Personality Cafe banner
41 - 60 of 67 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,491 Posts
The only purpose that the 4 letters really serve are to point to the 8 functions, which are the real indicator of type.
I would refer you to @emberfly's quote. I'm honestly baffled at your reasoning in regards to all of this. Your understanding of the Myers-Briggs is too rigid and black-and-white to actually be applied to individuals.
Carl Jung — mystical streak notwithstanding — was a believer in the scientific approach, and Isabel Myers took Psychological Types and devoted a substantial chunk of her life to putting its typological concepts to the test in a way that Jung never had, and in accordance with the psychometric standards applicable to the science of personality.

And among the things that Myers discovered — despite some lip service to the functions — is that the dichotomies are really what type is about. And as James Reynierse has (rightly) noted, 50 more years of MBTI-related data has very much confirmed the correctness of Myers's dichotomy-centric perspective, and strongly suggests that the proper characterization of the so-called "cognitive functions" is that they're essentially what Reynierse calls a "category mistake."

What's more, and contrary to the notion that a function-centric perspective offers more richness and depth than a (properly framed) dichotomy-centric perspective, it's actually the dichotomy-centric perspective that's richer and more flexible — in part because, as Myers understood, all the dichotomy combinations correspond to noteworthy aspects of personality. Myers thought the most meaningful preference combinations were ST, SF, NT and NF (each of which includes four types with four different dominant functions), and she may or may not have been right about that (Keirsey certainly disagreed) — but she correctly understood that there was nothing particularly special about the combinations that purportedly correspond to the functions.

If you're interested in reading a lot more about the INFP=Fi-Ne-Si-Te model — a function stack that's inconsistent with both Jung and Myers and has never been endorsed by the official MBTI folks — and about the relationship between the dichotomies and the functions, the place of the functions (or lack thereof) in the MBTI's history, and the tremendous gap between the dichotomies and the functions in terms of scientific respectability, you can find a lot of potentially eye-opening discussion in this post and the posts linked to in its last two paragraphs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,330 Posts
Seriously? Do you even know how the 8 functions work?

By your reasoning, because I'm not good at regularly organizing my external environment, or valuing a time table, I'm an INFP. An INFP has a vastly different set of functions, one that doesn't match up with an INFJ in the slightest. Same goes for INTPs and INTJs.

Myers-Briggs is about much more than the sum of the 4 letters. The only purpose that the 4 letters really serve are to point to the 8 functions, which are the real indicator of type. The fact that my room is usually a mess and that I get my assignments done at the last minute doesn't change the fact that I use Ni rather than Ne, or Fe rather than Fi.
So what I'm hearing here is that you have an issue with type dynamics. It is the part of the theory that says P/J point to respective functions. However, the P/J dichotomy has a meaning all on its own similar to that of the Conscientiousness domain of the Big Five.

[HR][/HR]
My thoughts exactly. I think that people misunderstand the application of J in regards to S and N. SJs are the ones who are going to be more externally organized; that's their world. NJs certainly can be externally organized (I would say that ENTJs are best at this, generally), but I wouldn't say that it's our main priority. We're more about organizing the abstract.
This sounds like what an INTP or INFP would do a la Ti or Fi. :p

Otherwise I think you may be misleading yourself by assuming that "organization" means very specific things. The J concept is more general and abstract than you give it credit. Being organized does not necessarily mean that all of your things are neatly packed and labelled etc. It is conceptually broader. You appear to otherwise be thinking of the concept in very concrete terms.

[HR][/HR]
Myers Briggs type theory includes cognitive functions with it. The 4 letters don't really mean much without them. In fact, just going by the dichotomies creates more mistyping I think because if you are going to type by descriptions that creates so much variation in your categories it makes it imprecise to an impractical degree, as well as being practically useless for people who don't neatly fit into the boxes. You don't think it is possible to legitimately have some J traits and some P traits in different areas? Most people do. You're just throwing them out of the system or ignoring the ways in which they don't fit and refusing to give an explanatory account. You can keep thinking everyone is mistyped if you want but if you're not even using the same system as other people you don't really have a valid place to tell them they are not the type they say they are. Not that anyone does anyway.
Yes, the MBTI does point to function-attitudes. It is inaccurate to state that the "4 letters don't really mean much without them." They have plenty of meaning all on their own. Here are many examples:

http://personalitycafe.com/myers-briggs-forum/273458-mbti-reference.html

EDIT: To put it in terms of analogy, what you're suggesting is akin to saying that red and blue have no meaning; to understand it, you need to be looking at scarlet or crimson and navy or sky blue.

