Interesting. I score INTP almost every time. I score very high introversion.
(I wrote more up there, if you can requote. Thanks.)
Interesting. I score INTP almost every time. I score very high introversion.
(I wrote more up there, if you can requote. Thanks.)
I score very high high introversion.
As far as N, I relate. First, I am very into my imagination, and I relate in real life as I am generally more attuned to the spectrum of trend (what is likely), rather than sensing what is there infront. But I need others to show me what is there, and introduce me to more routes and more substance, and possibly expend energy on my behalf, so I seek extroversion. The main thing about N>S is that I am not very realistic and into procedure, much more idealistic and theoretical I am, and not aware of what goes on. I tune out and channel a different place.
As far as this being really me ^ you said it yourself, I am introverted, so you don't really know if I'm telling the truth, and I don't know either.
I can invent typology systems, equations, theories, games. I have it in my interests section in my profile (on this forum) that I invent. I compose music. It can be unusual and fantastical.
It must be very true then. I would usually think that there might not be one, because its involved in too much imagination and idealism.
I would think that most ILI beliefs are skewed somewhat away from truth and reality. That is, possibly all too subjective. But one can never be too sure, as it depends on what is said. From my experience, ILIs can often have not much of an opinion about most things, and still are undecided.
However, I went to the Russian forum, at a time. The few there mainly VI me as ISTp and tell me that ISTps have such imagination and are composers too. To me, there is a different concept of ISTp here, one that I don't match. Basically since some people don't type anyone INTp on this forum, they don't really know what they're talking about. From what I can tell, they don't know INTps well enough.
Please be ISTp.Originally Posted by polikujm
Basically: I don't object to you being ISTp, and, perhaps it would be good to have some more of them around who contribute to stuff, rather than they being "re-typed" into some alpha/beta/gamma type. Maybe it will help forum understanding some more.
Note that I have no qualms about the following:
Niffweed's ILI profile:
Versus
ILIs generally place moderate to minimal importance on such matters as cleanliness, comfort, and sensory stimuli. Some ILIs may perceive these elements as a distraction. It is not atypical of ILIs to be completely uninterested by and unable to find any value in something such as a piece of fine artwork. Different ILIs respond to different such artistic stimuli in different ways; for example, an ILI might scorn painting as being worthless but possess sufficient background to enjoy other media, such as sculpture or music.
ILIs are often uncertain about the messages that their own body sends them. An ILI might feel some irregularity in their own body and be unsure as to its significance in the overall functioning of the body. An ILI will seek to determine the consequence of such stimuli through their own understanding of the functioning of the human body... often with minimal success at determining the true cause, and often blowing things significantly out of proportion. An ILI's sense of self doubt may lead to such assumptions as the presence of a brain tumor as the result of a mere headache. In contrast to types, ILIs are significantly less adept at making active adjustments to their lifestyle to correct these minor ailments.
ILIs are very capable of placing a moderate life focus on maintaining their physical comfort. ILIs often construct a lifestyle based on various activities which feed their own intellectual stimulation; though attention to maintaining comfortable surroundings is likely to be ignored insomuch as it interferes with the ILI's deep interests, ILIs generally will not ignore their own comfort entirely, as some attentiveness to it goes hand in hand with their inactive lifestyle. However, in doing so, ILIs often still neglect the world around them and become consistently mired in their own inertia, and are liable to perceive something as missing.
ILIs often feel very hesitant and resistant towards lifestyle changes that threaten the commodiously constructed surroundings that they create for themselves. Nobody is better suited to opening the ILI for change than the hyperactive SEE, whose constant activity is perceived by the ILI as refreshingly active.
