Personality Cafe banner

1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
375 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
I don't know if the below mentioned traits are strongly indicative of functions and type, but since they're something I often notice myself doing, I want to get them assessed from an MBTI stand-point.

Questions: A) What function does each of the below points represent? B) what is it's likely order in the stack?

1) I get strongly annoyed when someone does something in an inefficient way.
Examples:
- I observe a person doing A, B, C, D steps to achieve an X result. But I know that he can achieve the same result by just doing steps A and D. I become extremely impatient observing him wasting energy on steps B and C. I will become annoyed enough to confront him and tell him to stop wasting time and energy on useless steps. Confronting a person on his lack of efficiency is what can often cause a conflict or hurt feelings, because I tend to make a big deal out of it.
- I observe a person saying that he has to do task Y. And then that person sits down and ponders about that task or worries about it. I will likewise become extremely annoyed at such a sight, and confront him, telling him to go and get over with his task. There's no point in waiting or thinking about it.

2) I get strongly annoyed when a person can't stay focused on a subject/topic/task.
Examples:
- I cooperate with a person on accomplishing some task or project, but he/she frequently diverts attention to unrelated subjects/topics, or takes too many breaks during the process of accomplishing the task. I will start facepalming at the very least, or arguing at the very most.
- When I discuss a particular problem, interest, newsflash with a person, but he suddenly diverts his attention away from the topic towards something in the environment, or something completely out of the blue. Example: "I probably won't be voting on the next elections, because none of the candidates interest me... oh, wait, does that shop have discounts?" => such behavior, especially if frequently repeated, makes me explode inside.

3) Whenever I need to think or talk about complicated subjects, I constantly need to engage in some kind of compulsive physical activity. If I talk on the phone, I will in 100% of cases be walking in circles around the room. If I'm trying to solve some creative problem for a creative project, I'll be doing the same walk, or spinning something on my finger, or banging my knees together, or throwing around random objects, and then end up misplacing them, as whatever I do physically while engaged in thought or speech is subconscious. I often misplace the TV remote, or my wallet, or my phone, or my pen, because they tend to fly all over the room while I'm busy thinking or talking.

4) I tend to react aggressively to anyone who either attacks my values, or attacks my reputation. This aggression might not be open, usually it will be low-key, passive aggressive. But if the person attacks my values/reputation repeatedly and shows no regret or remorse, I'll get openly aggressive, confront him to my greatest ability, and provoke a huge scandal if need be. Similarly, I engage in passive aggression if someone tries to look down on me, or abuse his power over me. Example: back in university, during one of the seminars, nobody in my group did their homework, but the professor, instead of asking everyone, decided to ask me. I wasn't prepared just as everybody else, but he decided to take it out on me, while everyone else got a free pass. He told me to leave the room, and cancel my attendance for the day. I considered his move to be extremely unfair, and refused to comply. We ended up fighting for 10 minutes straight, until he understood that the only way to kick me out is by means of physical contact (which isn't allowed), so he agreed to let me stay and register my attendance. Looking at how my peers reacted to the whole fight, it became obvious that they would've left if they were me.

4+DLC) I will accept punishment or accusations, if I will find them objectively fair, or if their fairness is difficult to identify due to the involvement of many factors. But if I'm 100% certain that my punishment or accusations are unfair towards me, I'll refuse to acknowledge guilt until the bitter end.

5) I tend to sometimes observe situations from a 3rd person perspective, even if I myself am a participant of that situation. I want to know how every situation looks not only from my own view-point, but from the view-point of a spectator. For example: I am given a difficult creative task (to come up with a picture/logo that represents a person's personality), and then I suddenly feel compelled to describe how I see this creative process from a spectator's view. Yesterday I told my friend, who's working on the project, that for me to figure out a "logo" for my personality, is "akin to describing with 100% accuracy a person whom I know I will meet in the future, but have not yet met"; or "akin to describing with 100% accuracy a person who sits in a room next-door, whom I had never seen or met, but know that he is there". Thus, I need to envision the appearance of a person (or object), with 100% accuracy, simply by knowing that he exists or will exist, but knowing nothing about his actual appearance.

