# IxTJ



## CaféZeitgeist (May 29, 2012)

*IxTJ - Sensing or Intuition?*

I am having trouble determining whether I am an N or an S. I usually test somewhat evenly between the two. 
I am definitely a T according to every test I have taken, and I am about 80% Judging. 
Here are my questionnaires:

_1. Is there anything that may affect the way you answer the questions? For example, a stressful time, mental illness, medications, special life circumstances? Other useful information includes sex, age, and current state of mind.
_
Originally: No, there's nothing particularly stressful or significant in my life going on right now, unless you count the PSATs coming up in October.
I'm sixteen, and a female. I'm neutral right now, which is my dominate state of mind.
Edit: I have had to rewrite this post twice already. This is the third time, because apparently I had been in a session too long and it stopped auto-saving. For this reason, this is a little rushed, and my answers are not as detailed. I would repost if it is necessary, anything that I think of later. 

_2. Study these two images _here_ and _here_. Which one do you prefer and why? How would you describe it?
_
I prefer the scene of the ocean and the aurora borealis. Though I'm not one for the ocean, that vast horizon makes me think of the countless places that I could go to from the shore. It seems like it will never end, and it could take you anywhere. 
I would describe the scene as peaceful and serene. It looks to be the beginning of a nice cold day. With the sun just peaking up over the horizon, it adds to the whole exciting, new feel of the picture to me. It's the beginning of a new day when anything is possible. The colors are cool and calming. It's quite beautiful. The aurora borealis adds wonderment to the scene. 

_3. Please describe yourself as a person if you were to introduce yourself to someone else like in a cover letter. What kind of person are you and why?
_
I am hard-working and interested in learning new things. I put my mind to anything that I want to accomplish, and I always strive to improve myself and my repertoire of skills and knowledge. 

_4. What kind of person would you LIKE to be? Why? What kind of person would you NOT want to be? Why?
_
I would like to be a person that is successful and competent. I do not mean materially successful, because there are so many different reasons (not all of them noble) that someone is materially successful. 
I mean successful in having a rewarding life, rich in mind, and not necessarily wallet. 
I want to be someone who can always change and adapt, and not be too stubborn-minded and hard.

_5. Do you think there are any differences to how you described yourself and how people actually perceive you? How do you think others would describe you? If there are any discrepancies between these two that are you are aware of; do you know why exactly that is?
_
I have heard others describe me as responsible and dependable. Anyone I have met has always pegged me as intelligent. Truly, sometimes I wonder why they view me as extremely intelligent, because I believe that I do not say the most intelligent things I could. I usually save my intelligent thoughts (by my standards at least) for myself. 

_6. What in life do you find to be of importance? Why? If you are unsure you can always take the _Value Test_ and post the results here. Do note that it helps if you narrow it down to 20 or ideally 10 values as suggested at stage 
_
According to the value test, I value: Knowledge, Wisdom, Intelligence, Creativity, Originality, Adroitness, Efficiency, Open-mindedness, Ambition, and Composure the most. 

_7. How do you react to new situations in your life? Can you describe an event in your life where you were in an unknown situation? How did you deal with it?
_
I have moved many times in my life. I have always adapted to my new environments. 
I usually assess the new situation and then try to see where I could fit in to it. I try to adapt the best that I can. 

_8. Please describe yourself when you are in a stressful situation. How do you act and why? Real life experiences are welcome.
_
When I am in a stressful situation, I tend to shut down. I don't really become unproductive, but I retreat inside my head. I may not necessarily walk away physically from the situation, but I walk away mentally. I get quiet, and I do not speak about the situation. 

_9. Please describe yourself when you are in an enjoyable situation. How do you act and why? Real life experiences are welcome._

As it is noticeable by my few friends and my family, I actually smile when I am in an enjoyable situation. I will talk to people, and I may even seem extroverted when I particularly enjoy being somewhere. I will talk to people, and I will laugh out loud sometimes. I even joke around. 

