# Help me separate S and N properly



## ukinfj (Apr 15, 2011)

What I know is that the difference is nothing to do with how imaginative you are, how creative you are, how easily you grasp abstract theory or how clever you are.

Most of the S types I know fit these descriptions, which is why S and N was confusing at first.

Would it be fair to describe this as a state of being? Ns live primarily in thought, Ss live primarily in the world? both live in both places but Ns are essentially in a world of their own creation and Ss are....erm, possibly just a little more capable in real life? Ns may be more likely to be the visionaries but Ss are more likely to actually do something with the vision. 

Is that too abstract? 

Can I ask Ni-doms - even if you have the plan and you know how it should work, would you really rather it if someone else did the practical bit? Do you kind of hope someone else will pick up that ball since you've already completed it in your mind anyway and taking the idea and doing something with it just seems like having to do it again but now where people can see it? - I don't like doing things twice! For instance, once you've worked out the answer to the question does actually writing the essay seem like the most arduous chore? It's having to do the same thing twice - you've already finished (in your mind). This might just be me but I wanted to check as it does fit an extrapolation of the functions.

Would it be fair to say that Ni-doms can appear "absent" to other people, except when they make the effort to engage with the world? There's a reason I'm asking this but I'm feeling slightly iffy on my own theories in this territory.


----------



## bobdaduck (Apr 24, 2010)

I'm pretty much fine with doing things twice, unless I'm having to explain them twice because they weren't listening.

I'ma just lump everything together into a stereotype and say that N's focus on patterns and S's focus on facts.


----------



## funcoolname (Sep 17, 2011)

S is focused in here and now and the details, and what works day to day, N is focused on what could be and the big picture and what could work, patterns and abstract meaning, how patterns create an abstract meaning. It's not so much "grasping a theory", but what terms you are likely to naturally think of something in or interpret a situation. I had an S friend who was very creative, but there wasn't rreally "meaning" behind her creativity. She was a great artist and her innate ability to use color was impressive, but her art didn't really say much about the world, there wasn't really a way of interpreting her work - it just looked really cool. Ns were more likely to be saying something in their work. No one is 100% of either, there are just degrees. I know people of both types who have difficulty living in the real world. Especially as you get older I think your N and S even out more.


----------



## Eleventeenth (Aug 24, 2011)

ukinfj said:


> What I know is that the difference is nothing to do with how imaginative you are, how creative you are, *how easily you grasp abstract theory* or how clever you are.


Out of curiosity, what makes you say this (the bolded part)? 

N's sort of live in the abstract. S's sort of live in the concrete. This is not an absolute, all-or-nothing statement. As someone in this thread already suggested, it is not black and white. We all use all 8 cognitive functions, but to varying degrees. Those with N near the top of the list tend to be enthralled by abstract thinking and abstract concepts. Those with N near the bottom of the list tend to not be as interested in it at all. As my ISTJ friend says, "I hate all your stupid 'theory stuff'. All I care about is what actually matters in every day life.'"

I tend to agree with the quotes below:



bobdaduck said:


> I'ma just lump everything together into a stereotype and say that N's focus on patterns and S's focus on facts.





funcoolname said:


> S is focused in here and now and the details, and what works day to day, *N is focused on what could be and the big picture and what could work,* *patterns and abstract meaning, how patterns create an abstract meaning*. It's not so much "grasping a theory", but what terms you are likely to naturally think of something in or interpret a situation. I had an S friend who was very creative, but there wasn't rreally "meaning" behind her creativity. She was a great artist and her innate ability to use color was impressive, but her art didn't really say much about the world, there wasn't really a way of interpreting her work - it just looked really cool. Ns were more likely to be saying something in their work. *No one is 100% of either, there are just degrees.* I know people of both types who have difficulty living in the real world. Especially as you get older I think your N and S even out more.


----------



## ukinfj (Apr 15, 2011)

Eleventeenth said:


> Out of curiosity, what makes you say this (the bolded part)?


Everybody I know can grasp abstract theory bar a couple. The difference is that they don' sit around think about it, but when we were at university they could grasp it pretty much ss well as I could.


----------



## Eleventeenth (Aug 24, 2011)

ukinfj said:


> Everybody I know can grasp abstract theory bar a couple. The difference is that they don' sit around think about it, but when we were at university they could grasp it pretty much ss well as I could.


The difference is that people who lean highly toward the intuitive side prefer the abstract and are often oriented toward the future. They have a preference for it. While people who lean highly toward the sensor side prefer practicality, facts, the present moment, the concrete world. They do not prefer the abstract. So, while everyone may be able to "grasp" abstract theory, almost every single sensor that I know wants almost nothing to do with it. It's almost to a point that they hate it. Whereas, a lot of the intuitives I know love it.


----------



## ukinfj (Apr 15, 2011)

Eleventeenth said:


> The difference is that people who lean highly toward the intuitive side prefer the abstract and are often oriented toward the future. They have a preference for it. While people who lean highly toward the sensor side prefer practicality, facts, the present moment, the concrete world. They do not prefer the abstract. So, while everyone may be able to "grasp" abstract theory, almost every single sensor that I know wants almost nothing to do with it. It's almost to a point that they hate it. Whereas, a lot of the intuitives I know love it.


Ah, see this hasn't been my experience of people. I was on a heavily theory based course at university but the people on there with me were mostly not intuitives, I don't think. They would do the theory for the course (I don't think any of us realised how theory based it would be - film studies, turns out it's pretty much all theory, which is good for me!) The difference seemed to me to be that I went home and thought about it for hours and they put it aside as soon as they didn't need to think about it. Equally, my boyfriend can sit in a pub and talk about physics for three hours straight, but I'm fairly certain he's an S type. Lives *totally* in the moment and is interested in 1) physics 2) computers 3) driving as fast he can. 

Part of the reason why I was asking this question is because it seems to me it's really quite vague. I can either assume that the vast majority of people I know are quasi-N types or I can assume most of them are S types (more likely). The most confusing one is a friend who seems extremely ISFJ to me, function wise - but then she's a member of several activist groups, does peaceful protests, is a writer, understands abstract theory very well (less interested in it than me, admittedly) and is very political. We both test as INFJ but we're very different and I see a lot of Si in her. She doesn't tend to look to the future as much as me, but then she does want change in certain things, but it tends to depend on who she's hanging around with  But to read most of the descriptions of intuitive types, you'd think she was an "N". But she's definitely a feeling type who seems very Fe, and....well basically she' just not an INFP. She's just really not! But I don't see any Ni in her.

So this is where it gets confusing, do you see what I mean? I'm not sure the theory works sometimes when you actually go out there and have to decide...so, is this person a sensor or an intuitive? They're kind of both....they're living in the moment right now but a year ago they were definitely future orientated and they seemed to like talking about theory when we were at uni but now they don't really think about it anymore and don't seem to be that interested, they kind of seem to be humouring me a bit now....

Does this make sense? I think we either need to bring the cognitive functions down to vague preferences and states of being WITHOUT any details, so people just lean one way or another, or we need to start thinking about borders. I've spent a long time thinking about it and trying to type myself as well, but even then I'm really having to push myself into a type here, I think. Nothing fits better than the INFJ cognitive function wise, but the descriptions of the INFJ (or the idea of what they are supposed to be) really doesn't suit me. Maybe it is just these stereotypes that are making S and N difficult to choose between?

Sorry to ramble a bit more but:
ISFJ friend: Changing the world bit by bit by engaging in protest organisations (or at least since she started working for a union and suddenly became interested....) Doesn't really seem to think about things the way I do, like abstractedly I guess, doesn't like just sitting in theory or in her head, much more of a doer than me and doesn't seem to come up with her own ideas sometimes - she can seem to be just repeating what someone else has said - though she is a very good writer. I note that everything she writes is semi-autobiograhpical. She's very good at it but I can't think of anything more boring that real life, which is why I can't write about it! Is fine with routine and living in the moment so long as she's socialising (note: definitely an introvert but makes lots of friends) - only needs friends in a job to make her happy.

ME: Not interested in changing the world through protests etc through am an armchair pundit - arguably more so than her and generally tend to be slightly more individualistic in my thinking (sorry if that seems like a boast - I mean I tend to know what I think regardless of what crowd I'm in). Naturally oriented toward the future, become anxious or depressed if I can't look forward to constant progression. Very easily bored with routine, but easily stressed by open-endedness - I want constantly changing certainty, like a string of projects with a definite end (part of the reason I don't do protesting and such - it's hard to see the end of it and it's not rewarding until I've finished it). Need intellectual stimulation more than friends in a job to make me happy. Cannot stand boredom and routine. (but equally cannot stand not having a strong direction in life and a good plan of what I'm going to do) - as if I'm somewhere between your stereotype P and your stereotype J.

So...I think we're very different and like I say I see Si in her, but I don't think what I described is necessarily how others would see an ISFJ. Does that seem right what I'm saying?

Sorry for the ramble, I just think we should get right down to the core of what the difference is, because I think it's become too much of a dichotomy. I think most people are not either I like abstract theory or I don't like abstract theory, I like living in the moment or I prefer livng in the future, I like change or I like things to stay the same......most people really are somewhere in-between a lot of these dichotomies so I want to look at the absolute bottom of this but I find that a little hard with the S and N.


----------



## Spades (Aug 31, 2011)

I think you're onto something. A *lot* of S's mistype as N's when they do tests because they have questions like "do you enjoy theory?" to which an SJ might say yes, because they enjoy learning theoretical concepts (e.g. the shorter the wavelength, the higher the frequency), which are actually data and facts (Si). I have a friend who claims he is INTJ, but I think he is ISTJ. When he talks about ideas, he 95% of the time references videos/people/articles, rather than coming up with the idea purely intuitively.

On the flip-side, I get really bored talking about what I've seen, heard, or read and prefer discussing ideas stemming from my mind, even if they're wrong.

Also, to answer your question, I rarely ever materialize my ideas, even if I plan them out extensively in my mind. I'd rather get minions to do it


----------



## Eleventeenth (Aug 24, 2011)

ukinfj said:


> The most confusing one is a friend who seems extremely ISFJ to me, function wise - *but then she's a member of several activist groups, does peaceful protests, is a writer,* understands abstract theory very well (less interested in it than me, admittedly) and is very political.


The things in bold do not seem like "intuitive activities" necessarily. I'm not sure why these activities are being tied to intuitives. Sensors can be in activist groups, they can do peaceful protests, and they can write. What does she write _*about*_? Is her writing idealistic, future oriented, "what if", abstract, etc, or is it about her practical experiences in the world or how to do things, etc. I have a good ISFJ friend who loves to write movie reviews. She goes and sees every movie that comes out and then she writes detailed reviews - and does it really well. That's not abstract. That's concrete - writing a description/summary of a movie she saw.



> So this is where it gets confusing, do you see what I mean? I'm not sure the theory works sometimes when you actually go out there and have to decide...so, is this person a sensor or an intuitive? They're kind of both....they're living in the moment right now but a year ago they were definitely future orientated and they seemed to like talking about theory when we were at uni but now they don't really think about it anymore and don't seem to be that interested, they kind of seem to be humouring me a bit now....


Sometimes it takes several (or many) interactions with someone to be able to tell if they lean toward the intuitive or if they lean toward the sensing. But, you finally reach a point where you just kind of know which they prefer. Eventually, you can figure it out. It becomes clear over time. Here's a test you can do on people: Just start talking to them about highly theoretical stuff that interests you. If you're an INFJ, then surely you have some of these thoughts roaming around in your Ni. Just start going off verbally and making connections and talking about space travel and your knowledge of psychology and MBTI, etc, etc. Talk like that to them for 10 minutes. If they're still highly interested and asking questions after 10 minutes, you might very well have an intuitive on your hands. Even some intuitives may lose interest if they are busy or if they just don't care about it. For instance, space travel doesn't interest me. I don't really care to put too much thought into it. But, if you keep talking about this kind of stuff, you'll eventually hit an abstract topic that I'll be interested in. And 99 times out of 100, we'll end up having a really good, abstract conversation about it. You can't miss these types of conversations. You know when you've just had a really good one. I usually walk away going, "Now _that _was an intuitive conversation." Some sensors may even enjoy these conversations sometimes - but they probably won't want to have them all of the time. They'd probably get tired of talking about that stuff every day. Surely you've met people in your life who weren't terribly interested in your intuitive ramblings or ideas.

