information in the wrong way.
I'm starting to realize how the cognitive functions are described are not the best descriptions. They fail to explain the dynamic they have with others. They do not give you what it means. It's just a bunch of facts, stated and restated slightly different but there is no added understanding or meaning. 


What I understand
Ji functions are a form of self discipline. They are the internal rules you Judge yourself on.
Pi are what you perceive in you mind, your inner world. That is you inner monologue, imagery, feelings, emotion, everything.

Ji will use Pi to form judgments,

But there are the extroverted functions too that work in aswell.
Everything you see and experience in the work you take in with Pe
And the judgmens you form in the outer world, this is how things should be, how people should be. Are the Je functions.

But it's even more complicated to determine the S/N/F/T differences!
And we use them all. Types aren't separate entities.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

First you have to read in depth all the functions. Do not try to just get the jist, that means you haven't fully delved into learning the functions and could getc it mixed up with some thinges else easily. Then you have to realize that everyone has an extraverted and introverted function. 

Method 1:Once understood start paying attention to when you talk: what do you talk about? What do you like to express? What compels you to open your mouth? Does it have to do with group values? Does it have to do with objective facts? Do you love talking about possibilities? Or is expressing your need for sensations more of your cup of tea?

Method 2: You could also go a different way and focus on what you know you would never talk about or have a need to extravert. By doing that you can cancel out the types that consists of that function in either the 1st or 2nd function holder. A combination of method 1 and 2 will lead you to your extraverted function.

To find the introverted function if you're not a dom introvert may be a little trickier because it takes a little soul searching. 

Method 3: The quickest way, imo, would be to use the first two methods to find your extraverted function since it is easier to know what you extravert than to introvert. After finding your extraverted function, you just have to see which introverted function that can be paired with your extraverted function relates to you the most. For instance I extravert intuition, so I can either have Fi or Ti, if I had Fi then my possibilities would be affected about my personal values, but if I have Ti then the possibilities are affected by logic (as in wanting to search for how things work vs search for what caters to my personal values). 

Method 4: pick up a book and start reading, while reading focus on the inside of your mind. What does the reading bring back up, does it bring forth facts that relate to the book, or previously stored sensations that relate to the reading, or personal values that relate to the situation, or a possibility that syncs with the book and the self (Ni is probably the hardest to determine, but can be done by the power of deduction also).

Method 5: revisit method 1 and focus on the direction that you're extraverting. Te-Ni and Te-Si both extravert objective facts but their directions are different, one is focused on recreating stored sensations ( comfort vs discomfort) while the other wants to organize a way to bring to life an idea/possibility.

The biggest thing to focus on is reading the source. Second hand information confuses the source and there are so much second hand information that contradicts each other. It's best to go to the source and read fully and wholistically. You may have to read it a million times to grasp it in depthly but once understood then it becomes clearer.

Also do not pick a type if you're not a 100% sure. The reason is simple, if you pick the wrong type then you're starting point of understanding how cognitive functions work in individuals is wrong. If that's wrong then you'll always type everyone else wrong because you'll avoid typing someone with a function that you have if you don't relate to them. So do not pick a type until you are sure. So if you ever say these expressions: (I think I am this type), (Ifeel like I am this type), or (I relate to only some of this), then do not pick a type abd go back to the drawing board because youre not done yet.


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

Try socionics, there is more structure and therefore more explanation for this kind of stuff.


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

Currently this is how I understand the percieving functions and how they work. I hope this helps give more understanding to them.
(however I could be wrong as I've yet have anyone to scrutinize this) 

Pe veiws the world you experience. It is how you 'see' everything around you. Even now you can look around your room. You will use you Pe functions to take in everything.
Either you will predominately see things, objects, events as they are, with the 5 senses, that is Se.
Or you will see the relationship and patterns between these objects, these patterns connect to other patterns forming more and more possibilities, that is Ne.

Pi is everything you experience in your mind. Ever thought, every image, every emotional response, everything you notice in your head.
Either you will focus on internal relationships, patterns, the symbolic meaning you add to the things your Pe functions perceive. that is Ni
Or you will focus on your interpretation of concrete impressions, that is relating what your Pe functions perceive to things you have experienced with you senses (or even feelings you may have had to particular objects) that is Si.


