AKHROMANT
INDEX
ABOUT
FAQ
GLOSSARY
MBTI TYPINGS
MBTI RELATIONS
DISCORD
PHOTOGRAPHY
GENERAL
DIFFERENCES
TYPING
FUNCTIONS
TABLES
LISTS
WORKS
VARIOUS
NAMES
MEMES
MORE
PSYCHOLOGICAL TYPES #7X
Anonymous said: Hi! been reading your posts, its definitely a fresh perspective among the other prevalent and even misleading sources out there. With regard to the aforementioned, I have a few questions based on what I’ve seen to be underlying causes of issues regarding comprehension of the types: *what REALLY constitutes a “type”? Is it the cognitive processes/frames, and do they really follow a strict order?*If type is inborn, then why and to what extent? *Do people become/change into a particular type?
Or is it their gradual awareness of previously unconsious aspects that actually changes? If so, how? This seems to be a deterministic issue, a “nature vs nurture” type of thing. Anyway thank you for taking the time to consider my questions, its greatly appreciated.
Hi :) I’ll try to put the questions in chronological order.
- Type has its foundation in something physical. It exists for the same reason that the 2 sexes exist: because our biology distributed the functions among different individuals. I guess you could call it a “species-wide survival strategy”. From a certain perspective this can be considered a “devaluation of” or even an “attack on” the individual, for the benefit of the group: biology made you a cog in the species-machine, and it only cares about you in that sense. The plot-twist is that we humans have found other reasons for caring, about everyone, although sometimes people forget and behave like murderous monkeys, or much worse.
- Sex is determined at the time of fertilization, so maybe our type is, too. I don’t know. You can hypothesize that there’s an initial “phase” (minutes, days, months?) in which you don’t have a definite type, where you can “become” one (out of several, or all 16), and that the outcome depends on your environment (whatever that is). This might be extremely difficult to find out and say for sure. Why are some types more common than others? No idea, it might be something that happens here.
I don’t know the exact “moment” when a person’s type is determined*, or the “rules”, if there are any. I only know that identical twins can have different psychological types, that siblings can have completely different functions, and that a child can have just 2 functions in common with one of his/her parents, and none with the other. That’s why I tend to consider a particular person’s type random, and the combinations that I haven’t found yet (for example no functions in common between parents-child) probably just a question of typing more people. There might be some kind of pattern, of course, but it doesn’t seem immediately obvious or prevalent.
- I think about psychological type as something inborn in the sense that once it has been “fixed” it doesn’t “go back” or switch to another one, it only “unfolds” to a greater or lesser degree. That’s what Jung called differentiation of the functions, and he actually wrote: “Type differentiation often begins very early, so early that in some cases one must speak of it as innate”. (There are some related things in post #24). In your words I suppose it would be “changes in the awareness of previously unconscious aspects”. What some people call a “change of type” I always interpret as the person (hopefully) realizing what has been his/her type all along, or getting closer to that. This improved self-knowledge includes noticing which ones are your proper functions and which are only ghosts. It can take place in very different ways, for different reasons.
- A type is defined by the particular arrangement of its 4 proper functions (or frames). The order is the most important thing, of course: which one is dominant in consciousness (X1), auxiliary in consciousness (X2), auxiliary in the unconscious (X3), and dominant in the unconscious (X4). ENTPs and ISFPs have the same functions, ESFJs and INTJs have the same functions, etc, but the way those are located and dependent (X2, X3) or independent (X1, X4) on/from one another makes the resulting types completely different.
*Edit: Jung makes a distinction between somatic and psychological type, saying that their relation is a problem that “remains completely unsolved”, and talking about changes in the latter. I don’t make that distinction, and consider those changes as alterations inside the same type, the true one, with the focus of the person moving from one function location to another. Jung might be unsure, but he often talks about someone’s type as something definite (and essentially inborn): the “true nature”, “the real type”. He also writes: “You see, a child is not born a tabula rasa, as one assumes. The child is born as a highly complex organism, with existing determinants that never waver throughout life and that give the child his character”. He writes more about this in the introduction of Chapter X: “Ultimately, it must be the individual disposition which decides whether the child will belong to this or that type despite the constancy of external conditions”, and he mentions that abnormal circumstances might result in a “falsification of type”, which “can be cured only by developing the attitude consonant with his nature” (the somatic type). Jacobi says that our attitude (e/i) “is anchored in our biological constitution and is much more firmly determined from birth than is our functional type” (T/F/S/N), so maybe a middle point to consider is that e/i is inborn and T/F/S/N gets determined in early childhood (I’m referring to the dominant function here). In any case, if type changed it wouldn’t be a type, it would be a state.
Anonymous said: If this isn’t an unecessary question, how do you distinguish ESTP-ENTJ (and ISTP-INTJ)? It’s just that their main temperaments are the same, and I keep seeing other similar traits in both of them. Maybe this is why the wrong functions show they all have “Ni-Se”
That’s part of a widespread confusion that also includes ENFP-ESFJ and INFP-ISFJ. In each of those 4 pairs the types share several “weighty” things (main temperament and conscious mode of judgment being the most important), so it can be difficult to distinguish them (on top of everything else that’s difficult about typing, of course).
I don’t know if there’s a connection between the confusion and the wrong functions, but frankly my concern here is to get things right :P not so much to disentangle others’ mistakes. I mean, you also have the clear contribution that this made to the Socionics mess (mostly because they don’t understand J/P): it made them switch ESTP and ENTJ (they are still fighting over that one), made them think that ISFJ and INFP have the same dominant-inferior functions, and also that both INTJ-ISTP and ESFJ-ENFP have the same auxiliary-tertiary ones. That’s all wrong, of course.