Likewise, if you talk about concrete subjects for long periods of time, it will attract sensors more than it will intuitives. Talk about concrete and practical things for long periods of time. You'll likely befriend sensors, but you'll find the intuitives to be disinterested after a while. 

We can all be nice to each other and show an interest in what each other is saying, etc, but the long-term preference is usually going to lean one way or the other. What is the person's default mode? Day in and day out, hour after hour, what kinds of things do they like to think about?



> Does this make sense? I think we either need to bring the cognitive functions down to vague preferences and states of being WITHOUT any details, so people just lean one way or another, or we need to start thinking about borders. I've spent a long time thinking about it and trying to type myself as well, but even then I'm really having to push myself into a type here, I think. Nothing fits better than the INFJ cognitive function wise, but the descriptions of the INFJ (or the idea of what they are supposed to be) really doesn't suit me. Maybe it is just these stereotypes that are making S and N difficult to choose between?


The preferences are not vague in my opinion. In fact, they are fairly understandable. It is entirely possible that you are very close to the border on some of your functions. A lot of people identify with types like xNTP or xxFJ or ExxP. It happens. Don't shove yourself into a type. If you do that, you're doing something wrong. For me, there was never any doubt that I was INTP. I am definitely I, definitely N, definitely T, definitely P. T is weaker than the others, but it's still a definite T. I didn't have to shove myself into it or "try really hard" to identify with it. It just fits, it's who I am. So, if something is off a little bit with the INFJ thing, then that's OK. It just means you're "closest" to INFJ, but you also relate to and have some overlap with other types that are close to INFJ. Don't throw MBTI out the window completely just because you're not the perfect archetypical INFJ. You just are who you are and you fit somewhere within the vast space of possible personality types. Whether that's INFJ, or xxxx, or xxFJ, it doesn't invalidate that the cognitive functions still exist and are observable in other people.



> Sorry to ramble a bit more but:
> ISFJ friend: Changing the world bit by bit by engaging in protest organisations (or at least since she started working for a union and suddenly became interested....)


Right. Changing the world bit by bit. Sounds SJ to me. Or at least J. SJ's are about progress. They are said to be looking for "help mates" - someone to help them be productive. SP's are said to be looking for "play mates" - someone to have fun with. NF's are said to be looking for "soul mates" - someone to connect with emotionally and on a "soul level". NT's are said to be looking for "mind mates" - to engage in intellectually stimulating conversation with. The kind of stuff you are mentioning could very well be SJ - and maybe NJ.



> *Doesn't really seem to think about things the way I do*, like abstractedly I guess, doesn't like just sitting in theory or in her head, *much more of a doer than me and doesn't seem to come up with her own ideas sometimes* - she can seem to be just repeating what someone else has said - though she is a very good writer. I note that everything she writes is semi-autobiograhpical. She's very good at it but I can't think of anything more boring that real life, which is why I can't write about it! Is fine with routine and living in the moment so long as she's socialising (note: definitely an introvert but makes lots of friends) - only needs friends in a job to make her happy.


Again, I see no reason why she couldn't be an ISFJ. What exactly are you confused about in regards to her personality type?



> ME: Not interested in changing the world through protests etc through am an armchair pundit - arguably more so than her and generally tend to be slightly more individualistic in my thinking (sorry if that seems like a boast - I mean I tend to know what I think regardless of what crowd I'm in).


I don't think any of this has any "typing" value, necessarily. P's tend to be very individualistic. N's sometimes too. 



> Naturally oriented toward the future, become anxious or depressed if I can't look forward to constant progression.


This sounds N to me. Wanting constant progression sounds J.



> Very easily bored with routine,


Sounds P to me. Or it could be an N thing. Even NJ's can get tired of routine. 



> but easily stressed by open-endedness - I want constantly changing certainty, like a string of projects with a definite end (part of the reason I don't do protesting and such - it's hard to see the end of it and it's not rewarding until I've finished it).


Seems totally Ni to me. xNxJ.



> Need intellectual stimulation more than friends in a job to make me happy.


Actually, sounds kind of T to me. F's like intellectual stimulation too, but they also want good relationships and friends. T's are less about making friends in the work place. We go to work to get our work done. If we can make a few friends in the process, that's a great bonus. But, even if we don't make friends, we're going to get our work done and engage in stimulating conversation. Friends are usually priority number 2, at least in the workplace. Priority number 1 in the workplace is work/productivity. 



> Cannot stand boredom and routine.


Again, sounds mostly P.



> (but equally cannot stand not having a strong direction in life and a good plan of what I'm going to do) - as if I'm somewhere between your stereotype P and your stereotype J.


Yeah, you seem to be wavering back and forth between P traits and J traits. You could very likely be in the middle of those 2, with only a very slight lean in one direction or the other. 



> So...I think we're very different and like I say I see Si in her, but I don't think what I described is necessarily how others would see an ISFJ. Does that seem right what I'm saying?


Based on how you describe your friend, I see no reason why she can't be an ISFJ. She could be any type for all I know, but based on what you've said here, I don't think ISFJ is some crazy stretch of the imagination.



> Sorry for the ramble, I just think we should get right down to the core of what the difference is, because I think it's become too much of a dichotomy.


They are dichtomies. E/I, S/N, F/T, P/J are the 4 dichotomies. 



> I think most people are not either I like abstract theory or I don't like abstract theory, I like living in the moment or I prefer livng in the future, I like change or I like things to stay the same......most people really are somewhere in-between a lot of these dichotomies so I want to look at the absolute bottom of this but I find that a little hard with the S and N.


It seems to me that you're wishing or hoping that these dichotomies or personality traits were black and white. That people are absolutely one, with zero traits from the other. That's not how it works. It's all relative. It works in degrees. Once you understand that, it becomes easier to see how it all works. Some people are EXTREME extroverts, some are extreme introverts. Some are "sort of" extroverted, some are "sort of introverted". Some are somewhere in the middle. Same with N, S, T, F, J, P. 

I know 5 other INTP's besides myself. We're all INTP's. But, some of them are more introverted than me and some are more extroverted than me. Some are more sensing than me, some are more intuitive. Most are more "thinky"/science-loving than me, 2 of them have a little "feeler" in them like me (closer to the middle). Same with J and P.

If you try to create 16 perfect little boxes, you will continually be frustrated by the theory. Many people will be close to the border on one or more of the dichotomies. In other words, they will identify with different personality types. Those people will need to try to understand both (or all) of the types they relate to and then try to see how they fit "somewhere in the middle" of those different types. There is not a type description on the internet for xxFJ. Yet, there are surely many xxFJ's roaming around on earth's surface. So, they would want to see parts of themselves in the ENFJ descriptions, and also in the INFJ. And ISFJ. And ESFJ.

<---extreme extrovert------semi extrovert-----middle-----semi introvert----extreme introvert--->

For each dichotomy, you will fall somewhere on a continuum. See how it's not "one or the other"? You could be way left, way right, semi-left, semi-right, middle, etc. Many possibilities.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

ukinfj said:


> Would it be fair to describe this as a state of being? Ns live primarily in thought, Ss live primarily in the world? both live in both places but Ns are essentially in a world of their own creation and Ss are....erm, possibly just a little more capable in real life? Ns may be more likely to be the visionaries but Ss are more likely to actually do something with the vision.
> 
> Is that too abstract?


That's not abstract enough  

To sprinkle this with more abstraction:

Way I picture it is like particle-wave duality. Matter has particle and wave nature. Ss see world primarily composed of particles while for Ns the physical boundaries blend and Ns begins to see the world as primarily composed of waves. For INFJs this is manifested when they speak in metaphors and analogies; as the physical shell is cast aside a thing can easily become anything else.

This doesn't mean that Ns have better imaginations or better abstraction ability, or that Ss are more capable in real life. It simply means that they see the world through these different lenses. One sees the physical world is very good physical resolution. The other sees its momentum. By Heisenberg uncertainty principle particle measurements of location and momentum are mutually exclusive alike the N and S functions being opposed to each other.


----------



## Eleventeenth (Aug 24, 2011)

cyamitide said:


> That's not abstract enough
> 
> To sprinkle this with more abstraction:
> 
> ...


I like this. N's are always seeing the mixing, blending, overlapping, or blurring of the lines. Rather than just "a" or "b", there is something in between a and b. Things are not stationary, they are moving. Things are not simple, they are complex.


----------



## ukinfj (Apr 15, 2011)

@Eleventeenth Hehe, think we've got our wires crossed as we're basically saying the same thing. I haven't looked back over what I'd written but I've been so tired this week I'm sure it was about ten degrees away from what I meant! 



Eleventeenth said:


> I have a good ISFJ friend who loves to write movie reviews. She goes and sees every movie that comes out and then she writes detailed reviews - and does it really well. That's not abstract. That's concrete - writing a description/summary of a movie she saw.


She writes science fiction or other times semi-autobiographical things. She tends to personalise objects in her writing - very quirky and funny. Sometimes she just blogs about her morning and the fact she can't be bothered to go to church, but in the blog God is sitting in the kitchen eating muesli and they talk about whether or not she should go. She does the same with animals, objects etc. She personifies things and then puts in some quirky details like the muesli thing. 



> If you're an INFJ, then surely you have some of these thoughts roaming around in your Ni. Just start going off verbally and making connections and talking about space travel and your knowledge of psychology and MBTI, etc, etc. Talk like that to them for 10 minutes. If they're still highly interested and asking questions after 10 minutes, you might very well have an intuitive on your hands.


The ISFJ is the only person I talk about these things with as she is interested. She doesn't add to the conversation, she just listens and then maybe a couple of weeks later she'll have an opinion, but she doesn't tend to know what she thinks about things as of the moment. I don't always, but I tend to want to work things out and don't really like listening to other people's ideas too much. I'd much prefer to know I have my own. If there's anything I find irritating about her it's just that sometimes she seems to be influenced by those around her. That's not actually a bad thing it's just that it's important to me to be individualistic in thought so I can secretly want to encourage others to do the same.



> Surely you've met people in your life who weren't terribly interested in your intuitive ramblings or ideas.


Nobody does, but apart from my Dad and possibly my brother, I think everybody I know is an S type. The ISFJ friend will listen, like I say, though she's probably more interested in other topics, she wouldn't I don' think have the same conversation with other friends.



> The preferences are not vague in my opinion. In fact, they are fairly understandable. It is entirely possible that you are very close to the border on some of your functions. A lot of people identify with types like xNTP or xxFJ or ExxP. It happens. Don't shove yourself into a type. If you do that, you're doing something wrong. For me, there was never any doubt that I was INTP. I am definitely I, definitely N, definitely T, definitely P. T is weaker than the others, but it's still a definite T. I didn't have to shove myself into it or "try really hard" to identify with it. It just fits, it's who I am. So, if something is off a little bit with the INFJ thing, then that's OK. It just means you're "closest" to INFJ, but you also relate to and have some overlap with other types that are close to INFJ. Don't throw MBTI out the window completely just because you're not the perfect archetypical INFJ. You just are who you are and you fit somewhere within the vast space of possible personality types. Whether that's INFJ, or xxxx, or xxFJ, it doesn't invalidate that the cognitive functions still exist and are observable in other people.


I'm being finicky here but cognitive functions don't exist, they're a framework. You need to see them symbolically, i think. they're not there, they're categories imposed on what is there to be used as tools to navigate a very complex and spectral thing (personality). This might be interesting in a Ti-dom/Ni-dom way because to me there is no "throwing out the theory" since I never did erm...whatever the opposite of that is - putting my faith in it? Basically, it's neither. It's a framework. To me, you can use the framework someone else has put down but what's the point unless you're going to change it to make it better?



> NF's are said to be looking for "soul mates" - someone to connect with emotionally and on a "soul level". NT's are said to be looking for "mind mates" - to engage in intellectually stimulating conversation with. The kind of stuff you are mentioning could very well be SJ - and maybe NJ.


This is part of what I'm talking about - the meaning of this thread when I first wrote it (but edited OP because I was unsure and wanted to leave it a little more open) was that we are extrapolating from the cognitive functions in a way that is too limiting. There isn't really anything in Ni>Fe>Ti>Se that says "looking for a soulmate", it's simply a perception. Certain behaviours and wants may correlate due to the probability of what will arise from the functions and some behaviours and wants may be unlikely or impossible, but there's always going to be a big spectrum. I'd like to take away the stereotype of NFs as looking for soulmates. I'd rather think of myself as a scholar and a logistician, but having gone over the T/F difference a million times I still think I use Fe over Ti because of the way I am in inter personnel relationships, the way I make decisions, the way I feel about people, the way I react in social situations etc.



> Again, I see no reason why she couldn't be an ISFJ. What exactly are you confused about in regards to her personality type?


Sorry, I was tired when I wrote this. My point was that she definitely was an ISFJ but she goes against this stereotype of Si-doms being stuffy or unimaginative. I felt we were doing the Ss a disservice and we should get S/N right.



> Sounds P to me. Or it could be an N thing. Even NJ's can get tired of routine.


I don't think there's any reason to think NJs are more likely to like routine than NPs. NJs are focusing on the end result, so they need direction and don't just want to sit around wasting their time "exploring" quite as much  They're focussed on what conclusion they can come to. I don't mind routine in the concrete world, in fact it's helpful because I'm so inside my own head that if I lay down a routine to follow i the real world then I'lll be able to navigate it a little more successfully. I hate doing a routine job though. That's more what I was meaning. As I said in the OP I can't stand doing the same mind work twice. When it's done and a conclusion has been reached I want another project. So I am NOT good as a woke. In most jobs you "churn". I find I get horribly behind because my mind doesn't tolerate boredom and I start thinking about something more interesting despite myself. V stressful!




> Actually, sounds kind of T to me. F's like intellectual stimulation too, but they also want good relationships and friends. T's are less about making friends in the work place. We go to work to get our work done. If we can make a few friends in the process, that's a great bonus. But, even if we don't make friends, we're going to get our work done and engage in stimulating conversation. Friends are usually priority number 2, at least in the workplace. Priority number 1 in the workplace is work/productivity.


I'm more T like then  The way you described the T sounds like me. But again, I've looked over this again and again and I still come up Fe over Ti (and Te is nonexistent). There is a difference though. I will feel uncomfortable and upset in a room where the "temperature" is wrong. I don't like competitive atmospheres even if I'm not in the competition, I don't like arguments or oneupmanship. Where I work, the people are nice. I talk to them but I just don't go to work to make friends. I go to work to work. I already have friends. Think it's slightly an introvert thing and maybe an enneagram thing. But I don't think either Fe or Fi describe whether you want to have friends at work. They just describe what kind of atmosphere you can cope with. Fi wants to be somewhere that suits its values, Fe somewhere cooperative where there isn't too much tension and people "play nice" and Ts can probably deal with these things being missing so long as they can get stuck into their work. I want intellectual stimulation over friends but I wouldn't be able to concentrate if I was in an unpleasant atmosphere anyway, so I'd either want to be on my own or in a cooperative atmosphere with interesting work.



> They are dichtomies. E/I, S/N, F/T, P/J are the 4 dichotomies.


They're sort of dichotomies. When you write them like that they're dichotomies, but I think what we agree on here is that you lean one way or the other. It becomes far too black and white on this forum. Take away the details and look a the principle underneath. You need vagueness in theory of people or society to some extent, you need a little bit of room to slide. Without it the theory is probably wrong. Could work in the theory of "things" but when it comes to people, a lot of breadth is required so you have to keep them vague.



> It seems to me that you're wishing or hoping that these dichotomies or personality traits were black and white. That people are absolutely one, with zero traits from the other. That's not how it works. It's all relative. It works in degrees. Once you understand that, it becomes easier to see how it all works. Some people are EXTREME extroverts, some are extreme introverts. Some are "sort of" extroverted, some are "sort of introverted". Some are somewhere in the middle. Same with N, S, T, F, J, P.


I want the opposite, but I think like I said I was too tired to get my meaning across.


----------



## Worriedfunction (Jun 2, 2011)

Spades said:


> I think you're onto something. A *lot* of S's mistype as N's when they do tests because they have questions like "do you enjoy theory?" to which an SJ might say yes, because they enjoy learning theoretical concepts (e.g. the shorter the wavelength, the higher the frequency), which are actually data and facts (Si). I have a friend who claims he is INTJ, but I think he is ISTJ. When he talks about ideas, he 95% of the time references videos/people/articles, rather than coming up with the idea purely intuitively.
> 
> On the flip-side, I get really bored talking about what I've seen, heard, or read and prefer discussing ideas stemming from my mind, even if they're wrong.
> 
> Also, to answer your question, I rarely ever materialize my ideas, even if I plan them out extensively in my mind. I'd rather get minions to do it


Hmm good post, although now it's making me question whether or not im actually a sensor rather than an iNtuitive. :crying:
Not that im trying to imply that's a bad thing, more that I get sick of being unsure.


----------



## Eleventeenth (Aug 24, 2011)

ukinfj said:


> @_Eleventeenth_ Hehe, think we've got our wires crossed as we're basically saying the same thing. I haven't looked back over what I'd written but I've been so tired this week I'm sure it was about ten degrees away from what I meant!


Haha, no problem. We INTP's are always getting our wires crossed. It's our endless pursuit to try to untangle the wires and to reach understanding that keeps us moving forward. So, let's see if we can't do that here.



> She writes science fiction or other times semi-autobiographical things. She tends to personalise objects in her writing - very quirky and funny. Sometimes she just blogs about her morning and the fact she can't be bothered to go to church, but in the blog God is sitting in the kitchen eating muesli and they talk about whether or not she should go. She does the same with animals, objects etc. She personifies things and then puts in some quirky details like the muesli thing.
> 
> The ISFJ is the only person I talk about these things with as she is interested. She doesn't add to the conversation, she just listens and then maybe a couple of weeks later she'll have an opinion, but she doesn't tend to know what she thinks about things as of the moment. I don't always, but I tend to want to work things out and don't really like listening to other people's ideas too much. I'd much prefer to know I have my own. If there's anything I find irritating about her it's just that sometimes she seems to be influenced by those around her. That's not actually a bad thing it's just that it's important to me to be individualistic in thought so I can secretly want to encourage others to do the same.
> 
> Nobody does, but apart from my Dad and possibly my brother, I think everybody I know is an S type. The ISFJ friend will listen, like I say, though she's probably more interested in other topics, she wouldn't I don' think have the same conversation with other friends.


Hmmm, I'm not really sure what type your friend is. I actually do way better typing people in person. By talking with them and interacting with them. If someone says, "my friend listens to me, but doesn't really seem interested. And she likes movies and science." It's difficult to type from things like that. I'd have to listen to the conversation to really get a feel for the personality.



> I'm being finicky here but cognitive functions don't exist, they're a framework. You need to see them symbolically, i think. they're not there, they're categories imposed on what is there to be used as tools to navigate a very complex and spectral thing (personality). This might be interesting in a Ti-dom/Ni-dom way because to me there is no "throwing out the theory" since I never did erm...whatever the opposite of that is - putting my faith in it? Basically, it's neither. It's a framework. To me, you can use the framework someone else has put down but what's the point unless you're going to change it to make it better?


OK yeah, this is where you confused me. Cuz everything you say here is true. The functions are merely a framework. But, having read your previous post, it didn't seem like you understood that. So, I was trying to explain things from a very elementary point of view to help you understand. But, alas, you probably understand more than I gave you credit for. It seems like you're having a really hard time typing your friend and other people, so I thought you were struggling with how the different cognitive functions work or how they manifest in different personalities. 

To me, I find that in real life, the functions that Jung describes are very observable in people. I can see them very clearly in people after I've interacted with them for some time. So, they don't seem so vague to me as they seem to be to you. I can very easily tell the difference between an ISFJ and an ENTP. Or an ESTJ and an INFP. There are very recognizable differences in people's personalities.



> This is part of what I'm talking about - the meaning of this thread when I first wrote it (but edited OP because I was unsure and wanted to leave it a little more open) was that we are extrapolating from the cognitive functions in a way that is too limiting. *There isn't really anything in Ni>Fe>Ti>Se that says "looking for a soulmate", it's simply a perception*.


Right. It's a huge simplification. A huge generalization. As I said earlier, I was trying to explain things in a very elementary way cuz I thought you were trying to better understand how the functions manifest themselves (based on your seeming confusion of your ISFJ friend). Even though they are huge generalizations and they take no consideration for the individual person (only the group), there is some level of truth to them. And the reason there is truth to them is because of what you say here:



> *Certain behaviours and wants may correlate due to the probability of what will arise from the functions and some behaviours and wants may be unlikely or impossible*, but there's always going to be a big spectrum. I'd like to take away the stereotype of NFs as looking for soulmates. I'd rather think of myself as a scholar and a logistician, but having gone over the T/F difference a million times I still think I use Fe over Ti because of the way I am in inter personnel relationships, the way I make decisions, the way I feel about people, the way I react in social situations etc.


Understood. Admittedly, I was painting with very large brush strokes because I mistakenly thought you were looking for basic understanding of how the functions work. Within the NF world population, you are going to find HUGE differences. This is why we have to get to know people as individuals, rather than just treating people as a type. So, I agree with you there 100%. All I'm saying is that typing people - or recognizing them as a certain type - does help in some situations. I never used to understand ESTJ's at all. I thought they were the most baffling people I had ever met in my life. Now that I've read about and understand what Te>Si>Ne>Fi is and means, I understand them better. Maybe not fully, but it has helped. MBTI has been valuable in that regard. It gives you a basic framework and then you can sort of fill in the gaps/holes of their individuality as you get to know them. So, even though it's easy to overgeneralize, I have to say - there is some real world application to this stuff. If people don't think there is any application to it, then I don't see why they would continue coming to a forum to discuss it. I've seen people say that before. They say "This MBTI can't be used in real life. It's just a big useless theory." My answer to that is: Then why keep spending time on it? I spend time on it, because I see how much it has helped me to understand other people and so I want to continue growing in that endeavor. I don't worship Jung or anything silly like that. He was a just a man with a theory. But, I find it to be a pretty interesting theory with some real world application.



> Sorry, I was tired when I wrote this. My point was that she definitely was an ISFJ but she goes against this stereotype of Si-doms being stuffy or unimaginative. I felt we were doing the Ss a disservice and we should get S/N right.


Ah, I see. Yeah, I do think the S's get a bad rap out of all of this. I think they get unnecessarily hammered on the forums. I think that stems from the following: Intuitives are supposedly ~20 to 25% of the population. So, it's easy for us to feel misunderstood or different from much of the world. It's probably harder to fit in with people growing up and stuff. So, when we learn that there are other intuitives like us, and we discover a forum to talk about how "people just don't understand us" - we vent and we talk down about the S's. I don't think we mean them harm, but it's our way to vent. "Gosh, those S's just don't get me. And I don't get them. They never want to talk about theory with me for any length of time. What's wrong with them?" Stuff like that.



> I don't think there's any reason to think NJs are more likely to like routine than NPs.


Your very next sentence explains why NJ's are more likely to like routine than NP's:



> NJs are focusing on the end result, so they need direction and don't just want to sit around wasting their time "exploring" quite as much  They're focussed on what conclusion they can come to.


