INFJ v. INTJ: Michael Pierce v. Isaac Fischer
Вставка
- Опубліковано 3 вер 2015
- I WROTE A BOOK:
Purchase the print paperback: www.amazon.com/dp/B089278TWR/...
Purchase the ebook pdf: subjectobjectmichaelpierce.blo...
__________________
Patreon never tasted this good: / michaelpierce
ITS HERE! Good grief. I'm going to go take a nap. Enjoy!
CelebrityTypes article: www.celebritytypes.com/blog/20...
As an INTJ I screamed inside when you said 'If the facts don´t line up, then it´s the facts problem' at 10:16 .
Right! Like what???
As an infj with 2 intj best friends, we can be VERY similar. Especially because infj's can be much darker, blunt, and logical than people expect us to be
You are so well spoken, something I struggle with as an INFJ.
Veronica Watson tell me about i sound like a chilf compared to him.
trueman live scheibe
It gets better as you read, write out your thoughts and engage in deeper conservations with others:)
I'm an INFJ married to an INTJ; and I can't tell you how incredibly helpful your videos have been in helping me understand why our thinking just wouldn't be able to line up on certain things. It's been one of those great revelations to change my life.
When you're married, you don't have to line up perfectly with your spouse. You complement each other. If you have differences, then you may constructively try to understand each other...maybe, through your relationship with your spouse, you can gain a better understanding of other people, and your personal life can be better fulfilled. My wife was (is) concerned we don't have much in common. But I enjoy our marriage, I think she does when she allows herself. Why would I want to be married to someone exactly like me (I've never met anyone like me, anyway.)? What fun is that?
The fun of being married to someone exactly like you is there will be no fighting at all and everything will be perfect. Things that i want she will want and things that i do she will do and viceversa. Its perfection and happiness for both 😍. I still cant figure out if i am an INTJ or INFJ maybe im both 😄
This is a beautiful piece of work. Nicely done indeed!
Now, I may be misinterpreting the INTJ's viewpoint on typology here, but thanks to this video I think I recognize more clearly one of the struggles that I have as an INTP. Although I have an easy enough time looking at typology in new ways and in my own way understanding it better, I have difficulties with what seems to be a natural process for the INTJ and other Te users which is answering the "now what?" question that inevitably comes after a new discovery or revelation. I see it now as a consequence of my functional preferences that I have my proverbial hands tied when it comes to applying my knowledge beyond explaining it to others and myself. Also, it is as if, subconsciously, I always knew that this was a barrier I was encountering, but until now I couldn't put words to it or a logical context around it.
In short, thanks again Michael Pierce! I was blind but now I see.
"I see Issac's judgement of the types as very partial and contaminated by his narrow, subjective evaluation of things."
That is so concise. Wow. Nice!
This was useful, Michael. I struggled to know which I am between those for a few days after I confirmed Ni as my leading function. I agree more with your friend's way of thinking and I can observe it in myself all the time, too.
One more point that I found very interesting and helpful is the tendency for INTJs who are focused on typology to look for the concrete manifestations of the abstract functions in their effect on outward behavior. I think that this perspective is particularly useful even for Ti users because it gives us fuel for our abstractions. Separating out what we see as the purest behavioral manifestations of the functions, Ti users can more easily develop illuminating analogies between behavior and function which can then improve our own understanding of the abstract types as well as our capability of communicating that understanding to others.
It seems easier for me to talk to someone else about the types in terms of outward behavior or tendencies rather than purely abstract distinctions. Te, by pointing out typological behavior, thus supplements Ti's ability to explain the types abstractly by "sharpening" Ti's abstractions.
+Myles Olson I tend to look at concrete things as representatives of known principles and axioms. So ie. a game state in a strategy game can work as a prime illustration of the characteristics of the game's economic model or the like. Ask for proof from me and you'll probably get one example. Not because there aren't more constituting the pattern, but simply because the example is a good representative of what I think is going on at large.
