# Which function is this? This is driving me crazy!



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

No worries, everone has a hot spot 
I think in the same scenario I wouldn't be upset, more thankful my type was finally determined
...
Then I'd start to wonder are they right? are the reasons valid? what functions to I use again? Oh know what's my type again? Back to square one haha




tantomoriremotutti said:


> For example when I try to guess the grid's temperature, I knew that it could swing between 300 and 600 degrees, and I knew that our nocireceptors have a threshold of pain of about 50 degrees that can be raised to 100 degrees if you ignore the first pain stimulus (which inform you that a damage could occur, not that there is a damage).
> If you wet your hand and you put them on the grid you can easily calculate the increasing of the temperature measuring how much time passes before you feel pain. At 600 degrees it's like 1-2 seconds.
> I thought that after 30 minutes of flames on a metallic grid the temperature would be nearly at the maximum so I said "it's 550 degrees" and I was luckily right (it was on average 567 degrees).


I find this really interesting, I didn't know that. I had a similar thought when keeping cooked pancakes warm. I told my partner to put them in the oven at 50 degrees Celsius to keep them warm, knowing that it's a little over 60 degrees celcius before I'll burn. With the look of disbelief in his face I didn't feel so confident when I grabbed the plate out of the Ovan with my bare hands lol.
It was nice and warm 
(I was also guessing that I wouldn't be drying out the pancakes as it was no where near 100 degrees Celsius, or boiling point to evaporate the water content out of them)

Maybe I am a Te user too? Who knows...


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

tantomoriremotutti said:


> Listen, @_monemi_ and @_Zee Bee_ too. I want to be honest. Normally I try to be as impersonal as possible, but when someone tell me an *"You're [type] because of [single biased argument]" speech I lose my mind*.
> Can't you see how all your assumptions are based on little amounts of informations? You only pick up the parts you need to tell "you're this type". You never conciliate all the aspect of my personality to return a plausibile type, you just cut off the elements that are contradictory. How could you think this is reasonable?


You ASKED for an opinion based on very little information. What were you expecting? The answers can only be as intelligent as the question asked. 



tantomoriremotutti said:


> You're absolutely right, I just lose control for a moment. As I said I piss off when someone try to type me on a poor basis, that's my personal hot spot, I had to think more before writing. My bad.


You have not been impersonal at all. You're not cool headed. You're volatile and rude. You also whine like a victim for a situation you are entirely the cause of.


----------



## tantomoriremotutti (May 7, 2014)

monemi said:


> You ASKED for an opinion based on very little information. What were you expecting? The answers can only be as intelligent as the question asked.
> 
> You have not been impersonal at all. You're not cool headed. You're volatile and rude. You also whine like a victim for a situation you are entirely the cause of.


As I said, I only asked "whcih function is this". I never asked other's opinion about my type and I don't ask to type me neither.
I'm not playing the victim part, I admitted my faults and I don't understand how you reach this conclusion after I specifically told it was my bad. I told you before that every attempt at reconciliation would be pointless because you just decide to oppose a priori.
Think about the fact that you're not even trying to understand what I'm saying but you're only search inconsistency to prove you're right. Ok, you're right, it was my fault can we stop arguing now? This is a waste of time.

You're making the same mistake I've already talked about. You're judging with a very little amount of informations.
You have all the rights to think I'm not a cool-head and that I'm rude because your experience with this thread suggests so, but it's not like that indeed.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

tantomoriremotutti said:


> As I said, I only asked "whcih function is this". I never asked other's opinion about my type and I don't ask to type me neither.
> I'm not playing the victim part, I admitted my faults and I don't understand how you reach this conclusion after I specifically told it was my bad.
> 
> You're making the same mistake I've already talked about. You're judging with a very little amount of informations.
> You have all the rights to think I'm not a cool-head and that I'm rude because your experience with this thread suggests so, but it's not like that indeed.


Now you're being intellectually dishonest. You went off onto the Ni-Se vs Se-Ni tangent and so on. And now you're continuing victim mode. 

Yeah, we're done here. Have fun getting last word in. It fits in with your childish behaviour thus far.


----------



## tantomoriremotutti (May 7, 2014)

monemi said:


> Now you're being intellectually dishonest. You went off onto the Ni-Se vs Se-Ni tangent and so on. And now you're continuing victim mode.
> 
> Yeah, we're done here. Have fun getting last word in. It fits in with your childish behaviour thus far.


 @monemi

It seems that my Ni was right after all, doesn't it? 



tantomoriremotutti said:


> You two are clearly on the defensive and you have a confrontational attitude, I perfectly know that *whatever I'll say* (even if I say I'm sorry) *you will always disagree with me*





tantomoriremotutti said:


> I told you before that every attempt at reconciliation would be pointless because *you just decide to oppose a priori*.
> Think about the fact that you're not even trying to understand what I'm saying but *you're only search inconsistency to prove you're right*.


- If I say I don't ask to type myself, then you say I'm intellectual dishonest, volatile and rude
- If I say that I'm sorry and I made some mistakes, then you say I'm playing the "victim part" and I'm childish

Don't you think this is a broken logic?

Just for the record, about *intellectual dishonesty*, here's my questions:



tantomoriremotutti said:


> 1- Which function is this?
> 
> 2- But then I thought that an INTJ should have a repressed Se, and that an ISTP with a Se aux. and a Ni ter. should be more skillful to do this kind of things with a *Se-Ni couple*
> _(Just asking if an ISTP would be better at this kind of task)_
> ...


But, after all, it is still my fault, even if I never suggest that I could be mistyped.


----------



## FluffyTheAnarchist (Sep 9, 2013)

I think it is Se/Ni, and I am very good at approximating things too, especially time... not within 5 minutes, but maybe within 15.
I am good with estimating numbers I have no clue about... prices, limits, time needed to complete something... One of the reasons I thought I am an ESFP, not ENFP... however my ENFP mom does the same :[ and is more accurate than I am... she is spooky, just like you... not spacially though, her spacial abilities are ridiculous, but she can be amazing at predicting numbers. Example: my husband was changing jobs, and was negotiating his salary... when it was still completely up in the air, my mom predicted it down to the last number (not a round number mind you) -- i was floored when the final number came in.

One function we all (INTJ/ENFP/ESFP) have in common is Te -- and Te has to do with organizing external info... could it be Te then?


----------



## tantomoriremotutti (May 7, 2014)

Fluff'n'Fury said:


> I think it is Se/Ni, and I am very good at approximating things too, especially time... not within 5 minutes, but maybe within 15.
> I am good with estimating numbers I have no clue about... prices, limits, time needed to complete something... One of the reasons I thought I am an ESFP, not ENFP... however my ENFP mom does the same :[ and is more accurate than I am... she is spooky, just like you... not spacially though, her spacial abilities are ridiculous, but she can be amazing at predicting numbers. Example: my husband was changing jobs, and was negotiating his salary... when it was still completely up in the air, my mom predicted it down to the last number (not a round number mind you) -- i was floored when the final number came in.
> 
> One function we all (INTJ/ENFP/ESFP) have in common is Te -- and Te has to do with organizing external info... could it be Te then?


Interesting. ENFP is Ne Fi Te Si, maybe your mom can do that because of her Si, that is somehow similar to Ni, it's not strange that types without Se have poor spatial ability.
First I talk about Te, I think that it's plausible a Te implication. So yes. Maybe it's a Te-Se process, Se gains spatial and sensorial information and Te applied a criterion to determine the values ​​of the estimates. 
When I guess the area of the room I just try to imagine how long and how large was the room and then I make the calculus. 
Even this way the majority of the work it is up to Se that has to be very precise. I have no idea about temporal perception, I can't understand which function is involved.


----------



## Zee Bee (Aug 19, 2014)

monemi said:


> You didn't say anything stupid. OP was unnecessarily rude


Thank you for the hand - I knew I could count on the mounties.

Best of all, as in the past, you took the questions seriously, and did your best to explain coherently.


----------



## Zee Bee (Aug 19, 2014)

tantomoriremotutti said:


> [MENTION=60738]


Seems your English is passible to take on all comers.

Here is an informative forum

http://personalitycafe.com/nts-temp...s/71067-intp-arrogance-vs-intj-arrogance.html


----------



## Gromlin (Dec 5, 2012)

> Anyway this is ridiculous, no offense, really, NO OFFENSE, but according to what you all say, just on this thread:
> 
> - I'm a Ti user
> - I'm a Te user
> ...


 This is you judging our validity by listing facts (Te).



> Let me tell you all something:
> *YOU CAN'T HAVE A COMPLETE VISION OF A PERSON HERE!
> You will only see flashes of someone personality on the internet! Like if you're watching something very complex from different angles! A cylinder looks square if you look it from the side and looks circular from above. This is the reason why you all type me as 11 different types!
> Do you know the rule of 55-38-7?
> ...


Again with judgement: _You guys cannot accurately type me because you don't have the necessary facts_. This is Te, because it refuses to acknowledge validity based on a deficiency of standardized information. In your case it would would be backed up by Fi (_I want to be typed a certain way, so I will hammer these people with facts demonstrating flaws in their approach to vindicate myself_), but you aren't aware of its influence because its less conscious than thinking.


