Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: Which type is the least theoretical?

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,763
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Which type is the least theoretical?

    I was thinking ESFp.

  2. #2
    ...been here longer than the fucking monarchy Ezra's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    UK
    TIM
    SLE-Ti
    Posts
    9,169
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Good point. You're probably right. Ti PoLR means they couldn't give a shit, and Ti is the function that deals with theory. If someone, for example, comes up with a theory (which shows coherence) for anything, they must have a level of Ti, or at least value it. But because it's in their super-ego block, they don't care.

    Off topic, I think FDG may actually be an SEE (don't worry, that was in no way related to the top point, Fabio). I'm just looking at the functions, and certain bits are reminiscent of you. For example, "SEEs do not bear being imposed rules on and often even act the opposite way. Do not bear questions asking to justify own behavior. Cannot even imagine a strict system guiding their life" is in line with your being an anarchist. You evidently have strong Se, because you're motivated to be so active in your free time (which you've pointed out on here many times in the past in reference to a variety of topics). However, if I go any further, I'd be making unfounded assumptions about your type, so you'd have to look into it yourself.

    What do you reckon?
    Ideas don't determine who's right. Power determines who's right. And I have the power. So I'm right.

  3. #3
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,375
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Without reading your post, I was thinking that too.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I was thinking: Why not ESFj rather than (or at least as much as) ESFp? I know several ESFjs, and every one of them is unambiguously anti-theoretical and theory hostile. But I know at least one ESFp that is clearly more theoretical than every ESFj I know.

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ezra
    Ti PoLR means they couldn't give a shit, and Ti is the function that deals with theory. If someone, for example, comes up with a theory (which shows coherence) for anything, they must have a level of Ti, or at least value it. But because it's in their super-ego block, they don't care.
    But they can (and do) still use consciously . Compared to ISFp, who are helpless in .

    Someone can value big muscles, and still have straws for arms. While there can be other person who doesn't like to go to gym, but still be stronger than the person without any aptitude.

    So obvious answer is ISFp. Because 6th is the weakest function. Why INFp doesn't apply, should be just as obvious.
    ...the human race will disappear. Other races will appear and disappear in turn. The sky will become icy and void, pierced by the feeble light of half-dead stars. Which will also disappear. Everything will disappear. And what human beings do is just as free of sense as the free motion of elementary particles. Good, evil, morality, feelings? Pure 'Victorian fictions'.

    INTp

  6. #6
    BLauritson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    979
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Warlord
    So obvious answer is ISFp. Because 6th is the weakest function. Why INFp doesn't apply, should be just as obvious.
    I always thought the general consensus was that dual-seeking (5th function) was the weakest? I don't know for certain though.
    ILI (Indescribable Lovemaking Inc.)
    5w4 so/sx

    "IP temperament! Because today's concerns are tomorrow's indifferences!"

    Lord Fnorgle's Domain - A slowly growing collection of music, poetry and literature.
    Stickam music performances

  7. #7
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    ESTj and ESFj
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  8. #8
    aka-kitsune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    966
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Warlord
    So obvious answer is ISFp. Because 6th is the weakest function. Why INFp doesn't apply, should be just as obvious.
    It's not. Please elaborate?
    socio: INFp - IEI
    ennea: 4w5 sp/sx

    **********

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Twain
    Only kings, presidents, editors, and people with tapeworms have the right to use the editorial 'we'.

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aka-kitsune
    Quote Originally Posted by Warlord
    So obvious answer is ISFp. Because 6th is the weakest function. Why INFp doesn't apply, should be just as obvious.
    It's not. Please elaborate?
    Being dominant helps alot. INFp's can form a vague understanding of a theory, even if lost in details. Like why it's so, and so on. Also the concept of abstractness is very familiar. How much it helps actually is difficult to estimate, but I'm sure it helps to a better understanding of theoretical concepts than those of ISFp, ESFj and ESFp.
    ...the human race will disappear. Other races will appear and disappear in turn. The sky will become icy and void, pierced by the feeble light of half-dead stars. Which will also disappear. Everything will disappear. And what human beings do is just as free of sense as the free motion of elementary particles. Good, evil, morality, feelings? Pure 'Victorian fictions'.

    INTp

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BLauritson
    Quote Originally Posted by Warlord
    So obvious answer is ISFp. Because 6th is the weakest function. Why INFp doesn't apply, should be just as obvious.
    I always thought the general consensus was that dual-seeking (5th function) was the weakest? I don't know for certain though.
    Hah, now you a rising little doubt in my mind. It might be 5th, I have to actually double check it some time. If it's 5th, it's because of the order of functions in (a picture of) model A, then again the order could make it easy to misunderstand that 5th would be the weakest. If it's 6th it's because of the dichotomic areas of psyche where the functions reside. So in case of 5th, the answer would be ESFj.
    ...the human race will disappear. Other races will appear and disappear in turn. The sky will become icy and void, pierced by the feeble light of half-dead stars. Which will also disappear. Everything will disappear. And what human beings do is just as free of sense as the free motion of elementary particles. Good, evil, morality, feelings? Pure 'Victorian fictions'.

    INTp

  11. #11
    snegledmaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,900
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Other then myself I have not seen a single theoretical IEI. And I'm not that much theoretical as much as other people claim I am. I think they are no more theoretical then any other type.

  12. #12
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think it's important to note here that there are different types of theories... Ne and Ni are going to be the most abstract of the information elements, but there are also a lot of Ti and Fi theories (infused with Se and Ne, of course).