I'm an INFJ and I can tell that you're one simply by how monotone, passive, and clinical you speak which is similar to how I speak haha.
really? i wonder if this only applies to infj males since i percieve that infj females are really expressive in their tone
Maybe males tend to skip Fe more because of cultural pressure and notions around gender roles? Ti is very clinical whereas Fe communicates by engaging the audience. Check out Alain de Botton for an example of an INFJ using Fe to communicate his ideas.
Nailed it, like usually. I am a 25 year old ENFJ and my best friend/big brother is a 30 year old INTJ. Since the main difference between INFJ and INTJ is the Fe/Ti vs the Te/Fi axis, and personally being a predominant Fe, I concur so much with you Mr. Pierce. (ENFJ's are INFJ's sister types--all the same functions just Fe and Ni axis are switched)
When we would hang out, he would always want their to be an end goal "lets beat this video game" where as I would just want to hang out with him and learn from him no matter what we did.
This is hilarious. I am an INTJ and yeah I seem to fall in line with your friend. I may need to work through my anti-Fe sentiment.
Interesting...Thank you so much for all the insights, I could finally get Fe-Ti now :)
Thank you for making this video! As always, your ideas are fun and insightful. Additionally, thank you for giving us a heads up about your future responsiveness. That's far more responsible than my approach of "crap, I spent too much time on that one comment."
This video gave me whole other aspects to bring up between me, you, and now you're INTJ friend. I'm going to give my take on how I fit into these areas. Forgive me if I happen to write a large response again. It's not something I'm trying to do and I can't really stop it. Nor do I want to stop any idea I get along the way.
For the first comparison you drew between you and your friend, the one about thoughts toward the functions, my approach is more similar to that of your friend. I think of the thoughts based on how they relate to me, but also how they relate to things I like and dislike. As a result, I do have an inevitable fondness to Fi, Ne, Si, and Te. Still, I have distinct views of each of these functions, along with this fondness. My approach can be seen as overly impractical on one end and, at the same time, mean. One function in particular that I have a particularly unpleasant view of is Se. To put it bluntly, I have a lot of life experience that causes me to hate the things this function represents.
All of this said, I am mindful of making my views of any one function too unnecessarily positive or negative. I do so by purposefully recounting things that are related to the function, but that generate the opposite feeling. For instance, my view of the Se function is naturally rather negative, so I off balance that by thinking of stuff that is related to Se in a positive sense. For Se, one thing I think about is one of my favorite presidents of all time, Teddy Roosevelt. According to Celebritytypes, he was an Se dominant and I can totally believe that. So, by inputting the positive feelings I have towards Teddy Roosevelt into the Se function, It helps make things fair.
Even with this counter measure, one might easily criticize this method as still giving unfair weight towards certain functions over others. I can see the concern here, but I must stress something not being taken into account. That being, I can't chart any of the functions. Each one has a lot of feelings pumped into it, making things very complicated to really chart. This can be best demonstrated through example. For one instance, the feeling of "which one do I love most" would go to Fi. However, the feeling of "which one am I most impressed by" might go to Se. Each function has it's outstanding feelings and terrible feelings. Furthermore, I couldn't possibly decide which feelings are best and which feelings are worst. In important ways, I care for all these feelings I love and despise all these feelings I hate. I don't want to choose between them. I'm more inclined to think of these feelings as just being different; they're not like my hierarchy of values. Making a hierarchy of feeling is a much more meta process, too difficult to create with no feeling based gain. In short, I gain no comfort by hierarchy-izing these feelings and thus I don't do it.
I won't break down exactly how I view each of them, since that would take ages and my point has already basically been expressed.
In terms of your approach verses your friend's approach, I see the merit in both. I find yours pleasantly respectful, but mind-boggling to create. Meanwhile, for your friend, it seems to incorporate his own feelings, which I can relate to. My only issue would be with an aspect of his method. His method doesn't seem to balance anything out. The value of productivity is the only thing that appears to matter, which seems unfair to me. So, in that limited sense, I take issue with his approach. However, I must accentuate my intrigue with how exactly the functions appear to him. I disagree with only accounting for that one value, but his views seem like they would produce something, which, at the very least, is fascinating.
