# Personal Essay of an Unhealthy Hermit. Type me #3.(No Q-Naire, trying dif method)Jack



## 66393 (Oct 17, 2013)

I think you're an INTP based on your first post. I sense Ne in you and don't see much Ni, in your text at least. Testing high Ti and Ni is... peculiar. You may be misconstruing one of those functions. You're young, your type will elucidate as you age. You called yourself "unhealthy," so that only can contribute to type confusion. The tangent you went on about Mensa cries Ne-Si to me though.


----------



## TheOddRhombus (Jul 30, 2014)

kev said:


> I think you're an INTP based on your first post. I sense Ne in you and don't see much Ni, in your text at least. Testing high Ti and Ni is... peculiar. You may be misconstruing one of those functions. You're young, your type will elucidate as you age. You called yourself "unhealthy," so that only can contribute to type confusion. The tangent you went on about Mensa cries Ne-Si to me though.


Lol, I certainly see what you mean And yeah, Ni-Ti/Ti-Ni doesn't make any sense! Grr, confusion. I will learn as I age certainly, but I wanna know now xD. My best bet is probably determining my main alone given my situation, but I'm having difficulties. Thanks for sharing the post. - Jack


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

philosopherspidy said:


> So what about when you are 14? Should I have developed my second by now, or am I still indulged completely in my dominant typically? Also, sorry if I'm bothering you with all these Qs, you've been a significant help.


again, i'm no expert, but most have an extroverted function and an introverted function at a young age. 

Aspies seem to me to be VERY introverted people. Perhaps aspies have two introverted functions and very limited extroverted function?

On experiments. Many of us have NO desire whatsoever to run experiments. You'd have to pay me to run one to verify something. 

Measuring real world results to me is Te. Your ability to zero in on something is Ni. That pushes me towards believing you are an INTJ. Also, your huge desire to categorize things (including yourself) into buckets is Te. 

Let me ask this. When you figure out what you are, how will that help you?


----------



## 66393 (Oct 17, 2013)

philosopherspidy said:


> Lol, I certainly see what you mean And yeah, Ni-Ti/Ti-Ni doesn't make any sense! Grr, confusion. I will learn as I age certainly, but I wanna know now xD. My best bet is probably determining my main alone given my situation, but I'm having difficulties. Thanks for sharing the post. - Jack


Yeah. And the guy who said INTJ's conduct experiments on their theories while INTP's don't is making judgments completely based on stereotypes - which more often than not lead to mistypes... I think you are certainly an INTP, if not that, ISTP. To disprove that theory he proposed simply look up some of the greatest INTP inventors and minds and look at their achievements. They wouldn't have gained much intellectual fame if they didn't corroborate their theories with experiments and evidence...


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

kev said:


> Yeah. And the guy who said INTJ's conduct experiments on their theories while INTP's don't is making judgments completely based on stereotypes - which more often than not lead to mistypes... I think you are certainly an INTP, if not that, ISTP. To disprove that theory he proposed simply look up some of the greatest INTP inventors and minds and look at their achievements. They wouldn't have gained much intellectual fame if they didn't corroborate their theories with experiments and evidence...


sigh......


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

i went and researched some on aspies and mbti. The vast majority of aspies are typed at intp, some at intj, some istp or istj. 

The scientists including Myers and Briggs think typing should not be used for those significantly removed from standard normative personalities. In other words, it don't work very well for aspies.

It was interesting to read aspies struggle with empathy. I do also.


----------



## TheOddRhombus (Jul 30, 2014)

kev said:


> Yeah. And the guy who said INTJ's conduct experiments on their theories while INTP's don't is making judgments completely based on stereotypes - which more often than not lead to mistypes... I think you are certainly an INTP, if not that, ISTP. To disprove that theory he proposed simply look up some of the greatest INTP inventors and minds and look at their achievements. They wouldn't have gained much intellectual fame if they didn't corroborate their theories with experiments and evidence...


I want to keep this a positive thread, so please no bashing. I am thankful for both of you guy's input and respect them equally. I'm still not sure what I am, so I'll just keep doing more research. - Jack


----------



## TheOddRhombus (Jul 30, 2014)

drmiller100 said:


> again, i'm no expert, but most have an extroverted function and an introverted function at a young age.
> 
> Aspies seem to me to be VERY introverted people. Perhaps aspies have two introverted functions and very limited extroverted function?
> 
> ...