Of course everyone has J and P traits, just like E/I, S/N, T/F, and even the precious cognitive functions (Fe/Fi, Ne/Ni, etc). What's your point? You are right, @Abraxas is not using the same system as other people. Because most people rely on an arbitrary system derived from their own understanding. :p

Does that mean people are necessarily mistyped? Not really. But let's be honest about the "system" we're using. Myself, I rely upon the official material for the MBTI since I am a certified practitioner. Or if we're going to talk functions, then I rely upon the writings of Jung as a source. What "system" are you working from?


[HR][/HR]
I'm not sure. Could you give me an example of a chaotic work environment? I definitely do well when there are clearly-defined deadlines.



Do you not see how the functions and the dichotomies are different labels for the same thing?

TJ = Te
FJ = Fe
SJ = Si
etc.
From Jung on Te:

"Judgment always presupposes a criterion; for the extraverted judgment, the criterion supplied by external conditions is the valid and determining one, no matter whether it be represented by an objective, perceptible fact or by an objective idea; for an objective idea is equally determined by external data or borrowed from outside even when it is subjectively sanctioned."

From Jung's Thinking definition:

"Thinking is the psychological function which, following its own laws, brings the contents of ideation into conceptual connection with one another ... The term 'thinking' should, in my view be confined to the linking up of ideas by means of a concept"

If Te is simply bringing ideas together by means of a concept which are based on criteria supplied by external conditions, then what does it have to do with organizing the outside world or any other such thing?

Could that organizational component not categorically come from the Judging category itself?

This kind of thinking (no pun intended) allows for the idea that a NiFe can be an INFJ or INFP depending on a general preference for being planful or flexible for example. No?


[HR][/HR]
I would refer you to @emberfly's quote. I'm honestly baffled at your reasoning in regards to all of this. Your understanding of the Myers-Briggs is too rigid and black-and-white to actually be applied to individuals.
Or perhaps yours is not rigid enough and allows for many ideations and rationalizations that are incongruent with reality? :p

That would fall in line with a Ni-dom. Well an extreme one. Have a look at Jung's go-to example of a Ni-dom:

http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/181689-tertiary-function.html#post4756686

Joking aside, wouldn't a supposedly "P-ish" Ni-dom (someone who is flexible and open to possibilities) be more receptive to a different perspective that may not match their own? J's are decisive and closure-seeking. Which is what it seems like you are doing here. I'm not suggesting what type you are or aren't, but offering some things to consider.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
198 Posts
Discussion Starter · #43 ·
Functions do not validate certain aspects of dichotomies. Dichotomies sometimes validate certain aspects of the functions. They are not the same at all. They overlap in some respects, and that's it. This is what I meant by "hand waving" them in. Specific aspects of each function piggyback on research that validates the dichotomies - not the other way around.

Function enthusiasts seem to think that just because a few sentences of a function description correlate with data backing up one or more dichotomies, that somehow means functions "exist". It does not. It means Jung got a few things right. That's it.

Also, I'm not the one standing on the fringe shouting inward and arguing some radical point of view here. My information in this thread is congruent with the general sentiment of experts in the field. Again, I refer you here to posts made by @reckful on the topic of "dichotomies versus functions".
So why is it that the official Myers Briggs website talks about cognitive functions? And didn't Jung's theories come before the letter typing system?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,491 Posts
So why is it that the official Myers Briggs website talks about cognitive functions? And didn't Jung's theories come before the letter typing system?
There's no question that Myers and the official MBTI folks have always given a certain amount of what I've often characterized as "lip service" to the cognitive functions, but there's also no question that the dichotomies have always been, and remain, what the official MBTI is really all about, and I've put a long discussion of that (from this long INTJforum post) in the spoiler.

