X's in type make very little sense

[Into It]

An ENFx has both Ne and Fe? Ne affected by Fi and Fe affected by Ni? To be comfortable using Feeling and Intuition BOTH introverted and extroverted sounds like being a superhero to me. Are their functions more numerous albeit underdeveloped? What's the story?

[Trinity]

I read it as x stands in place of P or J when someone is unsure of their type.

[disregard]

Don't forget the lowercase letters! What DO they mean!

[murkrow]

I also think Xs are dumb, but the way people test MBTI always gives percentages.

Since about 90% of the people on this site don't even know what cognitive functions are they don't think twice about throwing an X in there.

If I went by my tests I would be an eNTx

But that makes no sense whatsoever.

Is my dominant function Te and Ne?!

No.

[Jack Flak]

I don't want to offend anyone, but since I lack tact: I don't think people with a Great Understanding of 16-type use x at all, because they realize what type they actually are, and that they aren't meant to follow any "rules" of that type.

[DigitalMethod]

I don't want to offend anyone, but since I lack tact: I don't think people with a Great Understanding of 16-type use x at all, because they realize what type they actually are, and that they aren't meant to follow any "rules" of that type.

:D, Great Understanding is a proper noun?

[Babylon Candle]

I don't want to offend anyone, but since I lack tact: I don't think people with a Great Understanding of 16-type use x at all, because they realize what type they actually are, and that they aren't meant to follow any "rules" of that type.

the one that annoys me the most is INXP...how fricking hard is it to differentiate between:

"I'm an INFP who has the disillusion of being logical in my philosophies on life"
"I'm an INTP who isnt completely meanly cynical"

INXP!? bah! :devil:

[Jack Flak]

:D, Great Understanding is a proper noun?
The selective capitalization is for accent and Style.

[animenagai]

x's should not mean 'both', it should mean 'undefined'. in terms of MBTI, a personality changes too much when you flip any function.

[InaF3157]

An ENFx has both Ne and Fe? Ne affected by Fi and Fe affected by Ni? To be comfortable using Feeling and Intuition BOTH introverted and extroverted sounds like being a superhero to me. Are their functions more numerous albeit underdeveloped? What's the story?

Are you taking into account the possibility that the decisive functions may be really close in the function order? I've looked at the tables that rank the functions based on types and noticed that they don't necessarily fit with people's actual ordering of functions. Suppose, for example, a person has dominant Ti/Fi in a tie or near tie, followed by Ne then Ni/Se. And then suppose that she identifies with much of the description for INTP and INFP, but neither totally. Further, one day INF fits better and the next INT. What would you call her?
I also wonder if putting the X may mean that a person misunderstands herself, rather than MBTI.

[murkrow]

I also wonder if putting the X may mean that a person misunderstands herself, rather than MBTI.

I think this is it.

Also if someone has a strong Fi then they simply can't be INTP, Fi is their least used function.

It's possible that MBTI and cognitive functions don't really mix all that well.

It's also possible that such a girl would actually be an INTJ or INFJ who is mistaking their Te or Fe for Ti or Fi. (this is more likely IMO)

[InaF3157]

I think this is it.

Also if someone has a strong Fi then they simply can't be INTP, Fi is their least used function.
Suppose everything else fits, though? Dominant Ti followed by Ne, then Si, etc. . . .


It's possible that MBTI and cognitive functions don't really mix all that well.
Exactly.

It's also possible that such a girl would actually be an INTJ or INFJ who is mistaking their Te or Fe for Ti or Fi. (this is more likely IMO)
Elaborate, please.

[murkrow]

First off I think INTJ is way more likely than INFJ so I'll go in that direction.

1.They know that they're intuitive.

Their lack of self understanding/awareness makes it very difficult to determine whether their intuitions are introvertedly or extrovertedly focused. Speaking as an Ni I can tell you that it can very easily be mistaken for Ne, it's an ongoing struggle for me to realize I don't actually see all the aspects of a problem.

2. They know that they feel very strongly about things. They have an instinctual feeling of what works with them and what doesn't. They resent the impositions of others on who they are. (Fi)

3. However they also know that they have the ability to deal with things rationally. They are able to step back and deal with issues. They don't really consider this to be Te because they are generally quiet and come to their decisions independent of others. They have a strong ability to see inconsistencies in the ways of others which they associate to Ti when it could just as easily be their lesser thinking function magnified by their focus on Ni.

[Xander]

Those people I have seen with an X in their type for a long time seem to be those who have found no more meaning in being one side or the other. Of course this does not change that they most probably are one or the other (there is always the third choice of having developed a balanced approach from an early age... I think).

See many people, IME, approach the MBTI as some kind of divining rod expecting that with the knowledge of what type they are they will suddenly see all the questions answered and so forth. That's just not going to happen in all cases.

Mind you I again voice my concern over this preference to resort to function analysis. Sure in context it can be helpful but as soon as someone drops over the edge and starts discussing if they are more Te than Ni to find out if they're INTJ or ENTJ then I'm afraid they need to slap themselves hard.

[InaF3157]

First off I think INTJ is way more likely than INFJ so I'll go in that direction.

1.They know that they're intuitive.

Their lack of self understanding/awareness makes it very difficult to determine whether their intuitions are introvertedly or extrovertedly focused. Speaking as an Ni I can tell you that it can very easily be mistaken for Ne, it's an ongoing struggle for me to realize I don't actually see all the aspects of a problem.

2. They know that they feel very strongly about things. They have an instinctual feeling of what works with them and what doesn't. They resent the impositions of others on who they are. (Fi)

3. However they also know that they have the ability to deal with things rationally. They are able to step back and deal with issues. They don't really consider this to be Te because they are generally quiet and come to their decisions independent of others. They have a strong ability to see inconsistencies in the ways of others which they associate to Ti when it could just as easily be their lesser thinking function magnified by their focus on Ni.

So your view is the person with Ti/Fi > Ne > Si is confusing the direction of her functions due to a lack of self-understanding, and should really be INTJ or INFJ. But do you think it is just as easy to be confused on the self-descriptions that go along with the function order? Suppose when she reads the descriptions of INTJ and INFJ, neither resonates with her as much as INTP or INFP? :doh: What then?
Should she just choose between Jung's system of cognitive functions and the MBTI, and avoid the headache?

I'm beginning to think I should do this for my own I/ENTP seesaw.

Those people I have seen with an X in their type for a long time seem to be those who have found no more meaning in being one side or the other. Of course this does not change that they most probably are one or the other (there is always the third choice of having developed a balanced approach from an early age... I think).

See many people, IME, approach the MBTI as some kind of divining rod expecting that with the knowledge of what type they are they will suddenly see all the questions answered and so forth. That's just not going to happen in all cases..
yup.

[SquirrelTao]

What makes very little sense is insisting on putting everybody into a box. What also makes very little sense is making a religious belief out of MBTI. Another thing that makes very little sense is insisting that people force their data reporting to conform to a theory, rather than wondering if the theory may be flawed in some way when the data doesn't fit it.