6) I want others to see me as cold, aloof/distant, independent, confident, elegant, rational, powerful, and I will go to great extents to ensure that image, even if it's partially fake, and can fall apart easily.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,118 Posts
I don't know if the below mentioned traits are strongly indicative of functions and type, but since they're something I often notice myself doing, I want to get them assessed from an MBTI stand-point.

Questions: A) What function does each of the below points represent? B) what is it's likely order in the stack?
Sounds fun, let's do it.

1) I get strongly annoyed when someone does something in an inefficient way.
Examples:
- I observe a person doing A, B, C, D steps to achieve an X result. But I know that he can achieve the same result by just doing steps A and D. I become extremely impatient observing him wasting energy on steps B and C. I will become annoyed enough to confront him and tell him to stop wasting time and energy on useless steps. Confronting a person on his lack of efficiency is what can often cause a conflict or hurt feelings, because I tend to make a big deal out of it.
- I observe a person saying that he has to do task Y. And then that person sits down and ponders about that task or worries about it. I will likewise become extremely annoyed at such a sight, and confront him, telling him to go and get over with his task. There's no point in waiting or thinking about it.
That's Te. Te-users need efficient and goal-oriented activities to feel good about their work. Anything that detracts from that will tend to feel like a burden. Te-users also tend to be very upfront and direct about it, such as telling someone that they have to work with they're doing it wrong, or just ending up doing themselves.
ExTJ's are often known for being confrontational because of this reason, although it's not a necessity.

2) I get strongly annoyed when a person can't stay focused on a subject/topic/task.
Examples:
- I cooperate with a person on accomplishing some task or project, but he/she frequently diverts attention to unrelated subjects/topics, or takes too many breaks during the process of accomplishing the task. I will start facepalming at the very least, or arguing at the very most.
- When I discuss a particular problem, interest, newsflash with a person, but he suddenly diverts his attention away from the topic towards something in the environment, or something completely out of the blue. Example: "I probably won't be voting on the next elections, because none of the candidates interest me... oh, wait, does that shop have discounts?" => such behavior, especially if frequently repeated, makes me explode inside.
Again, Te. This is basically the same system in your brain telling you that you're wasting time you should be spending on reaching your goals. A conversation has to be a logical sequence of statements or it's not going to be worth your time and effort (I mean, conversations take enough effort as it is, right?).

3) Whenever I need to think or talk about complicated subjects, I constantly need to engage in some kind of compulsive physical activity. If I talk on the phone, I will in 100% of cases be walking in circles around the room. If I'm trying to solve some creative problem for a creative project, I'll be doing the same walk, or spinning something on my finger, or banging my knees together, or throwing around random objects, and then end up misplacing them, as whatever I do physically while engaged in thought or speech is subconscious. I often misplace the TV remote, or my wallet, or my phone, or my pen, because they tend to fly all over the room while I'm busy thinking or talking.
This one I'm still kind of working on. This is consistent with Se, where physical movement can help with getting your Ni on track. Ni-Se can function at its best when thoughts and physical existence overlap.
I know of Si-doms that walk around while on the phone, but I think things get neater rather than messier when they're walking around?
Not sure about this one, but I'm keeping Ni-Se on my mind here.

4) I tend to react aggressively to anyone who either attacks my values, or attacks my reputation. This aggression might not be open, usually it will be low-key, passive aggressive. But if the person attacks my values/reputation repeatedly and shows no regret or remorse, I'll get openly aggressive, confront him to my greatest ability, and provoke a huge scandal if need be. Similarly, I engage in passive aggression if someone tries to look down on me, or abuse his power over me. Example: back in university, during one of the seminars, nobody in my group did their homework, but the professor, instead of asking everyone, decided to ask me. I wasn't prepared just as everybody else, but he decided to take it out on me, while everyone else got a free pass. He told me to leave the room, and cancel my attendance for the day. I considered his move to be extremely unfair, and refused to comply. We ended up fighting for 10 minutes straight, until he understood that the only way to kick me out is by means of physical contact (which isn't allowed), so he agreed to let me stay and register my attendance. Looking at how my peers reacted to the whole fight, it became obvious that they would've left if they were me.
Definitely inferior Fi (4th). I've seen ExTJ's constantly struggle with this, where they have trouble handling their emotions and reacting wildly when their values are attacked. One thing to remember about the inferior function is that it doesn't mean that you don't have it, just that you don't have much concious control over it. Especially when younger, people can get controlled by it instead if they don't watch out.

