[Bhathaway]

I'm pretty positive about my having the Ti-Fe axis, so I wanted to once and for all determine what my perception functions are. This has consistently been where people differ in their typing of me(most say either INTP or ISTP). If you guys could shoot things at me and then I will answer you back as soon as possible with perception function things. I was thinking earlier that it is probably incredibly hard to spot perception functions because almost everything is being translated into a judging form so that it can fit into a sentence and a claim can be said and worked with. This typically means that the people typing sort of have to reverse engineer the perception functions by working off what the judging functions have analyzed, therefore even that is fairly imperfect/or at the very least very difficult. It's impossible for me to spot my own perception functions in the present essentially, and I know a fair amount of the essence of each function so I can sometimes make myself look for specific things consciously. Mabye that is a clue too lol? If i have to consciously think about it then mabye that isn't my perception function...idk.

I will try to answer questions with purely perception answers(to the best of my ability).

Shoot me a question, picture, video, anything and I will try to answer with what comes to mind perception wise.

 

[TyranAmiros]

How do you feel about mistyping?
What would it mean to you to be ISTP?
What would it mean to you to be INTP?
How would you react if someone said, "I think you're ISFJ"?

When you're at work/in school, what is the greatest skill you bring to the team on group projects?
Does it bother you when you have a suggestion shot down?
How do you feel when you're proven wrong about something factual, like the date or time something happened?

Describe your process for preparing for a solo talk/presentation/debate.
What is your reaction when someone says, "that's just your idea" or "that's just your theory"?
To what extent do we all perceive the same reality? Explain this answer in some depth.

 

[Bhathaway]

How do you feel about mistyping?
What would it mean to you to be ISTP?
What would it mean to you to be INTP?
How would you react if someone said, "I think you're ISFJ"?

When you're at work/in school, what is the greatest skill you bring to the team on group projects?
Does it bother you when you have a suggestion shot down?
How do you feel when you're proven wrong about something factual, like the date or time something happened?

Describe your process for preparing for a solo talk/presentation/debate.
What is your reaction when someone says, "that's just your idea" or "that's just your theory"?
To what extent do we all perceive the same reality? Explain this answer in some depth.

I don't feel any specific way about mistyping. It is just a thing. Kind of the same thing for the ISTP and INTP. I just see it as "okay I'm this type, now how can I use that information to sort out the things I should do or the approach I should take when looking to help others." It doesn't hold any meaning to me honestly, it just is. I've tried to steer clear of valuing certain types over others for a while now. If I was truly INTP I'd be a little sad because I've been having some trouble with it already as is. The INTP community is only just now starting to be beneficial for me because for a long time I haven't related to a lot of them, but when I made two threads about that difference a couple people piped up about the same concerns and that has been nice(finally getting some responses and solutions to my problem with a lack of passion)

If someone said ISFJ I would feel fine, I think my Fe position is kind of wierd. On the one hand I relate a lot to inferior Fe, on the other a lot of the INTPs seem to have this air of "I don't need social interaction" and idk if that is because many are still trying to develop their relationship with Fe and are having their Ti oppress their Fe, or if I am simply not an inferior Fe. I struggle to give Fe compliments beyond a very casual compliment and certainly struggle to make others feel better when they are down. When they are down I tend to analyze them and solve their problem logically, or I will get them cookies or something like that. Actions or analysis. Trying to produce their inner feeling inside of me by imaging what it is like is literally impossible for me, and I very much struggle to come up with things that would "cheer someone up." I can go on more about this if necessary but I feel this is talking alot about judging functions when you may have been trying to get into perception functions here.

It's funny that you mentioned what I bring to team projects because I recently remembered that I can really contribute to teams on more logical projects. I become the leader pretty often, but not like...THE leader. It is more of a chill leadership where everyone really values what I have to say, but my leadership style is really focused around compromising with the members I have and trying to take on the biggest amount of work. I find that sometimes I can want their wording to be the way I like it, and I can critique their work but I really try hard to not do this too much, and if I do change their work I do it by talking it out with them rather than doing it behind their back. I'm really good at knowing what will work on engineering type projects(like when you build a bridge out of a toilet paper roll and a bunch of other stupid objects lol, I can use the items creatively to make it work), splitting up the work fairly(typically trying to give myself the most). On engineering projects I remember my INFP girlfriend kinda checking out the time we did it(it was a spaghetti and tape tower construction), she just took up a supportive role. I can't remember how many ideas I myself typically contribute on engineering projects but I definitely know how to spot what ideas are good and integrate them into a growing model. I'm typically the voice of reason(though I am fairly smart, so I've been told, so that could be another reason for this).