And another thing. A little research on the reliability of MBTI will show that most people test as three or four types, not just one. It will also show that the F vs. T axis is the most unreliable of the four categories.

[VanillaCat]

When I took the test I got 50% E and 50% I. So, technically I could put an X, but it said I was extraverted. I kind of feel like I'm more ENFP than INFP too. But it's a very thin line at times.

[colmena]

My personality is far too suppressed, and environment too irrational to know whether I'm F or T.

I've always tested Ti on the longer tests, but Fi has always come second/close second. I don't really know enough about it, to be honest. I'd be lying if I said I cared that much.

I'll be sure to change it when I'm living a healthier lifestyle.

--

I've just started watching a Fred Astaire/Rita Hayworth musical called, You Were Never Lovelier.

Tonight I'll be going through TED talks now that I'm free of the end of the month bandwidth scare. I'll be discounting/skeptical of any that aren't research based, unless I'm being polemic/provocative.

[Little Linguist]

Okay, here's a question I'm just throwing out there for the hell of it. And please be aware that I'm a dumbass with little to no experience about typing, so yeah....


But I'm curious. Regarding cognitive functions, I have the following scores:

extraverted Sensing (Se) (22.1)
limited use
introverted Sensing (Si) (17.3)
limited use
extraverted Intuiting (Ne) (43.6)
excellent use
introverted Intuiting (Ni) (30.5)
good use
extraverted Thinking (Te) (20.2)
limited use
introverted Thinking (Ti) (23.2)
limited use
extraverted Feeling (Fe) (39.6)
excellent use
introverted Feeling (Fi) (43.5)
excellent use

Well, okay, according to this test I'm a ST MORON!!! BUT I have an excellent use of Ne, Fi AND Fe. And a good use of Ni. So one could make the argument that I was an ENFX because I have a good control over both sets of functions for ENFJ and ENFP, and I have a better control over Ti than Te, Si or Se, one COULD say that the ENFJ fits me better. However, one could say the ENFP fits me better because the Fi is stronger than Fe, and the Ne is stronger than Fi - which fits an ENFP better. Hmmmm.....

I picked ENFP, but the debate is still up for grabs. I think the ENFP and ENFJ profiles fit me to a certain extent.

Sooooo - hmmmm...shall it be ENFX? Nahh, I want a decision too badly for that. So maybe I'm ENFJ anymore, but I really can't decide. ;))))

[Jack Flak]

^You're right, it doesn't make any sense. Why have only three of us seen this?

[booyalab]

The X stands for Xtreme P.

[Little Linguist]

^You're right, it doesn't make any sense. Why have only three of us seen this?

Do you mean what I said or what he said????

Hmmm...I was hoping someone could clarify the whole thing a bit more, but alas....

Gahhhhhhhhh!!!

Okay, anyway, I guess the solution will never be found. Is a person who is Ne>Fi>Fe>Ni>Ti>Se>Te>Si an ENFP or an ENFJ or an ENFX?

[Jack Flak]

Do you mean what I said or what he said????

Hmmm...I was hoping someone could clarify the whole thing a bit more, but alas....

Gahhhhhhhhh!!!

Okay, anyway, I guess the solution will never be found. Is a person who is Ne>Fi>Fe>Ni>Ti>Se>Te>Si an ENFP or an ENFJ or an ENFX?
It's that people either assume "the leading theory" (one of several) of function order is correct, and base many of their self-assessments on this arbitrary scheme; or they take a test (which may test something meaningful, or not) and use the order it spits out. Either way it's kind of a barbed wire canoe.

[Little Linguist]

Ah, who gives a crap? I'm going with my original idea, my type is:

CRAZ.

Problem solved.
:D

[Jack Flak]

That's better, LL. *silly smileys and stuff*

Don't think I'm discounting 16-type, I've become a Keirseyan for the most part. +some socionics.

[Little Linguist]

That's better, LL. *silly smileys and stuff*

Don't think I'm discounting 16-type, I've become a Keirseyan for the most part. +some socionics.

You're a Keirseyan? I'm a crazy fart - pleased to meet ya! ;) :D *holds out hand*

Nahhh, but seriously - how is that all that different?? (Yeah, I'm an ignorant person, but at least I admit it and ask questions to correct it).

[Jack Flak]

Keirsey doesn't use functional analysis. I think he explains it in Please Understand Me II but I haven't read it in years.

[Ivy]

In my case, it's because my best-fit type doesn't fit all that well. The closest thing I've come to is INFP, but I don't feel much kinship with other INFPs for the most part. I'm way more J than my husband but too indecisive to think J in general. And I'm the most T in my family-- which isn't saying much, but it skews my perspective. Basically I don't think I'm capable of objectivity and I can't quite identify the middles, so I reserve judgment.

Also I kind of like being an enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in mystery.

[Little Linguist]

Keirsey doesn't use functional analysis. I think he explains it in Please Understand Me II but I haven't read it in years.

Hmm...I'd read the book, but I'm a conundrum. ;) Nahhh, I guess I'll have to take a look. :D

[Usehername]

1. It's not a true scientific theory.
2. People are complex.
3. As with anything, nature vs. nuture ALWAYS interact. Sometimes it's difficult to pull out what's nature in an environment that has demanded otherwise for a long time.
4. Some "x"s make more sense than others if you are a CP theorist. (i.e. INxJ makes sense b/c you can still identify yourself as an Ni dom, yet INTx doesn't as much, because you'd either be Ni/Te or Ti/Ne which are very different ways of being, and very different ways of interacting with the world.

[Little Linguist]

In my case, it's because my best-fit type doesn't fit all that well. The closest thing I've come to is INFP, but I don't feel much kinship with other INFPs for the most part. And I'm the most T in my family-- which isn't saying much, but it skews my perspective. Basically I don't think I'm capable of objectivity so I reserve judgment.

Also I kind of like being an enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in mystery.

Sweet, then you know how I feel! :) Or think? Heh.

Well, anyway, I guess I will just have to do more research to see what I am. Self-knoweldge is essential.

[booyalab]

Kiersey couldn't use functional analysis because some types that have opposite cognitive processes are not opposite temperaments.

For instance: The opposite of the ENTJs' cognitive processes (Te Ni Se Fi) is ISFP (Fi Se Ni Te) but the opposite of it's temperament (abstract utilitarian) is not the ISFP temperament (concrete utilitarian), it's concrete cooperator.

[Jack Flak]

^Keirsey decided to avoid the problem because temperament is observable while function use isn't, necessarily.

[Little Linguist]

^Keirsey decided to avoid the problem because temperament is observable while function use isn't, necessarily.

Are there any good online resources, or does one necessarily have to buy the book?

[CharmedFantasy]

I put myself as ISFJ/INFJ because I can relate to some descriptions of both of them(compared to all other types those two resemble me best)... although I do lean more towards N I think. However I don't relate to Everything that is in one or the other, it's like alittle of both... so why can't I put both of them in? o.O I don't really see why someone has to be completely one type and expect them to be everything it describes them to be. We are not clones o.o but w/e it's not a huge deal to me >.>. I like both! so hah!