Introverted intuition in ILIs is predominantly characterized by well developed imaginative abilities and mental wanderings. ILI often spend a great deal of time simply thinking and may spend excessive amounts of time in their mind. Most ILIs somehow manage to spend most of their time in their minds regardless of the responsibilities with which they are burdened. This mental focus can be manifest by reflecting on scenarios, on pondering bodies of information, and assorted concepts of interest. They may be prone to excessive day dreaming, in creation of intricate inner worlds or universes, or in mentally replaying elements of their own personal experience. ILIs may even have novelistic tendencies where they create intricate plots, characters, and places, though many ILIs may be generally unmotivated to display such creativity. However, ILIs are not always inclined to share their imaginative tendencies or thoughts with others.
The mind of an ILI is an oasis of sorts where knowledge is treated as a toy or even a vehicle that allows them to visit complex mental landscapes that are shaped and continually revised by new information. Nonetheless, an ILI is likely to find the process of accumulating new information tiresome and requiring too much of their energy; consequently, new information is often accumulated and updated in a rather lethargic, periodic, and occasionally incomplete fashion.
ILIs are often stereotypically represented as reclusive scholars, philosophers, scientists, artists, seers, and sages. The ILI, with their often unusual perceptions, may come across as unreachable, esoteric eccentrics. Because ILIs are confident about analyzing the implications of the knowledge that they have gathered, ILIs often appear perceptive, especially in fields of interest, and commonly tend to view the ideas of others with skepticism and scrutiny. ILIs may tend perceive others' intellectual contributions as deeply misguided or limited in scope, and may hold the viewpoint that many people do not know what they're talking about on a particular topic of interest.
ILIs predict inevitable disaster not altogether infrequently. This type of fatalism is spurned by their ability to see the negative in anything, which has its roots in the ILI's general dislike of expressing or reinforcing positive emotions. To an ILI, it may be easier to predict pessimistic results in order to avoid an unpleasant emotional reaction. Likewise, the ILI's sense of general self doubt leads him to be very conservative in his general outlook; why unnecessarily subject oneself to the uncertainty of possible disappointment?
ILIs typically exhibit a general detachment from day-to-day affairs. While an ILI might devote a great deal of time to his inner thoughts, very little attention is likely to be paid to such tasks as household maintenance or cleanliness, which the ILI sees as trivial matters not deserving of his time or effort.
ILIs can, in certain situations, act very tentatively. In many situations they are inclined to hesitate prior to taking any action or making important decisions. They may commonly be pervasively plagued by gnawing doubts on any topic that they contemplate. They may also prefer to observe and gather an understanding of a situation rather than actively participate. The ILI's restraint complements the hyperactivity of his dual, the SEE.
Removed at User Request
Well, it's good to know you two consider me in your quadra. I take that as a compliment.
Removed at User Request
@Pinocchio: On the subject of our miscommunication, I was responding directly to this statement:
Extroversion and Dynamicism do not include IJ rationality. IJs are lead by Fi or Ti. Ti is at least extroverted in the context that you've just given, but Fi is neither extroverted nor dynamic. Unless you're talking about a completely different sense of "rationality" than the Rational/Irrational dichotomy?
ILE
7w8 so/sp
Very busy with work. Only kind of around.
I like your new username, mn0good.
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
What about "inferred" instead of "assumed"?
Quaero Veritas.
Removed at User Request
Hmmm. Upon thinking this through, I don't think I would say that hypothesis/conclusion is an accurate analogy to internal/external. Rather, I would say that hypothesis and conclusion are the method by which we determine the accuracy of both internal and external information.
For example, both Ti and Fi divide reality into classes or categories. Ti classifies things according to external, explicit, measurable data, creating categories like "pink objects", "tall people", etc. Fi, on the other hand, classifies things according to internal, implicit, non-measurable data, creating categories like "nice people", "people I don't like", etc. Both use the hypothesis/conclusion process to accomplish this:
Ti: "I hypothesize that that guy over there is tall. Let me measure him... Yes, I conclude he is in fact tall."
Fi: "I hypothesize that that guy over there is nice. Let me interact with him... Yes, I conclude he is in fact nice."
