ha ha yes I remember something similar too, though for obvious reasons only experienced internally - especially being I was designing astrology sites (that was my high school final project) and doing other T things
How do people (mis)type you?
- Thread starter Ren
- Start date
ha ha yes I remember something similar too, though for obvious reasons only experienced internally - especially being I was designing astrology sites (that was my high school final project) and doing other T things
I wonder if the trick in the later part of the questionnaire is where it asks you to choose your most and least favoured things in the list. In principle that gets over the binary choice because you may like or hate them all, or simply just don't give a **** - you could still rank them in order of preference. Must say I found it harder myself to rank their choices than to just choose a yes or no earlier on. They seem to mix up things I couldn't compare easily, like choosing between
- The mating ritual of an aardvark
- An extrasensory perception
- The nursery rhyme Three Blind Mice
- A sceptic toe
How can you not choose between those options? The mating ritual of an aardvark is awesome. Clearly the best option. It even inspired an entire video game! Here it is, in case you've never heard of it.
I do have a semi unrelated question.. what exactly is a sceptic toe? Why is only your toe sceptic? Normally someone's entire outlook is sceptic. Do you frequently hold up your foot in front of your face? Is that how that works? :wateven::lol:
I do have a semi unrelated question.. what exactly is a sceptic toe? Why is only your toe sceptic? Normally someone's entire outlook is sceptic. Do you frequently hold up your foot in front of your face? Is that how that works? :wateven::lol:
I agree with what you're saying. I did still get INFJ, but was surprised at how the functions stacked. It's hard for me to pick an option when I wouldn't do any of what is listed, or depending on the situation I could see myself doing all or most of the options. It's like I get stuck imagining the scenario or trying to think of a real life example, like I have to understand the question and its meaning before can answer.
I usually get INFJ in online tests, but on the official MBTI test it was INTJ. That is the only one I've taken where you have two words shown and have to select the word you prefer. It showed the word Sentiment, like 10 times, and I really don't consider myself a sentimental person, so I almost always picked the opposite word, and honestly I think that's what skewed it.
I've read the type descriptions and looked into the cognitive functions. INFJ definitely resonnates more.
Anyway...just commiserating.
I would be skeptical if anyone claimed they've come up with TOE.
Or maybe the sceptic is referring to sheep, the word for it in Anglo-Saxon being sceap, or in a shorter version scep, both are in the dictionary. Tic is of course tick, the dangerous insect that may carry borreliosis. So sheep tick toe, the sheep has ticks between her toes. Hence the game Tic-Tac-Toe. Tac means attacking, according to OED for example in Tac-au-tac, which is a fencing term from French, so it's simply a shortened form. Ticks attack toes, or go between the scep toes.
Or do the sheep have involuntary tics that make the toes move? Yes, that's another good explanation:
The scep-tic toe (sheep-tic) toe is something that a human being can have too, the kind of tics that sheep often have. From wikipedia: "Tics can be invisible to the observer, such as abdominal tensing or toe crunching". So be careful, you don't want to have sceptic toes, it may be unpleasant and cause the police to notice you.
Great book(s), huh? It's up there among my favorites of all time.
@Ren I do seem to get the same vibe as your current self-typing from you! Something like a N-subtyped NiFeTi I don't draw a super-sharp distinction between socionics/mbti/jung, mostly because I use ideas from all of them and prefer to think there are many versions of the same pattern going on.
The subtle thing to unravel is I think a lot of our difference in vibe is also coming from enneagram differences. I don't think all Ne-ish people have my goal of just understanding the many angles and approaches to things in as exhaustive a way as possible. Like Jolanda/I briefly exchanged, I think there are Ne-ish types who I'd call more the optimist types than the skeptic types, the types that grow enamored with a possibility rather than just going from one to the other with skepticism/detachment.
I could see 5-ish/4-ish vibes to your process similarly. But it does seem to be set into operation via Ni/Fe/Ti!
Often, Fe has a somewhat more detached vibe to value-judgment, since the value is experienced as suggested from things independent of oneself, whereas Fi is almost like the fundamental defining bounds of how one relates to things and thus how one can find value/not.
Definitely get a Fe vibe from ya.
Plenty of Ti-ish stuff that isn't really INTP-mistakable unless viewed totally out of context of the rest.
The vibe I often get from Ni-ish people is more of building a picture than laying things out.
I often think about how 6-ish Ni-ish people differ, e.g. how would a NiTeFi skeptical type differ from me? I think there's one major difference: both struggle with doubt, needing to find a way to seek certainty, and so on. I think I have more faith in the idea of being able to do so by laying everything out as completely as possible.