 
For anyone who thinks that the rejection of the functions that Reynierse advocates would represent a revolutionary shift as far as the "official" MBTI is concerned, I'd argue, to the contrary, that the MBTI has essentially been centered around the dichotomies from the beginning. Aside from the test instruments themselves, the analysis in Myers' Gifts Differing focuses substantially more on the dichotomies than the functions. Myers was a nobody who didn't even have a psychology degree — not to mention a woman in mid-20th-century America — and I assume that background had at least something to do with the fact that her writings tend to somewhat disingenuously downplay the extent to which her typology differs from Jung. So it's no surprise, in that context, that the introductory chapters of Gifts Differing, besides introducing the four dichotomies, also include quite a bit of lip service to Jung's conceptions — or, at least, what Myers claimed were Jung's conceptions — of the dominant and auxiliary functions. But, with that behind her, Chapters 4-7 describe the effects of the "EI Preference," the "SN Preference," the "TF Preference" and the "JP Preference," and those four chapters total 22 pages. Chapter 8 then describes the eight functions — and that chapter consists solely of a half-page table for each function, for a total of four pages. What's more, those four pages were simply Briggs' summaries of Jung's function descriptions, and Myers ignored (and/or adjusted) substantial portions of those in creating her own type portraits. (As one example, as discussed in this post, Myers' IS_Js bear little resemblance to Jung's Si-doms. And for a detailed discussion of the surgery Myers performed on Jung's conception of Te, see this post.)

But most tellingly, following Myers' introductory and portrait chapters, the second half of Gifts Differing — covering a variety of topics, including "Use of the Opposites," "Type and Marriage," "Learning Styles" and "Type and Occupation" — focuses almost exclusively on the dichotomies, both singly and in combinations that don't correspond to the functions. She talks about introverts and extraverts, thinking types and feeling types, intuitives and sensing types, judging types and perceptive types, "INs," "ESs," "NF types," "STs," "introverts with thinking" (i.e., ITs), "EF types," "ESF types," "ISTs" and on and on. At one point in the Type and Marriage chapter, "FJ types with extraverted feeling" are mentioned, but that's very much the exception that proves the rule. References to the functions (and the dichotomy combinations that correspond to them) are almost entirely absent from the book's second half, and on the rare occasions when she refers to one of the two-letter combinations that corresponds to a function — e.g., SJ (Si) — she most often makes no reference to the function. At one point, for example, she notes that "Judging types, especially those who prefer sensing (the –S–J types), like their work to be organized, systematic, and foreseeable." I'm not suggesting that this means Myers didn't really believe in the functions (necessarily, anyway), but she was certainly not a theorist who thought the functions were anything like the main event.

Five years later, the 1985 edition of the MBTI Manual, co-authored by Myers, was even more lopsided in favor of the dichotomies. In a 1990 article ("Review of Research on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator." Perceptual & Motor Skills, 70, 1187) in which John B. Murray concluded that the MBTI's "indices of reliability and validity have been extensively investigated and have been judged acceptable," Murray noted that over 1500 studies were included in the 1985 Manual — many of them either discussed in the text or included in one or more tables of statistics. And good luck finding any results in that manual that are framed in terms of the cognitive functions. The 1985 Manual is full of statistics correlating type with interests, occupations, scholastic achievement, other personality measures, etc. — and the reported correlations almost exclusively involve the four dichotomies, the sixteen types and/or dichotomy combinations with no meaningful function correspondence — with the combinations most often included (by a wide margin) being ST, SF, NT and NF. So, on top of the fact that Myers and the rest of the official MBTI establishment were predominantly dichotomy-focused, it's also clear that the independent psychologists conducting many of those studies weren't laboring under any misconception that the MBTI dichotomies were relatively superficial indicators (convenient for testing and/or labeling purposes) while the cognitive functions were what the typology was really about.

The third edition of the MBTI Manual was published in 1998 and, according to the Reynierse article I linked to above, it cites a grand total of eight studies involving "type dynamics" (i.e., the functions model) — and Reynierse summarizes them as "six studies that failed, one with a questionable interpretation, and one where contradictory evidence was offered as support." He then notes, "Type theory's claim that type dynamics is superior to the static model and the straightforward contribution of the individual preferences rests on this ephemeral empirical foundation."