But when combined you get completely different ways of seeing the world, yet the somewhat the same.

Ni/Se
Ni seekers to find the relationship relative to the individual that unifies ever single object in the moment (Se).
Ni adds symbolic meaning to everything it observes (Se).

It is kind of like the user uses the current moment to gauge what may happen.

Ne/Si
Si seeks to add a personal concrete experience/impression to all the relationships that Ne observes in the moment.
Si adds past concrete experiences/responses to all the meaning/patterns it observes (Ne)

It is kind of like the user will use the past to determine the future.



The essence is the Pi functions seek to add meaning (be it relationships/patterns/ideas of Ni or concrete experiences/impressions of Si) to what is observed Pe. And Pe seeks to give Pi experiences to allow their internal models to grow.





I suggest looking into semiotics and the study of signs. I think it indirectly explains the perception functions. 
It looks at how we add meaning to what we see in the world. And it really helps to differentiate what concrete and abstract mean.


----------



## aendern (Dec 28, 2013)

Identify your functions
identify whether extraverted or introverted dom
identify order of functions

voilà that was easy


----------



## Octavian (Nov 24, 2013)

O_o said:


> I understand the thing. But I have no idea how on earth anyone can accurately apply it to the self and be certain that those specific cognitive functions are applying to us and our thoughts at all time, every time. What if you believe you have a certain function simply do to understanding it's description but it not necessarily applying to you?


I break it up into two halves, cognition and behavior.

Jung, Thomson, Myers, Keirsey, are the major theorists. 

Jung and Thomson do a better job of capturing cognition, Myers and Keirsey do a better job of capturing behaviors. Someone like Keirsey, who did not like the functions and focused excessively on behavior in various contexts, is useful for pin pointing the manifestation of extraverted functions. His INTJ description for example, reads like a very good Te description to me. Thomson honestly did a better job than Jung in explaining the functions and providing concrete examples for them (although she should not have stepped out of her lane and into the realm of neuroscience.) Jung himself is difficult, but more fulfilling to engage than all of the aforementioned, that is when the work of the aforementioned has been fully grasped and mastered.

You have to know the theorists, note where they differ in their thinking, and note where they overlap. 

So far as applying it to the self, that takes patience and discipline. After I learned each theorist I spent a good 6 months excessively writing down the thoughts and recurring cognitive patterns that dominated my thinking, no matter how simple or complex. I was able to draw parallels between certain functions and philosophical camps;

Te = Empiricism
Ti = Rationalism
Fe = Ethics

etc. etc.

I studied those schools and their associated thinkers in depth. I picked apart at least 20 biographies to further deepen that understanding and everything basically came together in my head when I went back to the theorists and the things I wrote. It was not fun and it was difficult at times. Especially Jung. I had to learn his entire brand of psychology to begin comprehending what he was talking about. 



> [/FONT][/COLOR]It's absolutely phenomenal to me how individuals are capable of analyzing themselves and their thought processes to this extend. I understand that it's clearly possible but how do you even manage this with confidence while taking something so objective and though your subjective mind applying it to the self.


I'm confident because I studied each theorist, threw away the parts of their theories that were dubious, and amalgamated that which was useful. That final amalgamation is the ultimate objective reference imo, so to me it's a matter of noting my cognition and behavior in an unbiased way and checking it compared to that reference. Others have noted my behavior and things about how I think, matching my own thoughts and conclusions to a large degree, so I actually think I'm rather objective. It's not that hard to view yourself from a 3rd person perspective. 




> Maybe my personality doesn't exist.
> 
> Maybe you all don't exist.


I think it was Scelerat that said for INTPs everything begins and ends in solipsism lol.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

You're reading too much into the functions. Most people show a clear preference for some of them and less for others. Don't get so hung up on things. 

As far as Descartes is concerned: _Cogito Ergo Sum_ - "I think, therefore I am." I'm not so sure about you, or everyone else.


----------



## Octavian (Nov 24, 2013)

Ksara said:


> Ni/Se
> Ni seekers to find the relationship relative to the individual that unifies ever single object in the moment (Se).
> Ni adds symbolic meaning to everything it observes (Se).


Close but not quite.

