Personality Cafe banner

21 - 40 of 142 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,367 Posts
I thought it was a good article and I have noticed some of those same things myself. I try to remember though that twodifferent types can come to exactly the same conclusion. Type does not determine action. The only thing I have seen different that I can think of a good example for is that my ENTP sister gets extremely impatient in phylosophical conversations. There is no doubt my or her mind that she is anything other than ENTP.

Unfortunately, I find your proposition superficial. Not that it has no merit, but it lacks meaningful depth to me. A difference between inductive and deductive reasoning I guess.

The N/S breakdown merely differentiates the focus of Abstract vs Concrete, but not that of the Current vs Removed. Ne users and Se users will be operating much more in the "Here and now" compared to Ni users and Si users who's thoughts can seem removed from the conversation.

It seems that you value NF's and NT's, but do not quite understand SJ's and SP's. I would suggest getting to understand them a little bit better. Truly find out what motivates them, not what you think motivates them. Find their focus and you will find them.
. This last sentance is pure words of wisdom, Trigun64. Thank you for that.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,417 Posts
You must also factor in Ns who grew up around many sensors, or young Ns who have not fully developed their Intuition, who will tend to talk about sensing topics much more frequently.
No, this isn't true, young Ns are more reliant on their N function meaning they are worse with their sensing functions. And according to Jung nurture doesn't even matter, you're going to be your natural self no matter what the influence.

1-2 Hour Test:

If you have a chance to sit down for an hour or two and have a discussion with the person you are most likely gonna figure out by the end whether they are S or N. I have yet to meet an S that can talk about abstract concepts for that length of time. They can do it for about 30 mins or so, but they WILL get frustrated and bored if it continues on past that. You WILL even likely scare them off :p My N friends and I have literally talked for 4-5 hours straight about purely abstract concepts and ideas, and enjoyed every minute of it
Ni users have great difficulty expressing their ideas and intuition and the N function isn't primarily about abstract concepts and ideas, that sounds more like the Open in the big 5 test (which I'm aware is supposedly synonymous with the N function). N functions are intuitive meaning they're not preoccupied with facts, sensory details like you said, how things are instead of how they were, are and can be. The N function is comfortable with the intangible, abstract things don't have to be intangible, factual things can be intangible. You've acknowledged that of course S functions can be interested in abstract things but they won't discuss them at length, but at the same time introverts won't feel comfortable talking about anything at great length. This might be an okay way at spotting Ne (only introverts use Ne).

And then called each other up later that week for another long talk :p Ns want to analyze, analyze, analyze. Watch for that, it's a key sign.
No, that's the T function actually.

On the other hand, S's can talk for hours on end about the latest movies, trends, music, etc. and not get bored. Note: Ns can talk about things they are interested in for hours, but S's will talk about what is HAPPENING, whether it is their particular interest or not. Try talking like this for more than a few mins to an N and they will try profusely to change the subject to something they consider "meaningful", which doesn't have to be something deep with all Ns, just something conceptual or analytical :p If that doesn't work they will suddenly remember they had to run an errand and excuse themselves from the conversation.
Se will talk about trends and what's happening. Feeling types will change the conversation if it isn't "meaningful".

How to spot an NF and an NT:
During your long talks, an NF is going to want to analyze feelings. They will tend towards playing the role of psychologist. They will get into why someone is feeling what they are feeling and HOW that person can be helped or encouraged. Abstract concepts are important only as related to people and they will quickly bring the conversation back to the goal: helping people and often helping them emotionally or attending to their emotions. If they really like you and trust you, they will share of THEMSELVES with you. To an NF that means their dreams, fears, values, feelings, hopes. This is a HIGH honor, don't take it lightly. It is how NFs bond and if they are sharing these things with you, that is exactly what they are trying to do, form a deep bond with you.

NTs care just as deeply about people and the world, but are not as good at interpreting their own emotions or the emotions of others. Because they do care, they are likely to want to "solve the problem" itself and use their understanding of concepts to help them do that. Making someone feel good emotionally does not solve the problem in their eyes. They actually want to HELP people, not just make them feel good. If you share with them a problem at work, they are likely to find the flaw in the system of administration, not a better attitude that you could have to deal with the situation (which is what an NF would tell you). During your long discussions with them they will talk about systems and not always bring it back to the people involved. They enjoy talking about how things work, or don't work properly, and how they can be improved.

