Personality Cafe banner

1 - 20 of 62 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,438 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
How do we relate to the question “do you think more of the present or the future?”

I took “John’s Personality Test” again yesterday trying to figure out how that particular test works.
Btw It actually seems more accurate when you “skip” the questions that you feel either torn between or feel like they almost don’t apply.
https://jupiter-34.appspot.com/

So I’m looking at the question “Do you think more of the present or the future?” And it just doesn’t feel like it’s the right question almost? I wonder if it’s a Se-Ni question almost exclusively? I had my INFP husband (who got 65% on John’s test which is high imo... my hubby is just the consummate INFP) and he immediately said “Present or future? What about the past? I have to work on not dwelling on the past but I do think I am more in the future than the present.”

So I thought... what would apply to me and to the Si-Ne axis? I feel like it’s more past fact vs future (even immediate) future possibility to me.

Well... I sort of wake up this morning and in kind of that half-dreamy state where imagination looks like a movie I’m creating then there was this forbidden love affair going on between an ENFP girl and an ESFP male who is not who she thought her possibilities would ever lead her to and they have a talk about her worries for her future. The kind of talk that had to happen for me with every guy I ever got semi-serious with about what is wanted for my future and can this person help me create that future. And he says he wants to try, but for him everything is one day at a time. The future doesn’t exist. One of them could die, etc. he tries to then still decrease her fears by saying he doesn’t think she would ever not be so fun and amazing. She counters with telling him a haunting part of her youth when she was 10. Her mom had breast cancer and got a mastectomy and her dad couldn’t see her mom the same way and couldn’t feel the same towards her and divorced the mother after an affair. Basically she couldn’t relate that way, couldn’t understand how her dad could have disconnected after a loving good marriage. She said her dad had not understood it either, had confirmed to her that he had loved her mom so much and was also ashamed that his feelings had changed when her mother needed him the most, but that he had had to be honest. The feelings were just gone.

The boyfriend counters with “You can only live for the moment and be grateful for it. This second is all that I can do, but if God grants me the next second and the next then I’d like to spend each second loving you. And right now I can’t imagine that second to second I wouldn’t keep wanting that”

You guys see how these different axis changes are so interesting?

For me... the future doesn’t exist... yet... but that’s where most of my emotional well-being is. It’s with knowing I can create what I want, and have the freedom to and as an Ne dom that’s what I’meant to do is change the future, bend it and I feel like I totally can... because I can see how to.

Anyway... what are your thoughts?
From an axis standpoint? An accurate personality test standpoint. From a “your experience” standpoint?

It’s like my mind skips the present.... or gets no reassurance from it. I’m thinking of how to create and change the possibilities or sometimes thinking of the past. Actually my imagination movies and talking out loud or writing are about as present as I get, I think... and yet it’s not like I’m not experiencing my emotions and thoughts now either. Have you guys tried some of those meditations designed to keep your thoughts in the present? Do you know how long those last for me? Take a guess.
 

·
exploring space
ENFP
Joined
·
8,852 Posts
Every S I've met, talked with and observed thus far has a weak relationship with conceptualizing the future and making decisions based on that. They distrust extrapolations from the present moment esp if there are too many unknowns they haven't experienced before. Experience is crucial to them and some can develop through that so much that they can come across as Ns in certain situations.
With some of them I've also found out their relationship with their past is also interesting and different than mine, it's like they prefer to see them as separate things, while I see past present and future as a continuum the most. How much that happens will depend on how strong the S of course as well as what life lessons they've learned though their experiences.

As for me I do think about the future a lot and not just mine but humanity's thousands of years from now. It's a fun exercise that gives me important insight about what's good or bad about the current situations, depending on where we can go as a species.

I think there are some things that may conflate here depending on the person, because if someone's been through something traumatic in their past it will undoubtedly affect how they think of all that. I used to think about my past a lot more than now, when I had to solve the issues that were created back then. And this was very important to me because I did not want to feel the depression I was at the time, I was determined to not have that future so I had to examine the past and effect change in the present and trust this process that will lead to a better future.

I've tried meditating in the past with mixed results, I'm certainly not consistent with it, but just recently I downloaded Sam Harris' app, he does guided meditations and I like his voice a lot, which helps.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,142 Posts
How do we relate to the question “do you think more of the present or the future?”

I guess for me it depends on the situation - I live for the present when tragic things happen- I would tell myself let’s get through one day at a time - and likewise I also live in the past when such matters occur - I’ve experience with this before let’s gather and retrace what worked or didn’t work then to help out this present situation.
When I’m out on vacation- I embrace the moment as much as I can , the future thought I have is still within the present “ I must write this down so I could remember it later.”
Course I do think for the future a lot as well but it often time reflected my past experience- for example when I opened my school - I was thinking about the world of tomorrow and how I want children to learn through play and love learning /creating so that we can have more innovative minds in the future; because I’m not so happy with the educational system in the US right now ; a lot of my teaching came from recalling past experiences that worked for me - along with what I’ve learned /read about in school or through research and course experience .
Forgive the perceiving in me - but when question like that appears I tend to have a hard time answering it . I believe that I think for the present - future and past - it just depends on the topic matter .

For example when it comes to relationships/dating someone; I’m pretty in the moment - I like this person- let’s see where it goes from here ; I don’t plan for the future or think about positive or negative outcomes in the start of a relationship. However once a year or two passes by - my mind bc more future oriented- is this worth it ? Will it go south from here ? It’s a good thing my istp partner was persistent bc I’ve almost left the relationship many times due to minor errors.

With my children/students I’m extremely future oriented- i observe their personality and try to do what’s best to help them grow into a whole child - but my teaching of course comes from past experience- so in a way the past future and present all combine

In terms of ethics and politics I have a tendency to reflect the past and compare it to the present and apply thought towards what may come from the future. I do think a lot about the future of our world where it is heading and what will bc of it.


I notice that it’s quite different with my enfj mother and intj brother and daughter - they live solely in the future - sometimes to the point that the forgot about the present
Whereas my esfp cousin and estp son lives solely within the moment , taking things in as they come. I agree that the question is more suited for someone who uses Se/Ni or Ni/Se


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
ISTP
Joined
·
1,203 Posts
A relationship isn't a promise for the future, it's every moment until then ... ;)

Pretty much what @Red Panda said. There's Past!Me, and Future!Me, and both have little to no connection to what I actually consider me. They are different persons; I don't (instinctively) think in terms of "I caused this", but in terms of "it was caused", and neither in terms of "what will I need", but only "what do I need now". This is, of course, a self-contained picture: without history or future, consequence is off, but by existing in the present, you don't have need of that in the first place. Everything is accepted as-is, you change something around, and by the time the consequences are there, it's present again and the new status quo. (Usual caveats, yes, I can plan, yes, I know, rationally, my past determined where I am etc.pp., but it's great effort to operate that way.)

So yeah, it might be more SP vs. NJ, but I don't think any of you'd be as extreme as that, so the answer, to the test question, is clearly future (it does say "think more", in the end).


Also, Iunno if that meditation stuff is helpful. You are what you are, and suited to what you are. Would the moment make you happy, if you found it? I've mostly given up on expanding my horizon to encompass what's ahead, anyway. I don't think that's failure, really, more realising my strength is elsewhere, and I'm happy where I am.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
196 Posts
I took “John’s Personality Test” again yesterday trying to figure out how that particular test works.
Btw It actually seems more accurate when you “skip” the questions that you feel either torn between or feel like they almost don’t apply.
https://jupiter-34.appspot.com/
72% ENFP
9% INFP
3% ENTJ
3% ENTP
3% ESFP

Oh dear, I'm as much ESFP as I am ENTP!

Second try; this time skipping most questions I am unsure of:
72% ENFP
14% INFP
3% ENTP
2% ENFJ
2% ESFP

OK, more ENTP than ESFP this time, and ENFJ instead of ENTJ.

I just seem to be getting ENFP consistently, when I answer most "naturally".

Anyway... what are your thoughts?
From an axis standpoint?
I agree the function most concerned with the present would seem to be Se. Ne seems rarely concerned with the here and now, only how to change the it into something better, or dreaming up things you ought to have done better/differently in past situations.

I don't know about Ni. Why do you think it would be concerned with the question of present/future?

An accurate personality test standpoint.
I'm very interested in that. I would say you need to ask questions that the test-taking subject is sure enough about and not struggling to choose an alternative. Also, I think a powerful approach is for further questions to depend on answers to previous questions. I'm looking forward to the PM you said you'd send me this weekend.

From a “your experience” standpoint?
Well, I think about all three points of time -- past, present, and future. I think a lot about how I'm feeling or functioning at the moment, and I compare it to how I've been feeling (etc.) in the past, and then I think further, about how I want the future to be the same or different from now or the past. I try to figure out ways of getting from the here and now to where I want to be in the future. Sometimes I dwell on regrets about what I did (or didn't) or that happened in the past, but I don't feel I do this excessively any more. The past often seems brighter when I recall it in retrospect than it was at the time it took place.

"One day, in retrospect, the years of struggle will
strike you as the most beautiful." --Sigmund Freud
Have you guys tried some of those meditations designed to keep your thoughts in the present?
Yeah, mindfulness. I am, or ought to be, well educated in that area, having been hearing about it repeatedly, and having been part of a small group to learn about it. However, I'm not good at it.

Do you know how long those last for me? Take a guess.
Less than a minute.

Regards,
Albert.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,438 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
A relationship isn't a promise for the future, it's every moment until then ... ;)

Pretty much what @Red Panda said. There's Past!Me, and Future!Me, and both have little to no connection to what I actually consider me. They are different persons; I don't (instinctively) think in terms of "I caused this", but in terms of "it was caused", and neither in terms of "what will I need", but only "what do I need now". This is, of course, a self-contained picture: without history or future, consequence is off, but by existing in the present, you don't have need of that in the first place. Everything is accepted as-is, you change something around, and by the time the consequences are there, it's present again and the new status quo. (Usual caveats, yes, I can plan, yes, I know, rationally, my past determined where I am etc.pp., but it's great effort to operate that way.)

So yeah, it might be more SP vs. NJ, but I don't think any of you'd be as extreme as that, so the answer, to the test question, is clearly future (it does say "think more", in the end).


Also, Iunno if that meditation stuff is helpful. You are what you are, and suited to what you are. Would the moment make you happy, if you found it? I've mostly given up on expanding my horizon to encompass what's ahead, anyway. I don't think that's failure, really, more realising my strength is elsewhere, and I'm happy where I am.
So PastYou FutureYou have little connection to what is you? And you don't think "I caused this" but think "it was caused". That is so interesting. It is so different than the Ne-Si axis. This is good insight. It also explains a lot of why people act and think differently.
I'm not sure if @ai.tran.75 was telling me it was kind of the same for her husband or if she was telling me about your post. I think my ISTP dad would say something the same. I know he lives from day to day pretty much. One day I wanted our ISTP doctor to give the amount of phosphorous to a patient that was in a guideline and he was going to give half. He said to me "I usually just shoot from the hip and then reassess later and give more if it's needed." I was just as fine with that-- checking later and adjusting is even better, but I thought how different it was than what I do or did. I was focusing on trying to get it perfectly right the first time and in that case a rather Te decision (using a board's most recent recommendations).

