Yes, that is what he is saying. Notice the sarcasm in his whole analysis. I linked the full text.Originally Posted by Megatrop
Yes, that is what he is saying. Notice the sarcasm in his whole analysis. I linked the full text.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
I still relate more to intuitive types from this article. That's what I think about sensors: people living the present, with a static view of phenomena, and concerned with material things, conformed with what they have learned from experience, a realistic perception of the world, and people who have fun with small things in life.
If that is what you relate to most then that is what matters. I have merged your threads since this was all about finding your type so a separate thread is not needed for that.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
''what i relate to'' is too many times distorted by ''what i want me to be'' so that really isnt what should matter
2 reasons why ISFp are cooler than INFps:
-They have strong Se (which is more practical than ignoring Ne)
-They are process oriented. It means that duality works for them (I guess you know what I'm talking about)
I would be content being ISFp. But If my dual is ENTp, then she will be very disappointed with me, because I can't provide the Si she wants at all (Maybe I will develop it in the future if I'm indeed ISFp).
Uh okay mate i dont know who ur tryna fool here
I don't know this person at all. I gave an opinion which was dismissed, or misunderstood, either way he doesn't want my input.
I gave him some information to work with. I am not invested in his self typing so no need to argue for or against it. I think reading the op in this thread and the "am I SEI" thread (that I merged together) shows the contrast of his self perception when he freely wrote his answers and when he felt he had to defend himself. Making someone defensive will make them shut down. Don't think I can't see the contradictions between the two main posts. Picking a TIM doesn't mean anything without fully understanding the concept that goes with it. It is just an acronym.
There is a language barrier here too that I just can't put energy into.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
The only person I would fool would be myself obviously. I don't give a sheep to peoples opinion about me on this forum. I just want to find the correct dual and fight for it
Thanks for all input you've given me. I've dismissed some of it, but still you have provided me good reliable information.I don't know this person at all. I gave an opinion which was dismissed, or misunderstood, either way he doesn't want my input.
I gave him some information to work with. I am not invested in his self typing so no need to argue for or against it. I think reading the op in this thread and the "am I SEI" thread (that I merged together) shows the contrast of his self perception when he freely wrote his answers and when he felt he had to defend himself. Making someone defensive will make them shut down. Don't think I can't see the contradictions between the two main posts. Picking a TIM doesn't mean anything without fully understanding the concept that goes with it. It is just an acronym.
There is a language barrier here too that I just can't put energy into.
Liar
logics is opposite to emotions
hate, anger, antipathy - are common. but they reduce the abbility to feel emotionally good, to get pleasure from the life, to feel happier. for better general emotions it's better to perceive what happens without them. it's often possibly to do, but mb not easy.
love is emotional state opposite to hate. when a human loves someone or something deeply, he feels a pleasure and hence more happy and lesser predisposed to hate
to hate is not obligately to destroy or change something. perfect mind would love anything, or the world as a whole. such people could live as anyone, but without motivation by hate
one of reasons which leads to hate are inner conflicts. they arise inner doubts - despite you do you have opposition to that, you feel antipathy to that
one of things which creates inner conflicts is Jung's type. the lesser expressed type would result in lesser neurotisation
deep love with a dual would help to reduce the type and also being pleasant emotional state - 2 those factors would reduce peoples' hate. people would do lesser of irrational violence having better emotions, - it's significant part of violence or harm to other people
> Why people think it's cool or good to negatively assume things about someone else I'll never understand.
It's common to like or dislike something.
I've mainly pointed that would be better to reduce a hate and that it's often possibly.
Types examples: video bloggers, actors
I was about general good/evil conception. Those are illusions due to limited perception.
> My response was part of the actual lyrics of the song you posted to me and by full circle I meant back to the first post you made about (not) evil betas.
we joked by words play. I've decided to add associated philosophy to make the talking more interesting
Types examples: video bloggers, actors
Yep, I got that. Not sure if others were following.I was about general good/evil conception. Those are illusions due to limited perception.
