Revisiting My Type (Since Being Here).

[Old Things]

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator: Everything You Need To Know

The popular personality test is meant to help people understand more about themselves and the people around them.

www.wellandgood.com

So, based on this article (it's simple and elegant and doesn't have fluff in it), I'm debating a few types for myself.

The obvious answer for this, at least what seems intuitive, is that I am an ISTP who isn't active enough in daily life. I noticed that I'm better at Fi than I have been in the past (I'm in my 30s now so this makes sense). However, I can also see myself as an INFJ who doesn't have a strong J. I tend to function in my day-to-day life more like an INFJ, but I'm not sure I'm the special snowflake that many who call themselves INFJ are.

So the point of contention really seems to be about Fi vs Fe. Ti is kind of a no-brainer for me, as is Se (which manifests in immature ways). Ni vs Ne is 50/50 in my estimation. I do possess some manner of logical philosophical thought, but it's more in the Ti fashion rather than Te. There's also the consideration that I am highly religious, which would point more toward Ni (I think???). I also tend to arrive at a conclusion before I have worked out all the details and have to work backward on trying to show how I came to the conclusion I did (I'm not a deductive thinker at all).

Also, I tend to be pretty articulate both in real-life conversations and being careful with my words online, so make of that what you will.



Honestly, I should probably not even bother. It will cause me to tie myself in knots.

 

[Cognisant]

Yeah I'm pretty sure you're an Si.

Si users are loyal, responsible, and traditional. They have a high regard for authority and prefer value systems that uphold it. Si users can be materially frugal and maintain that “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” They are generally low maintenance people who avoid drama.

You're definitely traditional, you definitely identify Christianity with authority and seek to uphold it, you're definitely not a materialist and getting you to change your mind has been extraordinarily difficult.

Si users have a sort of cognitive momentum, their past informs their present and this is especially true when its something they're emotionally invested in, so when I try to change your mind about religion I'm fighting uphill against decades of momentum.

By contrast for Ni types and especially Ni-T types that process of deduction is something they love to do, I must know how things work, I must know why, I must question everything.

 

[Old Things]

Yeah I'm pretty sure you're an Si.

Si users are loyal, responsible, and traditional. They have a high regard for authority and prefer value systems that uphold it. Si users can be materially frugal and maintain that “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” They are generally low maintenance people who avoid drama.

You're definitely traditional, you definitely identify Christianity with authority and seek to uphold it, you're definitely not a materialist and getting you to change your mind has been extraordinarily difficult.

Si users have a sort of cognitive momentum, their past informs their present and this is especially true when its something they're emotionally invested in, so when I try to change your mind about religion I'm fighting uphill against decades of momentum.

By contrast for Ni types and especially Ni-T types that process of deduction is something they love to do, I must know how things work, I must know why, I must question everything.

Thanks for your post.

I'm not really "Traditional" at all. I am always trying to develop my theories about Christianity and the world. I have many hot takes about Christianity that put me at odds with pretty much every denomination. When I talk about these things with Christians of other denominations, they usually have no idea how to make sense of what I am saying because it doesn't fit their paradigm.

So, while yes Si people are more traditional, and traditional people are more often religious, I'm not really a traditional Christian at all. I don't just follow whatever Christian leader I look up to says without questioning it. I have many Christian leaders I look up to from all different sorts of background traditions and I don't take any one of them wholesale.

It seems like you equate being religious at all with being Si. This is a very naive view. People of all sorts of personalities have all sorts of beliefs about things. Sometimes it has to do with how they were raised. And sometimes it has to do with their experiences. And sometimes it has to do with them looking into the evidence. Seldomly does it have to do with their personality. People are Christians for all sorts of reasons. I feel you are creating a caricature of both myself and Christians at the same time. I've only taken my faith seriously since about 2018 or so. Before then I only had a passing interest in it. This happened when I was about 32. It was a life-changing event that occurred later in my life (past the point where most people become Christians as it usually happens before 30 years old). So it's clearly not that I am as devoted of a Christian as I am because that is how I was raised, which I think is the kind of argument you are making for religious people who are traditional. I'm neither traditional nor put much stock into authority figures.