Whereas there's a more pragmatic vibe to Te/Fi, almost like the subjectivity of Fi is complemented by Te's goal/result/algorithmic orientation. A lot of the times a way to deal with doubt/never commit to a possibility is to say "it depends what your goal is -- you'll adopt premises relative to that."
Ni actually can pair very naturally with 6 because while it's subjective, it's unconscious -- we often associate subjective with what we have most direct access to, but that's far from true of Ni ... being if anything closer to the unconscious.
But of course, your vibe isn't the 6-ish kind.
The subtle thing to unravel is I think a lot of our difference in vibe is also coming from enneagram differences. I don't think all Ne-ish people have my goal of just understanding the many angles and approaches to things in as exhaustive a way as possible. Like Jolanda/I briefly exchanged, I think there are Ne-ish types who I'd call more the optimist types than the skeptic types, the types that grow enamored with a possibility rather than just going from one to the other with skepticism/detachment.
I could see 5-ish/4-ish vibes to your process similarly. But it does seem to be set into operation via Ni/Fe/Ti!
Often, Fe has a somewhat more detached vibe to value-judgment, since the value is experienced as suggested from things independent of oneself, whereas Fi is almost like the fundamental defining bounds of how one relates to things and thus how one can find value/not.
Definitely get a Fe vibe from ya.
Plenty of Ti-ish stuff that isn't really INTP-mistakable unless viewed totally out of context of the rest.
The vibe I often get from Ni-ish people is more of building a picture than laying things out.
I often think about how 6-ish Ni-ish people differ, e.g. how would a NiTeFi skeptical type differ from me? I think there's one major difference: both struggle with doubt, needing to find a way to seek certainty, and so on. I think I have more faith in the idea of being able to do so by laying everything out as completely as possible.
Whereas there's a more pragmatic vibe to Te/Fi, almost like the subjectivity of Fi is complemented by Te's goal/result/algorithmic orientation. A lot of the times a way to deal with doubt/never commit to a possibility is to say "it depends what your goal is -- you'll adopt premises relative to that."
Ni actually can pair very naturally with 6 because while it's subjective, it's unconscious -- we often associate subjective with what we have most direct access to, but that's far from true of Ni ... being if anything closer to the unconscious.
But of course, your vibe isn't the 6-ish kind.
@charlatan Thanks for getting back to me on your views of my function use, I appreciate it Here's a few comments.
Awesome. It’s always nice to know other people don’t think I’m completely off the mark.
Yeah, Enneagram is definitely useful in distinguishing “your” brand of Ne, say, from @Lady Jolanda's. But it’s almost as if that were describing the quality of the process rather than the process itself, if you like. So for instance, you’d have an Ne process that’s geared towards scepticism (in super broad brushstrokes) while Jo would have an Ne process of a more ‘optimist’ quality, say. Still, the ideational process is very similar: it casts an impressively wide net almost by its very nature and then arranges what’s been ‘caught’ into categories of 'like' with Ti, because there are all sorts of different fish that have been caught – so many kinds of fish, in fact, as to make an Ni user like myself easily overwhelmed, like there’s so much difference between the different fish that I can’t see anything anymore, it’s just a big multi-coloured mass that I can’t make sense of.
Often what I would do then is just try to 'hang out' with the big fishy mass for a while, let it give me a feeling of sorts, maybe do something else for a while, and then eventually there will be a moment when everything clicks into place and I’ll say – never “these are all the different categories that make up the mass”, I actually never go there, it’s too exhausting for me, but – “this is the essence that all the parts of the mass have in common”. And it will really come as in a sort of flash, in fact not even a flash. From this moment will I just 'know' it.
Maybe other INFJs can relate to this. @Ginny, @jkxx, @AUM?
I’d agree. My thinking often functions by saying something like: “Let me give you a picture of what I have in my mind” – and that can produce the color analogy from our neutral monism conversation or a host of other metaphors/constructions in my own writing. Laying things out is always necessary at some point to ensure coherence and progress in the conceptual development but let’s just say it’s not my favorite or “most comfortable” aspect of the job.
I actually used to think I was INTP for a while. I think I’m a very Ni-Ti driven INFJ when I’m engaged in a philosophical conversation. I guess I also use Fe but more for the purpose of keeping the conversation going in the most amiable way possible, and that is certainly an important part of conversations also. Otherwise they’ll just be short-lived and not yield the interesting results that the neutral monism conversation has already yielded, for instance. I'd say I can be a good moderator of conversations too.
