[Flow Ozzy]

I just noticed this one yesterday even though I am pretty sure that it has happened before i.e. making up stuff about things which I usually don't know much about but it turns out pretty accurate to an extent.

My therapist asked me to read about BPD (Borderline Personality Disorder) and schemas ... I didn't get the time to read but during the session when I was asked about them, I made up stuff about BPD ... mostly symptoms and signs, which turned out pretty accurate then I said things about schemas which were even more accurate ( like we assimilate new data in older schemas and we also create new ones etc. ).

At the end of the session, I was given a handout which pretty much said the same things about BPD and schemas ... :laughing:

I want to know if this has happen with 'NTs' all the time or it is something which can happen with anyone i.e. any MBTI types, are there ways to get better at this ? :tongue:

 

[Flow Ozzy]

@lolalalah @MsTitipool @Tamehagane

Ever done something like that ?

 

[lolalalah]

@lolalalah @MsTitipool @Tamehagane

Ever done something like that ?

If you mean to ask whether I can sense when something is coming or not, then the answer is affirmative.

I don't, however, make stuff up without having something to base it on; I may not always acknowledge it right away, but this is how intuition goes, it has to be grounded on something (something you may think you have missed at first).

Do you show symptoms of BPD?

 

[Flow Ozzy]

If you mean to ask whether I can sense when something is coming or not, then the answer is affirmative.

I don't, however, make stuff up without having something to base it on; I may not always acknowledge it right away, but this is how intuition goes, it has to be grounded on something (something you may think you have missed at first).

Do you show symptoms of BPD?

No, I was talking about making up something philosophical, logical which actually ends up fitting up an already existing concept/theory. Like I mentioned in my original post that I made up things about schemas ( the only thing I knew about them was they are thinking patterns which we start developing at an early age, which we end up keep following at an older age ) during the session I described a number of schemas which do actually 'exist' ( my therapist told me about them later ).

In 2012, I found myself making up the 'Locke's Sock' thought experiment, I didn't knew about it ... I hadn't read a single book on philosophy, I didn't even knew about 'thought experiments' :crazy: some of my teachers ended up thinking that I lied during my university admissions interviews ( I told them the only books I have read are pulp detective fiction and comics ).

I don't know about symptoms of BPD, I was asked to read about it ( don't know why ) ... maybe in the coming sessions my therapist will explain something about that.

 

[L P]

I notice I do this alot, due to my Ne, I'll speak on something I know little about and just roll random ideas about it off my tongue, which makes me feel like I'm making it up, and some of those things will actually be correct, and the whole time I feel like I just fooled people into thinking I'm smart lol.

 

[BranchMonkey]

I just noticed this one yesterday even though I am pretty sure that it has happened before i.e. making up stuff about things which I usually don't know much about but it turns out pretty accurate to an extent.

My therapist asked me to read about BPD (Borderline Personality Disorder) and schemas ... I didn't get the time to read but during the session when I was asked about them, I made up stuff about BPD ... mostly symptoms and signs, which turned out pretty accurate then I said things about schemas which were even more accurate ( like we assimilate new data in older schemas and we also create new ones etc. ).

At the end of the session, I was given a handout which pretty much said the same things about BPD and schemas ... :laughing:

I want to know if this has happen with 'NTs' all the time or it is something which can happen with anyone i.e. any MBTI types, are there ways to get better at this ? :tongue:

I scored INTJ for seven years; always INFJ for keys2cognition, INTP for 16Personalities and INTp for Socionics.

That out of the way, I did this early and ongoing, e.g. for a speech class back in the 80s when I was 20, I didn't have time to study and for the final paper I wrote mine on Gestalt and single parenting. I don't remember the details, but I sat down at my typewriter and made up the whole paper then added a bibliography.

I got an A- because my 'ibids' were a tad sloppy.

But as someone pointed out--can't remember who, I can't make something up out of whole cloth; I have to have a reference point, and I was well-read generally, and specifically on sociology, psychology, history, anthropology...

I was reading dictionaries and encyclopedias when I was 10, three books a day by 13 and so on: fiction, non-fiction, broad and deep... so I could access information and theory and weave a believable pattern from that and my own experience--in the case of that paper I tied all I knew to my experience as a single parent.

Any well-educated, articulate person (writing or otherwise) with enough life experience and some moxie can do the same regardless of MBTI, although there are some personality types, and those with less than average I.Q.s I imagine would not do well with this, and neither would someone who felt it was morally reprehensible. I had a grade to get--an A is what I had so far, and an A is what I got for the course.

I didn't feel what I did was immoral. I felt disappointed that faking it was so easy. And I felt pressured to get that A so I could--down the road--get a decent job and support my son.

The minus for the bibliography errors (very few) bothered me most because I wanted an A+. ✍(◔◡◔)

 

[atamagasuita]

I have BPD caused by my fucking androgens

 

[Flow Ozzy]

@Lady D this one ..

 

[Lady D]

Well, I have both BPD and XNTP sorts of personality. I've encountered both positive and negative schemas in my personality through self search. Yes, an intelligent person could probably 'make stuff up' and then realize the knowledge was there all along (the schema). Ti + Ne probably creates ways for assimilation as the flow of information is endless. Ni + Te could also do this as in following example (R.R. is likely an INTJ):

I think the negative schemas show as feelings that are seemingly subjective. In Dostoyevsky's Crime and Punishment Rodion Raskolnikov commits a crime for feelings he isn't aware of and is able to disguise this even from himself. He creates a plan of how to become a super human being and thinks the way to achieve this is to give up on morality. He is someone with a very logical objective mind and fails to see 'logic' in his own moral code. This appears as an interesting paradox in the book. He literally kills for love as he can't see the steps in between.

 

[zekzar]

I do this all the fucking time. Like when I hear people talking about something I don't generally know about, but I still want to be part of the conversation, I just use my basic knowledge of things and I just kinda throw shit together. It's usually very accurate too. When it comes down to it, I don't think a lot of it is 'making things up" I think it's just subconsciously understanding anything and everything around you. I get the feeling that Ne + Ti is probably the best at doing this. Maybe even Te + Ni. These probably do it more accurately than others.
S types are probably less likely to be able to do this. SFs are probably very unlikely to be able to do it accurately.


But who knows. I basically just did the exact thing we're talking about.