INFp and ENFj - most and least likely to mistype themselves

[mu4]

Most likely to mistype themselves.
Least likely to correct themselves.

Discuss.

[mustachio]

hkmrr, what are your reasons for saying this? i'd like to examine your logic.

[UDP]

edit

[ScarlettLux]

What about those that type themselves INFp and ENFj .... aka me. Do you think I'm another type? I believe EIEs are more likely to mistype as a ego type but IEIs know themselves.

[implied]

What about those that type themselves INFp and ENFj .... aka me. Do you think I'm another type? I believe EIEs are more likely to mistype as a ego type but IEIs know themselves.

good point. are you something else? (;




@hkk - i don't know about what you've said, but i can say from my own experiences that it seems like alphas are least likely to mistype themselves.

[Elro]

@hkk - i don't know about what you've said, but i can say from my own experiences that it seems like alphas are least likely to mistype themselves.

Which do you mean, that a non-alpha usually won't mistype him or herself as an alpha? Or an alpha usually won't mistype him/herself as a non-alpha?

[Mea]

@hkk - i don't know about what you've said, but i can say from my own experiences that it seems like alphas are least likely to mistype themselves.

Which do you mean, that a non-alpha usually won't mistype him or herself as an alpha? Or an alpha usually won't mistype him/herself as a non-alpha?

I think that's what she meant.

[Logos]

Observation... :wink:

Also to imagine a conclusion. to vigorously defend it.

Super-Ego to reject all evidence to the contrary.

I will not name names. I will not name names. I will not name names. I will not evoke the name that would derail this thread...

[Expat]

Observation... :wink:

Also to imagine a conclusion. to vigorously defend it.

Super-Ego to reject all evidence to the contrary.

Reject "all" evidence is of course exaggerated, but I think that, theoretically, you have a point.

You can add: to make said conclusion fit a logical structure, thereby seemingly reinforcing it.

[ScarlettLux]

What about those that type themselves INFp and ENFj .... aka me. Do you think I'm another type? I believe EIEs are more likely to mistype as a ego type but IEIs know themselves.

I think you're ISFp... you seem way too comfortable with being INFp.... :wink: Si has nothing to do with grace or clumsiness either. You are also not as confrontational...
Also, your time here.. to become INFp, has it made you more or less comfortable with yourself... wait.... you're probably more comfortable right...
Si-role or Si-dominant... I think you might have mistaken your in-securities for your motives.. You motive for learning about yourself? Was it to become comfortable?

The thing is.. INFp... don't /want/ to be comfortable with themselves...

You're young.. you want stuff to be exciting right now in your life. Your hormones are kicking it up a notch. But once you settle and rest and really reflect on what you really want, I think you'll find you're going to be comfortable with comfort.

Oh yea... I have a ulterior motive... I am going to build a ray to turn all cute INFp's girls into ISFp's and mount this ray on sharks. SharksWithLazersPewPewPew

You're kidding, right?

[leckysupport]

Observation... :wink:

Also to imagine a conclusion. to vigorously defend it.

Super-Ego to reject all evidence to the contrary.

I'm thinking more like:

is certainty and simplicity.( cracker, bionic and me)

is uncertainty and complexity.(XoX and Johnathan)

So when these types are looking for their type I think would try to make things as uncertain as possible and maybe even try and confuse themselves to find some sort of complexity.
And would try to make things as certain as possible and maybe even try and block out information that would cause any unnessary complexity.

[ScarlettLux]

Observation... :wink:

Also to imagine a conclusion. to vigorously defend it.

Super-Ego to reject all evidence to the contrary.

I'm thinking more like:

is certainty and simplicity.( cracker, bionic and me)

is uncertainty and complexity.(XoX and Johnathan)

So when these types are looking for their type I think would try to make things as uncertain as possible and maybe even try and confuse themselves to find some sort of complexity.
And would try to make things as certain as possible and maybe even try and block out information that would cause any unnessary complexity.

Ehh, I dunno if I agree with this. I'm not even sure if XoX is but if they are ... I don't really like to make things too complex in regards to my own type. I think a person should know who they are and to spend so much time over-analyzing after the initial confusion seems a bit overboard. If this is simplicity, pfft, I'll be then. It seems to me that some people like to make themselves out to be this mysterious typeless thing when I do believe that deep down, they know what they value, they just enjoy making a mess out of it.