Here's a few comments.Awesome. It’s always nice to know other people don’t think I’m completely off the mark.
Yeah, Enneagram is definitely useful in distinguishing “your” brand of Ne, say, from @Lady Jolanda's. But it’s almost as if that were describing the quality of the process rather than the process itself, if you like. So for instance, you’d have an Ne process that’s geared towards scepticism (in super broad brushstrokes) while Jo would have an Ne process of a more ‘optimist’ quality, say. Still, the ideational process is very similar: it casts an impressively wide net almost by its very nature and then arranges what’s been ‘caught’ into categories of 'like' with Ti, because there are all sorts of different fish that have been caught – so many kinds of fish, in fact, as to make an Ni user like myself easily overwhelmed, like there’s so much difference between the different fish that I can’t see anything anymore, it’s just a big multi-coloured mass that I can’t make sense of.
Often what I would do then is just try to 'hang out' with the big fishy mass for a while, let it give me a feeling of sorts, maybe do something else for a while, and then eventually there will be a moment when everything clicks into place and I’ll say – never “these are all the different categories that make up the mass”, I actually never go there, it’s too exhausting for me, but – “this is the essence that all the parts of the mass have in common”. And it will really come as in a sort of flash, in fact not even a flash. From this moment will I just 'know' it.
Maybe other INFJs can relate to this. @Ginny, @jkxx, @AUM?
I’d agree. My thinking often functions by saying something like: “Let me give you a picture of what I have in my mind” – and that can produce the color analogy from our neutral monism conversation or a host of other metaphors/constructions in my own writing. Laying things out is always necessary at some point to ensure coherence and progress in the conceptual development but let’s just say it’s not my favorite or “most comfortable” aspect of the job.
I actually used to think I was INTP for a while. I think I’m a very Ni-Ti driven INFJ when I’m engaged in a philosophical conversation. I guess I also use Fe but more for the purpose of keeping the conversation going in the most amiable way possible, and that is certainly an important part of conversations also. Otherwise they’ll just be short-lived and not yield the interesting results that the neutral monism conversation has already yielded, for instance. I'd say I can be a good moderator of conversations too.
Last edited:
Yes indeed. This is a very good description of how it happens for me. Except the process is rather hyperbolic where during the "first 90%" only "10% of insight" is gathered and the other 90% comes in the last 10%, if this even makes any sense.
You make me think of how I'd look at a painting, if ever I'll get to see another one in person. Usually there are so many elaborate details, all of which draw the eye towards them, that it would be overwhelming to perceive everything at once. However, sometimes I'd look at a picture with my eyes slightly unfocussed, in order to get a holistic vibe from it and let it wash over me. Then I can look at the details and re-draw/refine my impression piece by piece. It takes a long time to look at something like that, but the idea of it just makes me want to go to a museum or gallery and stare at some painting for a long period of time (in my mind there is always a bench to sit on, as I tire faster when I'm on my feet).
Yup I went to an art site the other day and did just this with the various pictures they had (and they were rather good ones, different styles and all.)
It's amazing how Ni users like to speak in terms of paintings, pictures, images. I love it. It feels so intuitive to me, like a home.
Yes it is home to me too but it drives S users nuts and very quickly.
Hey now, no need to spoil the mood by mentioning them.
I've been following this conversation on the sidelines a bit today, and thinking about it. Is it just me or are all the words rather frustrating. I can really relate to using pictures, and I've found writing poetry can be a great form of expression, but even then it seems to me that it's getting at Ni from second hand. The nearest I can get to explaining Ni as I experience it is to use sight as an analogy. Sometimes, being asked to explain something that I have "seen" through Ni is analogous to being asked to explain in some detail an event in a busy main street in the middle of a big city to someone who is blind, and has never been in a city, and has no visual reference point to relate it to. I'm afraid I often decide life's too short, and don't bother. When I do, I waffle as often as not, unless I work very hard at it. I wonder if there is something in the left brain - right brain ideas that are kicking around that means what I see with Ni has to go through some tortuous process before I can translate it into language and communicate it to most other people.
I wonder if there is something in the left brain - right brain ideas that are kicking around that means what I see with Ni has to go through some tortuous process before I can translate it into language and communicate it to most other people.
Yes!
They're highly frustrating chaps. And that occupies my mind a lot, as you may have noticed from my notebook entries
I think that, given that the Ni insight is internal, there's not necessarily any word(s) to capture it properly - but instead, a lot of metaphor and trying to get at the essence of it from different angles. Because in a sense you didn't necessarily arrive at the insight through words, or else in a very unconscious fashion.
Last edited: