AKHROMANT
INDEX
ABOUT
FAQ
GLOSSARY
MBTI TYPINGS
MBTI RELATIONS
DISCORD
PHOTOGRAPHY
GENERAL
DIFFERENCES
TYPING
FUNCTIONS
TABLES
LISTS
WORKS
VARIOUS
NAMES
MEMES
MORE
PSYCHOLOGICAL TYPES #6X
Anonymous said: wrote something long, didn’t fit :( but my question: why r certain negative, unhealthy traits more PREVALENT in specific types. example: INTPs are more doubtful, ISTPs feel more alienated and depressed,ENTPs r more prone to be paranoid about whether something is not functioning right with their bodies. is it a type weakness/strength polarity? is it wired? what is the fix, or there isn’t any and u just always go back to what ur good at naturally. yes every1 can feel those, but im saying PREVALENT
There’s a big problem with those approaches that assume a “negative (unhealthy/weakness) - positive (healthy/strength)” reference line for the types or the things related to them. Don’t do that. There isn’t anything “negative” that’s prevalent in any type at all. That’s too close to stigmatizing people right from the start. It’s precisely that kind of view that needs “fixing”, not the types. You have to read point 13 in this post, and point 5 here.
What is the “problem” of the canary in the coal mine? Think about it. Whose problem is it? Aha. Now you see the mine, right? Yeah, you were looking too close. Maybe the canary would feel better somewhere else. Maybe the canary is perfect.
The ears don’t have a problem because they can’t see. The problem comes if they believe they are eyes, or if they don’t want to hear, or if somebody else tries to put them to work at a perfumary.
So it’s not a question of better or worse. This is about true or false. Knowing your type is about finding out what’s particular to/in you, and what isn’t (including proper/ghost). It’s about discovering what you are, so you might stop trying to live underwater (or out in space, or wherever), and go [back] home.
But the [non-]focus is only on being aware of things, not on doing anything. The only improvement, as I’ve pointed out before a few times, is in observing yourself, internally, and waiting. It’s not about what’s commonly known as “therapy” or medicine. That could be the “solution” offered by an “academic” or a “professional”. You seem to be looking for something definite, something certain and sure, so maybe that’s what you mean. But that’s not what I write about here. My potential “contribution” doesn’t require or imply that you do anything that’s predetermined. Mostly because we don’t know what it is that we’re going to find inside you, so we can’t possibly know the “consequences”, either. See? This is all about discovery. You are a mystery, to others and to yourself, whether you’re aware of that or not. And so you have to find out, also by yourself. And the finding is the fix.
The types are just an outline that can help you with that. They offer some vague but and useful indications for understanding the nature and the effect of the things that happen in your mind. If you understand those things, if you know why, just that, just the knowing, the true one, and not the words but the inner comprehension, then maybe you [can] stop feeling bad about them, because you realize they are not actually problems, just the way your mind works. Maybe you can step back and see the mine, or the perfumary.
Typing can be helpful for all degrees of “seriousness”, and thinking about yourself through your type might tell you to stop calling yourself (and others) “unhealthy” or “depressed”, for example. That’s exactly one of its most important uses/consequences: you stop talking like that. But not because you become “nicer” or “more considerate” (that’s an insidious practice that does more harm than good). No, you stop because you actually get the true meaning of things, and you realize you were mistaken.
By the way: from what I know, and unless you mean “curious” or “inquisitive”, INTPs are not what you would call “doubtful” (I’d say some INTJs can actually be more like that), and ISTPs are not the typical depressive type (that’s more of an I[ST]J thing), so take a look around the blog, because you might be mistyping IJs for “IPs”.