It does bother me when a suggestion is shot down IF they don't explain why. If I'm gonna be told I'm wrong I better get a response as to why. One friend once told me to read a textbook because he doesn't have time to explain why I was wrong on some science thing we were talking about and that pissed me off beyond belief. That is called being a prick. Or if I say something and someone says "stfu brian" or just derails what I had brought up it makes me withdraw. I'm not interested in being around someone like that. Some people just kind of let topics drop as they continue to speak in groups, but I like to finish a conversation topic...not constantly hop from one to the next and just let it go.

Um, I don't remember dates at all so I'd have no doubt I'd be proven wrong on that lmao. I just can't remember them even when I try. Its like reading a book...information that isn't conceptual but is interesting to me isn't remembered. I try to remember it by constantly repeating it inside my head as I read the book, or repeating it in my head after I'm done reading, but soon after I stop I tend to forget it. I just can't remember isolated data no matter how much I try. If I am proven wrong by a fact when speaking about something conceptual a lot of the time I just admit defeat essentially. I work based on Ti abstract logical conclusions that follow from one another so when one piece of it was wrong by a proven fact then I can't really say anything. I don't ever appeal to facts in my own arguments and if I was going to do anything other than admit defeat I would maybe challenge the fact itself(how was it produced?). Afterwards though I try to look it up and get a better understanding of what I missed. It's not a matter of lack of logical soundness(what I say follows from the reasoning almost guaranteed), it's a matter of missing of a piece of data that inhibits me from reaching the right conclusion.

I'm a slacker. I admit it. I hardly ever prepare for a solo talk/presentation. I will do like 30 minutes of coming up with a main idea and some jokes and then just rip it. If I do prepare I just set a timer on my phone and repeat the same speech in my room until I can do it by memory, slightly altering it as I go to make my point more distinct...or to reduce time...or adding something that I think of.

My response to "that's just your theory" would honestly probably be one of just like...mental halt. Either what I'm saying logically follows, or it is obvious that it is just my idea. I mean you either have objective data that results from reasoning or you have subjective claims. If they are saying what is objective is subjective I'll ask for their reasoning, or I'll explain mine, but simply denying fact is ridiculous. I'm pretty aware when what I say is objective/subjective so I'd respond accordingly. I also have a sort of repulsion when I try to make an objective claim...despite knowing what I'm saying is subjective. An example would be saying "Bush was terrible for the economy" but in actuality I know very little about Bush's policies. I try not to do this, but sometimes in an effort to make a point I will overly hedge my bets and make a claim like that(however rare). This often results from an assumption about the logical relationship of the president in relation to the people. In the recent past presidents have been quite terrible policy wise economically, therefore in my mind I start to develop a "presidents hurt the economy" and then I assume bush has done it as well(even when he mabye hasn't).

I don't know to what extent we all perceive the same reality tbh. On the one hand, nobody lives in the same reality. It's completely flavored with biases, unique experiences and the unique perception of those experiences. I've never particularly quantified the extent to which we perceive the same reality, and I probably couldn't quantify it. I mean beyond pure logic...can anything really be considered truth? I'm having trouble coming up with even a response to this question. It seems like such a big question that encompasses so much that I don't exactly know where to start beyond just truisms about perception.

 

[Bhathaway]

https://www.flickr.com/photos/shinrya/37189661310/in/explore-2017-10-02/

Kind of reminds me what I'd imagine the inside of a nuclear psilo(?) would be. When I think about when I look at a photo I almost never think about meaning/ideas that result from it. I typically only notice like the vibe of the photo in its entirety. In this one the contrast between the darkness of the inner walls and the end opening brightness stands out. I also like the design of the inside, very geometric and repeating. The outside cords kind of reminds me swords.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/37404280366/in/explore-2017-10-02/

The blue stands out in this to me. It looks like a fan that has been lit up on the inside. I have one in my computer that is lit up green instead, but these sort of neon colors have always stood out to me. I really just like that kind of picture. I don't know why. It seems so surreal and perfect. Is it steel in the inside? The holes look like the end of a bullet since you can see almost a small indent in them like it was an engraving.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/37400313826/in/explore-2017-10-02/

What is that scissors? Why does it have 5 blades on those scissors... The parsley looks computer generator. Not really a big fan of this picture as it just seems boring. The inside blue of the scissors are pretty cool though especially with the ridges/marks that are vertical within the blue area.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/xelea1/37190727380/in/explore-2017-10-02/