[Expat]

Actually is more proper for the "vigorously defend the typing" aspect. is more related to attributing differences in opinion to emotional rather than factual concerns.

and are subdued. They are simply given less importance than and .

[Expat]

The to attributing difference in opinion to emotional rather then factual concerns, should I just put that with super ego.

It's the same thing actually.

Or.. should I note that becomes the means of expression for their emotional response. + seems to be the arguments posed to counter the disagreement, provides the vigorous response.

That sounds correct.

[force my hand]

Recent convo:

INFp: I'm going into the city for a couple of nights blah blah blah - can you feed the cats?
ISTp: Sure. When?
INFp: I'm going right now!
ISTp: *suicide attempt* No, when do you want me to feed the cats?

[redbaron]

Recent convo:

INFp: I'm going into the city for a couple of nights blah blah blah - can you feed the cats?
ISTp: Sure. When?
INFp: I'm going right now!
ISTp: *suicide attempt* No, when do you want me to feed the cats?

Why does this sound familiar? (I don't have any cats....)

[Expat]

I think Beta NFs - with in super-id and in super-ego - tend to think that the "way to do it" is to think carefully while forming your opinion.

But, once your opinion is made and you are convinced you reached an understanding, to continually second-guess yourself, in order to check if your understanding is correct, is perceived as a sign of weakness, lack of character, "flip-flopping", lack of conviction, stupidity, etc.

I think Beta NFs, more than other types, are as likely as anyone else to endlessly discuss everything; but, once they decide, "ok, my view on my type is this. I got it now. Let's move on", they tend to be unwilling to listen to suggestions that no, they've got it wrong, they should revise their understanding. They tend to see it as attacks on their intelligence or even character.

In fact, this view is expressed explicitly, here, now and then.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

I think Beta NFs - with in super-id and in super-ego - tend to think that the "way to do it" is to think carefully while forming your opinion.

But, once your opinion is made and you are convinced you reached an understanding, to continually second-guess yourself, in order to check if your understanding is correct, is perceived as a sign of weakness, lack of character, "flip-flopping", lack of conviction, stupidity, etc.

I think Beta NFs, more than other types, are as likely as anyone else to endlessly discuss everything; but, once they decide, "ok, my view on my type is this. I got it now. Let's move on", they tend to be unwilling to listen to suggestions that no, they've got it wrong, they should revise their understanding. They tend to see it as attacks on their intelligence or even character.

In fact, this view is expressed explicitly, here, now and then.

Some of the reasons some people give for doubting a type are just preposterous.

In general tho a lot of people think they are N when they are not, imo

[Expat]

Some of the reasons some people give for doubting a type are just preposterous.

Of course, but that has nothing to do with the point being made.

In general tho a lot of people think they are N when they are not, imo

That is an unfortunate hang-over from Myers-Briggs influences, with the implication that "N" types are smarter or at least interested in "smarter" things. It used to be much worse in this forum; fortunately, lately, this misconception has been corrected to a large extent here, more recently.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Of course, but that has nothing to do with the point being made.

I see what you mean sorry, I haven't been around long enough to see a trend in quadra typing, but I can see how that could happen as per point being raised. My bad!

[mm]

I think Beta NFs - with in super-id and in super-ego - tend to think that the "way to do it" is to think carefully while forming your opinion.

But, once your opinion is made and you are convinced you reached an understanding, to continually second-guess yourself, in order to check if your understanding is correct, is perceived as a sign of weakness, lack of character, "flip-flopping", lack of conviction, stupidity, etc.

I think Beta NFs, more than other types, are as likely as anyone else to endlessly discuss everything; but, once they decide, "ok, my view on my type is this. I got it now. Let's move on", they tend to be unwilling to listen to suggestions that no, they've got it wrong, they should revise their understanding. They tend to see it as attacks on their intelligence or even character.

In fact, this view is expressed explicitly, here, now and then.

I wonder what other beta NFs think about this, because I'm not sure I relate to it. I'd say the reason you see it this way is because you hit a brick wall when approaching us with Te. With Ti on the other hand I'm Play-Doh. When Te types think I'm really doing something wrong, I always get the impression they want to come into my head and correct my thinking. So I experience it as intrusive rather than as an insult to my intelligence.