_10. Describe your relationship to socialization. How do you perceive one-on-one interaction? How do you perceive group interaction?
_
As counterintuitive as this may seem for an introvert, I enjoy group interactions. The reason? Because usually the group is dominated by the extroverted people that put them together. This way, I fade into the background, and I can observe everyone and get to know what they are really like, without having to contribute to the group.
I like one-on-one interaction, but I have communication problems with people. I'd rather type or write everything I want to say. It would come out more intelligently. I enjoy having deep conversations with people, but because most of the people I know do not enjoy having those types of conversations, I engage them in their somewhat superficial talk when I have to. 


_11. Describe your relationship to society. What are the elements of it you hold important or unimportant (e.g. social norms, values, customs, traditions)? How do you see people as a whole?
_
Isn't this essentially the same as #6? I don't really hold a particular society's values, customs, and traditions as important to me. I have my own that I have developed, and the society I live in does not deem mine important. If I was asked to give up the customs and traditions of my society, I would have no reservations about doing so.
Some social norms are important to me. They are conservative norms (*not politically conservative*) such as not talking or laughing too loud, and not disclosing personal information with people you have just met. 

_12. Describe your relationship to authority. How do you perceive authority? What does it mean to you, and how do you deal with it?
_
I question authority. I question an authority's motives and their logic. If I deem their motives and logic acceptable, I will not have a problem with the authority in question. If I do not gauge their movies and their logic in asking me to do something as acceptable, I will not hold the authority as an authority. I realize that no one is perfect, but if an authority has serious flaws, and if they ask me to do something that I do not see as necessary or logical, I will not do it.
My greatest pet-peeve is hypocrisy. If an authority is hypocritical, I will disregard it altogether. 

_13. Describe your relationship to order and chaos. What do order and chaos mean to you? How do they manifest in your daily life? _

Interesting question.
The best way I can describe this is using an example. 
My example would be New York City. That city is orderly in that it's layout is a grid. There are no unplanned streets, and their are no random streets are sidewalks. Everything is on the grid. It's chaotic because of what's contained in the grid: a mix of people doing all sorts of things.
I like the order of the city, and also the bustle of chaos. 
To me, order is having everything organized and flowing in the way you want it to. Order is relative to the person that is overseeing the order. Chaos is when things are unplanned and just happening, many things simultaneously. 
In my life, chaos is manifested in the people around me. My family and friends like to do everything last-minute. I hate that. I have to replan my whole day because they decided to go to the movies or go out to eat. Although I can choose not to go, I hate that I am asked at the time when I have to decide. 
The order in my life comes from me. I decide the way I want things, and I order them that way. 

_14. What is it that you fear in life? Why? How does this fear manifest to you both in how you think and how you act?
_
I fear appearing unintelligent and stupid. I do not speak much because of this. Most of my thoughts are kept inside my head where people cannot know them. It definitely influences how I act because I do not talk to many people for this reason. I tend to analyze and plan what I am going to say. 

_15. What is it that you desire in life? What do you strive to achieve? Why? Where do you think these drives and desires stem from or are inspired by?_

In life, I desire to be content and to use my brain to its full capacity. I don't want to waste my life doing something dull and that does not require my thinking. I want to be someone who does things that make a difference. I think these drives are inspired by the people who do great things, but that do not get much credit for them, like Nikola Tesla. I want to use my brain in the best possible way, to its fullest potential. I don't care about the praise or recognition. I'd rather not have them to be honest. I hate attention of any kind. 

_16. a) What activities energize you most? b) What activities drain you most? Why?
_
Assuming you mean mentally

Activities that energize:
Reading
Listening to music
Walking around by myself in NYC
Surfing the Internet
Learning about new innovations and inventions
Playing my violin
Researching things I am interested in
Being in a library or bookstore

Activities that drain:
Talking
Arguing
Having to do something that requires me to think, but that I am not interested in (this happens frequently in school)
Crying (which is why I don't do it)

_17. Why do you want to know your type? What type do you think you are? Why this/these type(s)? Is there a type that appeals to you, to your self-perception, that you would like to be? Why? If you know your _enneagram_, please post this here. If you have done any online function tests such as the _Keys2Cognition_, it helps if you post these results here as well.
_
I want to know my type so that I can improve myself. I am trying to get to know myself better. I also want to know what kind of careers would be good for my type. I know that I am introverted, thinking, and judging, and I usually test intuitive, but I demonstrate some sensing aspects. I want to be sure. 
My enneagram type is Type 5 with 6.

_18. Finally, is there something else you find to be of importance you want to add about yourself you think might be of relevance when helping to type you?

No, I've written enough. _


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

Look through thisThings to consider when typing yourself. - Blogs - PersonalityCafe


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

Boolean11 said:


> Look through this Things to consider when typing yourself. - Blogs - PersonalityCafe


Stolen from: http://personalitycafe.com/whats-my...64-things-consider-when-you-do-your-form.html
Please put a thank you or something that says that you're not the original writer and referring to the person who did write it. @Wakachi spent time and effort to write it.

@Gabriella17, the tests tell you what you want to hear.
1 billion tests can be wrong if you answered it in a biased way (which you automatically do since it's about you).

Could you please do this test? http://personalitycafe.com/whats-my-personality-type/109783-yet-another-questionnaire.html

Since you don't seem to be aware of how MBTI is built up. I'll do a crash course (doesn't mean you'll hit a wall or something).

Your type is built up of 4 functions.
INTJs use - Ni Te Fi Se
ENTPs use - Ne Ti Fe Si

*You have both a T function and an F function in your type*

The question we're asking is *WHAT* T function and *WHAT* F function

If your T function is introverted (Ti), your F function must be extroverted (Fe).

Please do that questionnaire and I'll add more information later.
Don't want to overload you with new information


----------



## CaféZeitgeist (May 29, 2012)

That is the questionnaire I filled out in the OP.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 24, 2012)

@Gabriella17

I'm more inclined to say ISTJ, which is code for a particular function stack.

Dominant: Introverted Sensation (Si)
Auxiliary: Extraverted Thinking (Te)
Tertiary: Introverted Feeling (Fi)
Inferior: Extraverted Intuition (Ne)

Introverted Intuition (Ni) is the dominant function in INTJs, and I didn't see that reflected in your questionnaire. Ni is very concerned with symbols, archetypes, etc. You seem more sensory-oriented, and your response to #2 seemed like a combination of Si and Ne. Si layers subjective impressions over sensory data, while Ne gets excited about possibilities.

Inferior Ne (the 4th function for ISXJs) can also cause anxiety due to its ability to see a lot of bad possibilities. You addressed your reaction to stress in #8, but it wasn't enough for me to determine your inferior function. Could you please elaborate on situations that really stress you out, why they stress you out, and how you react to that stress?

Your Te usage was quite noticeable, and you seem to use it well. Considering your age, I wouldn't necessarily expect to see a well-developed auxiliary function ... but Te didn't seem to be your dominant. I think that you have a preference for introversion, since you're not quite in your comfort zone with the outside world. Te sure is growing right now, though, and throwing a lot of focus on external concerns. 

... Yes, I think that ISTJ would fit you nicely. Have you checked out the ISTJ subforum to see how well you fit in? ISTJ Forum - The Duty Fulfillers


----------



## CaféZeitgeist (May 29, 2012)

Coyote said:


> Could you please elaborate on situations that really stress you out, why they stress you out, and how you react to that stress?


I get stressed out when I can't solve something. (This is internal stress I'm addressing.) 
For example, I get really stressed out when I can't initially understand a new concept like solving polynomials with degrees higher than 2. I did eventually figure it out, but I got stressed out when I couldn't figure it out. (Eventually, it just clicked. That happens with me a lot. I don't know how, but I just suddenly understand something. It happened once during a test. I didn't actually understand what I was doing, but during the test, something in my brain clicked and I was like, "Ooohhhh, that's how I do it.")
I think I get stressed out when I can't understand something initially because I really _want _to understand it. It frustrates me because I feel the need to understand it so I can complete that area of my thinking (or brain). 
I react to it by concentrating solely on whatever it is I don't understand. I shut down from the outside world and concentrate on the subject.
For external stress, my parents would fight a lot. They'd yell and throw things, etc. 
For these external situations, I would do what I said in #8. I shut down and tune out of the situation. I don't address my parents, and I don't think about them. They didn't have problems that I knew how to fix. If they did, I would think about how to solve them. But when I read that question, I thought about what I usually did when they fought.