4+DLC) I will accept punishment or accusations, if I will find them objectively fair, or if their fairness is difficult to identify due to the involvement of many factors. But if I'm 100% certain that my punishment or accusations are unfair towards me, I'll refuse to acknowledge guilt until the bitter end.
That's consistent with the previous answer. It's about the values. If you feel like your values are being respected, there's no reason to fight it and it's more efficient just to wait it out.

5) I tend to sometimes observe situations from a 3rd person perspective, even if I myself am a participant of that situation. I want to know how every situation looks not only from my own view-point, but from the view-point of a spectator. For example: I am given a difficult creative task (to come up with a picture/logo that represents a person's personality), and then I suddenly feel compelled to describe how I see this creative process from a spectator's view. Yesterday I told my friend, who's working on the project, that for me to figure out a "logo" for my personality, is "akin to describing with 100% accuracy a person whom I know I will meet in the future, but have not yet met"; or "akin to describing with 100% accuracy a person who sits in a room next-door, whom I had never seen or met, but know that he is there". Thus, I need to envision the appearance of a person (or object), with 100% accuracy, simply by knowing that he exists or will exist, but knowing nothing about his actual appearance.
ENTJ's and ESTJ's both thend to be good at visually rotating 3D-images in their head. I'm not sure if that brings us further along. I'd like to think that the creative side you're talking about here is more likely to exist within an Ni-user than an Si-user, but that's just statistics and doesn't really tell you anything about yourself.
I'm taking a pass on this one.

6) I want others to see me as cold, aloof/distant, independent, confident, elegant, rational, powerful, and I will go to great extents to ensure that image, even if it's partially fake, and can fall apart easily.
This feels a lot more like ENTJ than ESTJ to be honest. I've seen ENTJ's time and again try to keep up the image of an all-powerful creator, while I see ESTJ's being a lot more grounded and only telling others that they are that good when a superior tells them. It's not too much to go on, but it seems consistent with the other answers.

So, I'm going with:

1st: Te. This one is really obvious from all your answers. Your way of dealing with conflict, stance in social situations, everything is geared towards efficiently dealing with the current situation and brushing aside all distractions.
2nd: Ni. Not as clear from the individual answers, but all the little parts add up. For example: an ESTJ, when being told off by a teacher is more likely to do what is expected from them first instead of openly defying an authoroty figure (although I guess the professor might not have been much of an authoroty figure, I don't know). From all the answers together I think ENTJ is much more likely than ESTJ, but I've been wrong about these things before.
3rd: Se. This one is already obvious from the former, but I'm adding it for completion.
4th: Fi. The way you react to your values being trampled is very indicative of inferior Fi. You'll probably get pretty good at it when you reach your 40s.

I hope that was insightful, in any case I always enjoy doing these. :)
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
375 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
@Drecon Thanks. Finally being able to identify that I have inferior Fi helped me get greater sense of my possible type. Things seem to add up rather well, and you're just confirming it for me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,118 Posts
@Drecon Thanks. Finally being able to identify that I have inferior Fi helped me get greater sense of my possible type. Things seem to add up rather well, and you're just confirming it for me.
Happy to help. :proud:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,958 Posts
I don't know if the below mentioned traits are strongly indicative of functions and type, but since they're something I often notice myself doing, I want to get them assessed from an MBTI stand-point.
It's not really possible to use functions from an MBTI standpoint. They're still very experimental and unclearly defined. To be typed in MBTI you'd have to use dichotomies, since that is the focus.

Jungian wise, you appear to be a senser. Rather than go into abstract concepts, you talk about concrete traits.

Definitely inferior Fi (4th). I've seen ExTJ's constantly struggle with this, where they have trouble handling their emotions and reacting wildly when their values are attacked. One thing to remember about the inferior function is that it doesn't mean that you don't have it, just that you don't have much concious control over it. Especially when younger, people can get controlled by it instead if they don't watch out.
Inferior functions are subconscious. Inferior Fi would not be aware of what they personally value.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
375 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
It's not really possible to use functions from an MBTI standpoint. They're still very experimental and unclearly defined. To be typed in MBTI you'd have to use dichotomies, since that is the focus.