[ScarlettLux]

I wonder what other beta NFs think about this, because I'm not sure I relate to it. I'd say the reason you see it this way is because you hit a brick wall when approaching us with Te. With Ti on the other hand I'm Play-Doh. When Te types think I'm really doing something wrong, I always get the impression they want to come into my head and correct my thinking. So I experience it as intrusive rather than as an insult to my intelligence.

Yeah, I don't quite relate to it either ... I mean, it seems like it's not quite there in explaining our approach to logic. I dunno what it is about that irks me so much.

[Expat]

I'd say the reason you see it this way is because you hit a brick wall when approaching us with Te. With Ti on the other hand I'm Play-Doh. When Te types think I'm really doing something wrong, I always get the impression they want to come into my head and correct my thinking. So I experience it as intrusive rather than as an insult to my intelligence.

Actually what you're saying is consistent with what I was saying, if I understand you correctly.

Of course, if I think people have mistyped themselves, even if from their point of view it makes sense in a Ti way, and I say so, obviously I want to correct their thinking (if I care enough to mention it to them at all). If I didn't think their thinking was wrong, I wouldn't think they have mistyped themselves, by definition.

[mm]

I'd say the reason you see it this way is because you hit a brick wall when approaching us with Te. With Ti on the other hand I'm Play-Doh. When Te types think I'm really doing something wrong, I always get the impression they want to come into my head and correct my thinking. So I experience it as intrusive rather than as an insult to my intelligence.

Actually what you're saying is consistent with what I was saying, if I understand you correctly.

Yes, but it's a Kerry 2004 sweater thing. A Te super-ego type doesn't dismiss Te arguments because his character depends on the status quo. He dismisses them simply because he feels the person coming up with them is intruding his personal space and that happens before he's taken a decent look at what the arguments are actually saying let alone what kind of consequence they might have for his own understanding. This is what the Te ego type gets wrong because he's projecting himself. He assumes the Te super-ego type has taken a look at his arguments and then dismissed them, like he would. So the only reasons he can think of for the other person to dismiss his arguments is that this guy's character must depend on it or that he insulted his intelligence or whatever, but that's not the case. The issue for the Te super-ego type is in the nature of the argument, not its content or what it might entail.

Generally I think super-ego and PoLR in particular is where you don't like people telling you what to do, because you assume it's part of your own personal freedom. You express that too with Fe/Si super-ego, when you say something like: "I say things whenever I want to say in the way I want to say them, and I don't care what you think of that." It would be wrong for me to say you think your character depends on that, I think, or that you would take comments on such an attitude as an insult. And yet, because you're very quick and rigid about this, that's exactly how someone else might interpret it.

Of course, if I think people have mistyped themselves, even if from their point of view it makes sense in a Ti way, and I say so, obviously I want to correct their thinking (if I care enough to mention it to them at all). If I didn't think their thinking was wrong, I wouldn't think they have mistyped themselves, by definition.

The bold part is important indeed. I'm not really aware of any of this unless Te types are really passionate about it.

[misutii]

I think Beta NFs, more than other types, are as likely as anyone else to endlessly discuss everything; but, once they decide, "ok, my view on my type is this. I got it now. Let's move on", they tend to be unwilling to listen to suggestions that no, they've got it wrong, they should revise their understanding. They tend to see it as attacks on their intelligence or even character.

In fact, this view is expressed explicitly, here, now and then.

I'd just add that while we may "seem" to be unwilling to to listen to contrary suggestions we do consciously keep track them and if a beta NF actually cares about the matter they'll eventually admit they're wrong... but in the end we want to come to the conclusion on our own rather than have it be decided by someone else.

I've noticed that most 'typing' controversy on the forum deals with whether a person is an NF or not (Beta or Delta). So in terms of 'mistyping' it is probably a general NF thing. Also the problem is largely magnified in a forum environment because there's no direct contact with people. NFs seem to approach typing from an intuition-based perspective (which is naturally more effective in person). By this I mean instead of first studying the theoretical basics (i.e. function and their positions etc.) of socionics NFs will instead immediately jump to type descriptions and so appear to learn socionics "backwards" - particularly INFps and ENFps. This unorthodox style of learning frustrates others but it's really the way we approach everything. When INFps & ENFps are forced to learn something in the conventional step-by-step format there's going to be resistance and likely a loss of interest

[marooned]

Many sagely things.

I very much agree!

[Wittmont]

I assume hkmmr is joking.

Much of what he says is so contrary to the nature of IEI it's pathetic.

Yup.