So, ok. I know you didn’t ask about all of them, but I’ll take this opportunity to cover the four pairs :)
Many of the following aspects are something that you just have to notice, I don’t know how to put it. They are not manifest expressions, but approximate descriptions of what I get from people. You can’t capture this kind of thing with a camera, or simply accepting the words used by the person to describe him/herself. You need to try and go beyond that, focus on interpretations and evaluations and worries and intentions, and so on.
In the end this is about knowing the difference between S/N and also between J/P. So a summary could go like this:
S/N
Ss (STPs and SFJs here) prefer working with concrete motives, proofs, means and results, and probably ignore or feel a little insecure when dealing with changing connections, ramifications, chances, implications, etc. A sufficiently good focus on objects and forms should take care of all that. Ns (NTJs and NFPs here) are the other way around: for them the important thing is the overarching movement, the power, the flow, or the meaning. A good understanding and handling of that should bring the best out of things.
With NTs (·/choleric) there’s always an external push, an expecting and/or demanding approach, while SPs (·/sanguine) don’t find it so hard to insert themselves in what others are already doing (in fact they usually want to do just that). So you tend to see NTs either indifferent or distant or angry, and SPs more attentive or involved or playful.
J/P
Js make specific selections among the possibilities, and follow them. This makes them more planful: they usually have a previous blueprint or course of action in mind, even if it’s not conceptual. Combining that with N means that NJs keep checking if things go as they should. Adding S gives SJs the Guardian qualificative. If someone has noticeable interests related to [personal] “motivation”, “potential”, “growth”, “development”, “progress” and that kind of step-by-step thing (books, methods, practices, self-discipline, etc), [s]he’s probably a J. Ps don’t work so much along lines, they are more emergent, taking and discarding as the situation requires. It doesn’t mean they are always changing: some do, others don’t. When they do, it’s not often following established guides.
(At this point you might ask: why do I keep repeating everything in every post? Good question. The answer is: I don’t, and even if I did, people would still find a way to not read it). (Just a little inside joke, hehe (^_-)v)
In the next section I’ll try to explain some of the characteristics that I look for, apart from what has already been explained in previous posts, taking the pairs one by one. Remember that what I might say about a certain type below is not necessarily exclusive to that type: I mention it because it can be useful for these particular comparisons.
✸ ESTP-ENTJ
ENTJs can’t relax, even when they are on vacation, creating, having fun or telling jokes (“being funny”) there’s some kind of tension within and around them, in the way they talk and operate, how they relate to and interact with the situation and surroundings, etc. It doesn’t mean that they are always visibly active, not at all, in fact it’s not uncommon for them to be very quiet and still, even if you can notice the “machinery” moving inside. With ENTJs there’s a permanent need for control, and it can be elusive. It’s not a sensory control, but an abstract one, so there are moments when you look at the ENTJ and wonder “what’s the problem now?” (INTJs can have a similar attitude, but it’s basically hidden).
ESTPs can really lose themselves in the action and the moment, you can see them having genuine fun, getting immersed in the quality of what they are doing (not necessarily pleasant, but somehow “enjoyable” or entertaining), improvising and adapting more easily, etc. That’s why it’s way more common for ESTPs to “act silly”, for example, making a fool of themselves, being ridiculous (unintentionally or just because), etc. (I think that’s also related to how many of their Contrary INFJs are interested in the topic of “living in the present”).
In this context ESTPs are more “innocent” (in a teenager way) because they are more open to what happens. ENTJs basically need a purpose for everything they do. They are always fighting in some sense, you can usually see they are not convinced about things (classic NT trait).
ESTPs like making others reveal themselves, how they truly are, what they truly want, what they are really capable of, etc. (Many ESFPs do something along those lines, too, but in a more “friendly” way). ENTJs tend to assume the worst in that sense (or they just don’t care), and go directly to the “managing” stage: establishing or enforcing rules and methods, giving orders and ultimatums, etc.
I’ve found several ENTJs with common addictions (especially smoking and drinking), at different levels, and they usually have a hard time quitting. This is not exclusive to ENTJs, of course, but, being very often more public and “aspiring” than other types, it’s very noticeable when it’s present, and might be a recurring theme in their lives.
✸ ISTP-INTJ
A similar thing happens here. INTJs have a more “thoughtful”, “purposeful” or “conceptual” interaction with people and objects. There’s an intellectual intention in their movements, sometimes down to an extreme detail. ISTPs’ are more natural and free, sometimes even a bit excessive in the sense of not noticing [others’] boundaries, what’s appropriate, etc. So, as a general rule, ISTPs are less sophisticated than INTJs. ISTPs can be precise, too, but they are more about pragmatism than identification and correctness, so not everything around/from them follows a definite conceptualization. It’s the non-visible effect and the practical utility that counts for them, not the “idea” (you could say that where ISTPs are about reliability, INTJs are about intent). So you might see areas of randomness and unconcern (even a certain sloppiness) in ISTPs’ work, but not very often in INTJs’.
The collections of the ISTPs that I know are about [personal] narratives (including relationships and achievements), or consist mainly of useful things (= tools, even if they are old, etc). INTJs can collect really strange or (apparently) random things, not immediately useful (like books or statues), because they see a particular meaning in them (this is just classic S vs N).
INTJs are usually observing and/or distrustful of others’ behaviors and motives, news and stories, etc, but in comparison ISTPs are more credulous (this is again the general P-innocence vs J-distance, in this case Child vs Adult). In fact, some INTJs are all about guiding and/or benefiting indirectly from [their knowledge of] how other people think and act (that’s partly why I call them Investors). Yes, there are very “smart” ISTPs, of course, but their distrust probably comes from personal experience, I don’t think it’s their natural state or their more comfortable disposition. For INTJs it’s just how they see things, I don’t think they can help it. There are often warnings in [the background meaning of] INTJs’ work.