I'd really like to hear how you would say you experience your tertiary Ni? I think it's always interesting about middle functions, they kind of fuse in some areas it seems like to me and then in other areas it feels like a stark contrast where you can feel a huge difference when you use them due to one being extroverted and one being introverted. In other words, my Fi and Te blend when I decide to make something fair for others but usually I can feel my Fi and Te quite separately.

Today I started working with on questions for a mock-MBTI test that uses axis and maybe scenario to test. I'm wondering if you think this is worded well-- would you identify with B below strongly? Thanks for checking it out. My INTP daughter is kind of young but said "And yes, I do that a LOT" about B.
Question: Do you (A) get caught up in the emotions of a group easily? (alternative would be "Do you (A) read the emotions of a group easily? OR do you (B) like to think about the most logical or most intelligent way to act when faced with a certain circumstance.
1. You most often do A.
2. You most often do B
3. You do both about the same amount of times.
4. You don't feel like you do either one, really. <-------- this would either be how I'd answer or I'd mess up logic or most intelligent with most moral/kindest... which also seems like the intelligent way to me.

I haven't quite figured out how to ask about future Ni vs future Ne and yet I can tell that they are different when it comes to experiencing the thoughts that come with thinking of the future.
Thanks for dropping in and helping out.
The contrasts between type is just so so interesting.
 

·
exploring space
ENFP
Joined
·
8,852 Posts
SJs are not different than SPs in those matters. Their real difference is that SPs take life as it comes while SJs are wary of changing, because their present situation is the most real and "them" they are, so change threatens that identity. This is also common to NJs but I suppose also incorporates their future sense of self VS the more reactionary in-the-moment behavior of SJs. I've had NJs (both INTJ and INFJ) talk to me about it and they're afraid of change because they feel it as losing themselves, if they change then what they were was not "real".

And my personal experiences with SJs is that they, too have a poor conception of consequences, especially when there's no experience in that situation as well as when they simply want to deny the reality that their actions will not bring favorable consequences. Which is why they'll easily become aggressive to others, be it psychologically or physically and not think about long term consequences if it means they get what they want. Or they just overfeed the nephew with cookies and chocolate if it means they become loved by him.

Of course, disclaimer, that adaptability is a continuum on an axis and not a binary.

Which reminds me, when we talk about function axes it's not Ne-Si on 1 axis, since they're made of two variables. It's E-I and N-S, two perpendicular axes and then we can add another for T-F for a 3D representation of all preferences. Not sure there's any other way to account for all the variances in behavior and cognition in relation to typology... and even that doesn't exactly account for all the changes that can happen since there's a fluidity of preference between the most preferred variables, the sum of all parts.
 

·
Registered
ISTP
Joined
·
1,203 Posts
So PastYou FutureYou have little connection to what is you? And you don't think "I caused this" but think "it was caused".
A very practical consequence is not getting hung up about past mistakes, because that is the essence of assigning causation within your timeline. Past decisions that give me trouble now I shrug off, any annoyance (at myself) just fades, because the focus is so heavily on the "trouble now" part, not the "past decision" part. In the eternal words, shit happens. (Which isn't great all the time, by the way, at least if you're interested in learning from mistakes and avoid them in the future. That motivation is quite reduced.)

I'd really like to hear how you would say you experience your tertiary Ni?
So I mostly stopped assigning functions, other than in a perfunctory way -- "Ti" is (I)TP, and inf Fe is the negative consequences of that. And while I do identify S, my S/N in tests is virtually 50/50, I think I mentioned this before. So with that said, about that N(i) -- I imagine for instance it's the ease (and often: overconfident ease) with which I talk about situations I have no knowledge or experience of. I'm suddenly an expert for anything, simply by virtue of extrapolation. Usually, there is one way things should play out that seems very obvious to me, to the point that I think I'm absolutely certain that this is what it would be like if I were in the situation, or that situation were the case. And I usually can't even further explain that, because how do you explain something that is self-evidently obvious?


Your test question -- I'm not sure how well it works measuring opposing things. I'm not oblivious to the general atmosphere of a group and I guess instinctively fit myself in there, if I have to be there, so that I don't stand out, while obviously, any decision I make (especially outside of groups, B doesn't mention groups) is subject to what I consider a rigorous logical thinking and decision-making process.
 

·
exploring space
ENFP
Joined
·
8,852 Posts
Diametrical opposites tend to have an overwhelming effect on the types. A SE type, especially during stress will become overwhelmed by the effect of the repressed N and I, hence hyperfocus on one outcome, become paranoid, etc. Like the NE type who becomes hypochondriac because of hyperfocus on specific sensations.

When things are not stretched to extreme, SE has a more amicable relationship with N as it is experienced more as NE, and same for NE with S. Back to that overwhelming effect I mentioned, NI is not experienced by NEs the same way it is for SEs because it's not a doubly threatening (to the Ego) change of perspective, merely a more focused, subjective and often defensive insight gained by regular means of N, that is either accepted or discarded. An SJ becomes easily overwhelmed by the prospect of many possibilities that mean nothing to them (subjective vs objective focus), while an SP is more likely to just find them less valuable, or unable to use, and move on.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
196 Posts
When things are not stretched to extreme, SE has a more amicable relationship with N as it is experienced more as NE, and same for NE with S.
Exactly. That is insightful. The tests usually confirm it for me; from Dario Nardi's test:

Se 26.3 average use
Si 19.2 limited use
Ne 47.5 excellent use
Ni 21.1 limited use
Te 21.9 limited use
Ti 38.3 excellent use
Fe 24.4 average use
Fi 41.5 excellent use


In other words, I answered a substantial number of the test questions in an Se way, because I use this function, I'd say as a complement to Ne.

It is the same way with Fi-Ti for me; I am comfortable with both, and less competent with Fe and especially Te.