[Jack Flak]

Are there any good online resources, or does one necessarily have to buy the book?
Online resources for what, specifically. Well there's no reason to ask, here's everything: Personality Test - Keirsey Temperament Website (http://www.keirsey.com).

[Ivy]

Animated furry avatar is pretty much shoe-in for NF, don't you think? :)

[Little Linguist]

Online resources for what, specifically. Well there's no reason to ask, here's everything: Personality Test - Keirsey Temperament Website (http://www.keirsey.com).

Heh. Interesting - with that one, I relate more with the Teacher...and not just because I am a teacher - although that helps - but yeah...Interesting....Let's take the test and see.

[booyalab]

^Keirsey decided to avoid the problem because temperament is observable while function use isn't, necessarily.

I don't think they're that different. Temperament is just more holistic and harder to falsify because you're going from generals to particulars. Any outliers can be lumped into 'things that aren't MBTI'.

[Jack Flak]

OK those are good things right?

[Little Linguist]

Well, hell, it told me I'm NF. DOH, I knew that already!!!!!!!

[booyalab]

OK those are good things right?

It is if you like to think of your identity as one giant venn diagram.
I personally think that's cool. To others, it might make them cry.

here's one for this thread
http://gilesbowkett.com/images/venn_diagram_example.gif

[Jack Flak]

I think of my life more as an egg that fell off the counter and better get busy livin' before it hits the floor. /Deep.

[DigitalMethod]

I put myself as ISFJ/INFJ because I can relate to some descriptions of both of them(compared to all other types those two resemble me best)... although I do lean more towards N I think. However I don't relate to Everything that is in one or the other, it's like alittle of both... so why can't I put both of them in? o.O I don't really see why someone has to be completely one type and expect them to be everything it describes them to be. We are not clones o.o but w/e it's not a huge deal to me >.>. I like both! so hah!

People show their inferior function when stressed though. Yours and mine both is Se.

I notice when I'm stressed out and I test I get ISTJ. This might be a connection. Or it might be that you're really just IXFJ.

Maybe this helps.

[proteanmix]

As one of those X people, it's not cause I really believe I'm an X because I don't. I pretty sure of my type and which function the X is supposedly replacing.

I keep an X in my profile to make other people work harder figuring out which I am (if they care to investigate). And I figure the least understood/stereotyped function on this forum is Sensing and one of the least understood temperaments is SJ. You think you know, but you have no idea. Plus sometimes I like scarring the NTPs. It's fun! :cool:

But as for being an INTx or ESFx, it's not possible. The only time I think that about someone is if I can tell they're an extrovert, a feeler, and use sensing, or whatever but can't figure out if they're ESFJ or ESFP or whatever.

[Little Linguist]

It is if you like to think of your identity as one giant venn diagram.
I personally think that's cool. To others, it might make them cry.

here's one for this thread
http://gilesbowkett.com/images/venn_diagram_example.gif

Yeah, I would be one of the people who qualifies as being 'very confused.'

[speculative]

I also dislike seeing "X" in self-typing. But, I admit that there is a problem with the system of tests that apply percentages to I/E, F/T, etc. What if you get 50%? Then you really are an "X?" But, the functions are opposed. I suppose the most easy opposition to see is the I/E function. If you are energized by being around groups of people, you are E, if you are drained by it, you are I. You cannot be both; the energy can only move in one direction, one way. You may not be extremely introverted in which case only a little energy is drained, but there you are.

I think a test/method of determining type which leaves someone with an "X" just needs to be refined a bit to more deeply measure or illuminate certain variables.

[Maabus1999]

I am an INTJ, but I know I'm low in T. What that does is in certain interactions I relate more like an INFJ would I have found. It doesn't mean I am an INFJ during those moments (well sometimes I feel I almost relate but still), but will sometimes act a tad differently. As long as you have the same dominant cognitive function, I think an X is possible but we need to define what it means (in my case you can cross over in some life functions but not completely flip flop at a whim. Personal growth in a way.)

[CharmedFantasy]

As one of those X people, it's not cause I really believe I'm an X because I don't. I pretty sure of my type and which function the X is supposedly replacing.

I keep an X in my profile to make other people work harder figuring out which I am (if they care to investigate). And I figure the least understood/stereotyped function on this forum is Sensing and one of the least understood temperaments is SJ. You think you know, but you have no idea. Plus sometimes I like scarring the NTPs. It's fun! :cool:


yeah that's also kind of why i put an x. so people can just figure me out for themselves also if they want to get to know me and not just assume I'm everything in one category. My first introduction thread was like that tooo :/ I rather people who are interested will look and find me ;o instead of everyone viewing me because of just one type they searching for :p

but I guess overall I do relate to infj more.. but i don't care :o i'm just gonna keep ixfj to make you all irritated :P hehe jking, i'm also too lazy to change it! I'll be either lol

[mlittrell]

An ENFx has both Ne and Fe? Ne affected by Fi and Fe affected by Ni? To be comfortable using Feeling and Intuition BOTH introverted and extroverted sounds like being a superhero to me. Are their functions more numerous albeit underdeveloped? What's the story?

im glad someone pointed this out. X's in any place of a type is kind of pointless (except in the E/I case, I could possibly see that). they just mean it as a placeholder

[InaF3157]

Why are placeholders pointless?
And how the hell is anybody bothered by other people using the X? :mellow:

[Xander]

Why are placeholders pointless?
And how the hell is anybody bothered by other people using the X? :mellow:
Having suggested the idea to my father he is more disappointed by the usage of Xs. A person is either E or I in his book and never perfectly in the middle.

I must admit to not really liking them. It seems to be an exercise in avoidance to me and I find that disconcerting. Is the person not happy with their type and hence defaces it or is it true confusion? Are they merely messing with the system? Is there a point to the X or is it just a placeholder? Why don't they just miss it out all together?

Personally I get the same kind of twinge when people insist on pronouncing h as "haitch" and not "aitch".... there again I also dislike toffee...

[CharmedFantasy]

Having suggested the idea to my father he is more disappointed by the usage of Xs. A person is either E or I in his book and never perfectly in the middle.

I must admit to not really liking them. It seems to be an exercise in avoidance to me and I find that disconcerting. Is the person not happy with their type and hence defaces it or is it true confusion? Are they merely messing with the system? Is there a point to the X or is it just a placeholder? Why don't they just miss it out all together?

Personally I get the same kind of twinge when people insist on pronouncing h as "haitch" and not "aitch".... there again I also dislike toffee...