The primary difference between the two is that Ti information can be obtained by direct observation; it is explicit. Fi information, on the other hand, can only be obtained by inference from other data -- "this person consistently does helpful things for me, therefore I infer that he belongs to the 'nice people' category."
If "internal" correlated solely with "hypothesis" and not "conclusion", then Fi types would go around assuming people were nice or not nice, but never investigating to find out if those assumptions were true.
At least, that's how I understand it.
Quaero Veritas.
Removed at User Request
You raise an excellent point: the hypothesis/conclusion process actually involves multiple elements, not just the one in question. The fact of the matter is, one element alone cannot derive conclusions about the world. Without input from Ne and Se, Ti and Fi have no connection to reality. You cannot say "Object A belongs to Category B" without first perceiving Object A. And of course, the data obtained by Ne and Se would be incomprehensible gibberish without Ti and Fi to categorize it. In my opinion, hypothesis/conclusion (AKA antecedant/consequent, AKA assumption/deduction), would be more closely related to the Irrational/Rational dichotomy than Internal/External, though the relationship is more metaphorical than literal.Krig, the problem in your reasoning is that you're thinking about people and types, not information elements. Your examples are examples of types, which use more than one function, not valued even.
Your "Ti" example is actually Ne manifestation. Ti can't be used to hypothesize, but a Ti type can use other function. Ti concludes, you say that is/is not tall, cause you have reasons for that classification. My example was indeed an example from real-life, but the Fi part is that with "(I assume that) people are bad/good" the rest belongs to something else, unspecified how they will "prove" something.
My contention is that Internal data is in fact deduced or inferred from other data, while External data is directly observed.
My personal favourite terms for the external/internal dichotomy are "explicit" and "implicit". The relevant definitions from Merriam-Webster:
Explicit: fully revealed or expressed without vagueness, implication, or ambiguity : leaving no question as to meaning or intent <explicit instructions>
Implicit: capable of being understood from something else though unexpressed : implied <an implicit assumption>
So External data is explicit and directly observable, while Internal data is implicit and not directly observable, and must be inferred from other data (either directly from External data, or building upon other previously inferred Internal data). For example: Se can directly observe that a man is tall, has big muscles, and a small head. Ne cannot directly observe anything about the man, but it can infer from his size, shape, the dull look on his face, etc., that he may not be very intelligent. Information about the man's level of intelligence is implicit and cannot be directly observed, only inferred from other data.
You do have a point, though, that the process of inference and drawing conclusions may involve other information elements. Therefore, I think my favourite terms for the dichotomy are still the most accurate that I've found: Explicit/Implicit.
Quaero Veritas.
Huh?????????? lol, you are now presuming, I think.@BulletsAndDoves: you didn't get it. This is the understanding of information elements, what is a Te information, what is a Ne information. It has nothing to do with types and individuals. If you want to create some human-like artificial intelligence, what "you feel" doesn't help you with anything.
Anyways, as for the idea I keep hearing that introverts think one deep thought. I can do that, but I can also have many thoughts 'swirling' at once, so I don't think it's related to introversion or extroversion.
Removed at User Request
That is exactly where he is right and you are wrong. Functions are the equivalent of particles in quantum mechanics: everything borks up when you suppose for them to be really "there" instead of just being figments that cast their shadow through the configurations. Any reasoning in terms of types and their behavior can be tested against observation. Reasoning in terms of functions is hypothetical by definition and will always evade testing. The result is that the person who propones such reasonings can geta away with claiming anything, even things that s/he isn't sure of. The conditions for testing the claims are established a posteriori, so they confirm whatever the person initially believed. The biggest problem is not that we can't assume the person to be honest, but that we can't assume for the person to be honest to themselves. A lot of systems of delusions are upheld because they sould "good" to the person, instead of because they are proven to be effective in practice.Krig, the problem in your reasoning is that you're thinking about people and types, not information elements. Your examples are examples of types, which use more than one function, not valued even.
Removed at User Request
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
