# What's my type?



## Geo (Mar 30, 2012)

> This is interesting to me, because - if I'm not mistaken - both of these are defined as overactivity in certain areas of the brain. I thought part of the defining factor in introversion vs. extraversion was supposed to be level of brain activity when unstimulated - introverts will be high, extraverts low. Introverts get easily hyperstimulated by the external world and become cautious about their actions, while extraverts are calmer about it, and have less perceived need to restrain themselves. (Not particularly talking MBTI here.)
> 
> Then again, that could be far too generalized.
> 
> Figured you might be interested, even if you are quite Fe


Thanks for sharing. And you're right, I'm interested. I am stereotypical Fe-Si in that I mostly crave knowledge that is applicable and concerns humans. So this fits the bill.  




> I suppose it might take more effort to fit into the bounds of this society with certain preferences. An INFP's saving grace, though, might be the Ne, which will lead them to be more open-ended and consider more options - they might do well finding a place for themselves in the world, rather than depending on others to accept them.


It seems to me that this is where knowing your preferred functions is invaluable. There's a niche for everyone. Everyone can do well if they put themselves in a position where they can employ their strengths. 




> Let's pose a hypothetical.
> 
> Say you have a kid who is about to do something you don't approve of. You're going to try to talk to them; how do you do it? What do you rely on?
> 
> ...


I wouldn't say "peole just don't do it". But I would likely appeal to an objective - and thus external - standard of behavior, detailing how his behavior negatively affects other people/my kid/ society/the environment (whatever it would affect). 
I might underpin this with an example, but I'm not sure. 
Sounds like Fe>Si to me. 



> Fe-Ni would look different to Fe-Si; Si backs up the Fe with personal experience (Si being prevalent would be more likely to make it seem like one's values are coming from within), and Ni draws the Fe into viewing things from different angles. The Fe-Ni might be more inclined to self-sacrifice for a sense of deeper significance, while maybe? the Fe-Si likewise for a sense of more deeply experienced togetherness.


Very interesting. I definitely do have a deep need for my life to have meaning, especially when I'm about to sacrifice something for the good of others. 

I've read there's some controversy regarding the orientation of the tertiary function. Based on your comment, I take it you do not agree with the conventional MBTI perspective. Or am I misinterpreting you? 

Here's why I'm asking: Throughout the years, I've come to increasingly rely on my gut instinct/intuition/hunches. I often made decisions on "guided" impulse, so to speak. According to my limited understanding, this sounds more Ni than Ne. 



> > That's interesting. It definitely takes effort for me to be succinct, but I can do it - pretty well, actually. When turning in papers, structure and clarity are almost always strong points. But again - writing eliminates the time element. I'm not sure how well I'd do under pressure.
> 
> 
> Pressure...hrm. Might it make you more inclined to stress (which I think might lead you to that habit of overchecking things for consistency)?


Yes. 



> That you seem to introvert more to respond when something is important to you is interesting, if inconclusive.


That's a great observation. Very helpful, regardless of whether we can conclude anything from it. 



> > I've paid some attention when being in public and I've realized that I'm almost constantly thinking of how I'm perceived by others. I wonder if a Si-dom Fe-secondary would do this as much.
> 
> 
> That seems to require taking in details first (Si), and the emphasis is still on perception, as well as internal cogitation. I'm pretty sure it can easily be an Si>Fe habit.
> ...


Do you think it's more Si-Fe than Fe-Si? It seems to me this might be pretty hard to distinguish if both functions are strong. In theory, one would have to figure out whether the awareness of external judgement or the perception of signals is primary, right? In that case, I'd have to go with the former; I usually don't notice any signs of being judged this way or that, I am just constantly aware of the fact that other people might judge me, if that makes any sense ...

And it does worry me, I feel under constant pressure to look good to others. It doesn't matter that I hardly ever get any feedback, it's really the awareness of others perceiving me. 



> These [cognitive] tests can be quite off, but assuming the answers are an accurate reflection, your profile looks relatively ambiverted, since both Si|Fe and Ne|Ti pairings are so close.


Thanks for commenting. I drew the same conclusion - inconclusive. ;-) BTW, it seems that the test tends to inflate Fi. 



> What are you thinking, overall?


I tend toward Fe-dom. There are a couple of reasons for this. The descriptions of the inferior function and its triggers fits better. I think I'm a little too open to trying out untested things. Also, I think I'm more focused on emotions than stability. 

I also suspect extraversion. The main reason is Carl Jung's description of extraversion and introversion. (I'm reading "Psychological Types" and find it more illuminating than anything else so far; highly recommended if you haven't already read it.) Extraversion fits much better. Especially Jung's contention that an introvert is supscious of the world (object) and trusting of self, while the extravert is the exact opposite. While I don't think I necessarily (consciously) mistrust myself, I tendentially trust others and don't feel intruded upon by the world. Overall, I just don't think I have that introvert vibe. 

I wonder how you feel about that: As an introvert, would you say you trust yourself more than the external world? 

Another question: Do you feel you understand other introverts? I definitely do not get introverts and it's one of the main reasons I don't think I'm one. 

Best
Geo


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 25, 2012)

@Geo -

I have a response in mind, but I'm going to need a few days before I can formulate it properly, because I have some big tests coming up. In short: I think you're on the right track, and it's great that you picked up Jung's work itself as a resource.


----------



## Geo (Mar 30, 2012)

Thank you.

I wish you the best of luck! :happy:


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 25, 2012)

Geo said:


> Thanks for sharing. And you're right, I'm interested. I am stereotypical Fe-Si in that I mostly crave knowledge that is applicable and concerns humans. So this fits the bill.


Indeed.



> It seems to me that this is where knowing your preferred functions is invaluable. There's a niche for everyone. Everyone can do well if they put themselves in a position where they can employ their strengths.


Yes, this is one way to approach life problems, even if it's not a complete way; other factors also need to be drawn in, most likely, but can be a good framework.



> I wouldn't say "peole just don't do it". But I would likely appeal to an objective - and thus external - standard of behavior, detailing how his behavior negatively affects other people/my kid/ society/the environment (whatever it would affect).
> I might underpin this with an example, but I'm not sure.
> Sounds like Fe>Si to me.


Sorry if I was incomplete or off in my representation of either one of those; I'm not the most Fe-savvy out there. In retrospect, my examples also don't seem that great; remember, I'm still trying to figure all this out, myself. However, I don't view Je functions as that different, in theory - the mechanics of how either interacts with Pi ought to be similar.

Both Je>Pi and Pi>Je can seem to lean on objective considerations. My mother's way of expressing her Pi>Je these days is probably slightly acquired, too, perhaps the result of further consideration of what I respond to (and what I don't).



> Very interesting. I definitely do have a deep need for my life to have meaning, especially when I'm about to sacrifice something for the good of others.
> 
> I've read there's some controversy regarding the orientation of the tertiary function. Based on your comment, I take it you do not agree with the conventional MBTI perspective. Or am I misinterpreting you?
> 
> Here's why I'm asking: Throughout the years, I've come to increasingly rely on my gut instinct/intuition/hunches. I often made decisions on "guided" impulse, so to speak. According to my limited understanding, this sounds more Ni than Ne.


If you think one of the other theories works better for you and your understanding, feel free to use it; MBTI is one among many. However, I've been sticking to the conventional ordering of cognitive functions here.

I've been thinking about this the last few days, and it seems to me like both Si and Ni can lead to "gut instinct", "intuition" - ESPECIALLY "hunches" - as referred to by most people, just in a different way, regarding different things.

It seems to me that Si takes sensory details into account and a subjective impression of something is created as a whole. Perhaps you can look at a person and tell their profession or their habits. I think this could easily qualify as gut instinct.

Ni seems to work on a similar principle, only with underlying immaterial aspects of the object of thought. The impression might come out seeming like a prediction, because it isn't considering what is there in the present moment.



> Do you think it's more Si-Fe than Fe-Si? It seems to me this might be pretty hard to distinguish if both functions are strong. In theory, one would have to figure out whether the awareness of external judgement or the perception of signals is primary, right? In that case, I'd have to go with the former; I usually don't notice any signs of being judged this way or that, I am just constantly aware of the fact that other people might judge me, if that makes any sense ...


It does make sense. 



> And it does worry me, I feel under constant pressure to look good to others. It doesn't matter that I hardly ever get any feedback, it's really the awareness of others perceiving me.


_This_ sounds like it could be inferior Ti (or Te), if it's showing up as the awareness of others' judgement and insecurity around it.



> Thanks for commenting. I drew the same conclusion - inconclusive. ;-) BTW, it seems that the test tends to inflate Fi.


Yeah, different tests will probably inflate one or the other. Fi/Fe is a toughie; people with predominant Feeling will probably agree with some aspects of descriptions supposed to match the _behavior_ (even mental behavior) of people with their opposing function.



> I tend toward Fe-dom. There are a couple of reasons for this. The descriptions of the inferior function and its triggers fits better. I think I'm a little too open to trying out untested things. Also, I think I'm more focused on emotions than stability.


The focus of Fe does not have to be on emotions, but a focus less on stability does seem rather less Si.



> I also suspect extraversion. The main reason is Carl Jung's description of extraversion and introversion. (I'm reading "Psychological Types" and find it more illuminating than anything else so far; highly recommended if you haven't already read it.) Extraversion fits much better. Especially Jung's contention that an introvert is supscious of the world (object) and trusting of self, while the extravert is the exact opposite. While I don't think I necessarily (consciously) mistrust myself, I tendentially trust others and don't feel intruded upon by the world. Overall, I just don't think I have that introvert vibe.


Ah, in text it can all look the same. I might easily have had the wrong impression, and it can be hard to represent yourself accurately in words.

I still think your functions are probably well-balanced, regardless of whether you're Fe>Si, or Si>Fe. However, if Fe>Si fits the bill, roll with it.



> I wonder how you feel about that: As an introvert, would you say you trust yourself more than the external world?


On the one hand, I know that what I internally work out does not necessarily match the external reality. I am always aware of the potential for disparity, and am open to being proven wrong.

On the other hand, I run with my own internal processing primarily. I am strongest internally, comparatively vulnerable when facing the world. 



> Another question: Do you feel you understand other introverts? I definitely do not get introverts and it's one of the main reasons I don't think I'm one.


What is it you don't get about introverts?

The basic thing that introverts have in common is the need to recharge alone, whether they allow themselves that time or not. That, I understand perfectly. 

Otherwise, the mindscape of different introverts is..well..different. Speaking in terms of functions/type dynamics, a Ti-dom, Fi-dom, Ni-dom and Si-dom will all have pretty different internal experiences, and might actually contradict each other a lot. For example, INTPs (Ti-Ne) and INTJs (Ni-Te), while apparently similar in how they are perceived by the rest of the world, can end up in picky, circular-seeming arguments about mutual interests because their angles of attack are rather different. 

Also, an introvert doesn't have to feel disconnected from the world to be an introvert. I have been thinking that this might ride more on whether or not the person has a strong Feeling function.


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 25, 2012)

Geo said:


> Thank you.
> 
> I wish you the best of luck! :happy:


Thank you. I did pretty well


----------



## Geo (Mar 30, 2012)

Flatlander said:


> > It seems to me that this is where knowing your preferred functions is invaluable. There's a niche for everyone. Everyone can do well if they put themselves in a position where they can employ their strengths.
> 
> 
> Yes, this is one way to approach life problems, even if it's not a complete way; other factors also need to be drawn in, most likely, but can be a good framework.