✸ ENFP-ESFJ
ENFPs have a more absent-minded air, and can really “waste time” in a way that ESFJs just can’t. I’d say ESFJs are always doing something (classic SJ trait), even if that’s just talking, voicing concerns or being enthusiastic/dramatic. I think they don’t like games as much as ENFPs, or activities where being entertained is more important than sharing with other people. From that point of view some ENFPs can be considered “loners” in comparison, and that’s probably why many of them identify as “introverts”. (For a lot of people every non-EFJ person seems to be an “introvert”, and even some of those, too).
ENFPs are more easy-going and don’t worry so much about the flow of events or the group/tangible evaluation. They don’t get hysterical (and even physical) like many ESFJs do from time to time. Where ESFJs communicate global/group states (positive and negative), and also needs, requirements and projects, ENFPs are more about spreading news, ideas, options and relatively neutral activities. There’s a predominant sense of duty or responsibility (which can become counterproductive) in all SJs, in different forms, and various approaches to the benefits of freedom and discovery (which can sometimes lead to problems, too) in NPs.
✸ INFP-ISFJ
ISFJs are more classically productive than INFPs. They are more consistently organized and, following the previous comparison, they don’t tend to waste time, either. This is again SJ vs NP. They can be more devoted but also more extreme than INFPs: the known idea of dominant Fi and how it can grow to dangerous levels (for themselves and for others) corresponds to ISFJs (Fi-Si-Ne-Te), not to INFPs (Ni-Fi-Te-Se). This is of course one of the most common misconceptions in typology. (Something similar happens between INFJs and ISFPs).
ISFJs’ work is more personal and/or inwardly emotional, more down-to-earth, easier to contextualize physically and historically (through styles, links, references, etc), and also more prone to some kind of tragic motif. In comparison, what most INFPs do is just unintentionally weird and/or undecipherable, out-of-nowhere, and mostly impersonal. They tend to be more sporadic and/or irregular, that is: not so reliable when it comes to maintaining rhythm or quality (there is some IS/IN contrast there).
Anyway, I still need to find more examples of both types, these are just some limited outlines, there might be lots of exceptions.
–
I hope this helps.
Anonymous said: I don’t know if you’re still on here, but I wanted to say thank you for writing all about the real functions. I finally narrowed myself down to ENTP, but I also related to ENTJ’s Te (the badly described kind) and your blog put it into perspective. Having Fi instead of Fe makes a lot of sense to me. But could you tell me more about ENTPs to make sure I have my type correct? I believe I do, but it was the old system. Thank you!
I’m still here, yes, it’s just that I need a lot of time to answer messages, sorry :T Thank you for reading and telling me :)
ENTPs are smart and clever, very difficult to trick or deceive, quite outgoing and fearless, with an eye for opportunities and systems of different kinds, for things to do that are new and interesting, things to discover and achieve, things to seize/exploit and sell, etc. They keep changing what they do all the time (even themselves, how they appear to others, etc). They never wait for anything or anyone (but tend to make others wait/hurry for them), and they usually have many projects running simultaneously.
They like the latest and the unique, the untried approaches and mixes, etc. They have a problem with immovable things and anything that can’t be made to work for [their] benefit (I’d say this is EN in general). Some are more forceful and expressive than others. They can be very funny and try to comfort others, but they can also be extremely cold, selfish and inconsiderate, [ab]using people and situations to shocking degrees, etc.
ENTPs reflect many ideas related to the Devil, especially as a masterful and sometimes outright scandalous rebel that goes against the established order of things, someone who knows and utilizes people’s egos, who defends them but can also manipulate them, etc. It’s basically a perfect analogy, which includes a certain sexual ambiguousness that some of them have, and the fact that many of them, especially if they are artists, take up Devil-related names or references, and they do it gladly.
Some ENTPs have this ability to present what they are currently doing as if it was the absolute most interesting thing anyone in the world could occupy themselves with. They can be impressive and spectacular, but if you get too close you can end up with unexpected scars and burns (or worse). The Devil is tempting ₍₍ ◝( ◉ ‸ ◉ )◟ ⁾⁾ but dangerous (｀▽´)
Yesterday I published a post with some bits about ENTJs, it might be useful if you want to compare. You can also check the examples in the typings page. There are some extreme people there :P but it can give you an idea. Take a look at the other types, too, try to see the whole landscape :)
Anonymous said: Hello, I left another message on here today and I wanted to let you know that your blog really helped me with typing. Have Te for ENTP second makes a lot of sense, because I am very driven and yet, all the ENTP sites are like, “ENTP = Lazy” and I never really related to most ENTPs I met on forums. Because everyone was saying, “I failed at this or that”. And I’m like, “am I the weird one where who actually succeeds in getting something done? Am I mistyped??” Thank you and Happy New Year!
Haha, thanks again :D
Te as a conscious function can be part of the “driven” quality, yes (ET = practical intelligence), but that might be also related to NT (external choleric), and of course we have to remember that willpower is not a function. But yes, lazy is actually one of the less fitting adjectives that you can use to describe ENTPs. They are not automatically the most hard-working of a given group (especially not the hard- part), but they are simply not lazy. I’m pretty sure that particular stereotype is a consequence of mistyping with the nonexistent stacks, because it’s definitely some ENFPs that can be called lazy. ENFP’s functions are Ne-Fe-Ti-Si, which makes some people mistype them as “ENTPs”.