That keeps NJ's focused on a target. On an end goal. That's harder for NP's to come by. Because we love to explore. We care less about the goal and more about the process. I'm not saying that NP's are never comforted by routine or that NJ's can't be spontaneous. I'm using generalizations again that are fairly observable in real people. Some people are very focused and zoned in on results. Others like to float around and explore more. This is an observable fact. 



> I don't mind routine in the concrete world, in fact it's helpful because I'm so inside my own head that if I lay down a routine to follow i the real world then I'lll be able to navigate it a little more successfully.


See, an NP will likely tell you that following a routine or a list of steps or guidelines or pre-planned agendas is demoralizing. To us, it takes the creativity out of life. Everything is known. Then you just follow task A, then task B, then task C, then D, then you're done. It seems so oversimplified. I totally respect the ability of people to do that, don't get me wrong. I just can't see planning activities like that for myself. What happens if it rains? Or if there's an earthquake? Or if you get a flat tire? Or if the baby starts crying? Or you get a big stain on your white shirt? P's like to be able to react to things (to life) spontaneously - as it happens, as it arises. Life is full of surprises. And we love that. That's where we are at our best.

So, your very description of why you like to plan things like this and my very description of why I don't like to plan things, is a great compare/contrast to the observable differences between P's and J's in real life. So, while it's easy to OVER-generalize, it's OK to make some basic generalizations - because they are true in real life - as we have seen the differences between you and I.



> I hate doing a routine job though. That's more what I was meaning. As I said in the OP I can't stand doing the same mind work twice. When it's done and a conclusion has been reached I want another project. So I am NOT good as a woke. In most jobs you "churn". I find I get horribly behind because my mind doesn't tolerate boredom and I start thinking about something more interesting despite myself. V stressful!


Yeah, I agree with you there! 



> They're sort of dichotomies. When you write them like that they're dichotomies, but I think what we agree on here is that you lean one way or the other. It becomes far too black and white on this forum. Take away the details and look a the principle underneath. You need vagueness in theory of people or society to some extent, you need a little bit of room to slide. Without it the theory is probably wrong. Could work in the theory of "things" but when it comes to people, a lot of breadth is required so you have to keep them vague.


I think your preference for vagueness speaks to you being N-dom. And my preference for clarity speaks to me being T-dom. You seem to like this idea of "keeping things vague". And you might very well see me as "trying to hard to bring structure to the system". That's Ti. Ti brings structure so that things can be broken down and understood at their most basic level. If I keep things vague, then I can't truly understand them. I want to know the difference between an ESTP and an INFJ. I understand that they are both human beings and, in all reality, they are much more alike than they are different. If they both were dying in the hospital, the doctors would approach them the same way. Because they are human and they are the same in that respect. But, alas, the doctors really wouldn't treat them the same - they'd treat them differently. Because one of them might weigh 240 pounds, while the other weights 125 pounds. One might be 72 years old, while the other is 29 years old. The doctors cannot keep these things "vague". They must know these things definitively so that they can understand the individual patients as much as possible. That's where I find that the structure (non-vagueness) helps me.

I've probably written way more than you wanted to read. But, thanks for the insightful exchange. I always enjoy the discussions.


----------



## wisefaery (Feb 14, 2010)

Eleventeenth said:


> The difference is that people who lean highly toward the intuitive side prefer the abstract and are often oriented toward the future. They have a preference for it. While people who lean highly toward the sensor side prefer practicality, facts, the present moment, the concrete world. They do not prefer the abstract. So, while everyone may be able to "grasp" abstract theory, almost every single sensor that I know wants almost nothing to do with it. It's almost to a point that they hate it. Whereas, a lot of the intuitives I know love it.


i was wondering if its common to all Sensors to dislike theories. i am in college and i love reading. but i love reading for the sake of it...the beautiful words and emotions they evoke and what i can imagine of the story however i never bothered with deeper meaning and symbolism or whatever theories and themes underlying the plot. i find analysing so much annoying. 
ironically i get typed as INFP often and i can never relate to them. ISFP makes more sense to me.


----------



## Eleventeenth (Aug 24, 2011)

wisefaery said:


> i was wondering if its common to all Sensors to dislike theories. i am in college and i love reading. but i love reading for the sake of it...the beautiful words and emotions they evoke and what i can imagine of the story however i never bothered with deeper meaning and symbolism or whatever theories and themes underlying the plot. i find analysing so much annoying.
> ironically i get typed as INFP often and i can never relate to them. ISFP makes more sense to me.


I'll just reiterate that I think sensors have less _preference_ for theory. But, I have to be careful about saying something like, "Yes, all sensors hate theory", because as soon as you start throwing around all-or-nothing statements, you've stuck your foot in the mud and someone will quickly let you know it. What I can say for certain is that almost every single sensor that I know in my life exhibits a distaste for abstract, highly conceptual topics and discussions. For example, when I hang out with ISTJ friend, I will sometimes start talking about something like my views on the corporate world, or why some management styles work while others don't, or stuff like that. And he'll engage me for a few minutes, but then he'll say something like, "So, I haven't seen you in a month. Tell me what you've been doing." And so I'll tell him that I've been working every day (not terribly exciting) and I'll want to go back to discussing my philosophical views on things. But, he wants to go back to the concrete - what does my work involve, what do I do in the evenings after work, did I go to the concert last week, what are my plans for Thanksgiving, stuff like this. So, I find that we have to strike a balance and give each other time to discuss what the other wants to talk about. It takes some patience - from both sides. And it works. He's a good friend. 

Actually, to answer your questions, I don't know if NF's really "analyze" what they are reading as much as NT's. Everyone analyzes to some degree, but what I'm saying is that NF's probably "feel" the emotions of what they are reading - kind of like you mentioned. I don't really know how it plays out when different types are reading a book, but I would venture to guess that NT's are looking at it almost as informational only - we want data, we want information. Or we want a good story. And we probably get a little "feeling" in there too (we're human). NF's are probably more prone to read a good book and "feel alive" by what they are reading - because it invokes a certain set of emotions. I feel "alive" because I'm getting fascinating information or insight into something new that I had never known before. But, I don't necessarily feel like I'm "dancing in the rain" when I read a good book. I had an NF tell me that before. She had like 1,000 books in her collection and she said that she truly loves her books. That they take her to another world, they make her feel alive. 

To tell if you are ISFP or INFP, just give it time. I've known people of both types. The difference from my point of view is that the ISFP's seem to enjoy discussing what happened today at work, the really good meal they ate for lunch and the way the restaurant smelled, how nice it feels outside, etc. They take things in and they feel through their 5 senses (hence, they are sensors). INFP's are more about concepts and views on life, they like to discuss their philiosophical views on why things are right or wrong. It's less about the 5 senses and more about ideas and the abstract. Also, an ISFP I know says that she doesn't even know how to imagine 30 years from now. She doesn't even know how to do it. She says, "I can barely think about next week or next month. I just live today and enjoy today. I think about tomorrow when it gets here." INFP's are always imagining things down the road - next week, 10 years from now, etc. Future oriented. 

Hope that helps a bit. Again, these are generalizations. You just are who you are. But, a lot of people will identify more with one than the other.


----------



## wisefaery (Feb 14, 2010)

*thanks*



Eleventeenth said:


> To tell if you are ISFP or INFP, just give it time. I've known people of both types. The difference from my point of view is that the ISFP's seem to enjoy discussing what happened today at work, the really good meal they ate for lunch and the way the restaurant smelled, how nice it feels outside, etc. They take things in and they feel through their 5 senses (hence, they are sensors). INFP's are more about concepts and views on life, they like to discuss their philiosophical views on why things are right or wrong. It's less about the 5 senses and more about ideas and the abstract. Also, an ISFP I know says that she doesn't even know how to imagine 30 years from now. She doesn't even know how to do it. She says, "I can barely think about next week or next month. I just live today and enjoy today. I think about tomorrow when it gets here." INFP's are always imagining things down the road - next week, 10 years from now, etc. Future oriented.
> 
> Hope that helps a bit. Again, these are generalizations. You just are who you are. But, a lot of people will identify more with one than the other.


that helped. thanks...i know when i am out there in the world with my friends i dont want to think of anything than what happens in the next 1 hour and if there is anything i wanna think about i do it at night when i am home. i read in an article that isfps just absorb..i think i tend to do that.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

ukinfj said:


> Would it be fair to describe this as a state of being? Ns live primarily in thought, Ss live primarily in the world? both live in both places but Ns are essentially in a world of their own creation and Ss are....erm, possibly just a little more capable in real life? Ns may be more likely to be the visionaries but Ss are more likely to actually do something with the vision.


Which “N”s and which “S”s are you referring to? Clearly you know that all introverting functions focus internally, whether it’s Ni, Si, Ti or Fi, whereas all extraverting functions focus externally whether it’s Ne, Se, Te or Fe. 

I think this may be a good time to expound on what I have said all along about people attempting to apply dichotomous codes such as N, S, T, F (and even J/P) to every day occurrences. They can’t be applied because they’re, well simply codes that make up a title. MBTI never appears to have intended for the codes to be dissected individually and futile attempts to use them in applied circumstances. It’s why “Gifts Differing” refers to Jung’s cognitive functions when actually describing the types and how they work in real life.


ukinfj said:


> Is that too abstract?
> 
> Can I ask Ni-doms - even if you have the plan and you know how it should work, would you really rather it if someone else did the practical bit? Do you kind of hope someone else will pick up that ball since you've already completed it in your mind anyway and taking the idea and doing something with it just seems like having to do it again but now where people can see it? –


 Not too abstract, just not how the principle of type works and an attempt to muddle MBTI with Jung’s cognitive functions. Notice that initially you refer to “N” and “S”, then when giving applicable examples, you use actual cognitive functions?


ukinfj said:


> I don't like doing things twice! For instance, once you've worked out the answer to the question does actually writing the essay seem like the most arduous chore? It's having to do the same thing twice - you've already finished (in your mind). This might just be me but I wanted to check as it does fit an extrapolation of the functions.


 To respond specifically to your inquiries, what you describe here at least, has more to do with how the INFJ type prefers to interact, using the “Chart the Course” interaction styles. Otherwise, everything you allude to is a focus on the external and Ni nor any other introverting function is going to be concerned about what is going on in the external world.


ukinfj said:


> Would it be fair to say that Ni-doms can appear "absent" to other people, except when they make the effort to engage with the world? There's a reason I'm asking this but I'm feeling slightly iffy on my own theories in this territory.


That’s exactly how Ni dominant function appears, although Jung actually uses what INJs consider much harsher terms.


----------



## Fizz (Nov 13, 2010)

Functianalyst said:


> Which “N”s and which “S”s are you referring to? Clearly you know that all introverting functions focus internally, whether it’s Ni, Si, Ti or Fi, whereas all extraverting functions focus externally whether it’s Ne, Se, Te or Fe.
> 
> I think this may be a good time to expound on what I have said all along about people attempting to apply dichotomous codes such as N, S, T, F (and even J/P) to every day occurrences. They can’t be applied because they’re, well simply codes that make up a title. MBTI never appears to have intended for the codes to be dissected individually and futile attempts to use them in applied circumstances. It’s why “Gifts Differing” refers to Jung’s cognitive functions when actually describing the types and how they work in real life.


I agree. I saw this train wreck last night and passed it up because I feel like I've already stated the Ni, Ne, and Si, Se for N vs S. I'm also quite tired of the individual shorthand letter (as you said, N, S, T, F, etc) being vivisected to try and understand things that you can't actually draw from them.

They're just assumptions, someone can just say I'm a Sensor and I like things to be concrete. That may be true, but they should also take into consideration how little sense it makes to even bother analyzing "T" by itself. There's Ti and Te, they're not the same.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

Fizz said:


> …. I'm also quite tired of the individual shorthand letter (as you said, N, S, T, F, etc) being vivisected to try and understand things that you can't actually draw from them.
> 
> They're just assumptions, someone can just say I'm a Sensor and I like things to be concrete. That may be true, but they should also take into consideration how little sense it makes to even bother analyzing "T" by itself. There's Ti and Te, they're not the same.


