Well then don't buy it. But frankly the way how you're trying to seize authority in here is very annoying.
Posted via Mobile Device
Telling apart INTP and INTJ
- Thread starter technics
- Start date
Well then don't buy it. But frankly the way how you're trying to seize authority in here is very annoying.
Posted via Mobile Device
It's true that a lot of sensors mistype as intuitives, but I don't see how you can tell for sure whether somebody is Ni dom or not without interviewing them and getting a significant amount of information from them.
I for one know exactly what somebody's about when I meet them. I don't see that that makes me a Ni-dom.
True, there are more sensors than intuitives but there are also more introverts than extroverts. Most people on forums will be introverts simply because we're introverted and that's what we do. Does the percentage of introverts on infj forums translate to the percentage of introverts IRL? No. Could that be the same thing with intuitives? Yes.
So who are these Ni dominants you speak of and why specifically am I not an Ni dominant [MENTION=3469]MikeA[/MENTION]? Can't answer that? No surprises there. That's the stupidest shit I've heard on this forum. For real. You don't have anything to back up the generalizations you made. Nothing. True, there are people who aren't the type they claim to be but since I'm a big boy wearing big boy pants, I don't care.
And people use these kind of typology tests to figure themselves out. If something doesn't fit, they will move on. I don't see why you would criticize someone for trying to explore themselves. People sometimes want to be unique so they see what they want to see in order to think they're more unique by being an N or an NF or an INFJ instead of who they actually are. But again: who cares?
As far as Jung's intentions, they don't matter so much. It's the interpretations that matter. People pull the "original intent" argument all the time with things like the constitution but here's the thing, Jung's ideas have been built upon. They've been broken down and analyzed. It's about the truth of what is, not the intention of Jung. Because that's how you move forward and advance a field as well as society and humanity.
Sorry for coming off as a bit of a hot headed prick but I don't know how you can come into a forum full of Ni doms and tell them they're all liars.
Actually it's more about what random people thought and supposed and they didn't want to look bad so they said "AND this is all true!"
If you want a system that's about the truth of what is, you may find yourself interested in Big 5.
Well I was actually thinking more along the lines that those that built upon Jung's ideas could be more accurate about how the mind works.
Could be, but probably not, since they are marketing engines and have horrible stats as a scientific standard.
More so the theories. The main point I was trying to make is that intent isn't always correct.
I think we have to avoid falling into the trap of reading Jung's descriptions word for word as if it were the Holy Grail. It is interesting to notice by reading the table of contents of Jung's book 'Pyschological Types' that he discusses other theorists' work for 329 pages out of the 555 at least in my English version.
[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Psychological-Types-Collected-Works-Vol-6/dp/0691018138#reader_0691018138"]Amazon.com: Psychological Types (Collected Works of C.G. Jung Vol.6) (9780691018133): C. G. Jung, Gerhard Adler, R. F.C. Hull: Books[/ame]
Jung is not an all knowing God. He didn't come up with his theory in a vacuum, he studied other people's theories and used his own experience and experiments. He describes the science of pyschology as being in its infancy (p408 Pyschological Types). This suggests to me that he saw his contribution as that, a contribution, one of many, which would further the study of the nature of human pyschology still in its very early phase. The study of pyschological types should not end with Jung's analysis. I don't believe that is what he intended
I find it very interesting to read what he has to say about the study of pyschology itself. It is not because certain phenomena are not directly measurable (at least not yet) that they do not exist and that we should not study them. Therefore, it is not because I can not directly measure my own thoughts and mental processes that I should not observe and study them. Moreover, writing about these observations and sharing these with others helps to better define them, understand them and helps me to "grow up" just a little. As a species we are pretty childish considering the size of our brain, I just hope that we will survive long enough to evolve beyond where are are right now. I believe that to do this we are going to have to let go of the idea that we will be able to physically measure all psychological phenomena and by this means alone come to a better understanding of ourselves. This leaves some of us with the very uncomfortable notion that we will always be dependent on concepts instead of measurement and numbers and that by their very nature these lack precision and the certainty that comes with that precision.
Quote from page 408, Chapter XI: Definitions.
The psychological investigator is always finding himself obliged to make extensive use of an indirect method of description in order to present the reality he has observed. Only in so far as elementary facts are communicated which amenable to quantitative measurement can there be any question of direct presentation. But how much of the actual pyschology of man can be experienced and observed as quantitatively measurable facts? Such facts to exist, and I have believe I have shown in my association studies (Studies in Word-Association) that extremely complicated psychological facts are accessible to quantitative measurement. But anyone who has probed more deeply into the nature of pyschology, demanding something more of it as a science than that it should confine itself within the narrow limits of the scientific method, will also have realized that an experimental method will never succeed in doing justice to the nature of the human psyche, nor will it ever project anything like a true picture of the more complex psychic phenomena.
....
On a lighter note: I think xNTP prefer logic/math riddles whereas INxJ tend to like "language" riddles.
My xNTP friends are head over heels when it comes to logic riddles. I personally find them boring (and I'm also probably too stupid to solve them lol).
Oh what happened to the riddle thread?
Posted via Mobile Device
My xNTP friends are head over heels when it comes to logic riddles. I personally find them boring (and I'm also probably too stupid to solve them lol).
Oh what happened to the riddle thread?
Posted via Mobile Device
I think a better comparison would be INTJs prefering chess, and INTPs scrabble(which could fit into your "logic" puzzles). Scrabble fits more with their Ne function because you have to come up with several interpretations based on words, while chess is more of a strategy-based game which I find fitting for the strategic nature of the INTJs, and perhaps some INFJs as well.
But then again, other types may find these games entertaining for different reasons.
My INTJ father prefers playing checkers, whereas I prefer playing my own chess variants. My most common special rules are Friendly Fire (players can take their own pieces if they want, or are forced to) and Checks and Balances (kings can stay or even move into check, so long as the opposing king is in check in at least as many ways).
Scrabble is more my INFP mother's game. I'm at least as good at it as she is, but I need more time to reach a final decision on what do do each turn. (She has always been an excellent speller whereas I used to be terrible at it and haven't improved enough to have much confidence about my choices.) The main reason I don't really like playing because the other players tend to get really upset with me due to how slow the game goes. (The fact that these delays can give me more points in a single move than most players get in a whole game just makes them madder.)
Scrabble is more my INFP mother's game. I'm at least as good at it as she is, but I need more time to reach a final decision on what do do each turn. (She has always been an excellent speller whereas I used to be terrible at it and haven't improved enough to have much confidence about my choices.) The main reason I don't really like playing because the other players tend to get really upset with me due to how slow the game goes. (The fact that these delays can give me more points in a single move than most players get in a whole game just makes them madder.)
This is true for me.
I prefer making a lot of strategies quickly that I can use the soonest I can.
Long planning strategies are boring. This is why I've never really been into chess. You're playing this exciting game twice; in your head and then in the reality. Too much waiting for me
Try it with a computer, they move a lot faster than playing with humans. Playing with a CPU can be tough at the beginning, except their moves are pretty predictable once you can see the overall pattern of their movements. Then it just becomes lame and boring.
I did the 250 big Q's and got RCOEI or whatever, which loosely translated to INTJ if I'm not mistaking. And I can relate to the RCUEN (ISTP) descriptions. One of the smaller tests at similarminds gave me RCUEN (ISTP).
Edited: And now I got RCOEN (ISTJ).
Last edited:
This is an oxymoron, thus renders what you wrote after it not worth reading.