I kind of like this photo. I wish there were more colors in it...like blue or purple or something. I really like blue and purple auras. This photo is cool because he is all alone and it's dark in the woods. I think the contrast between the brightness and the woods is too much, but this may be because I prefer darker vibes. The brightness is almost overbearing, it needs to be toned down. I like that he has his hands in his pockets and has his head down, it's almost like he is walking away from some big journey, or is walking away from a big part of his life. It's sad.

https://www.google.com/search?biw=1...k1j0i30k1.0.RhR-tTltL7w#imgrc=Gt2Ww1B_6A81bM:

I love these kinds of photos. Looking up "cool space photos" is always cool for me because I love all of the colors and how they are so clear and...bright. Almost pure. In this specific one I like how the earth is blue and the lights on the earth are blue. It's a beautiful contrast when there is aura-like bright blue inside a black space. It just stands out and gives you a sense of awe. I mean tbh I don't even really think when I look at photos, I just...see..observe. I don't particularly try to figure out the story of the image and the people's relation to one another unless asked, and then I have to kind of grasp for straws when doing this. If I don't know what the picture is then I will take a second to analyze the surroundings and make my best guess.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/37428622232/in/explore-2017-10-02/

I like this photo. I like the wisp-eyness of the hair that the ox has. I like the background because I have always loved fields of long grass/wheat. The wind blowing on them just has such a relaxing atmosphere...like you could just exist forever with that feeling. Writing this reminded me of the gladiator and how after his death he meets his kids in that huge long grass field and how much I'd love that. Marley and Me had a scene with it too and I loved that. I have a background noise of wind on my computer right now(good timing I guess) and it fits the scene perfectly. If I was there I would probably lay down in the grass and just enjoy the clouds and the breeze. It does look a little colder by the light, and I get cold quickly so that kind of sucks. I'd want to be in a sweater or something. I could definitely see myself just loving that ox. Not in an overly big way and not even in a "I want to play" way, but just a...I could be next to it and just petting it's head as we enjoy the breeze together. It's eyes are like a void.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/s1bart/37412473156/in/explore-2017-10-02/

I like this photo. The contrast is beautiful, the detail is beautiful. The orange on black is just perfect.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/23591348058/in/explore-2017-10-02/

I like the fog. The dark vibe of it all. The peacefulness. I love looking at big pictures of nature like this but alot of the time I don't actually like going out in nature. I get bored by it all because I am not compelled to interact with the environment unless I consciously force myself, so I'm just out there observing all alone.

 

[TyranAmiros]

Firstly, thanks for answering my questions! Bonus points for trying to guess at what I was asking in each question...though not always correctly

I think ISTP is right. The last two questions get right to the heart of it:

I don't know to what extent we all perceive the same reality tbh. On the one hand, nobody lives in the same reality. It's completely flavored with biases, unique experiences and the unique perception of those experiences. I've never particularly quantified the extent to which we perceive the same reality, and I probably couldn't quantify it. I mean beyond pure logic...can anything really be considered truth? I'm having trouble coming up with even a response to this question. It seems like such a big question that encompasses so much that I don't exactly know where to start beyond just truisms about perception.

People on the Ne-Si axis have a lot to say about how we perceive and interpret reality. NPs have a need to objectify perspective, to wall it off as an object that can be discussed and analyzed without making a claim about its truth-value. SPs, on the other hand, tend to respond as you do--"what's the point of this question?" It actually sends you into a Ti-Ni loop--circular thinking and overanalysis centering on a simplistic truth-proposition like "pure logic is truth".

This is further evident in your second-to last response:

My response to "that's just your theory" would honestly probably be one of just like...mental halt. Either what I'm saying logically follows, or it is obvious that it is just my idea. I mean you either have objective data that results from reasoning or you have subjective claims. If they are saying what is objective is subjective I'll ask for their reasoning, or I'll explain mine, but simply denying fact is ridiculous. I'm pretty aware when what I say is objective/subjective so I'd respond accordingly. I also have a sort of repulsion when I try to make an objective claim...despite knowing what I'm saying is subjective. An example would be saying "Bush was terrible for the economy" but in actuality I know very little about Bush's policies. I try not to do this, but sometimes in an effort to make a point I will overly hedge my bets and make a claim like that(however rare). This often results from an assumption about the logical relationship of the president in relation to the people. In the recent past presidents have been quite terrible policy wise economically, therefore in my mind I start to develop a "presidents hurt the economy" and then I assume bush has done it as well(even when he maybe hasn't).

