phoneutria wrote:it's not as simple as to say that that's due to a person's type of thinking
one can at the same time have very strong opinions and no desire to share it
or have strong opinions and be not at all arrogant
or see people around them doing everything wrong and prefer to say nothing
the desire to communicate one's mental convictions is not dependent on their level of conviction
let alone the way in which they communicate it if they choose to do so
or on the work they did to achieve them
there are more things at play
a person's sense of "orderliness" is a critical factor in that
because an orderly person would not accept wrong things happening around them
they'd would seek to correct them
Magnus Anderson wrote:I think that introverts are more creative than extraverts for the simple reason that the need for change and improvement comes with external pressure and that external pressure forces people to turn inward.
Thus, the more introverted you are, the higher your creative potential, but also, the lower your chances of actualizing that potential.
But I see no reason to see intuitives, sensors, feelers and thinkers as anything other than equally creative. The difference merely lies in the way their creativity is expressed.
Magnus Anderson wrote:phoneutria wrote:it's not as simple as to say that that's due to a person's type of thinking
one can at the same time have very strong opinions and no desire to share it
or have strong opinions and be not at all arrogant
or see people around them doing everything wrong and prefer to say nothing
the desire to communicate one's mental convictions is not dependent on their level of conviction
let alone the way in which they communicate it if they choose to do so
or on the work they did to achieve them
there are more things at play
You would do well to present an argument (or at least, explain what is it that you're disagreeing with) instead of merely declaring that what the other person is saying isn't that simple.
Are you saying that INTPs are less likely to voice their opinions than INTJs?
Or are you saying that INTPs are less likely to voice their opinions in an aggressive manner than INTJs are?
a person's sense of "orderliness" is a critical factor in that
because an orderly person would not accept wrong things happening around them
they'd would seek to correct them
So INTPs are less interested in fixing the wrong things happening around them?
phoneutria wrote:in my observations they tend to not be "action" people
they're more of the " i've figured this out, so now i can go figure other stuff out" type of people
I explained it
i'm already out of steam, myself
i have been posting in that marxism thread
because i had a bad artist block
and that's what i do when i'm not productive
i bicker online over inane bullshit
now i am drawing and sculpting again
and i just want to quietly take my leave from all these discussions
they don't matter to me
i don't give a shit if the other people think they won the debate
because i just left
that says nothing about my level of conviction or my way of thinking
it just says how much of a shit i give about social dynamics
Mind
This trait determines how we interact with our environment.
3% 97%
EXTRAVERTED INTROVERTED
Energy - This trait shows where we direct our mental energy.
80% 20%
INTUITIVE OBSERVANT
Nature - This trait determines how we make decisions and cope with emotions.
54% 46%
THINKING FEELING
Tactics
This trait reflects our approach to work, planning and decision-making.
63% 37%
JUDGING PROSPECTING
Identity - This trait underpins all others, showing how confident we are in our abilities and decisions.
78% 22%
ASSERTIVE TURBULENT
You bicker online over inane bullshit. That seems like a totally rad thing to do when you have a creative block.
Do people go to forums in order to "win debates"?
Really?
What's the prize?
phoneutria wrote:well not really surprised as i feel the difference, i know how i changed
i just done did a fresh meyer-briggs and i got INTJ-A obviously
but just a slight inclination to T over F
it surprised me how big the J vs P difference was this time around
they used to be almost the same
yeah cuz i'm a totally rad person duh
Magnus Anderson wrote:Here's a question: is personality type something that exists in time? Because if it isn't, then it follows that your type cannot change. For example, if it is defined as something that describes what someone is during their entire life, and not merely what they are at a single point in time, then it's not something that can change. In such a case, the only thing that can change is the perception of your type. Some vaguish impression tells me that this is how many see it. So you testing INTP several years ago and you testing INTJ right now is not necessarily an indication of change, it might merely be an indication of the unreliability of personality tests.
I've been told that the 16 personalities test is an OCEAN test masquerading as an MBTI test. The "A" at the end is a tell. No such thing exists in MBTI. What it stands for is "low neuroticism" which is something that exists in OCEAN model. Allegedly, this can lead to mistypings.
No, you're something else. Not that it matters.
That too makes sense. However, that leads me to a conclusion that the main difference between T and F is that T is a self-aware judgment whereas F is a judgment that is not self-aware. That sort of difference is pretty superficial, isn't it? It means that T is an F that is self-aware to certain degree.
Isn't that the main difference between T and F? Can someone argue otherwise?
What if introspection occurred as we judged? I am pretty sure they would consider such a process an instance of T. If that's the case, that would mean that T is merely a simultaneous combination of F and introspection.
promethean75 wrote:Never mind that, andy. I never wanted her radness. It was her means of production that I wanted to seize with the dicktatorship of my proletariat.
Ohhhhhhhh
phoneutria wrote:pardon if in am wrong, but introspection IS thinking, isn't it
a thinking inward
phoneutria wrote:i don't think it is a matter of awareness at all
do you think that a person taking in "the feels" of a painting
would be unaware of their feelings?
promethean75 wrote:Well I'm sure the sheer complexity of human behavior prevents us from establishing rigid descriptions and categories that avoid ambiguity. It is much to the fault of our language that our adjective descriptions of behaviors superinpose depth and dimension to personality that simply isnt there. If we are just a bundle of firing nerves, our ontometapsychologistic experiences are reductive to quantifiable transsubatomic events. And events dont behave. Ergo, humans dont behave. Ergo, behavioral descriptors are nonsensical.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users