I don't know about that :/ I think it's possible for some people to be in the middle.. it varies. some people are more introverted than others or more/less extroverted. They can enjoy being with people but also like to be alone sometimes.. When you take the test it even shows the percentages of how extroverted or introverted you are. I think personality can change and not set in stone. for example... I have a high introverted score but that's because I spend most of my time alone and not with others(since I have no friends of my own mostly) if I had good friends and enjoyed their company all the time, I probably would start to become more outgoing and extroverted and get more used to being around other people. My mom used to be really quiet and shy... but when she got older she became much more extroverted, loves socializing and enjoys everyone's company now. I know people are gonna start bashing on me now because I might not know what I'm talking about.. but XD I just don't really see how someone can be one personality type forever.. it will change as the person gets older and changes as well(certain traumatic crossroads or events can be big influences). People might think they have mistyped themselves before, but it could be because they have changed as well compared to before.

[mlittrell]

place holders are pointless unless its I/E because if its in the J/P spot...well that messes everything up...for example

Im and ENFP (Ne, Fi, Te, Si)
If i was and ENFJ (Fe, Ni, Se, Ti)

[mlittrell]

Having suggested the idea to my father he is more disappointed by the usage of Xs. A person is either E or I in his book and never perfectly in the middle.

I must admit to not really liking them. It seems to be an exercise in avoidance to me and I find that disconcerting. Is the person not happy with their type and hence defaces it or is it true confusion? Are they merely messing with the system? Is there a point to the X or is it just a placeholder? Why don't they just miss it out all together?

Personally I get the same kind of twinge when people insist on pronouncing h as "haitch" and not "aitch".... there again I also dislike toffee...

i agree but there doesn't seem to be too much of a difference between me and an INFP...the only difference is that Fi is their dominant vs my secondary

[InaF3157]

place holders are pointless unless its I/E because if its in the J/P spot...well that messes everything up...for example

Im and ENFP (Ne, Fi, Te, Si)
If i was and ENFJ (Fe, Ni, Se, Ti)

Do all ENFPs and ENFJs have that order?

[mlittrell]

yes that is function notation

[mlittrell]

more examples:

ESTJ (Te, Si, Ne, Fi)
ESTP (Se, Ti, Fe, Ni)

ENTJ (Te, Ni, Se, Fi)
ENTP (Ne, Ti, Fe, Si)

[InaF3157]

yes that is function notation

Do people always fit into function notation's boxes?
Check this thread, for example:
http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/online-personality-tests/7448-cognitive-processes-test.html?highlight=cognitive

[mlittrell]

I didn't even check the thread but ya. I mean everyone has to use the other functions. But you use the other functions in a very synthetic way. If you want, go on aim and aim me at ohyathatmike, i would be happy to explain it.

[InaF3157]

I didn't even check the thread but ya. I mean everyone has to use the other functions. But you use the other functions in a very synthetic way. If you want, go on aim and aim me at ohyathatmike, i would be happy to explain it.

Can't aim now. The point of the thread was to illustrate that people's function orders sometimes deviate from the prescribed function notation of their type.

[Jennifer]

Do people always fit into function notation's boxes?
Check this thread, for example:
http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/online-personality-tests/7448-cognitive-processes-test.html?highlight=cognitive

Consider the listed function order for a particular type to be the "generic" textbook version of the type in question.

But even on this site, we see that not everyone has the same strength of the basic functions listed, and often people have at least 1-2 functions that throw off the order or seem anomalous.

I still have found it useful to start with the baseline, then view function strength and see how that shift in the baseline might have resulted and what probable impact it would have on behavior and motivation.

[Sunshine]

An ENFx has both Ne and Fe? Ne affected by Fi and Fe affected by Ni? To be comfortable using Feeling and Intuition BOTH introverted and extroverted sounds like being a superhero to me. Are their functions more numerous albeit underdeveloped? What's the story?

Hello. I'm an XXXX.

[mlittrell]

This is all true. My view on functions is this. I'm an ENFP so "technically" speaking Ni is not in there. But of course we use every function in someway. This is contradicting in a way. My idea is that you use a mix between Ne and Fi or something to that effect to make a synthetic version of Ni. A better example of this with me is my lack of Fe. I'm generally uncomfortable with the "caregiver" role. I can pull it off with a little bit of Fi mixed with Ne, though. And yes, everyone is different, true. I look at it similar to you Jennifer. A lot of things can be explained through the enneagram. For example, I have three ENTJ's in my immediate life, a good friend, my girlfriend, and my father. All of them are completely different. This is a little hard to explain using MBTI, but when using the enneagram, they were all quite obviously different, though still ENTJ's. The enneagram is good at defining peoples motives vs. their actual personality.

[mlittrell]

Hello. I'm an XXXX.

lol Sunshine FTW

[Babylon Candle]

ut when using the enneagram, they were all quite obviously different, though still ENTJ's. The enneagram is good at defining peoples motives vs. their actual personality.

i would imagine that 7w8 ENFPs (myself) would be very different than 7w6 ENFPs.... (if they're even 7s at all...)

[observer84]

the one that annoys me the most is INXP...how fricking hard is it to differentiate between:

"I'm an INFP who has the disillusion of being logical in my philosophies on life"
"I'm an INTP who isnt completely meanly cynical"

INXP!? bah! :devil:

Yeah, INTP and INFP are VERY different personalities.

However, growing up as a female INTP it becomes difficult to be socially accepted. In an attempt to connect with other people, I made conscious efforts to simulate Fe using my Ne function, I think.

So, while I do attempt (at times) to be compassionate and friendly, the description of an INFP is not me.

[mlittrell]

i would imagine that 7w8 ENFPs (myself) would be very different than 7w6 ENFPs.... (if they're even 7s at all...)

ENFP's are funny because they fit into sooooo many enneagram types. Your a 7w8 im a 9w3. they fit into 2's. they literally fit into half of the enneagram types. An INTJ only seems to fit into 2 enneagram types. same with and INFJ. Its different for each type

[InaF3157]

However, growing up as a female INTP it becomes difficult to be socially accepted. In an attempt to connect with other people, I made conscious efforts to simulate Fe using my Ne function, I think.

So, while I do attempt (at times) to be compassionate and friendly, the description of an INFP is not me.

Yup. I have been classed an F by people who don't know me at all before. :dont: If your external circumstances cause you to confuse who you are and how you act, I can see using an X until you figure it out.

[mlittrell]

Yup. I have been classed an F by people who don't know me at all before. :dont: If your external circumstances cause you to confuse who you are and how you act, I can see using an X until you figure it out.

ok ya i can agree with that, as long as its not in the P/J spot. I use X's almost constantly in the E/I spot. There isn't a significant difference between E and I unless you are one extreme or the other. in fact if im talking about someone else or a type in general ill say XNTJ for example

[Harmony]

It really doesn't even help that the resources for self-typing SUCK.

Your first option is to take a standard MBTI test (mypersonality (http://www.mypersonality.info) is a good one, IMO) and verify the type with a description. Problem is, while the test might have been fairly accurate, the descriptions are rife with generalizations, leaving the person confused because they cannot relate completely and wholly with it.

So then you decide to upgrade to the cognitive functions test. In theory, this should be a great system because MBTI is about functions and not generic descriptions. But the test itself is something that I found quite confusing (not to mention that I had codified some of the values that the test expected as Fe into my Fi). So you end up with some garble of abbreviations and percentages and go to the web to decode them.

And after a poorly directed google search, you find a extremely abbreviated article on Jung's cognitive functions. What happens is these sites try to compress what took Thomson's Personality Type a good 20 pages per function into a single page.

So don't be that hard on them...

[colmena]

http://badges.mypersonality.info/badge/0/9/98886.png (http://rwrgrtgtr.mypersonality.info)

It appears MBTIc is slowly turning me into a sensor.

[mlittrell]

http://badges.mypersonality.info/badge/0/9/98886.png (http://rwrgrtgtr.mypersonality.info)

It appears MBTIc is slowly turning me into a sensor.

explain...

[colmena]

Sep08:
http://badges.mypersonality.info/badge/0/9/98886.png (http://rwrgrtgtr.mypersonality.info)

Apr08:
http://badges.mypersonality.info/badge/0/6/68764.png (http://rwrgrtgtr.mypersonality.info)

[mlittrell]

oh lol ok. ya that happens to me a little bit. the test depends on the time, location, mood, current events in your life. its not that your becoming more S. you could also be maturing too.

[Dwigie]

What makes very little sense is insisting on putting everybody into a box. What also makes very little sense is making a religious belief out of MBTI. Another thing that makes very little sense is insisting that people force their data reporting to conform to a theory, rather than wondering if the theory may be flawed in some way when the data doesn't fit it.

And another thing. A little research on the reliability of MBTI will show that most people test as three or four types, not just one. It will also show that the F vs. T axis is the most unreliable of the four categories.

Well said, I read the INTP and INFP both apply, some points in one and the other there.Now I'll admit to being slightly more infp.

[Babylon Candle]

Well said, I read the INTP and INFP both apply, some points in one and the other there.Now I'll admit to being slightly more infp.

i stand by my original, and possibly offensive first post of mine in this thread:

you are probably an INFP who idealizes themselves as being more logical than they really are. i find that is much more common than INTPs who give loads of credence to feelings and lack in INTP cynicism.

[mippus]

i stand by my original, and possibly offensive first post of mine in this thread:

you are probably an INFP who idealizes themselves as being more logical than they really are. i find that is much more common than INTPs who give loads of credence to feelings and lack in INTP cynicism.

I strongly disagree. Many INTP's get that way when they grow older...

[chris1207]

They say that 1 out of every 3 people that take the MBTI is in between two or more types. It could be that they didn't understand some of the questions or that they don't have have have a proper understanding of their preferences. I've gotta wonder if there are certain patterns to people being in between types though.

I've tested mostly ENFJ but sometimes ESFJ. Just like Proteanmix and my friend Dave, I could put EXFJ but ENFJ just jives better with me.

On a fuctional level, I believe that if you're an EXXJ there's no way in hell that you don't at least know what your primary function is. You interact with the world by using this function to make decisions. As a result, EXXJ's can be easily narrowed down to EXFJ or EXTJ. On the opposite extreme, I believe that IXXP's might have a much tougher time coming up with their dominant function and so on. Heck, I'd say introverts in general have a harder time narrowing down their type because their dominant is so elusive.

Temperament combined with functional analysis is really the best way to hone in on your type. You can't rely on the resources online. They're very vague compared to PUMII. It's really quite amazing how indepth Keirsey get with the individual temperaments and what they value.

I think I'll go do a cross-section on some aspect of the temperaments now for my daily reading! :)

[Xander]

I don't know about that :/ I think it's possible for some people to be in the middle.. it varies. some people are more introverted than others or more/less extroverted. They can enjoy being with people but also like to be alone sometimes.. When you take the test it even shows the percentages of how extroverted or introverted you are. I think personality can change and not set in stone. for example... I have a high introverted score but that's because I spend most of my time alone and not with others(since I have no friends of my own mostly) if I had good friends and enjoyed their company all the time, I probably would start to become more outgoing and extroverted and get more used to being around other people. My mom used to be really quiet and shy... but when she got older she became much more extroverted, loves socializing and enjoys everyone's company now. I know people are gonna start bashing on me now because I might not know what I'm talking about.. but XD I just don't really see how someone can be one personality type forever.. it will change as the person gets older and changes as well(certain traumatic crossroads or events can be big influences). People might think they have mistyped themselves before, but it could be because they have changed as well compared to before.

i agree but there doesn't seem to be too much of a difference between me and an INFP...the only difference is that Fi is their dominant vs my secondary

In response to both (I realise that's a little offhand but I believe that one statement can be applied equally to both points).

ENFP vs INFP.
Okay so the first two functions are reversed. Big whoop? Well yes because it's less to do with how the functions are arranged and more to do with the differences between the two types.

If you firstly gather information sucking it up like a vacuum and then sort through it to make your ideas then it's probable that you're first function is either S or N. Ergo you're an EP or an IJ.

EP & IJ are annoying because they relay information to you with ALL of those little irrelevancies added in and get sooo irate when you skip over some of them, knowing them to be irrelevant.

IP & EJ are sooo annoying becuase they throw out some information without ever really thinking about it. They don't even consider it. That makes all their conclusions based on information that's full of holes.

[InaF3157]

EP & IJ are annoying because they relay information to you with ALL of those little irrelevancies added in and get sooo irate when you skip over some of them, knowing them to be irrelevant.

IP & EJ are sooo annoying becuase they throw out some information without ever really thinking about it. They don't even consider it. That makes all their conclusions based on information that's full of holes.
What??
Where do you get this from?

[Xander]

What??
Where do you get this from?
I'd say personal experience but that sounds self aggradising.

There's a thread about it somewhere :thinking: I believe it was after the ten thousandth argument with my ENFP buddy where he accused me of not listening and my resulting confusion as I'd been meticulously listening and had mentally made note of all "relevant" information.

Comine that experience with my father's description of how an INTJ thinks, which is basically they take a walk through all the information and come up with their answer whilst walking, and I got to thinking about this pattern.

Would you say it is untrue?

[InaF3157]

Wait, do you only mean the NF varieties? My bad. I thought you meant I_Ps, etc. generally . . .
Still, the INFJs I know don't overload me with irrelevant details. Au contraire; sometimes it is like pulling teeth to get them to explain the path to their conclusions.
And ENFJs can have what I call selective superior grasp of external, supporting detail, so I am hesitant to agree that they throw out information without really thinking about it.

[Xander]

Wait, do you only mean the NF varieties? My bad. I thought you meant I_Ps, etc. generally . . .
Still, the INFJs I know don't overload me with irrelevant details. Au contraire; sometimes it is like pulling teeth to get them to explain the path to their conclusions.
And ENFJs can have what I call selective superior grasp of external, supporting detail, so I am hesitant to agree that they throw out information without really thinking about it.
No. All varieties.