I appreciate your thoughts on this, but they don't strike me as being very true to who I am and what I am about. The core tenets of Christianity I adhere to as far as being orthodox goes, but this doesn't really say much about my personality type.

 

[Cognisant]

I have many hot takes about Christianity that put me at odds with pretty much every denomination. When I talk about these things with Christians of other denominations, they usually have no idea how to make sense of what I am saying because it doesn't fit their paradigm.

I am very interested in these hot takes.

People are Christians for all sorts of reasons. I feel you are creating a caricature of both myself and Christians at the same time.

Just commenting on how Si types process new information by first referring to what they already know, I very well could be totally wrong about assuming that's why you think the way you do.

I like being wrong, it's always more interesting when there's more going on then I already understand.

 

[Old Things]

I have many hot takes about Christianity that put me at odds with pretty much every denomination. When I talk about these things with Christians of other denominations, they usually have no idea how to make sense of what I am saying because it doesn't fit their paradigm.

I am very interested in these hot takes.

Sure, I have already given some of them on the forum. They might look like standard Christian theology to you because you probably don't know much about theology in the first place. Here's an example:

Expectation

There seems to be a tightrope walk one must do in order to get what they want. Go too far to the right (control) and it will slip through your fingers the tighter you squeeze. Go too far to the left (pessimism) and you will be living a self-fulfilled prophecy of defeat. I've found the best way...

www.intpforum.com

This is probably quite a bit different from ideas that are in the wheelhouse of most Evangelical Christians.

Or this:

Jordan Peterson's Misappropriation of Self Improvement

"Incremental improvement scales exponentially." "It's the oscillating self-corrective process that leads you to the final star" "You don't experience happiness except in relationship to a goal" "We have to consciously decide that we're going to do everything we can as individuals to walk in...

www.intpforum.com

Basically blasphemy to most denominations of Christianity.

People are Christians for all sorts of reasons. I feel you are creating a caricature of both myself and Christians at the same time.

Just commenting on how Si types process new information by first referring to what they already know, I very well could be totally wrong about assuming that's why you think the way you do.

I like being wrong, it's always more interesting when there's more going on then I already understand.

Well, I think you should wait before judging me as to who I am and what I am about. People are free to comment here (including you), just know that just because you give an opinion does not mean I am obliged to agree with it.

 

[Hadoblado]

You come across as thoughtful and reasonable to me. It's a little bit complicated because at times you let your religion become your personality a little bit, but that thoughtfulness and reasonableness shine through.

If I were to place you in the MBTI framework, I would agree with Ni being up there somewhere. Ne doesn't seem to fit. Ti also seems more likely than Te, but I don't have any impressions from sensing or feeling functions that might corroborate that hypothesis.

If we were talking big five, you seem at least average in agreeableness.

 

[Old Things]

You come across as thoughtful and reasonable to me. It's a little bit complicated because at times you let your religion become your personality a little bit, but that thoughtfulness and reasonableness shine through.

This seems pretty in line with what I have heard others say about me who know me IRL.

If I were to place you in the MBTI framework, I would agree with Ni being up there somewhere. Ne doesn't seem to fit. Ti also seems more likely than Te, but I don't have any impressions from sensing or feeling functions that might corroborate that hypothesis.

If we were talking big five, you seem at least average in agreeableness.

Thanks for the feedback.

 

[Old Things]

I took a Big 5 test recently. Here are my results:

Agreeableness: 94%
Conscientiousness: 5%
Extroversion: 50%
Neuroticism: 11%
Openness to Experience: 89%

Probably pretty close, but I think my extremes are not that extreme. Extroversion is also weird as I have historically considered myself a very strong introvert. However, the idea that I can spend so much time alone is accounted for by other traits, strangely enough, based on the test.

 

[Hadoblado]

Do you know what these numbers mean? Does 94% mean you scored 94% of questions as agreeable, or does it mean <6% of people scored higher than you?