Now that I have more time, I can add a little to the questionnaire. 

#5
I know an ENFP that describes me as an evil genius. My ISFJ sister says I obsess about things and I over-analyze everything. My ISTP friend compares me to the villain Scarecrow from Batman. 
I agree with my sister that I do tend to over-analyze things. I don't know what to think about what my two friends said about me. My little group of friends tend to side with them though.

#17
My SLOAN type is RCOEI.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 24, 2012)

Gabriella17 said:


> I get stressed out when I can't solve something. (This is internal stress I'm addressing.)
> For example, I get really stressed out when I can't initially understand a new concept like solving polynomials with degrees higher than 2. I did eventually figure it out, but I got stressed out when I couldn't figure it out. (Eventually, it just clicked. That happens with me a lot. I don't know how, but I just suddenly understand something. It happened once during a test. I didn't actually understand what I was doing, but during the test, something in my brain clicked and I was like, "Ooohhhh, that's how I do it.")
> I think I get stressed out when I can't understand something initially because I really _want _to understand it. It frustrates me because I feel the need to understand it so I can complete that area of my thinking (or brain).
> I react to it by concentrating solely on whatever it is I don't understand. I shut down from the outside world and concentrate on the subject.
> ...


Hmm. That doesn't sound like inferior Ne. ... When you avoided thinking about your parents, did you throw yourself into learning, playing with ideas, etc.? If not, did you try to distract yourself with something else?

Would you mind reconsidering IXTJ, or at least take a look at other types? I'm most interested in the direction of your T function. It's really hard for me to see a Ti-dom talking about how they're hard-working, responsible, and dependable, and that they desire to be successful and competent. ... But I definitely think that it's worth a look, if even just to flesh out the details.

Could you please read these two descriptions and see which one seems more like you and why? (They're descriptions for "pure" types and don't have to match perfectly.)



Coyote said:


> Extraverted thinking is driven by the objective evidence of the senses or by objective (collective) ideas that derive from tradition or learning. Its purpose is to abstract conceptual relationships from objective experience, linking ideas together in a rational, logical fashion. Furthermore, any conclusions that are drawn are always directed outward to some objective product or practical outcome. Thinking is never carried out for its own sake, merely as some private, subjective enterprise.
> 
> The extraverted thinking type bases all actions on the intellectual analysis of objective data. Such people live by a general intellectual formula or universal moral code, founded upon abstract notions of truth or justice. They also expect other people to recognize and obey this formula. This type represses the feeling function (e.g., sentimental attachments, friendships, religious devotion) and may also neglect personal interests such as their own health or financial well-being. If extreme or neurotic, they may become petty, bigoted, tyrannical or hostile towards those who would threaten their formula. Alternatively, repressed tendencies may burst out in various kinds of personal 'immorality' (e.g., self-seeking, sexual misdemeanours, fraud or deception).





Coyote said:


> Introverted thinking is contemplative, involving an inner play of ideas. It is thinking for its own sake and is always directed inward to subjective ideas and personal convictions rather than outward to practical outcomes. The main concern of such thinking is to elaborate as fully as possible all the ramifications and implications of a seminal idea. As a consequence, introverted thinking can be complex, turgid and overly scrupulous. To the extent that it withdraws from objective reality, it may also become totally abstract, symbolic or mystical.
> 
> The introverted thinking type tends to be impractical and indifferent to objective concerns. These persons usually avoid notice and may seem cold, arrogant and taciturn. Alternatively, the repressed feeling function may express itself in displays of childish naivety. Generally people of this type appear caught up in their own ideas which they aim to think through as fully and deeply as possible. If extreme or neurotic they can become rigid, withdrawn, surly or brusque. They may also confuse their subjectively apprehended truth with their own personality so that any criticism of their ideas is seen as a personal attack. This may lead to bitterness or to vicious counterattacks against their critics.