    This being the case, types that don't have Ne, Ni, Ti, or Fi in their ego block are most likely going to be the least theoretical, generally speaking. I also think introverted types are generally more theoretical/abstract than their mirrors, and to a lesser extent that irrational types may be more likely to easily/comfortably consider/accept theories than rational types.

    I hadn't really thought about any of this before posting my original answer (I was just answering from my observations), but now that I have put a little thought into it, my original answer, ESE and LSE, still fits best.


    btw, my personal opinion is that the 5th function is the weakest.
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  13. #13
    XoX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    4,407
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Dual seeking function should me weaker than hidden agenda. It makes little sense otherwise.

    The least theoretical type is perhaps the conflictor of the most theoretical type. And which is the most theoretical type?
    The type most likely to create a theory is perhaps INTj? So that would make ESFp least likely to create a theory. My second option is ESFj. Both have weak Ti and Ni.

  14. #14
    liveandletlive's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    1,290
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    i don't think that we're the least theoretical- i dont see how that works in with us being all anti-rules and not only that; just because we don't like them doesn't mean we aren't theoretical even if there was a link between being theoretical and into rules
    ESFp-Fi sub
    6w7 sx/so/sp

  15. #15
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by XoX
    The least theoretical type is perhaps the conflictor of the most theoretical type.
    Or dual.
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  16. #16
    Creepy-bg

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Joy
    Quote Originally Posted by XoX
    The least theoretical type is perhaps the conflictor of the most theoretical type.
    Or dual.
    that sort of flys in the face of the whole "what would dual want" idea. Why would the least theoretical type (assuming we're talking about interest as well as aptitute here) want to be around the most theoretical type? That would be annoying.

  17. #17
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bionicgoat
    Quote Originally Posted by Joy
    Quote Originally Posted by XoX
    The least theoretical type is perhaps the conflictor of the most theoretical type.
    Or dual.
    that sort of flys in the face of the whole "what would dual want" idea. Why would the least theoretical type (assuming we're talking about interest as well as aptitute here) want to be around the most theoretical type? That would be annoying.
    Just because they're the least theoretical on their own doesn't mean that they don't want (or need) to be with someone like that.

    Anyways, if I had to pick a most and a least I'd say LII for most and LSE for least.
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  18. #18
    Creepy-bg

    Default

    if your interested in theory your going to be a theoretical person. it just follows...

  19. #19
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bionicgoat
    if your interested in theory your going to be a theoretical person.
    I disagree. And besides, someone doesn't have to be interested in theory in order to appreciate someone who is.
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  20. #20
    Creepy-bg

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Joy
    Quote Originally Posted by Bionicgoat
    if your interested in theory your going to be a theoretical person.
    I disagree. And besides, someone doesn't have to be interested in theory in order to appreciate someone who is.
    why would you appreciate somebody talking about something that you aren't interested in? That's insane!

  21. #21
    aka-kitsune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    966
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by snegledmaca
    Other then myself I have not seen a single theoretical IEI. And I'm not that much theoretical as much as other people claim I am. I think they are no more theoretical then any other type.
    I guess I'd agree with that last bit. Most people think I'm more theoretical than I really am too. I think IEIs are just not the "least" theoretical of types.

    I like pondering theory idly. When I have to actually apply it, I get a bit squeamish. And god forfend I get somehow caught up in some intense theoretical debate. Individual concepts are interesting to toy with, but I'm really weak on . My brain begins to hurt and I just haven't the stamina for sustained logic/reasoning.
    socio: INFp - IEI
    ennea: 4w5 sp/sx

    **********

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Twain
    Only kings, presidents, editors, and people with tapeworms have the right to use the editorial 'we'.

  22. #22
    XoX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    4,407
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bionicgoat
    Quote Originally Posted by Joy
    Quote Originally Posted by Bionicgoat
    if your interested in theory your going to be a theoretical person.
    I disagree. And besides, someone doesn't have to be interested in theory in order to appreciate someone who is.
    why would you appreciate somebody talking about something that you aren't interested in? That's insane!
    How about putting it this way...

    In case of dual you are incapable of doing what they do but you are interested in what they do (dual seeking function). In case of conflictor you are both incapable and uninterested (PoLR function).

    So the dual of the most theoretical type is the one who can't do much theory on their own but is still interested in theory. The conflictor of the most theoretical type is the one who can't do much theory and is disinterested in theory.

    In order to come to conclusion we need to define what being "theoretical" means. The opposite of theoretical is practical. Theory seeks to understand and practice seeks to apply. Thus theory is Ti and practice is Te. Most theoretical type comes from Alpha/Beta and most practical type comes from Gamma/Delta.

    My imagination currently ends here but I have to try and speculate. What type is most theoretical? It is either INTj or INFp. Both have clearly Ti>Te preference (seek to understand more than apply), are abstract instead of concrete in thinking (N > S), are introverted which means they prefer inner world to outer world (enhances the understand > apply effect). Their conflictors are likely to be the least theoretical i.e. ESFp or ESTj.

    Why I don't put INTp and ESFj there is the INTp preference of Te>Ti which means INTps, in the end, seek to apply their information/theories in practice more than INTjs and INFps do. And if we hold up the conflictor hypothesis then ESFj can't be the least theoretical. Why I don't put ENTp and ISFj there is the fact that ENTp is extroverted and thus seeks external world applications more than INTj (the opposite is true for ISFj).

  23. #23

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The INTJ is called "the most theoretical of the types" in MBTT. I'm not sure exactly what that claim is based on, but it could be true.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •