Well, as for the j/p thing, I think that both fit me somewhat, but only the INFj profile really fits me. Fi is my main function, but since my extraverted one is Ne, I'm a bit of a space cadet. I'd have order in a minute if possible, but I kinda never get around to it. Besides, keeping order is a Sysiphos labour.
Beware! Nerd genes on the prowl.
INFj - The Holy CPU Saint
Dishonorary INFp
Baah
(Very good place for emoticons. Right-click on the one you want and select "properties" for direct link)
Rocky that would make you all left brained. How does that strike you? I read in some book that istps and isfps were also right hemisphere. Thats why they are good artist, craftsmen, and athletes. I'll have to look more into this.Originally Posted by Rocky
Darklord, "left" meaning left-brained, not left-handed. Here is what the functions-to-brain model looks like according to the BrainTypes guy and Leanore Thompsen,
Because of diffrent views of diffrent models, you can interpret this in diffrent ways. Apparently, if you are FiNe, then BOTH of those functions are on the RIGHT brain, which would make FiNe types right-brained, and not left. You said you were pretty sure that you were FiNe, but you also thought that you were perceiving, so this might be able to explain that (if it is correct).
Topaz
Actually, the guy who's work that was based on does think that ISTPs are the right-brained one's and ISTJs are the left-brained (he is ISTJ himself). He even nicknames the ISTP the "Athlete" and claims that they are the most athletic types. He also thinks that ISTPs are TiSe. He's the one with the acronyms I posted above (Back Empirical Inanimate Right= Introverted Sensing Thinking Perceiving).
Apparently, they tried to find out the functions by doing scans of the brain and things like that. What they do is try and make you use a certian function and see where that activity is in the brain. So thinking regarding Ti is supposed to be in the back-right brain and Se is supposed to be in the front-right brain. I'm staring to wonder if this is correct.
What? Where do you get books on personality types? Do you mean those MBTI books in the library?I read in some book that istps and isfps were also right hemisphere.
@Rocky: if Ti is in the back-right brain, then how does this BrainTypes guy explain the fact that higher-level cognitive processes such as reason are in the frontal lobe, in the front of the brain?
Binary or dichotomous systems, although regulated by a principle, are among the most artificial arrangements that have ever been invented. -- William Swainson, A Treatise on the Geography and Classification of Animals (1835)
Let me clarify. I mean that TiSe types are supposed to be DOMINANT in that region, but Ti and Se are still right-brain (hypothetically). And Te is supposed to be in the left brain, and he considers TeNi and TeSi types front and left brained dominant. He also credits mulit-tasking and things like that to extraversion (front-brained).
http://www.geocities.com/player2000g..._functions.htm
http://braintypes.com/brain.htm
You can put some of this stuff togther through those two links.
So Rocky, you finally accept my bit of data?
"To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"
"Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."
I'm not sure yet. If it is true, than an FiSe type would be more percieving than an SiFe and things like that. This would mean that there are problems on the socionics model with J/P and the dominant functions. It is hard to ignore, though.
I don't take that brainscan bull seriously; how, exactly, are you supposed to test for a function? Create an enviornment that would stimulate its use? Does that not seems to be a VERY difficult thing to do?
"To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"
"Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."
Yes, I think that's the point. They get people to use introverted thinking, for example, and see where the brain activity is. Then they try that with all the diffrent functions and with multiple people, etc... and try and pinpoint where they are. They do the same thing with killers or people with violent tendencies. They do scans to see what part of the brain that they are using while they are thinking of committing a crime or something.
Tell me: how would they test for extraverted sensing? Introverted sensing? How would they know what they're testing for is really the proposed function but merely a small property of its function? There's also the issue of the stimulus stimulating two DIFFERENT functions due to the nature in which it can be solved; for instance, an individual whom uses Ti to understand the conceptual nature of a particular, say, physics problem, and hence solve it, there will be another individual whom uses Te to solve it.
It just all sounds very fishy to me; for instance, introverted intuition seems VERY right-brained in its intuitive ability to perceive the unfolding of a situation and the tendency for individuals whom possess such a function to hold strong belief on things as small their intuition; how, precisely, does that translate into left-hemipshere functioning?
"To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"
"Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."
I'm willing to except that that model isn't right, but...
The argument could be that you are confusing Ne (as in for the supposed "INTP" type) for Ni (where socionics says INTPs get their intuition from). If you also look at Ni from the ENTJ perspective, then you might think of it as left-brained.It just all sounds very fishy to me; for instance, introverted intuition seems VERY right-brained in its intuitive ability to perceive the unfolding of a situation and the tendency for individuals whom possess such a function to hold strong belief on things as small their intuition; how, precisely, does that translate into left-hemipshere functioning?