I totally agree. :happy:




> Sorry if I was incomplete or off in my representation of either one of those; I'm not the most Fe-savvy out there. In retrospect, my examples also don't seem that great; remember, I'm still trying to figure all this out, myself. However, I don't view Je functions as that different, in theory - the mechanics of how either interacts with Pi ought to be similar.
> 
> Both Je>Pi and Pi>Je can seem to lean on objective considerations. My mother's way of expressing her Pi>Je these days is probably slightly acquired, too, perhaps the result of further consideration of what I respond to (and what I don't).


No reason to apologize - to the contrary. Cognitive processes and human psychology seem such a complex matter that likely no one has total perspective on them. I like to look at our conversation as traveling alongside on the road to better understanding. :happy: 




> If you think one of the other theories works better for you and your understanding, feel free to use it; MBTI is one among many. However, I've been sticking to the conventional ordering of cognitive functions here.


I see. I do like to look at things from multiple perspectives. :happy:




> I've been thinking about this the last few days, and it seems to me like both Si and Ni can lead to "gut instinct", "intuition" - ESPECIALLY "hunches" - as referred to by most people, just in a different way, regarding different things.
> 
> It seems to me that Si takes sensory details into account and a subjective impression of something is created as a whole. Perhaps you can look at a person and tell their profession or their habits. I think this could easily qualify as gut instinct.
> 
> Ni seems to work on a similar principle, only with underlying immaterial aspects of the object of thought. The impression might come out seeming like a prediction, because it isn't considering what is there in the present moment.


This is very insightful. As you mentioned earlier, people can get to the same point, it's the how that's different.



> > And it does worry me, I feel under constant pressure to look good to others. It doesn't matter that I hardly ever get any feedback, it's really the awareness of others perceiving me.
> 
> 
> _This_ sounds like it could be inferior Ti (or Te), if it's showing up as the awareness of others' judgement and insecurity around it.


Oh, interesting. Would it be possible to elaborate? What exactly makes you consider inferior Ti?



> Ah, in text it can all look the same. I might easily have had the wrong impression, and it can be hard to represent yourself accurately in words.
> 
> I still think your functions are probably well-balanced, regardless of whether you're Fe>Si, or Si>Fe. However, if Fe>Si fits the bill, roll with it.


I think you're right - I certainly hope so. Balance is always nice. :happy: 

I think Fe>Si fits best. I'll keep observing myself, though. It's fun. :happy:



> > As an introvert, would you say you trust yourself more than the external world?
> 
> 
> On the one hand, I know that what I internally work out does not necessarily match the external reality. I am always aware of the potential for disparity, and am open to being proven wrong.
> ...


Thanks for sharing. Your last sentence seems like a very good description of introversion, the way I understand it. My guess would be that the more pronounced extraversion or introversion is, the more vulnerable one is in that dimension (inner or outer). 

Speaking of E-I. Our local newspaper ran a pretty long article on "shyness" in the science section. To my dismay, they did not even touch on introver and extraversion; they exclusively focused on the social anxiety dimension. 

I'm very grateful for the opportunity to learn about intro- and extraversion. It really pains me to realize how misinterpreted and underappreciated introverts often are.




> What is it you don't get about introverts?
> 
> The basic thing that introverts have in common is the need to recharge alone, whether they allow themselves that time or not. That, I understand perfectly.
> 
> ...


Your explanation makes a lot of sense. I'd say it's not primarily the introversion I do not understand, but the mindscape. As you point out, though, that likely has little to do with being E or I since we can't see what's going on in other people's heads no matter our orientation. 

I'm glad to say I've become more aware of when people need time alone and when they like to socialize - simply through feedback and observing my own need for me-time. 

Best
Geo


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 25, 2012)

Geo said:


> I totally agree. :happy:
> 
> 
> 
> No reason to apologize - to the contrary. Cognitive processes and human psychology seem such a complex matter that likely no one has total perspective on them. I like to look at our conversation as traveling alongside on the road to better understanding. :happy:


Indeed, that's what this whole forum is. Though in a sense I'm glad this remained a two-person discussion, since that encourages me to get more in-depth.



> I see. I do like to look at things from multiple perspectives. :happy:


Interestingly, possible point against inferior Ne. 

1 - Ne-aux friend of mine reports that he likes to look at many sides of an issue in the process of making up his mind, which seems about right.

2 - Potential for Ni, too.

3 - It can simply be logical to do so, especially with an unknown.



> This is very insightful. As you mentioned earlier, people can get to the same point, it's the how that's different.


Thank you. 



> Oh, interesting. Would it be possible to elaborate? What exactly makes you consider inferior Ti?


I think it's average behavior to worry about how the world interacts with you. The question in my mind is what element you're least confident about, hence what kind of judgement you are expecting.

Most descriptions of the inferior I've read have been about projection of what's inside outward, but it seems like it could also work the other way. Mightn't a person's self-worry be centered around the element they're least confident with, like this..

Inferior Feeling worrying about what people will think of your lack of personal connection (Fe or Fi direction).
Inferior Thinking worrying about what people will think of your lack of logicality/structure in dealing with the world.
Inferior Intuition worrying about possibilities/meaning-shades of what people perceive in you.
Inferior Sensing worrying about picky details in how people see you.

And, once again I'm getting into territory I haven't fully thought out.



> I think you're right - I certainly hope so. Balance is always nice. :happy:


Relative balance in dominant/aux seems pretty desirable, though what also seems valuable is a balance of aux/tert. Working together well, those two can probably bolster your perception or judgement (whichever they both are) to balance the dominant factor.