I am introverted to the absolute extreme. And yes, I am one of those far-out people who think and try to fit everybody into a typology bucket. The desire is definitely there. I am obsessed with putting things in order, too. For example, despite me being 14 I love playing with shapes and making patterns with them. I have a bucket in my room and I pull them out and re-arrange them all of the time. I've heard multiple times that people out of the norm don't work very well with MBTI, but I ignored it because I'm going to. So, onto your Q. It will help me by telling me what my strengths/weaknesses are and give me helpful life advice. I also want to learn my type, to show off my fascination with it. The culmination of my extreme interest in typology would be to find my type and display it proudly. - Jack


----------



## TheOddRhombus (Jul 30, 2014)

kev said:


> Yeah. And the guy who said INTJ's conduct experiments on their theories while INTP's don't is making judgments completely based on stereotypes - which more often than not lead to mistypes... I think you are certainly an INTP, if not that, ISTP. To disprove that theory he proposed simply look up some of the greatest INTP inventors and minds and look at their achievements. They wouldn't have gained much intellectual fame if they didn't corroborate their theories with experiments and evidence...


I would love to do that, but I don't want to look at the famous people yet until I know my type lol. That would make some sense though. Perhaps that's what made those INTPs' famous, they had all of their INTP-ness but the drive too. - Jack


----------



## 66393 (Oct 17, 2013)

drmiller100 said:


> sigh......


sorry. i totally derailed that. i just made the guy who made the "i am a jerk thread" sigh. ambivalent if i should feel totally accomplished or like a complete asshole.


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

kev said:


> sorry. i totally derailed that. i just made the guy who made the "i am a jerk thread" sigh. ambivalent if i should feel totally accomplished or like a complete asshole.


smiles. 

No worries. Some threads are better than others for not listening to each other. This guy is really trying, so I am trying to be nice and appreciate you backing up a bit.

life is good!


----------



## TheOddRhombus (Jul 30, 2014)

So I have one person that thinks INTJ, another INTP, and another ISTP/INFJ. Now I'm even more confused than I was before O:


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

philosopherspidy said:


> So I have one person that thinks INTJ, another INTP, and another ISTP/INFJ. Now I'm even more confused than I was before O:


Ten pages into my own typing thread and I feel things are, if anything, getting less clear for me... it's a long process, at least for some. I've had ENTJ, INFJ, INTJ, ISTJ, INTP, ISTP and arguably ESTJ all suggested at some point in my thread. I find it's a matter of trying to see whether the reasoning others present for the type they think you are is good enough to accept, that it clarifies to you why you happen to be a particular type (or happen to use a particular function, have a particular preference, &c.); evaluate all suggestions made to you, work out the reasons underpinning that suggestion, and see if they do truly lead to the conclusions that you are more than likely one particular type. Not an easy or simple process, admittedly. What do you think of each of the suggestions that've been made so far - how would you evaluate those?


----------



## TheOddRhombus (Jul 30, 2014)

StunnedFox said:


> Ten pages into my own typing thread and I feel things are, if anything, getting less clear for me... it's a long process, at least for some. I've had ENTJ, INFJ, INTJ, ISTJ, INTP, ISTP and arguably ESTJ all suggested at some point in my thread. I find it's a matter of trying to see whether the reasoning others present for the type they think you are is good enough to accept, that it clarifies to you why you happen to be a particular type (or happen to use a particular function, have a particular preference, &c.); evaluate all suggestions made to you, work out the reasons underpinning that suggestion, and see if they do truly lead to the conclusions that you are more than likely one particular type. Not an easy or simple process, admittedly. What do you think of each of the suggestions that've been made so far - how would you evaluate those?


Yeah, now I'm just finding this entire process funny. lol. This is what I think about the suggestions made so far. Based off of reasoning behind suggestions, I think @drmiller100 was closest to how I would go about it. I don't see why making conclusions off of generalizations is bad. Sure there are exceptions, but that is with everything. @kev He had a very good point about Ne-Si. When I was babbling about Mensa, I believe I was using Ne and Si too. @skyrimorchestra helped me out the most for what I thought I specifically was (Ni-Ti). @mysterie gave me helpful input regarding fi/fe. Talking about this brings up a curious thought. What type do YOU think I am? As far as I remember, I don't think you ever suggested a type. In my experience, I have had INTJ, INTP, ENTJ & ISTP. Never had any others suggested actually. My OCD lends itself to J, but going off of dichotomy alone is suspicious, and I am skeptical to trust the reliability of using that as a deciding factor.


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

philosopherspidy said:


> Yeah, now I'm just finding this entire process funny. lol. This is what I think about the suggestions made so far. Based off of reasoning behind suggestions, I think @drmiller100 was closest to how I would go about it. I don't see why making conclusions off of generalizations is bad. Sure there are exceptions, but that is with everything. @kev He had a very good point about Ne-Si. When I was babbling about Mensa, I believe I was using Ne and Si too. @skyrimorchestra helped me out the most for what I thought I specifically was (Ni-Ti). @mysterie gave me helpful input regarding fi/fe. Talking about this brings up a curious thought. What type do YOU think I am? As far as I remember, I don't think you ever suggested a type. In my experience, I have had INTJ, INTP, ENTJ & ISTP. Never had any others suggested actually. My OCD lends itself to J, but going off of dichotomy alone is suspicious, and I am skeptical to trust the reliability of using that as a deciding factor.


Well, like I said, what aspects of the theory you believe matter when it comes to trying to type a person. I couldn't say I've any real evidence to back up my suggestions - hence why I've not given any until now - but I'd say I'm leaning towards INTJ, with INTP a close secondary possibility (and especially if you don't give much regard to dichotomies when it comes to typing; J>P on dichotomies but not so heavily I could call it certainly). I can definitely see the tangent about Mensa as an example of Ne-Si, yet your strong focus on needing to find your type looks more Te-like than Ti (although hardly definitively). Given the amount of different types that've been suggested to me, I don't know that my grasp on the whole typing process is as strong as I'd like it to be; nonetheless, having thought on it, INTP looks more likely to me, although I'm still not really able to articulate exactly why (which is why, like I said, I refrained from giving any opinion until you asked).


----------



## TheOddRhombus (Jul 30, 2014)

StunnedFox said:


> Well, like I said, what aspects of the theory you believe matter when it comes to trying to type a person. I couldn't say I've any real evidence to back up my suggestions - hence why I've not given any until now - but I'd say I'm leaning towards INTJ, with INTP a close secondary possibility (and especially if you don't give much regard to dichotomies when it comes to typing; J>P on dichotomies but not so heavily I could call it certainly). I can definitely see the tangent about Mensa as an example of Ne-Si, yet your strong focus on needing to find your type looks more Te-like than Ti (although hardly definitively). Given the amount of different types that've been suggested to me, I don't know that my grasp on the whole typing process is as strong as I'd like it to be; nonetheless, having thought on it, INTP looks more likely to me, although I'm still not really able to articulate exactly why (which is why, like I said, I refrained from giving any opinion until you asked).


Yeah, that seems like a wise thing to do. And clarification for the dichotomy, I wasn't trying to say I have a slight J>P. I have a fairly significant J>P, I just don't value the dichotomy itself much at all. I just made a thread on the functions forum about Ti & Te, and I'd appreciate it if you gave it a look. I'm guessing that would probably be my best shot now at typing myself. I've tried through dominants, but I couldn't find which one is dominant lol. And inferiors, I related to inferior Se more. However, I am suspicious of that too. IDK if you are familiar w/Socionics, but do you think Visual Indicator is applicable to MBTI or even useful at all? P.S. on a scale of 1-100%, how close do you think you are to finding your type? Just for fun xD. I would probably say about 63% for me.


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

philosopherspidy said:


> Yeah, that seems like a wise thing to do. And clarification for the dichotomy, I wasn't trying to say I have a slight J>P. I have a fairly significant J>P, I just don't value the dichotomy itself much at all. I just made a thread on the functions forum about Ti & Te, and I'd appreciate it if you gave it a look. I'm guessing that would probably be my best shot now at typing myself. I've tried through dominants, but I couldn't find which one is dominant lol. And inferiors, I related to inferior Se more. However, I am suspicious of that too. IDK if you are familiar w/Socionics, but do you think Visual Indicator is applicable to MBTI or even useful at all? P.S. on a scale of 1-100%, how close do you think you are to finding your type? Just for fun xD. I would probably say about 63% for me.


And that, I guess, shows up the difficulties with typing people; we all have slightly different conceptions of exactly how personality theory works. I agree with you that J>P is quite clear - I'd say similarly of myself, although maybe not quite that clear - but the difference is that I think dichotomies are just as important in the typing process as cognitive functions (although, contradictorily, I don't think the two theories are truly compatible with each other). 

I read through your Ti/Te thread... I'm inclined to say the "Ti=rationalism and Te=empiricism" angle is either wholly incorrect or a much overblown difference between the two: it seems flawed to say that anyone favours one so heavily that it could be prominent whilst the other is so highly suppressed as to be largely invisible. But I don't think I've wholly got the difference down myself: I've swung between Te and Ti a fair bit over the course of the typing process (the current zeitgeist is strongly favouring Ti). Whether you only prefer that which is applicable, or whether esoteric and inapplicable thought is prevalent, seems closer to the mark but still a touch off: I much prefer the applicable, for instance, but quite enjoy thinking on highly specific and not particularly useful topics as well...

