-x-

YES sorry this took so long I’ve been at a con and haven’t had time to look through my inbox

This is good because i have been craving posting about the negativities of functions tbh here’s the inferior (or poorly developed and not inferior, or just kinda temporarily wonky) functions as bad ways to debate posts on tumblr.gov

TE: when someone goes on a long drawn out rant trying to prove something using things everyone already knows, and which haven’t convinced them, but somehow the TE user thinks it will convince them anyway… Or they are talking in circles without realizing it.

EX: “um sweetie the statistics prove your argument wrong :)– what do you mean statistics can be manipulated that’s impossible you’re a liar look at this clearly visible Evidence ™”

TI: nearly incomprehensible ranting (which becomes more incomprehensible the HIGHER the ti) using #rational #logic which is hilariously hard to grasp… And talk in circles but realize it, yet often won’t change it because it would be logically inconsistent.

EX: “look I know you can’t grasp Basic Logic ™ and it’s not my fault that you don’t understand this six mile long post which is so Logical ™ you’re clearly just Illogical ™ for not instantly getting my Highly Subjective Logic ™ ”

FE: trying to get people to stop fighting by presenting an argument compromising the good points of both arguments, and/or implying the arguers know nothing about society and how it works which means both are Totally Wrong and being very passive aggressive about it

EX: “look, you guys should stop fighting! Person A has X good point and person B has Y Z good points! If we combine these points of view we get a comprehensive view of people’s opinions which reflects the reality of this greater issue– but you guys have also forgotten all this relevant information about society which just so happens to invalidate all of your arguments. Haha. Just saying. You’re not an idiot. It’s not your fault you don’t understand how people work :)”

FI: trying to convince everyone your point of view or outlook is right without explaining why, and when questioned, accuse the questioner of being mean or disrespecting your feelings

EX: “um…. how can you be against abortion……….. That means you hate women………. And it personally offends me that you hate us….. I’m…. So appalled… I’m crying as we speak…. How could you….”

SE: has a habit of, like TE, presenting things that actually exist as undeniable proof of something, but doesn’t seem to understand the concepts that can lie underneath those things.

EX: “look, we see that mass shootings exist cause everyone clearly has easy access to guns. It has nothing to do with underlying issues of men and how we don’t teach them how to properly deal with emotions. It’s about the guns. That exist. They exist, out there, somewhere, which is the real problem.”

SI: constantly pointing out that something has always worked, so it’s pointless to change it, even though it could be improved upon.

EX: “we’ve always had the senate in this country. It was created to balance out our parliament. I know it hasn’t done anything useful in decades, but it has in the past, so maybe it could come in handy again. If we change it it might not work as well as it does now.”

NE: pointing out all the ways the arguments have been wrong, and like Ni on drugs– often makes assumptions as to where the argument is going, but on infinite impossible tangents no one has even hinted to. Also tends to completely change the direction of the argument for no reason and in a random direction.

EX: “look here buddy. These are all the reasons you’re wrong. Even these irrelevant things I have no reason to mention. I know we’re talking about the finer points of postmodern existentialism but I think what’s more relevant here is sociological labelling theory, and–”

NI: like a more pretentious and linear version of Ne. Assumes the exact projected course of the argument, and can’t understand that other people think differently and that the Ni users assumptions can be completely wrong.

EX: “I already know where this is going. You’re about to tell me that equilateral triangles have three equal sides and angles. But have you considered that math as we know it is made up? You must think that math is completely infallible, but let me tell you, it was made up by people millennia ago. And people in those days didn’t know what we know now, which means– huh? You were talking about how triangles fit into geometrically pleasing studio art? … Oh.”

Reblog with your type and the type that bugs you the most.

I always am hard-pressed with Te and Ti to highlight concrete examples that show their differences, because so often descriptions get vague/generic, using phrases like “theory” and “logic” which is hard to ground. But, in a conversation I had with a Ti-dom (myself being auxiliary Te), several things came up which really highlighted the two functions. 

This was a conversation about growing extinct animals in other animals’ wombs. I, a high Te-user, immediately discarded some possibilities because it wasn’t plausible, such as growing a mammoth inside an entirely unrelated species like a panda. To a Te-user, these ideas were interesting to hypothesize about but not very relevant to the conversation at hand. 

On the other hand, my Ti-dom friend was quite willing to go down that rabbit hole. Ti-users care more about exploring every possible angle of a problem, regardless of feasibility.

Throughout that conversation, a Te-user would focus more on what could be done, what technology needed to be improved upon or invented, etc., to resurrect extinct animals.

Meanwhile, the Ti-user cared about making sure every possibility was thoroughly covered, even though they knew full well that some ideas weren’t likely to happen. Ergo, mammoths in pandas.  

But it should not be taken that high Ti-users would not consider practical implications, or that high Te-users would not consider unrealistic possibilities, because they do, can, and might want to depending on the situation and the topic.

However, it is true that Te-Ni prefers converging toward practical implications or what one needs to do to realistically achieve this possibility, in order to feel closure from that conversation. Otherwise, they may feel that the discussion is ‘pointless’ and doesn’t go anywhere.

Ti-Ne prefers diverging towards multiple possibilities and exploring related things that suddenly become interesting. They may feel bogged down when they’re forced to focus on a single possibility for too long, and that they’re discussing ‘pointless details’ in a conversation that isn’t going anywhere.

So, where I work I’m surrounded by TJs just all the time. And I tend to butt heads with them a lot because we have such different ways of doing things. If we’re analyzing weekly numbers to send a report in to our boss, my ISTJ coworker likes to just write down something that sounds good and go on about his way. I have to actually analyze the problem and come up with a very clear ‘this is the cause and this is the solution’ plan of action. His e-mails are usually a couple of paragraphs long. Mine are SIGNIFICANTLY longer.

From my perspective, he’s not doing his job. I feel like he’s ignoring the problem because he doesn’t want to deal with it. How are we supposed to fix the numbers if we don’t analyze where we’re going wrong in the first place? To him, I’m over analyzing and he feels like I’m too busy thinking and looking at the numbers to actually fix anything. In short: he would rather do something about the problem. I would rather think about it.

Of course, this means that he’s better at certain things than I am and vice versa. I’m extremely good at handling numbers and doing inventory counts and, oddly enough, organizing the paperwork. He’s a lot better at stepping out of the office and running things. Usually, if it’s a hands on operations kind of problem, he handles it. If it’s a problem that requires calling someone or paperwork, I handle it.

Other notable differences: I’m a lot more precise than he is. A lot of people feel like I’m nit-picky because he’s like, 'get the job done,’ and I’m like, 'do it the right way, though.’ He’s better with people upfront, but I’m better at disciplinary meetings (because he sits there and is like 'here’s why you’re here, sign this, do better, bye,’ and I’m all tapping into my inf Fe and, 'I believe in you! We love having you here and we want to support you!’ But I literally have to practice my speech on the mirror before every meeting so it’s exhausting and I can’t do it all the time.) Also, he gets mad because I tend to say rude things without realizing it and he’s like, 'Yeah, they’re being dumb, but you still can’t say it, geez.’

I am much less likely to do something until I completely understand what it is I'm doing. Honestly, someone really needs to have physically gone through it with me or else I'm probably not going to do it. And this applies to really important things, like paying my bills or maintenance on my car or paying taxes. 'Take your W-2 down to the tax person' really isn't good enough for me. I need to know everything.

I always am hard-pressed with Te and Ti to highlight concrete examples that show their differences, because so often descriptions get vague/generic, using phrases like “theory” and “logic” which is hard to ground. But, in a conversation I had with a Ti-dom (myself being auxiliary Te), several things came up which really highlighted the two functions. 

This was a conversation about growing extinct animals in other animals’ wombs. I, a high Te-user, immediately discarded some possibilities because it wasn’t plausible, such as growing a mammoth inside an entirely unrelated species like a panda. To a Te-user, these ideas were interesting to hypothesize about but not very relevant to the conversation at hand. 

On the other hand, my Ti-dom friend was quite willing to go down that rabbit hole. Ti-users care more about exploring every possible angle of a problem, regardless of feasibility.

Throughout that conversation, a Te-user would focus more on what could be done, what technology needed to be improved upon or invented, etc., to resurrect extinct animals.

Meanwhile, the Ti-user cared about making sure every possibility was thoroughly covered, even though they knew full well that some ideas weren’t likely to happen. Ergo, mammoths in pandas.  

But it should not be taken that high Ti-users would not consider practical implications, or that high Te-users would not consider unrealistic possibilities, because they do, can, and might want to depending on the situation and the topic.

However, it is true that Te-Ni prefers converging toward practical implications or what one needs to do to realistically achieve this possibility, in order to feel closure from that conversation. Otherwise, they may feel that the discussion is ‘pointless’ and doesn’t go anywhere.

Ti-Ne prefers diverging towards multiple possibilities and exploring related things that suddenly become interesting. They may feel bogged down when they’re forced to focus on a single possibility for too long, and that they’re discussing ‘pointless details’ in a conversation that isn’t going anywhere.

So, where I work I'm surrounded by TJs just all the time. And I tend to butt heads with them a lot because we have such different ways of doing things. If we're analyzing weekly numbers to send a report in to our boss, my ISTJ coworker likes to just write down something that sounds good and go on about his way. I have to actually analyze the problem and come up with a very clear 'this is the cause and this is the solution' plan of action. His e-mails are usually a couple of paragraphs long. Mine are SIGNIFICANTLY longer.

From my perspective, he's not doing his job. I feel like he's ignoring the problem because he doesn't want to deal with it. How are we supposed to fix the numbers if we don't analyze where we're going wrong in the first place? To him, I'm over analyzing and he feels like I'm too busy thinking and looking at the numbers to actually fix anything. In short: he would rather do something about the problem. I would rather think about it.

Of course, this means that he's better at certain things than I am and vice versa. I'm extremely good at handling numbers and doing inventory counts and, oddly enough, organizing the paperwork. He's a lot better at stepping out of the office and running things. Usually, if it's a hands on operations kind of problem, he handles it. If it's a problem that requires calling someone or paperwork, I handle it.

Other notable differences: I'm a lot more precise than he is. A lot of people feel like I'm nit-picky because he's like, 'get the job done,' and I'm like, 'do it the right way, though.' He's better with people upfront, but I'm better at disciplinary meetings (because he sits there and is like 'here's why you're here, sign this, do better, bye,' and I'm all tapping into my inf Fe and, 'I believe in you! We love having you here and we want to support you!' But I literally have to practice my speech on the mirror before every meeting so it's exhausting and I can't do it all the time.) Also, he gets mad because I tend to say rude things without realizing it and he's like, 'Yeah, they're being dumb, but you still can't say it, geez.'

I’m curious to see if each type (or more likely, each extraverted cognitive function) has common catch phrases. Please reblog with your type and a catch phrase that you say most often.

Enneagram: 8w7 3w4 5w6, sx/sp

Enneagram: 2w1 5w6 9w1, sp/so

Enneagram: 8w9 4w5 7w8

What MBTI type are you, and what is your passion?

Ex: Tennis, Helping other people, ect.

Now I get that in MBTI, anyone can be attracted to any type, but whether way may feel it or not, people are naturally drawn to specific types and functions. I’ve seen personal compatibility based on two specific categories, shared judging functions and shared perceiving functions. Now let me clarify. I don’t care to know which functions captivate you. What functions do you naturally get along with? That being said, which do you feel yourself more drawn to: shared perceiving functions or judging functions? I’ll start.