Anonymous said: x1 Thank you so much for your reply- I understand it takes a long time and I appreciate it. Your replies are well-thought out and helpful. Anyway, your description on ENTP fit me quite well. Oddly enough, I have a two usernames related to Hell which are a standard. Getting close to me is interesting. I have ‘resting nice face’. My family has also confirmed I get more scary the longer you know me. It’s like I wear all these masks and I get scared be myself because you might like what you see.
x2 So, in short, I seem nice and outgoing at first glance. As for ENTJ, I read and enjoyed your thoughts about it yesterday. I relate to not being able to relax. It’s a weird day when I am found lying in the couch staring at the sky- doing NOTHING. But we all know my mind is still running, but when that break downs (when I’m sick) it’s scary. But, I didn’t relate to being silent as much. Because I have grown an unhealthy fear of silence and I can’t seem to keep my mouth shut about my interests.
x3 When I learn about a subject, I HAVE to talk about it. Because if I don’t, I will EXPLODE. I don’t know why, but I have learned over time, I process things most by talking it out. I can process things in my head, but I tend to think out loud all the time. As for feeling lazy, I feel like I am all the time, but my family always tells me I am not. It’s weird… I DO get into places where I will play games online, etc, but I get things done. Anyways, I appreciate you telling me I’m not lazy. :)
x4 Because I always feel as if I should be DOING MORE. Another thing that fits well with Jung’s functions for ENTP that stood out was their Fi. I have always felt life was ‘unfair’ and it should be ‘fair’. But fair doesn’t mean even, it means 100% equal. (The short, short version and I don’t know how else to present this). But that’s where I got mixed up with ENTJ as I related to low Fi. Anyway, thank you for listening and I’m sorry if I haven’t quite figured out the new system yet. Thanks!
Don’t be sorry, this is a very complicated issue, and I’m discovering things, too. We are definitely not easy to understand :)
Most of what you say seems to fit an extraverted person, very likely an ENT, yes. But not relaxing, the talking things out in order to think, and what you write about “doing more” (instead of “new” or “different”) might be indications of ENTJ instead of ENTP. I’m not sure, but it got me thinking…
That feeling of unfairness also seems more J than P. One manifestation of Fi4 for a marked ENTJ could be that what’s good [and/or bad] feels distant or unreachable. Sometimes I think this is what makes certain people feel like they have been “cast out”, which could be related to some interpretations of hell. An additional reason is that, as a projection, Fi4 can make ETJs feel like their own self-judgment (good or bad) is coming from the outside, which includes other people. (This sometimes leads to unprovoked attacks, as Jung explains regarding Te1).
Perhaps there is an explanation there for what you mention. I talked about this in post #24. Post #31, post #35 and post #51 are also related to this. In this context, the way a theoretical ENTJ sees forms (Si3) (maybe even in dreams) would be conditioned by that Fi4, and also they might feel as if their inner energies are activated by and/or have to serve/obey that “external” judgment (which in reality is internal). This would be Si3-Fi4.
Fairness for an ENTP could be more about freedom, about anti-authority, anti-censorship, free flow of information, free market, etc, and they would have the opposite idea about energy and judgment: morality should obey/serve utility (Fi3-Si4). (This is one of the reasons for typing Ayn Rand as ENTP).
I don’t know if you’ve heard of him but an example of what you could consider “talkative ENTJ” could be Jordan Peterson (in fact I think he can help ENTJs the most with what he says). And I think people like Bill Hicks are ENTJs, too. Hicks had some intense devil-related jokes, but I don’t think he was ENTP, his devil was the warrior/punisher kind, definitely angry>rebellious, and that matches ENTJ better (ENTP-Devil is more about playing with or simply ignoring people).
ENTJs are very demanding, of others and themselves, and it’s a continuous and very obvious attitude. They tend to be extremely hard-working and intelligent (especially in the “walking encyclopedia” sense). They can be fun, too, but it’s a “serious fun”. They keep pushing, all the time, although not very often in varying directions.
Anyway, take your time. Read things again. You know you have the tables, the lists, etc. You can ask those who know you to compare and say which traits and which famous people fit you the most, for example. J/P is very often the most difficult to distinguish, we usually identify the other 3 letters first.
Anonymous said: ENT(?) Anon again, I am still reading all of the information you sent me, but I have many questions once I finish. Thank you so much for your help!
No problem :) I’ll answer your questions here so we have everything in one place.
Anonymous said: x1 Thank you for understanding. I have several questions after reading your reply and the links you attached. It’s interesting that you caught onto ENT, because everyone in person who typed me (through interaction, or reading 16Person. Profiles) said, ENTP. The online guesses are varied, because I don’t like sharing personal information about myself. But since I am on Anon, I feel a bit more safe doing so. But I’ve gotten ENTP, INTJ, ENFJ, INFJ. But I didn’t elaborate as much as I am now..
x2 and I didn’t explain all that I am now. I did it in a weird format where I described the frames, (badly at that). And the person I asked was rude in their reply. Anyway, I didn’t realise there was a difference between doing something new vs. more. That’s an interesting observation. Also, it may be important to note 2 things. 1). When I started to learn more about ENTP, I became determined to do more. Because I didn’t want to be a ‘lazy ENTP’. 2). Years before this…
x3 I tried a homeschool program where I had to write down everything I did for school and I realised how much time I spent writing and I impressed myself. So, in short, I have had this drive to do things (I think), but I can’t tell anymore. I just didn’t want to be lazy. Onto Fi, but that’s interesting. My family will report that when I was a kid, “it’s not fair” was my battle cry. It might have been (may be distorted a bit from learning too much stupid MBTI) more that it was unfair to me, but..