Not only that when S, N, T, and F are referred to in the codes, we completely fail to understand the actual process. An ESTP type does use Se to dominate and Ti to supplement, but the type will also use Fe and Ni to compensate too much use of the dominant and auxiliary functions. Ergo it’s not S vs N, T vs F, it’s S and N, and T and F or to be more specific Se/Ni balancing with Ti/Fe.


----------



## Eleventeenth (Aug 24, 2011)

Functianalyst said:


> That’s exactly how Ni dominant function appears, although Jung actually uses what INJs consider much harsher terms.


Interesting. I'll see if I can find any of Jung's descriptions of Ni online. Do you have any links by chance? What would you paraphrase Jung's "harsher terms" to be regarding Ni? I mean, what are his basic views in terms of how or why Ni comes off as absent to the world?



Fizz said:


> I agree. *I saw this train wreck last night* and passed it up because I feel like I've already stated the Ni, Ne, and Si, Se for N vs S. I'm also quite tired of the individual shorthand letter (as you said, N, S, T, F, etc) being vivisected to try and understand things that you can't actually draw from them.


Haha, and we appreciate your diplomacy. I'd even say that's a "T" statement. A lot of F's wouldn't say that - they'd be more tactful. For instance, when I think what someone is saying is a "train wreck", I'm thinking critically with Ti. But, Fe normally wouldn't want me to verbalize it - it would require me to be more tactful. I'm not offended by your statement. If the thread is a train wreck, then so be it. But, I think your assessment of it being a train wreck is yet another example of how we can separate T statements from F statements, T behavior from F behavior. T's are willing to put their opinion out there, regardless what anyone thinks of it. F's would normally take the more diplomatic approach. For instance, when's the last time you heard an INFJ say that someone's comments were train wreck? 



> They're just assumptions, someone can just say I'm a Sensor and I like things to be concrete. That may be true, but they should also take into consideration how little sense it makes to even bother analyzing "T" by itself. There's Ti and Te, they're not the same.


Te and Ti are very different. But, they also have some very important things in common. For instance, I relate to ENTJ's in a pretty interesting way. I "get" the things they say. ENTP's and INTJ's I find to be somewhat "fuzzy" in their logic and they are very capable of dancing around issues and taking different avenues in a debate according to which direction they'd like to take. But, ENTJ's are very, very direct with their Te. It's out on the table, it's direct, it's WYSIWYG. The Ni "dancing" is in the background (as is my Ne). Even ESTJ's with their Te - I sometimes find it abrasive, but I still "get it" on some levels. It's much harder for me to "get" the Fe of the ESFJ's that I know. So, there are things about Te that "click" with my Ti - or I'd even say there are things that I recognize about Te that are in common with Ti. And I've seen ENTJ's say the same in regards to INTP's. Yes, Te and Ti are different, but they have some commonalities.

I'm not trying to argue with you, this is just my empirical take on things.


----------



## Fizz (Nov 13, 2010)

Functianalyst said:


> Not only that when S, N, T, and F are referred to in the codes, we completely fail to understand the actual process. An ESTP type does use Se to dominate and Ti to supplement, but the type will also use Fe and Ni to compensate too much use of the dominant and auxiliary functions. Ergo it’s not S vs N, T vs F, it’s S and N, and T and F or to be more specific Se/Ni balancing with Ti/Fe.


I don't find your explanation to be complicated at all, it should be easy enough to understand. In my opinion, more than half this site wouldn't bother to care. They'd rather just hate us because there's an S in our shorthand type. I especially think there's little understanding of P vs J. I often see people typing themselves as INFJ or INFP. They don't understand that the cognitive functions completely change and are in a different order. It's not as simple as: "I like to keep my room tidy so that means I'm a Judger!" or "I'm laid-back, that must mean I'm a Perceiver!"

A lot of people don't like being corrected but I try to help out as much as possible.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

The first paragraph describing Ni dominant types says:


> 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]


 Jung’s theory on type is *located here*.


Eleventeenth said:


> Te and Ti are very different. But, they also have some very important things in common. For instance, I relate to ENTJ's in a pretty interesting way. I "get" the things they say. ENTP's and INTJ's I find to be somewhat "fuzzy" in their logic and they are very capable of dancing around issues and taking different avenues in a debate according to which direction they'd like to take. But, ENTJ's are very, very direct with their Te. It's out on the table, it's direct, it's WYSIWYG. The Ni "dancing" is in the background (as is my Ne). Even ESTJ's with their Te - I sometimes find it abrasive, but I still "get it" on some levels. It's much harder for me to "get" the Fe of the ESFJ's that I know. So, there are things about Te that "click" with my Ti - or I'd even say there are things that I recognize about Te that are in common with Ti. And I've seen ENTJ's say the same in regards to INTP's. Yes, Te and Ti are different, but they have some commonalities.


I get this. Te dominance I get in ETJs. Dominant intuiting types I find to be ambivalent, but they seem to pride themselves on being unable to communicate with others, especially Ni dominant types. 

However ESTPs I communicate with in the same manner I do ETJs. I’m reminded of a recent thread where Fizz confronted me that I was being ambivalent in an inquiry. I think ESTPs are much different than ENTPs in this manner because although being similar to Ne:


> Se and Ne are both simultaneous in nature and involve perception of many things at once. This can lead to random activity as the outer world is scanned for additional information. With Se, there is an emphasis on possibilities for actions to take. With Ne, there is an emphasis on possibilities to be considered for action.


, Linda V. Berens and Dario Nardi’s theorize that Se also works similar to Te:


> Se and Te are often used when there is a focus on facts and an empirical approach. Keep in mind that Se is a perceptive process and may consist of data gathering with questions, whereas Te is a judging process in which the purpose of question is to establish logic.


----------



## Fizz (Nov 13, 2010)

Eleventeenth said:


> *Haha, and we appreciate your diplomacy. I'd even say that's a "T" statement. A lot of F's wouldn't say that - they'd be more tactful.* For instance, when I think what someone is saying is a "train wreck", I'm thinking critically with Ti. But, Fe normally wouldn't want me to verbalize it - it would require me to be more tactful. I'm not offended by your statement. If the thread is a train wreck, then so be it. But, I think your assessment of it being a train wreck is yet another example of how we can separate T statements from F statements, T behavior from F behavior. T's are willing to put their opinion out there, regardless what anyone thinks of it. F's would normally take the more diplomatic approach. *For instance, when's the last time you heard an INFJ say that someone's comments were train wreck?*


You should have been more tactful with your words. By directly saying I'm not being tactful, neither are you. It's a loaded word and I'm sure a lot of people wouldn't like being called tactless. :dry:

I also don't care about INFJs specifically in that matter. It doesn't matter if someone is an F or a T, I've been in debates with people online and the Fs can be just as abrasive, aggressive, or even condescending. It isn't about F vs T here. There are different argument styles, I don't think that has to do with type.



> Te and Ti are very different. But, they also have some very important things in common. For instance, I relate to ENTJ's in a pretty interesting way. I "get" the things they say. ENTP's and INTJ's I find to be somewhat "fuzzy" in their logic and they are very capable of dancing around issues and taking different avenues in a debate according to which direction they'd like to take. But, ENTJ's are very, very direct with their Te. It's out on the table, it's direct, it's WYSIWYG. The Ni "dancing" is in the background (as is my Ne). Even ESTJ's with their Te - I sometimes find it abrasive, but I still "get it" on some levels. It's much harder for me to "get" the Fe of the ESFJ's that I know. So, there are things about Te that "click" with my Ti - or I'd even say there are things that I recognize about Te that are in common with Ti. And I've seen ENTJ's say the same in regards to INTP's. Yes, Te and Ti are different, but they have some commonalities.
> 
> I'm not trying to argue with you, this is just my empirical take on things.


I'm not sure what purpose this serves. You understand the Te of ENTJs but not INTJs, you find the Ti of ENTPs to be wishy washy, and the Te of ESTJs is like an unpolished turd but you get the picture?


----------



## ukinfj (Apr 15, 2011)

Eleventeenth said:


> If people don't think there is any application to it, then I don't see why they would continue coming to a forum to discuss it. I've seen people say that before. They say "This MBTI can't be used in real life. It's just a big useless theory." My answer to that is: Then why keep spending time on it? I spend time on it, because I see how much it has helped me to understand other people and so I want to continue growing in that endeavor. I don't worship Jung or anything silly like that. He was a just a man with a theory. But, I find it to be a pretty interesting theory with some real world application.


I might be able to help you out there as this is the way I think.  The reason I wouldn't use it in real life or would not refer to it in real life is that it is necessarily oversimplified. I always wondered whether T types are more likely to use the theory than F types? I notice people saying they understand others better, but to be honest, I don't. I understand the theory but I only really see the theory as giving some labels to some stuff I already knew and giving a framework to how that stuff interacts. It gives me the tools to think about a concept in my own way. In real life, I see people and things to be endlessly complex and I feel that to use a theory like this that simplifies (as I said, necessarily, we need to simplify things to discuss them) it would hold me back. So there's that. 

As to why I'm interested in the theory anyway. Well, it's a theory. :-D I'm generally interested in theory, though obviously there's some I'm less interested in. I like to create patterns in my mind and I find that thinking about something like MBTI gives me something to construct. It gives me something to think about. That's literally it. Generally, I like to grab as much info as possible about it then I break it down to the vaguest possible terms (which is what I was sort of trying to do here). The Ni questions I asked were really just because I'd been thinking about that recently and wondered if I could fit it into the "big thesis". As I'm going along I'm created a whole. I'm not particularly interested in little parts, but I enjoy seeing the big picture and am frustrating if any parts are missing. If I give myself something to think about, eventually I will have that nice moment where everything is clear and I feel....erm....masterful I suppose. So I think it's not only a personality thing but probably also a very personalised thing. Not every INFJ is here to "master", but I essentially do everything in order to "master". Once mastered, I lose interest and do something else.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

ukinfj said:


> I might be able to help you out there as this is the way I think.  The reason I wouldn't use it in real life or would not refer to it in real life is that it is necessarily oversimplified. I always wondered whether T types are more likely to use the theory than F types? I notice people saying they understand others better, but to be honest, I don't. I understand the theory but I only really see the theory as giving some labels to some stuff I already knew and giving a framework to how that stuff interacts. It gives me the tools to think about a concept in my own way. In real life, I see people and things to be endlessly complex and I feel that to use a theory like this that simplifies (as I said, necessarily, we need to simplify things to discuss them) it would hold me back. So there's that.


Well either you are way outside the norm, or you’re the first dominant intuiting type I have encountered that does not apply type theory in real life and toward their enconters. Like 11th, I can at best see when a function is maybe being used. But even then I would not trust my instincts as to whether I am noticing someone using Ti/Ni, Se/Ne or Te, Ne//Fe. In many cases it’s quite clear, but sometimes the subtlety of the function can easily be mistyped.


ukinfj said:


> As to why I'm interested in the theory anyway. Well, it's a theory. :-D I'm generally interested in theory, though obviously there's some I'm less interested in. *I like to create patterns in my mind and I find that thinking about something like MBTI gives me something to construct. It gives me something to think about. That's literally it. Generally, I like to grab as much info as possible about it then I break it down to the vaguest possible terms (which is what I was sort of trying to do here). *The Ni questions I asked were really just because I'd been thinking about that recently and wondered if I could fit it into the "big thesis". As I'm going along I'm created a whole. I'm not particularly interested in little parts, but I enjoy seeing the big picture and am frustrating if any parts are missing. If I give myself something to think about, eventually I will have that nice moment where everything is clear and I feel....erm....masterful I suppose. So I think it's not only a personality thing but probably also a very personalised thing. Not every INFJ is here to "master", but I essentially do everything in order to "master". Once mastered, I lose interest and do something else.