Jungian wise, you appear to be a senser. Rather than go into abstract concepts, you talk about concrete traits.
So I can be an intuitive by MBTI but a sensor by Jung? (considering that I always type as an N by dichotomy tests)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,958 Posts
So I can be an intuitive by MBTI but a sensor by Jung? (considering that I always type as an N by dichotomy tests)
Yeah pretty much. By the MBTI test I would be INTJ. Every single MBTI test I ever took said that. Official or unofficial. But Jungian wise I'm a pretty textbook case of a Ti-dom.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
375 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
Yeah pretty much. By the MBTI test I would be INTJ. Every single MBTI test I ever took said that. Official or unofficial. But Jungian wise I'm a pretty textbook case of a Ti-dom.
I don't think there's any contradiction in my case, considering that, in case of ENTJ's, the N is aux and S is tert. Both should be fairly well developed, and competing, but neither of the two will have absolute prominence.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,118 Posts
It's not really possible to use functions from an MBTI standpoint. They're still very experimental and unclearly defined. To be typed in MBTI you'd have to use dichotomies, since that is the focus.

Jungian wise, you appear to be a senser. Rather than go into abstract concepts, you talk about concrete traits.
I agree that I go by experience as much as theory. I think the framework Jung thought up was fundamental for the theory to exist, but in the end using it for concrete typing is like looking in "On the Origin of Species" to find out if a velociraptor is a bird or a dinosaur . The theory can't really stand without it, but for practical purposes we've kind of moved on from the specifics posed in the work.

I agree that we need much more work before we can posit an official theory of cognitive functions, but in the meantime I'll use the heuristics that seem to be working consistently in daily practice. Even if I make small mistakes, I can still hit the mark usually.

Basically what I'm saying is that even if you're right in theory, I think it has little to no impact on the practical usage of things like cognitive functions. If the functions are useful for people to learn more about how ther brain works, that's good enough for most people. (and I know I won't convince you of anything, but this is mostly to try and get you to accept that I'll keep on doing this because I see it working in practice).

Inferior functions are subconscious. Inferior Fi would not be aware of what they personally value.
While this might be true in theory it's not what i have consistently observed around me. For ExTJ's in particular I see the "strong but oncontrollable Fi" popping up again and again.

So I respect your adherance to theory, but is it actually useful in typing people? Most of what I see people use Jung for is to throw around abstract concepts that have no basis in reality. Sure, it's really scientific, but I doubt it helps people understand anything about the theory or themselves.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
375 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
Just to add to the thread in terms of conscious/unconscious Fi - I can't really say that I have a strong value system. Back in teen years I actually had the problem of identifying what my values are. It went along the lines of: "Stable, admirable and confident people seem to have values, so I should have values as well. But I have no idea what kind of values I should adhere to. Do I even have a moral compass to begin with?"
Often, I ended up catching myself manipulating my "moral compass", juggling around values left and right, for as long as that would help me achieve my goal.
However, despite consciously having no real idea of what my morality/values are, I always caught myself defending values that seemed to explode out of nowhere. I only managed to identify my values and morality by observing my behavior and what "triggers" me, as well as observing what values my favorite characters hold. I feel very strongly about fairness/justice, but if I'd be asked whether it is good or bad to be fair, I'd say "depends on what goals it achieves" and "sometimes it is a smarter choice to be unfair and unjust" - a statement which I absolutely believe in, but also a statement which I probably would never be able to put into practice, because something inside me would explode again.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,958 Posts
and I know I won't convince you of anything, but this is mostly to try and get you to accept that I'll keep on doing this because I see it working in practice
Well yeah. I've considered your points. Many of them are actually the reasons I reject your approach.

While this might be true in theory it's not what i have consistently observed around me. For ExTJ's in particular I see the "strong but oncontrollable Fi" popping up again and again.
I've met more than my fair share of people who have a personal theory that is "observable" but has little in common with anyone else's "observable" theory. All these people have the exact same problem - heavy use of confirmation bias with the interpretations they're using.

Do you consider your specific interpretation something special? And if so, why? Do you have some high qualifications or something? Jung was a professional psychologist for decades and is famous for his genius.