x4 even now, I still think things should be fair. Since I am on Anon, I am going to elaborate on this. I don’t like how now it seems to be a thing where you can put down men, straight people, white people to raise yourself up. It just makes someone heterophobic/sexist/racist and I am tired of it. Replace ANY of the words with another phrase and it’s wrong. It shouldn’t be okay. I think it’s wrong, because it’s not FAIR or right.
x5 Back on topic, I do feel ‘cast out’ sometimes, because I can feel lonely in a crowd, but I think everyone does. Because everyone feels like no one understands them. Anyways, yes. I understand what you’re saying about feeling like good and bad come from outside, because my judgement can be swayed. Ex. I see a movie and my family will not tell me what they thought of it to not sway my own review. I feel like a pushover sometimes, because of that. I don’t want to be swayed by other people…
x6 So, for movie reviews, I usually share first. The thing is, “you can like a movie if I disliked it” is frequently said and that’s okay. But… I wish I wasn’t like this. But there are somethings I don’t like for sure. Anyway, onto the next questions I had about the links you shared with me. 1). Disclaimer read, X4(g1) would be Fi/Fe? So, is that why my views are swayed? 2). Since I can pick out Ne in people around me, does that mean it’s X2? According to Dave Superpowers, it’s hard to see X1.
x7 or some other MBTI source, I don’t remember, but frame one is the hardest to see. Maybe because I can see Ne, I thought I was Ne1. I don’t know at this point. Secondly, X3 would be Si (if we’re running with ENTJ). When I was young, I traveled a lot and my comfort food while traveling was kraft mac n’ cheese and I have a lot of regrets. Because I missed out on GOOD food, because this is all I wanted as a kid. As an adult, I internally cry over this. But I also think (si3) is helping me now.
x8 because it’s helping me organize my college life better. Also. I was reading other sites to learn more about (te1-fi4), because that framework doesn’t change. I related to having meltdowns. When I was a kid, I’d be cheerful for months at a time and then meltdown one day. I’ve gotten better at not letting myself have meltdowns by crying more often. Or watching things that make me cry? I tend to mirror people’s feels, or so I’ve read about ENTPs. And sitting next to people while watching…
x9 (?) a movie can be uncomfortable. Because I can tell if they don’t like it or are unsettled. But anyway, ENTP freedom isn’t the kind I’m looking for. I am not okay with somethings. I am okay though, with free flow of information, if we’re talking music or movies, to an extent. I will have to think on this more. I searched Jordan Peterson on YT and wow… I watched 2 minutes of him and was like, “HE USES ALMOST THE SAME HAND GESTURES I DO!” I know it’s weird to focus on that, but it stood out.
x10 the second thing that caught me was the way he talked. I was like, “I think I sound like that too? Maybe? The pauses are like me, I think.” I agree that I am hard on myself and I used to have the encyopedia read to me as a kid. No joke. Anyway, I hope this helps both of us and narrowing down P/J has always been hard for me. As for asking people, I have no more resources to ask. I spent all their time going in a circle to ENTP. So, I am at a loss. And Ne2? Keeps making me doubt my type.
Hmm… The picture has changed quite a bit. You already seemed too polite before for an ET (and not blunt enough), and now you also look concerned about different forms of group evaluation: some of the “not-lazy” reasons, the fairness (social>internal), etc. That, together with other things you mention, sounds much more EF than ET. For example crying voluntarily, or noticing and mirroring others, which could very well be conscious Fe (not an ENT thing at all), like the way you explain the “swayed” part. In fact, if you were Fi4 (ETJ) or even Fi3 (ETP) you wouldn’t have a problem with being influenced by other people, quite the contrary.
We jumped to the functions way too soon :P At this moment I think you are either ESFJ, ENFJ or ENFP. (By the way: it’s only some ENFPs that can be considered lazy, especially in comparison to ENTPs). I’d recommend forgetting about the functions and focusing on the letters. That’s the best way. Read the typing series and stick to that. Think about each letter again. Don’t rush it. Let some days pass. Then look at the lists, tables, typings, etc.
I talked about the difference between ESFJ and ENFP here. Other related posts could be post #52 (J/P), post #55 (S/N), post #59 and post #69. You’ll probably have more doubts, now and later, but I can only offer the general guidelines and keywords of the various posts, so with time you can get to your own conclusion :)
Anonymous said:x1 Thank you for reading my responses. I have some thoughts on the matter I want to share before I commit to any type. I understand that I may not be ‘mean’ enough to be an ET, but also, I feel as if I’ve been raised to be kind. I live with NFs and I can tell I am different from them. I also am in my 20’s and had a long time to work on my emotions. I don’t cry of my own freewill. I’ve just learned forcing myself to watch sad things keeps me from having emotional breakdowns.
x2 As for emotions and mirroring, it’s uncomfortable. I don’t like doing it and I am very good at putting my emotions aside. Also, aren’t we attempting to get away from stereotypes here? ETs may be known to be mean, but isn’t that a generalization? Also, I grew up with internet rules of ‘be nice, because there is a person on the other side of the keyboard’. Maybe I’m from a different generation or something, but I’ve learned to be nicer. Yesterday, my family said I’ve become nicer…
x3 And that makes me feel good. I know I can be stubborn and mean. I had a teacher in college confront me with how ‘mean’ I was during a club meeting, but we were only discussing fundraising ideas and somehow, I came across as mean? Anyway, I’ve learned emotions are okay- not my best friend- but forcing myself to feel keeps me from being so sad or mad, I see myself outside myself. I’ve had that happen before and I don’t like it. I think we all have room for growth and that’s the reason
x4 I am here. I want to learn my type to learn how to grow as a person. It’s hard to keep being mistyped by either tests or people or both, because I want to know and I want to move on. Secondly, somehow it really shakes me up sometimes when I end up being retyped, because I thought I knew who I was. The thing is, when I look deep down, I don’t really know who I am and that scares me. I can think of basic words or the things I like, or things I’ve done… but who am I?
