Note
Hiya! I just discovered your blog and was wondering if you could help try to type me (sorry this is pretty long)
1. I’m currently pretty torn between the intuitive introverts. I was able to narrow it down to INTJ, INFJ or INTP. I’m about 97.2% sure I use Ni. The only thing that’s giving me a bit of doubt is I find myself occasionally learning for the sake of learning which I’ve found is a traditionally Ne trait. Despite this I’m still pretty sure I use Ni as when I go down a rabbit hole and start learning for the sake of learning its always about a topic that interests me or is entertaining. I won’t waste my time learning about something I find mundane or drab. I resonate a lot with Ni’s “aha” moments where the correct answer simply pops into my head or a vision suddenly seems clear or a plot holes solution suddenly seems painstakingly obvious. I also resonate with starting out with a broader range of information/ possibilities and narrowing it down to one or two things. Another intuitive thing I highly relate to is living in the future. If almost never living in the present, and a constantly fixate on the future. I have a distinct, clear, and well thought out plan for the next 20 years (give or take).
Where I run into a bit of trouble is when I try to figure out which judging functions I predominantly use. It honestly feels like I use them all (though I know you’re only supposed to be able to use two well). For example I plan out everything, and set deadlines for myself. My desk often seems really messy to others especially when I’m doing art. This isn’t because I don’t value cleanliness, but because it simply makes more sense to keep all my art supplies out rather than having to spend at least fifteen minutes taking them out and then putting them away only to take them right back out the next day. I set goals based off of easily measurable, external things such as time, or grades. I make daily to do lists that outline everything I’ll need to do in the day, and some stuff to focus on if I have extra time. With my to do list I also plan out the approximate time each thing should take. When coming up with a scientific theory, I take others opinions/theories and test them against each other, and current scientific laws in order to formulate the most probable theory. External opinions (in a scientific/ logical manner) mean a lot to me (I don’t really care about how people that aren’t my friends think of me). To me these things seem very Te. But then I’m always smiling and am a fairly warm person. I want my friends to be happy, and I want to help others. I despise emotionally driven conflict(though I love debates), and while I’m not afraid to disrupt it if it threatens my morals/ is promoting something blatantly wrong (factually or morally) I do really harmony. These seem like pretty Fe things to me. As for Fi, I rarely share my negative emotions, preferring to deal with them predominantly alone. While I may not talk about them much I also have EXTREMELY strong morals. If something is crossing them I’m not going to simply ignore it for the sake of harmony. While I tend to be private I do try to be as authentic as possible. My morals are derived by information I’ve collected and decisions I’ve made myself, rather than being derived by ‘the groups’ collective morals if that makes sense. To me these things appear to be very Fi. As for Ti, sometimes I enjoy learning simply for the sake of learning. The knowledge may have no practical use to me but if I find it interesting or want to learn about it I can devote hours to it. I try and come to the most logical/accurate conclusion possible, and when I’m offering advice I may offer additional advice that takes different variables into account. The truth is really important to me as well.
2. Reading. I absolutely ADORE reading(specifically fantasy/sci-fi/dystopian books or research/scientific articles about topics that interest me). For reference there was a period of time when I had some free time and I was reading 2 or 3 books a day? Read maybe 50 books in the span of 20 days? But yeah I absolutely love reading. Just he way the book sucks you in and deposits you and a completely new world full of wonder and disaster and ugh it’s just magnificent. And don’t even get me started on impeccable character development and eeee. The way rereading a book feels like you’re reconnecting with an old best friend or going back to your childhood home and *sobs*. I also LOVE trying to predict plot twists and character deaths. Most of the time I can predict things correctly and idk it’s really fun to just try and figure out what’s going to happen before the big reveal. And the rush of satisfaction you get when you’ve guessed something right- it also helps me brace for character deaths (sorta. For example I knew *the* death in the final empire [by Brandon Sanderson] was coming since nearly the very beginning [I had my suspicions since the moment vin was introduced] but I still sobbed when the character died. [a tad off topic but what caused me to cry wasn’t the death itself but another characters reaction to it. This is often the case I find. A death of a character I love leaves me feeling empty but what typically gets me to cry is the others reactions- for thus reason funerals usually make me cry. I should also add that I only cry when I’m alone. I’ve cried around people (that aren’t my parents) a grand total of 1 time.]
Uh and daydreaming. I’m almost always daydreaming. Ie. if my brain was a search engine or whatever one tab would be reality and I would consecutively have at lest 20 other tabs open. Some of then playing videos (daydreams) others supplying music(if I’m not actively listening to real music my brain cycles through songs I have memorized. Occasionally does this with book scenes too if I’m bored [yes, I memorize some of my favourite scenes, word for word, so I can play them like a movie in my head when I, bored) others containing random info (just me thinking random stuff) etc.