But anyway, let’s take EN[T]Ps and their “problems” with bodily sensations. What if you tell them about their types and how it’s just their Si4 being weird? What if they go to the doctor, see everything’s fine, and combine the two facts? Maybe they start ignoring those sensations because now they actually know what they are. Maybe they stop taking them so seriously (the misunderstanding and consequent mismanagement of things is very often what makes them “problematic”). Maybe they just take time to analyze themselves better and find more about the cause[s] and the potential “remedies”. They might even use them in some creative way, I don’t know. You just can’t tell what could happen, but you can try and see.
I’ll write more about this, but the approach is always the same: absolutely undirected. And at this point I think you get the idea: the medicine is the patient.
equinoctum-deactivated20201119 said: Do the things about “nostalgia” match NPs at all? They come from a misunderstanding of “Si”, of course. It seems like it’s the SJs who are much more inclined, but it’s fairly meaningless for typing.
I don’t think they do, no. At least not in the sense of actively having/doing things related to (supposedly) “good” memories or times, like honoring anniversaries, building/keeping [revered] [detailed] [alternative] representations of the past, visiting places just for remembrance, telling stories with that kind of emotional or even purposeful weight, etc.
But it’s pretty much what you said: anybody can remember something nice, so the concept gets quite close to being essentially meaningless, yes. You just can’t identify a “strong attachment to the past”, or whether it classifies as “nostalgia” or not.
The basic idea is that Ss are more prone to give importance to that sort of thing because their consciousness works through presences and forms, not possibilities and flows, so history can have some fantastical or otherworldly aspect for them. That would be the general picture. I know several ESs that feel very deeply about the past, and some ISs that show something similar through their hobbies or their work (maybe in a more “resigned” way), and it’s definitely those kinds of approaches that I would call “nostalgia”, not what any NP might do in that regard. In fact, for many Ns the closer to that feeling of “loss/distance” (missing) is not actually focused on the past, but on the present or “the future”.
People don’t understand what Si is, at all. Not that they understand the other functions either, but it’s definitely Ni and Si that elude them the most (then it’s Fi and Ti). If they at least were consistent with their misinterpretation, “Si” as a tertiary function (“INPs”) would be just a little less unconcerned about the past than “Si” as inferior, which is what ENPs actually have: they are the types that couldn’t care less about what happened. So I guess that in many of those descriptions they are probably mistyping ISFs for “INFPs” and ISTs for “INTPs”.
THE TYPES EATING ICE CREAM 🍨
I found these illustrations of the Socionics types, made by Esk-Phantom, and I thought they were quite funny and good enough for another table, so here it is :) The first thing below each picture is its MBTI code, then the Socionics equivalent, then the actual cognitive functions of that type, and finally its temperament. (ESFJ is acting a little weird, yes, but not really out of character). Even in mostly humorous depictions like this you can see quite clearly how the socionists have several mistypes in their system: just look at MBTI’s ITJs, EFPs and EFJs, for example. (Note: In reality their “INTj” is not INTP, but a variant of ISTJ. I’m keeping the table as it is because the drawing still works).
Anonymous said: hey so I agree with the switches you’ve established from mbti to socionics but also Ive noticed that a lot of infps end up being IEI and infjs, EII? is that something you’ve seen too or is it just people being mistyped? Thanks!
Hi! :) That’s people being mistyped. I don’t really pay attention to the “results” that people get in different “systems”, I know what the real psychological types are, and if I’m interested I try to identify which one the person belongs to. But I have to do it myself. Reported MBTI and Socionics codes are actually meaningless for that. It’s amazing and quite sad, but that’s precisely what happens. It doesn’t matter what people say they are, because both systems are full of misconceptions. They are simply unreliable.
If someone says [s]he’s an “INFJ”, or an “INTJ”, or an “EII”, or an “ILI”, or an “INFJ EII”, or whatever, it’s all like noise to me, I don’t hear anything. I could ask ‘what do you mean “INFJ”?’ but it’s way easier to just do the typing myself.
