It's weird.. In all personality test types I take,I score very,very high on
intuition, like 95~100%,depending on the test, yet my introversion vs.
extraversion has varied over the course of years(I've recently become much
more introverted,finding people most people draining).. My feeling and
thinking preference are naturally about equal(53%thinking/47% feeling
and at another time 47% thinking/53% feeling), and I am not very
inclined towards either judging or perceiving(47% perceiving/53%
judging). Since perceiving and judging really symbolize extraverted or
introverted sensing, would they also symbolize my tendency towards
ambiversion? I know for a fact I have always been exceptionally strong in
my intuition.. for years, that hasn't changed a bit.. But I think I'm more of a understand,then explain type of person as opposed to a seek to
understanding through external explanations by other people type of
person(I know it's horribly ironic,considering I'm seeking some sort of
affirmation here disguised as asking for guidance),but I would
appreciate it if somebody could tell me I'm somehow horrible wrong in a
logical fashion when I claim that thinking and feeling,as well as
intuiting and sensing, are actually the same things being described
through different words.
Introverted Intuition with Thinking (intj)
Extraverted Intuition with Thinking (entp)
Introverted Intuition with Feeling (infj)
Extraverted Intuition with Feeling (enfp)
If the only absolutely constant thing about my personality is my clear
preference for intuition,and to understand then explain as opposed to
convincing myself I need to be taught (though actually just seeking
positive affirmation of things I unconsciously knew,because when
somebody gives me advise I don't like,I will intuitively know through
feeling or having the thought that I disagree with it,then have to figure
out why) is an approach that I've learned to take and found to be more
natural.. does that mean I could type logically as all of these depending
on how secure I'm feeling? And if I type extraverted, does that just mean I
don't understand my own feelings well enough on an issue and I need to
have the possibilities projected towards me by another after objectifying a
perspective to establish whether or not I agree/disagree?
..and guys, does this make the only difference between extraverts and
introverts the fact that extraverts believe they need to look outside of
themselves to establish a valid identity/to feel secure, and introverts
believe that anything they're told is true about themselves and their
motivations that they don't personally understand is basically the other
person being mistaken/totally misunderstanding/projecting their
personal reality values and beliefs them?
Are thinking and feeling types basically just as biased as one another
while projecting their own bias onto the other type in an attempt to justify the internal peace and security in claiming distinction from the other side while sharing a mutual degree of disparity between the opposing
perspective and the interpretation of their own perspectives?
For example, when a feeling type tries explain the other side, they will say that thinkers are too impartial,while priding themself in being
subjective..denying the fact that explaning it in that fashion requires
some degree of objectivity and that the same seperation from moral
standards they claim is the fault of the other side is what allows them to
judge what is "more correct" or virtuous?
When a thinking type explains the difference between their perspective
and the views of the other side, they claim feeling types are too
emotional,too biased,and too subjective and inconsistent, denying the
fact that they are just as vulnerable to emotional influence because they
could always be mutually human,regardless of belief and bias. They,just
like the feeling types, deny that it took some degree of the fault of the
other side within themselves,no matter how vehemtently they may try to
deflect it(subjectivity), to claim the other side is "too" much ofsomething,
asserting that their own subjective understanding is somehow "more
logical" or "more objectively valid" than another persons..
But how can one person be more pure in their collective understanding of
the life they'd led so far than another person without somehow defining
the other as being less objectively real and valuable? How can one
human's perspective be more objectively because of a mere difference in
the way they interpret a fact subjectively? How could any of us know our
perspective is more or less biased or flawed in a negative way than
another persons' if we never had viewed their perspective,been through all
the same exact things they had been through,and felt with their
body,thought with their mind,to know our interpretation of their
understanding,or even their explanation of their personal
understanding,was what could perfectly explain to us specifically what
they truly meant?
And then the understanding adapting/understanding assimilating
functions(Ne and Ni) and the acting to extravert internal
understanding/acting to internalize external understanding functions
(Se and Si) are probably related in the same ways.
Intuitives would claim sensing types are wrong because they appear to act
without thinking about the consequences. Sensing types would claim
intuitives are wrong because because they have no personal experience to
learn true consequences from. The reality would be that intuitives Do act,
but they do it after understanding the reason to while sensing types would
act, but they do it to learn the reason why they should or should not act
that way. Intuitives do not believe there is value in acting for the
moment, because the present moment does not last. Sensors do not believe
there is value in acting for the future, because all we could experience is
the present moment. Intuitives believe sensors are wrong because living in
the moment means you place no value in the future, while the future DOES
have value. Sensors believe intuitives are wrong because living in the
future means you place no value on the present moment, while the present
moment DOES have value.
The truth is, Intuitives DO live in the moment as much as Sensors, and
Sensors live in the future as much as Intuitives.
When intuitives understand, they either have first sought a way of
acquiring an understanding, judged how to gain that understanding,
then acted in order to gain it(internalizing experience of sensation
because they didn't have it yet), or have first had the understanding,
judged which way would be best to explain, then acted to express what
their understanding meant(externalizing experience of sensation
because others didn't have it yet).
When sensors experience, they either have first acted to be moved
emotionally(internalizing experience of understanding because they
didn't have it yet),then gained experience, or they have first been moved
emotionally by a gained experience (externalizing experience of
understanding because others didn't have it yet), then acted because of it.
When feelers experience emotion, they either have first identified the type
of feeling (internalizing understanding of thought process because they
didn't have it yet), then come to understanding why, or they have first
identified the understanding understanding why(externalizing
understanding of emotion because others didn't have it yet),then
understood of thought process.
When thinkers experience logic, they either have first identified the type of thought (internalizing understanding of feeling because they didn't have
it yet), then come to understand why, or they have first identified an
understanding why(externalizing understanding of reason because
others didn't have it yet), then experienced feeling.
~~~
Yeah, gonna revist this later on.
No comments:
Post a Comment