3. I guess how to solve some problems? Wether it’s a math or science problem, or an argument between friends, figuring out how to solve things has always been something I’m decently good at. Math and science just. Make sense. And then with issues between people I’m good at looking at different perspectives (even ones that I don’t agree with) and playing out different scenarios/ possible outcomes of different approaches. This lets me come up with a solution that will successfully solve the problem with the least amount of negative ramifications involved
4. Hmm maybe being present? I honestly feel like life is passing me by and I’m just immobilized on the sidelines. Im so far into the future that I kinda forget to actually *live* every once in a while.
5. Honesty? Truth? Morals? These topics are all really interesting as they can be kinda subjective. The line between honesty and cruelty is so small. What is truth? Cause while yes, we have some set truths (such as the earth is orbiting the sun) so many ‘truths’ are simply subjective and completely depend on ones perspective. And morals my goodness. The stormlight archive is a really fun series that plays around with things like what is justice? And honour? I won’t get into it now but it brings up so many really interesting questions regarding morals.
6. Perspective . I think perspective is such a fascinating thing. Just. Different opinions. Seeing the world through completely different lenses. Interpreting the same thing in utterly different ways. When toying around with an idea I find it really fun to try and imagine opposing perspectives. While I can find different perspectives really interesting, they can also well... get on my nerves to say the least. Sometimes someone perspective is just? So blatantly wrong? And has absolutely no factual evidence backing it up? And part of me wants to just just scream and it would be so much easier if everyone just. Assessed the facts in front of them instead of making wild accusations or whatever without anything to support them. But yeah overall I think perspectives are really cool and they’re part of what helps to make the world diverse and life so much less interesting without different perspectives.
The future. I’ve found a bunch of my friends find thinking about the future stressful but if I’m being honest I find solace in thinking about the future. Having things planned out and knowing what I intend to do/ where I want to go takes off so much stress. I lowkey live in the future and I honestly cannot wait till it comes, and I achieve my goals. While I might be a bit scared the future excites me so much more than it’ll ever scare me.
7. Maybe add some more stuff about the judging functions and feelings and thinking etc . I absolutely adore science and math. I literally do math for fun. I’m currently aiming to get my PhD in astrophysics.
Not sure if this is relevant at all but my biggest (harmless) pet peeves are my grandmother’s door stopper (it always gets stuck in the door and then u can’t get it out and the door won’t close properly- I have an unhealthy amount of hatred for that thing AHAHJSEJKSMDJDJDJJ) and when people say some variant of “you did good”. Like nO NO YOU DID NOT DO gOoD. YOU DID W E L L (Anyways theres my little mini rant).
I’m my friend groups therapist (sorta). While I’m really not good with words and recycle the same three responses I always let everyone know that I’m here for them and they can talk to me without judgement etc. While I really don’t know what to say or do I try my best because I care about my friends and want to help them. I love them and so I want them to be able to be happy. Im always smiling (though this is more so because people don’t ask me how I’m doing when I look happy than because I’m genuinely happy. Most of the time I’m he farthest thing from that). I’m a pretty warm person who’s always happy to help, however I’m very introverted. I haven’t had a single conversation with the majority of people in my class (I’ve had a convo with maybe 5. Talk to 2 regularly. There are 26 people in my class). I never express negative emotions (with the exception of stress- I panic intensely in the 5 minutes immediately before taking a test as this helps me to completely turn off my nerves while I’m writing the exam. I may also make a joke or two about my negative emotions with close friends). I should also add that when making decisions I value logic more and think thinks through thoroughly, examining the pros and cons etc. While I take feelings and emotions into consideration when making decisions they’re more like an additional variable to consider rather than the main driving force that determines my decision. If I’m feeling really emotional and I need to make a decision I will postpone deciding until I feel more levelheaded. I’m really not impulsive in the slightest.
Thank you so much!!
INTJ
Living in the future rather than the present and your comfort in that sapce, your ability for and enjoyment of making predictions, your ability to really understand and try on different perspectives you don’t necessarily agree with, your focus on “ramifications” (aka future implications) while problem solving - this all points to high Ni.
You also show a Te preference - goals based on external metrics, to-do lists for daily tasks, logic based on the outer world (external opinion). When you said “While I take feelings and emotions into consideration when making decisions they’re more like an additional variable to consider rather than the main driving force that determines my decision” - that is a clear cut definition of Te over Fe preference.
Your tertiary Fi shows through here as well - willing to disrupt harmony if it upsets your morals, your morals being personally derived, needing to understand your emotions while alone. And lastly, your statement about “forgetting to live” from being in the future is pretty textbook inferior Se.