Cheers,
Albert.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,438 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
SJs are not different than SPs in those matters. Their real difference is that SPs take life as it comes while SJs are wary of changing, because their present situation is the most real and "them" they are, so change threatens that identity. This is also common to NJs but I suppose also incorporates their future sense of self VS the more reactionary in-the-moment behavior of SJs. I've had NJs (both INTJ and INFJ) talk to me about it and they're afraid of change because they feel it as losing themselves, if they change then what they were was not "real".

And my personal experiences with SJs is that they, too have a poor conception of consequences, especially when there's no experience in that situation as well as when they simply want to deny the reality that their actions will not bring favorable consequences. Which is why they'll easily become aggressive to others, be it psychologically or physically and not think about long term consequences if it means they get what they want. Or they just overfeed the nephew with cookies and chocolate if it means they become loved by him.

Of course, disclaimer, that adaptability is a continuum on an axis and not a binary.

Which reminds me, when we talk about function axes it's not Ne-Si on 1 axis, since they're made of two variables. It's E-I and N-S, two perpendicular axes and then we can add another for T-F for a 3D representation of all preferences. Not sure there's any other way to account for all the variances in behavior and cognition in relation to typology... and even that doesn't exactly account for all the changes that can happen since there's a fluidity of preference between the most preferred variables, the sum of all parts.


I think your INFJ for sure was mis-typed and likely your INTJ. Ni doms don't associate with the past much at all and on the INFJ forum the INFJs admitted to me that a sense of who they are is difficult for them to even really feel which makes perfect sense without having strong Fi or Ti, imo.

I'm not sure E and I is an axis in itself without the function-- what is the nature of that extroversion or introversion? You can talk about the nature of extroversion and the nature of introversion, but I think people only possess them with a cognitive function. Jung did a lot of writing on just E or I but I don't think Jung meant that E or I exist independent of function... which is what that article you posted was kind of going for.... E without the the Se or Ne or Te or Fe? I don't think so, personally. I think there is a cognition to that extroversion, I don't think it exists on it's own. The article was not a study, by the way, it was a review, basically just the writer's opinion and critique of other's work and putting forward some of his own. It was a difficult read for me as I do not think that the author is a very clear writer, but there are several things that if I understood the points made, then I disagree with them. If there could be 24 types then they are not really looking at Jung's functions. But if they are proposing a new way of looking at everything then they should own it and go deeper. The article writer should be explaining how there can be a "EP" type or an "IJ" type since they put forward 24 types. What would an EP personality be like without a N or S or T or F? And they use J and P for their 24 types...while also criticizing testing for J or P. In my opinion J and P is functional and binary and therefore testable, but it's not like J and P are functions in themselves and it's not like Isabella Briggs said they were... it's just a way to test what functions we've got. If we test for ENF have we got a Ni Fe person or an Ne Fi person? The J and the P are present in my opinion just due to the order of the functions present if you ask me. P just means I gather info primarily... and it takes a while before I judge it and then organize it with Si. I don't care if Jung didn't get that far or even if he disagreed with it. The father of whatever science you're looking at can be wrong or change their own views as they go along. I doubt that Jung ever thought he was the end-all in this area. If they exist, then what others find can be tested would be valued too. The process of science would go on. It's really too bad that we can't get Jung's opinion on MBTI of course.

There's a lot of ways to look at all of these things and you and I fundamentally have disagreed and that's fine...but I think we have to just agree to disagree and end it pretty much unless we can find common ground which I really have a difficult time finding in any of the things that you write. I like the neuroscience best personally, but when we don't agree on the fundamentals then what questions you ask to find out about people is very different. I think the full MBTI is accurate for testing MBTI, basically. But it costs money and is long and I think it might be fun to see if I can get into some deeper angles that haven't been pointed out as differences between the types as much in the MBTI world versus the cognitive function world... but I think most of the cognitive function tests online seem very inaccurate. I think there might be a way to test for cognitive functions based on axes using the 8 functions (maybe.. it will be a fun adventure anyway) and I think the full axis with Ne suppressing Si is what is actually happening in the real world for me. So for me on a test I'm developing I'd be looking for still the 16 personalities (even though I think there are some people whose brains do not easily fit into any of the 16 personalities exactly) and the following axes:
Fe--Ti
Se--Ni
Ne--Si
Te--Fi.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,438 Posts
Discussion Starter #13 (Edited)
That is observant! Do you think it is because Se sees what actually is and Ne sees what it expects or what it predicts?

-Albert.
@Northern Lights

It doesn't mention groups because I was trying to test whether Fe or Ti is stronger.
It was consciously done. I made a POINT of mentioning group interaction on one side of the axis and not in the other.

But if I was just trying to test E or I I would have written the question differently.
And if I was just trying to test F or T I would have written the question differently.
I was trying to test Fe or Ti.

I guess each question could ask the person to rank them. Like here's a mock-up of the perceiving functions. IPs and EJs are going to feel more split on this one. In fact, my INFP husband just chose the third one.

I mostly think of multiple future possibilities and a bit about the past (Ne)
I mostly dwell in the the present and think a bit about the future (Se)
I often think about the past and a bit about multiple future possibilities (Si)
I often think about the future and dwell a bit in the present (Ni)