Basically what I'm saying is that even if you're right in theory, I think it has little to no impact on the practical usage of things like cognitive functions. If the functions are useful for people to learn more about how ther brain works, that's good enough for most people. (and I know I won't convince you of anything, but this is mostly to try and get you to accept that I'll keep on doing this because I see it working in practice).
Ok we'll talk practical use.

What is the practical use of pretending to know how your brain works? This is entirely subjective. It might make people feel good, but is that really a use?

I see a lot of people using this not-really-MBTI so they can feel superior to "sensers" and/or or blame "sensers" for their personal problems, rather than addressing the actual issues they have. I haven't seen them actually do anything practical or useful with it. Nor have I seen anyone's mental health improve that uses it. Tomorrow it will be four years that I've been observing the pseudo-MBTI folks go around in circles. And I've still not got a clue what it's supposed to be useful for.

There is not a consensus of how this pseudo-MBTI works or anything close to one. Everyone has their own form of it. And boy have I seen some strange popular ideas over the years. Some people take their function definitions from one website, some from another, some from forums, some just make up their own functions altogether. One big mess.

And you want to know what's useful about Jung's theory? He was a professional psychologist. He used it to treat his patients poor mental health - and it worked. Socionics has another use for Jung's theory - to establish a practical theory of how types interact.

So I respect your adherance to theory, but is it actually useful in typing people? Most of what I see people use Jung for is to throw around abstract concepts that have no basis in reality. Sure, it's really scientific, but I doubt it helps people understand anything about the theory or themselves.
So basically you judged a book by it's cover.

Funnily enough you noted how abstract Jungian people tend to be. So even with no experience using a Jungian approach you can clearly see some of Jung's N/S in concrete traits, and you're telling me it has no basis in reality? It's not even difficult to learn if you have a teacher suitable for your learning style - I explained to an SF how to identify Jungian Si using a trait-based approach in one paragraph. They gave me a solid example of someone using Si in their life pretty much immediately.

Typing people in Jungian theory is not difficult in most cases. But most of us don't generally like to jump to conclusions, so we try to consider more of a person than a single post.

As for your approach I'm actually wondering about it's consistency. You made comments about Te being goal oriented earlier - isn't your focus on practical use in this post being goal-orientated and efficient? But here you are an INFJ?

So yeah, as you can see I've thought about all these points you're making before. I was once using a system like yours. But that's the difference between us here - I actually tried the method you're using. You dismissed mine off hand on the basis that it comes across too abstract.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,331 Posts
1) I get strongly annoyed when someone does something in an inefficient way.
Examples:
- I observe a person doing A, B, C, D steps to achieve an X result. But I know that he can achieve the same result by just doing steps A and D. I become extremely impatient observing him wasting energy on steps B and C. I will become annoyed enough to confront him and tell him to stop wasting time and energy on useless steps. Confronting a person on his lack of efficiency is what can often cause a conflict or hurt feelings, because I tend to make a big deal out of it.
ESTJ - issues re: inefficiency, TJ, confronting people about it S, making a big deal out of it E.


- I observe a person saying that he has to do task Y. And then that person sits down and ponders about that task or worries about it. I will likewise become extremely annoyed at such a sight, and confront him, telling him to go and get over with his task. There's no point in waiting or thinking about it.
ESTJ - 'no point in waiting or thinking about it' is a clear disdain and lack of respect for the introversion of other people, general TJ "get it done" mindset and ES confrontation as well.


2) I get strongly annoyed when a person can't stay focused on a subject/topic/task.
Examples:
- I cooperate with a person on accomplishing some task or project, but he/she frequently diverts attention to unrelated subjects/topics, or takes too many breaks during the process of accomplishing the task. I will start facepalming at the very least, or arguing at the very most.
Clear disdain for intuition - you don't like it when people shift from here to there. Solid preference for SJ re: staying on topic - arguing is E - disliking people taking too many breaks is TJ.


- When I discuss a particular problem, interest, newsflash with a person, but he suddenly diverts his attention away from the topic towards something in the environment, or something completely out of the blue. Example: "I probably won't be voting on the next elections, because none of the candidates interest me... oh, wait, does that shop have discounts?" => such behavior, especially if frequently repeated, makes me explode inside.
Obvious J preference. Has a bit of that "I like the attention of me" aspect of E as well.

