My new goal: attempt to free my imagination from the strict confines of existing constructs, to whatever degree possible. Maybe it's theoretically impossible, if I'm hardwired a certain way. But hey, as long as I understand the possibility of not achieving such, a little effort here and there won't hurt.
For now, I'll settle for reigniting my imagination, constructs and all. Earlier today, I'd been thinking about how I wanted to see with my mind's eye more often. Not long afterward, I paused on my way to the living room to look out the back window at the mountainside and smiled as the dirty hill behind our condo turned into a cascading waterfall surrounded by a lush array of colorful, broad-leafed vegetation bustling with insect life. Almost involuntarily, my mind's eye was awakened briefly, mildly, after a long sleep, and it felt like a familiar friend, and I couldn't help but smile a little as I sipped my water from my mug and stood looking out the glass door. I felt a little silly when I realized I'd been standing there, looking at the dirt out back, for the better part of a minute...I need to do more of that.
22 April 2009
I N/S T/F J/P ... Crap
OK, so I've known for a long time that I was close on the T/F and the J/P and exhibited aspects of both. I hadn't realized that I do, in fact, acknowledge that my "CPU" comes across as rather "S"-like--as my INTP friend put it last night--at the very least in expression. I have to admit it's possible I'm running an INTP O.S. over an ISFJ architecture.
My inner workings do "feel" abstract, and even intuitive, even if my expression of them comes out as concrete, yet my imagination has always seemed bound by my experiences in the concrete world, not unlimited and endless as the "boundaries of Fantasia" (loved that movie), as is supposedly typical of "true Ns". And if certain assertions about Ns are also always true, then I may not be as "N" as I thought.
One thing is sure: I do think abstractly. And I also think concretely. Great. You know what happens then? Endless loops in my brain as data is kicked from side to side by different processes. Shoot. So the things I'm passionate about understanding SO occupy my mind as to start out as obsessive monsters running amok, whirlwinds of thought-dust contracting into tight balls that are found to be slightly irregular or incomplete, then exploding out again to repeat the process. They are revision after revision of theses sent between editors who keep making corrections and passing them back over and over. This is when I get mild headaches. The revision process only stops when a conclusive final draft is reached, or pauses when an experiment becomes necessary, or is tossed in the trash bin if I stop caring for some reason. Whatever the end, it's exhausting.
I also never felt very F-motivated. I felt very T-determined. Keep in mind, "felt" is not meant in the emotional sense, here, so don't pull that on me--it's my way of expressing ideas in language I think the most people will grasp. I may be wrong. Anyway, I have always had plenty of "F" in me and known it was there, and it sometimes does dominate. But though the F does kick in, the T steps in and tempers it and wins out most of the time. I'm not sure if one was learned and the other innate, or both innate and balancing, or what.
OK, so I see that a right-brained, or abstract-thinking, SF would experience certain things differently from a left-brained SF. And I see that as a young child, looking back, I seemed more like an ISFJ than an INTP. I did. Very early. But as far back as memory goes, I remember from a rather INTP or INTJ perspective, with certain ISFJ sprinklings, particularly earlier on. Did I, in my abstract thought, convince myself that certain motivations weren't worthy and readjust my self-interpretation accordingly (e.g. shifting social recognition motivation to personal achievement motivation)? Did I, to preserve my very sensitive feelings, become determined to shield them with a thought-based control mechanism, which naturally took the form of abstract-bent, or intuitive-like thought, due to being right-brained? Or is there no such thing as one deterministic core processing method, a hardwired way of thinking or processing information and feelings? Is it possible to actually move along the spectrum rather freely, the only things holding us back from changing being our values, desires, and attachments? Is it possible an odd mix of traits just makes me a typological mutt with or without a "core"? Or is the "S"ness just a remnant from a natural progression of psychological and physiological development, whether or not it's an actual "core"?
Myers, Briggs, and Keirsey, you seem to have somehow overlooked certain situations. I am now very possibly slightly outside of your realm of description. (Though as I've said, if you want to get inside my head, read about INTPs and INTJs, even if I stuck to those constructs as a way to mask any SF-ness...*shrug*) While I don't buy into certain theories I've heard regarding this, I do see how they make sense according to given models. I'm waiting for a more convincing model. :-) But for now, I'm OK with just referring to myself as a bit of a hybrid. An anomaly of sorts. Yes, I can handle that quite nicely. Too bad it's apparently not all that uncommon...d'oh!
My inner workings do "feel" abstract, and even intuitive, even if my expression of them comes out as concrete, yet my imagination has always seemed bound by my experiences in the concrete world, not unlimited and endless as the "boundaries of Fantasia" (loved that movie), as is supposedly typical of "true Ns". And if certain assertions about Ns are also always true, then I may not be as "N" as I thought.
One thing is sure: I do think abstractly. And I also think concretely. Great. You know what happens then? Endless loops in my brain as data is kicked from side to side by different processes. Shoot. So the things I'm passionate about understanding SO occupy my mind as to start out as obsessive monsters running amok, whirlwinds of thought-dust contracting into tight balls that are found to be slightly irregular or incomplete, then exploding out again to repeat the process. They are revision after revision of theses sent between editors who keep making corrections and passing them back over and over. This is when I get mild headaches. The revision process only stops when a conclusive final draft is reached, or pauses when an experiment becomes necessary, or is tossed in the trash bin if I stop caring for some reason. Whatever the end, it's exhausting.
I also never felt very F-motivated. I felt very T-determined. Keep in mind, "felt" is not meant in the emotional sense, here, so don't pull that on me--it's my way of expressing ideas in language I think the most people will grasp. I may be wrong. Anyway, I have always had plenty of "F" in me and known it was there, and it sometimes does dominate. But though the F does kick in, the T steps in and tempers it and wins out most of the time. I'm not sure if one was learned and the other innate, or both innate and balancing, or what.
OK, so I see that a right-brained, or abstract-thinking, SF would experience certain things differently from a left-brained SF. And I see that as a young child, looking back, I seemed more like an ISFJ than an INTP. I did. Very early. But as far back as memory goes, I remember from a rather INTP or INTJ perspective, with certain ISFJ sprinklings, particularly earlier on. Did I, in my abstract thought, convince myself that certain motivations weren't worthy and readjust my self-interpretation accordingly (e.g. shifting social recognition motivation to personal achievement motivation)? Did I, to preserve my very sensitive feelings, become determined to shield them with a thought-based control mechanism, which naturally took the form of abstract-bent, or intuitive-like thought, due to being right-brained? Or is there no such thing as one deterministic core processing method, a hardwired way of thinking or processing information and feelings? Is it possible to actually move along the spectrum rather freely, the only things holding us back from changing being our values, desires, and attachments? Is it possible an odd mix of traits just makes me a typological mutt with or without a "core"? Or is the "S"ness just a remnant from a natural progression of psychological and physiological development, whether or not it's an actual "core"?
Myers, Briggs, and Keirsey, you seem to have somehow overlooked certain situations. I am now very possibly slightly outside of your realm of description. (Though as I've said, if you want to get inside my head, read about INTPs and INTJs, even if I stuck to those constructs as a way to mask any SF-ness...*shrug*) While I don't buy into certain theories I've heard regarding this, I do see how they make sense according to given models. I'm waiting for a more convincing model. :-) But for now, I'm OK with just referring to myself as a bit of a hybrid. An anomaly of sorts. Yes, I can handle that quite nicely. Too bad it's apparently not all that uncommon...d'oh!
20 April 2009
Little INTJ
Let's look at a boy we will assume, for the time being, is an INTJ. A little "Rational" boy being raised by a Guardian-Artisan pairing with a Guardian brother 8 years his senior. Dad ESTJ's parenting style clashed quite violently with Little INTJ's demands for rationale and autonomy, which created plenty of miscommunication or conflict. Mom ESFP would often step in to mediate, tempering Dad ESTJ's demands for submission with explanations of Little INTJ's headstrong but not purposefully flippant behavior. And she'd explain to Little INTJ the importance of doing what's asked even if it doesn't make sense at the time, which lecture Little INTJ received many times before starting to reluctantly comply in action if not in spirit. Mom ESFP would occasionally indulge Little INTJ's demands for rationale by debating with him, and Dad ESTJ would step in, telling Mom ESFP that she would not win a debate with Little INTJ, and he needed to learn to take "no" for an answer. Story of Little INTJ's childhood.
Well, as time went on, other interesting dynamics developed. Little INTJ was what the other children called a "nerd". He was socially awkward and didn't dress well. He thought things were funny that other kids just thought were weird. He had a few friends, but for the most part, he was absorbed in books about science, magic tricks, math problems, and logic puzzles and pretending to be in lands of make-believe instead of roller skating and playing in the mud. Riding bikes was fun, mostly because he pretended it was an airplane or a spaceship, and the manhole covers were ocean ships or space stations, pebbles were whales in the ocean or asteroids...or sometimes counting the cracks was a way to make it more fun. To the kids who thought riding a bike was quite enough in and of itself, his need to turn everything into make-believe or a math problem seemed odd. He wanted to look at things under a microscope and play with his chemistry set more than play baseball. He was a nerd. Mom ESFP and Bro ESTJ stepped in and helped him dress more like the other kids and be less fastidious about his hair. A monster was unleashed, and Little INTJ became Little INTP.
Well, long story short, this experience taught Little INTP a few things. He learned that he could, in fact, break out of his very rigid mold to try new things and be less of an oddity, at least on first impressions. This was refreshing to the little weirdo. He enjoyed himself quite well alone, but having just a few close friends was nice, being somewhat of an only child with such an older brother who was rarely home.
It also taught him that you can conduct all sorts of social experiments by changing your habits and interactions. Fascinating! This was a whole new arena in which to test his skills and ability to tweak his interactions and relationships. A late bloomer, socially, college is where Young INTP began to finally feel somewhat adept at social interaction. Somewhat. Still awkward, but making it through much better as he learned to soften his blunt language, hold back his pointed attacks on faulty logic, and engage in physical activities most people seemed to enjoy but which were, for him, a test of his own resolve more than an excuse to be with people or interest in the thing itself. The realm of experimentation had extended beyond chemistry experiments and into the social realm.
Over time, trying various tests to see what the results would be, he adopted certain habits he never would have adopted otherwise, and he left others once they were tested if the thing itself was undesirable or too much trouble, even if the results had been positive. The knowledge of what worked was what was important, not the thing itself. And despite occasional feelings of internal discord or struggle to find balance, Young INTP/J had, by his mid-twenties, achieved a balance of personality that he found very workable.
Sometimes, he'll be getting dressed and not feel like dressing 'hot' but do it anyway to test what kind of reaction he'll get from certain people. Having someone think he is hot is not necessarily the goal--which is good, because it's happening with decreasing frequency with age--because he fully intends to do nothing about it. It's knowing whether he can get it to happen that matters. And if it doesn't work, it's a failed experiment, not a personal blow or rejection. It's a strange thing, his decision-making process. Putting colors together is not his strong suit, and sometimes, he'll test combos he's not sure about to see who might comment or if people act any differently. Then if the reaction is not positive, he'll try something different next time and see if that changes anything. This experiment has been going on for a few years now. He does question, once in a while, whether he's "dressing to impress", on which days he will often deliberately dress down and wear whatever the heck he feels like wearing, which is often not one of his best-looking outfits. But the drive to see if he can pass as a good dresser often wins out, too. And he does like to look nice, to present himself well. Probably partially because of the dichotomy he has experienced from not having dressed well most of his life and having learned to do more so with the help of aesthetically sensitive friends.
In any case, such a weirdly deliberate decision-making process works for him. It makes life more interesting. There's much more to his story, of course, but these have been a few points along the way. He still, to this day, tests his and other people's boundaries and limits, sometimes in almost imperceptibly subtle ways, experimenting with this or that, taking notes on the results...seeking internal authenticity and trying to effectively express what he really thinks and feels in a way other people of varying "types" will grasp it. That's still in the works.
Conflicts
Conflicts always existed for Young INTP/J. Raised by the staunch and persistent ESTJ and the mediating, imploring ESFP, he always felt a sense that this is how most of the world was, and in order to make it through to achieve any goals he might make and keep the doors wide open, options ample, he was going to have to learn to integrate this boring, real-world way of thinking with his own. And sometimes, when Little INTJ reappears, he feels more adept at doing so, more at ease working within the constructs of the concrete folks and the tedium of following established procedures, as long as he is able to suggest changes and improvements to his supervisors. Other times, when Young INTP holds sway, he feels rather detached from them and can continue to function only as long as he is able to be creative with SOMETHING in his life, whether photography, writing, helping develop a non-profit organization, or going on vacation to a new place with new experiences to test out.
Another conflict: among the more extreme Ns, now-Adult INTP/J often feels kinship and identification but also a sense of inadequacy. With so much energy spent, over the years, balancing his own quirks with more "normal" behaviors in his long-term social experiment, he feels like he has lost that edge he could have had. As his friends make up colorful poems and giggle about wordplay, he chuckles or appreciates the poem but always feels a tinge of disappointment that he doesn't come up with that stuff anymore. Maybe he never did even as much as he thought he did. Maybe he was a self-deceived ISFJ? But he's never felt like any descriptions of ISFJ's he's found so far.
A feeling thinker or a thinking feeler: Little INTJ was always a "sensitive" kid. He was sensitive to other children, and his feelings could be hurt rather easily. He cried fairly readily. But he also processed things cerebrally, and he always trusted his thoughts more than his emotions. He would tell pestering bullies things like, "Sticks and stones..." or "I'm rubber and you're glue..." and he never felt like he was just convincing himself of it. He actually believed it. His feelings were generally hurt only by those closest to him. After learning about personality types, he saw his childhood as characteristically more "Rational" (NT) but with clearly "Idealist" (NF) leanings. Maybe he really was an F as well. However, with the conflict between Dad ESTJ and Little Whatever, Little Whatever tended to identify more with Mom ESFP and felt safest with her, a clear F. Could it be some "F" traits were mimicked or adopted and Dad ESTJ's "T" traits eschewed since Little Whatever was near the border between them anyway?
Blast it, having to rewrite this little story is gonna be a pain in the tukus if Mr. "You're an ISFJ" is right and he can re-explain all of these things within his framework. Barf. Although, because my eyes don't point right, there will be no convincing him, so maybe I have to try to let it go. It's been an interesting challenge, though.
Well, as time went on, other interesting dynamics developed. Little INTJ was what the other children called a "nerd". He was socially awkward and didn't dress well. He thought things were funny that other kids just thought were weird. He had a few friends, but for the most part, he was absorbed in books about science, magic tricks, math problems, and logic puzzles and pretending to be in lands of make-believe instead of roller skating and playing in the mud. Riding bikes was fun, mostly because he pretended it was an airplane or a spaceship, and the manhole covers were ocean ships or space stations, pebbles were whales in the ocean or asteroids...or sometimes counting the cracks was a way to make it more fun. To the kids who thought riding a bike was quite enough in and of itself, his need to turn everything into make-believe or a math problem seemed odd. He wanted to look at things under a microscope and play with his chemistry set more than play baseball. He was a nerd. Mom ESFP and Bro ESTJ stepped in and helped him dress more like the other kids and be less fastidious about his hair. A monster was unleashed, and Little INTJ became Little INTP.
Well, long story short, this experience taught Little INTP a few things. He learned that he could, in fact, break out of his very rigid mold to try new things and be less of an oddity, at least on first impressions. This was refreshing to the little weirdo. He enjoyed himself quite well alone, but having just a few close friends was nice, being somewhat of an only child with such an older brother who was rarely home.
It also taught him that you can conduct all sorts of social experiments by changing your habits and interactions. Fascinating! This was a whole new arena in which to test his skills and ability to tweak his interactions and relationships. A late bloomer, socially, college is where Young INTP began to finally feel somewhat adept at social interaction. Somewhat. Still awkward, but making it through much better as he learned to soften his blunt language, hold back his pointed attacks on faulty logic, and engage in physical activities most people seemed to enjoy but which were, for him, a test of his own resolve more than an excuse to be with people or interest in the thing itself. The realm of experimentation had extended beyond chemistry experiments and into the social realm.
Over time, trying various tests to see what the results would be, he adopted certain habits he never would have adopted otherwise, and he left others once they were tested if the thing itself was undesirable or too much trouble, even if the results had been positive. The knowledge of what worked was what was important, not the thing itself. And despite occasional feelings of internal discord or struggle to find balance, Young INTP/J had, by his mid-twenties, achieved a balance of personality that he found very workable.
Sometimes, he'll be getting dressed and not feel like dressing 'hot' but do it anyway to test what kind of reaction he'll get from certain people. Having someone think he is hot is not necessarily the goal--which is good, because it's happening with decreasing frequency with age--because he fully intends to do nothing about it. It's knowing whether he can get it to happen that matters. And if it doesn't work, it's a failed experiment, not a personal blow or rejection. It's a strange thing, his decision-making process. Putting colors together is not his strong suit, and sometimes, he'll test combos he's not sure about to see who might comment or if people act any differently. Then if the reaction is not positive, he'll try something different next time and see if that changes anything. This experiment has been going on for a few years now. He does question, once in a while, whether he's "dressing to impress", on which days he will often deliberately dress down and wear whatever the heck he feels like wearing, which is often not one of his best-looking outfits. But the drive to see if he can pass as a good dresser often wins out, too. And he does like to look nice, to present himself well. Probably partially because of the dichotomy he has experienced from not having dressed well most of his life and having learned to do more so with the help of aesthetically sensitive friends.
In any case, such a weirdly deliberate decision-making process works for him. It makes life more interesting. There's much more to his story, of course, but these have been a few points along the way. He still, to this day, tests his and other people's boundaries and limits, sometimes in almost imperceptibly subtle ways, experimenting with this or that, taking notes on the results...seeking internal authenticity and trying to effectively express what he really thinks and feels in a way other people of varying "types" will grasp it. That's still in the works.
Conflicts
Conflicts always existed for Young INTP/J. Raised by the staunch and persistent ESTJ and the mediating, imploring ESFP, he always felt a sense that this is how most of the world was, and in order to make it through to achieve any goals he might make and keep the doors wide open, options ample, he was going to have to learn to integrate this boring, real-world way of thinking with his own. And sometimes, when Little INTJ reappears, he feels more adept at doing so, more at ease working within the constructs of the concrete folks and the tedium of following established procedures, as long as he is able to suggest changes and improvements to his supervisors. Other times, when Young INTP holds sway, he feels rather detached from them and can continue to function only as long as he is able to be creative with SOMETHING in his life, whether photography, writing, helping develop a non-profit organization, or going on vacation to a new place with new experiences to test out.
Another conflict: among the more extreme Ns, now-Adult INTP/J often feels kinship and identification but also a sense of inadequacy. With so much energy spent, over the years, balancing his own quirks with more "normal" behaviors in his long-term social experiment, he feels like he has lost that edge he could have had. As his friends make up colorful poems and giggle about wordplay, he chuckles or appreciates the poem but always feels a tinge of disappointment that he doesn't come up with that stuff anymore. Maybe he never did even as much as he thought he did. Maybe he was a self-deceived ISFJ? But he's never felt like any descriptions of ISFJ's he's found so far.
A feeling thinker or a thinking feeler: Little INTJ was always a "sensitive" kid. He was sensitive to other children, and his feelings could be hurt rather easily. He cried fairly readily. But he also processed things cerebrally, and he always trusted his thoughts more than his emotions. He would tell pestering bullies things like, "Sticks and stones..." or "I'm rubber and you're glue..." and he never felt like he was just convincing himself of it. He actually believed it. His feelings were generally hurt only by those closest to him. After learning about personality types, he saw his childhood as characteristically more "Rational" (NT) but with clearly "Idealist" (NF) leanings. Maybe he really was an F as well. However, with the conflict between Dad ESTJ and Little Whatever, Little Whatever tended to identify more with Mom ESFP and felt safest with her, a clear F. Could it be some "F" traits were mimicked or adopted and Dad ESTJ's "T" traits eschewed since Little Whatever was near the border between them anyway?
Blast it, having to rewrite this little story is gonna be a pain in the tukus if Mr. "You're an ISFJ" is right and he can re-explain all of these things within his framework. Barf. Although, because my eyes don't point right, there will be no convincing him, so maybe I have to try to let it go. It's been an interesting challenge, though.
Brainedness
Brain Lateralization Test Results |
| Right Brain (48%) The right hemisphere is the visual, figurative, artistic, and intuitive side of the brain. Left Brain (44%) The left hemisphere is the logical, articulate, assertive, and practical side of the brain |
personality tests by similarminds.com
Typos
I went to a personality "typing" gathering last night, and the guy who did the typing is determined that I am not, in fact, an INTP, but an ISFJ who thinks he's an INTP, which he says is remarkably not uncommon, particularly among left-handed ISFJs, if I understood correctly.
Granted, I have been quite skeptical of his theories since I met him. He seemed kind of "out there" and all too confident in his theories to be truly open, which always brings someone's theoretical framework into question for me, but I decided to hear what he had to say about his theories. It was interesting, and while the reasoning behind his particular model of interconnectedness between the various traits did escape me somewhat, I was considering the possibility that he really was on to something, reserving that judgement, of course, until I could see the full rationale behind his model. Nonetheless, I already knew he believed me to be other than an INTP, and I shrugged and thought, "If I don't fit his mold, I don't fit his mold."
Yet despite my shrugging, to be told that I now could not be counted as an "N", a group which made so much sense to me when I finally discovered it in Please Understand Me II, and which made sense of so much of my childhood and my relationships...to be told I was, in short, an imposter, was uncomfortable even if I disagreed with his reasoning. It kind of hurt to wonder if other Ns had always regarded me as this sort of "passable" figure, not quite right but close enough to keep around. I've always been a loner in most ways, so sometimes I'm surprised when lack of belonging (something a typical "N" doesn't care much about, nor do I in most cases) hurts for such a silly reason as being told I don't belong to the iNtuitors as I thought I did by someone whose personal opinion doesn't matter to me but which represents the possibility that others think the same way.
Listening to him felt a little like listening to the psychic in a booth who tells you danger is just around the corner and to be careful to avoid it. They're so sure of themselves that you feel a slight foreboding, even though you're not convinced they're right. He seems, at least, to have more of a basis for his assertions than a sideshow performer peering into a glass ball...
I set that aside the best I could and tried to figure out why else I might feel shaken. Was it because he was right, and I was getting a much-needed slap in the face by some guy I didn't trust? Was it because something about what he said struck a nerve, such as tapping into my insecurity about being unoriginal? My mind was reeling, considering his points and formulating the counterarguments, but I kept them to myself and told myself that if I really was open-minded, I'd consider his propositions more carefully before attempting to pick them apart with my relatively limited knowledge around personality typing and complete lack of knowledge around phenotypology.
If he's right, I have some reassessment to do. I have to try to ignore the fact that all descriptions of INTPs and INTJs fit me remarkably well and that the ISFJ description he gave, along with the Keirsey version, only fit in some aspects. I have to acknowledge that he may be correct in asserting that I only THINK they fit me well because I see myself inaccurately and have maintained a very effective INTP facade long enough that I've fooled people around me into thinking I am one as well, when in fact, I am an ISFJ with certain "N"-ish traits due to the brain phenomena which are indicated by my lefthandedness (something which apparently stems from some seemingly deterministic ideas about genetic expression, phenotypology, what-have-you). It's all very interconnected in his theory and potentially convoluted, but it's possible he's right, and some of my own sense of conflict could be explained the way he explained it. I have to concede that. I think it could be explained other ways, too, but this was, I admitted, a viable option. He told me he would bet his life on me being an ISFJ and that he has run into others who are ISFJs who have been convinced they are Ns, and they are always stubbornly opposed to his insistence that they are Ss.
I fought the urge to incessantly argue his points for various reasons, including: a) I don't really care about proving what "type" I am to anyone, b) I am fairly certain he believes me to be less intelligent than I am, again something I also don't care about proving to him, c) I came to hear his views, not to combat them, especially in confirmation of his prior experience, d) if I am going to be as "open" as I would like to think I am, I have to acknowledge the possibility that he's right even if I don't believe he is, e) I didn't want to go into the ultra-debate mode I've worked so hard to rein in over the years, f) ...OK, there are others, but I'll leave it at that.
However, he all-too-quickly had made an assessment of my personality soon after meeting me (this is his specialty, so that's what he does with people--phenotyping), and he seems to have based most of his opinion on my interactions with him and on my style of clothing, my "metrosexual" look, which he insists an INTP would NOT exhibit because true INTPs never have in his experience, and the way my eyes focus...or don't.
What I would have gone into, had I cared enough to draw out the debate, and had I been convinced a debate would go anywhere (he said he would slit his wrists if he were wrong...how are you supposed to expect to get anywhere with someone like that?), was how much, in my life, I've deliberately worked to balance my own way of viewing things or doing things. And over the years since adolescence, I've actually felt a shift towards "S"ness, but it's never felt natural, and the "N" descriptions I read about feel like "home". Almost everything he brought up as a sign of my lack of true "N"ness was something I had tempered over the years through a lot of effort. I can't prove to him what has been done through effort and what has been my natural tendency. So... *shrug*
If he's wrong, I wonder if he has reorganized the interplay between the Jung-based letters so much that his methods of typing have unfortunately sacrificed some important nuances of, for example, what it means to be an introverted "NT" with extroverted Sensing. Or perhaps some of the factors he has brought in (left- or righthandedness, inhibited vs. uninhibited, etc) tend to confound, not clarify, the model? Meh, but he could be right. The J I'll concede. I show both P and J tendencies and always have in different ways. When I was very little, I suspect I was a hardcore J. In early adolescence, I swung to a fairly extreme P. I've come back to more of a compromise, I think. Though maybe it's really just a stress-inducing conflict. Who knows?
The T and the F, also potentially disputable, though I think I'm more of a T. In fact, I went back and read Keirsey's description of the ISFJ and the ISTJ, and the ISTJ seemed to describe me a little more than the ISFJ. Of course, neither fit as well, in my opinion, as the INTP and INTJ. Even the NF variants describe me at least as much as the ISFJ. Of course, again, his theory conveniently explains this with the simple assertion: I do not know myself like I think I do.
...so now it's the next morning, and I just retook the Keirsey adaptation thinking, "OK, let's be open to getting a lot of 'a' answers to explore this. And let's think of what has been most consistent during my adult life and leave childhood out of it." Where I was torn between 'a' and 'b', I wrote both, and for scoring, I always chose a. The result? ISTJ. Interesting.
'I' won 10 to 0.
'S' won 11 to 9. Had I scored 'b' instead of 'a' on each ambiguous answer, 'N' would have won 14 to 6.
'T' won 13 to 7. Had I scored 'b' instead of 'a', 'T' would still have won 11 to 9.
'J' won 13 to 7. Had I scored 'b', 'P' would have won 11 to 9.
OK, so Mr. "You're an ISFJ" may just point to errors in my own self-perception to explain the ambiguity, or maybe even flaws in the assessment method of Keirsey.
But here's the deal, this was with me telling myself that if in doubt, choose 'a'. But the fact of the matter is that it often felt forced to lean towards the 'a' answer.
Nevertheless, if I am, according to his model, an "S", it could "help" me see my own strengths and weaknesses more accurately if he's right. It could help me understand interpersonal relationships and begin to recognize my own motivations and innate abilities more accurately, which can be very useful, especially when trying to determine a career path and feeling befuddled. So I won't discount it entirely.
But I'll just say it: I think he's wrong. Confusion on his part would be understandable, considering the complexity of his model, his lack of experience with me, my non-extreme "N"ness, and the phenotypology to which he's so loyal. But I'm not the expert. And unlike my "E" friend, about whom this fellow changed his mind (something he admitted he rarely does), I am not as interested in convincing this guy he has misread me or I should be allowed to stay in the club. Maybe I am a sort of hybrid. I've always thought it would be weird or awkward to be on the border between an "S" and an "N". Maybe I'm experiencing it. If I eventually decide that I think he's right, I'll keep y'all posted. I'm sure you're on the edge of your seat...
Granted, I have been quite skeptical of his theories since I met him. He seemed kind of "out there" and all too confident in his theories to be truly open, which always brings someone's theoretical framework into question for me, but I decided to hear what he had to say about his theories. It was interesting, and while the reasoning behind his particular model of interconnectedness between the various traits did escape me somewhat, I was considering the possibility that he really was on to something, reserving that judgement, of course, until I could see the full rationale behind his model. Nonetheless, I already knew he believed me to be other than an INTP, and I shrugged and thought, "If I don't fit his mold, I don't fit his mold."
Yet despite my shrugging, to be told that I now could not be counted as an "N", a group which made so much sense to me when I finally discovered it in Please Understand Me II, and which made sense of so much of my childhood and my relationships...to be told I was, in short, an imposter, was uncomfortable even if I disagreed with his reasoning. It kind of hurt to wonder if other Ns had always regarded me as this sort of "passable" figure, not quite right but close enough to keep around. I've always been a loner in most ways, so sometimes I'm surprised when lack of belonging (something a typical "N" doesn't care much about, nor do I in most cases) hurts for such a silly reason as being told I don't belong to the iNtuitors as I thought I did by someone whose personal opinion doesn't matter to me but which represents the possibility that others think the same way.
Listening to him felt a little like listening to the psychic in a booth who tells you danger is just around the corner and to be careful to avoid it. They're so sure of themselves that you feel a slight foreboding, even though you're not convinced they're right. He seems, at least, to have more of a basis for his assertions than a sideshow performer peering into a glass ball...
I set that aside the best I could and tried to figure out why else I might feel shaken. Was it because he was right, and I was getting a much-needed slap in the face by some guy I didn't trust? Was it because something about what he said struck a nerve, such as tapping into my insecurity about being unoriginal? My mind was reeling, considering his points and formulating the counterarguments, but I kept them to myself and told myself that if I really was open-minded, I'd consider his propositions more carefully before attempting to pick them apart with my relatively limited knowledge around personality typing and complete lack of knowledge around phenotypology.
If he's right, I have some reassessment to do. I have to try to ignore the fact that all descriptions of INTPs and INTJs fit me remarkably well and that the ISFJ description he gave, along with the Keirsey version, only fit in some aspects. I have to acknowledge that he may be correct in asserting that I only THINK they fit me well because I see myself inaccurately and have maintained a very effective INTP facade long enough that I've fooled people around me into thinking I am one as well, when in fact, I am an ISFJ with certain "N"-ish traits due to the brain phenomena which are indicated by my lefthandedness (something which apparently stems from some seemingly deterministic ideas about genetic expression, phenotypology, what-have-you). It's all very interconnected in his theory and potentially convoluted, but it's possible he's right, and some of my own sense of conflict could be explained the way he explained it. I have to concede that. I think it could be explained other ways, too, but this was, I admitted, a viable option. He told me he would bet his life on me being an ISFJ and that he has run into others who are ISFJs who have been convinced they are Ns, and they are always stubbornly opposed to his insistence that they are Ss.
I fought the urge to incessantly argue his points for various reasons, including: a) I don't really care about proving what "type" I am to anyone, b) I am fairly certain he believes me to be less intelligent than I am, again something I also don't care about proving to him, c) I came to hear his views, not to combat them, especially in confirmation of his prior experience, d) if I am going to be as "open" as I would like to think I am, I have to acknowledge the possibility that he's right even if I don't believe he is, e) I didn't want to go into the ultra-debate mode I've worked so hard to rein in over the years, f) ...OK, there are others, but I'll leave it at that.
However, he all-too-quickly had made an assessment of my personality soon after meeting me (this is his specialty, so that's what he does with people--phenotyping), and he seems to have based most of his opinion on my interactions with him and on my style of clothing, my "metrosexual" look, which he insists an INTP would NOT exhibit because true INTPs never have in his experience, and the way my eyes focus...or don't.
What I would have gone into, had I cared enough to draw out the debate, and had I been convinced a debate would go anywhere (he said he would slit his wrists if he were wrong...how are you supposed to expect to get anywhere with someone like that?), was how much, in my life, I've deliberately worked to balance my own way of viewing things or doing things. And over the years since adolescence, I've actually felt a shift towards "S"ness, but it's never felt natural, and the "N" descriptions I read about feel like "home". Almost everything he brought up as a sign of my lack of true "N"ness was something I had tempered over the years through a lot of effort. I can't prove to him what has been done through effort and what has been my natural tendency. So... *shrug*
If he's wrong, I wonder if he has reorganized the interplay between the Jung-based letters so much that his methods of typing have unfortunately sacrificed some important nuances of, for example, what it means to be an introverted "NT" with extroverted Sensing. Or perhaps some of the factors he has brought in (left- or righthandedness, inhibited vs. uninhibited, etc) tend to confound, not clarify, the model? Meh, but he could be right. The J I'll concede. I show both P and J tendencies and always have in different ways. When I was very little, I suspect I was a hardcore J. In early adolescence, I swung to a fairly extreme P. I've come back to more of a compromise, I think. Though maybe it's really just a stress-inducing conflict. Who knows?
The T and the F, also potentially disputable, though I think I'm more of a T. In fact, I went back and read Keirsey's description of the ISFJ and the ISTJ, and the ISTJ seemed to describe me a little more than the ISFJ. Of course, neither fit as well, in my opinion, as the INTP and INTJ. Even the NF variants describe me at least as much as the ISFJ. Of course, again, his theory conveniently explains this with the simple assertion: I do not know myself like I think I do.
...so now it's the next morning, and I just retook the Keirsey adaptation thinking, "OK, let's be open to getting a lot of 'a' answers to explore this. And let's think of what has been most consistent during my adult life and leave childhood out of it." Where I was torn between 'a' and 'b', I wrote both, and for scoring, I always chose a. The result? ISTJ. Interesting.
'I' won 10 to 0.
'S' won 11 to 9. Had I scored 'b' instead of 'a' on each ambiguous answer, 'N' would have won 14 to 6.
'T' won 13 to 7. Had I scored 'b' instead of 'a', 'T' would still have won 11 to 9.
'J' won 13 to 7. Had I scored 'b', 'P' would have won 11 to 9.
OK, so Mr. "You're an ISFJ" may just point to errors in my own self-perception to explain the ambiguity, or maybe even flaws in the assessment method of Keirsey.
But here's the deal, this was with me telling myself that if in doubt, choose 'a'. But the fact of the matter is that it often felt forced to lean towards the 'a' answer.
Nevertheless, if I am, according to his model, an "S", it could "help" me see my own strengths and weaknesses more accurately if he's right. It could help me understand interpersonal relationships and begin to recognize my own motivations and innate abilities more accurately, which can be very useful, especially when trying to determine a career path and feeling befuddled. So I won't discount it entirely.
But I'll just say it: I think he's wrong. Confusion on his part would be understandable, considering the complexity of his model, his lack of experience with me, my non-extreme "N"ness, and the phenotypology to which he's so loyal. But I'm not the expert. And unlike my "E" friend, about whom this fellow changed his mind (something he admitted he rarely does), I am not as interested in convincing this guy he has misread me or I should be allowed to stay in the club. Maybe I am a sort of hybrid. I've always thought it would be weird or awkward to be on the border between an "S" and an "N". Maybe I'm experiencing it. If I eventually decide that I think he's right, I'll keep y'all posted. I'm sure you're on the edge of your seat...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)