----------



## tantomoriremotutti (May 7, 2014)

Zee Bee said:


> Seems your English is passible to take on all comers.
> 
> Here is an informative forum
> 
> http://personalitycafe.com/nts-temp...s/71067-intp-arrogance-vs-intj-arrogance.html


I'm not a native English, but if you want we can talk in Spanish, French or Italian too...
Are you mocking my English just because you don't have any reasonable arguments? I suppose that's a point in my favor...

P.S. Thanks for the Arrogance thread, it was interesting.


----------



## tantomoriremotutti (May 7, 2014)

Gromlin said:


> This is you judging our validity by listing facts (Te).


Yes, I'm a Te user, it's pretty obvious...



Gromlin said:


> Again with judgement: _You guys cannot accurately type me because you don't have the necessary facts_. This is Te, because it refuses to acknowledge validity based on a deficiency of standardized information.


No. This isn't judgement at all, first because I didn't say "_You guys cannot accurately type me because you don't have the necessary facts_ (Te)", and I never mention facts, I said "YOU CAN'T HAVE A COMPLETE VISION OF A PERSON HERE! (Ni - "you're biased because you only have a single perspective").

In fact here you can see pure Ni:



tantomoriremotutti said:


> You will only see flashes of someone personality on the internet! Like if you're watching something very complex from different angles! A cylinder looks square if you look it from the side and looks circular from above. This is the reason why you all type me as 11 different types!


And this is INFJ's Ti trying to rationalize a broken argument:



Gromlin said:


> In your case it would would be backed up by Fi (_I want to be typed a certain way, so I will hammer these people with facts demonstrating flaws in their approach to vindicate myself_), but you aren't aware of its influence because its less conscious than thinking.


Your arguments are circular, this is a Ti loop, you start from the assertion that I'm a Te dom and then develop your arguments from there. Here's judgement in action, at the expense of perception. 

When I say "broken argument" I only refer to the reasons behind Fi, it's true what you said I'm pushed by Fi, but I didn't want "to be typed a certain way", since I'm perfectly aware of my type and I never asked your opinion on that point, I just wanted to demonstrate that your method is intrinsically wrong.

Anyway, let's try a Ti argument. I'll suppose you're right, I'm a Te-Fi user. I can ensure you that I'm introvert (there's nothing to discuss about it, I knew that much more time before MBTI), so I have a Te aux. and a Fi ter. since IxFPs have a conscious Fi. Also you said that my Fi is my mobilizing function (very important and unconscious).
All these things bring only to two possibilities:
- INTJ
- ISTJ
Do you agree? From here should be pretty easy understand which type I am.
We need one more question: have I Si-Ne or have I Ni-Se? Look at the OP and give yourself an answer.

Also, if you want an explanation about the strength of my Te just look at these result. I don't understand them very much, I started a thread about that, maybe it will clarify things. The point is, I have an hyper developed Te, this sometimes happen with INTJs... 


YOUIDEALFunctionInformation ElementRelative StrengthRelative ValueInformation ElementRelative StrengthRelative ValueLeadingNi31%31%Se31%31%CreativeTe44%44%Fi44%44%RoleSi19%19%Ne19%19%VulnerableFe6%6%Ti6%6%SuggestiveSe19%31%Ni19%31%MobilizingFi6%44%Te6%44%IgnoringNe31%19%Si31%19%DemonstrativeTi44%6%Fe44%6%

And if you look at this:

YOUR SOCIOTYPE: ILI-2Te (INTp)

OTHER POSSIBLE TYPES:
1. LIE (ENTj): 92% as likely as ILI.
2. LII (INTj): 85% as likely as ILI.
3 LSI (ISTj): 71% as likely as ILI.

You're not wrong, I can easily be confused with ENTJ, and I really would like to be one, I thought for a while I was...


----------



## tantomoriremotutti (May 7, 2014)

Fluff'n'Fury said:


> I think it is Se/Ni, and I am very good at approximating things too, especially time... not within 5 minutes, but maybe within 15.
> I am good with estimating numbers I have no clue about... prices, limits, time needed to complete something... One of the reasons I thought I am an ESFP, not ENFP... however my ENFP mom does the same :[ and is more accurate than I am... she is spooky, just like you... not spacially though, her spacial abilities are ridiculous, but she can be amazing at predicting numbers. Example: my husband was changing jobs, and was negotiating his salary... when it was still completely up in the air, my mom predicted it down to the last number (not a round number mind you) -- i was floored when the final number came in.
> 
> One function we all (INTJ/ENFP/ESFP) have in common is Te -- and Te has to do with organizing external info... could it be Te then?


I finally discover the time thing and why we're good at it. It's Ni. Look what I read here (this page is awesome):
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socionics"

*Ni*: "*Ni is responsible for the estimation of the passage of time*, the understanding of a course of processes in time, *and forecasting.* Ni understand how things may change and evolve over time and throughout history. Ni is acutely aware of events that are occurring outside of the immediate perception of the moment, and sees events as part of a continuous flow. Ni perceives the possible ramifications of future events and notices ties to the past. Ni observes behavioral patterns and can assess a person's character."

*Te*: Te is efficiency of an action, technical processes, the accomplishment of work, *the efficient and prudent use of resources*, factual accuracy, and the acquisition of relevant and useful information. Te understands the difference between *effective and ineffective behavior when performing a procedure or accomplishing a task*, and aspires to increase the frequency of productive outcomes within a system.
(that's should explain the sausages thing I guess! :tongue

*Se*: *Se is responsible for the perception, control, defense, and acquisition of space, territory, and control*. It observes outward appearances, estimates whether forces are in alignment or conflict, and uses strength of will and power-based methods to achieve purposes. Se understands territory and physical aggression. It is also the function of contact and apprehension of qualia.
I suppose that this brings to three the number of functions involved in our forecasts (since you're ESFP) Ni-Te-Se.


----------



## FluffyTheAnarchist (Sep 9, 2013)

tantomoriremotutti said:


> I finally discover the time thing and why we're good at it. It's Ni. Look what I read here (this page is awesome):
> "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socionics"
> 
> *Ni*: "*Ni is responsible for the estimation of the passage of time*, the understanding of a course of processes in time, *and forecasting.* Ni understand how things may change and evolve over time and throughout history. Ni is acutely aware of events that are occurring outside of the immediate perception of the moment, and sees events as part of a continuous flow. Ni perceives the possible ramifications of future events and notices ties to the past. Ni observes behavioral patterns and can assess a person's character."
> ...


Yeah, but my mom is better than I and she is a textbook example of ENFP ... also... socionics confuses me, because the socionics version of ENFP (IEE) description fits me like a glove, yet its functions for IEE are NeFiSeTi -- explains the Ne/Se for me, but I don't use Ti, maybe a tiny bit, but not nearly as much as Te. CONFUSED.


----------



## tantomoriremotutti (May 7, 2014)

Fluff'n'Fury said:


> Yeah, but my mom is better than I and she is a textbook example of ENFP ... also... socionics confuses me, because the socionics version of ENFP (IEE) description fits me like a glove, yet its functions for IEE are NeFiSeTi -- explains the Ne/Se for me, but I don't use Ti, maybe a tiny bit, but not nearly as much as Te. CONFUSED.


Are you and Fluffy the anarchist the same person?

Anyway the functions of ENFP or ENFp (in socionics ony the final letter of introverts is inverted es. INTJ = INTp) are the same as MBTI.
Ne-Fi-Te-Si.
Ne is the leading function (1st), Fi is the creative function (2nd), Te is the mobilizing function (6th) and Si is the suggestive function (5th).

The order in socionics is actually Ne-Fi-Se-Ti-Si-Te-Ni-Fe, but you have to consider that the functions you have to consider are always Ne-Fi-Te-Si. 

In fact in ENFP Ti is the *vulnerable function*: or place of least resistance, is a weak and conscious function, in addition to being the _weakest function of the psyche_. One painfully perceives his complete inability to use this function, and reacts negatively to its imposition upon him.

It's basically the same thing as MBTI just a little mixed up.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, I'm new to socionics too.


----------



## FluffyTheAnarchist (Sep 9, 2013)

tantomoriremotutti said:


> The order in socionics is actually Ne-Fi-Se-Ti-Si-Te-Ni-Fe, but you have to consider that the functions you have to consider are always *Ne-Fi-Te-Si*.


Why?? You are quoting socionics, I switch to socionics, then you dismiss it?

Yes, I am also known as FluffyTheAnarchist.


----------



## tantomoriremotutti (May 7, 2014)

Fluff'n'Fury said:


> Why?? You are quoting socionics, I switch to socionics, then you dismiss it?
> 
> Yes, I am also known as FluffyTheAnarchist.


Fluffy!!! I'm happy to see you again!

No, no I don't dismiss it... It's a little hard to explain, but the function that has the great impact on your life are the ones of MBTI.
I'm going to explain the ENFP or IEE (ENFp)

Socionics divided functions into 4 blocks:

EGO-BLOCK: 
Two strong and conscious functions (Ne - Fi)

SUPER EGO-BLOCK:
Two weak and conscious functions (Se - Ti)

SUPER-ID BLOCK:
Two weak and unconscious functions (Si - Te)

ID-BLOCK:
Two strong and unconscious functions (Ni - Fe)

Strong order (more D means stronger):
1. Ne *4D conscious*
2. Fi *3D conscious*
3. Se 2D conscious
4. Ti 1D conscious
5. Si *1D unconscious*
6. Te *2D unconscious*
7. Ni 3D unconscious
8. Fe 4D unconscious

In bold you see which function MBTI considers. 