Both types enjoy analyzing, analyzing, analyzing and can have some awesome discussions and learn a lot from each other. The NF helps the NT be more aware of emotional problems, so they can factor that into their plans to better the world. And the NT makes the NF aware of the faulty systems at work so that they can see past their emotions to a better long-term solution.

SJs and SPs:
This is a bit trickier for me, since I'm an NF myslef :p Still, it can be done. Best way to tell an SJ from an SP is not to talk with them, but to WATCH them. SJs and SPs are the busy bees. They don't sit down for very long lol

SJs will likely be taking care of someone or meeting some need. They will do this in a structured way, even on their time off. They are the people at the meeting who come in and set up early, making sure everything runs smoothly. Things running smoothly is key here. They care about everything being done in a presentable, acceptable way with every issue and person being taken care of and all needs attended to. Their world feels out of control when something is left undone, or someone is left unhelped

SPs are more carefree. They will be busy but in a different way. They want to be in on the action. They'll be the ones test driving the set-up that the SJs put together. Taking care of people in a structured way is not as important to them. You will see them interacting with people, helping in their own way, but a bit of chaos is exciting to them and they will not rush in to solve the problem. If they are more introverted they won't necessarily see it as exciting, but they will NOT feel it is their personal responsibility to make sure things run smoothly and will likely keep to themselves.

Ending:

Hope this info is helpful to you. In my own life I've used these methods to quickly spot compatible types. I now have several VERY CLOSE NF friends that I can connect with on a deep and meaningful level. The kind of friends I've wanted my whole life but didn't know how to meet or where to find them. I've also been able to connect with all the different types in a meaningful way that they appreciate. Which means my likeability has gone up LOL and I am making many friends. It's great to be able to quickly tell someone's type, speak their language and get to know them. It makes for a great first impression and opportunity to have many good friendships.
The rest is good :). Just ease up on the stereotypes lol, I agree with Trigun and what he said about SJs and SPs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
63 Posts
And according to Jung nurture doesn't even matter, you're going to be your natural self no matter what the influence.
We don't have to agree with Jung in all things. It doesn't make sense that Nurture has no say in a persons character. Personality is decided by both.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27 Posts
Never ceases to amaze me how different one letter makes people, fundamentally. My girl space friend is an S, and she abhors analyzing. For me it's a pastime...Analyze it to DEATH at least once with anyone within earshot, then call up a friend, analyze the decaying carcass... And I'll want to resurrect it and KEEP analyzing it again later tonight.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,417 Posts
We don't have to agree with Jung in all things. It doesn't make sense that Nurture has no say in a persons character. Personality is decided by both.
Personality is decided by both? Personality isn't decided or predetermined and that's my problem with Jung, no theory is perfect and I hate Jung fanboys and how seriously they take his theory that they also ignore nurture which is seriously important for our attitudes, which is what functions are - not tools but our attitudes which are obviously affected by culture, our family, our school etc etc.

And I'm sorry, but who's theory are we following on this forum?

Of course we have to follow Jung, he invented the fucking functions. You obviously don't know who he is if you're going to say that.

That's like saying we can't agree with Isaac Newton's rules for calculus when he is the person who invented it (if you believe he did), of course we do, if we start to make our own theory fair enough but that's not what everyone's here for - your theory, they're here for Jung and what he said and speculated about human personality. I'm fed up of people saying that shit just because they're too lazy to learn more about the theory and what it actually entails instead of splurting around misconceptions and fucking nonsensical tripe that isn't helpful to anyone who's actually interested in this typology theory.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
743 Posts
S's don't tend to spend time analyzing. I think that's their main problem in learning to tell the types apart. I think they can learn if they are willing! It may not come as easy though. Ns do this kind of thing ALL THE TIME, so we get good at it lol
Never ceases to amaze me how different one letter makes people, fundamentally. My girl space friend is an S, and she abhors analyzing. For me it's a pastime...Analyze it to DEATH at least once with anyone within earshot, then call up a friend, analyze the decaying carcass... And I'll want to resurrect it and KEEP analyzing it again later tonight.
Since I have been taught how to analyse things, I now have great fun analysing rocks as I bang them together while sitting in a puddle of my own drool.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
63 Posts
Personality is decided

And I'm sorry, but who's theory are we following on this forum?

Of course we have to follow Jung, he invented the fucking functions. You obviously don't know who he is if you're going to say that.

