What am I? Oo;

[DeleteMePLOX]

Removed by User Request

[Expat]

Well I for one was never convinced that you were ISFp, I always thought you were more likely INFp.

[Phaedrus]

I haven't read Thomson's book, but I am familiar with Keirsey, and earlier you wrote that you could relate to his descriptions of INFPs and the Idealist temperament in general. Have you compared Keirsey and Thomson? Do you now think that you fit both Thomson's and Keirsey's descriptions of ISFPs better than their descriptions of INFPs, or do you still think that you fit Keirsey's INFPs better than you fit his ISFPs? How does Lenore Thomson describe ISFPs and INFPs?

The little I know of Thomson I have read on the Internet, and in some earlier posts I have discussed her description of Introverted thinking (Ti), which in many ways is a very accurate description of my own thinking process. But what Thomson calls Ti is not . It is more like .

You have to bear in mind that if she describes the functions accurately, she is not necessarily describing the socionic functions with the same names. Instead we should focus on the type descriptions.

[Rocky]

I don't think Sensors are materialistic. I'm not. I think ENxx types are more likely to be materialistic than ISxx types. The thought of being ostentatious out right disgusts me.

I've always thought you were ISFP.

And, gah, Kiersey's a moron, and opinions shouldn't matter when you are a moron, so I would very much stay away from him.

I have said in the past that Thomson's Ti is more like actually.

[Phaedrus]

And, gah, Kiersey's a moron, and opinions shouldn't matter when you are a moron, so I would very much stay away from him.

It doesn't matter if Keirsey is a moron or not. His type descriptions are more or less accurate anyway.

I have said in the past that Thomson's Ti is more like actually.

Then either there is in those descriptions too, or you are wrong, because her description of Ti is still a description of my own thought process, and it is a fact that I am an INTp.

There is another possible, and perhaps more interesting, explanation of what you just wrote. If both you and I can identify with her description of Ti, one could se that as an argument against Socionics, and an argument in favour of the MBTI claim that both ISTPs and INTPs are Ti dominant.

[Rocky]

Either that, or the use of "logic" she claims is a characteristic of IxTPs is used in such a loose tense that thinking-perceiving types can identify with it more. She does not describe Ti as following "rational" systems of logic and suppositions like socionics, but rather a more parallel thinking process which is used to "figure things outs". This is not a characteristic of rigid "logic" IMO; a lot of people would say that problem solving has a lot to do with abandoning such logic and more of just exploring or working out the problem at hand. Thomson describes Ti as more of an experiential logic? That I think is stretching it a bit.

[Phaedrus]

She does not describe Ti as following "rational" systems of logic and suppositions like socionics, but rather a more parallel thinking process which is used to "figure things outs".

Yes, and she also describes it in other ways. The parts (but I am not sure that these are not interpretations of what she means) that most accurately describe my thinking are:

Introverted Thinking (Ti) is the attitude that beneath the complexity of what is manifest (apparent, observed, experienced) there is an underlying unity: a source or essence that emerges and takes form in different ways depending on circumstances. What is manifest is seen as a manifestation of something. From a Ti standpoint, the way to respond to things is in a way that is faithful to that underlying cause or source and helps it emerge fully and complete, without interference from any notion of self. The way to understand that underlying essence is to learn to simultaneously see many relationships within what is manifest, to see every element in relation to every other element, the relationships being the "signature" of the underlying unity. This can only be experienced directly, not second-hand.

Introverted Thinking leads you to relate whatever you are doing to some larger principles that you have identified. Hence, Ti is like having some kind of book in your head, which describes the inner workings of things. When interacting with reality, you are constantly writing and re-writing your book. To deal with anything, you have to be able to understand in terms of the observations in your book. Whenever you are dealing with any new system, you start writing a new chapter on it in order to attain complete understanding of it.