"Mental halt" is all wrong in that situation for INTP. Maybe reject the person (inferior Fe), but for an NP, there needs to be a separation of the idea (Ne) and the self (Ti). An INTP goes looking for evidence that matches the idea he's trying to prove (N>S) You're looking for objective concrete evidence (Se)--maybe not even coming to a fully formed idea until that evidence is in (S>N).

On a more meta note, this is a very Se thread. You had a question, you ask it directly. You answer questions directly and concretely. It's actually exactly what a healthy ISTP would do. The unhealthy ISTP? Never asks because they keep logically going in circles (Ti) around the conclusion they know is wrong but can't move on from (Ni). "Mental halt" indeed--that's called the Ti-Ni Loop and if you search the ISTP forum, you'll find others struggling with it. Ryan Atwood, the main character in a TV show called The OC that I grew up on is an ISTP who struggles with that throughout the series.

The INTP Ti-Si loop looks more like "I'm stuck in a rut because I'm interpreting every perception in the most negative way possible, rejecting any attempt to move on with the issue/my life/my problem." INTPs don't tend to get stuck on new ideas, they just can't stop pessimistically analyzing and rejecting them.

If you want to see the contrast between ISTP/INTP, check out The OC--Ryan Atwood and Seth Cohen really highlight the differences between the two types.

 

[Bhathaway]

Firstly, thanks for answering my questions! Bonus points for trying to guess at what I was asking in each question...though not always correctly

I think ISTP is right. The last two questions get right to the heart of it:



People on the Ne-Si axis have a lot to say about how we perceive and interpret reality. NPs have a need to objectify perspective, to wall it off as an object that can be discussed and analyzed without making a claim about its truth-value. SPs, on the other hand, tend to respond as you do--"what's the point of this question?" It actually sends you into a Ti-Ni loop--circular thinking and overanalysis centering on a simplistic truth-proposition like "pure logic is truth".

This is further evident in your second-to last response:


"Mental halt" is all wrong in that situation for INTP. Maybe reject the person (inferior Fe), but for an NP, there needs to be a separation of the idea (Ne) and the self (Ti). An INTP goes looking for evidence that matches the idea he's trying to prove (N>S) You're looking for objective concrete evidence (Se)--maybe not even coming to a fully formed idea until that evidence is in (S>N).

On a more meta note, this is a very Se thread. You had a question, you ask it directly. You answer questions directly and concretely. It's actually exactly what a healthy ISTP would do. The unhealthy ISTP? Never asks because they keep logically going in circles (Ti) around the conclusion they know is wrong but can't move on from (Ni). "Mental halt" indeed--that's called the Ti-Ni Loop and if you search the ISTP forum, you'll find others struggling with it. Ryan Atwood, the main character in a TV show called The OC that I grew up on is an ISTP who struggles with that throughout the series.

The INTP Ti-Si loop looks more like "I'm stuck in a rut because I'm interpreting every perception in the most negative way possible, rejecting any attempt to move on with the issue/my life/my problem." INTPs don't tend to get stuck on new ideas, they just can't stop pessimistically analyzing and rejecting them.

If you want to see the contrast between ISTP/INTP, check out The OC--Ryan Atwood and Seth Cohen really highlight the differences between the two types.

I'd just like to say thanks for taking the time to respond. I've put alot of threads here and I imagine it gets tiresome for some to see my posts repeatedly, but I'm trying to narrow down my questions so it's not the same type me thread over and over. I only do it because I guess I just havn't found a community that feels like me yet here. Part of that may be the obsessive Ti desire for 100% accuracy.

Can you explain what you meant in the Ti-Ni loop a little more when you said they never ask? See I feel as though I'm possibly in a loop...it's one where I can't see any other way of getting more self information in a quick way other than finding out my mbti...it seems like the only way do I just keep grinding my gears endlessly. At this point I've put in enough time where I'm like...okay I'm probably close I'm just missing the perception puzzle pieces so if I'm this close there can't be that much more work to put in...but that is literally impossible to perceive in yourself in anything other than memory/hobbies(and I have no hobbies other than fps games lol...). It's like a gambler who keeps betting and then after losing almost all of it he thinks "okay a win has to come up eventually...after losing this many time it has to"(gambler fallacy).

I did relate more to the evidence first approach I think(idk hard to tell in retrospect...kinda feels like the chicken and egg in the sense of...hmm did I have the idea first and then look up evidence or did I see evidence and then assume it was a pattern based on my memory of similar occurances and then look it up).

I will say a couple more things here and then ask you a question. First off, I tend to be uninterested in most things philosophy wise that don't affect ethics. I don't feel compelled to learn more about what is the right thing to do with most modern social problems, but rather wait for it to present itself whether in discussion or in a situation and then I'll analyze it. If I make the wrong decision and someone calls me out on it, I tend to be embarassed and immediately will read about it until I know enough to think I have the actual correct opinion/belief. I think determinism(in an imperfect form) and the proof of a lack of free will pretty much summed up most of what I needed from philosophy. Also plato's cave was useful for perception. I think I know a decent amount about perception in philosophy, but never quantified it as you have asked. The question kind of threw me off because I'd probably be more prepared to answer how perception is different and give logical proof for it than to quantify how much it is the same. On my side it struck me like "how can you even quantify that...like a percentage would be impossible." It's not so much that I don't see the point, it's more like I've already extracted the point and integrated it into my logically based ethical model. I've only asked majorly"how do perceptions differ" and then just summed it up as a fundamental "perceptions are different" because I see little ethical value in "how are perceptions the same" vs "how are they different." Not only that but figuring out how perceptions are the same/making claims about how perceptions are the same is, in my opinion, significantly harder that how they are different.

Do you think that my second reply would be useful for you?(the one where I looked at pictures and said what stood out and what I thought about it)

 

[Hunter1611]

Um, I don't remember dates at all so I'd have no doubt I'd be proven wrong on that lmao. I just can't remember them even when I try. Its like reading a book...information that isn't conceptual but is interesting to me isn't remembered. I try to remember it by constantly repeating it inside my head as I read the book, or repeating it in my head after I'm done reading, but soon after I stop I tend to forget it. I just can't remember isolated data no matter how much I try.

I didn't really read everything written in this thread, but I did struggle with the difference between INTP and ISTP for the longest time. What I basically learned was Si is incredibly detail oriented, which is why stereotypically INTPs (having both Ti and Si) tend to know alot about everything. Nutty professor and all that. Whereas, Se is not at all like that. So with that in mind, the above quote I pulled out of your post struck me as a lack of Si.

Check this:

http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/1146138-new-simple-way-determining-ne-si-vs-se-ni.html​

 

[TyranAmiros]

I'd just like to say thanks for taking the time to respond. I've put alot of threads here and I imagine it gets tiresome for some to see my posts repeatedly, but I'm trying to narrow down my questions so it's not the same type me thread over and over. I only do it because I guess I just havn't found a community that feels like me yet here. Part of that may be the obsessive Ti desire for 100% accuracy.

Actually, it's Ti's desire for clear demarcation/categorization + Se's need for objective proof/evidence of the Ti system. The issue is that "clear and convincing evidence" of an abstract categorization is like trying to keep water in your cupped hands--the harder you try, the more the water slips through. As an intuitive, I'm going, "of course real world evidence doesn't always line up--a counterexample is statistically meaningless. But we shouldn't reject a theory just because it requires reinterpreting a fact. Because facts are laden with interpretive and subjective meaning."

But a sensor will respond that the theory cannot exist independently of the facts--subjective and interpretive or objective and substantive. SPs, as a general rule, tend to want the latter--objective data points that can substantively indicate the truth of a real-world concept. Think of classic SP scenarios: How do I know if this recipe tastes good? I try it out! How do I know if it's possible to throw a fastball at a certain speed? I practice until I can do it, or I fail! Can we design an app to do X? Let's do it! Put another way--when I go to movies with NP (and SJ) friends, we come out talking about what the movie could have done--even if we enjoyed it a lot! SP friends, on the other hand, tend to find this talk a bit useless because it's not like we're going to make a better movie--even my NJ friends tend to find this sort of talk a bit pointless. Their focus on what it did.

I have more to say on looping, but I have to get going now. Check out the ISTP forum, though--or search google for ISTP Loop. It's basically that ISTPs can get so focused on proving an idea right (Ti-Ni) they forget to check for objective evidence or ground themselves in reality (Se). Ti-Ni wants to say, "this is True, now move along," but without reality (Se), they come across to others as whiny (at best), paranoid and delusional (conspiratical, even), triggering their inferior Fe because no one believes them, causing them to become temperamental, angry, violent, zealous, or simply reclusive, shutting themselves away from the world. I don't think you're looping--these posts are proof of that--but the need to be 100% confirmed is a Ti-Ni process.