> Thanks for sharing. Your last sentence seems like a very good description of introversion, the way I understand it. My guess would be that the more pronounced extraversion or introversion is, the more vulnerable one is in that dimension (inner or outer).


Agreed. And being unbalanced here can be quite unhealthy, as the opposing world is rarely engaged to produce new results in life. 



> Speaking of E-I. Our local newspaper ran a pretty long article on "shyness" in the science section. To my dismay, they did not even touch on introver and extraversion; they exclusively focused on the social anxiety dimension.
> 
> I'm very grateful for the opportunity to learn about intro- and extraversion. It really pains me to realize how misinterpreted and underappreciated introverts often are.


Technically, "shyness" does mean something different from intro/extraversion. There are extraverts who are rendered shy through social anxiety and such, and there are definitely introverts who are less shy through other factors. 

And as usual, there are cultural values that might dictate most people's reception of these personality traits. In the US extraversion is relatively valued over introversion, but there are definitely nations out there that value extraversion more than the US, and others that value introversion more highly. I have wondered if the different personal space requirements in different cultures might be an indication of which prefer intro/extraversion, though changes in that can also come about through adapting to changing conditions.

Among different cultures, sometimes you'll find that certain types of introversion/extraversion are most valued. For example, cultures that are relatively focused on preserving extant tradition, which seems to favor expressed Si/Je.



> Your explanation makes a lot of sense. I'd say it's not the the E-I I do not understand, but the mindscape. As you point out, though, that likely has little to do with being E or I since we can't see what's going on in other people's heads no matter our orientation.


Hm, continuing the line of thinking I had before. Within E-land, the difference between Pe and Je could actually be quite visible. Both will be energetically more outward, but the kind of interaction with people/environment each is seeking is different.

Still, it does fall under mindscape. All of it does, since it represents different mental tendencies. 



> I'm glad to say I've become more aware of when people need time alone and when they like to socialize - simply through feedback and observing my own need for me-time.


Sounds like good growth.


----------



## Geo (Mar 30, 2012)

Flatlander said:


> Indeed, that's what this whole forum is. Though in a sense I'm glad this remained a two-person discussion, since that encourages me to get more in-depth.


Totally agree. :happy:



> > I see. I do like to look at things from multiple perspectives.
> 
> 
> Interestingly, possible point against inferior Ne.
> ...


I should have qualified my statement. I don't think I'm generally good at looking at something from multiple perspectives. What I meant to say is that I seem to grasp more abstract concepts best if I read similar takes -- not contrarian ones -- on them by different people. This allows me to intellectually approximate the essence. 




> > This is very insightful. As you mentioned earlier, people can get to the same point, it's the how that's different.
> 
> 
> Thank you.


You're very welcome. This insight of yours has really helped me look at myself and others differently - in a good way. :happy:


> Most descriptions of the inferior I've read have been about projection of what's inside outward, but it seems like it could also work the other way. Mightn't a person's self-worry be centered around the element they're least confident with, like this..
> 
> Inferior Feeling worrying about what people will think of your lack of personal connection (Fe or Fi direction).
> Inferior Thinking worrying about what people will think of your lack of logicality/structure in dealing with the world.
> ...


Very, very interesting. I can definitely see how this could be true. 

I remember that I regularly told my colleagues how little I'd prepared for a test back in highschool. I now think I did this because I was afraid -- afraid of being considered stupid. It was important for me to project a lazy-smart-guy persona. 

A related observation: I generally don't like losing (because of my rather shaky self-confidence and my non-competitive nature), but I especially hate losing in a game with an intellectual component. I feel stupid and worry I might be considered dense by others. 

I do think I have an intellectual inferiority complex of sorts. At leat partly, this is due to my comparatively underwhelming mathematical/abstract thinking skills. I did get ridiculed for this at some point. But perhaps inferior Ti is at the root of it. At any rate, it fits very well with what you're saying. Naomi Quenk actually lists doubts about intellectual competence in her chapter on inferior introverted thinking. 



> Relative balance in dominant/aux seems pretty desirable, though what also seems valuable is a balance of aux/tert. Working together well, those two can probably bolster your perception or judgement (whichever they both are) to balance the dominant factor.


Interesting. I'm definitely planning on developing my functions. 



> > Speaking of E-I. Our local newspaper ran a pretty long article on "shyness" in the science section. To my dismay, they did not even touch on introver and extraversion; they exclusively focused on the social anxiety dimension.
> 
> 
> Technically, "shyness" does mean something different from intro/extraversion. There are extraverts who are rendered shy through social anxiety and such, and there are definitely introverts who are less shy through other factors.


Wow, this is great! Now I can give you a real life example of an idiosyncracy of mine. :happy:

So here goes. I totally agree with your point. Actually, the newspaper glossing over the fact that shyness and introversion-extraversion are not the same was exactly my point; it's what bothered me about the article. Based on your answer, it seems I didn't make myself clear (sorry). 

And here's my quirk: I absolutely had to point out to you that I meant exactly what you said -- that the problem is mixing up shyness with e-i orientation. I wanted you to know I already knew. :happy: I care so much about this because I don't want to look even a tiny, tiny bit more ignorant than I am. I realize my explanation regarding mixing up shyness and e-i orientation does not add to the discussion a bit; it is unnecessary from a purely intellectual point of view. It's an ego thing. 

This behavior can get out of hand on occasion and I have been told so. Still, I can't get it under control; it's like I'm wired to do it -- especially when I have a lot of respect for the person I'm talking to. 

I'd be really interested what you think about it.



> And as usual, there are cultural values that might dictate most people's reception of these personality traits. In the US extraversion is relatively valued over introversion, but there are definitely nations out there that value extraversion more than the US, and others that value introversion more highly. I have wondered if the different personal space requirements in different cultures might be an indication of which prefer intro/extraversion, though changes in that can also come about through adapting to changing conditions.


Fascinating. This would definitely be a topic worth researching. :happy: My personal observation is that personal space requirements and E-I orientation do appear to correlate to some extent. 




> Among different cultures, sometimes you'll find that certain types of introversion/extraversion are most valued. For example, cultures that are relatively focused on preserving extant tradition, which seems to favor expressed Si/Je.


Very, very interesting. Makes a lot of sense. I never looked at it from this angle. 
Are this your personal observations or do you have some source of information on this topic? 

Thanks for showing me that the cognitive functions model can -- within limits, of course -- be applied not only to individuals but groups of people as well. :happy: 



> Hm, continuing the line of thinking I had before. Within E-land, the difference between Pe and Je could actually be quite visible. Both will be energetically more outward, but the kind of interaction with people/environment each is seeking is different.
> 
> Still, it does fall under mindscape. All of it does, since it represents different mental tendencies.


What you're saying makes a lot of sense. Do you have specific difference in behavior in mind? 


Speaking of similarities and differences. Jung differentiates between rationals (T and F doms) and irrationals (N and S doms). 
I would say I'm a very rational person insofar as I almost never act without a reason. Might this be an indicator for Fe dom (as opposed to Si dom)? I really do think I get along with thinkers very well. I do not prioritize the same things, but my thinking/decision making process works in a similar way. I may occasionally be annoyed by thinkers' "cold" conclusions, but I can understand their reasoning. Not sure if that makes any sense. :happy:



> > I'm glad to say I've become more aware of when people need time alone and when they like to socialize - simply through feedback and observing my own need for me-time.
> 
> 
> Sounds like good growth.


Thanks. I'm not sure but I certainly hope you're right. :happy:

Best
Geo


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 25, 2012)

Geo said:


> Totally agree.
> 
> I should have qualified my statement. I don't think I'm generally good at looking at something from multiple perspectives. What I meant to say is that I seem to grasp more abstract concepts best if I read similar takes -- not contrarian ones -- on them by different people. This allows me to intellectually approximate the essence.


That sounds so neatly Si to me, and it even runs along the same lines as my explanation for why Si-perception might be seen as a "gut instinct". I think you've just done a great job of explaining how an Si'er might approach abstraction.



> Very, very interesting. I can definitely see how this could be true.
> 
> I remember that I regularly told my colleagues how little I'd prepared for a test back in highschool. I now think I did this because I was afraid -- afraid of being considered stupid. It was important for me to project a lazy-smart-guy persona.


Aha.

Interestingly, if you are ESFJ (Fe Si Ne Ti), your functional switcheroo is INTP (Ti Ne Si Fe). That persona is often attributed to them - though calling it a persona was a good observation, since I doubt it is fundamentally type-related.



> A related observation: I generally don't like losing (because of my rather shaky self-confidence and my non-competitive nature), but I especially hate losing in a game with an intellectual component. I feel stupid and worry I might be considered dense by others.
> 
> I do think I have an intellectual inferiority complex of sorts. At leat partly, this is due to my comparatively underwhelming mathematical/abstract thinking skills. I did get ridiculed for this at some point. But perhaps inferior Ti is at the root of it. At any rate, it fits very well with what you're saying. Naomi Quenk actually lists doubts about intellectual competence in her chapter on inferior introverted thinking.


Mathematics is not the only expression of abstract thinking, by far - past a certain point, it's probably just too objective and removed from some people's truer interests for them to care about. No human is free of abstract thinking - it's in our brains. 

Anyhow, this is sounding more inferior-Ti ish.



> Wow, this is great! Now I can give you a real life example of an idiosyncracy of mine.
> 
> So here goes. I totally agree with your point. Actually, the newspaper glossing over the fact that shyness and introversion-extraversion are not the same was exactly my point; it's what bothered me about the article. Based on your answer, it seems I didn't make myself clear (sorry).


No big deal. I wanted to expound on that to bring up other stuff anyhow. 



> And here's my quirk: I absolutely had to point out to you that I meant exactly what you said -- that the problem is mixing up shyness with e-i orientation. I wanted you to know I already knew. I care so much about this because I don't want to look even a tiny, tiny bit more ignorant than I am. I realize my explanation regarding mixing up shyness and e-i orientation does not add to the discussion a bit; it is unnecessary from a purely intellectual point of view. It's an ego thing.
> 
> This behavior can get out of hand on occasion and I have been told so. Still, I can't get it under control; it's like I'm wired to do it -- especially when I have a lot of respect for the person I'm talking to.


Actually, it's kind of cool that this played out in such a way that you could point the dynamic out to me with an example. 

 I totally planned it. /evilgenius

No, no... anyhow, more seriously: from my point of view, everything has potential to add to the discussion, if I can find the right way to work it in or use it. Perhaps your insecurity around whether it does or doesn't is inferior Ti at work, since a conversation could indeed be seen as having internal structure.



> Fascinating. This would definitely be a topic worth researching. My personal observation is that personal space requirements and E-I orientation do appear to correlate to some extent.


Oh? Interesting..



> Very, very interesting. Makes a lot of sense. I never looked at it from this angle.
> Are this your personal observations or do you have some source of information on this topic?


With the Si/Je example, I was thinking of Japan, where I lived for long enough to get a relatively comprehensive idea of the reigning cultural ideas and themes. 



> Thanks for showing me that the cognitive functions model can -- within limits, of course -- be applied not only to individuals but groups of people as well.


