Is my type INFp or INTp?

[Creepy-Cyclops]

In general, I tend not to go against self typing. There is something here however that i've been noticing. If Java is ILI or IEI, then he is either going to be Fi seeking or Fe demonstrative, what I have been wondering, and partly been looking to observe, is which he is showing more..Fi seeking or Fe valueing. I'm getting an impression of Fi seeking, but then keeping an open perspective there's been some beta Fe demonstrative also. It could even be some sort of Fe alpha seeking, because there seems to be some sort of mix.

I'm not seeing this as any conclusive method of approach, at this early stage. However I think the seeking/demonstrative approach can have its uses IRL definitely, and I guess I can see it being useful to a certain extent online also, it's something i'm interested in, so i'll give it some observation for further posts.

I guess i'm wanting to put down some of my general thoughts just now..they're kind of not fully formed, I would have prefered to have held off, but dunno..somehow I think putting down some general thoughts/impressions just now *might* have it's uses..for anyone else who's reading (read this far) and Java.

Anyway, i'm possibly rambling now, besides.. in the meantime i'll be shortly getting dragged out to a social event, so I need to go get ready n put on my nice new denims and that kind of ok t-shirt I bought last week. Analysing Java type would be much more interesting.

[Phaedrus]

If Java is ILI or IEI, then he is either going to be Fi seeking or Fe demonstrative, what I have been wondering, and partly been looking to observe, is which he is showing more..Fi seeking or Fe valueing.

That is almost impossible to reliably observe with any accuracy over the Internet. A proof of that impossibiltiy is all the mistypings in that respect which Expat and others are guilty of.

I'm getting an impression of Fi seeking, but then keeping an open perspective there's been some beta Fe demonstrative also. It could even be some sort of Fe alpha seeking, because there seems to be some sort of mix.

You should not even try to determine those aspects, because whatever conclusion you may draw from your observations is necessarily less reliable than Java's own self-typing.

I'm not seeing this as any conclusive method of approach, at this early stage.

It's simply a very bad method of approach at every stage.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

That is almost impossible to reliably observe with any accuracy over the Internet. A proof of that impossibiltiy is all the mistypings in that respect which Expat and others are guilty of.

I agree in principle with what your saying..that it is *difficult* to observe with accuracy over the internet, but I wouldn't say impossible..or any near a definition of impossible. I think in that respect of how good it is would be dependant on how deep the interaction (conversation) were to go with an individual.

You should not even try to determine those aspects, because whatever conclusion you may draw from your observations is necessarily less reliable than Java's own self-typing.

Sure.

It's simply a very bad method of approach at every stage.

i don't know so much. For instance, supposing you were close to someone, and you wanted their advice..and they were an ethical type..what advice would you be more receptive to..an Fi creative or an Fe creative? If you were unsure of their type then you would probably be more sure after that conversation.

What I'm saying is that it isn't a bad method at every stage. Of course you may say a person would have determined if the other were Fi or Fe creative before such a thing, but if you did say that, that isn't always the case, the way I see it is that every method has it's uses, I think imo the distinction you should be making, is perhaps one has to know when to use them.

Of course I did say that I wasn't making any conclusions of Javatype this way, I simply was passing some observations at this stage which may or may not be useful here..but it could be useful 'there' (even to someone reading for their personal reasons) But you are saying it is never useful (or at least always very bad etc etc), which is incorrect, because aside from the reason(s) i've given here (which shows it can be of use and will sometimes be good) .. how can you possibly be aware of *every* situation in such a context?

[Phaedrus]

For instance, supposing you were close to someone, and you wanted their advice..and they were an ethical type..what advice would you be more receptive to..an Fi creative or an Fe creative?

Neither -- unless they could back up their advice with T arguments.

If you were unsure of their type then you would probably be more sure after that conversation.

No, certainly not. If I can't type them independently of such aspects, then I would certainly not try to type them using such an unreliable method. I would simply suspend any opinion of mine on their possible types until I had enough reliable data on which to make a correct typing.

There are always much better typing methods available than trying to determine such nuances as whether someone is Fi or Fe creative. So why not use those other, more reliable methods instead?

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Neither -- unless they could back up their advice with T arguments.

Some people I know have gave me definite Fi advice. It's one of my seeking functions and one of yours. Why would you need to T to back up their advice? That doesn't fit in with model A intertype relations.

No, certainly not. If I can't type them independently of such aspects, then I would certainly not try to type them using such an unreliable method. I would simply suspend any opinion of mine on their possible types until I had enough reliable data on which to make a correct typing.

Some people are more difficult to type, sometimes one method not reliable on own but when tied together with others pretty much make the case a given.

Interesting.. It occurs to me that my approach is Cre Te Dynamic. I feel personally it serves me well.

There are always much better typing methods available than trying to determine such nuances as whether someone is Fi or Fe creative. So why not use those other, more reliable methods instead?

You missed my point..I don't believe that you or anyone can be sure that they are aware of every situation so I do not understand how you can be sure that there are always better typing methods available in certain circumstances. Can you not accept/admit that maybe sometimes, what I said could have it's use(s)?

[Phaedrus]

You missed my point..I don't believe that you or anyone can be sure that they are aware of every situation so I do not understand how you can be sure that there are always better typing methods available in certain circumstances. Can you not accept/admit that maybe sometimes, what I said could have it's use(s)?

But how can you trust such a typing method when you are yourself weak at both Fi and Fe?

[Creepy-Cyclops]

But how can you trust such a typing method when you are yourself weak at both Fi and Fe?

Like I said I'm not saying it's a good method all the time, but i'm saying it is sometimes. My point of posting I think I explained etc.

But to further answer your question with a question: Can you not tell the difference between supervision and a more favourable intertype relation?

Being weak in both yes, but being receptive to one, surely yes also?