So...what are they testing for exactly? The Te-Ni axis, or simply the Ni function?
"To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"
"Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."
I think they test for individual functions (in the way I described above) and see where each one lies in the brain.
How? I find it odd that two people whom used the same data set and came to opposite conclusions were completely honest in their tellings of their means of ascertaining the information. I gaurantee you: there was speculation involved.
Maybe I should readdress this point:
"The argument could be that you are confusing Ne (as in for the supposed "INTP" type) for Ni (where socionics says INTPs get their intuition from). If you also look at Ni from the ENTJ perspective, then you might think of it as left-brained."
The thing is, I'm not confusing anything. Read several functional descriptions of the MBTI introverted intuition function and you will see that it largely corresponds to what I stated:
Proposed definition #1: Seeing past interpretations
http://greenlightwiki.com/lenore-exe...rted_Intuition
Introverted Intuition (Ni) is the attitude that whatever is manifest (apparent, observable, described) is only the tiniest fraction of the total reality and all of its potential, and it is manifest only because it serves a purpose--a purpose that it achieves by exploiting a certain way of interpreting or navigating by signs. Ni is attunement to what lurks in the shadow of that manifestation. What is that assumed way of interpreting or navigating? What could we see if we were free of it?
Proposed definition #2: What cannot be said?
Introverted Intuition is the attitude of attunement to what cannot be said, by virtue of the structuring that "saying" requires.
For example: At work, we don't dare say our true feelings (or we can only say them if they're positive), because we know that sharing them would bring dire economic consequences. There is no other way, because the structure of the workplace (people working cooperatively to get stuff done that they get paid for) requires that people refrain from saying anything that might put their loyalty in doubt. If an accountant, in his office, says that he loves accounting, you view this as meaningless because, well, what else is he going to say? In fact, he might very well hate accounting. You have to be highly attuned to what's really going on in order to read the true meaning of what people say--which is often the opposite of the literal meaning of their words. (See Eric Berne.)
For example: Why do we put North at the top of most maps? Because the mapmaking tradition began among northern-dwelling people, who considered people who lived further south to be less important. Putting North at the top of the map frames geography in a way that, perhaps unwittingly, conveys the belief that Europeans are better or more important than Africans. This can't be said by anything within the map; the very way that the map is structured and related to reality says it.
For example: What does music mean? You can't say it. It's ineffable. (See Introverted Intuition and the Meaning of Music.) What is God? What is spirit? Any attempt to capture these things in words only cheapens them.
Introverted Intuition is an attitude of "seeing through" the distortion that any interpretation creates, to see the underlying reality. It's a left-brain attitude in that it's sign- and symbol-oriented: attempting to grasp the system of interpretation that makes any particular way of representing reality work, as a prerequisite for using that system. From an Ni ego-state, you want to understand the assumptions of a system of representation before you use the system, so that you can use it with true freedom--including the freedom to use the built-in interpretations in ways that violate those assumptions.
Proposed definition #3: Orientation by manner of orientation
Introverted Intuition is a way of orienting yourself to your environment by consciously attending to the expected interpretations of things. In this manner of orientation, you hold agnostic about whether those interpretations are true. You view them as expected interpretations, nothing more. Your world is a world of expected interpretations defined by others; you navigate through those interpretations and use them without regard to whether they're true, always keeping the interpretations separate in your mind from the actual objects.
For example, whereas from an Extraverted Sensation perspective, you might feel very impressed upon meeting a man wearing a fancy Italian suit (signs call forth a natural response and need no interpretation); from an Ni perspective, you would consciously say to yourself that he's wearing an Italian suit and this is supposed to make you think he's wealthy or upper-class or really has his act together or something like that, and therefore is supposed to make you feel impressed (signs and what they mean are connected only arbitrarily). Whether he really does have his act together is a matter upon which you reserve judgement. Consequently you don't feel impressed. You merely note the expected interpretation as no less a part of your environment than the suit itself.
Without knowing the expected interpretations of a system--the way signs are interpreted within that system, and the expected responses that make the system work--you can't get oriented via Ni. The expected interpretations must be stabilized and clear to you. Then you can comment from an outside perspective, or see ways to respond to the signs that violate the system's assumptions, or simply know how to operate the thing. First you have to get "outside" it, then you can deal with it. The process of "getting outside it" can take a long time. As you identify expected interpretations, you find yourself uncovering ever more and more hidden assumptions, and you feel the need to distance yourself from those, too, before you get your hands dirty or draw a conclusion.
Proposed definition #4: Just knowing
Ni is a way of knowing (or at least thinking you know) that bypasses reason, facts, evidence, the expected or intended interpretations of signs, or anything you can point to, simply giving you an awareness or belief that seems indisputably true to you, period. You can't tell by introspection how you got this idea. There is no thought process. There is only tuning into this form of awareness and just knowing.