In MBTI functions work in pairs do you remember that? One function is conscious and the other is unconscious.
For example in INTJ (ILI - INTp) Se collects informations *unconsciously* and Ni returns an impression *consciously*.

So if the first and the second function of ENFP are Ne and Fi the other functions to consider are the corresponding unconscious functions that are Si and Te.

In MBTI the order consider the two strongest conscious functions (Ne-Fi) and the two weakest unconscious functions (Si-Te), actually means:

ENFP:
Ne: first function
Fi:second function
Te: sixth function
Si: fifth function


----------



## FluffyTheAnarchist (Sep 9, 2013)

tantomoriremotutti said:


> Fluffy!!! I'm happy to see you again!
> 
> No, no I don't dismiss it... It's a little hard to explain, but the function that has the great impact on your life are the ones of MBTI.
> I'm going to explain the ENFP or IEE (ENFp)
> ...


Happy to see you again, too! )
OK, I am going to go study socionics...


----------



## Hiemal (Jan 5, 2014)

tantomoriremotutti said:


> Strong order (more D means stronger):
> 1. Ne *4D conscious*
> 2. Fi *3D conscious*
> 3. Se 2D conscious
> ...


While added Dimensions will usually produce a stronger function, it is not always so. It is not a magnitude of strength.

1-Dimensional Functions are based on the Parameter of Experience only.
2-Dimensional Functions are based on the Parameters of Experience and Norms.
3-Dimensional Functions are based on the Parameters of Experience, Norms, and Situation.
4-Dimensional Functions are based on the Parameters of Experience, Norms, Situation, and Time. 

The only magnitude shown here is the ease with which one can acquire skill and knowledge concerning the information aspects linked to respective dimensions. General strength, however, can be developed in a 1-dimensional function when you are engulfed in an environment that practically drowns you with information relating to that aspect, in which case your 1-dimensional function may surpass a 2-dimensional function's strength due to the Parameter of Experience in the 1-dimensional function being utilized constantly. However, the 1-dimensional function will not be immediately cognizant of the added Parameter of Norms that the 2-dimensional function has, that gives the 2-Dimensional function an immediate "head-start" over the 1-dimensional function (in which case the 2-dimensional function allows the sociotype to already be aware of social norms regarding how to use the information aspect; for example, Normative Fi might encompass already knowing that you have to be polite, courteous, and composed when dealing with others).

Parameter of Experience - Ability to learn about an information aspect and element through personal experience and through your own perspective of it. (Used by Functions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8)

Parameter of Norms - Cognizance of social norms that are present in society concerning certain information aspects and elements, knowing what society says how you should use an information element. (Used by Functions 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8)

Parameter of Situation - The ability to know when you can discard the normal uses or expectations of information elements (The Parameter of Norms) in favor of a more advanced or creative method; knowing when to follow social norms regarding the element and knowing when you can do without the social norms. (Used by Functions 1, 2, 7, 8)

Parameter of Time - Your entire attention is practically fixated on this element because it is almost impossible to ignore (when mental) due to how well you can perceive it. You see everything, including other information elements and even aspects, through the lens of this function. For the vital demonstrative function, however, your subconscious will be quietly operating on the same level, fixated on this element, but in the background, and is thus glazed over completely by your conscious mind, allowing you to wield it on the same level as your Lead function when you absolutely must and when it is pertinent. (Used by Functions 1, 8)

[Based on Bukalov and Yermak's Dimensionality of Functions]


----------



## mikan (May 25, 2014)

Ni, and about the time you just have a good internal clock.


----------



## Gromlin (Dec 5, 2012)

tantomoriremotutti said:


> *Your arguments are circular*, this is a Ti loop, you start from the assertion that I'm a Te dom and then develop your arguments from there. Here's judgement in action, at the expense of perception.


You don't seem to know what intuition is exactly, and the example(s) you list as being indicative of your Ni is just basic reasoning, or possibly crude intuition, or maybe even feeling wanting to disparage an argument. There is nothing "penetrating" about noticing that someone is single-minded. You ironically failed to apply your own axiom that we can't infer your type with limited info, yet you assume that I only have a single perspective, that what I posted represented all that I had thought of, that I hadn't undergone a process more elaborate than I thought you could grapple with so skipped presenting the full breadth of my reasoning, assuming you were too invested in facts to effectively understand it.

Here is what Jung wrote on intuition:


> the intuitive function is represented by a certain attitude of expectation, a perceptive and penetrating vision, wherein only the subsequent result can prove, in every case, how much was [p. 462] 'perceived-into', and how much actually lay in the object.


If you mistake dominant intuition for circular reasoning then you probably aren't an INTJ because intuition starts with perception, and then maybe looks for justification. Ni can be linked with conspiracy theories for a reason. Here is the opening paragraph on the introverted intuition type:



> The peculiar nature of introverted intuition, when given the priority, also produces a peculiar type of man, viz. the mystical dreamer and seer on the one hand, or the fantastical crank and artist on the other. The latter might be regarded as the normal case, since there is a general tendency of this type to confine himself to the perceptive character of intuition. *As a rule, the intuitive stops at perception; perception is his principal problem*, and -- in the case of a productive artist-the shaping of perception. But the crank contents himself with the intuition by which he himself is shaped and determined. Intensification of intuition naturally often results in an extraordinary aloofness of the individual from tangible reality; he may even become a complete enigma to his own immediate circle. [p. 509]


I don't see any of this in your posts, but what I do see is a lot judgement coming from someone who dismisses subjectivity, which even in an INTJ with auxiliary Te seems a bit odd to me. Here is Jung on the extraverted thinking type:



> In accordance with his definition, we must picture a, man whose constant aim -- in so far, of course, as he is a [p. 435] pure type -- is to bring his total life-activities into relation with intellectual conclusions, which in the last resort are always orientated by objective data, whether objective facts or generally valid ideas. This type of man gives the deciding voice-not merely for himself alone but also on behalf of his entourage-either to the actual objective reality or to its objectively orientated, intellectual formula. By this formula are good and evil measured, and beauty and ugliness determined. All is right that corresponds with this formula; all is wrong that contradicts it; and everything that is neutral to it is purely accidental. Because this formula seems to correspond with the meaning of the world, it also becomes a world-law whose realization must be achieved at all times and seasons, both individually and collectively. Just as the extraverted thinking type subordinates himself to his formula, so, for its own good, must his entourage also obey it, since the man who refuses to obey is wrong -- he is resisting the world-law, and is, therefore, unreasonable, immoral, and without a conscience. His moral code forbids him to tolerate exceptions; his ideal must, under all circumstances, be realized; for in his eyes it is the purest conceivable formulation of objective reality, and, therefore, must also be generally valid truth, quite indispensable for the salvation of man. This is not from any great love for his neighbour, but from a higher standpoint of justice and truth. Everything in his own nature that appears to invalidate this formula is mere imperfection, an accidental miss-fire, something to be eliminated on the next occasion, or, in the event of further failure, then clearly a sickness.


----------



## tantomoriremotutti (May 7, 2014)

Gromlin said:


> You don't seem to know what intuition is exactly, and the example(s) you list as being indicative of your Ni is just basic reasoning, or possibly crude intuition, or maybe even feeling wanting to disparage an argument. There is nothing "penetrating" about noticing that someone is single-minded. You ironically failed to apply your own axiom that we can't infer your type with limited info, yet you assume that I only have a single perspective, that what I posted represented all that I had thought of, that I hadn't undergone a process more elaborate than I thought you could grapple with so skipped presenting the full breadth of my reasoning, assuming you were too invested in facts to effectively understand it.
> 
> Here is what Jung wrote on intuition:
> 
> ...


I seem to talk to a wall... Ok, thanks for your opinion, have a good day. Bye!


----------



## tantomoriremotutti (May 7, 2014)

Alea_iacta_est said:


> While added Dimensions will usually produce a stronger function, it is not always so. It is not a magnitude of strength.
> 
> 1-Dimensional Functions are based on the Parameter of Experience only.
> 2-Dimensional Functions are based on the Parameters of Experience and Norms.
> ...


Thanks for the additional informations.
So ILI is:


1.Ni4DEGO BLOCK2.Te3DEGO BLOCK3.Si2DSUPER-EGO BLOCK4.Fe1DSUPER-EGO BLOCK5.Se1DSUPER-ID BLOCK6.Fi2DSUPER-ID BLOCK7.Ne3DID BLOCK8.Ti4DID BLOCK

You said:



Alea_iacta_est said:


> 1-Dimensional Functions are based on the Parameter of Experience only.
> 2-Dimensional Functions are based on the Parameters of Experience and Norms.
> 3-Dimensional Functions are based on the Parameters of Experience, Norms, and Situation.
> 4-Dimensional Functions are based on the Parameters of Experience, Norms, Situation, and Time.


My question is: How does this applies to Ni for example? In everyday life, can you recognize Ni uses through these 4 parameters?
For example, "I'm aware of Ni using the parameter of Time when..."


----------



## Gromlin (Dec 5, 2012)

tantomoriremotutti said:


> I seem to talk to a wall... Ok, thanks for your opinion, have a good day. Bye!


Your are projecting; I addressed your points but you bypassed mine by implying I was stubborn, which of course doesn't disprove what I wrote.