As for the comparison between communicating the ideas of typology to others verses applying/wielding the ideas of typology, I favor his over yours. Communicating the ideas of typology to others simply for them to understand it is... rather annoying. I've tried to do this on numerous occasions, but I never feel truly satisfied with this. I notice that people don't really seem to get what I'm saying. If I simply try to explain the typology as it is, something seems missing. That said, applying/wielding the ideas isn't really one of my strong suits. When i do this, I feel like maybe I'm not taking something into account and often find my application was poorly done. Still, I feel better about doing this than communicating the ideas of typology.
What I think I'm most skilled at with typology is relating my real life and others' lives to typology. I love drawing segways between my real life and typology. (As you may have noticed) I find that I'm very good at it and feel I'm always tackling something important by doing so. Not only that, I also find I can teach people typology through this way. When I find out their type, I can easily draw parallels, which helps them better understand what their type is saying about them. The same works for me, as they can come to understand what my type is saying about me. There is one danger though that I've noticed with this. If the person's type is misidentified, then I may relate it to their life and deliver misinformation. This has luckily only happened once, and for that reason I am super super super careful that the type has been identified beyond any shadow of doubt before I draw relations. (If you're curious what happened in that one case, it was an INTJ that was mistyped as an ISTJ. I drew one nice segway, showing how Si was part of him, only to find that Si wasn't even part of his functional stack. It's safe to say, I was supremely sorry for making the mistake.)
I've never been particularly labeled as a "psychologist" or "counselor" for my MBTI work. I've been more equated to being a "specialist" at it, appearing to know the most discrete of discrete detail on it.
You and your friend seem to constantly try to break down your understandings of MBTI into consolidated words. I do the opposite. I'm trying to come up with more ways the types can be described, pulling out more and more nuances of the types. As a result, my descriptions of the types seem to get longer, more nuanced, and thus more complicated. Some might even call my descriptions "messy" since to others certain terms can be crunched together, whereas I think both terms offer valuable insight. This trait of mine caused frustration at school early on. To my teachers, my sentences were overly word-y and could be crunched together. I felt that wasn't true, but I wound up folding to my teachers method, becoming better and better at doing so. As a result, I'm able to crunch things down quite well, even though I feel heavily dissatisfied doing so, killing valuable words in the process.
As to how you two approach typology, my approach is more similar to that of your friend's. I find myself talking about out growths of personality and thus inevitably behaviors, even though I don't agree with behaviorism either. However, unlike your friend, I don't defend my approach. I try to somehow meld these out growths of personality into cognitive traits, and feel disenchanted with myself when I've slid too far to behaviorism. The person who happens to always alert me of this is my close INFJ friend. Another thing I tend to do is intentionally accumulate plethoras and plethoras of facts, looking for a point far far down where the probability becomes greater and greater that someone's type is something in particular. The only flaw with this method is that I'm never truly sure when to stop. I often go overboard "to be better safe than sorry" and annoy whoever I'm with for the level of detail I want.
As for helping people through typology, I've found a method that works for me, which is much different than that of your's and your friend's. What I do is try to find out a lot of basic things about the person's likes/wants and dislikes/avoids. I'll ask simple questions like "What was your favorite subject or subjects in school?" Then I ask "why?" I'm going off the Fi/Te axis like your friend, but, based on the way you described it, he seems to be going off something larger. In essence, the grand wants of the individual, whereas I'm going off the every day basic wants of the individual. This may be a discrete difference based off our introverted perception function. His would be off of Ni, searching for that grand end, which is singular and all encompassing, whereas mine would be off of Si, searching for those daily ends, which is detailed and expansive.
Unlike you two, I just look for any instances in real life where peoples' behaviors may result from MBTI. I contain a store of the possibilities that I've noticed and harness these, I think, for when I'm relating people to their type.