That's like saying we can't agree with Isaac Newton's rules for calculus when he is the person who invented it (if you believe he did), of course we do, if we start to make our own theory fair enough but that's not what everyone's here for - your theory, they're here for Jung and what he said and speculated about human personality. I'm fed up of people saying that shit just because they're too lazy to learn more about the theory and what it actually entails instead of splurting around misconceptions and fucking nonsensical tripe that isn't helpful to anyone who's actually interested in this typology theory.
I was under the impression that this was a place to hash out ideas. You seem to be under the impression that it is a place to simply talk about the ideas of a dead psychologist. It would appear that one of us is wrong.

Why shouldn't we change around his theory? We know more about how people work today, then he did. He had wonderful ideas, why not give them a different spin. It's all just speculation.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,417 Posts
Why shouldn't we change around his theory? We know more about how people work today, then he did. He had wonderful ideas, why not give them a different spin. It's all just speculation.
Well then tell me your ideas that are better than Jung's and show me an example of someone coming up with something better than Jung's, that they put more thoughts into because all I see here is shitty speculation based off Myers Briggs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
63 Posts
Well then tell me your ideas that are better than Jung's and show me an example of someone coming up with something better than Jung's, that they put more thoughts into because all I see here is shitty speculation based off Myers Briggs.
We have the right to "shitty speculation." Though I am curious, what is "shitty speculation"? The way I see it any speculation is good speculation. At least we're trying to put thoughts together.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,417 Posts
We have the right to "shitty speculation." Though I am curious, what is "shitty speculation"? The way I see it any speculation is good speculation. At least we're trying to put thoughts together.
I have a right to fart on my hand and make my friends smell it but that doesn't make it useful to anyone. Well try harder. I'm certainly not impressed. I like typology, not shitty speculation and branching off aimlessly letting everyone think this is correct information.

You think speculation (ie guessing with incomplete evidence) always leads to good things?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
142 Posts
I have a very well developed Fi (or ethos in my mind). I do what's right. However, my daily life consists of a very well developed Te,

I want to help people. You are right, I don't care about your mood or emotions as much as your condition and your future consequences for actions you partook in or are partaking in now.
I believe you are confusing a well developed Fi with an actually well developed Te.

Well then tell me your ideas that are better than Jung's and show me an example of someone coming up with something better than Jung's, that they put more thoughts into because all I see here is shitty speculation based off Myers Briggs.
Yes. I would love to hear these ideas. I have tried to disprove his theory but most everything I've learned about MBTI seems to be quite accurate I think it would be incredibly difficult to disprove the basic concepts. And most of the details you could possibly disprove are not concepts generated by Jung but rather assumptions being drawn from the ideas. It's always possible you could add on to his theory's though.

One example is where people do cognitive function tests and get Ne and Ni at the top
well my theory is that they have a general idea that they are big picture thinkers thus when answering questions that appear like N questions they answer all of them appropriately leading to a conclusion that they use both Ne and Ni as their top functions which in reality is false.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,417 Posts
Yes. I would love to hear these ideas. I have tried to disprove his theory but most everything I've learned about MBTI seems to be quite accurate I think it would be incredibly difficult to disprove the basic concepts. And most of the details you could possibly disprove are not concepts generated by Jung but rather assumptions being drawn from the ideas. It's always possible you could add on to his theory's though.
The reason it's hard to disprove is because Jung doesn't say his psychology is science like Freud does, he uses extroverted attitudes to avoid tackling the nurture problem and he acknowledges our personalities are too fluid for all his functions to be applied to it and to a degree of overuse (but still people overuse JCF to a scary degree).

Accurate? The MBTI? The MBTI is bullshit (as in the assessment) but the 40 year worth of research and Jung's other successors (which, no-one on this forum is, please refrain from cucking your own socks, well, I'm not saying there's anything impressive about David Kiersey's take on it) are definitely worth something. Even here we can learn about these archetypes Jung spoke of in a more practical sense by the questions asked (though peer pressure is a serious problem with type questions and silly trivial things don't count). A bit like how music theory can be measured by practical approaches; what research Jung's successors have done is quite useful and somewhat measurable (but many factors skew the results from being very reliable).