----------



## CaféZeitgeist (May 29, 2012)

Coyote said:


> Hmm. That doesn't sound like inferior Ne. ... When you avoided thinking about your parents, did you throw yourself into learning, playing with ideas, etc.? If not, did you try to distract yourself with something else?
> 
> Would you mind reconsidering IXTJ, or at least take a look at other types? I'm most interested in the direction of your T function. It's really hard for me to see a Ti-dom talking about how they're hard-working, responsible, and dependable, and that they desire to be successful and competent. ... But I definitely think that it's worth a look, if even just to flesh out the details.
> 
> Could you please read these two descriptions and see which one seems more like you and why? (They're descriptions for "pure" types and don't have to match perfectly.)


When I avoided thinking about my parents, I usually immersed myself in books. It's also when I started learning sudoku and surfing the internet for new things to learn about. 

I definitely identify more with Extroverted thinking. My objectivity drives everyone crazy, and I hate when things get personal. I'm not really sentimental, and I don't value friendships enough to ever keep in touch with someone I've moved away from, even if I considered them a fairly good friend (I didn't have many). I always analyze everything I think about, and I analyze it objectively, seeing both sides.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 24, 2012)

Gabriella17 said:


> When I avoided thinking about my parents, I usually immersed myself in books. It's also when I started learning sudoku and surfing the internet for new things to learn about.
> 
> I definitely identify more with Extroverted thinking. My objectivity drives everyone crazy, and I hate when things get personal. I'm not really sentimental, and I don't value friendships enough to ever keep in touch with someone I've moved away from, even if I considered them a fairly good friend (I didn't have many). I always analyze everything I think about, and I analyze it objectively, seeing both sides.


Would you say that the Te description fit you quite well overall? The issue might be that your dominant function isn't an introverted perceiving function. They're harder to spot from the outside, so could you also read these descriptions for Si and Ni?



> Introverted sensation is subjectively filtered. Perception is not based directly on the object, but is merely suggested by it. Instead, layers of subjective impressions are superimposed upon the image so that it becomes impossible to determine what will be perceived from a knowledge only of the object. Perception thus depends crucially upon internal psychological processes that will differ from one person to the next. At its most positive, introverted sensation is found in the creative artist. At its most extreme, it produces psychotic hallucinations and a total alienation from reality.
> 
> The introverted sensation type reacts subjectively to events in a way that is unrelated to objective criteria. Often this is seen as an inappropriate and uncalled-for overreaction. Because objects generally fail to penetrate directly the veil of subjective impressions, this type may seem neutral or indifferent to objective reality. Alternatively, the person may perceive the world as illusory or amusing. In extreme (psychotic) cases, this may result in an inability to distinguish illusion from reality. The subjective world of archaic images may then come to dominate consciousness completely, so that the person lives in a private, mythological realm of fantasy. Repressed intuition may also be expressed in vaguely imagined threats or an apprehension of sinister possibilities.







> Introverted intuition is directed inward to the contents of the unconscious. It attempts to fathom internal events by relating them to universal psychological processes or to other archetypal images. Consequently it generally has a mythical, symbolic or prophetic quality.
> 
> According to Jung, the introverted intuition type can be either an artist, seer or crank. Such a person has a visionary ideal that reveals strange, mysterious things. These are enigmatic, 'unearthly' people who stand aloof from ordinary society. They have little interest in explaining or rationalizing their personal vision, but are content merely to proclaim it. Partly as a result of this, they are often misunderstood. Although the vision of the artist among this type generally remains on the purely perceptual level, mystical dreamers or cranks may become caught up  in theirs. The person's life then becomes symbolic, taking on the nature of a Great Work, mission or spiritual-moral quest. If neurotic, repressed sensation may express itself in primitive, instinctual ways and, like their extraverted counterparts, introverted intuitives often suffer from hypochondria and compulsions.




How well did you relate to either of them? Did you relate to Te best of all?