As for the bit on ranting things out, I of course don't have an exactly good estimate as to how long I want to rant. I just know I'll be done ranting when I'm done and wait for that feeling to come. Sometimes it comes early, but more often then not, it comes later.
Lastly, in terms of break throughs, I feel I'm having breakthroughs in typology constantly. As a result, the field never becomes boring to me. There's been times where I felt I discovered all that could be discovered, only to quickly find out something new. Because of these constant experiences, I'm of the opinion that new-ness is easy to find as long as we look for it. I know that I have the ability due to Ne, but I think all humans have that potential for the new, even if not through Ne.
And with that, I'm done with this comment. :D I'm sorry for the long read. :( You don't have to respond to it if time doesn't permit. Nonetheless, I hope that I was insightful.
+Past Analysis I just edited it. Sorry for my mistakes :(
+Past Analysis You're good! No worries. I've just been very busy, so I'm afraid I just don't have time to respond -- but I did enjoy it! It was indeed interesting and insightful.
+Michael Pierce Yay :D I'll also be messaging you once this video comes out. I'm actually in the recording phase at the moment.
+Past Analysis
"My only issue would be with an aspect of his method. His method doesn't seem to balance anything out. The value of productivity is the only thing that appears to matter, which seems unfair to me. So, in that limited sense, I take issue with his approach. However, I must accentuate my intrigue with how exactly the functions appear to him. I disagree with only accounting for that one value, but his views seem like they would produce something, which, at the very least, is fascinating."
Isaac seems to approach typology similarily to me, so I want to try clarifying this. Productivity, here, doesn't necessarily mean "of economic value" or anything like that. It is simply a blunt evaluation. If we accept his take of Ni as superior to Si, for example, he doesn't see the sense in trying to prop Si up - things are what they are.
This applies to everything, however. So take for example INTJs and ISTJs, who both tend to be perfectionists and sticklers for things being done right when they really matter. One key difference that emerges here is that the ISTJ is more likely to be consciously aware of _what_ exactly is wrong. There is no need to sugarcoat it to make the Ni type feel good - that's just a fact.
A "these are the cards we've been dealt, this is what we can do with them, might as well play them the best we can" type of attitude. Use a function/function-user for what it's good for.
Komatik Hmm.. I think I understood what Michael Pierce was getting at and, by that extension, what you said. Still, I think my language was lousy.
I understand that it's by productivity, not some economic measurement. But the big red may have come about when I said productivity as a "value." That's how I naturally look at things, through a value lens. If you were also thrown off by that, then I apologize for the unintended confusion.
As to you're difference between INTJs and ISTJs, I 100% agree. But I would refine your language by the term "what."
Isaac seems like a guys I'd love to talk with.
INTJ's don't like to talk too much. There's too much paralyzing information. Just boil everything down, so we can move on. Move on to what? Move on to observing and thinking alone.
I hate that about you guys it distrubs me how you can try to break down all the information but not willing to talk to anyone
INFJ appears to view world from the human psychology point of veiw, whereas an INTJ could well calculate everything from how humans would respond to certain applications that could be applied in the real world with regard to physical laws of nature; its effect on human society, culture etc.
I tend to care about paradigms of interpretation rather than facts, because to how you look at the facts and the methods you use to analyze and arrive at those facts is highly relevant discussion about what is true. I never want to believe there is something self evident, but best practices for reasoning and thinking about something. For instance, typology is not about behavior, but I ground it in motivation and propensities of interpretation. I wish I could have spoken to you years ago.
It's strange. I've tested 2x as INTJ on free online tests and once as INFJ but I completely resonant with every single video and detail about INFJ and totally not with INTJ. I think the problem on these tests is that they always contrast 'facts' and 'feelings' rather than 'facts' and 'abstraction' as you did in this video. To choose 'feelings' over 'facts' in the tests seems to me to be too wishy-washy. I don't go by my 'feelings'/emotions...most of the time i don't even feel my own emotions much less solve problems by them. I deal in abstractions and then intuitively compare them and the correct answer just comes up...it's not an 'emotion'...it's a process of intuition...like an internal calculator of abstractions rather than facts. Sorry, had to vent.