This approach may seem very cumbersome from an extraverted standpoint. Youd don't really need to understand how a bicycle works in order to ride one. You don't have to actually understand a subject in school if you simply cram and memorize. You don't have to understand computers to check your mail. Yet Ti leads you to desire complete understanding of whatever you are doing, instead of looking up the correct procedure, or asking your friends for help, or kicking it when it's not working. With Ti, you don't simply try to understand a system well enough to manipulate it. You try to become such an expert on how it works that you could write a book about it if you had to, even if your expertise is unusable or useless to everybody (sometimes even to yourself).

Hence, Ti is a kind of high-bandwidth understanding, because it leads you to try to understand the entire causal, aestethic, or logical mechanism of any system of interest. This kind of understanding takes much more time and effort to develop, but it is more flexible once attained, because it allows you to deal with aspects of reality that cannot be described through social norms or sets of discrete procedures.

[Rocky]

That sounds like me, too, and the third paragraph especially resonates with me. If I'm learning something (such as math) I feel uneasy if I don't understand the principles behind it. I always think that if I don't take the effort to understand it, then I won't be flexable enough to solve problems, especially when I (of course) don't know exactly what will be asked, or what problems will come up.

I've always liked math and chemistry more for this reason than, for example, law class or history or biology, which is just memorization, and not problem solving.

I don't know if this is really Ti or anything.

EDIT//// sorry for the thread hijack. If this is interestingly enough to some people, than we can discuss the different definitions of Ti and other functions in a seperate thread.

[Creepy-pokeball]

Basics of those classes are rote memory, Rocky. The higher you go up, the more difficult they become which requires a TON more critical thinking. Math and Chemistry just use easier starting blocks since theyre readily symbolic. The fun part is when the subjects intersect. For example, math, chem and bio combined are used in agricultural sciences (soil science would be a prime example).

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[maze]

=)

[Creepy-pokeball]

Uhm. Her work does. Her typing doesnt.

[Phaedrus]

That sounds like me, too, and the third paragraph especially resonates with me.

I don't know if this is really Ti or anything.

Neither do I, but this is very interesting, at least for me. How should we explain the fact that we seem to identify with the same descriptions of a way of thinking if we are ISTp and INTp? We could discuss it in another thread. Which is the best place for such a discussion, and how should we do it?

[FDG]

I don't think Sensors are materialistic. I'm not. I think ENxx types are more likely to be materialistic than ISxx types. The thought of being ostentatious out right disgusts me.

Another crappy inference, rocky?

[Rocky]

I'm starting a new thread.

[dreamer]

You sound INFP to me.
I don't think a person can be entirely one letter (sometimes I'm logical, maybe you have some S views and some N views and you're not sure yet which one you have more of?

[Joy]

[FDG]

Basing from how you annoyed the hell out of me in only one interaction in the chat, I'm gonna say ISFp.

[implied]

i think INFp with a well-developed role function. i thought ESTp alongside rick for a short while, but the more i'm finding out things about how these irrational dual pairs work, the more i am finding that INFps can resemble ESTps and likewise. even your expletives seem INFp! aside from that, j-chan reminds me of my ISTj ex (on your films.)

i like you!

[Phaedrus]

ChibiKeba, I saw your result of the Enneagram test. It's a rather strong argument for INFp instead of ISFp. The Enneagram type Four is clearly an N type, with INFj as the prototype of a Four. You scored relatively low on type Nine, which has the ISFp as its prototype.

[Expat]

First, I really don't think that Minde's friend is INFp, especially if Minde herself is INFj (as she is IMO).

Second, what you highlighted suggests .What you said about people in general and how you feel about your co-workers may seem a bit odd for an IXFp, but not really; you focus your interactions with people on j-chan and the internet, as you said.

But what you said - about other people being simple - I think suggests more INFp than ISFp.

Third, I don't hate you at all; I do find you annoying when you write in that non-English, but I haven't interacted with you in the chat to be more precise on that.

However, I can see you as my supervisee.