I gave myself an aneurism trying to figure out whether I believe you're open to experience. This one always does my head in.

In some sense yes I believe so, you deviate from norms of your religion etc. and you are here discussing stuff with a bunch of heathens. If we only compared you to people who shared your faith, I believe you would be open to experience in comparison. This would imply that your worldview is a restriction on your openness which works for me but I don't know how you would feel about that.

For what it's worth, I consider myself in a similar fashion. I spend a great deal of time exploring other beliefs and learning new things, but there are several beliefs I have had for a very long time that I don't think will ever change. I also tend to not be open unless I have higher locus of control, otherwise, I stick to what I know.

It would also be odd to be that high in openness but then not have Ne? Not impossible, it's just a flag that the systems might disagree with one another.

 

[Old Things]

Do you know what these numbers mean? Does 94% mean you scored 94% of questions as agreeable, or does it mean <6% of people scored higher than you?

It's supposed to be based on a population sample of (I think) 10,000 people.

As I said, I don't think I'm that high in Agreeableness or Openness to Experience or that low in conscientiousness. However, Neuroticism seems to be about on the mark. My lack of being around people is explained by my low Conscientiousness, so now I feel conflicted.

I haven't always been a Christian (or taken my faith as seriously as I do now). I find a great amount of truth in Christianity that explains a great deal about human behavior.

Ironically, even though I made a post criticizing JP recently, my results come from the Big 5 test he has. I think when public intellectuals do more academic work it is usually quite solid, but that's just from a small sample of public intellectuals so your mileage may vary.

 

[Black Rose]

When it comes to Si vs Ni it is all in the self-image.

Si is found in the insula cortex which is interoceptive to the inner organs and brain.

Ni is like being transparent to the body image. I am INTJ and I can't feel my heartbeat or my intestines or my lungs medulla oblongata.

To me, all is One. Energy is vacated / flows through the system but is not identified with it. Si is like a heat sink. The body image is the identity always aware of it.

A sponge is a good analogy. It holds water. That is Si. Ni is like air. Sound vibrates through it but does not contain it. The music I listen to with my earphones leaves no impression in me. Like it does to the air around me. But to Si everything leaves impressions and is resonant. Everything in Si continues even if the stimuli is gone. Si takes ages to settle where Ni is settled already.

When I say settled I do not mean emotions are absent. I am talking of the body image. Ni can feel enthralled by stimuli through Se. But Ne is contingent of Si. Gut intuition. i.e. "That seems funny, I think I know what it is".

So these are the differences between Si and Ni.

But further. Ni is metaphysical to the nothing the transparent the One. It is abstracting what is as a perception to the existence of perception. e.g. "Look at all this, it is all in my perception, my perception is creating everything around me even my body".

That is what is meant by the transparency of Ni.

 

[scorpiomover]

I can see that you respect traditions, and so you seem to have some appreciation for Si/Se.

If you are older, like in your 30s or 40s, then even if you were an intuitive, you would probably have developed your tertiary and/or inferior functions enough to see the value in them. Or, if you're still in your 20, you'd be very mature for your age.

But I would lean more towards you valuing Si over Se.

I don't see a lot of Ni in you. Ni-doms have described their process to me in enough detail, that I can describe it. They start by imagining their end goal as if it was the current status quo, and then describe the current reality as if it's an aberration from that, effectively doing what Si users do when they want to go from A to B, but as if A and B switched places. You might call this "strategising".

I see the same cognitive behavioural pattern in Ni-doms, Se-doms, Ni-aux and Se-aux, in descending percentages of usage, from highest usage to lowest usage respectively.

I see a little bit of wishful thinking in your views. But that's about it, and certainly not enough to warrant that you're using Ni a lot.

I tend to think of Ne like brainstorming or "what if"ing, both positively and negatively. It's directionless, which is the opposite of Ni.

If you're arguing with a lot of traditional Xians about the nature of Xianity, I'd say that you're probably Ne-ing or Ni-ing, and so coming up with things that disagree with their traditional viewpoint. But given your lack of Ni, I'm leaning towards Ne.