----------



## tantomoriremotutti (May 7, 2014)

Gromlin said:


> Your are projecting; I addressed your points but you bypassed mine by implying I was stubborn, which of course doesn't disprove what I wrote.


No, I'm just bored. You're boring, this entire conversation is boring. 
It's like I was sitting next to you when you were writing... You have great Ni but you made a completely wrong reading about myself, that's what happen when you trust your intuitions too much... 
I didn't bypass anything, I just gave up because the communication isn't effective, I understand your arguments, but you don't understand mine and you continued to insist on your own speech, with circular logic on a wrong intuition, probably thinking that you're a great MBTI expert and logically consistent when you're just a sophist like all Ti users.

And just for the record, If I don't answer your last comment it's because you didn't argue your claims (also you didn't answer one of my last post's arguments).
You just said: "you have a misconception of Ni", "I can't see Ni in your post" "I'm this", "you're that"... Boring and biased. 

I told you I'm not an extrovert, you are stubborn because you don't listen to me, you trust your judgments and your intuitions more than you trust my introspection's ability to determine if I'm an introvert or not, and that's a little bit arrogant. 
I can't be an ExTJ, if I'm really mistyped then I'm an ISTJ. 

I told you that several times, hoping in an evolution of the conversation (and this is prospecting), to see you just pushing on your fixed points... It's a waste of time honey.


----------



## Gromlin (Dec 5, 2012)

tantomoriremotutti said:


> I told you I'm not an extrovert, you are stubborn because you don't listen to me, *you trust your judgments and your intuitions more than you trust my introspection's ability to determine if I'm an introvert or not, and that's a little bit arrogant.*
> I can't be an ExTJ, if I'm really mistyped then I'm an ISTJ.
> 
> I told you that several times, hoping in an evolution of the conversation (and this is prospecting), to see you just pushing on your fixed points... It's a waste of time honey.


You are projecting. Wouldn't you say that assuming you know more (ie. I'm an introvert because I know best) is a bit arrogant? Since when did self-judgement become an unquestionable authority on the self? Are you arrogant enough to believe that because you live inside your head that you automatically understand it more than someone else? I certainly don't think my self-knowledge necessarily tops that of another person, its why I look through personality theory.

Is recognizing a distinctive behavioural pattern that conforms to the definition of a personality type, and deciding the individual displaying noted pattern must be the type considered circular reasoning?



> And just for the record, If I don't answer your last comment it's because you didn't argue your claims (also you didn't answer one of my last post's arguments).
> You just said: "you have a misconception of Ni", "I can't see Ni in your post" "I'm this", "you're that"... Boring and biased.


I did answer it, and you seem to have left the words out (and added some) explaining why what you believed intuition was wasn't actually intuition but just basic reasoning.

People are biased by simply having an opinion, so you can stop employing it as if it were a magic wand capable of discrediting another's position. You need to point out a specific flaw in reasoning, and your repeated claims of circular reasoning don't do anything to discount phenomenon matching the definition of something. Your behaviour in this thread falls more in line with the Te type than the Ni type.

As an aside, you seem to be having a bit of trouble with inferior feeling considering ad hominem is a common affair.


----------



## tantomoriremotutti (May 7, 2014)

Gromlin said:


> You are projecting. Wouldn't you say that assuming you know more (ie. I'm an introvert because I know best) is a bit arrogant? Since when did self-judgement become an unquestionable authority on the self? Are you arrogant enough to believe that because you live inside your head that you automatically understand it more than someone else? I certainly don't think my self-knowledge necessarily tops that of another person, its why I look through personality theory.
> Is recognizing a distinctive behavioural pattern that conforms to the definition of a personality type, and deciding the individual displaying noted pattern must be the type considered circular reasoning?
> I did answer it, and you seem to have left the words out (and added some) explaining why what you believed intuition was wasn't actually intuition but just basic reasoning.
> People are biased by simply having an opinion, so you can stop employing it as if it were a magic wand capable of discrediting another's position. You need to point out a specific flaw in reasoning, and your repeated claims of circular reasoning don't do anything to discount phenomenon matching the definition of something. Your behaviour in this thread falls more in line with the Te type than the Ni type.
> As an aside, you seem to be having a bit of trouble with inferior feeling considering ad hominem is a common affair.


Ok, you're right I'm going to change my type to *ESTJ* yeeeeah!!!
And YES, assuming I know myself better than you do is VERY, VERY ARROGANT. I was such a stupid! How could I think that I know myself better than a stranger I just met on the internet?!? And this person is an INFJ too! This means he will know everyone deeply in detail! What a fool I had been! Shame on me!
I would never have figured my truly MBTI type out on my own, you're typing skills are incredible!
You're like the new Jung!!! I reeeeeally appreciate your help!












I suppose I was just influenced by this description of ILI-2Te or INTp-2Te:



http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=ILI_subtypes said:


> *Logical subtype INTp-Te*
> 
> *Description by V. Meged and A. Ovcharov*
> Appearance
> ...


Now that we solve the dilemma, pardon, that YOU solve it, goodbye my dear friend and go with God! I make you my best wishes!

P.S. 
I also want to thank you for making me understand the difference between someone that merely talking stupid nonsense and a real, totally, fu**ing, arrogant moron. 
Of course I am the moron. For not being able to understand such a truth and such deep Ni arguments.


----------



## tantomoriremotutti (May 7, 2014)

@Gromlin

You know what's funny? I mean, not actually funny since ESTJ have no sense of humor, but what's... Unbureaucraticly out of normality? (much better)

Now that I know that I'm ESTJ, when I look back to my biography I can see how I was the stereotypical ESTJ since I was a child.
I prefer not to talk about my personal life, but since I'm obviously an Extrovert I'll share my experiences (OMG this is Si) with pleasure.

Like all SJ I always loved scientific matters...

When I still was at nursery school, about 4-5 six years old I draw my first complete organic multisystem, after I read the anatomy book of my aunt who was a nurse. My teachers became suspicious, because of my skills and because, like all extrovert I always stood on my own, reading or drawing, and refused to play with other children, and they wanted my parents to test my IQ. 
I had some preliminary tests at Mensa and later I was certified with a 150 IQ on the Whelsher scale. The news was also published on a local newspaper.

Then my parents decided to indulge my inclinations so they bought me dozens of scientific books, at 10 years I had advanced skill in several sciences like biology, astronomy, paleontology and meteorology. I made some pretty paintings too, and even now I'm a good painter (Which function is this?). At 13 years I built my first working radio and at 15 I had a microscope a telescope and several chemicals in my room.

Then, when I had to go to high school, I went to study in a experimental school for gifted children with advanced math, physics and chemistry courses. Like all ESTJ I did love complex, abstract, theoretical works so when I was 18 I won a national bioethical competition thanks to a 200 pages philosophical script about abortion, stem cells and euthanasia. In the same period I started to study many different field like psychology, sociology, law, economy and policy, and I published a works in which I analyzed Alan Moore's Watchmen and compared his work with Levi Strauss's structuralist logic. 

When I was 16 I made a stage in my father's insurance agency, and during that period I developed on my own a software that speed the process of creation and delivery of quittances, and then I sold it to the company, thanks to that software the efficiency has improved by 70%.
It's so obvious I'm ESTJ! ESTJs always challenge the established rules, guidelines and procedures!
In the same period I won maths Olympics...

I'm very happy to be a gifted ESTJ, because it busts an MBTI myth and shows that even an SJ can easily supplant an NT when it comes to scientific matters, for example for all my life I had a incredible passion for chemistry and physics, it is so great and I was so skillful that when I was in high school they choose me, between more than five hundred gifted kids (in your face damn NT!), to represent my school at CERN, the particle accelerator in Geneva.
I was chosen thanks to a work I did about radium and nuclear waste, and Thomas E. Albrecht-Schmitt theory, proposing to neutralize them in the framework of the crystal structure of some minerals.

After I graduated my school helped me to publish a popular science book, where I explain in simple words some abstract concepts of astronomy (for example analogies between 2 dimensional and 4 dimensional existence; the form of the universe, I cheer the multidimensional-rotated on itself-donut team; the concept of time and the concept of qualia). Now I'm studying to become a Medic and I'm working on a new book where I analyze the works of the greatest philosophers in history, I hope I'll finish it within December. 

It's impressive how you can see the ESTJ attitude during my whole life, I was truly blind to think I was not! Me an Intuitive??? Tsk, absurd! And the tests were all wrong too! I did severals, all the ones I've found online and they typed me INTJ??? How inaccuracy!... I really don't know how to thank you for make me understand I'm ESTJ. 
But I'm sure you already knew all that stuff... You know myself better than I do!


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

tantomoriremotutti said:


> I spent the last week organizing a grilled charity to purchase a new ambulance.
> The grilled was last night and I was one of the cooks.
> 
> I made a friend of mine freak out because:
> ...


Doesn't mean anything. Seems unrelated to cognitive type. Anyone can approximate. 



> - I could know the the temperature of the grids just holding my hands above them with an approximation of 10-15 degrees (he checked with a laser thermometer).


Could superficially be related to sensing. 



> - I cut a single line of sausages in 200 pieces, everyone with a weight between 95 and 100 grams.


Doesn't mean anything though one could make a vague argument for Si. 



> - I guess the area of the room just looking at it.


Some form of judgement. 



> - I guess the length and the volume of every material we had and decided the disposition without measuring.


Judgement. 



