discojoe's type

[aestrivex]

Well, what I meant is this -- wouldn't you find it odd if someone said this:

"I have looked at all the types, and I'm torn between ESTp and INFj"
"I could be either INTj or ESFp, I can't decide"
"I used to think I was ESTj, now I'm considering INFp"

etc etc

Of course, it's only valid if people really bothered to understand the types and/or really meant it -- in that case, for instance, someone who was really torn between INTj and ESFp would most likely be an ENTp or ISFp.

Isn't that a very Ne thing to say? I mean when Ni is more likely to focus on the "essence" then Ne is more likely to focus on the "edges" of information and when you work on the "edge areas" you may be able to make rather surprising findings. For example that you do actually have many ESTj and INFp qualities (when you just go far enough and abstract a bit). But in these cases the "essence" or mass of evidence is discarded in favor of a new interesting even speculative evidence. Which is of course bad in many ways. The "edge" findings and interpretations often tell little about the problem at hand (e.g. finding your type) but can reveal something new and fundamental about the nature of the theory itself. I think that Ne types, especially ENTps, often lose track of the actual problem they are trying to solve in favour of discovering new insights about the system behind the problem. They just should remember this when they are publishing their results in order not to look so chaotic and strange. People may assume they talk about the "essence" when they actually have shifted to talking about the "edges". In these cases people think that they are just weird and crazy and make no sense.

the answer, of course, is that there ARE no real qualities that an LSE and IEI share, and that a sensible, knowledgeable person will not have to worry about looking at highly speculative edge-esque evidence about being one's conflictor.

in terms of this fact in and of itself overturning all other evidence gathered about a person: no, of course not. however, in a case where a person's type is not well known or agreed upon (like in dj's case) this sort of suggestion can be potentially informative.

[XoX]

1. You are a dumbass trying to look intelligent
The reason this bugs me is because the type of person who says this, and the people who will believe it when they hear him say it, will only be convinced otherwise after a long, exhausting argument/flame war (that's based on the principles of debate instead of dialogue) that I really don't have the energy for most of the time, so I'm sort of just stuck. If I'm in a really bad mood when I hear it I can get physically violent, which has happened at school a few times.

2. You are illogical and cannot come to logical conclusions

Irritating for the same reasons expressed above.

Well the first one is ESTp role hit and the second one is the ISFj role hit . The first one is also ISFj PoLR hit. So if you identify both as irritating then I guess that supports ISFj quite well.

3. You are a weak pussy trying to look tough

This doesn't bother me as I have no problem getting up in someone's face. Over the internet I tend to ignore these comments.

4. You are an unethical and mean person and no one likes you

I really don't care if people think I am mean or not. It's not an area in which I lack confidence.

Well the first would be ENTp role hit and second ISTj role hit. Since you don't find either disturbing it is unlikely that you are ENTp or ISTj. Also INTj should suffer PoLR AND role hits here so doesn't point to INTj even that much.

This test is rather easy to manipulate but from the tested types ISFj comes out as a clear winner. The fact that you actually don't like to hurt people and even feel bad afterwards also sounds like Fi to me. My father is ISFj and is a rather complex person in this regards. For example he dislikes guns, mean people and violence IRL. However he likes violence in movies, boxing and such contact sports where people get hurt, and when younger has been in a lot of physical fights. He also seems somewhat soft sometimes but immediately takes a traditional aggressor stance when he feels his interests are threathened. So I guess Fi + Se (ethics and power, "good guy" and "bad guy") makes a strange mix.

[Joy]

Another thing about the whole "if you thought you were one type and then thought you were another, chances are you're neither" thing is that humans just aren't that simple. Extreme stress reactions, unhealthy relationships, mental health issues, extreme environmental conditions during childhood, etc. can really confuse a person as to who they truly are and what their "natural" behavior is. A lot of conflicting thoughts and unhealthy behaviors will result. And if someone doesn't understand functions on top of that, it doesn't seem surprising at all that an ENFp may seriously consider ISTj, for example.

Not that it matters.

[aestrivex]

Another thing about the whole "if you thought you were one type and then thought you were another, chances are you're neither" thing is that humans just aren't that simple. Extreme stress reactions, unhealthy relationships, mental health issues, extreme environmental conditions during childhood, etc. can really confuse a person as to who they truly are and what their "natural" behavior is. A lot of conflicting thoughts and unhealthy behaviors will result. And if someone doesn't understand functions on top of that, it doesn't seem surprising at all that an ENFp may seriously consider ISTj, for example.

i suppose, but situations like that are not likely to be the norm.

[Joy]

Agreed. They're probably not all that uncommon though. After all, a lot of people's lives and/or brains are pretty messed up.

[Exodus]

the answer, of course, is that there ARE no real qualities that an LSE and IEI share

Reinin dichotomies are sufficient to disprove this statement.

[XoX]

the answer, of course, is that there ARE no real qualities that an LSE and IEI share

Reinin dichotomies are sufficient to disprove this statement.

That is actually a good call. I remember when Kristiina was searching the Reinin dichotomies and she found out that ENFj and INTp have very similar reining dichotomies despite being rather different type (but of course related by Ni). With conflictors there is not as much similarity as between supervisor and supervisee but still according to Reinin dichotomies conflictor is, I believe, NOT the type that is most different from you.

[Joy]

according to Reinin dichotomies conflictor is, I believe, NOT the type that is most different from you.

correct

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Joy]

dunno... feel free to check it out though

[XoX]

Which one is?

Lol. I did a quick calculation on one table I found and the result was rather surprising.
contrary
quasi-identical
look-a-like
only share 4 dichotomies. Perhaps there exists more of those dichotomies which would change the result. I'm not sure how to interpret this. Conflictors seem to share as much as 7 dichotomies or something.

Edit: I think it was the same table Joy posted.

[Exodus]

she found out that ENFj and INTp have very similar reining dichotomies despite being rather different type (but of course related by Ni). With conflictors there is not as much similarity as between supervisor and supervisee but still according to Reinin dichotomies conflictor is, I believe, NOT the type that is most different from you.

Each pair of types (excluding identicals) share exactly 7 dichotomies; that is, including the original four. There is probably a mathematical reason for this...

[XoX]

she found out that ENFj and INTp have very similar reining dichotomies despite being rather different type (but of course related by Ni). With conflictors there is not as much similarity as between supervisor and supervisee but still according to Reinin dichotomies conflictor is, I believe, NOT the type that is most different from you.

Each pair of types (excluding identicals) share exactly 7 dichotomies; that is, including the original four. There is probably a mathematical reason for this...

Well that makes sense. So there are 11+4 of them?

[Exodus]

Yes.