ESTP missus will tell you how her day went in great detail :17425:
ENFP mate will go through large amounts of detail, which I assume is meant just for illustration only to be told off later for "not listening".
ENTJ father will give you only the crux of the matter and will ignore anything he considers irrelevant.
INTJ mate will often pull me up for some "irrelevant" detail which I missed.
INFP friend won't really bother if I "cut things down to size".
ENFJ pal finds it helpful that I cut out the details and get to the point and will do likewise in return.

EJ and IP have the judging function first.
Have you never noticed that you tend to skip things which you consider "irrelevant"?
Have you never been pulled up on missing out things which seemed like details to you but are apparently important in some way?

Oh and last mention, ENTP friend can get lost on some detail, including it where I consider it irrelevant, and objects most strongly when I discard it out of hand.

It's a pattern I've seen... or one I've placed and then matched the data to... never can properly seperate those two :thinking:

[InaF3157]

Then it seems wildly off-base. Take INTP for example. The type description and dominant Ti supported by Ne is counter to throwing out information without really thinking about it. As a matter of fact, it's an INTP trait to withhold conclusions until something has been analyzed. Think first, talk later. So "they don't even consider it" seems odd for a type whose hallmark is analyzing stuff to see how it fits. I can see how they would fail to talk about somehting they don't see as acentral principle to how something ticks, but I disagree that this is because they do not "really consider it". Maybe they considered it too much.

INTJ efficiency dislikes repetitiveness and lack of precision - use of lots of irrelevant, extraneous detail seems counter to that. However, if they have made a connection to something else using their dominant Ni supported by Te, then a "natural implication" or the next step may be all too obvious to them (and therefore worthy of inclusion), while to others this next piece that is so intuitively connected in the view of the INTJ is mere "irrelevant detail". Meanwhile their economy of expression works against explaining why it is that this apparently extraneous detail is in fact relevant.

[Gen]

IP & EJ are sooo annoying becuase they throw out some information without ever really thinking about it. They don't even consider it. That makes all their conclusions based on information that's full of holes.

QFT ;)

[mlittrell]

In response to both (I realise that's a little offhand but I believe that one statement can be applied equally to both points).

ENFP vs INFP.
Okay so the first two functions are reversed. Big whoop? Well yes because it's less to do with how the functions are arranged and more to do with the differences between the two types.

If you firstly gather information sucking it up like a vacuum and then sort through it to make your ideas then it's probable that you're first function is either S or N. Ergo you're an EP or an IJ.

EP & IJ are annoying because they relay information to you with ALL of those little irrelevancies added in and get sooo irate when you skip over some of them, knowing them to be irrelevant.

IP & EJ are sooo annoying becuase they throw out some information without ever really thinking about it. They don't even consider it. That makes all their conclusions based on information that's full of holes.

uhhh lol

i like the idea of the first function being S or N for that case...then again, i know, for example an ESTJ (Te dominant) who constantly shovels information out with all the irrelevancies. Me, I'm an ENFP (that EP your talking about), and I'm about as vague as you can possibly get (as many ENXP's tend to be).

When I first got into MBTI, I typed myself as an INFP. Over time, I started to realize that I am not an INFP but an ENFP. Thing is, I have many similarites to an INFP. In fact, the way I see INFP's is me when I'm by myself (Fi) and floating around in my own mind, and many of the INFPisms apply to me in that case. The same is true for my ENTP friend.

It just seems to depend on how strong your functions are.

I like the idea though. Good call.

[Xander]

Then it seems wildly off-base. Take INTP for example. The type description and dominant Ti supported by Ne is counter to throwing out information without really thinking about it. As a matter of fact, it's an INTP trait to withhold conclusions until something has been analyzed. Think first, talk later. So "they don't even consider it" seems odd for a type whose hallmark is analyzing stuff to see how it fits. I can see how they would fail to talk about somehting they don't see as central principle to how something ticks, but I disagree that this is because they do not "really consider it". Maybe they considered it too much.

INTJ efficiency dislikes repetitiveness and lack of precision - use of lots of irrelevant, extraneous detail seems counter to that. However, if they have made a connection to something else using their dominant Ni supported by Te, then a "natural implication" or the next step may be all too obvious to them (and therefore worthy of inclusion), while to others this next piece that is so intuitively connected in the view of the INTJ is mere "irrelevant detail". Meanwhile their economy of expression works against explaining why it is that this apparently extraneous detail is in fact relevant.
Don't you think that's more J versus P?

INTJs inmy experience do wander through things to establish their point of view, hence how they have prepared arguments about why they didn't take course A or B and chose C overall. What they do is throw out things they find to be irrelevant after they have sucked in the information.. it just looks different cause when an INTJ decides it's irrelevant it gets thrown into the stratosphere (and that's only because they can't be bothered to throw it all the way into the sun to be destroyed ;) ).

INTPs, on the other hand, work more on the principle of "this is correct but I don't believe it to be perfect, ergo I may reconsider later". The thing to watch for is trying to persuade an INTP of a new resolution. It's like pulling teeth. Each piece of information given to them must pass muster with the Ti before the Ne even gets hold of it to see how or if it fits into the larger picture.
QFT ;)
Good thing we don't do that anymore eh? ;)

[Xander]

uhhh lol

i like the idea of the first function being S or N for that case...then again, i know, for example an ESTJ (Te dominant) who constantly shovels information out with all the irrelevancies. Me, I'm an ENFP (that EP your talking about), and I'm about as vague as you can possibly get (as many ENXP's tend to be).
Speak to the ESTJ and you'll find lots of reasons why these details are relevant. Of course you'll probably disagree with the reasoning but that's not the point.

Now try the same with an ESTP. Sometimes they have no idea why it's relevant but it's important anyhow...

Most confusing in a relationship :)
When I first got into MBTI, I typed myself as an INFP. Over time, I started to realize that I am not an INFP but an ENFP. Thing is, I have many similarites to an INFP. In fact, the way I see INFP's is me when I'm by myself (Fi) and floating around in my own mind, and many of the INFPisms apply to me in that case. The same is true for my ENTP friend.
I think that's common. I find lots of similarities with my ENTP friend (I don't have any INTPs to hand :( ).
It just seems to depend on how strong your functions are.
I think the strength of the preferance does help. A stronger preferance leads to a clearer picture. I'm just not a great believer in people merrily wandering around the types claiming to be more than one. It irritates my definition of preferance. Either you're one or the other, as a whole.

Hell I'm an INTP and yet I can do ENTJ and ESFJ quite well... it doesn't make me an XXXX. I still prefer INTP.
I like the idea though. Good call.
Tanks :smile:

[InaF3157]

Don't you think that's more J versus P?

INTJs inmy experience do wander through things to establish their point of view, hence how they have prepared arguments about why they didn't take course A or B and chose C overall. What they do is throw out things they find to be irrelevant after they have sucked in the information.. it just looks different cause when an INTJ decides it's irrelevant it gets thrown into the stratosphere (and that's only because they can't be bothered to throw it all the way into the sun to be destroyed ;) )

Don't I think analysis before expression is more J v. P? Not solely, no. INTJ is more forward looking, yes. I agree that INTJs seem to have wandered through to a more conclusive report. But I think that's more a function of the INTP's Ne convincing the INTP "there's more info out there and I'll modify as I get it" rather than an "I didn't think about it, but let me tell you about it" sort of thing.


INTPs, on the other hand, work more on the principle of "this is correct but I don't believe it to be perfect, ergo I may reconsider later". The thing to watch for is trying to persuade an INTP of a new resolution. It's like pulling teeth. Each piece of information given to them must pass muster with the Ti before the Ne even gets hold of it to see how or if it fits into the larger picture.

Exactly! How is it going to pass muster if they "don't even consider it" before they convey it to you? Some things never get off the ground because the INTP already poked holes in it before relaying it to you. It doesn't mean they are stuck with it if they put it out there or that they think that's the final say. In fact, they will continue to refine it even after they've thrown it out there. However, they don't refine by throwing it out there without thinking about it first. That is un-INTP . . . sounds more ENTPish.

[Xander]

Don't I think analysis before expression is more J v. P? Not solely, no. INTJ is more forward looking, yes. I agree that INTJs seem to have wandered through to a more conclusive report. But I think that's more a function of the INTP's Ne convincing the INTP "there's more info out there and I'll modify as I get it" rather than an "I didn't think about it, but let me tell you about it" sort of thing.

Exactly! How is it going to pass muster if they "don't even consider it" before they convey it to you? Some things never get off the ground because the INTP already poked holes in it before relaying it to you. It doesn't mean they are stuck with it if they put it out there or that they think that's the final say. In fact, they will continue to refine it even after they've thrown it out there. However, they don't refine by throwing it out there without thinking about it first. That is un-INTP . . . sounds more ENTPish.
I think we're diverging here....

INTP judges before inclusion yeah?
What happens to the stuff marked as wrong?

I've lost count of how much information I've forgotten because it was considered irrelevant. My ISTJ mate recalls it all.

I think that's the crux. IP and EJ remember only that which is proven as correct and forget the rest. Efficient no?

EP and IJ recall what is incorrect so they know not only where to go but also where not to go. Effective no?

Anyhow... for additional detail I've found that IJs and EPs are tops. Even the scatty ESFP I know will relay tons of irrelevancies just to add "flavour".

[InaF3157]

Ah . . . by "throwing out info", you meant "disregarding it" and not "suggesting it". Idiomatic expressions FTL. :rolleyes:
Now your post makes more sense to me. Yes, INTPs can seem . . . telegraphic for all the info they dismiss as irrelevant/erroneous, rightly or wrongly.

[Xander]

Ah . . . by "throwing out info", you meant "disregarding it" and not "suggesting it". Idiomatic expressions FTL. :rolleyes:
Now your post makes more sense to me. Yes, INTPs can seem . . . telegraphic for all the info they dismiss as irrelevant/erroneous, rightly or wrongly.
Still not sure we're on the same page here...

When you read through my post do you skip through those pieces you consider to be only written for illustration?

Almost as if you're skim reading and only really stopping to read what you consider to be the important parts?

If so, that's what I mean...

I think...

I'm all confused now....

[InaF3157]

Still not sure we're on the same page here...

When you read through my post do you skip through those pieces you consider to be only written for illustration?

Almost as if you're skim reading and only really stopping to read what you consider to be the important parts?

If so, that's what I mean...

I think...

I'm all confused now....
heehee
I am at work . . . I have to skim read here. I think we're partly on the same page, sort of. The language is what threw me. People sometimes say "just throwing that out there", to mean they are "just suggesting/conveying a piece of information." Hence the confusion re my first response to you.
I still don't entirely agree that INTPs "don't even consider it" before discarding the info, since they have to Ti-consider and deem it irrelevant before discarding it. But once they have deemed it irrelevant, yup: out it goes.

[mlittrell]

Speak to the ESTJ and you'll find lots of reasons why these details are relevant. Of course you'll probably disagree with the reasoning but that's not the point.

Now try the same with an ESTP. Sometimes they have no idea why it's relevant but it's important anyhow...

Most confusing in a relationship :)

I think that's common. I find lots of similarities with my ENTP friend (I don't have any INTPs to hand :( ).

I think the strength of the preferance does help. A stronger preferance leads to a clearer picture. I'm just not a great believer in people merrily wandering around the types claiming to be more than one. It irritates my definition of preferance. Either you're one or the other, as a whole.

Hell I'm an INTP and yet I can do ENTJ and ESFJ quite well... it doesn't make me an XXXX. I still prefer INTP.

Tanks :smile:

I just think the difference between say...ISTJ and ESTJ is strength of functions.

That being said, ok I see what your saying now. I'm not completely open to it, but good idea :) I like the thought process.

[mlittrell]

Ah . . . by "throwing out info", you meant "disregarding it" and not "suggesting it". Idiomatic expressions FTL. :rolleyes:
Now your post makes more sense to me. Yes, INTPs can seem . . . telegraphic for all the info they dismiss as irrelevant/erroneous, rightly or wrongly.

thats what threw me off, i get what your saying now

good call.

[Xander]

heehee
I am at work . . . I have to skim read here. I think we're partly on the same page, sort of. The language is what threw me. People sometimes say "just throwing that out there", to mean they are "just suggesting/conveying a piece of information." Hence the confusion re my first response to you.
I still don't entirely agree that INTPs "don't even consider it" before discarding the info, since they have to Ti-consider and deem it irrelevant before discarding it. But once they have deemed it irrelevant, yup: out it goes.
:D Part of me thinks "we're on the same page... the details can be sorted out by more precise people" whilst the other side chases for absolute truth.

Oh and I'm also posting from work.. hence the half distracted thinking..

Anyhoo... If Ti analyses it before Ne absorbs it into the larger picture then what happens?

Totally lacking proper structure to my thinking today...

[mlittrell]

:D Part of me thinks "we're on the same page... the details can be sorted out by more precise people" whilst the other side chases for absolute truth.

Oh and I'm also posting from work.. hence the half distracted thinking..

Anyhoo... If Ti analyses it before Ne absorbs it into the larger picture then what happens?

Totally lacking proper structure to my thinking today...

lol it's cool im totally lacking proper structure in my understanding...everyday

[InaF3157]

:D Part of me thinks "we're on the same page... the details can be sorted out by more precise people" whilst the other side chases for absolute truth.
:laugh:
Anyhoo... If Ti analyses it before Ne absorbs it into the larger picture then what happens?
Hmm . . . my guess is that, with linear thinking, the data sometimes get pulled back into the mix . . . albeit in a longer route than would have happened by Ne. Then again, is this longer more linear route therefore more bulletproof? I think so.

What happens when it doesn't get pulled back in? *strokes imaginary beard*

[Xander]

lol it's cool im totally lacking proper structure in my understanding...everyday
Ah... how to add random lengths of string to a cats cradle... correctly!!! :shock:

A question which boggles scientists even now...