[aka-kitsune]

One of the reasons I'm starting to abandon socionics is that I'm beginning to think it's counterproductive. Few here are actually using it to solve problems. They seem more interested in using to rationalize their own social and communications incompetence.

Ultimately, this is the reason I abandon every personality theory in the end. Well, not really abandon, really, but get to that point where I feel I've explored and absorbed as much as I feel is valid and helpful to me. I think it's a point of hitting the system's inherent limitations. Beyond that, it seems only for the "True Believers" for whom the system becomes significantly entrenched in their worldview. My worldview always remains in flux, and no single "system" or theory of understanding can encompass all experiences or all concepts. I co-opt what I find valid from theories, sources, systems and incorporate the information into my syncretist view.

Eclecticism is the name of the game.

Some really good and accurate (for me) stuff written in this thread... by Kioshi and Misutii, esp.

[Wittmont]

Ultimately, this is the reason I abandon every personality theory in the end. Well, not really abandon, really, but get to that point where I feel I've explored and absorbed as much as I feel is valid and helpful to me. I think it's a point of hitting the system's inherent limitations. Beyond that, it seems only for the "True Believers" for whom the system becomes significantly entrenched in their worldview. My worldview always remains in flux, and no single "system" or theory of understanding can encompass all experiences or all concepts. I co-opt what I find valid from theories, sources, systems and incorporate the information into my syncretist view.

Eclecticism is the name of the game.

Some really good and accurate (for me) stuff written in this thread... by Kioshi and Misutii, esp.

Aye. Agree about Kioshi and Mistutii too. I don't see how anyone can attempt to nail down INFp's as static and rigid, when we all are constantly evaluating and re-evaluating everything (basically). I think it is typical of INFp's to have a very, not to say extremely, broad based approach and to take in a lot of information, as much as they can, from a huge number of sources and angles. We then get potential situations where some types think our approach is too lose and broad in scope, while we feel they are too narrow and focused.

I am too lazy to form a conscious syncretist view, but I do form my view based on what makes sense too me rather than cling to a single dogma/theory as truth. But I am also very much open to having input by others that gives me a new angle or approach to an old problem, or a new insight. I love few things better than to have an aha insight, or an aha breakthrough on a problem/concept that has troubled me for some time.
(To understand! HA ) Maybe that is just a conflict of approach between intuitive types and thinking types.

I just read that "Jung hated it when his pupils were too literal-minded and clung to his concepts and made a system out of them and quoted him without knowing exactly what they were saying..." His point was the we must consider condition of the individual at that moment in time. Maybe that is where socionics stumbles. It is perhaps too rigid in labeling us as one single exact type. And if that is so further narrowing down only makes the problem of 'straight jacket of type' worse.

[mm]

in the end we want to come to the conclusion on our own rather than have it be decided by someone else.

And our insistence on this point is exactly what makes us seem inflexible and rigid to others. It makes communication and cooperation slow and cumbersome.

But in our defence, that quote applies to everyone and every PoLR. PoLR is where you don't want other people to tell you what to look at and what not, tell you what's important and what's not. You insist on having a look at all that all on your own. And it's this attitude that makes you appear rigid, because those other people aren't telling you what to do at all; they're only giving you their perspective on things. But nooo, you want to have your own perspective. With PoLR you can't collect and assess perspectives from others, like you can with ego functions for instance. You can only assess your own perspective.

And yes this applies to us mighty and infinitely open-minded and flexible and stretchable IEIs too. Sorry for bursting that bubble.

[mm]

One of the reasons I'm starting to abandon socionics is that I'm beginning to think it's counterproductive. Few here are actually using it to solve problems. They seem more interested in using to rationalize their own social and communications incompetence.

¿Que?

This topic just so happens to be about the IEI's weak ability to communicate and cooperate on Te matters. So why shouldn't an IEI be interested in that? It has nothing to do with social incompetence.

[krieger]

i'm almost certain your type is INTj, Kioshi.

Maybe you should hold off from making wild type suggestions until you are certain about what your own type is...?

[Expat]

I value consistency, I like it in others and I want to be seen as consistent myself... I always worry that I'm not, though...

I value being open to new information, and adapting to it, over "consistency for the sake of consistency".

[PotatoSpirit]

I value being open to new information, and adapting to it, over "consistency for the sake of consistency".

Lol well I like consistency over "going for new information just because it's new"