It occurred to me on the fly and I thought it was interesting, but I don't think it's a great application; if anything, it will be an overapplication of the idea in a more diverse culture.



> What you're saying makes a lot of sense. Do you have specific difference in behavior in mind?


Take an ESTP and an ESTJ. 

ESTP is Se-dom, primarily engaging the present moment for its richness of sensory information and detail. The Se is backed up by Ti, which helps the ESTP form an internal understanding and react to what is perceived.

ESTJ is Te-dom, primarily considering objective categorizations of the surrounding world. The Te is backed up by Si, which provides experiential data to flesh out the person's judgements.

Edit: I forgot to include specific differences in behavior. Hmm; I know one ESTP outside of the internet, and he is very active in sales and very good at what he does - seeing opportunities to get himself sales, taking advantage of moments. He has natural ability people admire. By funny coincidence, his mother actually seems much like an ESTJ, and she is a rock-solid foundation for their household: putting everything in its proper order, making sure all that needs to gets done, and so forth.



> Speaking of similarities and differences. Jung differentiates between rationals (T and F doms) and irrationals (N and S doms).
> 
> I would say I'm a very rational person insofar as I almost never act without a reason. Might this be an indicator for Fe dom (as opposed to Si dom)? I really do think I get along with thinkers very well. I do not prioritize the same things, but my thinking/decision making process works in a similar way. I may occasionally be annoyed by thinkers' "cold" conclusions, but I can understand their reasoning. Not sure if that makes any sense.


In Jung's use, the terms "rational" and "irrational" are just referring to what is referenced first in the person's hierarchy: judgement or perception. "Irrationals" also act with a reason; the secondary judgement helps with structuring how they act, while perception or perception/judgement combo provides the starting reason (something important might be noticed).

As far as modern lingo is concerned, either type can appear to be "rational" or "irrational", depending on how well they balance perceptions and judgements. 

What you said about getting along better with dom Thinkers than dom Perceivers, however, is interesting to me. Can you describe experiences you've had that suggest this?


----------



## Geo (Mar 30, 2012)

Finally got around to replying. :happy:



Flatlander said:


> > I should have qualified my statement. I don't think I'm generally good at looking at something from multiple perspectives. What I meant to say is that I seem to grasp more abstract concepts best if I read similar takes -- not contrarian ones -- on them by different people. This allows me to intellectually approximate the essence.
> 
> 
> That sounds so neatly Si to me, and it even runs along the same lines as my explanation for why Si-perception might be seen as a "gut instinct". I think you've just done a great job of explaining how an Si'er might approach abstraction.


Thanks. :happy: 



> Interestingly, if you are ESFJ (Fe Si Ne Ti), your functional switcheroo is INTP (Ti Ne Si Fe). That persona is often attributed to them - though calling it a persona was a good observation, since I doubt it is fundamentally type-related.


That is a very interesting observation. Thanks for pointing out this possible connection. 



> Mathematics is not the only expression of abstract thinking, by far - past a certain point, it's probably just too objective and removed from some people's truer interests for them to care about. No human is free of abstract thinking - it's in our brains.


Agreed. But even maths aside, I'm generally not the abstract thinker. Actually, it always struck me as funny how unevenly my intellectual abilities seem to be distributed along the concrete-abstract continuum. 


> > And here's my quirk: I absolutely had to point out to you that I meant exactly what you said -- that the problem is mixing up shyness with e-i orientation. I wanted you to know I already knew. I care so much about this because I don't want to look even a tiny, tiny bit more ignorant than I am. I realize my explanation regarding mixing up shyness and e-i orientation does not add to the discussion a bit; it is unnecessary from a purely intellectual point of view. It's an ego thing.
> >
> > This behavior can get out of hand on occasion and I have been told so. Still, I can't get it under control; it's like I'm wired to do it -- especially when I have a lot of respect for the person I'm talking to.
> 
> ...


I figured as much -- in hindsight, of course. :wink:


> No, no... anyhow, more seriously: from my point of view, everything has potential to add to the discussion, if I can find the right way to work it in or use it. Perhaps your insecurity around whether it does or doesn't is inferior Ti at work, since a conversation could indeed be seen as having internal structure.


Oh, I agree. My wording wasn't the best. My insecurity mainly revolves around being perceived more ignorant than I think I am. I am actually pretty confident about being logic in discussions. 


> With the Si/Je example, I was thinking of Japan, where I lived for long enough to get a relatively comprehensive idea of the reigning cultural ideas and themes.


Very interesting. :happy: Nothing beats first-hand experience. At least not in the eyes of a sensor. :wink:



> It occurred to me on the fly and I thought it was interesting, but I don't think it's a great application; if anything, it will be an overapplication of the idea in a more diverse culture.


Yeah, that makes total sense. Speaking of diversity. That's what makes it so difficult to realize Fe-dom regarding cultural values. Living in a diverse country, there often is no clear-cut cultural consensus on a specific issue. This results in holding many opinions that are not mainstream. 
I found it much more useful therefore to look at HOW I arrived at my opinions. 

It seems to me that the impact of diversity is sometimes disregarded in looking at Fe. 



> I forgot to include specific differences in behavior. Hmm; I know one ESTP outside of the internet, and he is very active in sales and very good at what he does - seeing opportunities to get himself sales, taking advantage of moments. He has natural ability people admire. By funny coincidence, his mother actually seems much like an ESTJ, and she is a rock-solid foundation for their household: putting everything in its proper order, making sure all that needs to gets done, and so forth.


Thanks for the example. 