> - I guess the ingredients (and the amount of the ingredients) of the marinade just smelling it.


Sensation with judgement. 



> - I could cook to perfection the meat without taste it, just looking at the color.


Sensation. Could perhaps be Si.



> - I made right and accurate forecast about different quantities, just in a visual way. For example I just looked the grid and I said that we need more charcoal and that we needed at least 100 litres, and in fact that was the exact amount we used. The same things happened with wines, meat and other stuff. I decide every single amount of stuff with an incredible precision.


Judgement, most likely thinking.



> I always do this kind of things, this time my friend told me he was tired of my forecasts, that he didn't believe me because I have no way to determining this kind of stuff and that he would have measure every one of them to check if I was right or wrong. When he saw I was always right he freaked out and told me it wasn't normal, especially because I have no past experience and this was the first time I cook on a grid.


/shrug Seems like your friend over-reacted. It's rational common sense to be able to tell these things. 



> So I started to thinking that the function that allows you to do that should be extraverted sensing (Se) with Introverted intuition (Ni). The *Ni-Se couple *then.


Not necessarily at all. 



> But then I thought that an INTJ should have a repressed Se, and that an ISTP with a Se aux. and a Ni ter. should be more skillful to do this kind of things with a *Se-Ni couple*.


Pretty sure you are neither. You seem like an Ne type of sorts. 



> What do you think? Is it normal for a type with repressed Se to do that?


This isn't really related to Se at all. 



> Maybe the repressed function is actually very developed but "repressed" only means you don't pay close attention to it and its informations?


Not really. It's very childish. The way you place so much prominence on the "mystical" aspect of your ability to "predict" seems to suggest very poor intuition on your end.


----------



## tantomoriremotutti (May 7, 2014)

Entropic said:


> tantomoriremotutti said:
> 
> 
> > I spent the last week organizing a grilled charity to purchase a new ambulance.
> ...


Actually socionics says that the function responsible of temporal perception is Ni.



Entropic said:


> tantomoriremotutti said:
> 
> 
> > - I could know the the temperature of the grids just holding my hands above them with an approximation of 10-15 degrees (he checked with a laser thermometer).
> ...


I agree. This is just Se in my opinion



Entropic said:


> tantomoriremotutti said:
> 
> 
> > - I cut a single line of sausages in 200 pieces, everyone with a weight between 95 and 100 grams.
> ...


No it doesn't indeed. I had to do similar portions, so I just wonder If I used Se (try to cut pieces equal heavy) or Te (try to cut pieces equal heavy looking at length). Maybe I just didn't had to write this one, it's not very indicative.



Entropic said:


> tantomoriremotutti said:
> 
> 
> > - I guess the area of the room just looking at it.
> ...


Yes, I thought Te. I just made calculus after I estimated it.



Entropic said:


> tantomoriremotutti said:
> 
> 
> > - I guess the length and the volume of every material we had and decided the disposition without measuring.
> ...


Same as above.



Entropic said:


> tantomoriremotutti said:
> 
> 
> > - I guess the ingredients (and the amount of the ingredients) of the marinade just smelling it.
> ...


I agree.



Entropic said:


> tantomoriremotutti said:
> 
> 
> > - I made right and accurate forecast about different quantities, just in a visual way. For example I just looked the grid and I said that we need more charcoal and that we needed at least 100 litres, and in fact that was the exact amount we used. The same things happened with wines, meat and other stuff. I decide every single amount of stuff with an incredible precision.
> ...


Not Si. I never cooked before. I suppose it's Se or maybe just luck.



Entropic said:


> tantomoriremotutti said:
> 
> 
> > - I made right and accurate forecast about different quantities, just in a visual way. For example I just looked the grid and I said that we need more charcoal and that we needed at least 100 litres, and in fact that was the exact amount we used. The same things happened with wines, meat and other stuff. I decide every single amount of stuff with an incredible precision.
> ...


I trust you, I actually don't know about this one.



Entropic said:


> tantomoriremotutti said:
> 
> 
> > I always do this kind of things, this time my friend told me he was tired of my forecasts, that he didn't believe me because I have no way to determining this kind of stuff and that he would have measure every one of them to check if I was right or wrong. When he saw I was always right he freaked out and told me it wasn't normal, especially because I have no past experience and this was the first time I cook on a grid.
> ...


I suppose he did.



Entropic said:


> tantomoriremotutti said:
> 
> 
> > So I started to thinking that the function that allows you to do that should be extraverted sensing (Se) with Introverted intuition (Ni). The Ni-Se couple then.
> ...


Ok.



Entropic said:


> tantomoriremotutti said:
> 
> 
> > But then I thought that an INTJ should have a repressed Se, and that an ISTP with a Se aux. and a Ni ter. should be more skillful to do this kind of things with a Se-Ni couple.
> ...


No. I don't have Ne nor in my Ego Block neither in the Super-ID block, Ne terribly bothers me, the most annoying person I've ever met was ENTP with his deadly Ne-Ti (please Ne and Ti users don't get offended).
I don't actually think I'm mistyped, anyway who really does? 
I have strong Te, and I'm aware of this, I don't respect Ti, and usually Ti users annoy me, I'm a perceptive inside and judgmental outside. Also I don't have any problem to change my mind after I gain new informations, I'm very open minded. So no Ti. 
I can feel my Fi operate in the shadows, anyway I don't have too many problem when it comes to interact with people and I easily go unoticed, I suppose I have basic Fe.
I'm 100% sure to be an introvert, there's absolutely no possibility I'm an extrovert, the only introvert type that has Ne too is ISTJ, but I don't fit the character and I don't understand Si.
I have a strong visual thought process, even when I speak words evoke weirds images, but I know that this doesn't discriminate Si from Ni.
ISTJ still is the second most likely type. If I'm not INTJ then I'm ISTJ, I'm pretty sure about that. 
I wasn't clear in the OP, I was wondering which functions are involved in this type of activity if you're an INTJ, and then I asked if an ISTP should be more good at this or not.

Just for curiosity, how do you think is Ne related to this? 



Entropic said:


> tantomoriremotutti said:
> 
> 
> > What do you think? Is it normal for a type with repressed Se to do that?
> ...


I partly disagree... How could something so strongly related to sensorial information not being extraverted sensing domain? You perfectly explain the activities which involves judgement, sensing and thinking, but I think that Se still has a certain relevance.



Entropic said:


> tantomoriremotutti said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe the repressed function is actually very developed but "repressed" only means you don't pay close attention to it and its informations?
> ...


Intuition? I thought it was Se not Ni. I never place prominence to the "mystical" aspect of my ability, I do the opposite, I asked why I'm good at these activities that (in my personal, biased, nwebie conception of MBTI) have nothing to do whit introverted intuition.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

tantomoriremotutti said:


> Actually socionics says that the function responsible of temporal perception is Ni.


But that's about predicting _future events_ e.g. I know this is going to happen in the future. 



> I agree. This is just Se in my opinion


Sensation != Se. I never suggested it was Se. 



> No it doesn't indeed. I had to do similar portions, so I just wonder If I used Se (try to cut pieces equal heavy) or Te (try to cut pieces equal heavy looking at length). Maybe I just didn't had to write this one, it's not very indicative.


I honestly don't think you understand how either works based on this...



> Yes, I thought Te. I just made calculus after I estimated it.


Te isn't about calculus. 



> Same as above.


Ditto. 



> Not Si. I never cooked before. I suppose it's Se or maybe just luck.


Si isn't all about past experience in that one must have performed something in order to understand how to do it. Someone adept at Si will be able to extrapolate Si experiences to other vastly different contexts just fine. 



> I trust you, I actually don't know about this one.


Good. 



> No. I don't have Ne nor in my Ego Block neither in the Super-ID block, Ne terribly bothers me, the most annoying person I've ever met was ENTP with his deadly Ne-Ti (please Ne and Ti users don't get offended).


Doesn't mean anything to me since I don't even know whether you typed this person correctly or not. 



> I don't actually think I'm mistyped, anyway who really does?


ESTJs have and value Ne.



> I have strong Te, and I'm aware of this, I don't respect Ti, and usually Ti users annoy me, I'm a perceptive inside and judgmental outside. Also I don't have any problem to change my mind after I gain new informations, I'm very open minded. So no Ti.


Ti has nothing to do with this. 



> I can feel my Fi operate in the shadows, anyway I don't have too many problem when it comes to interact with people and I easily go unoticed, I suppose I have basic Fe.


Feeling isn't about having social skills.



> I'm 100% sure to be an introvert, there's absolutely no possibility I'm an extrovert, the only introvert type that has Ne too is ISTJ, but I don't fit the character and I don't understand Si.


The real question is what you understand at all. 



> I have a strong visual thought process, even when I speak words evoke weirds images, but I know that this doesn't discriminate Si from Ni.


It doesn't say anything more than you being a visual thinker which is not type related.



> ISTJ still is the second most likely type. If I'm not INTJ then I'm ISTJ, I'm pretty sure about that.
> I wasn't clear in the OP, I was wondering which functions are involved in this type of activity if you're an INTJ, and then I asked if an ISTP should be more good at this or not.


What you wrote doesn't suggest much at all tbh. 



> Just for curiosity, how do you think is Ne related to this?


Because you don't seem to really think the way Ni does it, especially not INTJs. 