The things you mention are not the kind of compensating habits that a T could learn [from Fs], they really look like coming from a person that’s already F. And it’s not about isolated events or about liking the effects or not, it’s about being conscious of things, paying attention like you do, etc. And of course every type can cry and also be “mean”, but the way you explain yourself indicates that you care more about F-related things than T-related ones. In fact, that very feeling of wanting to know “who you are” is much more common in Fs than in Ts (and with extraverts it’s very often a Ti3 or Ti4 manifestation).
Don’t “commit” to any type. Remember the last part of post #14 (and the whole post #12, of course).
And consider this: maybe you don’t need to know your type to be a better person. Notice what you’re doing. You are already evaluating your own growth from other angles, so you already have a sense of how to improve apart from all these letters.
Anonymous said: Hi, I don’t think I’m ever gonna figure it out, but I was wondering about the differences between STs need for efficacy and NT for mastery, particularly with respect to the IxTPs.
Here is an idea: if ST is building or repairing or enjoying a skyscraper (using it), NT is buying, renting or climbing it, or some other version of owning it. The basic idea is that N goes over/past the object, somehow, while S stays with it. So in this context efficacy is about getting things done (whatever comes up, in itself), and mastery about moving forward or keeping the (abstract) plan going without being stopped by that or any other particular obstacle/task.
You might see, for example, an ISTP and an INTP both growing vegetables, and maybe you don’t notice clear differences from the outside (especially if you don’t know anything about agriculture), but their reasons are not the same. Setting aside livelihood and economy considerations, ISTP does it just because (lots of ISTP farmers out there): vegetables are useful, you can eat them, and that’s always a benefit, there’s an intrinsic value in that activity. INTP knows that, but he does it as a representation of or a means for something else, not for the activity or the end result in itself. He might do it to show [himself] what he can control, what can be achieved, how growing food can be integrated in or derived from a larger [lifestyle] plan/ideal, etc.
I interpret their improvements from there. (I)ST(P) looks for ways to make things more effective or efficient, ways of increasing the experience (speed, intensity, productivity, etc), but (I)NT(P) has a more “distant” reference or perspective, which demands progressing along the challenge of achievement, so the word “mastery” here is not so much about the activity in itself, but about its importance as an element, its place or “role”, its “weight”, etc.
You can look at other keywords to see where those two might be going, and try to infer definitions of ST-efficacy and NT-mastery from there. You can take for example T as precision, and S/N as forms/relations: aspiring STs would aim at accuracy of forms, states, conditions, etc (=matter), and comparable NTs at accuracy of relations, implications, rules/laws, etc (=thought).
Anonymous said: How does one stop caring about what others think to do what is truly right or necessary? I always feel tied to what others want of me, but sometimes it goes past my limits. I try to assert myself, it backfires because I get hostile unexpectedly, people hate (me for) it, I regret it, and repeat. I don’t want to hurt anyone. I just don’t want to be hurt anymore, either. :( I’ll do anything to change/correct myself within my means if it’s just all my fault.
This is actually a very broad question with lots of complicated elements, and I’m not sure that I can give you the answer you want. Even though I like thinking and talking about this sort of thing, I’m really not the private counselor type <(．＿．)> I’ll probably refer to unrelated aspects, but I feel like I need to do that here. Then I’ll come back to the first question, which seems the most important point.
There might be some possible assumptions that we need to discern. For example: you don’t want to ignore everything everybody says, and then do anything you want. That’s not what this is about. It’s probably an obvious disclaimer, but we have to remember that.
Ok. I suppose you are talking about opposing opinions of those close to you, in matters of studies/work or other personal (life) choices. If you step back a little there are several topics that could be considered here. And they are not easy. For example:
What is “not caring”?
Is it about the opinions or about the feeling[s] that those opinions cause in you? Can you stop others from thinking differently, for themselves, or from voicing their views? Can you force them to agree with you? No, you can’t, although I’m sure many people [would] like to do exactly that, and some do resort to [threats of] violence and other methods in order to, at least, silence others (not a nice habit, of course). So it’s about how they make you feel. What is not-caring-about-a-feeling, then? We’ll come back to this later.
What “others” do we take into account?
And why? Because you’re not talking about everybody, right? It’s probably your family and/or friends, including perhaps your coworkers. It’s not some random person on the street. Or is it? There seems to be an implied need for understanding here, for acceptance, or some sort of “blessing”, or maybe help, which can be of different kinds and constitutes a separate matter altogether. The point is: sometimes it might feel you are surrounded by contrary opinions and views, but that doesn’t mean you are wrong. It doesn’t mean you are right, either (just like finding approval), which brings us to the next question.
What is right?
This is the most important aspect, of course. It’s difficult for me to explain how-not-to-care if I’m not sure of what we are talking about, mostly because I just don’t want to condone bad behavior. But I’m not asking for specifics: as I said before, that’s not my approach or the purpose of the blog. I’m just saying that the answer should work for different people and situations, so I have to imagine that you are trying to quit smoking, for example. That would be an absolute right. Now, does the right thing need to be “asserted”? Think about that.
If there is a fight, what started it? (not who)
And what are the “opponents” actually fighting over? What is the link (if there’s one) between the fight[s] and [doing] what is right? You have to be aware of the real source[s] of events. You probably get “hostile” when you try to explain yourself, not when you are doing what is right. What is right doesn’t need explanations.