Yet that's all that comes from it so far - they still lead people being extremely misinformed which is evident on these types of forums with their cult-like yet ignorant followings. I think what's interesting to note the most is the degree in which people convince themselves of what cognition they use, something as personal as that, they adapt their attitudes to better fit descriptions - now there's interesting psychology - the forer effect. It's evident in the way people still keep their MBTI type after they learn about functions, they still think they're the type they tested as, which means they're not being very honest with themselves most of the time. That's still the only use that comes from adding to his theories I can see. If you look outside his theory to understand people anyway, if you're goal is to understand people then you shouldn't include it as typology information to confuse people, that's just ruining all the work Jung put into his books and ideas.

One example is where people do cognitive function tests and get Ne and Ni at the top
well my theory is that they have a general idea that they are big picture thinkers thus when answering questions that appear like N questions they answer all of them appropriately leading to a conclusion that they use both Ne and Ni as their top functions which in reality is false.
edit: I read that wrong.

Reality? You have to remember that this theory has nothing to with reality. I did the same thing and thought I had both Ni and Ne actually lol.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
142 Posts
I was being unclear in what I meant.

When I was saying the MBTI basic concepts I was referring to the cognitive functions. For some reason because I learned about MBTI first I tend to generalize most of the other personality theories into it. Sort of just like a category in my mind.

I realize this theory has nothing to do with "Reality", I'm simply stating that I do not believe that I believe the theory on the order of the cognitive functions is correct and that you cannot have Dominant Introverted and Extroverted views of the same function.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,526 Posts
Things I refuse to talk about: overly abstract topics, needless debates, American Idol or any other TV show, how to clean or organize or cook, etc. Come to think of it, I really don't like to talk about much at all. I'd rather just let the other person do it and I'll tune it out or play music or read or go for a walk or something.

I always test as an INFP, but I also test as an ISFp in socionics. I related equally to what the OP said about NFs and SPs.

All right, so some people I talk about enneagram with, some movies and music, some treehouses, some world events, some just plain goofy. It def depends on my fellow conversationalist. I like to think I'm pretty versatile. Talking exclusively abstract or exclusively concrete would be pretty dang tedious...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
226 Posts
Wow! This is a very interesting article. I've noticed, however, that I sort of subconsciously change the way I talk after interacting/observing people for a certain length of time. I'm all for long, deep convos, but I've found that most people aren't into that sort of thing or are extremely wary about relating any personal information. I actually tend to share personal things pretty easily for some reason. There's usually something in my head telling me to hold back, but that's what I've done most of my life and its never gotten me anywhere. The only person I can have long meaningful conversations with is my INFJ cousin, but she tends to be really, really serious to the point where it kinda freaks me out and makes me act more "sensorish".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
63 Posts
I have a right to fart on my hand and make my friends smell it but that doesn't make it useful to anyone. Well try harder. I'm certainly not impressed. I like typology, not shitty speculation and branching off aimlessly letting everyone think this is correct information.

You think speculation (ie guessing with incomplete evidence) always leads to good things?
Honestly? I don't give a damn if you're impressed or not. They don't have to believe what I have to say. I'm going to tell everyone reading this right now that some of the things I will say will not be facts. They will be ideas. Nothing more, nothing less. I welcome an educational debate about what I have to say. I don't believe this is educational, or a debate. Therefore I'm going to say we have the right to disagree and leave it at that. Hope you have a wonderful day.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,361 Posts
Would an N have an easier time figuring out if people are either sensing or intuition?
S's don't tend to spend time analyzing. I think that's their main problem in learning to tell the types apart.
And you've nailed why the vast majority of the traffic in the forums (and apparently the vast majority of "second favorite" forums) is from Ns. We love to talk about this stuff with Ses too, but they're not usually all that interested in it.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,637 Posts
Google Top down vs. Bottom up. I have not been told specifically that has anything to do with sensing/intuition, but I believe strongly that the sensing type sees bottom up and the intuitive type sees top down. I know one of my friends who is the sensing type looked at a picture of just someone's eyes and she figured out who it was, where I couldn't. I was able to connect the dots to a picture of someone, where she couldn't. Also it seems like the intuitive type is more daydreamy and we take our time with things.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
73 Posts
I think in general, N's exhaust S's. Commonly S's will tell N's "stop overthinking it", "you're reading too much into it" or "not everything has to mean something."

To N's, S's seem to oversimplify things. N's will tell S's "did you think about it this way?", "what about the long term effects of that?" and "are you sure that's what you want to do?"
 
21 - 40 of 142 Posts
Top