I'm only mildly familiar with Socionics, and largely disregard it; to the extent that I understand VI, I don't think it's unreasonable to try and pick up personality clues from "body behaviour", if you will - e.g., the way a person holds their arms, or uses their face as a means of expression - but claims about, say, jaw structure or finger thickness seem egregiously unsubstantiated. 

I don't know that I could place a percentage value on it, I go from thinking "nearly there" to sliding back into near-complete uncertainty so often during the process that "how close I am to completion" doesn't seem easily quantified. Probably below 50%, though.


----------



## TheOddRhombus (Jul 30, 2014)

StunnedFox said:


> And that, I guess, shows up the difficulties with typing people; we all have slightly different conceptions of exactly how personality theory works. I agree with you that J>P is quite clear - I'd say similarly of myself, although maybe not quite that clear - but the difference is that I think dichotomies are just as important in the typing process as cognitive functions (although, contradictorily, I don't think the two theories are truly compatible with each other).
> 
> I read through your Ti/Te thread... I'm inclined to say the "Ti=rationalism and Te=empiricism" angle is either wholly incorrect or a much overblown difference between the two: it seems flawed to say that anyone favours one so heavily that it could be prominent whilst the other is so highly suppressed as to be largely invisible. But I don't think I've wholly got the difference down myself: I've swung between Te and Ti a fair bit over the course of the typing process (the current zeitgeist is strongly favouring Ti). Whether you only prefer that which is applicable, or whether esoteric and inapplicable thought is prevalent, seems closer to the mark but still a touch off: I much prefer the applicable, for instance, but quite enjoy thinking on highly specific and not particularly useful topics as well...
> 
> ...


Yeah, unfortunately everybody types people differently. I wish it was part of the forum rules that everyone must type people using the same designated format. Furthermore, there could be a sticky thread where people can debate the best format, and the rules are edited to fit them accordingly on occasion. It'd be much better off that way to me. Though perhaps that could be perceived as too radical. I actually didn't know rationalism=ti/empiricism=te, so I wasn't even taking that into account. Hmm, I guess I could explain my type in two ways via my siggy, that is once I know it. I.E, my type through dichotomies: INTJ my type through functions: whatever it is/probably INTP. Speaking on that, it's quite funny. Generally speaking, people fight between each other believing wholeheartedly I am INTJ, or I am for sure an INTP. It's probably because they use different methodologies. Also, Ni is one of those functions where people have such highly formed and varied opinions regarding it. In the end, I'll probably go with the type that most people overall think I am. Now, I'll probably go watch some videos or read through some articles regarding VI as an alternate method. Good luck in typing yourself, I'd be interested in seeing how you turn out. I'm hoping I get some more input on my threads, I need all the help I can get. Actually, now I'm kinda interested in you. Maybe I'll go read your thread and throw in my two cents. Take it with a grain of salt though, I'm a noob. - Jack | EDIT: Nvm. xD. I have no idea wth you are.


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

philosopherspidy said:


> Yeah, unfortunately everybody types people differently. I wish it was part of the forum rules that everyone must type people using the same designated format. Furthermore, there could be a sticky thread where people can debate the best format, and the rules are edited to fit them accordingly on occasion. It'd be much better off that way to me. Though perhaps that could be perceived as too radical. I actually didn't know rationalism=ti/empiricism=te, so I wasn't even taking that into account. Hmm, I guess I could explain my type in two ways via my siggy, that is once I know it. I.E, my type through dichotomies: INTJ my type through functions: whatever it is/probably INTP. Speaking on that, it's quite funny. Generally speaking, people fight between each other believing wholeheartedly I am INTJ, or I am for sure an INTP. It's probably because they use different methodologies. Also, Ni is one of those functions where people have such highly formed and varied opinions regarding it. In the end, I'll probably go with the type that most people overall think I am. Now, I'll probably go watch some videos or read through some articles regarding VI as an alternate method. Good luck in typing yourself, I'd be interested in seeing how you turn out. I'm hoping I get some more input on my threads, I need all the help I can get. Actually, now I'm kinda interested in you. Maybe I'll go read your thread and throw in my two cents. Take it with a grain of salt though, I'm a noob. - Jack


I don't think there's as much discussion as I'd like on the forums about the differences between the various theories, which ones are compatible with each other, what tests have been done to try and show support for particular theories and how well they've fared... it just appears to me that there's a near-total failure to empirically demonstrate the existence of cognitive functions, so at best they're unproven and at worst they're debunked. I'm inclined to think there's some merit to the theory, but I can't justify that; meanwhile, tests seem to show the dichotomies as normally distributed rather than bimodally so, but there do seem to be meaningful correlations drawable from them... it's all a little unclear, though, really. My own uncertainty in this regard can't be helpful to those typing me... neither does it help me in trying to type others, because I have to explain a lot more than others would.