To what extent do you need to explain yourself?
Unless you live independently and isolated, there are other people around you, and people like to communicate. Most of the time communication is just an illusion of connection, but that’s probably a topic for another post.
The thing is that a lot of these problems come from the fact that the person interprets his/her own resolutions as options that involve other people, so they must be discussed and agreed upon. That’s not a bad idea per se but, among other things, it’s trying to displace responsibility, from the personal to the common/social, or simply to others. There are lots of possibilities here, and many dangers, like for example those who try to manipulate people to do what they want, or those who lose themselves completely in the group, perhaps to justify their individual actions.
The previous behavior is (or should be) more common in children and teenagers, because they are learning about the world, of course. They just don’t know. At first you ask permission for lots of things, but then you start realizing how it goes, you start finding [your own] standpoints, figuring things out, etc. I don’t know, this is hard to put into words but, when do you stop asking others? And why? Is it always about knowledge (information, methods, etc), or can it be something more indefinite? Because you don’t learn only what’s already written in books, right? You also learn about yourself, for example. That might be the only “change” you need.
When there’s a situation like that, what is it that gets hurt?
You have to identify what’s actually being “hurt”, because unless we are dealing with physical actions (or clear psychological abuse, like someone trying to control every little thing you do), many times it’s only our own images that “feel attacked”. This goes for everyone in the argument, of course. Images are like wishes, or fears, about what/how we want [others] [not] to do/be [seen] (yes, lots of combinations there). They are usually constructed around concepts, like “generous”, “artistic”, “French”, “different”, “sinful”, “inferior”, “unfortunate”, or more complex conceptions. In any case, they are false. A classic image is someone’s profession, but people are not their profession. Images are tempting because they give focus, and direction, and keep you away from realizing that you don’t know everything.
Anyway, as a general perspective, if what you hear from the outside is true, it can only “damage” what’s false, and if it’s false, it can’t do anything to what’s true. That’s why some people tend to interpret emotional reactions as a sign of not-right (like one would with a child’s tantrum): “if you were actually sure you wouldn’t react defensively”. Hmm… There’s something in that idea, but it’s not entirely correct: you can be right and emotional at the same time. It just doesn’t look as good. It seems your ego or something exclusive to you is involved in the matter, and those who think this way are more likely to accept what’s simply stated or found as a “neutral” or “impersonal” (“objective”) fact. Of course, they have different systems to determine what’s “neutral” (like for example a numeric formula), so one way of “convincing” some of them would be finding what’s their criterion, and describe the subject in those terms (if you can).
And finally, back to your question.
Together with the previous points, part of the effort is to stop identifying with what you feel. Put it (see it) at another level (because that’s where it is), and just watch it. Notice the distance between a [negative] response and your reaction to that response, and stay in there. Don’t equate others’ reactions to your statements or ideas with your own value, try to see that somewhere between you and them. It helps if you can approach/frame your contribution as a simple description, instead of presenting the object/subject as a representation of yourself.
I don’t know if this is helpful. I don’t know the extent to which my perception of things can offer something valuable to those who have different psychologies. In my experience it’s not too much, and usually not the tiniest bit. But that’s what I got :T
In the end, putting aside particular cases, what you should really remember is this: “being hurt” is a lifelong thing. The capacity for feeling bad is the same as the one for feeling good. You can’t have one without the other. Some people think those are two different channels, and they want only what comes through the good one. Well, that’s obviously not how it works. It’s the same channel, people. The same. In fact, the more you try to have only the good, the worse the bad gets.
It doesn’t mean you have to put up with everything, but as we’ve seen, you need a reason that’s not based on lies.
This applies to other things, like for example expectation-disappointment: the greater and more genuine your hope, the bigger your possible disappointment. But if you never get disappointed, it might be because you never get hopeful, either. It’s all part of the same quality: sensitivity. That’s what life is. It’s not suffering, like those who only see bad in the channel tend to say. No, it’s the whole thing: the capacity for that, for the opposite, and everything in between. Life is sensitivity.
THE TYPES IN JAPAN
The source of these illustrations is partner-s.net, which seems centered on “finding the best partner”. I don’t recommend using typology for that kind of thing, I just saw the drawings (somewhere else) and thought they could be useful for another type-table :)
The images are better understood as symbolic representations of a certain inner/global disposition that each MBTI type can have, in an abstract sense, not so much as their actual visible appearance (although in some cases and situations it can be pretty similar). I think the author[s] took the Socionics names and adapted them to different [Japanese] stereotypes and/or occupations (or something like that). I guess the results are not too wrong, and they are surely quite funny :) I like for instance how the pure melancholic (ISTJ) is trying his best at having a nice day :D and how the Peacemaker (ISFP) is basically telling the cats to behave better with one another :)
equinoctum-deactivated20201119 said: This is really late, but I just remembered how Alex said in an email that developing rational things, in the sense of more structure, helped to compensate for his irrational side. Could this be helpful for other P types, or is this closer to what you described in your typing note about J/P and need for rules/structure?
It might not seem that way at first glance, but with this kind of ideas we enter a dangerous terrain: help. Many things commonly called “help” are actually the exact opposite. This can be really treacherous. Helping implies (among other things) knowing what’s wrong, knowing what’s better, and knowing how to go from one to the other. And that’s a lot of knowing :P Much more than it seems.
The idea that “Ps need to compensate with some J” (or vice versa, or any other dichotomy) carries a lot of troublesome assumptions with it. Let’s see if I can explain how I think about all this.
