By - Durgonss
Hello Durgonss, thanks for posting here in r/mbtimemes!
If you wanna hang out with other members of the community, feel free to join our super chill Discord server! We have over 3,000 members and we'd love to see you there too <3 There's a Halloween contest with nitro prizes starting Oct. 1st, so pop in to check it out!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mbtimemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
ISTJ with abstract qualities exists:
16p: Ah there’s the INTJ, clear 100% Ni Dom!!
Legit happened to me
Me as well, noted that 16p was insistent on me being an INTJ or INTP, rarely ever did I achieve ISTJ as a result.
It liked to throw INFP and INTJ at me
The only time I ever got INFP was when I first took the test, but that’s been a while back. After learning my actual type I went and experimented with which types 16p gives based on consistent answers ( all disagree, all agree, all neutral ). The type I got the most was ISTP, any chances of getting this type seem to be based on the number of AD and AN answers. AA gave me ENFP, that never changed, and if varied, you could manipulate it and find what triggers the intuitive/sensor response to your own typing.
Maybe INTP? They use both Ti and Si.
Or ISFJ in a loop?
I am pretty sure I am an ISFJ and I am also nearly sure I was in a loop for a while and while in the said loop I acted exactly like an INTJ. So yeah, that is highly possible.
Here's my Sakinorva test:
Ni 39 | Fi 38 | Te 36 | Ti 35 | Si 28 | Ne 17.2 | Fe 12 | Se 3 (I'm pretty sure the Fi is highly inflated due to Fi in sakinorva being highly related to sticking to one's point and strong opinions, it should be more so fourth/fifth)
Here's my personal diagnosis:
Ni > Te=Ti > Fi ≥ Si > Ne >>>> Fe=Se
I really hate people's focus on the ABAB system, I personally really like the idea semi-based off Jung. Each function gets a number assigned to it and then you add them up.
(Ni = 8, Te=7, Ti=6, Fi=5, Si=4, Ne=3, Fe=2, Se=1)
N = Ni+Ne (8+3=11)
S = Se+Si (1+4=5)
F = Fi+Fe (5+2=7)
T = Ti+Te (7+6=13)
N vs S and F vs T, higher number takes and that's most likely your middle two letters.
Then, look into the functions and see what combination fits better (IJ,IP,EJ,EP).
There's also the whole aspect of it being the type I:
1. Resonate the most with
2. Find matches me
3. Test consistently as (aside from ONE of the THREE systems in one test)
Out of curiosity, between Ne and Se, while you scored low on both, is there a difference between the two? Say, is there one you can produce on command, albeit very taxing, and another that seems decent, but evades conscious control (though some people can "draw" it out of you)? Or are these descriptions completely off the mark?
My Ne is mainly how I interact with things at first.
Se is an approach that is focused on a specific part of something, most often in the concrete world (since it's an extraverted function) and seeing the detail, depth, and so on. It is often that this means a lack of attentiveness for the future or the past.
Ne is an approach that encapsulates many things, it doesn't focus, but sees many things at once without concreteness. It sees the association between things. You can think of it as a fish-eye lens.
I'm not asking for an explanation of the functions, I'm asking for your actual experiences. From your test results it would seem you have trouble being "spontaneous" in both the physical and metaphysical sense, which is typical for IxxJs. But would you say one is harder than the other? And in what way? For example, if someone asks you to make up a song on the spot, is that more or less comfortable than, say, eating something new and strange? And if you have time, what are your experiences with Se grip?
ETA: you don't have to sing the song in front of people
Eating something new is fine if I like it, really. I hate doing things like making up a song on the spot, it's a pain. Se is much harder. I generally have trouble focusing and my way of doing something like sports is like running a computer program. I plan out my movements and then execute. That's my approach to things, generally. Plan the work, work the plan.
As for grips, I think they're a joke. Same with loops.
>Eating something new is fine if I like it
You won't know if you'll like it, that's the thing with eating something you've never tried before.
> I hate doing things like making up a song on the spot, it's a pain. Se is much harder.
Making a song up on the spot should be Ne: it's conceptual exploration. Eating something you may or may not like is Se because you're experiencing new physical sensations.
> I generally have trouble focusing
Are you familiar with "flow state" as described by Se-doms?
>As for grips, I think they're a joke
Given the duality of cognitive functions, you don't think that the suppression of one half results in unhealthy expressions of it when least expected?
Fair enough. I won't order something new, but I'll try it if someone else is eating it, provided it doesn't smell bad, since that plays a part in taste.
If I had to make a song on the spot, which sometimes people have asked me to do, I mostly rely on things I already know and pull from the database.
In theory, sure.
I think that cognitive functions are fluid, and a thing such as a grip state is horribly limited. At my worst the functions I used were Fe, Ne, and Ti. Not in that order, necessarily. Maybe Se, but I think that's just my appreciation for the physical world, not any Se thought processes. I think people react to things differently and the concept of a grip is pretty stupid in lack of accounting for this.
> I think that cognitive functions are fluid, and a thing such as a grip state is horribly limited. At my worst the functions I used were Fe, Ne, and Ti. Not in that order, necessarily. Maybe Se, but I think that's just my appreciation for the physical world, not any Se thought processes.
That's not how cognitive functions work. Cognitive functions don't exist in a vacuum- you can't pick and choose them out of a bag. You'll never find an ESFP with inferior Ne, or an INFJ with inferior Fi. Cognitive functions represent duality; there's 8 of them and they exist on 4 axis. For example, Ni-doms and Se-doms represent two extremes of the same axis. They both observe the world concretely (Se) to compile their understanding into a singular, subjective metaphysical pattern (Ni). The difference is while INxJs "jump to conclusions", ESxPs get stuck on "data collection". Personalities on the Si-Ne axis view Si experiences as the foundation on which Ne possibilities are built, while personalities on the Se-Ni axis view Se experiences as a way to narrow down their Ni understanding. The judging function axis have their own dynamic.
Your answers align more closely with ISTJ than INTJ (interacting with the world with Ne, concern over Si sensation of food smelling bad, pulling from Si experience to generate Ne ideas), so I would be interested to know why you *don't* think you're an ISTJ (besides things like stereotypical descriptions, internet tests, and planning things- which is not unique to INTJs).
I agree that cognitive functions don't exist in a vacuum, but at the same time I don't think they're locked in a dual vacuum. I think they all interact with each other, and how is determined by the arrangement of functions.
You put me in a scenario of how I would interact with something using those functions, or at least that's how I interpreted the questions. If someone asked me to make up a song, I'd ask why, and then why after that, then after seeing if their reasoning is good enough, I may or may not write down a song... not on the spot, but I'd go through making one by making a central theme first and then the lyrics. It wouldn't be quick, at all. My Si is pretty good, but it's arranged by the two thinking types. For me, Si is looking at the proof and tangible, which I value since it's useful information. I also question everything and only accept it into the Si database once I'm absolutely sure it's correct, and if I doubt myself, I express it. I love Si, but it really doesn't dominate my interactions or how I look at things. My first instincts are to find a solution (this one goes for anything, always, the goal has to exist, otherwise the action is meaningless) or question it (in pursuit of a goal).
I do things for my values, my goals, and my passions. Doing things for the sake of doing things or doing things because that's how it is isn't in my nature. Everything has to be questioned, all the time, and it's healthy to question it.
All the ISTJs I've known I have been in constant conflict with because of this.
I doubt I'm an ISTJ, but once again, I'm open to changing my mind provided proof. (Even though MBTI is a pseudoscience (Also I'm pretty hard-headed, but not opposed to change in the slightest, thought I should mention))
I am an INTJ for the memes and a _dontgiveafuck_ the rest of the day
Doesn’t INTP make more sense than INTJ that likes Si and Ti?
I don't want to make multiple long comments, so refer to my long reply chain.
learn about the cognitive functions and then type yourself independent from what other people and tests say what you are
...the third in the sequence
oh sorry i forgot to read
then you're isfj or intp
And all that I got from truity was extroverted. Rest is 50/50
Eh, I put Truity because I couldn't think of other tests. Extraversion in MBTI isn't even extraversion but rather which "world" your functions prefer.
So it isn't about recharging through interaction with other people?
That's it generally when talked about outside of MBTI, yes.
The simple weakness is that there is a complete mismatch between what the i-e inside cognitive functions means (example: The i in Fi) and what the I-E on dichotomy means. The original concept of I-E as drawn by Jung is highly different between the MBTI concepts we have today. They got so distant between each other that they don't correlate anymore. In a very basic matter, there are at least 3 definitions of extroversion/introversion over MBTI unofficial internet community, and in short they are these:
1) How sociable and outgoing the people is.
2) If gather "energy" from the "inside" or the "outside".
3) Preference towards the object - if attention is towards the object (external) then its extroversion, if attention is towards self (inside) then its introversion.
Just a quick example, if you are watching the sunset you are doing an introvert activity in 1 and extroverted activity in 2 and 3. So, its possible to be introverted in one and extroverted in another definition, making the person being a quiet extroverted or sociable introvert.
Jung original is related with 3 (3 is a raw simplification of Jung original concept. The original concept has dozens of pages on a book). Number 3 is E-I concepts in cognitive functions. However, I-E dichotomy is done towards 1 and 2 mostly, they correspond to MBTI I-E concepts in a simple description.
Now that you've put it that way...it's even more difficult to understand oneself. Also, of course no one is completely extroverted or introverted which is why results are mostly in percentages so it's again understandable how there are three ways of classifying it. Besides the mbti talk, I really like your username XD
Anything that simplifies a concept is most often incorrect. ABAB function stack ideas, for example. People don't fit one of these types, it's more so finding which of the sixteen options defines you best.