3 notes
·
View notes
Note
It's not your "4 fix" that makes people think you're a infp. It's your obvious inferior Te. People like midlink have told you a thousand times: high Ti users break down their thought process instead of sending a long walk of text with difficult and over researched words. A intp wouldn't need a "long list with points and examples with less vague definitions" because that's Te, a Ti Dom is not as sure about their type as you're so stubborn with yours. You don't explain yourself like a intp.
Ah you’re one of their cronies. as I suspected.
One group of raid-loving associates is hardly “people”. Calm your Fe tits and get perspective. .
I shall not be wasting further time on this nor repeating the same arguments I made weeks ago, other than the tl; dr is that you’re shoehorning my words into your conceptions of the definitions with a generous helping of word-twisting and presumption.
An amusing example for casual readers:
Me: “Be precise and specific. Give me reason to give your random claim attention and consideration.” ( that is, Don’t use a vague that could be applied to anything)
They: You asked for said you needed “less vague” definitions [as in easier to understand] hence inf Te.
It’s like those ppl who argue their fav character is an INFJ and blame all the obvious, copious and constant displays of sensing on “inferior Se”. never mind that an inferior function would generally be used mostly when triggered rather than being the person’s default aproach.
I mean take a step back and look at this. Do they realize that they’ve just basically claiming that using, referencing or researching technical jargon is something an INTP would never do? I don’t think they meant to do that because it’s opposite of like what any source ever tell you about INTPs when you first ask what they are. Stereotypes don’t apply to everyone but the love of nerd jargon and researching new topics seems to be widespread.
Rather this is insofar as I can tell a honest mistake due to using bad definitions.
Good example for these “One trick pony, simplistic” conception of the functions a la “Si is memory” or “Ni is planning” that creates so much confusion, in their case “all referencing is Te”. In truth one behavior can be done by various processes in various ways.
Since neither of us invented mbti and we wish to talk about mbti and not some thing we’ve made up from scratch on our own, we would have to read up on sources in order to talk about this mbti thing and use jargon in order to discuss the topic with precision and familiarize ourselves with the concept.
Since no human can invent the wealth of modern science themselves we ALL have to reference at some point. That’s no more a particular function than memory rather function influences how we reference. I daresay a lot of referenciing is also Ne but that would be a more associative sort.
With the T functions its more about connections - the difference is more that Te takes the data as it is as basic “building blocks” which it then build into methods, procedures and applications, whereas Ti tries to understand what the source “means” that is recreate a model of the concept and its logical interconnections in their head. They won’’t just go and use the fact right away until they have analyzed it for themselves, but they may well think “this is an useful concept!” and adopt it, making additions or changes for themselves or synthezising their own understanding from multiple sources depending on what convinces them whereas the Te user adopts an alghorithm/procedure based on how well it gets results.
Accepting info after checking it isn’t the same as just “swallowing” it. There’s a difference between citing a source as an appeal to authority or doing it so the other person knows which imput you used, which parts of the thinking are yours and to go and form their own conclusions. Obviously I would not reference concepts that did not convince me but the decision wether to be convinced or not is made via how the concept mashes with previous understanding and wether it makes logical sense not because I have seen its results and widely found useful by ppl in general (Te) - indeed a lot of this advanced in depht socianics stuff isn’t known or used by many people but I use it because I have found it makes sense and makes good distinctions.barring future changes of opinion of course.
Indeed knowledge only through results but not and unless there’s very good proof I tend to disbelieve or be sceptical of claims of casual relation if there is no mechanistical explanation of HOW thing A can possibly affect thing B. For better or for worse. Sometimes it turns out the local INTJ was right and a problem really ~was~ the laundry detergent’s fault even if I did not know how. .
But in either case the person will talk of square roots when they encounter a square root or a problem that square roots are relevant and refer to the word “square root”. Not everyone who ever did this is a FP or TJ. The difference is more in the focus understanding: TE: “You get a square root by multiplying a number with itself.” Ti: “A square root is a number’s multiple of itself.” - hence why socionics calls it procedural logic or alghorithms (”This is how you do it.” where the answer is a method) vs. structural logic or laws. (”What is it?” where the answer is a cathegory in the TPs’ sorting system)
Te is not just repeating phrases. TJs and FPs do not just repeat stuff - they know, to varying degrees, when and how to use what depending on what they encounter and criticize/ find fault in such methods. (Indeed in my experience the types who do the most “unsynthesized repeating of statements” are usually Ti inferiors who often compensate with a very Fe ish, “A said X statement but B said Y so I am asking a third person consensus decision process and they seem to have a hard time extracting extra information from a statement by deduction.)