And finally, I think it's also worth noting that the 17-page report that an ENFJ (for example) receives after taking the relatively recent MBTI Step II test includes page after page of dichotomy-based analysis (including five separate subscales for each of the four dichotomies) and not a single mention of "extraverted feeling" or "introverted intuition" other than a diagram near the end that shows that "ENFJs like Feeling best, Intuition next, Sensing third and Thinking least," and one brief note about tending to use Feeling in the "outer world" and Intuition in the "inner world." All the rest of the ENFJ descriptions in the report — after the brief initial profile, which isn't broken down by components — are descriptions of N (not Ni or Ne), F (not Fi or Fe) and so on, and they're the same descriptions of N and F (and the five subscales of each) that ENFPs receive in their reports (notwithstanding the fact that ENFJs are Fe-Ni and ENFPs are Ne-Fi). And Nancy Harkey has pointed out that "there is no discussion in the Step II manual of applying type dynamics (dominant, auxiliary etc.) to the overall preferences. I really don't know what that means at the moment, but it is curious."

The more I reread Psychological Types, the more I appreciate the extent to which getting from Jung to the Myers-Briggs typology involved substantial adjustments and additions. I think the formidable job Briggs and Myers did in separating the Jungian wheat from the chaff and modifying and supplementing Jung's theory is grotesquely underappreciated by many internet forumites. Myers may not have been as smart as Jung, and she may not have had a psychology degree, but she and her mother had the benefit of standing on Jung's shoulders, and Myers then spent many years, as a labor of love, designing and refining her test instrument and gathering data from thousands of subjects, leading her to conclude — among other things — that the four dichotomies (as she conceived them), and not the functions, were the main event. I think Myers' conceptions of the dichotomies and the types still leave plenty of room for further improvement but, fifty years later, the results of many more studies — and, in particular, the correlation of the MBTI dichotomies with the Big Five — suggest that, in terms of the basics, Myers pretty much got it right. If Jung were still around, I think he'd mostly approve.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,255 Posts
I tend not to see J and P as being action orientated at all. I tend to see it like this.

J - closure seeking. Does not like unanswered questions and wants to find conclusion as soon as able.
P - possibility seeking. Does not like to close the door on anything and always open to possibility of revision of previously decided upon things.

In that way J's can absolutely procrastinators, as mentioned, it's an avoidance thing rather than a possibility seeking thing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
734 Posts
I know an ENTJ who almost cried in front of me because his home life was falling apart. Drawing from that, based on your reasoning, ENTJs struggle with emotional expression and getting themselves into bad circumstances. Do you agree? Probably not. It's nonsensical to lump people of the same type together and assume that they're always going to excel or fail at certain things simply because of their MB. Even if you have met INFJs who are generally disciplined, you can't take those experiences and use them to determine how every INFJ is going to act.

INFJs are known to have procrastination problems. It's such a widespread joke in Myers-Briggs discussions that I'm surprised at it being questioned here.
True, but the original poster was doing the same thing (lumping all types together) by saying that all INFJs struggle in these areas. I agree that each member of a type is unique.

We're all special little snowflakes.

I would offer that those "INFJs" you know are actually ISFJs.

SJs are very reliable and hard-working people.
This is probably true. People can score as INFJ on a test when they are in fact another type.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
198 Posts
Discussion Starter · #47 ·
Carl Jung — mystical streak notwithstanding — was a believer in the scientific approach, and Isabel Myers took Psychological Types and devoted a substantial chunk of her life to putting its typological concepts to the test in a way that Jung never had, and in accordance with the psychometric standards applicable to the science of personality.

And among the things that Myers discovered — despite some lip service to the functions — is that the dichotomies are really what type is about. And as James Reynierse has (rightly) noted, 50 more years of MBTI-related data has very much confirmed the correctness of Myers's dichotomy-centric perspective, and strongly suggests that the proper characterization of the so-called "cognitive functions" is that they're essentially what Reynierse calls a "category mistake."

What's more, and contrary to the notion that a function-centric perspective offers more richness and depth than a (properly framed) dichotomy-centric perspective, it's actually the dichotomy-centric perspective that's richer and more flexible — in part because, as Myers understood, all the dichotomy combinations correspond to noteworthy aspects of personality. Myers thought the most meaningful preference combinations were ST, SF, NT and NF (each of which includes four types with four different dominant functions), and she may or may not have been right about that (Keirsey certainly disagreed) — but she correctly understood that there was nothing particularly special about the combinations that purportedly correspond to the functions.

If you're interested in reading a lot more about the INFP=Fi-Ne-Si-Te model — a function stack that's inconsistent with both Jung and Myers and has never been endorsed by the official MBTI folks — and about the relationship between the dichotomies and the functions, the place of the functions (or lack thereof) in the MBTI's history, and the tremendous gap between the dichotomies and the functions in terms of scientific respectability, you can find a lot of potentially eye-opening discussion in this post and the posts linked to in its last two paragraphs.
While I can't say you and @Abraxas et al are wrong because I would have to read all your sources and data and that would take a long time, I can say the following. Incorporating cognitive functions into the theory in my opinion and those of many people and even going so far as to say that the dichotomies illustrate the function relationships, has far superior and more inclusive explanatory power for understanding what we observe and experience in ourselves and others. Theories are a malleable thing which respond to the people who use them, and while the official creators of original versions of a theory might have a specific interpretation of it, I think others may have an equally valid interpretation provided it is internally consistent and reflects reality accurately. Plus it is worth keeping in mind that science (especially social science) depends on so many factors that the data almost always has multiple interpretations based on what exactly is observed, how it is observed, who is interpreting it, what framework they are using, etc. I think this debate is based largely on Te vs. Ti.

Te: collective observation, collective conclusions
Ti: individual logic

or

Ti: This is right because it makes sense to me. If it doesn't make sense to you there's nothing I can do. End.
Te: This is right because read this mountain of data. End.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
198 Posts
Discussion Starter · #48 ·
True, but the original poster was doing the same thing (lumping all types together) by saying that all INFJs struggle in these areas. I agree that each member of a type is unique.

We're all special little snowflakes.



This is probably true. People can score as INFJ on a test when they are in fact another type.
I was not actually trying to say all INFJ's are like this. Only that a sufficiently large number are as to merit elaboration and explanation.

Personally I rarely score as INFJ. I arrived at that conclusion by extensive study of the functions. I see them as fundamental partly because they describe me better than the dichotomies. I scored on the original test as INTJ, then took a version in college and got INFP, then got that for awhile, then decided INFP didn't really fit that well, then started scoring INTP a lot, thought Ti and Fe fit really well, and finally after being told over and over I am not in fact INTP and admitting they were right I arrived at INFJ. And Ni and Se in fact really fit me better than Ne and Si did. If I were to go solely by the dichotomies I would have to say my type has changed throughout my life, which is inconsistent with the theory; however I have patterns now on the dichotomies which are consistently different than they used to be and I am happier. I think people's externally observable characteristics reflect function and general psychological development.
 

·
Registered
Introverted intuitive type
Joined
·
5,561 Posts
More like,

You: "I really want this thing I believe to be true. If I try really hard, I can avoid accepting that I'm wrong and admitting it. Instead I'll try to sound really sensitive and inclusive of all points of view, because that's the intelligent thing to do, right? You guys are being jerks. Please notice me, sempai - I'm a good person."

Us: "Here are a shitload of facts, read them at your leisure. TL;DR, you're wrong. It's not a big deal. Don't worry about it - been there, done that. The more you know. Please stop beating a dead horse."

Functions have nothing to do with it. Unless you mean those of us who prefer thinking to feeling criticizing you and correcting you without mixing honey and sugar into the medicine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
198 Posts
Discussion Starter · #50 ·
More like,

You: "I really want this thing I believe to be true. If I try really hard, I can avoid accepting that I'm wrong and admitting it. Instead I'll try to sound really sensitive and inclusive of all points of view, because that's the intelligent thing to do, right? You guys are being jerks. Please notice me, sempai - I'm a good person."

Us: "Here are a shitload of facts, read them at your leisure. TL;DR, you're wrong. It's not a big deal. Don't worry about it - been there, done that. The more you know. Please stop beating a dead horse."

Functions have nothing to do with it. Unless you mean those of us who prefer thinking to feeling criticizing you and correcting you without mixing honey and sugar into the medicine.
If that's the way you want to think about it by all means I can't stop you. Have fun.

P.S. Some philosophers think facts are imaginary.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
87 Posts
The MBTI was built upon Jung's theory of psychological types, point, blank period. Of course subsequent researchers have wanted to distinguish themselves by promoting something unique, but I think the point is overstated. Pushing the dichotomy between P and J speaks to the instrument itself and making it more convenient to create a questionnaire that will lead someone to fall clearly on one side versus the other. If the MBTI asked more nuanced questions, it would have to grapple with the nuances of human personality, which cognitive function theory actually addresses. The fact that people treat P and J as if they were functions in themselves is why so many people mistype themselves.

When the MBTI discusses P and J, it is referring to the sensory world. The MBTI without the underlying functions is pointless and largely without basis.

I would say that I am much more J like than people might think.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,877 Posts
Both INTJs and INFJs are Pi-dominants and leading with a function that only focuses when there's a point to do so (Ni).

As scattered as Ne types are, INFPs can be a lot more set in their routines and little comforts, even more so when they reach an age mature enough for their Si and Te to be developed in a sensible way.

J and P as dichotomies representing a set of stereotypes never made sense to me.
Even more so since their "organization" is often reflective of their dominant function.
It's quite obvious that a Te and a Fe dominant will be both more focused than a Ne dominant but only concerning specific areas of interest, often explaining why their respective views clash.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,482 Posts
Everyone and every type puts off tasks they don't like or are not geared towards.

I feel J is more about trying to predict, plan, organize, think ahead rather than discipline and productivity.

A J might be more productive because they're often constantly aware of the future and it drives/pressures them or makes them focused, but could also get stuck in planning mode and spend more time making plans than acting on them (or be unproductive because they rigidly stick to a bad plan/option instead of allowing for new input/change, even achieving something that isn't useful in the end).

A P might be more productive because they tend to need less plans to act, but they might procrastinate because they don't feel pressured to do so or refuse to narrow down on an option (or be unproductive because they jump from one thing to another which could result in a lot of things get done, but nothing gets achieved)
 

·
Registered
ILI
Joined
·
5,652 Posts
Everyone and every type puts off tasks they don't like or are not geared towards.

I feel J is more about trying to predict, plan, organize, think ahead rather than discipline and productivity.

A J might be more productive because they're often constantly aware of the future and it drives/pressures them or makes them focused, but could also get stuck in planning mode and spend more time making plans than acting on them (or be unproductive because they rigidly stick to a bad plan/option instead of allowing for new input/change, even achieving something that isn't useful in the end).

A P might be more productive because they tend to need less plans to act, but they might procrastinate because they don't feel pressured to do so or refuse to narrow down on an option (or be unproductive because they jump from one thing to another which could result in a lot of things get done, but nothing gets achieved)
Yes, I think a major dinstinguishing factor is that J's are largely externally-driven, whereas P's are mostly internally-driven.

J: "the deadline is soon approaching; I have to start working on this or I will fail."
P: "I have no interest in this, so I don't see why I should have to do it. My grade doesn't matter to me."

I tend not to see J and P as being action orientated at all. I tend to see it like this.

J - closure seeking. Does not like unanswered questions and wants to find conclusion as soon as able.
P - possibility seeking. Does not like to close the door on anything and always open to possibility of revision of previously decided upon things.

In that way J's can absolutely procrastinators, as mentioned, it's an avoidance thing rather than a possibility seeking thing.
And I agree with this. A well-intentioned P might find it difficult to begin working due to difficulty narrowing down what it is that they have to do (or want to do).*

Whereas to J's it is more obvious what needs to be done. There is rarely this indecision aspect because the decision-making process is objective.

The only time a J would have difficulty deciding on something would be if there isn't enough objective data upon which to base an opinion or decision.



*I wonder how this plays in with SPs, though. It makes total sense to me why NPs would struggle with this, but why would SPs struggle with this?
 

·
Registered
INFJ 3w2 Sx/So
Joined
·
3,379 Posts
@Abraxas

I'll get around to reading the links that you posted when I have the time, but as of now I do not understand why you are treating the 8 functions theory as something that is mutually exclusive.

It is not a matter of believing what I wish to believe. If what you were suggesting provided a better explanation, then I would latch onto it and accept it. As I see it, however, your explanation only takes away a more detailed facet of the MB and replaces it with something that is too rigid to work with actual individuals. Perhaps I'm just not fully understanding what you're trying to say at the moment -- having Ni/Ti makes grasping new systems a tad difficult :tongue:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,563 Posts
Mostly I can see that I'm not ambitious or a perfectionist per se -not that I don't work on myself or find ways of improving. It might have to do with my general outlook that perfectionism is actually a limited standard and I try to be open to more possibilities. My ambitions can probably be seen as pragmatic approaches to counter my otherwise dreamy predisposition. Clutter does make me a little antsy and almost lends itself to feeling more scatterbrained if I don't do some amount of tidying, but I really hate laundry and dishes, so I normally I wait until I ran out of dishes before I wash all of them at once. The same with clothes.
 