I'm not totally sold on your use of Ti, at least as I understand Ti. I tend to find that Ti starts me off with something that everyone accepts or is at least common opinion. Then it says, "Since A is true, then B must be true, then C must be true, then D must be true, then E must be true", and so on, until eventually I reach a point where it now states something about A. Often, at this point, I find that it is saying that A must be false, which is hard to accept, but must be true, because the logic is still sound.

Ti probably works differently in Ti-Se users. But that's how I understand it with Ti & Ne.

Either you use Ti or you don't. If you do, then you p*ss off a lot of people because you keep saying things that prove their views are wrong or immoral, but which they cannot rebuff because it's all based on a series of logical steps which are each clearly true individually, and so the entire chain is true.

I don't count you as having Si just because you happen to be religious, for several reasons.

 

[ZenRaiden]

You are definitely intuitive and you seem to be strong in intuition.

You are religious and you talk about these topics on the internet, which sets you apart from 99 percent of sensors.

You also talk about other topics which means you are higher in openness.

I cannot see a sensor do what you do unless they have been hit in the head and gotten savant syndrome.

The fact you can openly talk about religion also means you are not the type that gets stuck on certain things.

Many people discuss religion only if people happen to agree with it.

You also don't seem to strongly focus on people aspect, but rather the philosophical underpinnings of religion which leads to T ergo thinking type.

You arguments however don't lead with typical structure you see with INTP types, and you say you are introverted.

So I would argue you are INTJ.

You could be INFJ, but I don't see you as overly sensitive.
Sensitive does not mean thin skinned in this sense, but you are open to T discussions.
Most people with strong F preference are just not that open to this sort of talking as long it excludes people.

For example I would peg Noam Chomsky as INFJ.

He is classic intellectual and very N, but you can see the way he talks and even factually he is always concerned and centered around the message of people being mistreated or something not fitting into the picture.

So for F types the intellect is a tool to bring people values.
For T intellect is for Truth value only, and the people value is implied in truth as such.
So truth for T does not serve anyone. It just is a separate entity that has neutral value for them.
Religion is not neutral, but you talk about religion with very neutral take.
You have your stance, but you never bring up anything, but the ideas which you consider reasonable and coherent.

So I guess you are Ni Te Fi Se

I think when people say Ni is visible I think they are joking kind of.

Ni is you introvert function so even to you its an obscure function.

If you are older you might be more aware of it and how your mind works.

But you can never see the full scope of Introvert function.

Jung described Ni as something that puts people at odds with society.

 

[Old Things]

If you are older, like in your 30s or 40s, then even if you were an intuitive, you would probably have developed your tertiary and/or inferior functions enough to see the value in them. Or, if you're still in your 20, you'd be very mature for your age.

I'm 36. Not particularly mature for my age. I was a late bloomer.

I do think I am an intuitive rather than a sensor. I've always been at odds with society. Mostly this was because I was insecure, but as I matured, most of my insecurities went away.

I don't see a lot of Ni in you. Ni-doms have described their process to me in enough detail, that I can describe it. They start by imagining their end goal as if it was the current status quo, and then describe the current reality as if it's an aberration from that, effectively doing what Si users do when they want to go from A to B, but as if A and B switched places. You might call this "strategising".

I don't usually start out with a goal (very low in conscientiousness). I usually take things as they come. But it's possible Ni is my tertiary function. I don't really see myself as Si, but that could be because I am blind to it. For example, I love music as it deeply moves me. But put me in a conversation and I can be pretty detached.

I tend to think of Ne like brainstorming or "what if"ing, both positively and negatively. It's directionless, which is the opposite of Ni.

Yes, the "what if" thing has been something I have had since childhood almost to crippling degrees.

I'm not totally sold on your use of Ti, at least as I understand Ti. I tend to find that Ti starts me off with something that everyone accepts or is at least common opinion. Then it says, "Since A is true, then B must be true, then C must be true, then D must be true, then E must be true", and so on, until eventually I reach a point where it now states something about A. Often, at this point, I find that it is saying that A must be false, which is hard to accept, but must be true, because the logic is still sound.