The idea of having one type through dichotomies, and one through functions, isn't too bad. And I agree wholeheartedly on Ni - such is the variation as to what people think about it that I could not have it, or it could be my dominant function, or tertiary... just so unclear. Rather than going with what others think, I think what's important is that you're satisfied with the reasoning for you being a particular type. If everyone says INTJ, or INTP, or even another type, then that's a good sign that it might be right, but if you've no good reason to believe it then it seems a little foolhardy to believe it solely on the testimony of others.


----------



## TheOddRhombus (Jul 30, 2014)

StunnedFox said:


> I don't think there's as much discussion as I'd like on the forums about the differences between the various theories, which ones are compatible with each other, what tests have been done to try and show support for particular theories and how well they've fared... it just appears to me that there's a near-total failure to empirically demonstrate the existence of cognitive functions, so at best they're unproven and at worst they're debunked. I'm inclined to think there's some merit to the theory, but I can't justify that; meanwhile, tests seem to show the dichotomies as normally distributed rather than bimodally so, but there do seem to be meaningful correlations drawable from them... it's all a little unclear, though, really. My own uncertainty in this regard can't be helpful to those typing me... neither does it help me in trying to type others, because I have to explain a lot more than others would.
> 
> The idea of having one type through dichotomies, and one through functions, isn't too bad. And I agree wholeheartedly on Ni - such is the variation as to what people think about it that I could not have it, or it could be my dominant function, or tertiary... just so unclear. Rather than going with what others think, I think what's important is that you're satisfied with the reasoning for you being a particular type. If everyone says INTJ, or INTP, or even another type, then that's a good sign that it might be right, but if you've no good reason to believe it then it seems a little foolhardy to believe it solely on the testimony of others.


Yeah, probably my biggest weakness in typing myself is my extreme over-reliance on others and disregarding my own opinions. It's a noble goal to try to be unbiased, but not when you do so to the extent of overt skepticism in anything you personally believe. You can't be the mirror of X type to all people, so it's irrational to not think you're a type just because of what a *few* others say. If many say it, it would seemingly be true. In fact, the -only- things stopping me from slapping on an INTJ title are the people who opine I'm another type and the unreliable, incredibly shambolic representation of Ni. I have an idea. Perhaps I'll come up with reasons why I relate/don't to each type, and assign 1 point for each relation/-1 for each dissimilar reasons. I'll start here: 

INTP - Not as instinctually skilled in noticing logical inconsistencies as I would assume a Ti-dom would be/-1. 
I am very open-minded/+1. | I am not easy-going or affable whatsoever/-1. I love theories and speculating about them/ +1.
I am interested in implementation of ideas just as much, not just being the 'arthitect' of them/-1. | Rationalism>empiricism/+1
I have more developed Ni/Te than an INTP does atypically/-2 | I deny the idea of anything existing without reason and without making logical sense/+1. INTPs' are supposed to be good at scrabble and I rock at it/ +1 | I have good critical thinking skills and the ability to contemplate very deeply./ +1. | I don't resemble the INTP(LII) VI whatsoever/ -1. TOTAL : 0.

INTJ - I love the power of imagination and I hold it slightly above reason/+1. | I love predicting how things will occur. For example, when I was 12, I designed an elaborate theory called futuristic webism to help me predict the future. It's absurd and extremely false, but demonstrates INTJ-ness well./+1. (However, it was based off of logic and probability so one could argue the INTP-ness of it.) I spend excess time imagining all the various ways something could turn out that I am going to do relatively soon/ +1. | I am not decisive like an INTJ/ -1. | I hold symbolism and epiphanies in high esteem/ +1. | All of my reason/ideas stem from the core desire of me wanting to assist humanity. That suggests having Fe in my stack, as it is a humanitarian cause/ -1. | I have Ne/Ti/Si more developed than a typical INTJ does/ -3. INTJs' are supposed to be good at chess, but I suck/-1. | I often know things before I can explain how I know it, and I struggle explaining it at first/ +1. | I have narcissistic tendencies not uncommon for INTJs but is uncommon for INTPs/ +1. I match the INTJ(ILI) VI very much so/+1. TOTAL: 1. 

So, in this theory, INTJ is by a slim margin better. Just a fun little idea I had. Any thoughts?


----------

