(Part 2) Best products from r/mbti

Here's a passage I think might be helpful from Lenore Thomson's incredible book, Personality Type: An Owner's Manual

> Unlike sensation and intuition, which encourage us to keep our options open and to acquire more information, the judging functions prompt us to note how things usually happen and to organize our behaviors accordingly. This is why Thinking and Feeling are considered rational functions. Rational behavior is always based on predictability--things we know to be true because they happen regularly in the same way.

> Although Thinking and Feeling both prompt us to focus on the predictable, they encourage conflicting ideas about how predictability is reckoned. This is why a preference for one or the other can tell us something about how we manage life and attempt to keep things under control.

> When we use Thinking, we organize our behaviors in terms of general, impersonal predictability: rules, laws, principles, logical or numerical sequence, definition, hierarchy, and so forth.

> When we use Feeling, we organize our behaviors in terms of specific, personal criteria: the signs and rituals that convey our shared beliefs, values, moral sensibilities, identification with others, and social relationships.

Elsewhere in the book, she gives a great example with regard to Fe vs Te:

> Say we're making a list of the people we call every week, so their numbers are handy whenever we pick up the phone. Although it's possible to organize these names impersonally--by alphabet, for example, or frequency of contact--most of us don't do this. Most of us list the people we know in order of their relationship to us: family members first, then friends, then coworkers, and so on.

> This, roughly speaking, is the domain of Extraverted Feeling. When we use this function, we aren't organizing data sequentially and logically, by way of principles. We're organizing data by relatedness to ourselves. The categories of relationship we maintain in the external world--and the way we maintain them--reflect our values.

> But Isn't Feeling Opposed to Reason?

> Because Feeling involves personal relationship, it's easy to assume that using it is a matter of emotional preference. But like all left-brain functions, Fe is conceptual and analytic. It encourages us to make rational choices, to measure our options for relationship against a external standard of behaviors.

> What distinguishes this function from Te is the fact that relatedness involves human beings, not impersonal abstractions. thus, the systems that Feeling determines aren't logically accessible. For example, if we know the alphabet, we can always anticipate the logical order of names in a phone directory. Not so with a list of calling partners. Uts specific order depends on the human being who taped it to the refrigerator. But the absence of logical predictability doesn't make a system unpredictable or based on individual preference.

> "Family," friend," and "coworker" aren't states of emotion. They're categories of human alliance, organized by degree of relatedness. What we're doing, when we use these categories, is accommodating our specific experiences of people to the conceptual shapes the terms offer. This is a rational process, not a sentimental one.

> Would you say there's more opportunity working exclusively front end and design to exercise nfp creativity or novelty?

NFP creativity and novelty in the sense that Ne has free range, period? Sure, you get more of that in web design and even more of that as to step further and further away from the sciences. There is tons of creativity in real software engineering where you can be creative to solve actually challenging problems, not figuring out what color you'd like a button to be. To me, that's not creativity – or it's a lesser version. Creativity in problem solving is much more interesting. The way I see it is like when I was in music school and all the SFs were bitching about music theory and how they thought it limited their ability to "be creative". Such bullshit. It only exposes their lack of creativity. So you're saying that someone like Chopin who wrote amazing pieces and abided by the rules of music theory wasn't being creative? Hardly.

> Are you a web dev?

No, I'm a software engineer at an astrodynamics company; I do a lot of orbital mechanics, back-end work with web services, high performance computing, etc.

> By hardcore I meant requiring being meticulous, detail oriented.

I think that the lack of attention to detail is never permissible in either back-end software engineering or front-end web development, honestly.

> One thing I've realized is how shit my high school was at explaining math conceptually. Which I think lead to misconceptions about its use in programming

Well, then read some books on computer science and/or mathematics like this.

As far as the "there are no good tests," if you look at MBTI preference scores as continuous traits (as the Big Five does), then the test/retest of newer versions of the MBTI are about as good as the top Big Five instruments. The issue with test/retest comes about by treating the axis of the MBTI as dichotomous. Even the main researchers who developed the Big Five thing the MBTI is pretty decent.

I'd also recommend you look at Reynierse's articles in the JPT (there's a decent summary page here), which point out the there's no empirical evidence for type dynamics (despite people looking for such evidence). He recommends an approach which takes into account preference strength, since middling preference scores have little predictive or descriptive value.

In addition, there are more than a few MBTI-based studies, although not nearly as many as there are for the Big Five. Since four of the Big Five traits correlate reasonably well with MBTI preferences, one take take in Big Five studies, keeping in mind things may not translate exactly.

Lastly, Wilde, building on Reynierse's ideas has some up with a system for recovering something like functions using quantitive strength of preferences (there's also a visual calculator). I do wish his book wasn't so expensive, though.

It is certainly possible for an INFP to develop competence at a martial art; one of my favorite athletes growing up was Mike Tyson; while he was focused and dedicated (ending with the fight vs. Michael Spinks on June 27, 1988) he was very, very good--for over three years head-and-shoulders above anyone else in the world.

That does not mean an INFP who trains at a particular sensing-heavy task or skill becomes "good with sensing"; in the case of Tyson, for example, once he stopped training/drilling constantly (after a serious of personal tragedies lead him into a deep depression, and at the urging of ESTP promoter/enabler/leach Don King, fired his ESFP trainer Kevin Rooney) his skills eroded with stunning swiftness; he was by no means a "natural fighter".

To give another example--in 1984, while preparing for the Olympic trials, Tyson befriended and trained with future opponent ISTJ Evander Holyfield, and Holyfield made a very interesting comment: he mentioned that Mike had remarkable skills on the speed bag, on which he obviously practiced constantly, but that when they played a game of pick-up-basketball--a sensory activity neither of them focused on--he was awful, relative to himself and others, most of whom were presumably SPs and SJs.

When INFPs become accomplished at a sport, or playing an instrument, etc. they tend to operate in a primitive STJ-ish manner; they tend to have and rely on a number of extremely well-grooved but essentially rote movements or sequences or combinations. SP improvisational wizzards they are not. With Tyson, for example, the right-hook to the body followed immediately by an uppercut with the same hand was one such rote combination: https://youtu.be/AMydMkEB97k

If the above interests you, this book about Mike and his ENTJ mentor/adoptive father/first trainer is a great read:

https://www.amazon.com/Iron-Ambition-Life-Cus-DAmato/dp/0399177035

https://www.si.com/boxing/2017/05/30/mike-tyson-cus-damato-iron-ambition-book-excerpt

Meyers-Briggs say that only Jacobi and van der Hoop "got it". She was refering to van der Hoop's Conscious Orientation which explains how the functions work.

At its most basic level, Thinking decides if something is true or false. That is, if it exists. It is a binary function by definition.

Feeling uses the subject's subjective values to compare one thing against another, deciding if it is greater than, less than, or equal to the other. That is, it is a comparative function. It is trinary by definition.

Feeling follows Thinking. That is, first you decide that something exists, then you compare to other things that exist. They are both judgements, but each are of a different nature.

Feeling is more complex than Thinking, because it has a third option that Thinkers are not used to. Otoh, Thinking is more consistent than Feeling, for the very same reason.

Thus, Meyers explains that Thinkers are afraid of Feeling because they are unskilled at it. Also, when they try to use it, they find it too hard with that extra option. (Compare this to boys who use cursive less than girls because they are taught it about a year too early, never get good at it, and go back to non-cursive. Girls, whose motor skills mature faster than boys, are fine with it, get good at it, and tend to use it more.)

Feelers can Think if they want to, she continues, but they find Thinking too cold, and simply do not want to do it.

So, Thinkers end up with a poorly matured Feeling function, and project their inferiority at Feeling on Feelers. Conversely, Feelers end up with a poorly matured Thinking function, and project their inferiority on Thinkers.

The why and the worth are both judgements, and both Thinking and Feeling can do both, even if the other is "better suited" for it.

As a 7w8 ENTP - I find other ENTPs and INTPs annoying if their ideas aren't rooted in practicality. I often also find them willdly speculative. If we can't realize this vision, whats the point? I mean, that being said, I love talking about things just to talk about it, but I still kind of have an end goal. I enjoy talking about radical ideas and systems as a way to change my reality and affect the way I live or do things.

For example, quantam mechanics, relatively useless study for the common person. But I disagree. Quantam mechanics shows that even our greatest scientists, have been wrong. We conceptualize reality to such an extent that our belief blinds us to other perspectives. I care about quantam mechanics because it shows us that reality is much different than we believe. I feel that having such fundamental consensuses about reality affect us personally as people. That is how quantam mechanics is applicable to me. Well, I did read a book connecting quantam theory with buddhism so I may be biased. (Mutual causality, if you're interested)

Space travel? Worm holes? I don't give a fuck about that really. Unless you can connect these to a broader talk about human consciousness and an affect that can have on me or society. Don't care. I could learn about it, sure. But I'm not going to learn in depth to the extent that I could explain it to someone else.

That's where a 7w8s pragmatism comes into play. A 7w8 not only wants to dream, they want to realize their dreams, while a 7w6 or E6 ENTP is going to be more content staying within their heads moreso. A 7w8 wants to see it happen.

>It gives me that mental stimulation I desire and that I feel I am genuinely am good at and don't need to have talent for because no matter what, so long as I put in the effort, then I got it down.

That's exactly the right attitude to have. :)

If I can make a recommendation, pick yourself up a copy of "A Transition to Abstract Mathematics" or a similar text and start working your way through it. You start with logic tables and learn about set theory. You'll enjoy it if you are interested in the "whys" of math, and if you end up picking math as a major, it will be helpful stuff to review ahead of time.

PLEASE READ BEFORE WATCHING

Important Notes:

• If you don’t particularly care for CS Joseph’s variational take on MBTI, that’s perfectly fine. No qualms about that. If interested or curious in his work, please give this a watch. If you are concerned, skeptical, ambivalent and/or just straight up hate his work in general, feel free to vent your frustrations down below, just please try to be civil & respectful about it in do so.
  
  
• Any questions. Please ask. I’ll do my best with explanations and responses for those who do. Any adherents of CSJ who already are familiar with this concept and his work in general, feel free to help aid with comments, discussions, questions, etc. likewise.
  
  
• List of Type’s Critic Function is listed below along with timestamps of when they appear in the video accordingly for the sake of connivence. You’re welcome.
  
  
• CSJs work here is primarily taken from the Resarch work of Analytical Jungian Psychologist Dr. John Bebee’s (PhD) “8-Function Model”. An article about the general overview of the model / can be found here: https://www.google.com/amp/s/presentobsessions.wordpress.com/2013/12/03/the-john-beebe-8-function-model/amp/
  
  
• An additional resource by Dr. Bebee on Jung & Typology can be found by his book here: https://www.amazon.com/Question-Psychological-Types-Correspondence-Schmid-Guisan/dp/0691169721
  
  
• Video on the lecture itself “actually” starts around 3:00 minutes in. Prior to that is just introductory matters
  
  
• The 6th Function in the stack (which is in the Unconscious side of the mind) is archetyped as “The Critic” as its Cognitive Attitude.
  
  
• Is often used in times when we are being judgmental, or critical towards ourselves or others. Criticism is typically used very sharply/harshly when engaging with the function
  
  
• “Critic” has both a “positive” component to it and a “negative” component to it. The positive component of the Critic Function is Wisdom (towards ones on sense of self) and the negative component of the Critic Function is Judgement /Criticism
  
  
• The (6th) Critic “orbits” / “opposes” the (2nd) Parent/Auxiliary Function within types. For example, if you have Se as your (2nd) auxiliary/parent function (ie ISTPs & ISFPs), and given that “sensing” is that particular function and its the extroverted variant (hence Se) , the opposing critic function to that for these two types would be the opposite variant of their 2nd function, which would be the introverted variant of “sensing” or Si. Hence ISTPs & ISFPs have Si as their respective Critic Functions. A list of Critic Functions for the types will be listed down below.
  
  
• Also keep in mind that a major reason why the 6th function is “critical” to begin with, is because it orbits together with 2nd function, the parent/aux function, which is primarily associated with a given type’s sense of Personal Responsibility and Maturity. Hence, why types can be “critical / judgmental” of others who don’t utilize their own particular Parent/Aux (2nd) Function in a responsible or mature manner, and thus, as a result, our Critic Function often kicks in unconsciously. This will be explained more in depth in the video.
  
  
• With all that said, enjoy.
  
  
  List of (6th) Critic Functions w/Timestamps:
  
  
• Ti Critic: ISTJs & INTJs (24:36)
  
• Te Critic: ESTPs & ENTPs (15:12)
  
• Fi Critic: ISFJs & INFJs (10:25)
  
• Fe Critic: ESFPs & ENFPs (17:33)
  
• Si Critic: ISFPs & ISTPs (39:23)
  
• Se Critic: ESTJs & ESFJs (29:00)
  
• Ni Critic: INTPs & INFPs (33:20)
  
• Ne: Critic: ENTJs & ENFJs (44:56)

An ex-FBI guy called Joe Navarro pretty much spent his entire life doing that. He wrote a book called What Every Body is Saying, that I think you'd be really interested in. (If you care at all about developing Fe)

Also, what I'm about to say might hit you a bit harshly, but you don't seem to get the implication, so let me just say that what I meant by this comment was that your experience with people's smiling might be because a lot of people are projecting a smile towards you, rather than smiling genuinely.

ENFPs and ENTPs are from completely different temperaments. If you are not familiar with David Keirsey, then it would probably behoove you to become familiar with his temperament theory.

I believe the best way to get rid of confusion about your type when the types are cross-temperament is to see which of the four temperaments you have the closest affinity with.

For example, I am an INTP, so I belong to the Rationals temperament, as Keirsey describes them. I identify more with the Rationals than any other temperament group. Not only that, but I identify with the other Rational types (INTJs and ENTPs, and to a lesser degree, ENTJs) more than the other types in the other temperaments generally. There are some things I relate to and like about some other NF types like INFJs and ENFPs, but ultimately I don't relate to their temperament (Idealists) more than I relate to the Rationals temperament.

If you are ENTP, then you will likely identify with other NTs more than NFs generally. If you are ENFP, then you will likely identify with other NF types more than NTs generally. For more clarification, I would highly recommend picking up Keirsey's Please Understand Me Part 2.

https://www.amazon.com/Please-Understand-Temperament-Character-Intelligence/dp/1885705026

Thanks for the post! I like lists like this :)

Another post regarding board games per function: http://www.type-resources.com/News-Events/Gift-Guide-for-the-Function-Attitudes

For engaging Fi, they are listing this game which sounds very interesting: https://www.amazon.com/Pressman-Toy-3601-06-True-Colors/dp/B00004TFZI / Back: https://cf.geekdo-images.com/images/pic339804_lg.jpg

Has anyone tried it?

Thanks for responding in depth.

So sad though that the 'advanced' books they recommend all seem to be in Russian. I learned two semester's worth of Russian almost 10 years ago, ugh.

Any in depth, good English-language books? I have a basic grasp on Model A, Reinin dichotomies, the specific ways information elements manifest in each position, relations, quadras, each two letter grouping, etc. I want to get to that next level.

Do you speak Russian? Just curious.

ETA: This was highly recommended by someone; the other immediate English language search results are about finding love via relations.

It’s possible I’ve seen others mention their results are different based on mood. So the online tests aren’t that great.

I became more confident in my result after reading some books about my type.

Such as : https://www.amazon.com/Comprehensive-INFP-Survival-Guide/dp/1945796154/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1539050811&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&keywords=infp+survival+guide&dpPl=1&dpID=412knVQuKlL&ref=plSrch

Iam no parent but I found this book to also be interesting.

https://www.amazon.com/Nurture-Nature-Understand-Childs-Personality/dp/0316845132/ref=mp_s_a_1_fkmr1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1539050902&sr=8-1-fkmr1&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&keywords=nurture+by+nature+mbti

Iam not sure how accurate MBTI is, but I do know it can be an effective tool for introspection.

Host Defense - MycoBotanicals Brain Mushrooms and Herb Capsules, Helps Clarity, Concentration, Memory, and Adrenal Health with Lion's Mane, Ginkgo, and Bacopa, Non-GMO, Vegan, Organic, 60 Count https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00WFH3A7Q/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_U53zCbZCNZ5FM

This stuff helps at least a little bit for me. My memory has gotten better after taking these pills.

Somebody needs to read how to win friends and influence people :)

" Just a sparse collection of little facts about things we take for granted. It was interesting, but the skeptic in me wanted to know how the information was collected, but Voorhees fails to give us a bibliography."

As an INTP, I don't care much for information I can't verify. So a lack of source references is kind of a downer for me. After all, seemingly useless information may end up becoming useful someday, but then verification is pretty important.

Anyway, if you like that book, you might like this book as well. Now THAT's a totally useless book, but I just had to get a copy because the title alone :-D