Kigen Ekeson I heard some expert said that you may know you’re not an INFJ when you get INFJ as the test result
I'm an INTJ and the way I like to look at MBTI is this: there's no need to believe in the existence of actual Jungian functions. The fact of the matter is that we can give 16 personality descriptions such that most people will fit exactly one of them. Jung's theory simply organizes all this data in a neat, easy-to-remember way.
Of course, when explaining MBTI, we talk *as if* such functions exist, but that's all just syntactic sugar for more objective claims, like "behavior X correlates with behavior Y".
I also have a natural tendency to use MBTI to judge some types as more suitable for me or for certain activities.
So it seems your conclusions about INFJ vs INTJ are correct, i.e., they don't only hold for you and your friend. Good job! :)
your vedios are great
By the way,u just popped in my phone,and well il listen to a few n see
You're videos consistently astound me on how unoriginal I am. I am literally a product of functions and even though I understand this, new thoughts untouched by mbti seem to be personal and derived by a self (such as this Michael Pierce guy is cool and good at explaining things but he's too wishy washy and would rather worry himself over everyone feeling good about themselves instead of telling things how it is). Instead they are explained away by the way my brain works. It's an obvious paradox we swallow every day. There is no self, no spirit, but a brain evolved to convince itself of such. No part of ourself is untouchable by our brains because it is the workings of the brain. Think you love your family? A product of your brain extractable. Think you have a way of viewing the world, a personality? Nothing changes in the brain's framework wouldn't destroy. Think you are an observer of life? Go brain dead and see what meaningful observations you can come up with then.
It's a bit depressing but it's an interesting reality. Probably the real one, but maybe I just think that bc I'm an intj. Who knows if we can't know anything. Or can we? ;)
Functions were created to held describe people. There are other systems of understanding and classifying humans that don't use funtions.
Michael, I think you're the most interesting expositor of MBTI that I've run across. I don't fully subscribe to MBTI myself but I do enjoy listening.
I'm a bit confused about the way you represent the INTJ against the INFJ concerning representing reality. You make it sound as though the INTJ represents reality in a subjective way and the INFJ represents reality in an objective way. But then you talked about your friend wanting to state things as they actually are when you want to articulate peoples actual thoughts. It seems to me that your friend is attempting to represent reality more objectively than you. I think I'll listen through again and see if I missed anything.
I've read where some people don't fully subscribe to MBTI. In my case, I feel exhilaration being tested as an INTJ. After a lifetime of feeling different, alone, and not understood, it's great to know what I am....at least, according to MBTI (which in practical sense, is the best definition yet). In reality, there are as many personalities as there are people.
It seems like the way the INTJ represents reality is subjective to Mr. Pierce, because he doesn't share the same interpretation. Maybe I missed something.
I believe he's just talking in abstracts)
I feel like I'm an INFJ who doesn't know he's an INFJ but is desperately trying to figure out if he is an INFJ but because he's an INFJ it prohibits him from ever discovering that he's an INFJ... even though when he takes the test it says that he is an INFJ
13:36 appendix plays role in immune system
Dang it....
I enjoy listening to your videos. INTJ-T
I tested INFJ then INTJ years later. Since my favorite game of all time is Sim City, I'm gonna have go with INTJ.
That's logical I guess
I barely test as INTJ but i have a 1% preference of thinking over feeling. So sometimes i can be an INTJ and other times an INFJ.
hainley simpson not nesscarily. I think you could be INTJ with a struggle between Te and fi. And INFJ struggle with thinking over feeling is usually between fe and ti. But since you are sure of intuition then you are definitely an ni Dom. Try looking at the different axis for judging.
Thank you.
Can you(or anyone else) explain in a video or comment how Ni operates in an ENFJ and how that person may further develop it? I would like to fully develop all my necessary functions and I think I have already got Fe down pat.
+Denzel Mensah Well, when I finally get around to the ENFJ video I will be discussing Ni in them, and that will hopefully help out. But right now I don't have a confident answer for you I'm afraid.
Okay that is cool then. Thanks anyway!
So you're an INFJ Michael?
+cornyBandit I am!
I score as an INTJ but i have a 1% preference for thinking over feeling, so i'm pretty balanced in that regard so i can see both of your viewpoints.
It is funny how my approach to typology is completely different from your friend's at the surface, but still undoubtedly cognitively Te-Fi driven.
Ni - Te-Fi - Se, to be more specific.
But sense isn't common, if it was we wouldn't have idiots, fools and certain evils.
10:08 what do you mean sir? A fact is a fact!
In my discussions with my INTJ friend (I am INFJ), we both get incredibly frustrated! He keeps posting articles and studies as evidence for his point, but what I am actually trying to do is pinpoint the specific part where we disagree and understand why. So in reality, his evidences are pointless and in fact frustrating. In his side, he thinks I keep "walking in circles", he thinks I keep asking the same questions over and over again and not understanding his answer. What I actually do is rephrase the question each time because we are getting nearer to the point. He treats it as if I am being an idiot and not understanding his answer, when I think it's actually him who can't understand the subtle differences between the ideas. And then, he also has an attitude that shows he thinks we are disagreeing because I don't have enough knowledge, that is, that if I read the things he did and knew the evidence I would reach the same conclusion (agree with him), which for me is absurd. We basically can't understand each other at any level and can't have a proper argumentation. Some people believe INFJ and INTJ are the types that are most similar to each other, but I can't help but see us as oil and water
But if you and know the same thing why would you keep asking? If you want to get a specific answer ask for a specific answer, in his head you doing subtle shit makes no sense, if we are friends you don't need to beat around the bush. Most INTJ's are straightforward people all this beat around the bush shit is confusing as fuck, we just want things to make at least some sense.
A young, and ego driven dilemma!
Can i ask you to expound a little bit more on why you like to avoid behavior when discussing jungian typology? Is it becasue you associate behaviour more with stereotypical shallow depictions of types or is it something else? I am super interested to find out because i have never really considered typology as a purely cognitive thing (i am pretty inexperienced with it though, very much an amateur)
Well, the approach that I've tried to take in my videos is to recognize cognition as the fundamental, driving force behind psychology, and to focus my study on that. Behavior only creeps in as a manifestation and result of that underlying cognition, and may vary radically from person to person depending on their circumstances, making it confusing and unreliable. So in a sense, yes, its because behavior, more or less, is the manifestation of what is going on in a person's head, and its the latter of the two that I am interested in. However, the line between "behavior" and "cognition" can get a bit more blurred than one might think, and I know that I have often referenced certain typical behaviors that I've observed across types, but I always try to preface those comments with qualifiers like "many that I've observed" or "they seem to" and so on. I hope that helps...?
It's only good to look at behaviour together with the cognitive context it is in.
I think you d go further if you provided the abstacrt, then Isaac the feelings, then you boil it down again and it is more .
6:01 Ma homie Heraclitus, love that you put it in there :P This is spot on ,i also used to be like your INTJ buddy. I have been studying MBTI for like a year now,i think. Did some improvement,i can switch between INTJ and INFJ,very easily. Figuratively speaking.
I always had the ability to put my self into a other person very intensly, but neglected because of the intensity, so i developt a T preference. But now im embracing both sides. I can know put my self into whole groups of people , and experience what they all experience at the same time,in a form of simulation.
I call it Abstract Empathy, it helps enormously with coming up with better useful systems for other human beings to use (Te-Fe) Mix for the win ! Again figuratively speaking,i know it doesn't work like that. I just don't have any other definitions of explaining my thoughts,except MBTI.
It's funny because, people also refer to me and my INFJ buddy as psychologists xD We even helped an other friend with a big dilemma, relationship problems and stuff.
This is interesting, though I'd like to hear this from the viewpoint of "Isaac Fischer".