What Jung meant by “objective” or “Subjective” in his original definition of the functions - which I’ve studied - is not the colloquial sense of the words (that extroverted functions only copy and that introverted ones make every) but wether “the attention begins with the subject” or “the object.”
That means ddoes the thought start with the person, or with what they are seeing?
Te, Ne, Fe, and Se will pay attention to the stimulus because it’s there wether it’s reacting to a feeling, awknowledging a fact, reacting to a sensation, noticing an association etc. with Fi, Ti, Si and Ni the process begins from the inside - how does the stimulus relate to the subject and their own feelings/beliefs/archetypes/past sensations? Hence why Te pays attention to things that are ‘relevant’ whereas Ti follows what the person is interested in & may not show much interest in what is deemed “relevant” by broad society hence the math geek who knows nothing about movie stars etc.
And once you understand that it is way more probable that I have Ti insofar as I can discern I match those patterns very well.
IDK who OP is surely can’t type them from just this paragraph but I recall that a lot of ppl of the group from the 2 weeks back poster were ENTPs so for a moment I’ll work off the asumption that you are one it would make a lot of sense if you were even if its not the only option.
This is where the fine distinctions of socionics concepts are useful particularly in how they describe the difference between different function slots such as auxillary and as well as Victor Gulenko’s “Cognitive styles” (I am almost certainly holographic-panoramic so assuming that I was indeed mistaken and was a Fi user all along, I’d be an ENFP if anything.
It may come down to a difference between ENTP and INTP.
But to make iot short and cut to the basics the idea - which at least to me seemed consistent with all my observations - is that the auxxilary or “creative” function is used to “create” new thoughts at the behest of the base/program/dominant function when the dom function switches it on. in any case the dominant function is what makes the primary decisions that is basic in any variant of jungian typology.
Hence why an ENTP can defend a wolly foreign belief system on the fly in a debate, change opinion over night and reinterpret all past data to that end etc. but that is specific of auxillary Ti not all Ti. In an ENTP your auxillary spits out ever new all new such logically consistent frameworks at the whim of your dominant Ne.
So Ne doms change their opinions very fast and are often constantly wondering if they’re mistyped - even when they know that this is common for Ne doms they still could be wrong and as Ne doms they primarily see the world as “coulds”. Since they have little Si they are not likely to give past experiences much weight and take longer to “retain” tendencies anyways so their opinions are not particularly inert especially if their gut fix is not nine.
I mean think of it: Ti is an introverted function. It uses an internal framework to make decisions which it constantly mantains. New problems are either quickly decided based on past categories or require a slow introverted process of reorganization. In an INTP, Ti is in charge and flips Ne on when needed. Dom Ti fits everything into one big central framework which is the main organising principle of the person’s mind.
When new data or queries are encountered the ENTP would first go to Ne and look at the possibility, examine it in its own right, and then later create or look for a logical framework that fits it. The INTP would go to Ti first, that is, try to fit it into that big preexisting net work. And only if it does not fit will it be reorganized, “Oh, I was wrong, so what else could it be? * activates Ne”
First time someone presents you with a possibility you will examine it but you won’t reexamine something from the ground up if you already “know” the terrain and have a strong detailed framework that explains why the person may think that even though you don’t think it’s true. You’re still open to changing your mind but a threshold of unaccounted data must be crossed before reevaluation will happen. That is how dominant introverts work. It’s not stubborness its not reinventing the wheel twice.
Its not uncommon for INTPs in particular to “miss” data that does not fit their framework at times and need some time to change entrenched beliefs. And again that’s not just me saying it that’s very common info with a simple cause: the way in which dominant Ti tries to fit everything in a preexisting framework first and then maybe changes. Really not making any wild controversial claims here. Also we have more Si than ENTPs making the ideas more inert for better or for worse.
To summarize:
Dominant Ti doesn’t change at the drop of a hat like aux Ti especially in conjunction with tert si
Citing sources is basic rhetoric not Te the difference is in HOW the sources are used
The difference is in focus on the object vs begin of thinking inside the subject
in the end there’s only so much sense in discussing my thinking with a stranger who isn’t a telepath. I know my head but how would i prove that to you?
(See the common apologist spiel about”All nonbelievers secretly believe.” Me: *feels no belief* actually no. - but how to I prove to someone what is or isn’t in my head, especially if their worldview doesn’t even allow for the possibility? Same with being in denial. How do you prove youre not in denial? especially when both no denial and denial can produce the answer “No im not?”. )
Person A: You talk only about yourself!
Person B: No I do not`?
Person A: You’re doing it again! ... but you can’t answer a quetion anout yourself without mentioning yourself. Its the other person who mentioned you in the first place. So IDK if anything will even come of this except another hour of my life going out the window.
1 note
·
View note