3) Whenever I need to think or talk about complicated subjects, I constantly need to engage in some kind of compulsive physical activity. If I talk on the phone, I will in 100% of cases be walking in circles around the room. If I'm trying to solve some creative problem for a creative project, I'll be doing the same walk, or spinning something on my finger, or banging my knees together, or throwing around random objects, and then end up misplacing them, as whatever I do physically while engaged in thought or speech is subconscious. I often misplace the TV remote, or my wallet, or my phone, or my pen, because they tend to fly all over the room while I'm busy thinking or talking.
This is all E - energized by interacting with the environment - helps you think, no doubt - could probably throw up another ESTx here but I'll leave it at E.

4) I tend to react aggressively to anyone who either attacks my values, or attacks my reputation. This aggression might not be open, usually it will be low-key, passive aggressive. But if the person attacks my values/reputation repeatedly and shows no regret or remorse, I'll get openly aggressive, confront him to my greatest ability, and provoke a huge scandal if need be. Similarly, I engage in passive aggression if someone tries to look down on me, or abuse his power over me. Example: back in university, during one of the seminars, nobody in my group did their homework, but the professor, instead of asking everyone, decided to ask me. I wasn't prepared just as everybody else, but he decided to take it out on me, while everyone else got a free pass. He told me to leave the room, and cancel my attendance for the day. I considered his move to be extremely unfair, and refused to comply. We ended up fighting for 10 minutes straight, until he understood that the only way to kick me out is by means of physical contact (which isn't allowed), so he agreed to let me stay and register my attendance. Looking at how my peers reacted to the whole fight, it became obvious that they would've left if they were me.
Where do you live? If you pulled a stunt like that here, security would be called - you'd be leaving the room - there would be no power-play over the professor occurring.

4+DLC) I will accept punishment or accusations, if I will find them objectively fair, or if their fairness is difficult to identify due to the involvement of many factors. But if I'm 100% certain that my punishment or accusations are unfair towards me, I'll refuse to acknowledge guilt until the bitter end.
Not sure there's anything here.

5) I tend to sometimes observe situations from a 3rd person perspective, even if I myself am a participant of that situation. I want to know how every situation looks not only from my own view-point, but from the view-point of a spectator. For example: I am given a difficult creative task (to come up with a picture/logo that represents a person's personality), and then I suddenly feel compelled to describe how I see this creative process from a spectator's view. Yesterday I told my friend, who's working on the project, that for me to figure out a "logo" for my personality, is "akin to describing with 100% accuracy a person whom I know I will meet in the future, but have not yet met"; or "akin to describing with 100% accuracy a person who sits in a room next-door, whom I had never seen or met, but know that he is there". Thus, I need to envision the appearance of a person (or object), with 100% accuracy, simply by knowing that he exists or will exist, but knowing nothing about his actual appearance.
Do you also read e-mails you've send from your "Sent" box, so you can see how it looks from the other persons perspective?

Sounds like ExTx - wanting to solve the problem correctly and objectively.

6) I want others to see me as cold, aloof/distant, independent, confident, elegant, rational, powerful, and I will go to great extents to ensure that image, even if it's partially fake, and can fall apart easily.
T.


Overall pretty clearly ESTJ.
I'm surprised - this one makes you sound more extraverted than the last one - it actually makes you sound kind of anti-introversion, anti-intuition and anti-perceiving.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
746 Posts
3) Whenever I need to think or talk about complicated subjects, I constantly need to engage in some kind of compulsive physical activity. If I talk on the phone, I will in 100% of cases be walking in circles around the room. If I'm trying to solve some creative problem for a creative project, I'll be doing the same walk, or spinning something on my finger, or banging my knees together, or throwing around random objects, and then end up misplacing them, as whatever I do physically while engaged in thought or speech is subconscious. I often misplace the TV remote, or my wallet, or my phone, or my pen, because they tend to fly all over the room while I'm busy thinking or talking.
I think this is the second thing someone has posted that I related to so strongly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nep2une