You do know the bolded/underlined part is vintage Ti-Pe, right? Fortunately the sentencing following the section I marked is a reversal since as a dominant Ti type I am more likely to dissect a theory then put it back together and force myself to see it as a whole. For example it’s easy to dissect a description and focus on bits and pieces individually than to read the whole description as a theme.

But I am not sure that is what you’re doing. You seem to break down a theory and rebuild it. If that is correct as well, is this all of what you self-disclose your first instinct?


----------



## Eleventeenth (Aug 24, 2011)

Fizz said:


> You should have been more tactful with your words. By directly saying I'm not being tactful, neither are you. It's a loaded word and I'm sure a lot of people wouldn't like being called tactless. :dry:


T's have less tact (both me and you), because they say things straight out. That's my point. You had said earlier that T and F (and one letter preferences) can't be thrown around because T consists of Te and Ti. I'm trying to illustrate the differences I see between T's (like you and I) versus F's. If you don't agree, that's fine. I think where I'm fouling up here guys is that I have observed "commonalities" between T's (a common thread between Te people and Ti people) - and I'm probably trying too hard to tie my own personal observations into Jung or MBTI. And I probably shouldn't do that. I should keep them as my own personal observations about the differences between T's and F's, or J's and P's, etc.

My apologies for implying that you are tactless. I do think that T's, _generally speaking_, can be more blunt than F's. That's my personal observation, whether Jung agrees with it or not. I think you are more blunt than most F's. And I think I am more blunt than most F's. But, I do apologize if it seemed like a personal attack. Peace? Peace!



> I'm not sure what purpose this serves. You understand the Te of ENTJs but not INTJs, you find the Ti of ENTPs to be wishy washy, and the Te of ESTJs is like an unpolished turd but you get the picture?


My purpose here is to say that I have personally observed (IRL) some things in common with T-doms (ISTP, INTP, ENTJ, ESTJ). You had stated that "T's" cannot be grouped together. And you're right. Ti and Te are very different. But, my whole point is that Te and Ti has some overlap - there are things they have in common with each other (which Funcianalyst seems to see as well). So, sometimes it's OK to say "T's tend to be more blunt than F's". Or T's are more concerned with logic than they are with emotion. Things like that. If you're focusing on the "polished turd" thing with ESTJ's, then you're completely missing my point. My point is that I see some commonalities with them because they are T-dom, even though they are Te and I'm Ti.


----------



## ukinfj (Apr 15, 2011)

Functianalyst said:


> You seem to break down a theory and rebuild it. If that is correct as well, is this all of what you self-disclose your first instinct?


It's more looking at the theory and thinking "too many details". I want to see it at its vaguest possible point. I don't want building blocks, because that doesn't work (this is where Ti and Ni seems different to me, though if I'm right about INFJ then I use both). I want to see it as a dynamic. I feel when I am presented with a completed theory and one that has been discussed over and over - like MBTI - what I am looking at is a load of different perceptions and details that have been stuck on the theory. This is irritating, I want to see it as pure dynamic, so I strip away the details to see the pure principle beneath - and as I have said, the pure principle is not these cognitive function building blocks. To me, they are another detail. I want to see beneath that to the dynamic between them and the dynamic underpinning the theory. What dynamic has this grown from, where's the leverage? That's kind of how I work when I'm presented with a theory.

I keep wondering about Ne because what I tend to get when I'm building my own theory is something like this.

Today I read an article about Dissassocaitive Identity Disorder. LEVERAGE. Something clicks - personality is a narrative. We write out own stories. We are sitting in a story. Now I feel that my thoughts are fragmented. I could try and tell you what I'm thinking but I'd be wrong. If I tried to write down the questions that need answered I'd be misleading you. I tried to do this on another thread where I mentioned this article but even there I was thinking - no actually, this isn't really what I want to know. I get the sense of - I've got it, sort of, I just need to fill in the details. I get a sense of where things are. I find it very difficult to tell whether this is Ni/Ti or Ti/Ne to be honest. I did write down some questions on the other thread because I wanted to make it a discussion - - - erm, well I guess I really just wanted to share my thought but since this is a forum I should put questions to make it a discussion. But the questions there - like "is the personality narrative related to the myth narrative"? That's not any kind of "what if?" It's just true, to me. That's what I know from the narrative statement.

I'm sorry this was horribly disorganised. I mean I when building my own theories, it isn't quite like "building" in the true sense of the word. There is leverage. If I leave stuff in my mind and then I see something external to myself - like that article - that works as leverage, then it's exciting, because it's like - I've got it, I'm on to something new. I've just got to wait for the mists to clear. If I sleep on it or distract myself with something else for a while my mind will mull over it. People connect that to Ni, but I think everybody to some extent is more able to figure things out when they've slept on it, so I'd say that could cause confusion.

So, with MBTI - I want to know - what is the absolute purest principle behind this. I want to see it as dynamic rather than concrete, because as soon as you categorise you're getting too far away from the principle. You need to categorise to discuss things, but it irritates me i people see the categories as "real" rather than just a symbol to be used in discussion. You need to separate the symbolism of the language from what we're really talking about - which to me is a hell of a lot vaguer than eight cognitive functions. They're just useful names. Once I've worked out the vaguest principles, I'll be able to tell what's going on. I want to see why Jung and the other theorists came to the ideas they came to so I can judge whether or not they are on the right lines. I don't want any details involved as they are misleading. My end goal is to see where it fits in a large framework. I don't really want to see this as an individualist theory. To me, personality and culture are inseparable, so understanding this theory should behave as a point of leverage in and of itself. Once I've found that purest principle and I've made it as small and vague as possible, then I will see it in relation to culture without these distracting details. I'm taking the bits that I think are of worth from MBTI and the bits I think are of worth from other cultural frameworks and putting them together. There's only one framework in the end, so if the "bits of worth" do not seem associated, then there's something wrong. Though I don't think that's ever really happened.

EDIT: As you can see from the ramble, the answer is actually "I don't know, I'm kind of making this up as I go along because it seems logical" < I need to observe myself do things before I can tell others what I do. I'm very, very unobservant of myself (erm...and everything else). So to be honest I'm not sure my answer is very helpful because I'm not quite sure it's right. I'll observe what I do and try to get back to it at some point, though leverage is very important and getting to the vaguest possible principle is very important - they're definitely right - but I think that's just Ti really so it doesn't help.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

ukinfj said:


> It's more looking at the theory and thinking "too many details". I want to see it at its vaguest possible point. I don't want building blocks, because that doesn't work (this is where Ti and Ni seems different to me, though if I'm right about INFJ then I use both). I want to see it as a dynamic. I feel when I am presented with a completed theory and one that has been discussed over and over - like MBTI - what I am looking at is a load of different perceptions and details that have been stuck on the theory. This is irritating, I want to see it as pure dynamic,*so I strip away the details to see the pure principle beneath - and as I have said, the pure principle is not these cognitive function building blocks. To me, they are another detail. I want to see beneath that to the dynamic between them and the dynamic underpinning the theory. What dynamic has this grown from, where's the leverage? That's kind of how I work when I'm presented with a theory.*


Lol, I just applied what you are describing above when actually reading the paragraph since it’s how I innately use my Ti to separate the wheat from the chafe to sort of speak. What is left is the main topic and actually how you describe yourself. Correct me if I am wrong, but what I highlighted is what I understand you do. If I am correct, which do you believe you’re doing:


> Using introverted Thinking is like having an internal sense of the essential qualities of something, noticing the fine distinctions that make it what it is and then naming it. It also involves an internal reasoning process of deriving subcategories of classes and sub-principles of general principles. These can then be used in problem solving, analysis, and refining of a product or an idea. This process is evidenced in behaviors like taking things or ideas apart to figure out how they work. The analysis involves looking at different sides of an issue and seeing where there is inconsistency. In so doing, there is a search for a "leverage point" that will fix problems with the least amount of effort or damage to the system.


-OR-


> Using this process, we often are able to get pictures about the future or at least a sense of what will happen before we have any data. Sometimes it is an awareness of what is happening in another location and we have no sensory data to go on. Other times introverted iNtuiting operates when we conceptualize and get a sense of a whole plan, pattern, theory, or explanation. These are the kinds of images that come to us in the shower, in meditative states, or in dreams and help us deeply understand something. Sometimes they are profoundly symbolic and even universally so. In using this process, we tune into a likely future or something universal. This infonnation can then be used to decide what to do next, what to plan for.





ukinfj said:


> EDIT: As you can see from the ramble, the answer is actually "I don't know, I'm kind of making this up as I go along because it seems logical" < I need to observe myself do things before I can tell others what I do. I'm very, very unobservant of myself (erm...and everything else). So to be honest I'm not sure my answer is very helpful because I'm not quite sure it's right. I'll observe what I do and try to get back to it at some point, though leverage is very important and getting to the vaguest possible principle is very important - they're definitely right - but I think that's just Ti really so it doesn't help.


No, you’re just rambling.:tongue: I think this is where Fizz becomes impatient with people who refuse to see the obvious because they want to be a certain type. My caveat, I never tell a person their type, but I have no problem telling them what they're not. 

I can only say that if you truly believe this is how you process, then you may want to keep searching for your type. You are describing someone who uses dominant Ti.


----------



## ukinfj (Apr 15, 2011)

Functianalyst said:


> Lol, I just applied what you are describing above when actually reading the paragraph since it’s how I innately use my Ti to separate the wheat from the chafe to sort of speak. What is left is the main topic and actually how you describe yourself. Correct me if I am wrong, but what I highlighted is what I understand you do. If I am correct, which do you believe you’re doing:
> -OR-
> No, you’re just rambling.:tongue: I think this is where Fizz becomes impatient with people who refuse to see the obvious because they want to be a certain type. My caveat, I never tell a person their type, but I have no problem telling them what they're not.
> 
> I can only say that if you truly believe this is how you process, then you may want to keep searching for your type. You are describing someone who uses dominant Ti.


Then I would like be an INTP as generally my thoughts are uninteresting to my ISTP boyfriend. This is possible as my dad is an INTP and we are relatively alike, although my F function is much stronger than his. I'm not extrovert by any stretch of the imagination. I have wondered about INTP a lot, the only thing that held me back was the strength of my feeling function, but perhaps I have misunderstood Fe. How would you say Fe would present itself differently in INTPs and INFJs?

I'm going to invite you on to a type me thread to discuss, if that's ok.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

ukinfj said:


> Then I would like be an INTP as generally my thoughts are uninteresting to my ISTP boyfriend. This is possible as my dad is an INTP and we are relatively alike, although my F function is much stronger than his. I'm not extrovert by any stretch of the imagination. I have wondered about INTP a lot, the only thing that held me back was the strength of my feeling function, but perhaps I have misunderstood Fe. How would you say Fe would present itself differently in INTPs and INFJs?


Are you saying you would like to be an INTP, or that you would likely be an INTP? Now here is one my intolerances that I hope does not include you but how do you know your boyfriend is ISTP? 

As for extraverted feeling, all functions are based on cognitive processing but I have an idea what you are attempting to convey when alluding to your strength of feeling. I too have a strong use of Fe but not Fi. But in your case the reason you may relate to INFJ is based on being susceptible to social influences on how females/males should act. Instead of going from one to another, maybe you should first determine your temperament preference. Do you know if you actually prefer NT, NF, SJ or SP. It’s possible that you prefer NF with a strong secondary preference for NT. You can take the assessment in *this thread* to determine your primary and secondary temperaments, as well as read up on them, in their respective sub-forums.