Speaking of ESTP. I know someone who is so stereotypically ESTP ("good" and "bad") it's not funny anymore. He's just one sly guy. I was frequently put off by his behavior. But you just had to admire him at the same time for his people-skills. One sly guy. :happy:



> In Jung's use, the terms "rational" and "irrational" are just referring to what is referenced first in the person's hierarchy: judgement or perception. "Irrationals" also act with a reason; the secondary judgement helps with structuring how they act, while perception or perception/judgement combo provides the starting reason (something important might be noticed).
> 
> As far as modern lingo is concerned, either type can appear to be "rational" or "irrational", depending on how well they balance perceptions and judgements.


Thanks for explaining. 



> What you said about getting along better with dom Thinkers than dom Perceivers, however, is interesting to me. Can you describe experiences you've had that suggest this?


I like discussing in a rational, systematic way. I do not like "unlogical" arguments and I strongly dislike not talking out a specific topic before switching to the next one. I will disengage when someone does this too often. And based on my experience plus what I've read, P-doms are more prone to this. 


Cheers
Geo


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 25, 2012)

Geo said:


> Agreed. But even maths aside, I'm generally not the abstract thinker. Actually, it always struck me as funny how unevenly my intellectual abilities seem to be distributed along the concrete-abstract continuum.


What I mean is that certain things about how humans live and operate are necessarily abstract.

Take the gaps in our actual perception that our mind fills in for us. That is abstraction - sensing the whole from the parts.

On a different note, take some of the concepts and things that we deal with in our everyday life. Our modern money is an abstract, the value of goods is an abstract. Society is full of abstracted concepts like "races". And so on.

Beyond simple abstraction, though, how you live is dependent on personal preference.



> Oh, I agree. My wording wasn't the best. My insecurity mainly revolves around being perceived more ignorant than I think I am. I am actually pretty confident about being logic in discussions.


That actually sounds a bit like inferior-Te. It could just be a common concern around inferior Thinking, though.



> Very interesting. :happy: Nothing beats first-hand experience. At least not in the eyes of a sensor. :wink:


In my opinion, observation of the world is important to anyone, sensor or intuitive alike. I've had quite a few of my ideas arise from ruminating on what I have observed.



> Yeah, that makes total sense. Speaking of diversity. That's what makes it so difficult to realize Fe-dom regarding cultural values. Living in a diverse country, there often is no clear-cut cultural consensus on a specific issue. This results in holding many opinions that are not mainstream.





> I found it much more useful therefore to look at HOW I arrived at my opinions.





> It seems to me that the impact of diversity is sometimes disregarded in looking at Fe.


I agree very much. Add in factors other than typical descriptions of cognitive function - add in individual peculiarities, for example - and Fe's expression gains a lot of new dimension.



> Speaking of ESTP. I know someone who is so stereotypically ESTP ("good" and "bad") it's not funny anymore. He's just one sly guy. I was frequently put off by his behavior. But you just had to admire him at the same time for his people-skills. One sly guy. :happy:


I ultimately lean against behavioral typing and in favor of analysis of mental habits, but yeah...the "ESTP behavior" stereotype is something else. 



> I like discussing in a rational, systematic way. I do not like "unlogical" arguments and I strongly dislike not talking out a specific topic before switching to the next one. I will disengage when someone does this too often. And based on my experience plus what I've read, P-doms are more prone to this.


You think?

What do you consider a "rational, systematic way" to have conversation? This requires specifcs to really put in context; there are different conceptions of what rational/systematic conversations entail. As a point of curiosity: Do you think we have gone about this conversation in a rational/systematic way?

Also, what responses in (or if appropriate, what kind of) arguments are "unlogical" to you?

The tendency not to talk out a topic in full might be related somewhat to extraverted perception, where a person is too engaged by all the possibilities in the world to want to flesh out their presentation of their thinking. Introverted perception is a different matter, and I am willing to bet Si- and Ni-doms can be two of the most thorough types in this regard. Speaking for myself as a probable Ni-dom, I am a habitual problem-solver and often can't rest until I get to the deepest possible understanding of something I'm interested in; I'm constantly looking to expand my inner awareness by maturing my ideas and deepening my knowledge in topics of interest.


----------



## Geo (Mar 30, 2012)

Flatlander said:


> What I mean is that certain things about how humans live and operate are necessarily abstract.
> 
> Take the gaps in our actual perception that our mind fills in for us. That is abstraction - sensing the whole from the parts.
> 
> ...


Thanks for elaborating. 


In my opinion, observation of the world is important to anyone, sensor or intuitive alike. I've had quite a few of my ideas arise from ruminating on what I have observed.

I agree very much. Add in factors other than typical descriptions of cognitive function - add in individual peculiarities, for example - and Fe's expression gains a lot of new dimension.



> I ultimately lean against behavioral typing and in favor of analysis of mental habits, but yeah...the "ESTP behavior" stereotype is something else.


Makes total sense. The real value of studying cognitive functions seems to learn to appreciate how a certain persons concsciousness processes data. It helps become more aware and understanding of differences -- especially concerning things one considers "normal" (probably views mainly formed via one's dom function). 

I've noticed that most people are not easily typable. However, some definitely are; they just stick out. My impression is that their dominant function is very pronounced, and often not healthily balanced. And of course, then there's all those sneaky introverts hide their dom function from other people to make it as hard as possible to put them into boxes. :wink:



> > I like discussing in a rational, systematic way. I do not like "unlogical" arguments and I strongly dislike not talking out a specific topic before switching to the next one. I will disengage when someone does this too often. And based on my experience plus what I've read, P-doms are more prone to this.
> 
> 
> You think?


Thanks for probing. :happy: Allow me to retract my statement. I was mainly thinking of my experiences with one acquaintance who I suspect to be Se dom. 