;)
:laugh:

Hmm . . . my guess is that, with linear thinking, the data sometimes get pulled back into the mix . . . albeit in a longer route than would have happened by Ne. Then again, is this longer more linear route therefore more bulletproof? I think so.

What happens when it doesn't get pulled back in? *strokes imaginary beard*
Eh?

Ti analyse information... goes "that's rubbish"... Ne goes "what is?" ... Ti replies "nothing"....
What happen then?

(not sure about circles... producing too many of my own to sort that one out :eek: )

[InaF3157]

Ti analyse information... goes "that's rubbish"... Ne goes "what is?" ... Ti replies "nothing"....
What happen then?

(not sure about circles... producing too many of my own to sort that one out :eek: )
In my own experience:
Ti analyzes info, says: "that's neither here nor there so toss it, but let's follow this little Ti-string and see where it leads us." Then, in the course of following the string, Ti comes to find the info wasn't total rubbish after all because now it sees the connection.
Never happens to you?
Of course some tossed things stay tossed.

[Xander]

In my own experience:
Ti analyzes info, says: "that's neither here nor there so toss it, but let's follow this little Ti-string and see where it leads us." Then, in the course of following the string, Ti comes to find the info wasn't total rubbish after all because now it sees the connection.
Never happens to you?
Of course some tossed things stay tossed.
Err no not really. As soon as Ti junks it unless my intuition or other external sources suggest I should continue I move on. Too much to do to ponificate everything...

[Jack Flak]

In my own experience:
Ti analyzes info, says: "that's neither here nor there so toss it, but let's follow this little Ti-string and see where it leads us." Then, in the course of following the string, Ti comes to find the info wasn't total rubbish after all because now it sees the connection.
Never happens to you?
Of course some tossed things stay tossed.
My theory is that if you tell someone what their function order is, even if it's made up and ludicrous, they'll start to think "Oh, when I do this it's my Ne etc.etc.etc...".

[Xander]

My theory is that if you tell someone what their function order is, even if it's made up and ludicrous, they'll start to think "Oh, when I do this it's my Ne etc.etc.etc...".
That's be your Ti backed up by your Ne with some Ni haunting it all in the background.

[mlittrell]

very well put ^

[Jack Flak]

That's be your Ti backed up by your Ne with some Ni haunting it all in the background.
That's what I thought IT ALL MAKES SENSE NOW

[runvardh]

I see what Xander is getting at, it's also one of the reasons why I drop signs while doing formulas if I'm going too fast.

[mlittrell]

I see what Xander is getting at, it's also one of the reasons why I drop signs while doing formulas if I'm going too fast.

I write in my own shorthand lol. I do the same thing with math ^

[Dom]

heehee
I am at work . . . I have to skim read here. I think we're partly on the same page, sort of. The language is what threw me. People sometimes say "just throwing that out there", to mean they are "just suggesting/conveying a piece of information." Hence the confusion re my first response to you.
I still don't entirely agree that INTPs "don't even consider it" before discarding the info, since they have to Ti-consider and deem it irrelevant before discarding it. But once they have deemed it irrelevant, yup: out it goes.

I know this is a few pages back, but I think he used the phrase in both contexts. To mean share information in on eplace (Throwing it out there) and throwing it away/disregarding it (Toss it out)

Err no not really. As soon as Ti junks it unless my intuition or other external sources suggest I should continue I move on. Too much to do to ponificate everything...

Sometimes that external source has to shout.... ;) :D

Anyway you try living with information having to pass Ne first... it's like nothing is ever irrelevant... :S makes for a heavy work load...

[Xander]

In light of my learned friends thinking would it be more clear to suggest that EJs and IPs tag information with a relevance value AS they collect it and EPs and IJs do that after they've collected it?

[Dom]

In light of my learned friends thinking would it be more clear to suggest that EJs and IPs tag information with a relevance value AS they collect it and EPs and IJs do that after they've collected it?

Hmm...

Or is it that IPs and EJs collect information after tagging a relevance value?

Which is only a light alteration.. trying letting your Ne play wit it if the Ti asks how on earth can you tag relevance before collecting...

[Xander]

Hmm...

Or is it that IPs and EJs collect information after tagging a relevance value?

Which is only a light alteration.. trying letting your Ne play wit it if the Ti asks how on earth can you tag relevance before collecting...
Pre-emptive questions are very presumptuous :steam:

Ne can add in information without the Ti tagging it but it's one of those processes that requires effort. That's possibly the best way of finding out what your preferences are, find that which comes naturally and without effort.

[Dom]

Pre-emptive questions are very presumptuous :steam:

Ne can add in information without the Ti tagging it but it's one of those processes that requires effort. That's possibly the best way of finding out what your preferences are, find that which comes naturally and without effort.

Dude, if it requires that much effort to use your Ne, as your secondary function, I need to come down there and help you practice.

I mean let your Ne play with the concept that IP's and EJ's somehow tag a sufficent level of relevance to a piece or information or concept before picking it up.

I think we all make presumptions all the tiem no matter how wrong that is. There are people here whoes opinion you respect more than others, based upon you contact with them. When they post do you not already expect what they say may be useful and worth reading?

[Xander]

Dude, if it requires that much effort to use your Ne, as your secondary function, I need to come down there and help you practice.

I mean let your Ne play with the concept that IP's and EJ's somehow tag a sufficent level of relevance to a piece or information or concept before picking it up.
It's not that which confuses, it's the whole thing of not picking it up at all to tag it which kinda produces on of those Escher moments of thinking.
I think we all make presumptions all the tiem no matter how wrong that is. There are people here whoes opinion you respect more than others, based upon you contact with them. When they post do you not already expect what they say may be useful and worth reading?
I suspect, yes. Prejudge?... not conciously.

[Dom]

It's not that which confuses, it's the whole thing of not picking it up at all to tag it which kinda produces on of those Escher moments of thinking.

Yeah that's why i suggested Ne rather than Ti to get the essenece of what I meant....

Ti isn't going to like them crazy stairs....

[Xander]

Yeah that's why i suggested Ne rather than Ti to get the essenece of what I meant....

Ti isn't going to like them crazy stairs....
If picking up is 'to have contact with' then tagging must take place either during or after pick up... before would mean not knowing it's there (as even intuition is observation) but having a value preset.

Extrapolating this.. do you mean that via the predicive qualities of intuition you place a tag on things you've yet to come across but have predicted?

That'd make sense.

[Dom]

If picking up is 'to have contact with' then tagging must take place either during or after pick up... before would mean not knowing it's there (as even intuition is observation) but having a value preset.

Extrapolating this.. do you mean that via the predicive qualities of intuition you place a tag on things you've yet to come across but have predicted?

That'd make sense.

Well yes like when you know which piece of the jigsaw you want next but haven't found it yet, you've assigned it value (as it's the piece you next want!

But I also thought that the phrase "picking up" seemed to implied deliberate action rather than mere "contact with".