----------



## ukinfj (Apr 15, 2011)

Functianalyst said:


> Are you saying you would like to be an INTP, or that you would likely be an INTP? Now here is one my intolerances that I hope does not include you but how do you know your boyfriend is ISTP?
> 
> As for extraverted feeling, all functions are based on cognitive processing but I have an idea what you are attempting to convey when alluding to your strength of feeling. I too have a strong use of Fe but not Fi. But in your case the reason you may relate to INFJ is based on being susceptible to social influences on how females/males should act. Instead of going from one to another, maybe you should first determine your temperament preference. Do you know if you actually prefer NT, NF, SJ or SP. It’s possible that you prefer NF with a strong secondary preference for NT. You can take the assessment in *this thread* to determine your primary and secondary temperaments, as well as read up on them, in their respective sub-forums.


I'm not sure how comfortable I am with temperament theories in such a way as it's a little too simplified, there are so many millions of different people who would fit into each one. But I came out as a catalyst 1st then a theorist 2nd. To be honest though, a lot of the questions I either thought "all" or "none". They didn't seem to fit me that much but I guess this was a work-related questionnaire. If you don't mind me saying, I really hope I'm not being rude, but why do you think you have a strong use of Fe? I only ask because you can be rather blunt. I don't mean that in a bad way, a lot of the people I know can be rather blunt, but you don't sugar coat things, if you know what I mean. There's nothing particularly wrong with that and I truly don't mean offence. I quite like people like that sometimes, although I can be more sensitive over a forum than in real life. If you don't mind me asking, do you intend to sugar coat? And if not, why not?


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

ukinfj said:


> If you don't mind me saying, I really hope I'm not being rude, but why do you think you have a strong use of Fe? I only ask because you can be rather blunt. I don't mean that in a bad way, a lot of the people I know can be rather blunt, but you don't sugar coat things, if you know what I mean. There's nothing particularly wrong with that and I truly don't mean offence. I quite like people like that sometimes, although I can be more sensitive over a forum than in real life. If you don't mind me asking, do you intend to sugar coat? And if not, why not?


Not at all. You're not being rude but it's quite clear you have bought into the whole "I am a thinking type; therefore I dont use feeling thing" if you're asking that question. It's a stupid notion that people do not use all functions in their basic makeup. You use Se as well as I use Fe and I use Ni as well as you use Ti (assuming you still believe you are INFJ). 

As for your temperament, it's the easiest way to discern whether you prefer a particular type. But do you actually relate to the core values of being NF? So far everything you have disclose points to NT, not NF. So.... were you lying to yourself then or are you lying to yourself now?


----------



## Fizz (Nov 13, 2010)

Functianalyst said:


> No, you’re just rambling.:tongue: *I think this is where Fizz becomes impatient with people who refuse to see the obvious because they want to be a certain type. My caveat, I never tell a person their type, but I have no problem telling them what they're not. *


I can't type people but I lose interest when they're unwilling to open their mind to possibilities of different types. It's a one-track thought process that doesn't always lead to the correct type. 

I don't know what type the OP is, I'm not her. If she were to list off great details about who she is or what she does, I still wouldn't be able to type her. I think too many people believe that typing is _just that simple._ I don't know what planet they're from but it still doesn't indicate a specific "letter".

Where ramblers ramble, I scramble.


----------



## ukinfj (Apr 15, 2011)

Functianalyst said:


> Not at all. You're not being rude but it's quite clear you have bought into the whole "I am a thinking type; therefore I dont use feeling thing" if you're asking that question. It's a stupid notion that people do not use all functions in their basic makeup. You use Se as well as I use Fe and I use Ni as well as you use Ti (assuming you still believe you are INFJ).
> 
> As for your temperament, it's the easiest way to discern whether you prefer a particular type. But do you actually relate to the core values of being NF? So far everything you have disclose points to NT, not NF. So.... were you lying to yourself then or are you lying to yourself now?


Well I don't really think I'm being stupid, when it comes to cognitive functions, Fe is the function that generally likes to "smooth over" - so they prefer to make sure conversations do not get hot, if you like, out of wanting to keep everybody feeling basically comfortable. That's all I meant. The difference between T and F types has nothing to do with how well they can do theory or if they're interested in it, it's more about where their preferences lie when it comes to decided which is a better situation when dealing with another person and in a situation where they are logical incorrect:

1) they were a little offended but it's much better they know the truth (or in Te - it is more efficient this way)
2) they're not quite right/this isn't really the best way, but it's really not worth upsetting anybody over.

An F type will lean toward the latter, a T type will lean toward the former. Both will have instances of either type. 

But this is a different theory essentially to what you have pointed me towards. 

In the temperaments you have shown me, I would probably fit into both, I can't really decide between them. I wouldn't gravitate toward the sciences, but it said in the description that theorists could fit humanities as well. It does not mention how they relate to other people or how they think, so it doesn't really give any impression over what cognitive functions they may use. The danger of such broad preferences is that you could basically say that any university lecturer in a theory based subject - such as philosophy, critical theory or advanced physics - all very different things - seeing as they have spent years studying and working hard to find their position, would then be called at theorist. I think these people would generally come out as a theorist because that is what they have dedicated their life to. But that really has no bearing on what MBTI type they are.

Of course both theories have their faults, though, and I think picking which one you would like to go with or which one you prefer is really up to you. 

I want to apologise as well in case I offended you. I did not mean to, it was more my understanding of Fe and I wanted to understand how you experience it.


----------



## Fizz (Nov 13, 2010)

ukinfj said:


> Then I would like be an INTP as generally my thoughts are uninteresting to my ISTP boyfriend. This is possible as my dad is an INTP and we are relatively alike, although my F function is much stronger than his. I'm not extrovert by any stretch of the imagination. I have wondered about INTP a lot, the only thing that held me back was the strength of my feeling function, but perhaps I have misunderstood Fe. How would you say Fe would present itself differently in INTPs and INFJs?
> 
> I'm going to invite you on to a type me thread to discuss, if that's ok.


I think the possibility of you being an ISTP would be just as valid as INTP, if not more. I don't find the conversation that all ESTPs make to be interesting. That's not what the MBTI is about, we aren't a collective of shared interests. If I had a choice between hanging out with just ESTPs or every other type, I'd comfortably choose every other type. I don't look to ESTPs as my only means of interesting conversation (I would prefer more mature ones but that goes for any type). INFJ and ISTP share all the same cognitive functions:

INFJ:* Ni - Fe - Ti - Se*
ISTP: *Ti - Se - Ni - Fe*

INTP:* Ti - Ne - Si - Fe*

That's what you have to take into consideration if you have been following the cognitive functions of your type or any type for that matter.


----------



## Fizz (Nov 13, 2010)

ukinfj said:


> *Well I don't really think I'm being stupid*, when it comes to cognitive functions, Fe is the function that generally likes to "smooth over" - so they prefer to make sure conversations do not get hot, if you like, out of wanting to keep everybody feeling basically comfortable.


He wasn't calling you stupid, he was implying that it's short-sighted to assume that we don't use all the cognitive functions at hand. Fi isn't anywhere near the top of my cognitive functions but I still use it.


I'm just going to buzz out of here now.


----------



## ukinfj (Apr 15, 2011)

@Fizz Ah, you're right. I read that wrong. Sorry it's quite late here. I see what you mean. I'd shorthanded it a little before calling back to a previous conversation. I didn't' mean to sound like I was equating interests with personality, I was more meaning my boyfriend likes less to theorise about things. He doesn't really want to talk about why things are the way they are in an abstract way, he'd rather things were straight forward. For instance, my degree in the end, through the options I took, basically had me focusing on "what is gender?" < those types of questions. Not in a physical way but more "what are the different perceptions of gender, is gender an objective reality or is it a subjective perception, is gender binary...." etc. My degree was essentially about separating the human subjective experience from the real world, ignoring the real world seeing as we don't experience it so it's not useful for a discussion on culture and people, then discussing how the dynamic of culture can shift etc. The only reason, I must admit, that I have decided N over S is with my experience of being fascinated by the dynamic behind what is happening rather than what is happening and the fact others more often than not tend to think "what is the point?" I guess there is no point except it is interesting. The other reason was that I tend to be lost in my own world and not really be very good at anything on the planet - common sense, observational skills, practicality etc. These are extrapolations of the cognitive functions, so they could both relate to S and N, but are more likely among N-types. There is a nuance there though and either type could behave in a similar way. 

I wasn't attacking functianalysis and I really hope I didn't come off the wrong way. I had read wrongly when I saw the word stupid but on rereading, as you said, he did not directly call me stupid. I jumped to conclusions.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

ukinfj said:


> Well I don't really think I'm being stupid, when it comes to cognitive functions, Fe is the function that generally likes to "smooth over" - so they prefer to make sure conversations do not get hot, if you like, out of wanting to keep everybody feeling basically comfortable. That's all I meant. The difference between T and F types has nothing to do with how well they can do theory or if they're interested in it, it's more about where their preferences lie when it comes to decided which is a better situation when dealing with another person and in a situation where they are logical incorrect:
> But this is a different theory essentially to what you have pointed me towards.


I think you clearly misunderstood me. I never said YOU were stupid, far from it. I said the notion that thinking types do not use feeling is stupid. Before determining my type, I thought I was INTP for several years and posted on the INTPc forum. I heard this notion that thinking types do not use feeling and I thought to myself, but I use Fe quite well. I can only surmise people are using the principles of MBTI in thinking in forced choices T vs F, S vs N, etc. But cognitive functions do not work that way. They are T and F, S and N, etc.

We have to use Fe to compensate Ti. It’s the only cognitive function that can use it, otherwise Ti runs amuck. And when I refer to Fe being compensatory, I am not meaning opposite or opposing like MBTI. Jung says we suppress the compensatory function and unconscious attitude (E/I):


> So long as conscious feeling preserves the personal character, or, in other words, so long as the personality does not become swallowed up by successive states of feeling, this unconscious thinking remains compensatory.
> 
> But as soon as the (Fe) personality is dissociated, becoming dispersed in mutually contradictory states of feeling, the identity of the ego is lost, and the subject becomes unconscious. But, because of the subject's lapse into the unconscious, it becomes associated with the unconscious thinking -- function, therewith assisting the unconscious [p. 452] thought to occasional consciousness. The stronger the conscious feeling relation, and therefore, the more 'depersonalized,' it becomes, the stronger grows the unconscious opposition. This reveals itself in the fact that unconscious ideas centre round just the most valued objects, which are thus pitilessly stripped of their value.


If you think about it, the only types that use Fe more than ITPs will be EFJs, IFJs and ETPs. We use Fe far better than ETJs, ITJs, EFPs and IFPs.


ukinfj said:


> In the temperaments you have shown me, I would probably fit into both, I can't really decide between them. I wouldn't gravitate toward the sciences, but it said in the description that theorists could fit humanities as well. It does not mention how they relate to other people or how they think, so it doesn't really give any impression over what cognitive functions they may use. The danger of such broad preferences is that you could basically say that any university lecturer in a theory based subject - such as philosophy, critical theory or advanced physics - all very different things - seeing as they have spent years studying and working hard to find their position, would then be called at theorist. I think these people would generally come out as a theorist because that is what they have dedicated their life to. But that really has no bearing on what MBTI type they are.


You are basing a lot on mere stereotypes as you know. Ti is not about science, Te is. Ti is about philosophy, psychology, etc. But going back to temperaments, you never disclosed your results so I am unsure just how close you scored. A rule of thumb is when males struggle with making the distinction between T/F, they’re generally F and females vice versa, because they are being guided by their collective unconscious in allowing their immediate environments to dictate they must behave like men or women. 

As for temperament, you will never know enough about cognitive functions to determine your type from that alone. In fact I would have never determined my type solely by using cognitive functions. At best they can only confirm through study. We’re too blinded by our subjectivity toward the Self to discern which function comes first. Also there are simply too many facets of type to where you will always struggle. The most productive way to determine your type is to remove yourself as much as possible. Just taking that test can’t help you, either you relate to core values of the Catalyst or you do not. There are descriptions under each temperament forum that can give you an idea. Also, you either are a person that interacts in a “Chart the Course” or “Behind the Scenes” manner. But again you have to be careful because females are taught to be informative and males are taught to be direct in their interaction styles. 


ukinfj said:


> Of course both theories have their faults, though, and I think picking which one you would like to go with or which one you prefer is really up to you.
> 
> I want to apologise as well in case I offended you. I did not mean to, it was more my understanding of Fe and I wanted to understand how you experience it.