Also, I'd like to see what you think about your I/E when you ignore the pop-psychology stuff about sociability.

Introversion = subjectivity = focus on the subject = focus on the internal world
Extraversion = objectivity = focus on the object = focus on the external world

Would you say that you're more extraverted or introverted?


----------



## CaféZeitgeist (May 29, 2012)

Coyote said:


> Would you say that the Te description fit you quite well overall? The issue might be that your dominant function isn't an introverted perceiving function. They're harder to spot from the outside, so could you also read these descriptions for Si and Ni?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Out of the Si and Ni descriptions you gave me, I identify with Ni the most. I didn't really understand the Si description (not because of vocabulary or anything, but because I don't relate to the thought pattern). 
I'm definitely more objective when considering things, especially in debates, but I focus on my internal world.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 24, 2012)

CapedCrusaderess said:


> Out of the Si and Ni descriptions you gave me, I identify with Ni the most. I didn't really understand the Si description (not because of vocabulary or anything, but because I don't relate to the thought pattern).
> I'm definitely more objective when considering things, especially in debates, but I focus on my internal world.


Why did you relate to the Ni description? Did you relate to it more than Te?


----------



## CaféZeitgeist (May 29, 2012)

Coyote said:


> Why did you relate to the Ni description? Did you relate to it more than Te?


I related to Ni because I definitely "attempt to fathom internal events by relating them to universal psychological processes or to other archetypal images." This is how I think. I have little interest in revealing my personal vision and then having to rationalize it to people. I haven't done so as of yet to anyone, and not even on the forum. I am often misunderstood by the the little things I say because of that. It frustrates me sometimes that no one else understands what I'm trying to say.

There are some aspects of Te I identify with. I analyze things objectively, but then I internalize them so that I can keep them to relate to. I try to link everything together as said in the Te description. If I learned a concept from one experience, I will try to apply it however it works in another different situation. Randomly, I think about scientific concepts and how they relate to my situation. 

I'm odd, definitely.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 24, 2012)

CapedCrusaderess said:


> I related to Ni because I definitely "attempt to fathom internal events by relating them to universal psychological processes or to other archetypal images." This is how I think.


Would you mind putting that quote into your own words and giving an example of how that relates to your thought process?



> I have little interest in revealing my personal vision and then having to rationalize it to people. I haven't done so as of yet to anyone, and not even on the forum. I am often misunderstood by the the little things I say because of that. It frustrates me sometimes that no one else understands what I'm trying to say.


I'm not quite sure how you're interpreting the Ni description. Could you please elaborate on your "personal vision" and how it causes you to be misunderstood?



> There are some aspects of Te I identify with. I analyze things objectively, but then I internalize them so that I can keep them to relate to. I try to link everything together as said in the Te description. If I learned a concept from one experience, I will try to apply it however it works in another different situation. Randomly, I think about scientific concepts and how they relate to my situation.
> 
> I'm odd, definitely.


Do you want to be odd?


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

CapedCrusaderess said:


> I related to Ni because I definitely "attempt to fathom internal events by relating them to universal psychological processes or to other archetypal images." This is how I think. I have little interest in revealing my personal vision and then having to rationalize it to people. I haven't done so as of yet to anyone, and not even on the forum. I am often misunderstood by the the little things I say because of that. It frustrates me sometimes that no one else understands what I'm trying to say.
> 
> There are some aspects of Te I identify with. I analyze things objectively, but then I internalize them so that I can keep them to relate to. I try to link everything together as said in the Te description. If I learned a concept from one experience, I will try to apply it however it works in another different situation. Randomly, I think about scientific concepts and how they relate to my situation.
> 
> I'm odd, definitely.


We're all odd, there wouldn't be wars or bullying or harassments or anything like that if people weren't considered odd.

Do you agree the most with X or with Y?


> *X vs Y*
> 
> The introverted data gathering functions revolve around self. For the *Y*, cause and effect are important while the *X *concentrates on interaction and association. The functioning of the body and mind centers in the *Y *psyche, and the state of the body and mind is a focus for the *X*.
> 
> ...


