Which type is the least theoretical?

[Hugo]

I was thinking ESFp.

[Ezra]

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?

[Jarno]

Without reading your post, I was thinking that too.

[Phaedrus]

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.

[Warlord]

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.

[BLauritson]

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.

[Joy]

ESTj and ESFj

[aka-kitsune]

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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Joy]

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.

[XoX]

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.

[liveandletlive]

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

[Joy]

The least theoretical type is perhaps the conflictor of the most theoretical type.

Or dual.

[Creepy-bg]

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.

[Joy]

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.

[Creepy-bg]

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

[Joy]

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.

[Creepy-bg]

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!

[aka-kitsune]

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.

[XoX]

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).

[Phaedrus]

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.