niffweed

[Joy]

there seems to be some debate about this person's type

I, personally, do not have an opinion

[Kristiina]

INTp! His reasoning is very practical and realistic. INTjs go for "what could be a good solution", INTps just figure out the best possible solution.

[aestrivex]

hmm...

i was actually going to create this topic myself but joy beat me to it.

i initially typed myself as INTj (with the knowledge that i'm an MBTI INTJ). However, after a short time and reading some descriptions of INTp i found that i identified more thoroughly with them (and there were, as to be expected, some characteristics of both which did not really apply).


i'm interested to hear what people say. but i am 100% certain that im NT.

[Kristiina]

i'm interested to hear what people say. but i am 100% certain that im NT.

So was I... You're interested to hear what people say, but before you know it, you'll be typed as ESFp :wink: .

[aestrivex]

ya, well...

hell does not exist, but if it did it would have frozen over before i were an ethical type.

[Phaedrus]

i'm interested to hear what people say. but i am 100% certain that im NT.

And I am almost 100 % certain that if you really are an INTJ, then you are an INTj. But since you most likely are an INTp, you are also most likely an INTP. So, you are wrong about at least one of your presumed types.

[aestrivex]

the MBTI INTJ is basically an estimate based on MBTI tests. MBTI style type descriptions yield no definitive insights (it is my personal opinion that they are fundamentally flawed and not representative of the whole population) at all, but nearly every test will produce J instead of P. this is often because there are a lot of questions such as "do you plan your actions" which i will definitely answer yes to but are not really representative of socionics rationality or irrationality.

[aestrivex]

He's one of the biggest INTjs on the forum. Just ask the Gamma NTs.

can you explain precisely what you see in me that reflects ?

[Joy]

can you explain precisely what you see in me that reflects ?

[implied]

can you explain precisely what you see in me that reflects ?

this is so going in my sigline.

[aestrivex]

you get the idea

[Hugo]

the name nifweed suggests he is INTp

[Joy]

uh. no.

[Hugo]

an intj wouldn't use such a name

[oyburger]

an intj wouldn't use such a name

I agree

[Joy]

I disagree.

[Hugo]

I disagree with your disagreement.

[Hugo]

Nifweed, look at this for help: http://the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4572

Do you back up your spiritual beliefs with logical arguments?

[Joy]

the INTj I am married to would use a screen name like that

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[oyburger]

the INTj I am married to would use a screen name like that

Personally I never would but I wouldn't have problems with those that would :wink:

[Joy]

an intj wouldn't use such a name

I agree

<3 diana

[aestrivex]

Nifweed, look at this for help: http://the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4572

Do you back up your spiritual beliefs with logical arguments?

i try to. the point of this question, obviously, is to try to ascertain whether my beliefs are based on logical observations or just ideas. i would tend to say ideas, and then back up the ideas with logical observations.

my spiritual beliefs consist entirely of atheism and to some extent, humanism. the best argument i can give for being an atheist is that the argument of agnosticism is fundamentally flawed in that the existence of god is not inherently apparent in reality.


another idea presented in this thread is how i perceive the future; gradually or in a large scale of time. well, i understand that the future is made up of individual occurrences but i'm not generally particularly interested in those; i'm a big picture thinker. i would tend to say that i perceive the future on the large scale.

[Joy]

INTj

[aestrivex]

He's one of the biggest INTjs on the forum. Just ask the Gamma NTs.

can you explain precisely what you see in me that reflects ?

Every single one of your posts, including this one.

that's not specific enough. i still don't understand what you're talking about.

[Hugo]

Nifweed, look at this for help: http://the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4572

Do you back up your spiritual beliefs with logical arguments?

i try to. the point of this question, obviously, is to try to ascertain whether my beliefs are based on logical observations or just ideas. i would tend to say ideas, and then back up the ideas with logical observations.

my spiritual beliefs consist entirely of atheism and to some extent, humanism. the best argument i can give for being an atheist is that the argument of agnosticism is fundamentally flawed in that the existence of god is not inherently apparent in reality.


another idea presented in this thread is how i perceive the future; gradually or in a large scale of time. well, i understand that the future is made up of individual occurrences but i'm not generally particularly interested in those; i'm a big picture thinker. i would tend to say that i perceive the future on the large scale.

Your answer suggests you are INTj.

[Joy]

[quote="Joy"]

can you explain precisely what you see in me that reflects ?

[oyburger]

Nifweed, look at this for help: http://the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4572

Do you back up your spiritual beliefs with logical arguments?

i try to. the point of this question, obviously, is to try to ascertain whether my beliefs are based on logical observations or just ideas. i would tend to say ideas, and then back up the ideas with logical observations.

my spiritual beliefs consist entirely of atheism and to some extent, humanism. the best argument i can give for being an atheist is that the argument of agnosticism is fundamentally flawed in that the existence of god is not inherently apparent in reality.


another idea presented in this thread is how i perceive the future; gradually or in a large scale of time. well, i understand that the future is made up of individual occurrences but i'm not generally particularly interested in those; i'm a big picture thinker. i would tend to say that i perceive the future on the large scale.

Your answer suggests you are INTj.

I can relate to what you said here and it mimics my own beliefs.

[Hugo]

I can't change my vote now.

[aestrivex]

probably the most problematic element of being INTj is that of the role of . That was one of the things I really identified with being an INTp; makes no sense at all.


I have always seen defined as more or less the display of emotion or affection, in terms of being polite and courteous, hugging someone as a display of affection, etc. This has always been very confusing to me; I do not allow my family to engage in this type of affection and I perceive it as nothing but meaningless interaction. I have heard that this type of interaction is supposed to demonstrate a sense of caring, love, or trust between family members. However, this makes no sense because this type of interaction is not implied at all by emotional display.

Perhaps somebody wishes to revise my notion of ...

[Hugo]

INTj
The ethics of its emotions weaken and calm friendliness, positive emotions. It otklikayetsya with the pleasure on them, it becomes sociable and ingenious. It attempts to reach to close people happiness. It is affable on the close distance of oars. Its optimistic attitude transfers to partner. If emotions are negative, then it otklikayetsya on them if and only if it considers it their substantiated. In the opposite case it removes or attempts to extinguish them by logical analysis. It includes its own emotions, only when it passes to the close distance or feels itself in the customary, mastered situation. Otherwise behaves coldly and otstranenno.

INTp
The ethics of emotions evaluates relation to itself according to the manifestations of emotions. Its stormy, obtrusive emotions irritate, they act depressingly. In the extreme situation or when it feels the hidden hostility, it is capable to openly appear its irritation, to flare up, to require in the sharp form. It is ironic. It can flash by apt and calculated shot. If it is bad on the soul, issues poor mood in the form of black humor. Its thrust to the people depends, in addition on the current mood. In the elevated mood it occurs even it is obtrusive, in the poor - it is removed and rests in bed in the solitude.

[aestrivex]

i'm sorry, i can't make head or tail of that.

if you have any idea how to translate it without resorting to babelfish, please do so.

[Hugo]

You're too polite. You are INTj.

[anndelise]

probably the most problematic element of being INTj is that of the role of . That was one of the things I really identified with being an INTp; makes no sense at all.


I have always seen defined as more or less the display of emotion or affection, in terms of being polite and courteous, hugging someone as a display of affection, etc. This has always been very confusing to me; I do not allow my family to engage in this type of affection and I perceive it as nothing but meaningless interaction. I have heard that this type of interaction is supposed to demonstrate a sense of caring, love, or trust between family members. However, this makes no sense because this type of interaction is not implied at all by emotional display.

Perhaps somebody wishes to revise my notion of ...

Fe taken back to it's basic is:

internal qualities of objects in motion
○ Perceives information about objects' internal processes, internal changes, mood, emotional activity, arousability, excitation, and subduedness.
(Note: Emotions or display of emotions is merely a form of releasing internal excitation/agitation. For example, anger is a way of reducing overexcitement by emotionally suppressing and depleting another, at lowering their activity level, or at strictly channeling their activity.)
( www.socionics.us/theory/information.shtml )
( http://socionics.us/works/socion2.shtml )

The INFps I know seem to use the Fe by attending to the internal processes and exciteability of the person they are interacting with. This information can be used in various ways, not just for demonstrating personal emotions.

[aestrivex]

i would still like an analysis of my perspicacity of Fe.

[oyburger]

I have always seen defined as more or less the display of emotion or affection, in terms of being polite and courteous, hugging someone as a display of affection, etc. This has always been very confusing to me; I do not allow my family to engage in this type of affection and I perceive it as nothing but meaningless interaction. I have heard that this type of interaction is supposed to demonstrate a sense of caring, love, or trust between family members. However, this makes no sense because this type of interaction is not implied at all by emotional display.