Actually I'm thinking about taking out the word "future" with Ne at all. I don't really think to myself "I'm thinking of the possibilities of the future" because to me it's not an absolute on what will happen, there's multiple ways depending on what is done now. It doesn't feel like how people with Ni talk about the future. Where there's a thread right now even where many of them say "Most of my day I'm living 30 years into the future" Instead I'm just playing with the possibilities of if I move A it will move B and maybe C, if I get Z involved with C then X and Y can happen. Otherwise, I'll grab D. You know, that kind of stuff... I don't even think "that's in the future", but of course I'm not thinking of the present either. It's only the past where I consciously label it "thinking about the past".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,438 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
A very practical consequence is not getting hung up about past mistakes, because that is the essence of assigning causation within your timeline. Past decisions that give me trouble now I shrug off, any annoyance (at myself) just fades, because the focus is so heavily on the "trouble now" part, not the "past decision" part. In the eternal words, shit happens. (Which isn't great all the time, by the way, at least if you're interested in learning from mistakes and avoid them in the future. That motivation is quite reduced.)
It is important in my mind to take personal responsibility for actions and it's usually jaw-dropping to me when people don't. But it makes sense why maybe that's not an effective strategy for some. Or that because of strong Ti it wouldn't matter in some areas. I can't help but think that in moral areas it does matter. Hmm, that's interesting. I wonder what xNFJs would say about that who also don't really associate with the past. I think I have talked to them about it and I think they are so future oriented that they are fine with just moving forward not messing up in the future? Hmm. I'm unsure. I'd have to ask.

There is the risk that people can get terribly hung up on the past too (not likely to be a mistake of high Ne). But I think it's important to "Own, atone, and grow" from past actions. I know some SJs who are constantly trying to avoid making mistakes.. my ISTJ father in law thinks people are stupid if they make the same mistake twice, for instance, (he'll fire them in his biz which is putting together camera crews for the NFL and they are pretty cut-throat) but he also can't see any moral or feeling patterns either, so the STJs of my family seem like hypocrites to me constantly. They are constantly thinking of learning from the past so as not to make any mistakes but they can't say sorry either when they do things to hurt people's feelings. They say that it's irrational to get upset at anything they do, but they get irrationally angry or upset at others all the time. They think their actions are beyond reproach. Or is it that personal responsibility is SO important to them but since their Fi and Ne is undeveloped they can't easily see the emotional results of their actions so therefore if they admitted that they had done something wrong it would be so intense for them that they just really can't face that? Yeah, I don't know. I don't get it. The important thing is taking responsibility, making it right for now and the future for me and others.

So I mostly stopped assigning functions, other than in a perfunctory way -- "Ti" is (I)TP, and inf Fe is the negative consequences of that. And while I do identify S, my S/N in tests is virtually 50/50, I think I mentioned this before.
You did and I did remember it but I wasn't sure you would remember you'd said so or if you would think it was weird that I remembered it (my memory for things about people is very good and usually surprises people). Also I wondered if you still experienced it 50/50, so I removed 2 sentences where I brought it up and asked about it. I did remember. =)

So with that said, about that N(i) -- I imagine for instance it's the ease (and often: overconfident ease) with which I talk about situations I have no knowledge or experience of. I'm suddenly an expert for anything, simply by virtue of extrapolation. Usually, there is one way things should play out that seems very obvious to me, to the point that I think I'm absolutely certain that this is what it would be like if I were in the situation, or that situation were the case. And I usually can't even further explain that, because how do you explain something that is self-evidently obvious?
Oh that's very interesting. Ni doms talk about that sense of already knowing information that is actually new. It's an interesting part of Ni to manifest and be recognized. I'm sure with words you also use it too. Ni has that unifying and condensing aspect. Different from Ne for sure, which expands information. There was a really interesting thread to me on the INFJ forum that asked why other people talked about "firsts" and the INFJs brought up sex. Some said they wouldn't remember or think that their first time was memorable unless something unusual had happened. And it was so extremely different than the Ne-Si axis that it almost seemed impossible to me to think that differently. Wasn't it strange and new to you? How would you know what was unusual when none of it was usual to you? I mean... I still just want to laugh at how extremely different that is. I can't think that way.
But I did have a student last term who definitely didn't come to the class as a nutrition buff, she'd needed correcting on her assignments and at the end of the class when I ask everyone for feedback she said "I knew all of this already, I didn't learn anything." I did think to myself at that moment, "Well, there's an Ni dom" They do kind of feel when you're saying something that they've heard it or knew it before... but I can definitely sympathize. I feel like I understand a concept when it is still half out of someone's mouth sometimes myself and have already asked 15 questions in my head about it, but it's a bit different I think. I get confident to test my concepts out. Ne definitely has the confidence to act to test concepts and how to test it comes with the concept itself.

I think from Te that I get the economizing part of it the most...with money and resources, anyway. Not with words, obviously. It also helps me when understanding standards that people have outside of myself. I have a new theory, though, and I wonder what you'll think of it. I think intelligence might have to do with how thoroughly you use your whole stack. For instance do I run information through Ne, Fi, Te and Si? Do I get all the way to Si? Usually I do on the things I am an expert on when I'm analyzing. Not sure if I do about everything.

Your test question -- I'm not sure how well it works measuring opposing things. I'm not oblivious to the general atmosphere of a group and I guess instinctively fit myself in there, if I have to be there, so that I don't stand out, while obviously, any decision I make (especially outside of groups, B doesn't mention groups) is subject to what I consider a rigorous logical thinking and decision-making process.
Hmm. It's not mostly Ti that you would experience while in a group, I suppose. I suppose you'd usually use Se and Fe some. I know some on the Te-Fi axis might also try to fit themselves in there, including myself. I might try to pick the Ti option because Fi seems like finding the best course of action, albeit in a moral sense. "Neither" would be the correct answer for me on the Fe-Ti question. Back to the drawing board. You're description of what you do experience above is helpful.. it's not too different than what I was trying to do. I guess it would be difficult to say what we do "more" of when a lot of us work with others as frequently as we are alone.

I'm still working on a Te description for the Te-Fi axis question... but there are so many ways to go at this. And I think if I do come up with a new test it should also have the benefit of trying to bring up aspects of the functions that MBTI don't always bring forward.
 

·
exploring space
ENFP
Joined
·
8,852 Posts
I think your INFJ for sure was mis-typed and likely your INTJ. Ni doms don't associate with the past much at all and on the INFJ forum the INFJs admitted to me that a sense of who they are is difficult for them to even really feel which makes perfect sense without having strong Fi or Ti, imo.
Both of them were focused on their ideal self, projected into the future and were very fearful of losing that ideal and becoming something else. They were experiencing time in a continuum but thought that continuum was unchanged, because of their distorted sense of self. When I talked to them about how who they are now was not the same as 2 years ago, it upset them and produced that reaction I talked about. This kind of behavior is very common in deeply introverted NIs, especially those have reached mental illness levels. The other common theme is to consider the world a projection of their minds, but I've found this more common to NFJs so far, personally.


I'm not sure E and I is an axis in itself without the function-- what is the nature of that extroversion or introversion? You can talk about the nature of extroversion and the nature of introversion, but I think people only possess them with a cognitive function. Jung did a lot of writing on just E or I but I don't think Jung meant that E or I exist independent of function... which is what that article you posted was kind of going for.... E without the the Se or Ne or Te or Fe? I don't think so, personally. I think there is a cognition to that extroversion, I don't think it exists on it's own.
The nature of E and I is that they're adaptation attitudes: being open to the environment and its influence (E) VS being defensive of the environment and its influence (I). These are both necessary to preserve & evolve life and are observable in animals as well. It is a cognition on its own and it was meant as such by Jung as well. They produce specific behaviors and thinking/psychological patterns that can influence any function independently and all together, depending on one's preferences.

From a great number of existing or possible attitudes I have singled out four; those, namely, that are primarily oriented by the four basic psychological functions: thinking, feeling, sensation, intuition. When any of these attitudes is habitual, thus setting a definite stamp on the character of an individual, I speak of a psychological type. These function-types, which one can call the thinking, feeling, sen-sation, and intuitive types, may be divided into two classes . . . the rational and the irrational. . . .

A further division into two classes is permitted by the predominant trend of the movement of libido, namely introversion and extraversion.[Ibid., par. 835.]
The whole psychology of an individual even in its most fundamental features is oriented in accordance with his habitual attitude. . . . [which is] a resultant of all the factors that exert a decisive influence on the psyche, such as innate disposition, environmental influences, experience of life, insights and convictions gained through differentiation, collective views, etc. . . .At bottom, attitude is an individual phenomenon that eludes scientific investigation. In actual experience, however, certain typical attitudes can be distinguished . . . . When a function habitually predominates, a typical attitude is produced. . . . There is thus a typical thinking, feeling, sensation, and intuitive attitude.[Ibid., pars. 690f.]
Everyone whose attitude is introverted thinks, feels, and acts in a way that clearly demonstrates that the subject is the prime motivating factor and that the object is of secondary importance. [ Ibid., par. 769.]

Always he has to prove that everything he does rests on his own decisions and convictions, and never because he is influenced by anyone, or desires to please or conciliate some person or opinion.["Psychological Types," CW 6, par. 893.]
more of that here: https://www.psychceu.com/Jung/sharplexicon.html

I think Jung's description of types have issues, especially for N types as he seems to correlate way too many behaviors with S, i.e. his FE and TE types and generally the E type. Or at least it takes some work to figure out how those traits relate to an NEs personal life because it's not obvious from simply reading his descriptions. For example I think Ns are not really allured by the bold social life he believes Es have and tho I do think we have a need for social, collective approval many NEs starve of it and learn not to care if they can't get it or just don't prioritize it at the very least. Also the idea that all Es is more social than I is faulty as it doesn't take into consideration the many many Is who socialize for defensive purposes (i.e. having support).




The article was not a study, by the way, it was a review, basically just the writer's opinion and critique of other's work and putting forward some of his own. It was a difficult read for me as I do not think that the author is a very clear writer, but there are several things that if I understood the points made, then I disagree with them. If there could be 24 types then they are not really looking at Jung's functions. But if they are proposing a new way of looking at everything then they should own it and go deeper. The article writer should be explaining how there can be a "EP" type or an "IJ" type since they put forward 24 types. What would an EP personality be like without a N or S or T or F? And they use J and P for their 24 types...while also criticizing testing for J or P. In my opinion J and P is functional and binary and therefore testable, but it's not like J and P are functions in themselves and it's not like Isabella Briggs said they were... it's just a way to test what functions we've got. If we test for ENF have we got a Ni Fe person or an Ne Fi person? The J and the P are present in my opinion just due to the order of the functions present if you ask me. P just means I gather info primarily... and it takes a while before I judge it and then organize it with Si. I don't care if Jung didn't get that far or even if he disagreed with it. The father of whatever science you're looking at can be wrong or change their own views as they go along. I doubt that Jung ever thought he was the end-all in this area. If they exist, then what others find can be tested would be valued too. The process of science would go on.
The article was a review, yes, which included multiple studies and the opinion of the researcher. I haven't found any other published work other the studies he mentions, that actually tests the Grant stack or any stack really.
Also I didn't give that link because I agree with his typology, but all the rest are pretty valuable.
I think the idea is that an EP type has most pronounced the traits E, P and the two functions are more towards the middle.

The J and P in the MBTI are a mix of Jung's Rational - Irrational as well as Introversion - Extraversion traits, respectively. MBTI classifies all Ps as adaptable, meaning they change their minds more easily and are open to influence from the environment which is exactly what E is about. Js prefer to rearrange the environment based on what they consider to be appropriate and they usually have power/control issues, which are traits of Introversion.

The latest MBTI Manual teaches that the function stack of an ENFP is NeFiTiSi and INFP FiNeSeTe. Interesting eh?


It's really too bad that we can't get Jung's opinion on MBTI of course.
We do and there's quite a bit of history there actually. He didn't like it at all because it did the opposite of what he was trying to do, the MBTI considered type a positive thing while he considered it a negative. His work was to try and help therapists help people not be stuck in a type, because it was often the cause of neuroses and adaptation failures. And he complained a few times how misunderstood his work were by the people who use it like that. Also he stopped contacting Katherine Briggs when she started acting (crazy) like a psychologist, taking patients in her neighbourhood and "acting as his proxy", she was infatuated with him. He distanced himself from the whole thing and the most we got of his opinion is the above.




There's a lot of ways to look at all of these things and you and I fundamentally have disagreed and that's fine...but I think we have to just agree to disagree and end it pretty much unless we can find common ground which I really have a difficult time finding in any of the things that you write. I like the neuroscience best personally, but when we don't agree on the fundamentals then what questions you ask to find out about people is very different. I think the full MBTI is accurate for testing MBTI, basically. But it costs money and is long and I think it might be fun to see if I can get into some deeper angles that haven't been pointed out as differences between the types as much in the MBTI world versus the cognitive function world... but I think most of the cognitive function tests online seem very inaccurate. I think there might be a way to test for cognitive functions based on axes using the 8 functions (maybe.. it will be a fun adventure anyway) and I think the full axis with Ne suppressing Si is what is actually happening in the real world for me. So for me on a test I'm developing I'd be looking for still the 16 personalities (even though I think there are some people whose brains do not easily fit into any of the 16 personalities exactly) and the following axes:
Fe--Ti
Se--Ni
Ne--Si
Te--Fi.

Yea but you realize I'm gonna talk about typology the way I understand it, right, in any thread? My posts are not like, explicit invitations to disagree with you, personally.
I don't mind disagreeing at the fundamentals, but it's been months and you still ask what extraversion and introversion are supposed to be which means you are not really discussing at the level of fundamentals. You are taking as a fact that the Grant stack is true, when you don't know how it even came to be and have trained yourself to interpret behavior based on it and retrofit or ignore inconsistencies. It's what most people do. I did it for sometime too, but the questions of fundamentals were too important to ignore forever and they took me to a different perspective, one that has opened up a world of possibilities and brought much better understanding on typology than ever before.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,112 Posts
First thought I got about present vs future oriented thinking is that maybe that test considers thinking about possibilities as thinking about future? It necessarily isn't I guess. Do I think in future? Definitely not in the way how carefully planning persons like many Si-s or people with stronger insights like Ni-s do it :) It's more like when my thoughts fork, they often reach to options and possibilities which are yet to happen or maybe even necessarily not (as it's not always even important that they need to happen). This is the most frequent scenario but I can't tell if it's exactly about future. It's more like about options which may or may not apply depending on whether they interest me enough or not.

Thinking in past - mostly not. It only appears when there's something important to remind or occasionally some connection reminds me some experience, facts and data which support current or future decisions. Thinking in present moment (in it's widespread meaning when people refer to Se) - not that much either - it's much better compared to when I was younger but still sometimes goes through "perception distortion" :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,438 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
@Red Panda. Your last paragraph is correct. I see the MBTI personalities in Grant stack and I experience my own functions in Grant stack... but even more I see things from what I think of as a neuroscience standpoint meaning that the brain adapts to what you do. For instance an NF who has worked in accounting for 20 years is going to have some brain development in areas that are typically SJ areas likely. And my questions are about what other people experience totally using that Grant stack. It totally works with what I see and since that’s where my questions are coming from and when people respond it’s the context that I’m learning in. I have no reason at all at this point to not still agree and learn from it. I do not think I will change it. It’s working too well for me and I’m getting way too much out of it on the human condition and individual experiences of people level. That’s what I go back to.

That’s interesting about Jung and Isabella. I still think MBTi is functional.

The other way... the way the guy from the review you posted put the 24 personalities doesn’t work for me. It’s not as rich to me either. I mean.. if he wanted to study each of the 24 types he put forward then let him also write personality sheets and all of that too. I’d love to see the one on EP... okay I’m being snarky.. I just don’t know how a EP person would function. How would they make decisions? It seems ridiculous and Grant stack seems deep to me... not that as I said neuroscience wouldn’t be even better. Our brains can learn so much.

What you say about Jung believing types or functions are wrong or unhealthy is interesting. I think towards good health we can work towards balance but not towards absence of cognitive function. I really do think that we all think in cognitive functions, but I think we can train to do every function and that there are just certain flow states we are used to and pathways we make as we form brain connections.

At any rate this is my way of finding and categorizing what I learn froM others about them and that’s what I’m interested in. I’m not ever going to stop learning from it this way as far as I know and since most people here are into MBTI too they can explain their own experience and I will categorize it like I do and keep testing. But the important part is understanding people and until there is a better framework, the MBTI with 8 cognitive functions will do. And I like the third function stuff. Going back to just NF would lose quite a lot Of depth in my opinion.

ENFP. Ne Fi Ti Si? I really don’t use Ti much at all I don’t think. Maybe an ENFP who has more training in something that is usually Ti related does. Anyway, do you have a link to that?
 

·
exploring space
ENFP
Joined
·
8,852 Posts
@Red Panda. Your last paragraph is correct. I see the MBTI personalities in Grant stack and I experience my own functions in Grant stack... but even more I see things from what I think of as a neuroscience standpoint meaning that the brain adapts to what you do. For instance an NF who has worked in accounting for 20 years is going to have some brain development in areas that are typically SJ areas likely. And my questions are about what other people experience totally using that Grant stack. It totally works with what I see and since that’s where my questions are coming from and when people respond it’s the context that I’m learning in. I have no reason at all at this point to not still agree and learn from it. I do not think I will change it. It’s working too well for me and I’m getting way too much out of it on the human condition and individual experiences of people level. That’s what I go back to.
But Llyralen, you often remark how FI is misunderstood because people see it as withdrawn, defensive, self-protective and even selfish or self centered, but that's exactly what FI is. The problem is that people assign FI to FPs when it's contradictory to P normal behavior. Defensiveness will inevitably occur in an FP's life but that's usually when things are stretched too far. These contradictions sometimes surface when people talk about their tertiary, i.e. a TJ talking about Fi, but for TJs FI is perfectly normal.