Something else -- if you are ethical subtype, in many patterns of behavior the INFp and the ISFp would be very similar, at a peak of compliant, subjective and emotion-creating, which would explain why people are confused and why ENTjs would find you annoying.

[Expat]

i think INFp with a well-developed role function. i thought ESTp alongside rick for a short while, but the more i'm finding out things about how these irrational dual pairs work, the more i am finding that INFps can resemble ESTps and likewise.

Yeah that would be consistent with being ethical subtype.

And I always thought the case for ESTp was exaggerated.

[Phaedrus]

But in socionics (Lenore's descriptions anyways) I related more to ISFp.

Does she have socionic descriptions???

The types are the same anyway, so you are either INFP and INFp or ISFP and ISFp. You cannot be both INFP and ISFp.

[implied]

ISTj eh? Oh that reminds me, I had J-chan take the test in Lenore Thomson's book and he came out ENTp. It doesn't seem anyone here thinks he's an ENTp though

interesting!

maybe it's something to look into. all i can recall is that his writing seemed very -formal, which is something i really only heavily associate with -dominant/creative people.

[Rick]

Just came across this thread, curious as to developments in Chibi's type.

Expat wrote:

And I always thought the case for ESTp was exaggerated.

I thought so too, and you should see what he wrote on his website when I didn't take his advice that I was an ESTp. I think buubuu just wanted to be right to appease his own ego rather then to actually help me out. Don't get me wrong I like Rick and I think he's an intelligent guy, but he sort of seemed to ignored all evidence that went against his theory and only focused on the tidbits here and there that would support what he was saying.

Yeah, you're pretty much right about that post you are talking about (in my blog). I removed it because in hindsight it seemed pretty whiney. Now I think I've learned something from those experiences.

I don't have a strong opinion about your type anymore. At the time I thought I had caught the big picture, but I recognize I could have been mistaken, especially if lots of people are saying my interpretation was a big stretch. So I'm inclined to suspend my case for the time being and wait for new experiences to clear things up, if that ever happens. My experience with different kinds and types of people is far from complete. So good luck in your search for your type.

[Rick]

I think the only real way to cement a certain type in your self-concept is to have some powerful intertype experiences where you see how everything works between you and other people. Otherwise, there is always some doubt left over that you aren't seeing things from the right angle.

[Rick]

I think Michelle is more likely SLE than SEE.
Is she at all good at being sweet and making the impression she wants on people?
Does she often talk in a confrontational tone in a half-joking way?
When the two of you were left together without Lucy, what did you end up doing? Did you continue laughing and joking, was it really strained, did you suddently get all serious, etc.?

[Dioklecian]

You'r ISFJ

[Expat]

Dioklecian's typing you through his own VI criteria, probably --

Even without your reactions to ENTjs (difficult to capture online anyway) I could never see you as ISFj; again, I think you are INFp and if not, then ISFp.

[Phaedrus]

You are not an ISFj, ChibiKeba. Take my and Expat's word for it.

[Expat]

First, I was among those who previously said ISFj for Lucy - - but re-reading your original description, and what you added now, I think she is ISFp.

I agree with Rick, Michelle's most likely ESTp.

From the description Kim sounds more like ESFj, but from all your interactions I guess ENFj is more likely.

So we have

You- INFp
Lucy - ISFp
Michelle - ESTp
Kim - ENFj

All Betas, with Lucy the odd Alpha.

What is odd about it is Lucy and Michelle getting along better than yourself and Michelle.

[Kim]

[color=indigo]Hey that's it! Perhaps FDG, <expletive deleted> though he is, may be onto something!

How do most of the people here in the forum feel towards me? I already know a vast majority of you hate me or are greatly annoyed by me because you're judgmental ass twats who won't even give me half a chance or really get to know the real me, but what about the ENTp's and ESTp's? Knowing how they feel about me could help in type determination, assuming everyone here is typed correctly O.o;

I'm no ENTp or ESTp, but I really like you, for what it's worth in your type quest. :wink:

I really get an INFp vibe from you.