i've been trying to do a few of these (really!) but they are all coming out as
descriptions. i'm not sure i have much to contribute that hasn't been already said in the
Remember how this started. I wrote a description for INFp in the
thread; and despite my best efforts for it to fit in that thread, people recognized it as being from an IP perspective; or at least, that's what people perceived (as I'm always skeptical about what my type really is). So anyhow, in this context, someone repeated something that had been said earlier, namely, Let's start an
The bottom line is, if you're INTp, what you write is something that you'll think is
, but others will recognize as being
. So just write something, but don't feel it has to imitate the way they do it in the
thread...i.e., personifying the type as one individual and writing about how that type is useful or not useful for worldly endeavors.
On the contrary, I think it would be more natural for an
type to write generally (not as a single "he" or "she"), with focus on how the other person affects your own mental state.
Far from concern about duplicating the
thread, the bigger issue is that
type descriptions are more likely to be like the kinds of descriptions people have grown accustomed to, since many people believe Jung was
However, it would still be interesting to see what other people's perceptions are.
In particular, I'd like to know how *other* INTps perceive ESFjs in real life....because in my experience, I just don't see the "conflict" there....with the possible exception of when I was a kid and had ESFjs as teachers; but whether those teachers I'm thinking of (i.e., the ones who over-emphasize routine homework assignments and memorization) were really ESFj is open to debate.