> My response was part of the actual lyrics of the song you posted to me and by full circle I meant back to the first post you made about (not) evil betas.
we joked by words play. I've decided to add associated philosophy to make the talking more interesting
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
That was sort of a "best guess". Your questionnaire is very short. If you made an English questionnaire video it may give more insight.
Oh man, that's cold. You're breaking my heart here, girl.I don't know this person at all. I gave an opinion which was dismissed, or misunderstood, either way he doesn't want my input.
EII-INFj / INFP / Strong E4 and 9 energy / Melancholic-Phlegmatic / Musical-Intrapersonal-Spatial / Kinky-Sensual
@andreasdevig
"Oh man, that's cold. You're breaking my heart here, girl."
girl
> EII-INFj / INFP
INFP/IEI is possible. not EII
Types examples: video bloggers, actors
INFP is certainly possible. I don't think INFp is possible, however.
EII-INFj / INFP / Strong E4 and 9 energy / Melancholic-Phlegmatic / Musical-Intrapersonal-Spatial / Kinky-Sensual
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
there is INFP = IEI. there are no types as "INFp"
Types examples: video bloggers, actors
INFP is FiNe. INFp is NiFe.
EII-INFj / INFP / Strong E4 and 9 energy / Melancholic-Phlegmatic / Musical-Intrapersonal-Spatial / Kinky-Sensual
It's nonsense mistake of MBT texts which controvert to Jung and Socionics.
INFP is Ni-Fe, IEI in reality and according to Jung where as perceiving were named irrational functions. Alike E/I is inherited as dominating human trait from base function - the same is with J/P. If the base function is rational - so the rationality approach is the main in the human.
In Socionics the direct description of rational/irrational dichotomies as traits of behavior is identical to J/P - it's evident in dichotomy tests which are used in Socionics. If you are irrational (P) type by MBTI or by Socionics (alike at Jung) - you have irrational base function. INFP is IEI, is Ni-Fe. INFP can't to have base rational function by Jung and Socionics theory.
If you get INFP by MBTI - you are irrational type by Jung and Socionics texts, by Socionics dichotomy tests and in reality. It's IEI only with Ni-Fe as first functions and it's irrational type, or perceiving type by Jung. There is no sense to use small 'p' and it's nonsense to say that perceiving type (small 'p' means the same word) has base rational function. There are no types as "INFp", it's a misldeading following from the assumption that MBTI uses different types than in Socionics. Types gotten by MBTI test are totally compatible with Jung and Socionics as dichotomies there are correct and represent rationality/irrationality.
The problem is that MBTI texts have a serious mistake. They try to hide this mistake by claiming that Socionics is another typology which only uses similar terms, but not that they mistake and controvert to Jung. This misleading was accepted by some Socionics sites admins and noobs there alike you, which repeat this misleading by using senseless notations alike "INFp".
EII is INFJ, INFP is IEI
and you can't to have 2 types
while "INFj" is nonsense to hide the mistake in MBT texts
Types examples: video bloggers, actors
@Sol Whether you agree with MBTI or not, a lot of folks (such as myself) are used to seeing capital J/P as MBTI terminology, and small j/p as Socionics terminology. Using large J/P as Socionics terminology just causes confusion, and I really don't see the point, frankly.
"If you are irrational (P) type by MBTI or by Socionics (alike at Jung) - you have irrational base function."
Brother Sol, that doesn't make any sense. For extroverts it's the same, but for introverts the j/p in Socionics is based on the first function, but in MBTI the J/P is based on the first extroverted function.
"If you get INFP by MBTI - you are irrational type by Jung and Socionics texts"
That's not true. Some MBTI tests test dichotomies. Some tests test functions. I persistently get INFP on pretty much all MBTI tests.
EII-INFj / INFP / Strong E4 and 9 energy / Melancholic-Phlegmatic / Musical-Intrapersonal-Spatial / Kinky-Sensual
EIE 65% certain
Would love more PICS, from different times (months, years).
(only browsed page 1 so far, pictures might? be elsewhere)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