It's possible I have Te, but I don't know how this description ties in with Ns being social outcasts (regarding Ti). What I mean is that I never take any knowledge for granted. I never assume someone is right without testing it for myself. There have been periods where I thought someone was on very strong footing only to discover later that their perspective is far from being unbiased. In fact, these experiences have been so powerful in my life and viewing how I myself reason, led me to believe being unbiased does not exist.

Either you use Ti or you don't. If you do, then you p*ss off a lot of people because you keep saying things that prove their views are wrong or immoral, but which they cannot rebuff because it's all based on a series of logical steps which are each clearly true individually, and so the entire chain is true.

Well, I piss off some people often without trying to. They just don't like what I am saying because if I am right it would destroy their worldview which no one likes. I wouldn't necessarily say it is because I am so good at arguing though. More just that people get "fed up" with what I am saying.

You are definitely intuitive and you seem to be strong in intuition.

You are religious and you talk about these topics on the internet, which sets you apart from 99 percent of sensors.

You also talk about other topics which means you are higher in openness.

I cannot see a sensor do what you do unless they have been hit in the head and gotten savant syndrome.

The fact you can openly talk about religion also means you are not the type that gets stuck on certain things.

Many people discuss religion only if people happen to agree with it.

You also don't seem to strongly focus on people aspect, but rather the philosophical underpinnings of religion which leads to T ergo thinking type.

You arguments however don't lead with typical structure you see with INTP types, and you say you are introverted.

So I would argue you are INTJ.

You could be INFJ, but I don't see you as overly sensitive.
Sensitive does not mean thin skinned in this sense, but you are open to T discussions.
Most people with strong F preference are just not that open to this sort of talking as long it excludes people.

For example I would peg Noam Chomsky as INFJ.

He is classic intellectual and very N, but you can see the way he talks and even factually he is always concerned and centered around the message of people being mistreated or something not fitting into the picture.

So for F types the intellect is a tool to bring people values.
For T intellect is for Truth value only, and the people value is implied in truth as such.
So truth for T does not serve anyone. It just is a separate entity that has neutral value for them.
Religion is not neutral, but you talk about religion with very neutral take.
You have your stance, but you never bring up anything, but the ideas which you consider reasonable and coherent.

So I guess you are Ni Te Fi Se

I think when people say Ni is visible I think they are joking kind of.

Ni is you introvert function so even to you its an obscure function.

If you are older you might be more aware of it and how your mind works.

But you can never see the full scope of Introvert function.

Jung described Ni as something that puts people at odds with society.

Thanks for that. It's certainly possible that I am an INTJ. But I never really felt like, "Yes, I am INTJ for sure," which is a very common stereotype of INTJs when they find their type. It's because of my "what if" nature that I can never settle down and just pick my pony with a type so to speak.

 

[birdsnestfern]

INTJ or ISFJ maybe. ISFJ likes traditions and religion and systems.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Jung described Ni types as living in the world of symbols, so much so that other people would find communication and their style of thinking abnormal or hard to follow.
Jung also said that this type knows this about themselves and so often know things that other people are not aware of.

Every cog function with introversion like Ti Ni Si Fi is unconscious and works whether we like it or not, in our minds.
These functions are not something we are completely aware of as they are most developed function and work constantly.
In opposite direction Te Ne Se Fe are functions that are object focused meaning they are pointed outwards and see the world objectively as in they follow your own and peoples observations that are universal.
So every introvert function makes you different from the herd and is more your individual quality and every extrovert function is pointed into the social world where they agree with others.

SO if you have Ni for example its going to look for patterns that are specific to your mind.
IF you have Ne pattern they are obvious to others when you talk about them because they are visible.

For instance statement like we live in fossil fuel age, is basic Ne statement.
Its big picture and knowing that we live off of fossil plant life makes sense to anyone.