·
Banned
Joined
·
375 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
@Turi problem with ESTJ is that it's a Si user, whereas I identify much better with Se than I do with Si. Hence why I reject the ESTJ estimate. I am extremely bad at everything that Si is good at. But I'm moderately good at everything Se is good at.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,331 Posts
@Turi problem with ESTJ is that it's a Si user, whereas I identify much better with Se than I do with Si. Hence why I reject the ESTJ estimate. I am extremely bad at everything that Si is good at. But I'm moderately good at everything Se is good at.
..what is "Si"?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
375 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
..what is "Si"?
Data, facts, good with memory, recalling the past in great detail, noticing familiar aspects in your environment.
I'm always accused of quite the opposite, being too fluid/manipulative with information, having literally no memory, being unable to recall important details, ignoring familiar aspects therefore ignoring changes in my environment.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,118 Posts
Well yeah. I've considered your points. Many of them are actually the reasons I reject your approach.
Thank you for you well thought-out and civil response. I tend to get a bit defensive in these kinds of posts beforehand out of fear of someone just trying to pick a fight. There's a lot of people like that around who will try to wring your words into something they try to hurt you with. You seem more interested in the truth of the matter than trying to 'defeat your opponent'. That makes me feel a lot more comfortable in actually talking about the whole thing.

I've met more than my fair share of people who have a personal theory that is "observable" but has little in common with anyone else's "observable" theory. All these people have the exact same problem - heavy use of confirmation bias with the interpretations they're using.

Do you consider your specific interpretation something special? And if so, why? Do you have some high qualifications or something? Jung was a professional psychologist for decades and is famous for his genius.
First of all, I'm not saying Jung wasn't a genius and I'm not claiming that he was wrong or anything. I just think that knowledge is based off of continuously trying to disprove the things you thought were true. Even if the basis of a theory fits, that does not mean you can trust it to be correct. I don't have any qualifications in this regard, I'm just trying to learn this stuff by applying it and seeing where it breaks down.

My main basis for the past time has been Dario Nardi's work. I've actually been kind of hesitant to mention him since often people get really mad at me for even mentioning his name in combination with the word science, but honestly, he speaks a lot about his process and it's very scientific and grounded. I mostly didn't mention him because I didn't want to derail the conversation in that direction.

Other than that, I understand your frustration with having to deal with everyone's own pet theories. I personally try to find my information from as many sources as possible, while trying to check their credibility and checking them against the evolving framework I have in my mind. Very often I come across parts where I was wrong, or parts where I actually hit the nail on the head.
My goal is to evolve my framework into some actual system that I can share with people so that finally we can have an actual theory, rather than a thousand different ones. I'm not planning on letting my framework be just for me, I want it to be an evolving theory on how the mind works. We're far off from that, but maybe I can set at least a step in the right direction.

Ok we'll talk practical use.

What is the practical use of pretending to know how your brain works? This is entirely subjective. It might make people feel good, but is that really a use?
Where do I start? It can help in relationships, where knowing how your significant other thinks can help you communicate with them better (I have some experience with this), it can help ESTP's accept that they're not stupid for having trouble in school, it can help teams in working together and working with each other's differences rather than just assuming everyone should be able to do the same kinds of things.

On a personal level it has helped me to understand why I'm not interested in facts as much as other people, why I need so much time to just mull things over, why I'm slow to reach decisions, why I can get along with basically anyone, even if I don't like them, why I don't value getting things done as much as other people and why I love sports in theory but can never really get into them in the long run, just to name a few.

It has nothing to do with feeling good. If you are aware of how your brain functions you can start working with it instead of against it.

I see a lot of people using this not-really-MBTI so they can feel superior to "sensers" and/or or blame "sensers" for their personal problems, rather than addressing the actual issues they have. I haven't seen them actually do anything practical or useful with it. Nor have I seen anyone's mental health improve that uses it. Tomorrow it will be four years that I've been observing the pseudo-MBTI folks go around in circles. And I've still not got a clue what it's supposed to be useful for.
I agree that for some people it can be a tool to not have to take responsibility for themselves. I've also seen a lot of people think up their own theories so that they can feel superior to others. That's harmful stuff.

If anything I try to reframe the theory to be more free of value-based terminology. Even the term 'sensor' is often used to try to put others down as 'not intuitive'. It's really hard to find sources for MBTI that don't fall into the trap of describing other types as less then your own type.
I can't say I'm completely objective, I doubt anyone is, but at least I always try to steer the conversation to 'every type can be great in their own way' thinking.