Here is what you originally disclosed that caught my attention UK;


> I like to create patterns in my mind and I find that thinking about something like MBTI gives me something to construct. It gives me something to think about. That's literally it. Generally, I like to grab as much info as possible about it then I break it down to the vaguest possible terms (which is what I was sort of trying to do here).


I responded by asking if this is your basic instinct wherein you responded;


> I want to see it as pure dynamic,so I strip away the details to see the pure principle beneath - and as I have said, the pure principle is not these cognitive function building blocks. To me, they are another detail. I want to see beneath that to the dynamic between them and the dynamic underpinning the theory. What dynamic has this grown from, where's the leverage? That's kind of how I work when I'm presented with a theory.


This is why I provided snippets of the Ti and Ni definitions. If you disagree that what you described is Ti-Pe, then we can debate that, but Fe does not take in information from an external source. Only two functions are capable of doing that (Ne-Se). Even Ni and Si cannot take information. They create information from an unknown source based on never experiencing what they have created. This points to someone using Ti-Pe. So either you are claiming to use cognitive functions equal to or greater than your most differentiated function (Ni) and it's auxiliary function Pe (Se/Ne), or you are what you are. I have no intentions of trying to dissuade you, but I can only go by what you have pointed out.


----------



## ukinfj (Apr 15, 2011)

@Functianalyst Sorry, I didn't explain why I was talking about Fe. You'll have to excuse my everywhereness, long week, tired and last night drunk too! My brain is slowly falling to pieces  

Basically, the reason I was asking about Fe is that Ti is a definite in me, but just using Ti does not make you a Ti dom, just as using Fe does not make you an Fe dom. So I have been working by a process of exclusion. The two types that could fit me best would be INFJ and INTP, as Ti is obvious and it would seem I have a strong "N" function of one type or other,but I am mostly saying that due to my uselessness in the real world (practicality, observation, noticing change, remembering how things were etc) and that really might not be the best way to look at S, I'm not sure. So we'll keep ISFJ and ISTP open for now, just in case. 

The reason I was asking about Fe was because Fe is another definite - I definitely use Fe, the task is to see what functions I use Fe and Ti with. Fe is easily understandable, to me, and since Fe in a Ti-dom will look very different from Fe in an Ni-dom, I thought it would be easier to see the difference. The strength of the Fe (how much of a bearance it has on your personality, rather than how good you are at it, I suppose, since it is not a skill) is what I was talking about before. 

But I understand where you are coming from. I think perhaps what I need to do is understand where you saw Pe coming in, as that may make it more understandable for me. I probably use the functions of the INFJ, since I have spent many months checking and double checking this (I have been told I am every type under the sun so I always check it out to make sure) which would suggest ISTP.

I'm going to move away from this thread and into a type-me space where we could bring others in. I feel like I'm starting from scratch again! If I think about something for long enough it ceases to make sense :-/


----------



## MCRTS (Jul 4, 2011)

wisefaery said:


> i was wondering if its common to all Sensors to dislike theories. i am in college and i love reading. but i love reading for the sake of it...the beautiful words and emotions they evoke and what i can imagine of the story however i never bothered with deeper meaning and symbolism or whatever theories and themes underlying the plot. i find analysing so much annoying.
> ironically i get typed as INFP often and i can never relate to them. ISFP makes more sense to me.


I don't know. I do like symbolism and things like that. When I read anything, even a novel, I'd look deeper to see if the author means anything else. I like to read in between the lines. When I read the Wizard of Oz as a kid, I remember wondering if there was symbolism behind the different characters. This was sparked off because of the scene where Oz appeared differently to each of the four different characters. Many people think that Wizard of Oz was a caricature of the state US. When I read those articles, I was quite bemused. So my hunch all those years ago-that there was more to it than just a children's story-was right!


----------



## jazzyjblue1102 (Jan 4, 2011)

I am always viewed as extremely absent from the world haha. People are constantly snapping fingers in my face to bring me back to reality enough to ask me a question. 

And usually when I come up with a great revolutionary idea, I share it around a bit until i find someone like-minded and willing to implement the idea. I could never go through with my own ideas because I'm the "fly under the radar" type. Currently my "implementer" is a very close friend of mine, and an ENFP


----------



## MCRTS (Jul 4, 2011)

ukinfj said:


> She writes science fiction or other times semi-autobiographical things. She tends to personalise objects in her writing - very quirky and funny. Sometimes she just blogs about her morning and the fact she can't be bothered to go to church, but in the blog God is sitting in the kitchen eating muesli and they talk about whether or not she should go. She does the same with animals, objects etc. She personifies things and then puts in some quirky details like the muesli thing.


That sounds like me, if I could be bothered to keep a blog. :-D



> The ISFJ is the only person I talk about these things with as she is interested. She doesn't add to the conversation, she just listens and then maybe a couple of weeks later she'll have an opinion, but she doesn't tend to know what she thinks about things as of the moment. I don't always, but I tend to want to work things out and don't really like listening to other people's ideas too much. I'd much prefer to know I have my own. If there's anything I find irritating about her it's just that sometimes she seems to be influenced by those around her. That's not actually a bad thing it's just that it's important to me to be individualistic in thought so I can secretly want to encourage others to do the same.


She's definitely ISFJ then, because I'm a lot like that! I think she's doing two things, a) being polite and letting you voice your opinion, and b) reflecting and mulling over in her head what you say. I don't take a week to get back to people, but I find that I reflect and then reply.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

ukinfj said:


> [MENTION=1913]I think perhaps what I need to do is understand where you saw Pe coming in, as that may make it more understandable for me.





> Generally, I like to grab as much info as possible about it then I break it down to the vaguest possible terms (which is what I was sort of trying to do here).


No other function can do this but Se and Ne. Clearly you may be doing it from the weaker aspect, but it's not going to be something you do on instinct. I have given an indication of how Jung says introverts start within then go out, and extraverts start outward and go in, but I surmise the Ji-Pe type is just as different than the Pi-Je type:

Ji-Pe types will start with a basic principle or model, then research information that corroborates their principle. If the new information does not fit their existing principle, Ji-Pe types will accept the new information as the new basic principle until new information comes along that causes them to adjust again. This is Myers-Briggs' theory on how IPs work.

Pi-Je types do not start with a basic principle, they start from somewhere within and use their Je to defend their thoughts. There is a phrase that seems to put this into perspective that IJs are fond of saying, "Don't confuse me with the facts, I have already made up my mind." 

Jung refers to Si and Ni dominant users as lacking the experience in what they conjure up from within, because it is so vivid and real to them. Based on your confusion I am reminded of Berens/Nardi's thoughts on the *Similarities and Differences* in some functions:


> Ti and Ni are often accompanied by a sense of detachment and disconnection. With both there tends to be comfort with complexity. The difference is that when we are engaging in Ti, we usually have a clear sense of the principles or models something is judged against, whereas with Ni, an impressionistic image forms in the mind.


Before I had the MBTI professionally administered to me, I was quite convinced that I was INFJ. But as Fizz has said more than once and you now concede, to truly determine your type we must be open to all cognitive functions. You could be INFJ, but as shown above in the quote, INJs like ISJs, have no clear sense of the principles or models of something because they generally use their Te-Fe to fend off any additional information that may violate what Si and Ni have conjured. You do not indicate this is how you process the functions.


----------



## TaylorS (Jan 24, 2010)

Spades said:


> I think you're onto something. A *lot* of S's mistype as N's when they do tests because they have questions like "do you enjoy theory?" to which an SJ might say yes, because they enjoy learning theoretical concepts (e.g. the shorter the wavelength, the higher the frequency), which are actually data and facts (Si). *I have a friend who claims he is INTJ, but I think he is ISTJ. When he talks about ideas, he 95% of the time references videos/people/articles, rather than coming up with the idea purely intuitively.
> *
> On the flip-side, I get really bored talking about what I've seen, heard, or read and prefer discussing ideas stemming from my mind, even if they're wrong.
> 
> Also, to answer your question, I rarely ever materialize my ideas, even if I plan them out extensively in my mind. I'd rather get minions to do it


I'm quoting this because I agree with this completely! Your friend sounds a lot like me.


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

ukinfj said:


> What I know is that the difference is nothing to do with how imaginative you are, how creative you are, how easily you grasp abstract theory or how clever you are.
> 
> Most of the S types I know fit these descriptions, which is why S and N was confusing at first.
> 
> ...


You mix up J and P. Ni doms are J's so this idea that Ni's don't do and just think is wrong. INTP's for example are much better at being satisfied with just thinking.

And what's real life anyway? You seem to think that real life is "in the moment" living. You know who live just "in the moment"? Cats, dogs, pretty much all animals except for perhaps some higher primates and some wales/dolphins. In your logic, S's are like dogs? Like: Oh I'm hungry,.. I'm eating,.. oh I'm sleepy,.. I'm sleeping,.. oh I feel like..... doing it.... etc.


----------



## TaylorS (Jan 24, 2010)

cyamitide said:


> That's not abstract enough
> 
> To sprinkle this with more abstraction:
> 
> ...


Brilliant analogy!


----------



## TaylorS (Jan 24, 2010)

wisefaery said:


> i was wondering if its common to all Sensors to dislike theories. i am in college and i love reading. but i love reading for the sake of it...the beautiful words and emotions they evoke and what i can imagine of the story however i never bothered with deeper meaning and symbolism or whatever theories and themes underlying the plot. i find analysing so much annoying.
> ironically i get typed as INFP often and i can never relate to them. ISFP makes more sense to me.


This S is perfectly fine with theory, it's meaningless abstraction without any attachment to reality that I hate (the philosophers Hegel and Schopenhauer are examples of that kind of BS).

I am in agreement with Karl Popper (an ESTJ), that abstract philosophizing that is too far removed from empirical data is worse than useless.


----------



## Spades (Aug 31, 2011)

TaylorS said:


> I'm quoting this because I agree with this completely! Your friend sounds a lot like me.


Awesome! Although I'd like to modify a bit of what I said, because I sound typist in that post (it _was_ from a very long time ago).

For example, this friend watches a lot of documentaries. He will give me a very detailed summary of them, focusing on what was done, said, and concluded. Say these pieces of information are lowercase: a, b, c, d, ... and the bottom line is (capital) Z. He will say: "a, b, c, d, ..., Z". Somewhere around 'n', I get really impatient.

Say I watched the same documentary and was telling him about it. I would say: "Z. A, B, C, ..." where the new A, B, C, ... are my own speculations and interpretations (I'm an Ni user). These could be things like: What does Z mean? Maybe it's A? I think that B. What if C?"

I hope this analogy makes sense somewhat.


----------



## Carola (Apr 26, 2011)

Functianalyst said:


> Ji-Pe types will start with a basic principle or model, then research information that corroborates their principle. If the new information does not fit their existing principle, Ji-Pe types will accept the new information as the new basic principle until new information comes along that causes them to adjust again. This is Myers-Briggs' theory on how IPs work.
> 
> Pi-Je types do not start with a basic principle,* they start from somewhere within and use their Je to defend their thoughts*. There is a phrase that seems to put this into perspective that IJs are fond of saying, "Don't confuse me with the facts, I have already made up my mind."


Above all sorry if I intrude into the discussion.
I have a question : how would the Je defend the Pi perception? I mean , it is easy to understand how a Te type would do so but i have no idea of how an Fe type would defend his\her idea about some intellectual subject for example .
Then , how would a Pi type consider other's point of view if they only defend their own visions?Maybe i've missed the point here.


----------

