Originally Posted by pizal81

I have another questions for you Si users. As an ENFP I have a problem living in the moment. My mind is always dwelling on the future or some alternate reality in someone. In college some of my friends wouldn't understand how I could forget certain things that happened at a basketball game or concert. I remember the experience, but not the specifics of the experience.
Now you Si users do you tend dwell in the present or past or some other alternative? My Se using dad ESFP doesn't seem like he can see past tomorrow most days. I wondered if Si was any different.

I am an EN married to an IS. She is in charge of the present. I am in charge of the future. We have been married for almost 39 years.

James50

Originally Posted by pizal81

I have another questions for you Si users. As an ENFP I have a problem living in the moment. My mind is always dwelling on the future or some alternate reality in someone. In college some of my friends wouldn't understand how I could forget certain things that happened at a basketball game or concert. I remember the experience, but not the specifics of the experience.
Now you Si users do you tend dwell in the present or past or some other alternative? My Se using dad ESFP doesn't seem like he can see past tomorrow most days. I wondered if Si was any different.

I'm a "SF", a ESFJ it be exact. I find myself dwelling on the past a lot. And I don't think that is necessarily a good thing. It's something I'm quite aware of and I try to make a conscious effort not to do. (Not that I'm necessarily successful at it.) As far as the future goes, that makes me a bit nervous because it's the unknown and frankly a little scary to me. For all I know, the future could turn out very badly. Maybe that's why I like the past. I know how the story ends. Could it be that your dad might feel the same way and would rather not think about the future because it's so uncertain?

Originally Posted by James50

I am an EN married to an IS. She is in charge of the present. I am in charge of the future. We have been married for almost 39 years.

James50

Sounds like me and my wife. Very good to hear.

I am never in the moment. One time I realized that my head was in 2045. I haven't mentally traveled beyond 2081, yet.

Originally Posted by pizal81

I have another questions for you Si users. As an ENFP I have a problem living in the moment. My mind is always dwelling on the future or some alternate reality in someone. In college some of my friends wouldn't understand how I could forget certain things that happened at a basketball game or concert. I remember the experience, but not the specifics of the experience.
Now you Si users do you tend dwell in the present or past or some other alternative? My Se using dad ESFP doesn't seem like he can see past tomorrow most days. I wondered if Si was any different.

Si dominants tend to dwell in their subjective impressions of what they percieve. Jung uses the example of different artists painting very different paintings of the same scene. The notion that Si is associated with memory is a popular misconception caused by the nature of subjective impressions. Such impressions tend to set off strong emotions that then trigger of memories, but Si itself has nothing to do with memory per se.

This is different than Se, for which the raw objective strength of the perception is all powerful.

perceptions filtered through Si and Ni are both strongly colored by the archetypes of the collective unconscious, while Se and Ne are firmly "objective", Ne often ruthlessly so. Ne treats possibilities that no longer interest it similar to how Newt Gingrich treats sick and dying wives.

Jung's description of Si I mentioned above:

Subjective sensation apprehends the background of the physical world rather than its surface. The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them. Such a consciousness would see the becoming and the passing of things beside their present and momentary existence, and not only that, but at the same time it would also see that Other, which was before their becoming and will be after their passing hence. To this consciousness the present moment is improbable. This is, of course, only a simile, of which, however, I had need to give some sort of illustration of the peculiar nature of introverted sensation. Introverted sensation conveys an image whose effect is not so much to reproduce the object as to throw over it a wrapping whose lustre is derived from age-old subjective experience and the still unborn future event. Thus, mere sense impression develops into the depth of the meaningful, while extraverted sensation seizes only the momentary and manifest existence of things.

I ran into this interesting stuff by Jung on Intuition and Sensation over at PersonalityCafe.

Fron CG Jung


Intuition

(From intueri = to look into or upon) is, according to my view, a basic psychological function (v. Function). It is that psychological function which transmits perceptions in an unconscious way. Everything, whether outer or inner objects or their associations, Can be the object of this perception. Intuition has this peculiar quality: it is neither sensation, nor feeling, nor intellectual conclusion, although it may appear in any of these forms. Through intuition anyone content is presented as a complete whole, without our being able to explain or discover in what way this content has been arrived at Intuition is a kind of instinctive apprehension, irrespective of the nature of its contents. Like sensation (q.v.) it is an irrational (q.v.) perceptive function. Its contents, like those of sensation, have the character of being given, in contrast to the 'derived' or 'deduced' character of feeling and thinking contents. Intuitive cognition, therefore, possesses an intrinsic character of certainty and conviction which enabled Spinoza to uphold the 'scientia intuitiva' as the highest form of cognition.[61] Intuition has this quality in common with sensation, whose physical foundation is the ground and origin of its certitude. In the same way, the certainty of intuition depends upon a definite psychic matter of fact, of whose origin and state of readiness, however, the subject was quite unconscious.

Intuition appears either in a subjective or an objective form: the former is a perception of unconscious psychic facts whose origin is essentially subjective; the latter is a perception of facts which depend upon subliminal perceptions of the object and upon the thoughts and feelings occasioned thereby.

Concrete and abstract forms of intuition may be distinguished according to the degree of participation on the part of sensation. Concrete intuition carries perceptions which are concerned with the actuality of things, while abstract intuition transmits the perceptions of ideational associations. Concrete intuition is a reactive process, since it follows directly from the given circumstances; whereas abstract intuition, like abstract sensation, necessitates a certain element of direction, an act of will or a purpose.

In common with sensation, intuition is a characteristic of infantile and primitive psychology. As against the strength and sudden appearance of sense-impression it transmits the perception of mythological images, the precursors of ideas (q.v.).

Intuition maintains a compensatory function to sensation, and, like sensation, it is the maternal soil from which thinking and feeling are developed in the form of rational functions. Intuition is an irrational function, notwithstanding the fact that many intuitions may subsequently be split up into their component elements, whereby their origin and appearance can also be made to harmonize with the laws of reason. Everyone whose general attitude is orientated by the principle of intuition, i.e. perception by way of the unconscious, belongs to the intuitive type [62] (v. Type).

According to the manner in which intuition is employed, whether directed within in the service of cognition and inner perception or without in the service of action and accomplishment, the introverted and extraverted intuitive types can be differentiated.
In abnormal cases a well-marked coalescence with, and an equally great determination by, the contents of the collective unconscious declares itself: this may give the intuitive type an extremely irrational and unintelligible appearance.



Sensation

According to my conception, this is one of the basic psychological functions (v. Function). Wundt also reckons sensation among the elementary psychic phenomena [65].

Sensation, or sensing, is that psychological function which transmits a physical stimulus to perception. It is, therefore, identical with perception. Sensation must be strictly distinguished from feeling, since the latter is an entirely different process, although it may, for instance, be associated with sensation as 'feeling-tone'. Sensation is related not only to the outer stimuli, but also to the inner, i.e. to changes in the internal organs.

Primarily, therefore, sensation is sense-perception, i.e. perception transmitted via the sense organs and 'bodily senses' (kinæsthetic, vaso-motor sensation, etc.). On the one hand, it is an element of presentation, since it transmits to the presenting function the perceived image of the outer object; on the other hand, it is an element of feeling, because through the perception of bodily changes it lends the character of affect to feeling, (v. Affect). Because sensation transmits physical changes to consciousness, it also represents the physiological impulse. But it is not identical with it, since it is merely a perceptive function.

A distinction must be made between sensuous, or concrete, and abstract sensation. The former includes the forms above alluded to, whereas the latter designates an abstracted kind of sensation, i.e. a sensation that is separated from other psychological elements. For concrete sensation never appears as 'pure' sensation, but is always mixed up with presentations, feelings, and thoughts. Abstract sensation, on the contrary, represents a differentiated kind of perception which might be termed 'æsthetic' in so far as it follows its own principle and is as equally detached from every admixture of the differences of the perceived object as from the subjective admixture of feeling and thought, thus raising itself to a degree of purity which is never attained by concrete sensation. The concrete sensation of a flower, for instance, transmits not only the perception of the flower itself, but also an image of the stem, leaves, habitat, etc. It is also directly mingled with the feelings of pleasure or dislike which the sight of it provokes, or with the scent-perceptions simultaneously excited, or with thoughts concerning its botanical classification.

Abstract sensation, on the other hand, immediately picks out the most salient sensuous attribute of the flower, as for instance its brilliant redness, and makes it the sole or at least the principal content of consciousness, entirely detached from all the other admixtures alluded to above. Abstract sensation is mainly suited to the artist. Like every abstraction, it is a product of the differentiation of function: hence there is nothing primordial about it. The primordial form of the function is always concrete, i.e. blended (v. Archaism, and Concretism). Concrete sensation as such is a reactive phenomenon, while abstract sensation, like every abstraction, is always linked up with the will, i.e. the element of direction. The will that is directed towards the abstraction of sensation is both the expression and the activity of the æsthetic sensational attitude.

Sensation is a prominent characteristic both in the child and the primitive, in so far as it always predominates over thinking and feeling, though not necessarily over intuition. For I regard sensation as conscious, and intuition as unconscious, perception. For me, sensation and intuition represent a pair of opposites, or two mutually compensating functions, like thinking and feeling. Thinking and feeling as independent functions are developed, both ontogenetically and phylogenetically, from sensation (and equally, of course, from intuition as the necessary counterpart of sensation).

In so far as sensation is an elementary phenomenon, it is something absolutely given, something that, in contrast to thinking and feeling, is not subject to the laws of reason. I therefore term it an irrational (q.v.) function, although reason contrives to assimilate a great number of sensations into rational associations.

A man whose whole attitude is orientated by the principle of sensation belongs to the sensation type (v. Types).

Normal sensations are proportionate, i.e. their value approximately corresponds with the intensity of the physical stimulus. Pathological sensations are disproportionate, i.e. either abnormally weak or abnormally strong: in the former case they are inhibited, in the latter exaggerated. The inhibition is the result of the predominance of another function; the exaggeration proceeds from an abnormal amalgamation with another function, e.g. a blending with a still undifferentiated feeling or thinking function. In such a case, the exaggeration of sensation ceases as soon as the function with which sensation is fused is differentiated in its own right.

The psychology of the neuroses yields extremely illuminating examples of this, where, for instance, a strong sexualization (Freud) of other functions very often prevails, i.e. a blending of sexual sensation with other functions.

This confirms even more that I am an Si dominant.

Originally Posted by Odin

I ran into this interesting stuff by Jung on Intuition and Sensation over at PersonalityCafe.




This confirms even more that I am an Si dominant.

I'm most definitely a Ne user! To appear reasonable at all I have to have studied something to the point where I understand it very well otherwise my emotions get involved. Fi asserts itself supporting conclusions that come from Ne and it just looks bad, but I know there is a reason. The funny thing is Te the tertiary function of ENFPs is good for seeing flaws in logic. So sometimes it's like the ENFP can't flaws in their own logic very well until they state them outright. I get a lot of thinking done just having conversations with people. The more isolated I am the more I turn to dark thoughts.
It's funny because ENFPs go from fun and happy to rigid really quick. I've read it like this that Fi is offended then Te asserts itself trying to organize the outward world to satisfy Fi.
ISFJ are introverted feelers as well, right? I hate Fi so hard to control.

Originally Posted by pizal81

I'm most definitely a Ne user! To appear reasonable at all I have to have studied something to the point where I understand it very well otherwise my emotions get involved. Fi asserts itself supporting conclusions that come from Ne and it just looks bad, but I know there is a reason. The funny thing is Te the tertiary function of ENFPs is good for seeing flaws in logic. So sometimes it's like the ENFP can't flaws in their own logic very well until they state them outright. I get a lot of thinking done just having conversations with people. The more isolated I am the more I turn to dark thoughts.
It's funny because ENFPs go from fun and happy to rigid really quick. I've read it like this that Fi is offended then Te asserts itself trying to organize the outward world to satisfy Fi.
ISFJ are introverted feelers as well, right? I hate Fi so hard to control.

ENFPs can be quite reasonable, it's just they are not fully aware of it because Te, being tertiary, is mostly unconscious (though it becomes less so as one gets older, you are at the age when you should be starting to get more conscious of it).

Likewise, IxTJs tend not to be conscious of ourpersonalized value judgements until we get to be around 25-30 because our Fi is tertiary.

ISFJs are Fe users, not Fi users.

I'm not as familiar with how to determine the lower case "i" and "e." I'm INFJ, so those that make me an Ni and Fi??

Originally Posted by millennialX

I'm not as familiar with how to determine the lower case "i" and "e." I'm INFJ, so those that make me an Ni and Fi??

You would be Ni with Fe, the auxiliary is always opposite in attitude to the dominant.

Originally Posted by Odin

You would be Ni with Fe, the auxiliary is always opposite in attitude to the dominant.

Gotcha and thanks!

Here is an interesting discussion I started on the PersonalityNation forum.

Jung's original ideas are quite different from modern MBTI.

Here is an enlightening tidbit:

@TaylorS

Pretty much, lol. Though, if you don't have an understanding of what Archetypes and Images really are, you might be confused by what Jung meant. The whole "demons, goblins, and devil" things are Images. They represent contents of the Shadow and its connections with the Personal Unconscious. With that aside, moving on!

Both IN and IS have direct access to archetypes of the psyche and they use images presented by these archetypes to project deeper meanings into their objective stimuli. Since everyone has different archetypes (it's sorta like human fingerprints as Anthony Stevens describes it), everyone has different images that they project.

IS and IN are pretty "abstract" functions, but be careful with this word. Common dictionary "abstract" and Jung's use of "abstract" mean two different things. Anyway, IS is empirical and anti-speculative *gasp*, whereas IN is speculative and anti-empirical *gets lynched*. Before we move on, I'm gonna need you to forgo everything you knew about Si and Ni from MBTI/JCF. They are extremely, extremely different in how they work in Analytical Psychology. I'll probably point and laugh at you if you go "but wait, isn't Ni supposed to be like this...?" as a form of reminder xP.

To explain IS, I'll do what Jung did and compare it to ES. ES is like looking at your surrounding and accepting it as it is. You don't apply any interpretations, meaning, value, idea or anything to them. They are just "there". As Jung puts it, "Something is". It is the most empirical function because it doesn't deal with hidden meanings or anything at all. A book is just a book. Nothing special about it. No ideas or values associated with it. It's just an object. It's just existing. It's just there. So, for ES, everything that exists around you are just there because your five senses detects them as being there.

IS, however, doesn't focus on the surface impression. It dives past that and projects an archetypal image onto the object. It sees the object for more than how the five senses interprets it "as is". It reinterprets it based on the archetypal image of the user. Thus, two IS users who look at a painting may interpret their sense-perceptions in two different ways, whereas two ES users would interpret the painting exactly the same way because they both are only viewing the painting for what it is without personal subjective interference.

---

Real life example? If you are an ES user, you may notice that there are some people in the world who can look at paintings or any real world things and tell you completely different sense-perception impressions than your own.

ES: Why is this person saying different things about what he sees or hear? Everyone else sees it like how I do, how come this person sees it so differently?

IS: Everyone else seems to view it the same way, but I don't get it because I don't see what they're seeing at all.

---

Or perhaps a more "personal" example:

I'm an auxiliary ES/IN user, which means that when I deal with most things in my life, I don't really interpret them anything more than just what they are. For example, food? It's just food. I'm not concerned with the taste, the quality, the meaning, or anything. It's just food. It's there and I just treat it as an everyday object with no significance. To make sure there is no confusion, I'll also explain it from my ET standpoint. ET attempts to apply an idea or interpretation to my surrounding based on what has been acknowledged by the majority of my environment. It will associate "facts" with food. The food is called "apple" because that's what people labeled it as. Thus, an apple is just there. With my two primary functions ET+ES or ET(S), it is a fact it is called an apple and my five senses tells me it exists.


Now, my friend, an IS user:

He's a IT+IS user or IT(S), so this may serve as an interesting contrast. When he looks at food, he looks at it more than just food, but a deeper or alternative impression. While I just see a red fruit, he sees the red as being more than "just a color". While I may taste the apple as sweet, he may interpret the sweetness as something "more". Thus, to my friend, the apple is not only existing, but carries with it a greater background impression and expression that only he can see, that no one else can see. With IT as his main, he may operate like a ET user in that he will apply the label Apple to it, but he may choose to use his own labels based on the images of his archetypes (Ever noticed how Jung, a dominant IT type, constantly uses words that are defined in ways unique to his own understanding?)

Hope that makes sense

So under Jung I am Si - Ti | Fe - Ne

But what if you do both? To me, somethings are just what they are. Other things have deeper meaning. I'll go ahead and take the example of food. To me, food is just food. It's energy for your body. I admit some food tastes better than others, but in the end it is just food. This happens to be something I go round and round with my own children who are picky eaters. I tell them, when I was child and food was served to me, it didn't matter whether or not I liked it, I just ate it. Sure there was some food I enjoyed more than others, but even the food I didn't care for, I ate anyway.

Now people or situations, that's a different ballgame. I think most things people do or feel have some kind of meaning behind it. And many times there is story behind why people do they things they do or feel the way they do. Even if the person doesn't consciously realize it themselves. One of my favorite pass times it understanding what makes different people tick or analysing different situations. This is probably what drove me to the 4T theory initially...But then even some things people do don't have any deeper meaning them either. They are what they are. Everybody sleeps and everybody poops.

Originally Posted by ASB65

But what if you do both? To me, somethings are just what they are. Other things have deeper meaning. I'll go ahead and take the example of food. To me, food is just food. It's energy for your body. I admit some food tastes better than others, but in the end it is just food. This happens to be something I go round and round with my own children who are picky eaters. I tell them, when I was child and food was served to me, it didn't matter whether or not I liked it, I just ate it. Sure there was some food I enjoyed more than others, but even the food I didn't care for, I ate anyway.

Now people or situations, that's a different ballgame. I think most things people do or feel have some kind of meaning behind it. And many times there is story behind why people do they things they do or feel the way they do. Even if the person doesn't consciously realize it themselves. One of my favorite pass times it understanding what makes different people tick or analysing different situations. This is probably what drove me to the 4T theory initially...But then even some things people do don't have any deeper meaning them either. They are what they are. Everybody sleeps and everybody poops.

The MBTI personality type is actually a list of eight functions. The four letter ESFJ or INTP are basically a code to indicate the order of the functions from strongest to weakest. I think the first four are the only ones that have significant influence, but that doesn't mean people do not use the other functions. It's all about preference. I have hard time planning ahead of time exactly how to do things because for the most part that is a Ti function. Using Te I think as I go so to say, but that doesn't mean I don't ever use Ti, I just don't use it as well.

Anyway, if you simple took a test on the internet it could very well lead to a false conclusion. I've seen a lot of the internet tests and they are crap. To really find out ones personalty type with a large degree of certainty there are official tests and a psychiatrist will go over the results with you to evaluate your personality type. I've actually never done all of that, but I have taken the test for work and psychologist over-viewed all the different types with us. Actually, someone who really understand cognitive functions would be better at typing people than any of the tests especially online.

Originally Posted by pizal81

The MBTI personality type is actually a list of eight functions. The four letter ESFJ or INTP are basically a code to indicate the order of the functions from strongest to weakest. I think the first four are the only ones that have significant influence, but that doesn't mean people do not use the other functions. It's all about preference. I have hard time planning ahead of time exactly how to do things because for the most part that is a Ti function. Using Te I think as I go so to say, but that doesn't mean I don't ever use Ti, I just don't use it as well.

Anyway, if you simple took a test on the internet it could very well lead to a false conclusion. I've seen a lot of the internet tests and they are crap. To really find out ones personalty type with a large degree of certainty there are official tests and a psychiatrist will go over the results with you to evaluate your personality type. I've actually never done all of that, but I have taken the test for work and psychologist over-viewed all the different types with us. Actually, someone who really understand cognitive functions would be better at typing people than any of the tests especially online.

Yes, I understand about that about the Myers Briggs. The comment I made was in reference to Jung test that Odin's post was referring to.

Originally Posted by ASB65

Yes, I understand about that about the Myers Briggs. The comment I made was in reference to Jung test that Odin's post was referring to.

Jung never had a test, he would have dismissed such tests are inherently inaccurate because most people identify with their persona, the "mask" shown to the world.

Originally Posted by Odin

Jung never had a test, he would have dismissed such tests are inherently inaccurate because most people identify with their persona, the "mask" shown to the world.

Most tests are stupid. I've taken plenty of them on this board, which I think are fairly meaningless.

Originally Posted by Odin

Jung never had a test, he would have dismissed such tests are inherently inaccurate because most people identify with their persona, the "mask" shown to the world.

Are you like a Jung purist? I don't mean that in any derogatory sense. I think test can be useful, but becames less so the more one knows about cognitive functions. My experience tells me that the test are more often then not flawed. Even the official test seemed so. I think to make a good test they'd need to ask questions that were not obvious has to what the were indicating. The socioconomics or whatever from the Russia does something like that with pictures. I think for the most part those questions are either extremely hard or impossible to write though.

(My)
Your Type is
INTP
Introverted Intuitive Thinking Perceiving
Strength of the preferences %
67 100 1 44

http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/jtypes1.htm

Very consistent with other tests I've done over the years, incl. the MBTI itself.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

(My)
Your Type is
INTP
Introverted Intuitive Thinking Perceiving
Strength of the preferences %
67 100 1 44

http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/jtypes1.htm

Very consistent with other tests I've done over the years, incl. the MBTI itself.

I found many of the test questions hard to answer because they lacked context, but the big picture remains the same: INTP.

Here are my scores:

Introverted	Intuitive	Thinking	Perceiving
Strength of the preferences %
44	38	69	67

Qualitative analysis of your type formula
You are:

• moderately expressed introvert
• moderately expressed intuitive personality
• distinctively expressed thinking personality
• distinctively expressed perceiving personality

This guy uses a different way of labeling the types, but he has a good list of who Jung typed as what. the first 2 letters indicate the dominant function (ET = Extraverted Thinking = Te) and the letter in parentheses indicates the auxiliary function. So ES(F) = ESFP and IN(T) = INTJ

Considering I haven't really spoken much about Analytical Psychology for a while (as I'm writing a really massive article atm), I thought I would at least give a bit of hint of flavor on what the Types are like. These are the types I've found throughout Jung's various books in where he would provide small examples of those who would provide basis for certain functions. There are also examples found in the works of his close students and assistants. I will not be writing up a profile until much, much later.

For now, you can just google/research these guys to give you an idea of what Jung had in mind for definitions of the functions when he developed the Function-Types. (I highly recommend you do this since it will give you an idea from real people examples)


ET(N) - Speculative Thinkers

Thinkers who create facts through ideas and possibilities.

Sir James Jeans
Sir Fred Hoyle
Niels Bohr
Ernst Mach
Enrico Fermi

---
ET(S) - Empirical Thinkers

Thinkers who create facts through empirical, observable information.

Charles Darwin
Antoine Lavoisier
Ernst Haeckel
David Hume
Karl Popper
Sigmund Freud
(Jung spoke greatly about Freud in his autobiography which seems to depict him of Extraverted Thinking + Sensation type as Jung greatly described his shadow as what seems to be Introverted Feeling + Intuition nature.)

---
EF(N) - Speculative Feelers

Feelers who uphold their values through visions and possibilities.

Karl Marx
Max Weber
Émile Durkheim
Benjamin Franklin

---
EF(S) - Naturalist Feelers

Feelers who seek more practical means of applying their values.

Henry Dunant
Jacob Moleschott
Harriet Tubman
Robert Owen
Abigail Scott Duniway

---
EN(T) - Conceptual Visionists

Innovators who seek to apply their perceptions in systematic manner

John Pierpont Morgan
John Davison Rockefeller
Thomas Edison
Andrew Carnegie

---
EN(F) - Cultural Visionists

Innovators who explores and seeks possibilities for social/cultural/historical importance

William Booth
Frank Buchman
Marco Polo
Chistopher Columbus

---
ES(T) - Conceptual Realists

Empiricists who regard reality above all and seek to conceptualize it

Georges de Cuvier
Karl von Linne
Michael Faraday
Gustav Theodor Fechner
Leonhart Fuchs
Francis Bacon

---
ES(F) - Cultural Realists

People who have strong emphasis on reality and its connection or importance in social/historical/cultural values

Ernst Gombrich
Meyer Schapiro
Ian Watt
John Locke

---
IT(N) - Mystical Thinkers

Thinkers who develop personal principles and concepts based on visions and speculations

Immanuel Kant
Friedrich Nietzche
Michael Meier
Gerardus Dorneus
Alfred Adler

---
IT(S) - Expressionistic Thinkers

Thinkers who develop personal principles and concepts based on empiricism and observations

Carl Gustav Jung
(Jung has stated in over three different books that he's an Introverted Thinking + Sensation type, that is, pre-1950s. Jung later changed his type to Introverted Thinking + Intuition post-1950s. This was not a mistake as he still acknowledged his younger self as IT(S). Jung didn't "change his mind" as some people seem to think. There's a reason for this that I will go into later. Jung explained personally why he changed his type. I'm really amazed no one caught it considering how clear Jung was about it.)
Carl Friedrich Gauss
Hermann Ludwig Ferdinand von Helmholtz

---
IF(N) - Mystical Feelers

Values that supported or expressed with spiritual essence or possibilities.

Franciscus Patricius
Robert Browning
Friedrich Hölderlin

---
IF(S) - Expressionistic Feelers

Values that are supported or expressed with observed experiences of reality.

Paul Klee
The Buddha
Eugen Herrigel
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi

---
IS(T) - Conceptual Expressionists

Empiricists with personal interpretative perceptions of their observations and apply concepts and systems to it.

Emma Jung
(Carl Jung's wife. Emma was also trained by Jung in Jungian Psychology. Both Jung and his wife agree that Emma Jung was an Introverted Sensation type).
Philippus Aureolus Theophrastus Bombastus von Hohenheim
Friedrich Theodor Vischer

---
IS(F) - Sentimental Expressionists

Sensationalists who have personal interpretative perceptions of reality and apply values to them

Vincent van Gogh
Hugo Häring
Hermann Finsterlin
Hans Poelzig

---
IN(T) - Conceptual Spiritualists

Anti-empiricists who rely strongly on personal visions and aims to make use of them through systems and concepts.

Isaac Newton
Emanuel Swedenborg
Adolf Hitler
Jakob Böhme
Johann Georg Gichtel
Immanuel Hermann Fichte

---
IN(F) - Sentimental Spiritualists

Anti-realists who have strong personal visions of possibilities and apply values upon them.

William Blake
Édouard Schuré
Jesus Christ
Sir Henry Rider Haggard
Gustav Meyrink
Bruno Goetz

Note all the Sensor scientists, including many MBTI sites often type as NTs (like Darwin, an ESTJ).

Ok, I took the test. I scored the same as I always do. However, I liked how they broke down what percentage you are. It looks like I'm barely an "S" or a "J". That's interesting...I don't what that means, but it's interesting.

Your Type is ESFJ

Extraverted	Sensing	Feeling	Judging
Strength of the preferences %
44	1	62	1

Your Type is INTP

Introverted	Intuitive	Thinking	Perceiving
Strength of the preferences %
78	75	50	89

Your Type is
ENFP

Extraverted	Intuitive	Feeling	Perceiving
Strength of the preferences %
44	62	75	56

• moderately expressed extravert
• distinctively expressed intuitive personality
• distinctively expressed feeling personality
• moderately expressed perceiving personality

Originally Posted by Chas'88

Your Type is
ENFP

Extraverted	Intuitive	Feeling	Perceiving
Strength of the preferences %
44	62	75	56

• moderately expressed extravert
• distinctively expressed intuitive personality
• distinctively expressed feeling personality
• moderately expressed perceiving personality

Chas, since I only scored 1% for both my "S" and "J", I've decided I'm going to switch personality types. I'm kind of tired being and ESFJ, "the caregiver". It's rather boring. So from now on I'm going to be a ENFP, same as you.

Originally Posted by ASB65

Chas, since I only scored 1% for both my "S" and "J", I've decided I'm going to switch personality types. I'm kind of tired being and ESFJ, "the caregiver". It's rather boring. So from now on I'm going to be a ENFP, same as you.

Do you go with gut feelings rather than with only what you can see and do you see the world as a scale of grey and not in terms of black and white?

~Chas'88