·
Registered
ILI
Joined
·
5,652 Posts
Clutter does make me a little antsy and almost lends itself to feeling more scatterbrained if I don't do some amount of tidying,
I would love it if you could expound on this. I find this really fascinating.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Eudaimonia

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,563 Posts
I would love it if you could expound on this. I find this really fascinating.
lol Why would you find this fascinating? Ok, where to begin... the thing is I've got mountains of books (most on bookshelves), medical, science, National Geographic magazines. When I read something or something sparked my interest I will go through a few of these books or magazines and they end up askew on my desk and back on top of other books (horizontally) and they then pile up just like how my thoughts pile up in a way and then it becomes harder to sort through them later when another thought or idea sparks my interest. Then I have papers that should be filed, but I have a special place to put them in the corner of my bookshelf so they don't get lost. Having to stop to think where things are is a bit annoying to me, so I rather have a certain place where things are put like my shoes are always by my door and the keys are always in the same place to save the stress of looking for them.

Right now looking around I've got papers on my desk and on the floor and on the table. Haha.

My son also contributes to messes of course and he will often pull all the cushions off the couch and they will be everywhere. When I go to clean up after him, I have a couple of containers behind the couch that I just chuck the toys over the couch in hopes that they made it into the containers because I really just want it out of the way so I don't trip.

For those times that I do a clean sweep over the whole house and everything is put away (which might be once every two to three months), I feel at ease and then its vacation time and I take a little holiday in my mind where can relax once again with my thoughts without having to wonder where things are and what I should be doing (practically speaking) to keep ahead of things.

Was that too much information?
 

·
Registered
ILI
Joined
·
5,652 Posts
 
lol Why would you find this fascinating? Ok, where to begin... the thing is I've got mountains of books (most on bookshelves), medical, science, National Geographic magazines. When I read something or something sparked my interest I will go through a few of these books or magazines and they end up askew on my desk and back on top of other books (horizontally) and they then pile up just like how my thoughts pile up in a way and then it becomes harder to sort through them later when another thought or idea sparks my interest. Then I have papers that should be filed, but I have a special place to put them in the corner of my bookshelf so they don't get lost. Having to stop to think where things are is a bit annoying to me, so I rather have a certain place where things are put like my shoes are always by my door and the keys are always in the same place to save the stress of looking for them.

Right now looking around I've got papers on my desk and on the floor and on the table. Haha.

My son also contributes to messes of course and he will often pull all the cushions off the couch and they will be everywhere. When I go to clean up after him, I have a couple of containers behind the couch that I just chuck the toys over the couch in hopes that they made it into the containers because I really just want it out of the way so I don't trip.

For those times that I do a clean sweep over the whole house and everything is put away (which might be once every two to three months), I feel at ease and then its vacation time and I take a little holiday in my mind where can relax once again with my thoughts without having to wonder where things are and what I should be doing (practically speaking) to keep ahead of things.


Was that too much information?
No, it's not really what I wanted. You said it makes you feel antsy and scatterbrained. I get why you wouldn't want to trip or lose things, but how does it make you antsy and scatterbrained?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Eudaimonia

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,563 Posts
No, it's not really what I wanted. You said it makes you feel antsy and scatterbrained. I get why you wouldn't want to trip or lose things, but how does it make you antsy and scatterbrained?

Somehow the need to introspect outweighs all other needs or the consequences will be that the inner self forces it way up in inappropriate times where I can't focus on the outer anymore.

Knowing all those "needs" pulls me out of myself to think about things I don't want to think about instead of thinking through the questions that I feel brings me to a better understanding of the world and myself in relation to it. It is like putting punctuation marks in the middle of my thought process and it not only irritates me it can counteract my ability to function.

If I can't think through my thoughts in fullness and feel a satisfaction from coming to a well formed conclusion, it is as if I become very discombobulated.

There were times that I felt such disruption from my thoughts that it didn't feel safe for me to drive. Seriously. It becomes a huge issue for me to be able to sort my thoughts and feelings. If I'm not given that time, there is no more inner or outer connection and I can't think clearly or know what I'm doing altogether.

Keeping ahead of the accumulating small things that can turn into something bigger and harder to handle down the road stifling my mind which in turn affects all of me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: aendern
41 - 60 of 67 Posts
Top