> I partly disagree... How could something so strongly related to sensorial information not being extraverted sensing domain? You perfectly explain the activities which involves judgement, sensing and thinking, but I think that Se still has a certain relevance.


Because sensation is not just Se. The fact that you think it does even though I just told you that I deemed that information irrelevant suggests Ne. In particular, I may wager +Ne so alpha quadra for you, something I've been hunching for some time now. 



> Intuition? I thought it was Se not Ni. I never place prominence to the "mystical" aspect of my ability, I do the opposite, I asked why I'm good at these activities that (in my personal, biased, nwebie conception of MBTI) have nothing to do whit introverted intuition.


Because the way you seem so flabbergasted over all this. You are making it seem like it's something odd or magical.

Addendum
I wonder if you're not some kind of xSFJ. I lean ESFJ.


----------



## tantomoriremotutti (May 7, 2014)

Entropic said:


> But that's about predicting _future events_ e.g. I know this is going to happen in the future.
> 
> *-"Ni is responsible for the estimation of the passage of time" from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socionics*
> 
> ...


You just said "it doesn't work like this, it doesn't work like that", "You don't understand the functions", probabably you'll tell me that tests aren't reliable, (don't look the type under the avatar I was typed several times as INTJ and ILI) basically you told me I was totally wrong on everything... I read all the materials I can find about MBTI, I respect your experience on this forum, probably you're one of the most expert user, but everything I told you and my conception of MBTI only depends on what I read on this forum, on what other users told me. The informations I reported were the same that other users wrote here.
Humans can be wrong, I accept that, but let me tell you that your comment wasn't very helpful.
You tell me how not to be wrong, but you don't tell me how to be right. I would like an hint about that, what informations are truly reliable and where to find them? If I was wrong it only can means that:

1- I can't understand other's people explamation (probably since I'm not english)
2- Other users have misconception about MBTI too, and communicate wrong or contracditory ideas

The conclusion is the same, my presence here is pointless if I want to learn about personality types, because I can't trust nor my understanding skills neither other's users preparation.

Finally is there a right way to be typed? I can't go to a professional consultat because the theory isn't famous where I live.
Obviously you'll say I'm not qualified to type myself, even if I recognize myself in the ILI description by 90%.
And I'm sorry but I, don't think that anyone of you, even the older members, is qualified to type me neither. I'm not saying that you haven't the necessary skills, I'm saying that you can't know me enough on here.

What do you know about my sensation when I look to a sunset? What do you know about my feelings? And what do you know about my philosophical vision? Do you know what makes me happy? What enthuse me? What I think when I read a math patterns or when I study a beutiful and complex metabolic pathway? What do you know about the thoughs, sensations or the feelings that music and art could inspire in myself?

What If you can't see my functions through the messages because I can't use the symbolic and metaphoric language I usually use when I speak in my native language? What about the fact that my writing style is very influenced by my restricted vocabulary?

How can I be sure that you're taking into account all the possible factors? I don't even know the people who are trying to type me!

So what to do, what's your advice? I am appealing to your enormous experience, what's the right move to do?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

tantomoriremotutti said:


> You just said "it doesn't work like this, it doesn't work like that", "You don't understand the functions", probabably you'll tell me that tests aren't reliable, (don't look the type under the avatar I was typed several times as INTJ and ILI) basically you told me I was totally wrong on everything...


Yes, tests are unreliable. You cannot go off test scores at all in order to find one's type as people rarely understand the dimensions being tested and/or lack self-awareness to understand how to pick accurately. 



> I read all the materials I can find about MBTI, I respect your experience on this forum, probably you're one of the most expert user, but everything I told you and my conception of MBTI only depends on what I read on this forum, on what other users told me. The informations I reported were the same that other users wrote here.


I haven't read much if any official material either. Most of what I know comes from this forum as well. 



> Humans can be wrong, I accept that, but let me tell you that your comment wasn't very helpful.


Your entire post is an ethical appeal, not based on logic. 



> You tell me how not to be wrong, but you don't tell me how to be right. I would like an hint about that, what informations are truly reliable and where to find them? If I was wrong it only can means that:


So in other words you suck at Te because you can't tell what information is useful or not, how to sift through it. It reinforces my opinion that I think I was right about your type. 



> 1- I can't understand other's people explamation (probably since I'm not english)
> 2- Other users have misconception about MBTI too, and communicate wrong or contracditory ideas


Sure, which just reinforces the idea that you shouldn't take me at face value either. 



> The conclusion is the same, my presence here is pointless if I want to learn about personality types, because I can't trust nor my understanding skills neither other's users preparation.


It's not pointless if you take the time to truly learn and understand. 



> Finally is there a right way to be typed?


Yes. I think labels correspond to certain ideas or concepts that they represent. It's akin to seeing a picture of a bicycle and someone tells you that's a car. It's all about accuracy, that the label properly reflects the object in question.



> I can't go to a professional consultat because the theory isn't famous where I live.


Professional consults suck too because they too are human, as you just said yourself. Why should you trust their opinion just because they are professional consultants? You shouldn't. 



> Obviously you'll say I'm not qualified to type myself, even if I recognize myself in the ILI description by 90%.


Relating to descriptions doesn't mean that you're that type. I actually don't relate much to most of the type descriptions but I know I'm an ILI because that's what the model predicts I should be. Hence, study and learn the model, not going off descriptions. 



> And I'm sorry but I, don't think that anyone of you, even the older members, is qualified to type me neither. I'm not saying that you haven't the necessary skills, I'm saying that you can't know me enough on here.


You asked for input about your type by asking what functions you used which means that you also invite people to comment on your type since whatever functions you use will be reflective of your type. While it may not be a type me thread it is pretty unavoidable to not comment on your type since you are the OP and you invited others to offer input about it. 



> What do you know about my sensation when I look to a sunset?


By looking at what kind of data you are extrapolating from it. Looking at a sunset doesn't have to relate to sensation either, but can be intuition or judgement. 



> What do you know about my feelings?


Feelings != feeling function. 



> And what do you know about my philosophical vision?


Irrelevant. I don't need to know anything about what you philosophically value or not. 



> Do you know what makes me happy?


Again irrelevant.



> What enthuse me?


Irrelevant.



> What I think when I read a math patterns or when I study a beutiful and complex metabolic pathway?


Plausibly relevant depending on what kind of information it is that you abstract from it. 



> What do you know about the thoughs, sensations or the feelings that music and art could inspire in myself?


I think I know quite a fair bit given that I'm a huge fan of music, used to be a musician myself still occasionally sing and write poetry. So while I'm not you and I can't speak for your experiences, I definitely know my experiences. 



> What If you can't see my functions through the messages because I can't use the symbolic and metaphoric language I usually use when I speak in my native language?


Because I don't get hung up on the words that are being used as much as study about what seems to underlie the reasons why you chose those particular words and how it lends itself to shape your overall worldview of things. English isn't my native language either. 



> What about the fact that my writing style is very influenced by my restricted vocabulary?


It's a fair point though you don't seem to be _that_ bad at English, now. You seem to be able to express yourself just fine for most of the part. 



> How can I be sure that you're taking into account all the possible factors? I don't even know the people who are trying to type me!


Why should I even take into account all possible factors when typing you? I consider the factors that are relevant. 



> So what to do, what's your advice? I am appealing to your enormous experience, what's the right move to do?


I can't answer that question because I'm not you. I merely offered input. What else you want beyond that is not something I can offer because I don't know what you are asking for.


----------



## Gromlin (Dec 5, 2012)

tantomoriremotutti said:


> @_Gromlin_
> 
> You know what's funny? I mean, not actually funny since ESTJ have no sense of humor, but what's... Unbureaucraticly out of normality? (much better)


I don't think your straw men are funny because they reveal your prejudice against other types. You keep resorting to humour to distance yourself from any possibility of an amicable discussion.

You keep resorting to credentials and factual information as if they were capable of deciding something that actually requires rhetoric and intuition to understand. If you want something measurable then ignore the function attitudes and take a good dichotomy test, which should give you something more tangible.


----------



## Gromlin (Dec 5, 2012)

Entropic said:


> So in other words you suck at Te because you can't tell what information is useful or not, how to sift through it. It reinforces my opinion that I think I was right about your type.


Good point, I think you are right. I assumed tantomoriremotutti would be an ETxJ because of the constant referral to facts and wonky feeling, but Fe makes more sense in retrospect. Listing credentials (IQ, competence) might just be Fe trying to appeal to what might tie this individual to a specific group as a paragon.


----------



## tantomoriremotutti (May 7, 2014)

Entropic said:


> Yes, tests are unreliable. You cannot go off test scores at all in order to find one's type as people rarely understand the dimensions being tested and/or lack self-awareness to understand how to pick accurately.


I completely agree. That's why after I did several test I studied the functions.



Entropic said:


> I haven't read much if any official material either. Most of what I know comes from this forum as well.


Oh, that's unexpected.



Entropic said:


> Your entire post is an ethical appeal, not based on logic.


Just because I said it wasn't helpful? Don't you think this argument is a little fragile? I didn't mean that you were not helpful, I just meant that you would help me more indicating the right way, rather than pull me away from wrong paths. 
I saw that many users tend to focus on single words or phrases to justify the utilization of one functions or one attitude like F/T. It was just a common expression it doesn't mean I'm an F type! :laughing:
Also I meant "useful" not "helpful" I just confused the words because in Italian "helpful" has not an moral connotation, it's a synonymous of "useful". 