It's not about finding the relationship relative to the individual (that sounds more like Fi in that it tries to make sense of everything by taking it in relation to the self.) The internal imagery of Ni is detached and the Ni dominant typically does not see himself reflected in the intuitive activity that is going on. Nor is it about unifying objects. It's about seeing into the objects, and pulling that which is hidden, out of it. That is an unconscious activity that is done via subjective imagery. 

It does not "add" symbolic meaning to everything it observes, that which is observed has to be converted into imagery for it to be understood. That "image" *takes the place* of the object. In severe cases the object does not even exist.

http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/326034-understanding-introverted-intuition.html



> It is kind of like the user uses the current moment to gauge what may happen.


As explained in the above thread, rather than using the current moment to gauge what may happen, it taps the collective unconscious through personal imagery, personal imagery that actually acts as an archetype.


----------



## O_o (Oct 22, 2011)

Octavian said:


> I break it up into two halves, cognition and behavior.
> 
> Jung, Thomson, Myers, Keirsey, are the major theorists.
> 
> ...


I am convinced that I need to research far far more into this than I already have. My lack of confidence probably comes from lack of enough information to confidently feel like I can apply it to the self as objectively as I would like to. 

I agree that it's not that hard to view the self from the 3rd perspective. What is, is attempting to do so with contradicting and maybe vague-ish understandings (or contradicting understanding due to various sources) of how each type is meant to manifest itself.

Good insight, thanks.


----------



## O_o (Oct 22, 2011)

Shadow Logic said:


> First you have to read in depth all the functions. Do not try to just get the jist, that means you haven't fully delved into learning the functions and could getc it mixed up with some thinges else easily. Then you have to realize that everyone has an extraverted and introverted function.
> 
> Method 1:Once understood start paying attention to when you talk: what do you talk about? What do you like to express? What compels you to open your mouth? Does it have to do with group values? Does it have to do with objective facts? Do you love talking about possibilities? Or is expressing your need for sensations more of your cup of tea?
> 
> ...


Very helpful insight. The next best step after having a confident and non-contradicting understanding of each cognitive function.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

It took awhile, but I did. Kinda.

Last month I was thinking INTP, but.. Naaaah.

I think I'm finally gonna stick with ENTP, 'cause it fits my cognition.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

Ksara said:


> I like looking at them in terms of sound haha
> 
> More like an orchestra, the stronger functions taking the role of a soloist. This is what you will hear the loudest, where your attention is drawn to, but the rest of the orchestra is still playing, supporting the solo act.


If that's what helps you understand them, then more power to you! roud:


----------



## Cohle (Feb 21, 2014)

As a firm believer in the plasticity of the human mind, the questions you ask are the very reasons I have shied away from over valuing any test as simplistic as the MBTI. Hell, if I lived my entire life going around thinking I was an INFP and nothing but, I would never actually get shit done. I was into MBTI typing long ago, like 5 to ten years ago, but I have since dropped it completely so as to make myself free to grow into whatever I want to be. It's been very freeing. I used to bundle up in my little cocoon of INFP-ness and identify with the label. It was very limiting to my personal growth. Later, after I freed my mind from the chains of strict personality typing, I discovered an exuberant extroverted part of me that I would never have known existed.

Humans come in 7 billion types, not 16.

And, the creators of the MBTI introduced bias into the entire test because of several factors:

1. The language the tests are usually written in. 
2. The dichotomies they chose to create. 
3. The labels they used to create them. 

Now what we have is a bunch of people going around saying, I'm an INFP! or I'm an ESTJ! and they actually think that's what they are. In a sense, it's very damaging to one's soul to throw themselves in that kind of box. 

Don't confuse the map with the territory.

This brings me to the major problem I have with modern psychology itself, but that's for another discussion.


----------



## O_o (Oct 22, 2011)

Cohle said:


> As a firm believer in the plasticity of the human mind, the questions you ask are the very reasons I have shied away from over valuing any test as simplistic as the MBTI. Hell, if I lived my entire life going around thinking I was an INFP and nothing but, I would never actually get shit done. I was into MBTI typing long ago, like 5 to ten years ago, but I have since dropped it completely so as to make myself free to grow into whatever I want to be. It's been very freeing. I used to bundle up in my little cocoon of INFP-ness and identify with the label. It was very limiting to my personal growth. Later, after I freed my mind from the chains of strict personality typing, I discovered an exuberant extroverted part of me that I would never have known existed.
> 
> Humans come in 7 billion types, not 16.
> 
> ...