For example: You've been interviewing candidates for a job. One of them has all the credentials, and scored the highest on all the company-defined criteria for the job. Another of them was pretty good but not in the same league. You have a sense about the high-scorer, though, that he's bad news, and that the "so-so" one will work out well. You can't point to anything that's let you to this conclusion, you can't justify your belief, but you have this sense just the same. To trust this unjustifiable idea is to orient by introverted intuition.
For example: The song Bad Moon Rising illustrates an Ni sense of danger. The belief is strong yet vague.
For example: A co-worker calls you on the phone and says that he has a cold and won't be able to come in that day. You "see through" what he said: you "just know" it's a lie: really he has an interview at another company. You can't point to a single thing that leads you to such a specific conclusion, and yet there it is.
For example: You are trying to solve some problem--an interpersonal problem, a mathematical problem, it could be anything. Everything seems to be snared and confused. You ask yourself, "What's really going on here?" And an answer comes.
For example: Jack Groverland (ENTJ?) preaches to "be still" and just "tune in to what that greater intelligence that is the universe wants you to do."
With extraverted intuition, you bypass the socially defined interpretations of signs by broadening the context, and thus relate to other people's ideas in a definite way: you propose something "outside the box"--the box that other people are thinking in. You expect that other people's minds will be blown, probably pleasantly, inducing a feeling of "wow!" With introverted intuition, you also bypass the expected interpretations of signs, but your belief is self-contained, and you have no sense that anyone else would find it interesting or compelling. It came to you, for no reason that you can fathom, and you can't show anyone else any reason why they should take it seriously. The belief might be very specific, too vague for words, or even too specific for words.
Orienting by Ni, you are likely to view belief as something that simply arises within each person when they tune into it. If two people have different beliefs, there is no resolving it. I have my belief and you have yours. End of story. New ideas or evidence seem beside the point. If you think there's a bad moon rising, how could mere "evidence" persuade you otherwise?
Lenore doesn't talk much about this
Lenore's writing doesn't emphasize this aspect of Ni. It's hidden in little notes here and there, like the way tertiary Ni can give ISFPs the will to hold to a belief even when others don't agree with it, or the way ENTJs "see around the corners" of an organization's official rules. For the most part, Lenore emphasizes neutrality between conflicting ideas. The present hypothesis proposes that this emphasis is a possible, maybe illustrative, but not necessary consequence of the basic idea: "just knowing" in a way that bypasses built-in or conventional interpretations of signs: seeing past the signs, and just "getting" the truth (or at least thinking you have).
So, how can Lenore Thompson propose that it's a left-brain function with all of this being evidence TO THE CONTRARY?
"To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"
"Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."
Wait, weren't you the one supporting this before?
Actually, I agree with you. This probably is wrong, but I just wanted to point out the possability, that's all. The socionics model is much better, IMO.
Yeah, until I discovered that Niednagel(SP) had come to opposite conclusions and thus further investigated my beliefs.
"To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"
"Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."
Actually, I'm the one who came up with the opposite conclusion... and with socionics it makes sense.
"Actually, I'm the one who came up with the opposite conclusion... and with socionics it makes sense."
So Niednagel came to the same conclusions as Thomspon?
"To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"
"Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."
Well, he defines the types as P= Right/ J= Left and I= Back/ E= Front. He also thinks that the P types are more athletic. He focuses more on the diffrences between the right and left brained types. Lenore Thompsen credits Neidnagel with this information. Niednagel doesn't seem to put much emphasis on the actual functions, but whether you are F/B, L/R. For example, he tries to get introverted athletes to focus on using the front/high-energy part of the brain more while competing because, otherwise, they can think about things too much and become more mechanical than natural.
This is absolutely true, engaged in anything, most of the time, we must focus on it. Our eyes do not move for some reason, I don't know why.
I dislike looking at people when talking to them for this reason. Although, our eyes will change with the situation and the emotion we are feeling or trying to express.
Re: Attempting to explain body movements within the types.
I still am skeptical about this stuff.
I can't really tell what muscles they are relying on in the pictures of their swings, but that is besides the point.
I think that humans will favor muscles based on the past of their muscle memory -- someone who has trained their legs or wrists to be stronger in some other way probably incorporates those muscles more into a baseball swing.
I forget alot about baseball, but I remember Jeff Bagwell having a very crouched stance. I really forget how he swings, but the heavily bent knees suggest to me that he likes to get his legs into his swing - as opposed to someone like Mark McGwire who in the last part of his career practically stood upright sometimes and failed to get his legs into his swing.
Jeff Bagwell also played soccer in college or something, I think that the strong lower body muscles from that may have contributed to his lower body-oriented stance and swing more than his personality.
Also, baseball swings are very situational. Different muscles are mroe active depending on the pitch and stuff.
I'm confused about this...don't most hitters stay on their back leg?
Re: Attempting to explain body movements within the types.
Actually, this is wrong. Mark McGuire was the one who used his leg muscles more and Bagwell uses his fine muscles. McGuire was the BEAR (ISFP) and Bagwell the FCAL (ENFJ). Sure, you can do running and stuff to strnethen your muscles, but that doesn't change the way you are wired. McGuire was all lower body, you can see the same thing in people like Bernie Williams and David Eckstein.
And, yeah, you can't tell much from the pictures, but they are just suppossed to be examples of guys. You can watch them in action and see the diffrences.
Check this out:
http://braintypes.com/body_skills.htm
It is not compatible ... for example, I am a right brained ENTp, but my mother is ISFp and left brained, and my step-father is ESFj and left brained. It is not compatible in that form.I'm not sure yet. If it is true, than an FiSe type would be more percieving than an SiFe and things like that. This would mean that there are problems on the socionics model with J/P and the dominant functions. It is hard to ignore, though.
Rocky, I am currently reseaching a way to explain that ... I do not think the brain types theory the way it is presented is 100% compatible with socionics, but there are also some things I think that the guy is totally missing ...
I already have a theory that I am currectly testing that over at socion.info that converts the brain types theory into a compatible socionics form, and every personal non-internet run test I have accomplished so far seems to give much credance to the theory. I will post some info soon.
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. This notion of being left or right Brained is simplistic at best and total nonsense at worst. The true difference between the two is far less appealing then the logic/creative split. The left cerebral hemisphere of the brain focuses on detail, while the right cerebral hemisphere is concentrated on the broad, background picture. The distinction between the two is in processing style each side contributes in a complementary, not exclusive, fashion.It is not compatible ... for example, I am a right brained ENTp, but my mother is ISFp and left brained, and my step-father is ESFj and left brained. It is not compatible in that form.
looks vs type
What do you think about this?
I thought like, whoa,she looks somewhat like Britney Spears, though is not
It seems like there is a strong relation between phisical appearance or body built and socionics type
BTW the girl in the image is ISFp. Can we assume Brit is ISFp too, on the looks alone? Is it possible that looks may be deceiving in typing?
I would say Britney is an SEE (SeFi). I don't think that women looks THAT much like her, but I guess it is close. I think contrasts can be close in appearence, though.
How about this one; Clive Owen and Jim Carrey. Owen looks a bit like Carey, excpet with more distinctive features. It's hard to tell from the pictures, but when you see them in action, such as if they were talking, you can tell. Owen even does that little hunching over thing Carrey has.
Logical-intuitive Extravert.
EDIT: my point was that facial expressions, movements, and mannerisms are more telling than physical appearance alone, although I think there is SOME relation to apearence.
Intuitive-logical Extravert.
Vince Carter.
James Blake.
Willie Randolph.
Chone Figgins.
The Rock.
Freddy Garcia.
Clive Owen.. he is the hottest ENTj around.
i remember watching him run in a movie and thinking it looked ENTj.
Me too. De-railed?
I defintely have to see that movie
body language
what characterizes IP body language as opposed to that of IJ, EJ, and EP?
lazy relaxt movements.
more laying on a chair than sitting on it.
sometimes a bit cool behaviour.
not much hands and arms movement while talking, not really expressive.
I heard that the movements of statics are more eratic than those of dynamics.
I've been told all these things about myself.
They also seem to not move much. They'll sit in one position for quite a while, where as I'll need to move around, fidget, etc.
But when they do move it can be with a sudden burst. A lazy impulsive sorta thing...like sitting still for 20 minutes and then hopping up to go do something.
Also, I gesture a lot. I've knocked things over or sent my fork flying a few times because of my flailing arms. However, I notice IPs don't gesture as much. They have smaller movements, more precise than mine (but whose wouldn't be, really).
Also, a lot of lounging. Liking couches, etc. Noticed this with INFps also.
Hi! I'm an ENFP. :-)
lol yes. My physical existence – which is futile, as it is – consists of either hours in immobile, catatonic focus (reading, etc.) or very quick bursts of mobility (long, fast-paced walks or random bouts of shadow boxing). All in all, I feel rather inert on a general level; it's like my psyche resides in a pond that does nothing until something interferes with its complacency.
Also, a lot of lounging. Liking couches, etc. Noticed this with INFps also.
The end is nigh
Quick check: are they curled up on the couch cuddling a cushion? If so, you've got yourself an SEI.
IJ's, EJ's, EP's
cool, thanks for the replies. i think i have a fair idea of IP body language now.
to extend the question, what differentiates EJ body language from EP body language?
Reply With Quote
