# Thread: IENSFTjp Dichotomies

1. ## IENSFTjp Dichotomies

Answer these true or false questions (comment too if you want):

__When typing individuals sometimes it is clear for me that the individual is an S type even if I do not know whether it is Si or Se. OR When typing people sometimes it is clear that they are an N type even if I don't know if it is Ne or Ni.

__When looking at N and S I do not notice N or S first and then later find out whether it is introverted or extroverted. The N or S is only known after the Si, Se, Ni, or Ne is apparent.

__When typing individuals sometimes their rationality or irrationality is very apparent.

__When typing individuals sometimes it is apparent that an individual is an F even if it's not obvious whether or not that F is Fe or Fi. Same for T.

__It is impossible to type someone by only using the four dichotomies.

__It is possible to type someone by using only the four dichotomies but things get tricky and more confusing that way.

__Using dichotomies is an effective tool for typing when used in conjuction with other typing tools such as looking at strength of functions.

__Superman is better than Batman

__The dichotomies are actually continuums and should be thought of that way.

__The dichotomies are definitely not continuums!

__Looking at temperment (EJ, IP, EP, IJ) is an effective tool for typing.

2. __When typing individuals sometimes it is clear for me that the individual is an S type even if I do not know whether it is Si or Se. OR When typing people sometimes it is clear that they are an N type even if I don't know if it is Ne or Ni. I don't type using "S" and "N"; it would be clear to me if I did though

__When looking at N and S I do not notice N or S first and then later find out whether it is introverted or extroverted. The N or S is only known after the Si, Se, Ni, or Ne is apparent. Same as above, but I would see "N" and "S" just as easily as I see "I" and "E"

__When typing individuals sometimes their rationality or irrationality is very apparent. True

__When typing individuals sometimes it is apparent that an individual is an F even if it's not obvious whether or not that F is Fe or Fi. Same for T. Same as the above two dichotomy statements; but less easy than them

__It is impossible to type someone by only using the four dichotomies. True

__It is possible to type someone by using only the four dichotomies but things get tricky and more confusing that way. False

__Using dichotomies is an effective tool for typing when used in conjuction with other typing tools such as looking at strength of functions. False

__Superman is better than Batman False

__The dichotomies are actually continuums and should be thought of that way. False

__The dichotomies are definitely not continuums! What the fuck is a continuum? How can a dichotomy, by definition, be a continuum?

3. Originally Posted by Ezra
What the fuck is a continuum? How can a dichotomy, by definition, be a continuum?
LOL.
It can't. I meant to say are I vs. E, S vs. N, T vs. F and j vs. p actually continuums. Some people think they are. I personally don't know what I think just yet.

4. Originally Posted by Ezra
_

__When typing individuals sometimes their rationality or irrationality is very apparent. True
Ok with this is the irrationality/rationality apparent only because the base funciton is apparent or is it apparent sometimes separet from the base function? Do you ever know someone is a rational/irrational without knowing anything else about their type or without knowing their base function?

5. __When typing individuals sometimes it is clear for me that the individual is an S type even if I do not know whether it is Si or Se. OR When typing people sometimes it is clear that they are an N type even if I don't know if it is Ne or Ni.
The "Sensing" thing is still clear, be it or . They're just two "kinds" of sensing.

__It is impossible to type someone by only using the four dichotomies.
Yes it's possible, but it's better to take the 16 IM types separately.

__It is possible to type someone by using only the four dichotomies but things get tricky and more confusing that way.
Yes. For example, it may lead to frequent mistypings.

__Superman is better than Batman
Superman is cooler, because he's E7, and Batman is E8.

__Looking at temperment (EJ, IP, EP, IJ) is an effective tool for typing.
They're more cognitive categories rather than temperaments.

For example, a 0+- LIE is "phlegmatic", and a -++ LIE is "choleric". But both are mobile and rigid. They're EJ.

6. Originally Posted by theMime.
Do you ever know someone is a rational/irrational without knowing anything else about their type or without knowing their base function?
Yes.

7. Originally Posted by theMime.
So you think it's possible to use the N vs. S and j vs. p dichotomy to type people then?
No. I'm not using dichotomies when I get a feel for whether they're Rational or Irrational. I'm using instinct.

8. Originally Posted by Ezra
No. I'm not using dichotomies when I get a feel for whether they're Rational or Irrational. I'm using instinct.
heh i had deleted that post.
you quoted that fast.

9. I've been thinking less and less in dichotomies over time... they're starting to fade into the background... temperaments do still seem more clear than the rest...

10. Originally Posted by Ezra
Yes.
Meaning that you belive that rationality/irrationality can be looked at apart from being a T or F base? There are p traits and j traits and if you're a j you will have more j traits than p traits and noticing that fact is a legitimate way to determine someone's rationality? True or false?

11. I like Batman better. But maybe that's because I had a crush on Robin when I was a little kid and used to watch the show. My best friend liked Batman and we used to pretend we were their girlfriends. Plus I like the batmobile.

12. Originally Posted by jxrtes
Ezra may say different, but I don't think so. ENFjs can seem pretty irrational for example. INTps can seem very rational in the conventional sense of the term.

Maybe all Ijs seem rational, Idk. But it doesn't really help to use rational/irrational to diagnose every type across the entire spectrum.
I'm inclined to agree that IJs are noticeably Rational, and that ILIs can seem "rational" (maybe even Rational). EJs I think are more difficult to know whether they're Rational or Irrational from analysing them for a few minutes.

#### Posting Permissions

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