The case of "self-fulfilling prophecy" in psychology. I believe the information itself is useful, but people's reactions to this information... can create those "danger" points. The information is present for the understanding, but the person (simply due to having the information in the back of their mind) may influence their behavior accordingly... well, self-fulfilling prophecy.

I think people always like to be able to point towards something logical as an explanation, some sort of rule, definition, category. And so often it can be used by certain people as a way of ... giving up control, in a sense. It can be seen with individuals possibly diagnosed with some form of a disorder, and individuals who are here and choose to represent a type. 

Whether a bad or good thing is naturally subjective. But you can see it everywhere, "I'm very good at generating new ideas because I use Ne". So it's not them generating the idea, it's the Ne doing it. This understanding transforms it as almost an... object responsible outside the self. Ironically, despite it all clearly being a part of... us... by categorizing it under something, it seems to depersonalize the trait. It makes it almost as it's own entity, responsible for the "ex: generating new ideas" rather than the... self. 

And then it's sometimes taken out of hand.... where every single tiny trait a person has about themselves. Every unique point is attempted to be categorized and explained by 1 of these functions. In which case, it's the wrong way to appreciate the method and the self. 

I think the descriptions themselves are very helpful. I think it's this depersonalization (that I described above) which is can often lead to... problems. The feelings of "not thinking right" if that method doesn't fit with one of the millions outward descriptions of how a type generally manifests. Just like understanding one has an Anxiety Disorder itself is helpful... but may not be necessarily when an individual internalizes it. It understands it has anxiety, the anxiety is now apart of it and the anxiety is expected to come off a certain way... and so it often can, just due to this. But note that it's all due to the anxiety disorder. "I don't fear because I fear, I fear because of the anxiety disorder". _It _is causing me to fear. 

"I feel/think/perceive/sense/etc due to an_ it_"

Again, not necessarily good or bad. But categorizing leads to that.


----------



## Modal Soul (Jun 16, 2013)

r u me


----------



## O_o (Oct 22, 2011)

Modal Soul said:


> r u me


Well, would you look at that, another person who shares the same cognitive functions of Un Kn Ow N_ as me!


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

@O_o
I see you picked ENFP, good for you. :happy: what made you sure?


----------



## O_o (Oct 22, 2011)

Captain Mclain said:


> @__
> I see you picked ENFP, good for you. :happy: what made you sure?


Oh thank you~

I think I had a slightly morphed understanding of Fi previously lol. I could have sworn it was Ti... I very much do enjoy the sort of picking things apart, seeing what things are made of etc. But I think that's influenced by other factors rather than Ti alone. When I look at my internal system... though quiet, much of my decisions and inward 'craft' is very much due to Fi and personal value. I actually think Ne combined with developed Te provide an odd sort of mix that might come across outwardly as Ti when expressed occasionally (?). But really, I can't think of anything about ENFP that wouldn't exactly fit now that I understand Fi lol (really, fits childhood and all). If anything : ENxP for certain (jusstt in case). What made you sure of INFJ?


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

ar ewe mie


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

O_o said:


> Oh thank you~
> 
> I think I had a slightly morphed understanding of Fi previously lol. I could have sworn it was Ti... I very much do enjoy the sort of picking things apart, seeing what things are made of etc. But I think that's influenced by other factors rather than Ti alone. When I look at my internal system... though quiet, much of my decisions and inward 'craft' is very much due to Fi and personal value. I actually think Ne combined with developed Te provide an odd sort of mix that might come across outwardly as Ti when expressed occasionally (?). But really, I can't think of anything about ENFP that wouldn't exactly fit now that I understand Fi lol (really, fits childhood and all). If anything : ENxP for certain (jusstt in case). What made you sure of INFJ?


Ok.  When I notice I use Fe, and use it alot, it wasn't hard to narrow it down. Especially since what I was most sure of that I am intuitive over sensing. Your road seemed... a bit more complex.  I tried a few thinking types before realizing that I was actually infj. I even thought I was extroverted, Entp or Estp ect. It was in the very beginning with base at the online tests.


----------