> What do you consider a "rational, systematic way" to have conversation? This requires specifcs to really put in context; there are different conceptions of what rational/systematic conversations entail. As a point of curiosity: Do you think we have gone about this conversation in a rational/systematic way?
> 
> Also, what responses in (or if appropriate, what kind of) arguments are "unlogical" to you?


Good questions. :happy:
I have given this some additional thought. I don't actually think I need discussions to be "systematic" and "rational" always. I just generally have a hard time dealing with people that are not willing to exchange arguments with a certain openness - people that are essentially engaging in a monologue disguised as dialogue.

As for what I consider "rational", "systematic" and "logical": Failing to define my understanding of those terms precisely, I'll try to explain the general idea I have. The two main aspects I value in a discussion about a topic is a) not changing a topic before having explored it at some (minor) depth and b) being consistent in what stance one presents; I dislike internal contradictions and fallacies in general.



> The tendency not to talk out a topic in full might be related somewhat to extraverted perception, where a person is too engaged by all the possibilities in the world to want to flesh out their presentation of their thinking. Introverted perception is a different matter, and I am willing to bet Si- and Ni-doms can be two of the most thorough types in this regard. Speaking for myself as a probable Ni-dom, I am a habitual problem-solver and often can't rest until I get to the deepest possible understanding of something I'm interested in; I'm constantly looking to expand my inner awareness by maturing my ideas and deepening my knowledge in topics of interest.


Wow, I just realized you presented me with a good, fleshed-out explanation why I have a hard time dealing with my (supsected) Se dom friend (see above). He just seems rather superficial to me - intellectually, socially etc. Interestingly enough, another close friend I have is super smart, and talking to him is very enjoyable. But he exudes a certain "superficiality" -- just on a much more intangible, subtle level. He cares -- deeply actually. But he cares about pretty much anyone and his vast network of friends and his countless obligations have him not focus much on a single relationship. And here's the thing: I had already suspected Ne-dom, but without being able to pin-point why. Not so anymore. :happy:


Regarding Fe/Ti: When I'm really, really down, I stop giving a **** and can become reckless. I've done some pretty stupid things as a consequence -- nothing really bad, but things I'd never do normally. Might this be inferior Ti? 

I read somewhere that actitities that engage our inferior functions are hard for us to do. I immediately thought of mathematics, when asking myself what I would find most draining. Might this be an indicator of inferior Ti?


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 25, 2012)

Geo said:


> Makes total sense. The real value of studying cognitive functions seems to learn to appreciate how a certain persons concsciousness processes data. It helps become more aware and understanding of differences -- especially concerning things one considers "normal" (probably views mainly formed via one's dom function).
> 
> I've noticed that most people are not easily typable. However, some definitely are; they just stick out. My impression is that their dominant function is very pronounced, and often not healthily balanced. And of course, then there's all those sneaky introverts hide their dom function from other people to make it as hard as possible to put them into boxes. :wink:


The introverted function can be watched for when introverts are talking to you. Anyone can be thoughtful, rational, emotional, and so on, but different function-doms will have a different orientation towards it.

It's not the easiest thing to describe. Watch different Xi-doms talk about things important to them, and you might spot it.




> Thanks for probing. :happy: Allow me to retract my statement. I was mainly thinking of my experiences with one acquaintance who I suspect to be Se dom.


No problem. 




> Good questions. :happy:
> I have given this some additional thought. I don't actually think I need discussions to be "systematic" and "rational" always. I just generally have a hard time dealing with people that are not willing to exchange arguments with a certain openness - people that are essentially engaging in a monologue disguised as dialogue.


Interesting. Depending on the topic/difficulty, you might consider that dialogue is sometimes actually wanted, but not achieved because nobody in the room has anything to respond with. (That's sometimes me, since I get into detailed explanations of things and so forth.)

But yeah, there are people who are simply pushy in that way. I think your preference here might be Fe-ish, wanting mutual communication instead of being talked down.




> As for what I consider "rational", "systematic" and "logical": Failing to define my understanding of those terms precisely, I'll try to explain the general idea I have. The two main aspects I value in a discussion about a topic is a) not changing a topic before having explored it at some (minor) depth and b) being consistent in what stance one presents; I dislike internal contradictions and fallacies in general.


You don't have to be Xi-dom, or Ti-inferior, to want these things, though they do seem Pi/Ti-ish.




> Wow, I just realized you presented me with a good, fleshed-out explanation why I have a hard time dealing with my (supsected) Se dom friend (see above). He just seems rather superficial to me - intellectually, socially etc. Interestingly enough, another close friend I have is super smart, and talking to him is very enjoyable. But he exudes a certain "superficiality" -- just on a much more intangible, subtle level. He cares -- deeply actually. But he cares about pretty much anyone and his vast network of friends and his countless obligations have him not focus much on a single relationship. And here's the thing: I had already suspected Ne-dom, but without being able to pin-point why. Not so anymore. :happy:


Imagine what it's like to live in the world and the present moment so intensely, though. It's a quality I can rarely bask in.




> Regarding Fe/Ti: When I'm really, really down, I stop giving a **** and can become reckless. I've done some pretty stupid things as a consequence -- nothing really bad, but things I'd never do normally. Might this be inferior Ti?


That sounds..human. I'd look to the enneagram for something like that, it doesn't seem particularly function-related, but might speak to disintegration. 



> I read somewhere that actitities that engage our inferior functions are hard for us to do. I immediately thought of mathematics, when asking myself what I would find most draining. Might this be an indicator of inferior Ti?


It can.

People can get turned off to mathematics for different reasons. There is dyscalculia, which is a neurological setback; there is disliking the higher math for no connection to objective reality; there is being thrown off by having to do logical operation, and so forth.

How do you do with abstract logical computation, in general? I'm guessing you're decent, because you have to be to get into law school (LSATs)?


----------