Over-reliance on definitions is dangerous. For the sake of clearer debate it does need to be clarified but it's used too often by too many as to appear irreproachable in the ensuing debate - not good.
the funny thing is , that both types can do what the other can. but won't do it because of the reasons you mentioned. INTJ can use Ti more intensely than Te. INFJ can use Fi more intensely than Fe.
What i tend to notice is ,that well balanced developt types. Can also use their secondary best function. INTJ (Ti) INFJ (Fi). In balance. They usually call a well developt INTJ, a walking Think Tank , on the internet,i think it's because they are more embracing the Ti side of things.
It seems to me that you're saying you're only interested in the brain scans if it's already done and it happen to align with your abstract beliefs.
Are you going to do more type comparison videos?
+Clover Ramonov Yeah...I've been having trouble getting any videos done lately. I've heard a number of requests for those. I'll see what I can do -- I'm focused on the next revisit video but I may be able to experiment with a new video format that will be easier to make. Then I could make some more videos like type comparison videos while I keep the old format for the remaining revisit series, to keep things equal. We'll see though -- I'm flattered by your interest!
Isaac in a couple of instances within the video doesn't sound very INTJ. Specifically with the axioms based on evidence. The "two kinds of ways in which people seem to think" seems a bit black and white and counter productive to the INTJ's Ni function, which is (and please excuse the simplification) "seeing into things that are not readily there". So the Te follows the inductive pattern and comes up with a thesis based on this pattern while Ni sees into how a sequence of events has led to the climax it has, or at least how it should. I think sticking with the facts alone is safe but a little too general to actually be an objective conclusion and be enforced as such without proper evaluation of the details that Isaac seems to disregard as "noise", so to speak. It's the same thing when you mentioned going back to the pure thoughts people have instead of the behaviors. I think there are too many outside variables that can effect the execution of the thought, and because of this I wouldn't deduce a series of events and come to a verdict based on what data I can scrape up because I can create the exact opposite of what is actually going on - at least without these variables in mind. I'd prefer seeing through the eyes of the executer and come up with a handful of logical sequences that created the outcome that occurred.
I am done with my article.
+Stefan Baugh I don't see how that contradicts an INTJ typing - they're still a primary Te type and have inferior Se driving them - both are highly concrete functions. Ni under Te's influence is also a much more concrete function than it is often in INFJs - there's a similar dynamic in ITPs where Ti and Ni by themselves can be highly abstract but the auxiliary Se and Te drag the dominant functions kicking and screaming down to the real world.
INTJs _understand_ the world by intuitive means and they in large part reason that way as well. But the logic they actually use starts from how things are - the state of things as they are, the facts of the case. This is what Te and Se start from. The path of their musings taken from there can and likely will not be entirely satisfactory for an INTP, say, but an INTJ's thought will nearly always start from something extant and highly concrete.
Isaac being interested in how the people's cognition manifests itself in their behavior while still holding to cognition's primacy is again very much in character, in my opinion. The INTJ psyche is all about vision, will and the concretization thereof. Seeing ideas turn real before your eyes is something highly attractive.
You paid your friend a complement by calling him Isaac Fischer didn't you?
Was Isaac that Indian looking fellow at the NY meet up?
+IndigoXYZ18 Naw -- Isaac has been on a Church mission since I started making videos, so no one's met him personally.
+Michael Pierce Church mission? Is he going to become a pure essence or something?
ChrisTheRipper47 Of Christ, I imagine. However unlike the something like the doctrine of something like Buddhism for example where something similar is achieved through introverted action like meditation, to become the pure essence of oneself. Where as Mormonism spirit quests are undergone in an extroverted manner; going door, to door, spreading the good word of Jesus.
Aww. Don’t justify, yes?
Do u get my messages,
Isaac Newton and Bobby Fischer? Two INTJs.
I saw your comment that Isaac has been on a church mission and have to ask, is he Mormon??
+Faith Welch Indeed :)
+Faith Welch So am I, in case you were wondering.
Oh my goodness that's great! So am I!
Faith Welch Horay! Sweet -- Nice to meet you!