Now, assuming that the person has read and thought carefully (for years) and knows what [s]he’s talking about (that’s a really big assumption, but let’s just theorize a bit here), and assuming also that [s]he got at least one of them right, so [s]he’s only half-mistyped (that one is big, too), then I’d probably say that an “INFP IEI” might actually be an INFJ (Fi-Ni-Se-Te), most of the times, and an “INFJ EII” might be an INFP (Ni-Fi-Te-Se), because the classic MBTI INFJ↔INFP mistype is very common. It comes from the very beginning, when Isabel Myers mistyped herself as “INFP”, being an INFJ.
But remember that lots and lots of people mistype (themselves and others) as “INs”, when they are actually ESs, ENs, or ISs. That’s extremely common, too, and not only because of the nonexistent “stacks”, but just in general, there’s that weird tendency all over the internet (fictional characters included, of course), so many like those in your question might not even be INFs.
Anonymous said: Hi ! Do you think anxiety can play into the identification between j and p ? I know its a bad idea, as you said before, to confuse behaviour and cognition BUT if I take myself as an example, I act as your general, stereotyped « p » and can put off a phone call for literal months out of some kind of weird, inner dread (thats completely irrational) (½ continued)
(2/2 continued) yet I’ve been known to carry out long term goals for actual decades. Isn’t anxiety a very J thing anyway ? Like a p would be much more effortless and would not over think this ? (lmao thats such a shitty nebulous question sorry + incredible blog btw)
Hi, and thank you :)
Don’t worry, I think I get what you mean :) It depends on your definition of anxiety. Putting off a phone call for months is not what I would call “anxiety”, mostly because you probably forget about it from time to time, and it’s not a “future uncertainty”, but more like the opposite, right? It’s the acknowledgment of your ability to make it happen, and the fact that once it’s done you can’t take it back. In this context if Ps hesitate it’s because they don’t want to leave other options out, they want to make sure it is the right decision (that “right” meaning different things for different types/people).
Anxiety for Js comes from wanting to do something and not being able to control all the variables so that everything turns out the right way. That’s where “future uncertainty” has its true meaning: there’s obstacles in the way, there’s need for planning, components to determine and manage for a certain effect (including other people and their intentions), work to do, and many things that can go wrong. Some Js might even find themselves almost unable to do anything when they only see what goes against them. That’s probably why, when it comes to psychology, the approach of many Js (especially NJs) is about helping themselves and others accomplish and achieve.
Remember post #20: J includes Matters: Settled, and P has Decisions: Open. If they are worried it’s because something goes against that, but they are different things, so you end up with 2 different definitions of “uncertainty” and “worry” (or you can use different words for each). Long-term goals give Ps the space to explore and let their perception gather impressions and be occupied, so decisions appear essentially by themselves (that’s related to being Emergent instead of Methodical). Js can have them, too, of course, but I think you can see how their approach and their reasons are different.
You can also think about it this way: Js choose what-to-do, and Ps do what-to-choose.
Oh, and “overthinking” is just a redundancy. There’s no “correct amount of thinking” for anything. That word is basically meaningless, but many people use it to try and convey some kind of problem that they think they have. It’s not a problem, it’s just what thoughts do: they go on and on. There’s a very widespread tendency out there to call and consider everything a “disorder” or some kind of “affliction” that people suffer, even the mere fact of having thoughts. Everyone overthinks everything. That’s not the problem. Thought is always trying to give itself value, reinventing itself, saying things like “Look, I’m useful” or “See? I’m so clever”. It does that precisely because it’s not very reliable. And the more it realizes that, the more it tries to come up with some “smart move”. That’s why the problems tend to start when people convince themselves that the overthinking has come to the right conclusion.
Anonymous said: Hey I was wondering if you could further elucidate on INxx, ISxx, ESxx, ENxx and xNxP, xNxJ, xSxJ, xSxP types like you did with the cooperative, pragmatic, directive and informative types, it would help a lot, thanks in advance.