Entropic said:


> So in other words you suck at Te because you can't tell what information is useful or not, how to sift through it. It reinforces my opinion that I think I was right about your type.


That's another weak argument. Many users said I have a very strong Te because when I argue I always use factual information. I'm not saying that someone who can't tell what information is useful or not will probably sucks at Te, I'm saying that you focus on a single phrases on an entire conversation to say something with lots of implications.
Use your Ni! Try to conciliate all the contradictory parts, look at the big picture, In my opinion you must have an overview if you want type someone! Arguments like "You're this type, because here you wrote this, you're F because you use this word" are very poor! roud:



Entropic said:


> Sure, which just reinforces the idea that you shouldn't take me at face value either.


I really appreciate your intellectual honesty, you're the first member to say something like that. This is exactly what I meant, and this is the reason why I don't trust people who say "you're this type".



Entropic said:


> It's not pointless if you take the time to truly learn and understand.


I truly want it, but I find it very difficult... 



Entropic said:


> Yes. I think labels correspond to certain ideas or concepts that they represent. It's akin to seeing a picture of a bicycle and someone tells you that's a car. It's all about accuracy, that the label properly reflects the object in question.


I'll try to remember that.



Entropic said:


> Professional consults suck too because they too are human, as you just said yourself. Why should you trust their opinion just because they are professional consultants? You shouldn't.


It's a thing of mine. I usually trust myself above anyone else, but If I have to decide who to trust between a common internet user and a someone who received an adequate education about MBTI and work with this theory everyday, I would value more expertise and objective knowledge.



Entropic said:


> Relating to descriptions doesn't mean that you're that type. I actually don't relate much to most of the type descriptions but I know I'm an ILI because that's what the model predicts I should be. Hence, study and learn the model, not going off descriptions.


Of course. I studied the descriptions and the functions, I'm not that sure of what are you talking about when you say "study the model" but I'm now approaching socioncis. 
Personally I know I'm Ni dom. for a whole series of reasons, and I'm even more sure I have Te. Even before MBTI I had great introspection capacity, I know myself better than anyone else. The point is, I'm not going to realize myself through my MBTI type, I won't build my self-esteem on a theory that I personally consider incomplete, I'm a successful person, I realized lots of things and claim I'm one type or another won't change anything. The main reason I started to study MBTI was to acquire a method to determine people personality and eventually exploit the knowledge gained in my favor.



Entropic said:


> You asked for input about your type by asking what functions you used which means that you also invite people to comment on your type since whatever functions you use will be reflective of your type. While it may not be a type me thread it is pretty unavoidable to not comment on your type since you are the OP and you invited others to offer input about it.


Yes, this is just flawless. I'm sorry, I will pay more attention in future.



Entropic said:


> By looking at what kind of data you are extrapolating from it. Looking at a sunset doesn't have to relate to sensation either, but can be intuition or judgement.


Oh, that's interesting. I would probably starting to think scientific stuff like how the simplest of the particles, which is also a wave, can allow the life on earth and probably I would reconstruct the history of life on earth, then I would pass on the "Is there life out there?" tangent, to lose myself into how weird is the fact that a determined arrangement of atoms can create a consciousness, that is finally, a part of the own universe who understand that it be and next start to study the universe itself. AKA mindfuck



Entropic said:


> Feelings != feeling function.


Do you really think that just because I'm INTJ I can't have feelings? Do you really think that I would not appreciate a kiss from my beloved? Please... 



Entropic said:


> Irrelevant. I don't need to know anything about what you philosophically value or not.


I wouldn't say that given that the philosophical vision, our own interpretation of the word, depends on our dominant function.
Function 1 – leading, program, primary, base, or dominant function. This is the strongest conscious function, and the most utilized function of the psyche. *A person's outlook and role in life is largely determined by the nature of this function*.



Entropic said:


> Again irrelevant.


Oh yes? What about the 5th function? According to Bukalov "Discussing aspects of this function makes person happy and trustful. (That's why it's called suggestive.)"



Entropic said:


> Irrelevant.


What does enthuse you?
Person A: I LIKE TO PARTY!!!
Person B: I like to read books, mostly...
Is this irrelevant?



Entropic said:


> Plausibly relevant depending on what kind of information it is that you abstract from it.


I gave you an example of what kind of information I abstract from it. I think what you told here is precious, I want to deepen this topic about recognize the functions from informations.



Entropic said:


> I think I know quite a fair bit given that I'm a huge fan of music, used to be a musician myself still occasionally sing and write poetry. So while I'm not you and I can't speak for your experiences, I definitely know my experiences.


Perfect. You see? You write poetry and sing! It doesn't mean you're an F type, we're all human after all, and music (and feelings :mellow is part of human experience. Even this is a precious information if you want to type someone. INTJs are one of the fourth type more inclined to play an instrument. What do you play? roud: I play the piano and I would like to learn to play the violin...



Entropic said:


> Because I don't get hung up on the words that are being used as much as study about what seems to underlie the reasons why you chose those particular words and how it lends itself to shape your overall worldview of things. English isn't my native language either.


Oh you write quite well. If I can give you an advice, Ni dom. will try to evoke images, hidden meanings from their words, Ne types will probably use a cryptic style just for the beauty of the words and will explain what they meant later, but INxJ choose very carefully the words they use. You do good if you try to catch the reason behind that choice, but try to perceive the effect, the vision that all those words together will communicate, try to analyze the whole thing, not only the single words.



Entropic said:


> It's a fair point though you don't seem to be _that_ bad at English, now. You seem to be able to express yourself just fine for most of the part.


I'm one of the worst Italian grammar Nazi, I'm very happy to hear that thank you! I try to express myself properly, but I just can express through the literal meaning, I can't catch all the shades and all the little variations that would probably make my Ni more evident. I can see Ni through certain INxJ messages, it's pretty evident, you almost can perceive that they're talking more with their mind than whit you, and I'm aware of the fact that I'm limited. 
I'll consider this effort an exercise to improve my english! 



Entropic said:


> Why should I even take into account all possible factors when typing you? I consider the factors that are relevant.


That's absolutely legit.
I personally have a different opinion. I don't know if this is related to my type, but when I saw someone who tries to type someone else on PerC I think to an irregular solid (the person to type) intersecting a plane. Let's pretend you're the typer and you're just a two-dimensional figure. What will you see on the plane? Sometimes you see a triangle, sometimes you see a circle, sometimes you see a square... You're here observing, and all your observation are right, even if they're contradictory, but you're only judging the individual parts, you can't see the tridimensional figure in its entirety because you, as a two-dimensional figure, just can't look toward the *depth* axis, so his true form will appear incomprehensible to your eyes and to your mind.
I've been on here for months and I saw only one or two person on this site trying to type someone through a perception of the whole, without dwell on individual details. 



Entropic said:


> I can't answer that question because I'm not you. I merely offered input. What else you want beyond that is not something I can offer because I don't know what you are asking for.


As I said, I really appreciate intellectual honesty... roud:


----------



## tantomoriremotutti (May 7, 2014)

Gromlin said:


> Good point, I think you are right. I assumed tantomoriremotutti would be an ETxJ because of the constant referral to facts and wonky feeling, but Fe makes more sense in retrospect. Listing credentials (IQ, competence) might just be Fe trying to appeal to what might tie this individual to a specific group as a paragon.


Wait a second, that means I have to change my type to ESFJ?
Listen, there's a better way to do this, send me a message every time you change your mind so I can adapt the type ok?

And if you need moral support, you know where to find your favorite* caregivers*!


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

tantomoriremotutti said:


> I completely agree. That's why after I did several test I studied the functions.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't do that. I looked at how you constructed your post as a whole. You are making ethical appeals. Not really arguing me based on impersonal logic. 



> That's another weak argument. Many users said I have a very strong Te because when I argue I always use factual information.


Facts != Te. 

Utilizing facts != strong Te. 



> I'm not saying that someone who can't tell what information is useful or not will probably sucks at Te, I'm saying that you focus on a single phrases on an entire conversation to say something with lots of implications.


Because even an empty page can carry lots of meaning. 



> Use your Ni! Try to conciliate all the contradictory parts, look at the big picture, In my opinion you must have an overview if you want type someone! Arguments like "You're this type, because here you wrote this, you're F because you use this word" are very poor! roud:


What other kind of argument would you expect? That's the only way to justify a type. It must be linked back to the theory in some way. You said X so therefore most likely Y. If you can't justify it by backing up what you said then it doesn't mean much. It's a way to create evidence to strengthen one's claims. 



> I really appreciate your intellectual honesty, you're the first member to say something like that. This is exactly what I meant, and this is the reason why I don't trust people who say "you're this type".





> I truly want it, but I find it very difficult...


Why? The model isn't that complicated tbh. 



> I'll try to remember that.





> It's a thing of mine. I usually trust myself above anyone else, but If I have to decide who to trust between a common internet user and a someone who received an adequate education about MBTI and work with this theory everyday, I would value more expertise and knowledge.


What makes you think that just because they are professional they somehow carry more expertise? 



> Of course. I studied the descriptions and the functions, I'm not that sure of what are you talking about when you say "study the model" but I'm not approaching socioncis.


Any theory is built around a model that predicts how things should be like. 



> Personally I know I'm Ni dom. for a whole series of reasons, and I'm even more sure I have Te. Even before MBTI I had great introspection capacity, I know myself better than anyone else. The point is, I'm not going to realize myself through my MBTI type, I won't built my self-esteem on a theory that I personally consider incomplete, I'm a successful person, I realized lots of things and claim I'm one type or another won't change anything. The main reason I started to study MBTI was to acquire a method to determine people personality and eventually exploit the knowledge gained in my favor.


Fair, though I think a lot of people often think they are more self-aware than they actually are. 



> Yes, this is just flawless. I'm sorry, I will pay more attention in future.





> Oh, that's interesting. I would probably starting to think scientific stuff like how the simplest of the particles, which is also a wave, can allow the life on earth and probably I would reconstruct the history of life on earth, then I would pass on the "Is there life out there?" tangent, to lose myself into how weird is the fact that a determined arrangement of atoms can create a consciousness, that is finally, a part of the own universe who understand that it be and next start to study the universe itself. AKA mindfuck


Honestly seems Ne, especially how you make the odd leap of "is there life out there?". 



> Do you really think that just because I'm INTJ I can't have feelings? Do you really think that I would not appreciate a kiss from my beloved? Please...


That's not what I said. What I said is that experiencing feelings does not equal being a feeling type. All types possess feelings and are capable to feel. That's human. 



> I wouldn't say that given that the philosophical vision, our own interpretation of the word, depends on our dominant function.


Correct but philosophy is not necessarily going to reveal this as people can harbor a wide variety of philosophical ideas for an equal wide variety of reasons. A lot of NTs are for example strongly supportive of empiricism even though empiricism as a philosophy is more ST than NT. 



> Oh yes? What about the 5th function? According to Bukalov "Discussing aspects of this function makes person happy and trustful. (That's why it's called suggestive.)"


What? 



> What does enthuse you?
> Person A: I LIKE TO PARTY!!!
> Person B: I like to read books, mostly...
> Is this irrelevant?


Yes because liking to party or liking to read books does not reveal cognition. They are just human things. 



> I gave you an example of what kind of information I abstract from it. I think what you told here is precious, I want to deepen this topic about recognize the functions from informations.


?



> Perfect. You see? You write poetry and sing! It doesn't mean you're an F type, we're all human after all, and music is part of human experience. Even this is a precious information if you want to type someone. INTJs are one of the fourth type more inclined to play an instrument? What do you play? roud: I play the piano and I would like to learn to play the violin...


Which is why I wrote that interests do not necessarily reveal cognition much. 



> Oh you write quite well. If I can give you an advice, Ni dom. will try to evoke images, hidden meanings from their words, Ne types will probably use a cryptic style just for the beauty of the words and will explain what they meant later, but INxJ choose very carefully the words they use. You do good if you try to catch the reason behind that choice, but try to perceive the effect, the vision that all those words together will communicate, try to analyze the whole thing, not only the single words.


????



> I'm one of the worst Italian grammar Nazi, I'm very happy to hear that thank you! I try to express myself properly, but I just can express through the literal meaning, I can't catch all the shades and all the little variations that would probably make my Ni more evident. I can see Ni through certain INxJ messages, it's pretty evident, you almost can perceive that they're talking more with their mind than whit you, and I'm aware of the fact that I'm limited.
> I'll consider this effort an exercise to improve my english!


What does this mean even... I don't think one must be very nuanced necessarily though of course being native can help. 



> That's absolutely legit.
> I personally have a different opinion. I don't know if this is related to my type, but when I saw someone who tries to type someone else on PerC I think to an irregular solid (the person to type) intersecting a plane. Let's pretend you're the typer and you're just a two-dimensional figure. What will you see on the plane? Sometimes you see a triangle, sometimes you see a circle, sometimes you see a square... You're here observing, and all your observation are right, but you're only judging the individual parts, you can't see the tridimensional figure in its entirety because you, as a two-dimensional figure, just can't look at the depth axis.
> I saw only a person on this site trying to type someone through a perception of the whole, without dwell on individual details.


I can't even make sense of this. 



> As I said, I really appreciate intellectual honesty... roud:


It has nothing to do with intellectual honesty.


----------



## tantomoriremotutti (May 7, 2014)

Entropic said:


> Facts != Te.
> 
> Utilizing facts != strong Te.


Logical subtype INTp-Te:
"Possesses organizational skills. Tries to be able in his affairs and knowledgeable over a variety of issues. Appreciative of quality work and high qualifications. Has an interest in laws and regulations, collects necessary and interesting information. *It's hard to reconvince him in an argument because he often proves his point of view supplying factual information*. Sufficiently stubborn, does not yield to direct pressure."




Entropic said:


> - What other kind of argument would you expect? That's the only way to justify a type. It must be linked back to the theory in some way. You said X so therefore most likely Y. If you can't justify it by backing up what you said then it doesn't mean much. It's a way to create evidence to strengthen one's claims.
> 
> - Honestly seems Ne, especially how you make the odd leap of "is there life out there?".
> 
> ...


Ah! Now I'm the one who think that you have no idea of what Ni is! That's why I rarely use Ni arguments and prefer Te instead.
Anyway, thanks for the conversation! I have to sleep now!
Put yourself in agreement with @Gromlin then let me know which type I have to put under my nickname! You're the MBTI expert right?

Bye bye! :happy:


----------



## Wolls (Oct 9, 2012)

For your consideration, 3 thoughts. [ I tried to edit this into something resembling one coherent thought.. ]

1~ I guess, and I hope this helps.. but Si v Ni [ WTF] .. Si will take 'Thumbnails' like an overall impression of an event rather than a straight recording of the details.. the details are there but you have to re-live them.. and even then the details are after the fact. Like you open or click a thumbnail image and find ur way to the detailed/full image after the impression. Si provides the path. But in the impression or the very thumbnail Si leaves, is very biased.. which makes it malleable. It wants to be self full-filling and absolute and is also biased but it serves as a function without defining that function. Like as your described reverse engineering, but in the middle. One Answer - This Answer - Question. It's prospective based, answering or remembering one without actually a limiting of the whole.. its one memory one top of and while another exists .. chained to perspective bias.. it almost answers questions without actually ever questioning. Just noticing something attaches meaning. But unthinking, it is, rather than a logical explanation of why.

Si and Se both experience and Si like Ni focuses on the 'meaning' ?? Take the phrase "arguing towards an end," for me the end is 'a part of something' just not as an actuality but as an impression.

2~ At some point I am no longer argueing type function as much as the function as used. As such and personally even though I am using image terms.. for me Si is a feeling, powerful yet vague in the sense that I can list examples of how I feel or how I felt then but there is no definitive image for.. say.. happiness. Its not really dependent on a 'final' image, even when I'm using flash type thumbnails to maneuver. I take a long time in getting to the details and that no doubt plays a part in how i perceive a function as working or properly my imagined concept of how it works. Also half the time I will fall into rationale, or I think versus I feel, or just explain it that way. 

3~ Or if you prefer, like Sherlock Holmes. To me its indicative of.. I fully recognize that every object and experience has a deeper meaning but I stop there. There is no end for me, or at least it would be arguing towards a middle point and personally able to go no further. Si shows everything to have a meaning, is absolute in that meaning, but has no interest in defining a concept towards an conclusion. It self concludes but like a feeling. When I apply logic to it, I see the path I took... but like a feeling I can't say its wrong. At that point: what I think is what I feel.


So if you gave me a clock I would without looking at it adjust to it. The first time I am asked the time,, no clue.. after... So even if you put me in the middle of no particular where and asked me to gauge or judge the time based off of the sun's position.. by that specific logic and contained within that specific logic I wouldn't know, BUT if I let myself not think.. or try to explain or ever really force myself to justify on those terms... I would be close. If I am within 10 minutes I will hang my hat and call it a day. Also super quick once I know where to go or what is desired, I'm there yesterday. As a starting position. At the same time, I will look at a clock 5 times in an hour or 5 minutes after I looked at it, whats the time? Checks.. forgets... I remember looking at it, remember why I thought I should need to look at the time and why I explore or trust.. and if I just let it be: I know the approx time.

Cutting sausage.. I would know when I failed. Cut one time, every cut more or every cut less is different. No thought. No measurement. For me its a thought: Like I'm not really paying attention or trying here, so I fail. It is not just what is, but in use becomes what isn't. Highlights the difference. Doing something once is a past experience. Also lol, I wanna know. Like how a person moves, I want to know what muscles they are using to move and how they complete an action. It is far easier to notice others than to reinterpret my own movements, like if I could run my hands over and note all the interplay of how / the way / muscles in the stance and movement... lol all of a sudden cutting sausage got X rated.

____
As a closing and for future use: A Beginners' Guide to Internet Trolling

1~ I loved post #68 but next time just Rickroll. 

2~ Also as an ethical appeal, do notice I did not break down your sentences into an easily demonstratively and construable offensive cliff where the cart may literally well lead the horse. Do notice I did so without an actual attempt at logic, or any facts what so ever. I shall also pretend to delete and steadfastly refuse to respond to this thread in which I have had no comment... unless u love me.

3~ You have something to say, say it. Yes, I, and others may not understand. The 1 line break 1 line break 1 line break is no more comprehensive or informative than a link to a dancing dude. This guy isn't questioning judgement nearly as much as he's asking for it and seeking to just talk. Throw the guy a paragraph or two. Think of the babies.


----------