✸ You can’t change between J and P (or any other letter). If you are a P you can’t ever “become” a J, or vice versa, you are stuck with it. So, to me, the idea that an INTP should “compensate” his/her letters and act more like an ESFJ (or vice versa, or any other example) is virtually the same as telling the hands that they should act more like hair, or an apple-tree more like a lemon-tree.
There’s a sort of stigmatizing supposition there, that we are all somehow “incomplete” or “flawed” by design, and a failure to recognize the fact that the types are different for a reason that encompasses everyone. A reason, not an error that must be “fixed”. With this kind of thinking we are almost implying that nature made a global evolutionary mistake and we are so clever that we know that and we also know how to correct it.
The underlying assumption there is that everybody must strive to be good at everything, and the problem is not only the impossibility of that, but also the totally unbalanced way in which people compare what is currently there to what “should” be there, because they think they know what “everything” is, when they don’t. Let’s just say that, even if you somehow try to achieve that sort of “perfection”, you’ll find that, at best, the common concept of “everything” is extremely tilted to one side.
✸ Building on what you mention, and taking ISFP (Si-Fi-Te-Ne) as an example, a probable interpretration of “more structure” could be about “following certain manifestations of Te”, right? But Fi is rational (J), too, it just isn’t called “rules” or “structure”.
What I mean is: we usually interpret only a very narrow set of things as “rational”. When people talk about “getting organized” (and similar ideas) they are often referring to work-related things, schedules, methods, planning, etc. They don’t really mean “rational” in the sense of the judging functions. There’s a lot that gets mixed between earning-money terminology and (supposed) psychology terminology. So I suspect that a lot of “irrational” sides are actually just non-productive or non-profitable traits. (And we are back to Myers considering herself a “Perceiver”, and the official MBTI not being truly useful for helping people psychologically, or helping people period, if you know what I mean).
Fe and Fi are rational, too. But you can easily find many FJs (Fe1 or Fi1) that only talk about “putting order” in their lives. They already have an order, it’s just not conceptual or “intellectual”. There’s a clear bias towards [Extraverted] Thinking being the only “valid”, “objective” or “rational” frame of reference for doing things, for measuring, for “improving”, etc. And sometimes it’s not even that, but nonexistent ideas like “achievement” or “success”, which distort everything even more. In fact, some people worsen the matter to an astonishing degree by equating “unsuccessful” with “having a personal/psychological problem”.
I hope you see the connection in all that, this post is difficult to organize :P
✸ Is there such a thing as “too much J” or “too much P”? If so, at what point does J or P become “bad”? And of course: who decides that? Because, you know, deciding that [for others] could be precisely an example of “too much J”… If someone does something clearly harmful (or is considered to be in an objectively bad situation), how can you really know if the cause is that [s]he’s “too J” or “too P”, and not something else? How do you know the cause is inside the person, and not outside? (Remember the canary).
There you have some of the most difficult questions that you can ask. People jump instantly to some kind of unquestioned principle (formula, etc) to answer them quickly, but very often wrongly.
✸ What I say in those 4 posts is the opposite of “compensating”. They are written from the perspective that, everything else being optimal, you need to let the hands be hands, and the hair be hair, the apple-tree be an apple-tree, and the lemon-tree be a lemon-tree.
Different plants need different amounts of water, for example, right? What happens if you force too much water to a plant that doesn’t need it? That’s a way of thinking about the MBTI letters, too. You might be causing a problem where there was none, because you don’t really know what/who you are dealing with. The problem (the “everything” I talked about before) is that most people think they know all the plants and their characteristics, or they think there’s only one, with that “human nature” or “tabula rasa” nonsense.
So where’s the comparison? The only potentially beneficial “comparison” is with[in] the plant (person) itself.
In the J/P case, you could say too much order can be just as dangerous as too much chaos. Ok. But one of the most important assumptions (or conclusions, however you prefer looking at it), which I probably should have included somewhere, is that there’s no blueprint or established criteria for knowing the “good outcome” that Js and especially Ps can produce. It’s not the economy, the views, the subscriber count, the salary, the duration of the contract, the number of rooms, the total worldwide earnings, the stock market, the points of accurate reproduction, etc. So, if his/her work doesn’t match any of those (or anything at all), it doesn’t mean someone is “too P”.
In the end, it’s an individual matter. Some Ps might benefit from one thing, and others from another.
✸ As I’ve written several times before, the usefulness that I see in identifying one’s own type (and others’) doesn’t imply any subsequent decision, action or practice. It’s the awareness in itself, the explanation of how we think, why we think that way, why others think differently, etc. I guess my approach to the types is as a tool for something else, something wider and deeper, that might be reached with other (non-)methods, too.
And as I’ve said also before, the medicine is the patient. There’s no [magic] formula for everybody, no sure-fire system, and no panacea. I’m sorry if this isn’t the answer that people want, but it’s the only one there is. The improvement is in the observation and the realization (without words, without techniques, etc), not in something else.
The only truly valuable change is the transformation of the person, not what [s]he does or tries to do afterwards. In fact, [s]he might keep doing exactly the same. It’s just a different person doing it now. The flower is the same, but your eyes have changed. So you are actually seeing it for the first time.
THE TYPES AND THE COURT CARDS (II)
This is a continuation of post #16. The images here are the court cards in the Egorov Tarot (I think they are really beautiful). The artist is Alexandre Egorov. Below the name of each card I’ve included a composite that tries to reflect the basic meaning of the card and the main conscious ability/interest of the corresponding MBTI type (it comes from intelligence and perception + rhythm). The last element is another possible name for each type, made with a different angle on intelligence and what I called “task” in post #49.