As always, these are only approximate descriptions. I tried to give some indications that might be helpful for typing, but people are just too complex, so in many cases it can be difficult to see where a given person belongs. Remember that you have the tables, the lists and all the other posts, too :)
➤ ES/IS/EN/IN
This division is about conscious perception. There’s something important to keep in mind for the descriptions of extraverts: what’s written below about ES and EN can be applied to very different scopes and extensions, from a small project on a table to the ruling of an entire country, for example. The thing is that, when you are typing someone whose field of action is clearly on the large/wide side, [s]he’s probably an extravert. One of the adjective pairs that you can use to distinguish E/I in a broad sense is public/private.
✸ ES = conscious Se = Scout (nature intelligence).
ESs are the most realist people, the most attentive to and focused on their surroundings, on the quality, state, condition and aesthetics of objects and people. They want tangible and present sources, proofs, tools and results, and prefer not having to rely too much on promises or “future developments”. Usually the quickest and most forceful in their response to physical changes or discoveries (sometimes outright reckless), and also the most emotionally expressive in terms of movement and gestures (ESF>EST). Their behavior is probably the most noticeable (“manifest”) in a general sense, because of that trait and the fact that they work directly with what is in front of them. Some statistics say ESs are almost half of the population.
✸ IS = conscious Si = Instructor (historical intelligence).
ISs also attend to qualities and conditions but in a more detached manner, always looking from a distance in both space and time, more interested in long-term processes, careful modification and development, practical usefulness and versatility, sampling/tasting, the internally experienceable, etc. They admire and aim at a certain correction that’s not immediately tangible, an adjustment that you probably can’t see in a photograph. ISs work with variable things in a reliable way, usually slower than ESs. In general they are also less expressive than Es, although some can have occasional abrupt reactions with a physical component (I say “abrupt” partly because they are more unpredictable than those of ESs).
✸ EN = conscious Ne = Detective (dynamic intelligence).
ENs are more about the “power” of what’s happening, not about the objects in themselves (which, in the end, are seen as replaceable). Their interest is focused on various levels of options, on novelty and advancement, on how everything can be rearranged or channeled for a different (“better”) result. They take into account different kinds of possible ramifications and implications, flows and trajectories, positions and potentialities. ENs usually don’t mind risky or “tense” situations, with lots of moving elements and high stakes. In fact, they are often searching for the advantage, the edge, and try/tend to be a few steps ahead of the rest (that’s why their behavior can be “tricky”). Some are quiet and carefree, but others are really forceful and demanding.
✸ IN = conscious Ni = Philosopher (existential intelligence).
INs look for some kind of encompassing value or understanding, for references and relations that stand outside the physical world. They are attuned to the symbolic, the universal meanings and archetypes that transcend what’s around them. INs are often full of inner questions and discoveries, moving the question mark, or being moved by it. As the opposite of ESs, both the answers that INs seek and what they ultimately take into account is a “power” that lies beyond material forces and objects. (Just like Si compares to Se regarding forms, Ni corresponds to intangible and untouchable relations, in contrast to the malleability of Ne’s). Great part of their efforts and experiences are internal (“unknown”), and unless they use some kind of tangible way of expression the results stay there as well.
➤ SJ/SP/NJ/NP
These groups are the four combinations of perception and rhythm. The names and related words below are not “occupations”, only attempted summaries for how the minds of each group work. Sometimes there’s an observable correspondence, but they are internal descriptors. There are Guardian artists, Artisan politicians, Author soldiers, and Rebel mathematicians. They are not the words that most people use to describe themselves, either. Some Authors, for example, prefer names that appear with Rebels or Guardians here. The descriptions often apply to larger spheres and landscapes for extraverts, and to smaller ones for introverts.
✸ SJ = auxiliary Se or Si = conscious sensation conditioned by judgment.