I feel the same way, but it's easier to at least display the minimum of emotion when required in social situations, because it keeps people off your back and you can get back to business, at least that's beenmy experience

[aestrivex]

Fe taken back to it's basic is:

internal qualities of objects in motion
○ Perceives information about objects' internal processes, internal changes, mood, emotional activity, arousability, excitation, and subduedness.
(Note: Emotions or display of emotions is merely a form of releasing internal excitation/agitation. For example, anger is a way of reducing overexcitement by emotionally suppressing and depleting another, at lowering their activity level, or at strictly channeling their activity.)
( www.socionics.us/theory/information.shtml )
( http://socionics.us/works/socion2.shtml )

The INFps I know seem to use the Fe by attending to the internal processes and exciteability of the person they are interacting with. This information can be used in various ways, not just for demonstrating personal emotions.

so how does this definition of Fe account for my disdain towards emotional expression? and why does it reflect the dual-seeking function?

[anndelise]

Fe taken back to it's basic is:

internal qualities of objects in motion
○ Perceives information about objects' internal processes, internal changes, mood, emotional activity, arousability, excitation, and subduedness.
(Note: Emotions or display of emotions is merely a form of releasing internal excitation/agitation. For example, anger is a way of reducing overexcitement by emotionally suppressing and depleting another, at lowering their activity level, or at strictly channeling their activity.)
( www.socionics.us/theory/information.shtml )
( http://socionics.us/works/socion2.shtml )

The INFps I know seem to use the Fe by attending to the internal processes and exciteability of the person they are interacting with. This information can be used in various ways, not just for demonstrating personal emotions.

so how does this definition of Fe account for my disdain towards emotional expression? and why does it reflect the dual-seeking function?

To be honest, I don't know. I've never really felt much use for Fe for me. I see a person getting excited or becoming subdued, and I check to see which values of the person are involved.

I hear INFps talking about Fe aspects, and my eyebrow raises as in "huh?"

However, many an INFp have complained about people faking/forcing emotional expressions. And being uncomfortable when the expressed emotions don't seem to match the perceived actual internal excitedness/subduedness.

My question to you would be along the lines of...what aspects of the definition above do you notice, and how do you personally utilize those aspects, if at all?

However, answering my question may not get you the answer you seek. But it sure would solve my curiosity!!! :wink:






*steps back out of the conversations she butted into.....chanting "curiosity killed the cat"..*






*responds to herself ..."yeah, but satisfaction brought it back!"....*

[Dioklecian]

Fe taken back to it's basic is:

internal qualities of objects in motion
○ Perceives information about objects' internal processes, internal changes, mood, emotional activity, arousability, excitation, and subduedness.
(Note: Emotions or display of emotions is merely a form of releasing internal excitation/agitation. For example, anger is a way of reducing overexcitement by emotionally suppressing and depleting another, at lowering their activity level, or at strictly channeling their activity.)
( www.socionics.us/theory/information.shtml )
( http://socionics.us/works/socion2.shtml )

The INFps I know seem to use the Fe by attending to the internal processes and exciteability of the person they are interacting with. This information can be used in various ways, not just for demonstrating personal emotions.

so how does this definition of Fe account for my disdain towards emotional expression? and why does it reflect the dual-seeking function?

To be honest, I don't know. I've never really felt much use for Fe for me. I see a person getting excited or becoming subdued, and I check to see which values of the person are involved.

I hear INFps talking about Fe aspects, and my eyebrow raises as in "huh?"

However, many an INFp have complained about people faking/forcing emotional expressions. And being uncomfortable when the expressed emotions don't seem to match the perceived actual internal excitedness/subduedness.

My question to you would be along the lines of...what aspects of the definition above do you notice, and how do you personally utilize those aspects, if at all?

However, answering my question may not get you the answer you seek. But it sure would solve my curiosity!!! :wink:






*steps back out of the conversations she butted into.....chanting "curiosity killed the cat"..*






*responds to herself ..."yeah, but satisfaction brought it back!"....*

Ann what is the difference in the way you view emtions from the way ESFPs view emotions?

[aestrivex]

To be honest, I don't know. I've never really felt much use for Fe for me. I see a person getting excited or becoming subdued, and I check to see which values of the person are involved.

I hear INFps talking about Fe aspects, and my eyebrow raises as in "huh?"

However, many an INFp have complained about people faking/forcing emotional expressions. And being uncomfortable when the expressed emotions don't seem to match the perceived actual internal excitedness/subduedness.

My question to you would be along the lines of...what aspects of the definition above do you notice, and how do you personally utilize those aspects, if at all?

i have no idea. i sort of understand this thing about perceiving the emotions of others, but i'm not aware that i allow it to influence my decisions or actions at all.