 

[Old Things]

I took the test over at Typology Central.

Ironically enough, I came out as INTP.

 

[Old Things]

Jung described Ni types as living in the world of symbols, so much so that other people would find communication and their style of thinking abnormal or hard to follow.

This is definitely me.

 

[Old Things]

After doing a bit of research on past results from other tests I have taken, I am pretty confident that I am an INXP. There are two things in the mix that make my results murky. First, I think I have a good deal of Ni. But I do not really use Te or Fe very effectively, which I take as a flaw in the MBTI system as a whole. Secondly, between base Ti and Fi, I am about even between those. I have some Ne, but it is not my dominant function.

so I would say I am Ni>Ji>Ne>Je>S

 

[Old Things]

I don't see a lot of Ni in you. Ni-doms have described their process to me in enough detail, that I can describe it. They start by imagining their end goal as if it was the current status quo, and then describe the current reality as if it's an aberration from that, effectively doing what Si users do when they want to go from A to B, but as if A and B switched places. You might call this "strategising".

Here is an excerpt from my book coming out soon where I describe my thought process. Make of it what you will.

People who know me well have said I am a “deep thinker.” I think deeply before broadly. “Depth before breadth,” as I call it. Depth before breadth in my thought process might appeal to some. However, others might get turned off by how deep my rumination can go. It has its pros and cons. My thought process predominantly concerns attempting to get to the heart of what I may be thinking. Unfortunately, I am never “arriving” at a distinct conclusion...

You can think in different degrees of thought. There might be a sliding scale between active and passive thinking. In my case, I am very much an active thinker. I differentiate it by the consciousness of thinking. I am very aware of my thoughts, which makes me an active thinker...

I can be idealistic. I’m more drawn to the big picture, where I find myself leaning towards what’s good and wholesome. Sometimes, I doubt my capabilities, with the recognition I need to improve. Being an idealist, I often think of ways I could do better but find it hard to implement. I don’t want to judge others for their idealism. Instead, people should determine for themselves the value of their beliefs but do this with critical thinking instead of assuming you must be right. I might guide them towards more pragmatic actions. Pragmatism has its limits, especially for minds that are fragmented and, in that, we all are distanced from the good and wholesome...

I often think for a long time before realizing my ideal is flawed. This is evident when I pontificate from one general principle to another, and then suddenly, I think about details. I don’t know if I am doing these thoughts justice. In the book, I might belabor a point without fully realizing it. I’ve often been too conscious of my ideas, unintentionally. This leads me to desire a thought process and life that’s pure, objective, streamlined, and idealistic. Unlike matters of the heart or sentiment, I give much thought to being an idealist. At least in my case, my thinking is somewhat detached.

One might describe my thought process as “hyper-focused.” My thoughts often feel disconnected from my body, making it hard to read cues from what my body is signaling. My mother has said I’m so “in my head” that I don’t notice what my body is telling me...

Indeed, my thoughts often keep me up at night. I grapple with intense ponderings that prevent me from settling my mind, making it hard to drift into a peaceful sleep...

The way I think has a significant drawback. I make so many connections with “seemingly disparate ideas” that this naturally leads to many delusions. What might start as a natural progression from one idea to another quickly turns into making connections between events, occurrences, and happenings with virtually no clear link between them. My semi-conscious mind tries to link everything and merge it into a single thought. If done rationally, this could lead to insightful conclusions about how two ideas relate. But when rationality is removed, my thoughts go haywire, and logic is lost. I often do all this inside my head, not vocalizing it. It happens because I focus more on connections than on deductions. I’m not a strong deductive thinker. I can deduce principles somewhat when I slow down my thinking, but that’s not my natural state. My default is to find connections between different ideas that might be related. For me, connections are the hammer, and ideas are the nail. When I have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

 

[scorpiomover]

My default is to find connections between different ideas that might be related. For me, connections are the hammer, and ideas are the nail. When I have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Ne looks for connections between disparate ideas/facts.
Ni builds a grand idea (their end goal: their vision of how the world could be), and uses connections to build the idea even more.
If you were an Ni-dom, then ideas would be the hammers and connections would be the nails.