As for brain development, the simple answer is that those brain patterns we see that are similar are simply not psychological-type related but skill related. Dario Nardi himself admits this and makes that disclaimer many times when he presents his findings. It seems the more he studies this the further he drifts from all those function stacks. Besides, there's so much we don't see in those brain scans given their shallow reach and even the exclusion of the rest of the body. The Interoceptive System may likely relate to F, for example.



The other way... the way the guy from the review you posted put the 24 personalities doesn’t work for me. It’s not as rich to me either. I mean.. if he wanted to study each of the 24 types he put forward then let him also write personality sheets and all of that too. I’d love to see the one on EP... okay I’m being snarky.. I just don’t know how a EP person would function. How would they make decisions? It seems ridiculous and Grant stack seems deep to me... not that as I said neuroscience wouldn’t be even better. Our brains can learn so much.

What you say about Jung believing types or functions are wrong or unhealthy is interesting. I think towards good health we can work towards balance but not towards absence of cognitive function. I really do think that we all think in cognitive functions, but I think we can train to do every function and that there are just certain flow states we are used to and pathways we make as we form brain connections.
He doesn't say types are 24 but rather that those pairs may be the most developed. Like different ENFPs can be ENP vs NF vs EFP vs FP. EPs have similar characteristics regardless of the functions because they share those preferences.

At any rate this is my way of finding and categorizing what I learn froM others about them and that’s what I’m interested in. I’m not ever going to stop learning from it this way as far as I know and since most people here are into MBTI too they can explain their own experience and I will categorize it like I do and keep testing. But the important part is understanding people and until there is a better framework, the MBTI with 8 cognitive functions will do. And I like the third function stuff. Going back to just NF would lose quite a lot Of depth in my opinion.
But you do put a limit in your learning if you don't truly study and consider the other perspectives and detach from your usual. How can you know you have the best one if you don't explore the others?

The tertiary is not something the MBTI invented. Jung talked explicitly how it can be raised to conscious use, and then it takes on the dominant adaptation attitude the same way the primary and auxiliary do. So for Jung's system & borrowing from the function stack symbolism, an ENFP would be either a NeFiTiSi type (when very immature/unhealthy) or a NeFeTiSi (normal type) type or a NeFeTeSi (when utilizing T) type. Others tend to denote the type as NE-F-T-SI which is more accurate when generally talking about the type. But keep in mind that what you call Fi, as in FP behavior is not Jung's FI, and same for the other functions.


ENFP. Ne Fi Ti Si? I really don’t use Ti much at all I don’t think. Maybe an ENFP who has more training in something that is usually Ti related does. Anyway, do you have a link to that?
I don't have a link because the book isn't available for free legally, but I here's a screenshot.
The MBTI doesn't teach the Grant stack, it's used by Linda Berens and John Beebe. Well, the MBTI doesn't use ANY stack really, since it only tests for dichotomies and nowhere does it test those functions. Then the results are conflated with the Grant stack by the community which is what that article described well. People take the stacks for a fact when they never had any data to back them up and not even good reasoning really.

AcroRd32_2020-03-10_12-28-24.jpg
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
196 Posts
Ni has that unifying and condensing aspect. Different from Ne for sure, which expands information.
That is what I was speaking about in PM, when I said Ne is synthetic and Ni analytic.

Speaking about PM, your box is full again!

I might try to pick the Ti option because Fi seems like finding the best course of action, albeit in a moral sense.
Now, I do have Fi, as you have more than agreed. The thing, here, is that I just don't recognise this "moralising" in myself. I do not think much in terms of morals. In fact I feel morals and ethics just boils down to opinions. Maybe I think of ideals instead of morals? I don't care whether it is unethical to steal. But it is against my ideals, not to say against my opinions about what is generally acceptable, not to say honourable, behaviour. My ideals are more personal than morals would typically be. They are based more on my personal feelings (I would feel bad about being stolen from) and theories (society would not function if too many persons were stealing), including sympathetic concerns (I may think that another person would feel bad about being stolen from).

Some people seem to have a shame-based superego (I prefer this term to "conscience"), others have guilt-based, and some (including me) have honour/ideal-based. I would not feel ashamed or guilty about stealing, I would feel "ignoble", "dishonourable", because I have failed to live up to my ideals. I have erred in respect to myself -- I don't care if I have breached some outer moral/ethical standard or the law of the land. I might also feel concern/sympathy for the victim, that is, I would feel inconsiderate/"mean". Sometimes, I may not feel "dishonour", but I only feel the *lack* of feelings of honour, because my superego just does not reward me (with good feelings) when I have been ignoble, whereas I feel good (noble, etc.) when I have lived up to my ideals, perhaps especially if there was some sacrifice on my part involved. I do not generally engage much in emotional self-flagellation about what I've done. An exception may be when I've hurt someone I love/respect; I think that is more based on sympathy than ideals.
 

·
exploring space
ENFP
Joined
·
8,852 Posts
@nptype both NE and NI are synthetic because N is synthetic, it looks for how things connect. Analytic ability relates more to the Rational attitude, or in mbti terms the judging functions. NI is exclusionary and subjective, i.e. the person sees the connections in things that trigger some subjective interest and often will avoid data that threatens their impressions, which creates a targeted vision. It's how those differences in time perception are perceived between NE and NI types and why people mistakenly think that only NJs care for the future.
 
1 - 20 of 62 Posts
Top