----------



## CaféZeitgeist (May 29, 2012)

Overall, I agree with X, but in the sentence, "Y will always remain skeptical, never fully trusting the whole. Y fears missing something; while, X fears not having meaning," I agree with Y all the way.


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

CapedCrusaderess said:


> Overall, I agree with X, but in the sentence, "*Y will always remain skeptical, never fully trusting the whole. Y fears missing something; while, X fears not having meaning." *I agree with Y all the way.


Alright, time for number 2!

X vs Y

Simplicity of life is the cornerstone of the *X *psyche, while for the *Y *complexity is sublime. *Y *will take a leap of faith while *X *will first test the water. The sum total of stuff (opinions, feelings, beliefs and judgements about one's external world) accumulated defines who *X *is, whereas a contextual understanding of stuff defines *Y*.

*X *builds an understanding of the world by amassing stuff - from the bottom up, starting with basics and progressing to the more diverse. *Y *builds understanding from the top down - creates a process, sees whether or not stuff validates the process, and then modifies it until understanding is achieved; and *Y *usually stores the process but discards the stuff.

*Y *thinks that stuff can always be picked up when needed while the *X *considers that processes are not really useful without the details of their application. The more stuff *X *amasses the more secure *X *becomes because *X *considers most stuff as relatively constant and hence, valuable. *X *is a packrat of stuff and strives for an accumulation of knowledge, discarding little.

*Y *is never convinced stuff will remain the same so *Y *hones an analytical ability keeping the mind clear of stuff, which is forgotten so easily. Security for *Y *is having a problem solving capability to analyse or take on the complexities of life. *Y *will integrate a lot of processes into the fabric of their being making their persona very complex but *Y *will amass very little stuff.

*X *keeps it simple: all the details to solve a problem are simply remembered for future reference.

*X *notices everything but will only pick up new stuff that fits in with the stuff already possessed; knowledge is built one brick at a time. And, *X *does not necessarily need to understand all the stuff amassed but it must in some way be familiar. *X* solves problems by sorting through vast amounts of collected stuff - drawing on experience.

*X *will often go back to first principles and solve the same problem in a different way because they pick up different stuff having forgotten most of what was done in the past; experience is not wholly trusted. *Y *notices very little but seeks to understand all stuff that is picked up, but will instantly discard the stuff not deemed relevant to the immediate problem or issue.

*X *is a knowledge farmer sowing order, while *Y *is the hunter-gatherer of knowledge adapting to each situation. *X *fears stuff that is not already on the farm while *Y *fears not having gathered enough stuff. *X *looks upon most *Y *as lacking practical knowledge or ability while *Y *looks upon *X *as intransigent or narrow-minded.


----------



## CaféZeitgeist (May 29, 2012)

Overall, for this one, I'm actually kind of Y!
Although there are some aspects of X I have.
I think I'm evenly matched for these two. I can't decide.


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

CapedCrusaderess said:


> Overall, for this one, I'm actually more Y!
> Although there are some aspects of X I have.


Would you agree mostly out of all of them with the Y in the second text and the Y in the first or with the X in the first mostly an partially with the X in the second text.

I need to know if you mostly agree with X in both of them or with Y.
Did the Y in the second text feel more like you than the X in the first?


----------



## CaféZeitgeist (May 29, 2012)

I think that I would mostly agree with X in both of them. 
The X in the first one is more me than the Y in the second one.


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

CapedCrusaderess said:


> I think that I would mostly agree with X in both of them.
> The X in the first one is more me than the Y in the second one.


Isn't so surprising tho.

X in the first text was Ni
X in the second text was Se

Y in the first text was Si
Y in the second text was Ne

You were more sure about the first without making much of a doubt which is what you can expect from a strong function.
You were unsure about the second text which would be because it was dealing with your inferior function.

The Ne you saw in yourself at the second text was probably a "bleed-through" from your Ni function working with Se. They can make a convincing faked Ne.

Since being typed is mostly up to the person being typed, then I can only give suggestions, but I think you might very well be INTJ. But that's up to you.


----------