 

[Old Things]

My default is to find connections between different ideas that might be related. For me, connections are the hammer, and ideas are the nail. When I have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Ne looks for connections between disparate ideas/facts.
Ni builds a grand idea (their end goal: their vision of how the world could be), and uses connections to build the idea even more.
If you were an Ni-dom, then ideas would be the hammers and connections would be the nails.

I'm just curious, but is there anything else in what I have written on the forum or what you know about me that you would say I am more Ne instead of Ni?

 

[ZenRaiden]

You strike me as Fi person, that is you have strong introvert feeling cognitive function this is directly obvious in language you use.
Its clear that mostly you stick to your own understanding preferably over someone else.
INTPs tend to be more agreeable with language.
That said it depends, because as person with INTP tendencies, I too can override others opinions over mine, but I tend to do so only when I am 100 percent sure I am correct. I rarely assert my values over others in morals or overall.

This could simply mean you are older and finding more clarity in your internal compass.
Id say MBTI is cultural as well so in the day and age when MBTI was made people had different ideas about values, right and wrong than today.

 

[Black Rose]

You strike me as Fi person, that is you have strong introvert feeling cognitive function this is directly obvious in language you use.
Its clear that mostly you stick to your own understanding preferably over someone else.

ISFP ?

I do not see anything suggesting old things is Ne making INFP not an option?

Ne as connections to other connections would IMO see more in what others say.

I am unfamiliar with INFPs who are male and totally committed to one view.

even if values to Fi types are solid, this does not mean Ne will not accommodate

people always confuse my values (Fi) with my views (Ne), they are not the same things

 

[ZenRaiden]

I would argue Fi, but Fe is still possible for @Old Things

I think old things reasons logically over feelings, not that feelings don't inform logic, but logic first feelings second would indicate Ti Fe or Te Fi.
F either extrovert or introvert, but Id argue I have seen INFPs much like @Old Things
also Christians.

Good example of INFP is QuickTwist. He was also devote Christian last I checked, left this forum long time ago.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Here is for example QuickTwist quote about religion note he is long gone and probably might not believe this stuff anymore. Who knows, but writing style is connected to thinking....

Secondly, I couldn't say for sure how deep the metaphor goes because I didn't come up with it. That is literally what the word sin was at the time the bible was written. Jesus always speaks metaphorically using terms that are in reality without using hypotheticals. It's really quite amazing how he does that. But from what I understand, no, a sin is anything that doesn't hit the bulls eye. Other that that, it doesn't matter if you hit 1 mm away from the bulls eye or you shoot in the opposite direction, it's all just called a sin.
There is a reference to shooting an arrow in a particular direction and some communication between King David (Jesus was considered Son of David [same David]) and Johnathan, Saul's, the King at the time who David would replace as King, where if the arrow did one thing it meant Saul was angry and if the arrow did another it meant it was fine for David (there was a conflict with David and King Saul at the time, long story). I can't help but think that is symbolic to Jesus use of the word Sin and what it meant in reference to David.
I don't understand what "long-tailed" means. In any case, I am an INFX (probably P).

I think Introversion is clear for OldThings,
N as close to S
T over F
J over P but close to each other.

So I think I n T j/p. Is my guess.

 

[birdsnestfern]

See if this fits? ISFJ or ISTJ? F is more likely than T

Introduction | ESTJ Personality (Executive) | 16Personalities

www.16personalities.com

 

[Black Rose]

I think old things reasons logically over feelings, not that feelings don't inform logic, but logic first feelings second would indicate Ti Fe or Te Fi.
F either extrovert or introvert, but Id argue I have seen INFPs much like @Old Things
also Christians.

This put me in a whole new view.

The way I act would indicate the same way Jordan Peterson acts.

And I see him more as ISTJ

Fi is immature in him, indicating as with the inferior of ISTJ which is Ne that in public people can act out their inferior more than the dom functions.