SJ is the Guardian. (Related words: perfecter, corrector, aesthete, keeper). They have a frame of reference for how to take care of things, how things should work and look, etc. Sometimes that includes a method or a process, and other times it’s a more indefinite evaluation. All of those might seem more or less “arbitrary” for the observer. SJs rely mostly on hindsight: they learn and then apply, and don’t tend to improvise, preferring instead to just stop or abandon what they are doing, or start again. (That’s where the idea of “producer” can be considered, as there’s usually a sense of “complete product” with them).
All SJs are external melancholic, so they admire and look for some kind of perfection (conditioning, design, etc) in their surroundings or in something outside themselves. In that sense they tend to be more worried (or even afraid) than their SP counterparts, who are more immediate/decisive (and in that sense dangerous, of course) when it comes to action/response. The general idea is that an SJ probably voices his/her concern, trying to establish or remind others of some kind of ordering principle, before (or instead of) taking action. Some statistics say SJs are almost half of the population.
✸ SP = dominant Se or Si = conscious judgment conditioned by sensation.
SP is the Artisan. (Related words: user, preparer, presenter, consumer). Instead of having a judgment reference, SPs try and see what’s the best use for things, what’s the particular benefit of each item, which one works and/or looks better, etc. They often take care of several things at once, or of one thing from many different angles at the same time. In that sense some of them can be seen as control freaks, exhausting [others and] themselves in some big/detailed enterprise. There’s often a certain feel of randomness with SPs.
Enjoyment as a “vehicle” makes them more about making use of everything, including unexpected happenings, remains and leftovers, etc. They can accumulate lots of [apparently useless] things, and are better at improvising than their SJ counterparts. This doesn’t mean that they always like it, or that they don’t express their discomfort, but maybe they do that after the fact. All SPs are external sanguine, so they apply or aim at some sort of enjoyment around them. This can be personal or shared, and it includes nurture, fun, competition, entertainment, etc.
✸ NJ = auxiliary Ne or Ni = conscious intuition conditioned by judgment.
NJ is the Author. (Related words: achiever, director, guide, plotter). Their conscious frame of reference tells NJs that the flow of events is to be understood and managed, and also how to change things, how and where energies and developments should go, etc. This doesn’t mean that they are inflexible or immovable, quite the contrary: they can be extremely moody, and they can maneuver skillfully because the path, the means, is not the dominant factor for them. It is precisely the auxiliary one, so it can be twisted and bent if the judging function demands it. This is something that most people don’t understand. Where NPs navigate, NJs make channels and dams. The tricky part is that we are not in S-territory here: both the river and the infrastructure are invisible.
Foresight is NJ’s vehicle because they are always looking at the currents and how they can be diverted. It is from that perspective that they are occupied with what is next. NJs are usually close to the idea of evolution, not in the “scientific” sense, but as a general concept: from their point of view there’s something that drives happenings and improvement, as those things don’t come by themselves (or are not trusted to do so, regardless of how much the person would say or prefer otherwise).
✸ NP = dominant Ne or Ni = conscious judgment conditioned by intuition.
NP is the Floater. (Related words: searcher, experimenter, discoverer, drifter). Instead of having a reference, NPs let their perception of connections tell them what to do and what to ignore or avoid. What they see best is how things change (that’s mostly why I called their vehicle “amazement”), so their conclusions always imply an acknowledgment and adaptation/openness to that. In contrast to NJs, and in the same way that SPs try to make use of objects, NPs see the advantages of following and navigating the streams and the tides, instead of imposing rules or evaluations on them. This doesn’t imply that they are moody, impulsive or unpredictable, on the contrary: they can be extremely calm and easygoing, precisely for their ability to “go with the flow”. Many people don’t understand this, probably because they assume rivers are always treacherous and turbulent.
NPs are attuned to encompassing transformations and completely new situations, perspectives and understandings. The idea of revolution (always in a very broad sense) is close to them: changing everything at once, letting implications have their effect and bring some new judgment, some new ordering terms, etc.