There is not a consensus of how this pseudo-MBTI works or anything close to one. Everyone has their own form of it. And boy have I seen some strange popular ideas over the years. Some people take their function definitions from one website, some from another, some from forums, some just make up their own functions altogether. One big mess.

And you want to know what's useful about Jung's theory? He was a professional psychologist. He used it to treat his patients poor mental health - and it worked. Socionics has another use for Jung's theory - to establish a practical theory of how types interact.
I agree that we need consensus in this MBTI world. I just don't think we're going to get it from Jung. I'm sure he would be the first to tell us that his theories aren't perfect. All knowledge is built upon previous knowledge. Back when Jung was doing his work, there was no brain imaging and no working theory of how our minds work. We have to use his ideas to build to something new. I don't know how we'll get there, but I'm trying to do my part in having discussions about it right here. Maybe with the combined power of the internet, we can build a new working theory of MBTI.

So basically you judged a book by it's cover.

Funnily enough you noted how abstract Jungian people tend to be. So even with no experience using a Jungian approach you can clearly see some of Jung's N/S in concrete traits, and you're telling me it has no basis in reality? It's not even difficult to learn if you have a teacher suitable for your learning style - I explained to an SF how to identify Jungian Si using a trait-based approach in one paragraph. They gave me a solid example of someone using Si in their life pretty much immediately.
I must confess that I have some regrets over the terms I used there. Jung's research had a lot of basis in reality. He was a scientist and he used theory to explain what he saw around him.

My main gripe is with the terms I see thrown around by Jung-supporters. Terms like 'subconcious' and 'suppression of the alter-ego' don't mean anything to most people, and that is where a lot of miscommunication occurs.

Which is of course where I have to make my apologies to you. I did indeed judge the book by its cover and just assumed you were one of these people.
To be fair, on these forums I can't remember ever having seen someone mention Jung without trowing a bunch of terms around that only mean something to people who are really deep into his work. (or more often, terms that mean something different to people who know Jung than to people who don't).

From your description of explaining Si to an SF I can see that there's a decent chance that you're actually one of the people who can communicate about this sort of stuff without trying to overwhelm people with a bunch of terms they don't know anything about. I can't know if that's true or not, but that's the best reason for me to hold my judgment until I know what I'm dealing with.

For that matter, thank you for reminding me of that.

Typing people in Jungian theory is not difficult in most cases. But most of us don't generally like to jump to conclusions, so we try to consider more of a person than a single post.
I agree. That's why I generally try to state specific reasons for what I'm thinking and try to engage them to tell more about themselves, rather than just make assertions. I also try to focus a lot more on the 'why' of my typings than the 'what'. That way, if I say things the typee disagrees with, that can tell us a lot more about them than the original post.
I have noticed lately that on threads like these I tend to brush aside my doubts a little more, due to the fleeting nature of the posts made here. I've also noticed myself being wrong a lot of times after ignoring my doubts.

I must confess that most of my reasons for posting in threads like these are entirely selfish. I long to understand the subject and the best way for me is to talk through my theories with others. I'm always happy whenever I'm wrong about something because that means I can revise my theories again and work on making them perfect at some point.

As for your approach I'm actually wondering about its consistency. You made comments about Te being goal oriented earlier - isn't your focus on practical use in this post being goal-orientated and efficient? But here you are an INFJ?
Interestingly, I was wondering if that would come up. When rereading my posts I also noticed this tone in myself. I'm guessing it was a combination of fear of getting into a forum-fight, me being stressed out and trying to match the tone of your post a bit.

Honestly, I've been struggling a lot with trying to find a good descriptor for Te. The term goal-oriented is actually kind of bad because it describes behaviour more than the reasons for it. Even though I feel I have a pretty good grasp on Te in the abstract, I still struggle to find a good wording for it. I'm open to suggestions if you have any.

So yeah, as you can see I've thought about all these points you're making before. I was once using a system like yours. But that's the difference between us here - I actually tried the method you're using. You dismissed mine off hand on the basis that it comes across too abstract.
In retrospect, I dropped the ball on my wording there too. I don't mind the theory being abstract at all, I just want the communication about it to be concrete and specific. And as I've stated before, I do regret assuming your communication was abstract just on the basis of being an advocate of Jung.

I hope I managed to clear up some things here. At the very least I feel like I've learned a lot just from replying to your post. It's given me a lot to think about.
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top