 

[scorpiomover]

I'm just curious, but is there anything else in what I have written on the forum or what you know about me that you would say I am more Ne instead of Ni?

I'd have to look at your other posts to know. But does it really matter? Unless you are learning something about yourself from it that has any meaning, then what's the difference, apart from saying you have 2 arbitary letters attached to your name?

 

[Old Things]

I'm just curious, but is there anything else in what I have written on the forum or what you know about me that you would say I am more Ne instead of Ni?

I'd have to look at your other posts to know. But does it really matter? Unless you are learning something about yourself from it that has any meaning, then what's the difference, apart from saying you have 2 arbitary letters attached to your name?

Was just wondering how you reached your conclusion and if there was anything more to it than just what I quoted from my book. There were other things you look past in the quote which is why I was wondering.

 

[Old Things]

So I think I n T j/p. Is my guess.

This was pretty much how I typed on my official MBTI test, but that was years ago and I have changed since then. Hopefully, I have changed for the better.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Hopefully, I have changed for the better.

Only you can be judge of that, but for what its worth sometimes maturing or becoming better version of self is going kind of backwards.
I think the key question is better for whom.

Overall Id say they factor for INTx is to know more about emotions, as I think both INTJ and INTP struggle with emotional stuff, almost universally.
Rational make us some what detached and objective , but keeps us away from the potential of our own emotions.

 

[Old Things]

More details. No one else needs to post here, but they can if they want. It's gotten to be a lot of pontificating without going very far in understanding myself here. I tend to waffle a lot about my personality.

I am very high in agreeableness:
I am moderately high in compassion.
I am exceptionally high in politeness.

I am very low in conscientiousness:
I am low in industriousness.
I am very low in orderliness.

I am typical or average in extraversion:
I am moderately low in enthusiasm.
I am moderately high in assertiveness.

I am low in neuroticism:
I am typical or average in withdrawal.
I am very low in volatility.

I am high in openness:
I am moderately high in intellect.
I am high in aesthetics.

Definitions:

Spoiler: Definitions.

Agreeableness: this is the primary dimension of interpersonal interaction in the Big Five personality trait scientific model. Liberals are higher in the aspect of compassion, and conservatives in the aspect of politeness.
Moderately compassionate people are interested in the problems of other people, and other living things.
Exceptionally polite people are remarkably deferential to authority, and are unusually obedient.

Conscientiousness: the primary dimension of dutiful achievement in the Big Five personality trait scientific model. People very low in conscientiousness are strikingly more likely to be political liberals rather than conservatives.
People who are low in industriousness are much less likely to be successful in school and in administrative and managerial positions
People very low in orderliness are not at all disturbed, upset or disgusted by mess, disorder and chaos.

Extroversion: the primary dimension of positive emotion in the Big Five personality trait scientific model. Those who are politically liberal are slightly less extraverted than conservatives.
Individuals who are moderately low in enthusiasm are rarely excitable, not particularly easy to get to know, and not known for their talkative nature.
Moderately assertive people are more “take charge” types. They put their own opinions forward, and are somewhat likely to dominate and control social situations.

Neuroticism: the primary dimension of negative emotion in the Big Five personality trait scientific model. Neuroticism is not a powerful predictor of political belief, either conservative or liberal.
Individuals average in withdrawal may occasionally suffer from anticipatory anxiety, but are generally not impeded by it. They can handle new, uncertain, unexpected, threatening or complex situations quite well.
Individuals very low in volatility are highly stable and predictable in their moods. They are almost never irritable, and feel very little disappointment, frustration, pain and loneliness.

Openness: the primary dimension of creativity, artistic interest and intelligence (particularly verbal intelligence) in the Big Five personality trait scientific model. Those who are liberal, politically, are very much more likely to be high in openness than conservatives.
People moderately high in intellect tend to be quite interested in ideas and abstract concepts. They often enjoy being confronted with novel information, even when it is complex.
Generally speaking, a person's aesthetics score reflects their creativity. People who are high in aesthetics love beauty.