+Michael Pierce Faith= the excuse ppl give to believe something when they don't have evidence
according to your video, i'm intj... though I thought (and think) i'm infj... do you think enneagram can fuck that up ? (i'm 8)
+ToStand i totally relate to your description of the intj... mm weird (i don't say you're wrong) but i thought i wan infj ? so i would be an intj ? how can i tell ?
+ToStand I think its possible that enneagram can confuse people, when inevitably descriptions from both cross over into each other's territory. As for how you can tell between being INFJ and INTJ, I'd suggest maybe watching the two videos I did for each type, as well as the judgement axes video: the INFJ prefers Fe/Ti while the INTJ prefers Te/Fi.
INFJ video: ua-cam.com/video/d4dLLS-DQfA/v-deo.html
INTJ video: ua-cam.com/video/YRxw2YJ9K7I/v-deo.html
Judgement Axes: ua-cam.com/video/GXCnhWVC8yY/v-deo.html
+Michael Pierce ok thank you a lot michael i'm gonna watch this
+ToStand
Also, do watch Michael's older jungian function videos, they contain different tidbits of information which are complementary.
And also, contrast those two types to the others, check up celebritytypes.com and take your time to analyze your life; those things can be confusing.
i totally agree, it is indeed confusing ; thanks for your help man
I’m … not an infj
"...and then if the facts don't line up, then that's facts' problem" the universe is what I say what universe is, not what universe objectively is! rotfl.
Don't like facts wtf? How can you even claim to have an opinion without facts
Michael is an INTJ.
+quenchless Interesting -- what makes you say so?
+Michael Pierce the first thing you do in the video is apologize. You're clearly an INFJ 😀
+quenchless No. Abundantly clearly, no. His word choices, his constant emphasis on making sure people won't get irked by his videos, the way he communicates here on the comments section - all feature huge doses of Fe. You may think he's an INTJ because he comes off as a logician, but the way he reasons is not indicative of Te use - he's all about principles, where Te-driven reasoning is focused on the states of things, how they are and how to best get something out of them, single example cases as demonstrations of a rule (rather than explaining how the rule ought to hold), and the list goes on. He's a Fe/Ti type, through and through.
Your intelligent, but feely. INTJ is not so feely. Not so complicated. However, you make better videos because you're slightly more emotional.
As an INTJ i admire the talent that INFJs have to analyze human behavior
and they do great writters
INTJs are well focused on the implementation of their ideas so that is why we focus on the real world, and why we do good scientists,
we like to be 100% sure, 99% is not enough
And we choose to take the hard path of trial and experimentation
The more I think about it the more it seems that what is bothering me is what I perceive to be your attempt at impartiality. I'm just throwing spaghetti at the wall here so don't hold me to this but it seems to me that you are refraining from making judgment calls as to the accuracy of peoples' views on reality. You see it as objective to represent their views as they stand rather than compare those views to the best picture you have of an actual objective reality. Does that sound accurate?
+Mustache Glasses I thinks that's a good analysis -- I definitely do everything I can to be impartial, though whether I succeed or not I can't say...in this particular video, the concerns you mentioned in your other comment sound like my attempts to describe the manifestations of our differing dual processes: both of us have elements of objectivism and subjectivism in how we view things, so its really a difference in the manner in which we are objective and subjective. But, because I'm naturally biased towards my own dynamic of objective/subjective, I overall tend to see my own dynamic as more accurate, but I try to temper that by stressing his point of view. Which would seem to lead to the problems you mentioned.
Does that help...?
Makes sense. You may temper my comments by understanding that I am also an INTJ.
Micheal Pierce I love you all too much. But why a Mormon? :(. Btw I think Joe Rogan is an INFJ I think you would like his channel :)
+Seth Stoyer I'm flattered good sir. :)
Why not a Mormon? I'm a member because its true.
Michael Pierce
You’re religious? Interesting. Quite a lot of deeply introspective types are religious, and though in a way it’s to be expected, I’m always surprised.