Reply To: Vultology typed INTJ and ESTP ask each other random questions.

Home Page Forums Ask a Demographic Vultology typed INTJ and ESTP ask each other random questions. Reply To: Vultology typed INTJ and ESTP ask each other random questions.

Auburn
Keymaster
  • Type: TiNe
  • Development: l--l
  • Attitude: Adaptive

Ah neat! This interaction video is very helpful. (also, you two are great – she’s so hilarious)

It does help clarify, yes! i think SeFi is actually right. she wasn’t as open/natural in the other videos you sent, but she seems to really be herself in this one. But maybe I’m missing something? We finally have some other new vultologists rising up, so I wonder what they think? Anyone wanna double-check? ._.



Also I should make a quick note that INTJ =/= NiTe, SeFi =/= ESFP and SeTi =/= ESTP… at least  not in any measurable way. Usually unseelie PeFi’s type as INTJ/INTP and adaptive Fe’s often type as “F” even if they’re high in Ti. One of the main reasons CT let go of the 4-letter code is because of the misconceptions they bring. When we have a functions-first typology, incongruencies develop between the letter-preferences because it’s essentially two separate systems. The main letter-code misconceptions are summed up in this article as:

Spoiler:

I-vs-E
The standard MBTI frames the question of Introversion and Extroversion in terms of socialization levels. It asks questions such as whether one prefers to be alone on a Friday evening or go out with friends. Or whether we’re more of a partygoer or a social recluse. But this dichotomy, in CT, has nothing to do with people. It would be better framed in terms of energetic attention towards objects (abstract or tangible) or to subjects. But in framing these questions as social in nature, people of all 16 types will identify as introverted if they have general anxiety, depression, difficulties with communication, a disagreeable temperament, shyness or a number of other variables at play in their personal journey.

But perhaps more importantly, the types of people who are greatly preoccupied with questions of self-identity and personality (and who would be voluntarily taking this questionnaire to find out about themselves) are those reclusive people of all types and shades. It therefore happens that the majority of voluntary takers of personality assessments will type as introverted due to their attitudinal focus being veered away from people and social domains or activities. Far fewer will type as “E” unless they have an exceptional reason to believe that describes them. This is reflected in the mistyping trends, with ENFPs typing as INFPs with striking regularity, and ENFJs typing as INFJs and so forth.

S-vs-N:
This dichotomy is perhaps the most askew, with both a bias of intelligence and creativity subtly woven into its descriptions. The S dichotomy is framed in terms of attention to facts/details and what is self-evident at the expense of ability to imagine alternatives and hypothetical/future scenarios from the present. The N dichotomy is framed in terms of attention to patterns, concepts, creativity and innovation at the neglect of attention to sensory details. Placed in this framing, we are faced with quite the false dichotomy. A defining attribute of human beings is the capacity to perceive patterns, think conceptually and imagine hypothetical outcomes to scenarios. All individuals share these essential elements of cognition, as well as the ability to take in sensory inputs. Neither facet can be used to form any legitimate division between people.

But the framing of the dichotomy often allots more attributes to the N dimension; essentially describing N’s as able to absorb sensory details but also read between the lines, while the S dimension is purported to stop at the details themselves. Few people would willingly evaluate themselves as unable to read between the lines, as being unimaginative, unintelligent and/or conceptually constrained to only what can be observed by the senses. Because of this, the majority of typology enthusiasts will initially identify as N types regardless of which type forms their cognitive apparatus. Indeed, they are not wrong to do so, as they are properly describing themselves according to the framing of the system in place. They’re correct in viewing themselves as “N” types if the alternative means lacking several essential features of cognition.

F-vs-T:
Together, these first two dichotomies form the bulk of MBTI self-typings with the majority of type enthusiasts identifying as INxx types. The bottom two letters are the only ones which can be said to reveal any differences in temperament, beginning with T vs F. This dimension is meant to measure a preference for ethics (F) over logic (T) but in practice this dichotomy measures something far more akin to agreeableness and disagreeableness as defined by the Big Five. Identifying with F amounts to an affable temperament, a tendency to be openly affectionate, caring, empathic, self-sacrificing and guided by the heart. Identifying with T amounts to being emotionally removed, stoic, calculating, preferring a level head to one swoon by feelings, having lack of fear of being frank and a tendency to not yield to social norms or customs.

But none of these traits actually reveal the priority of Te/Ti or Fe/Fi in the psyche. In CT this division is better represented as seelie/adaptive (“F”) vs unseelie/directive (“T”). For example, a directive Fe-lead will not be accommodating to others, will tend to be disagreeable, will prefer having a level head and will tend to be reserved in their affection. Oppositely, a Te-lead that is seelie will strive to be caring, affectionate, empathic and self-sacrificing. It’s because of this that someone such as a directive INFJ (NiFe) will almost certainly mistype as an INTJ and an unseelie INFP (FiNe) will mistype as an INTP. This dichotomy is essentially descriptive of the attitude of one’s heart. It has far less to do with the nature of the higher/lower functions and more to do with whether one’s heart is open or guarded.

P-vs-J
Lastly, the P and J dichotomy measures whether a person lives their life in an open-ended fashion (“P”) or with a sense of structure (“J”). Here P types are described as disorderly, chaotic, free-spirited, fluid and unconcerned with dutifulness or organization. J types are described as conscientious, dutiful, organized, industrious, seeking to narrow in on ideas and to implement them. This also relates to the Big Five personality trait Conscientiousness. It essentially describes a strong Pe ego or development (P) versus a strong Je ego or development (J), but like the above category it does not necessarily indicate Pe is above Je in hierarchy. For example, we will often come across NiFe l–l who will identify as ___P or FiNe l–l identifying as ___J. In the CT system, subtype or ego-fix on their own have the ability to dictate whether a person will identify as P or J through this metric. However, the presence of Te in any hierarchical position may also cause an identification with ___J due to how it can produce minor organizational quirks even when not fully developed or ego-fixed.

I bring this up since you mentioned in email that INTJ does seem to fit her well, and this by itself is not that unusual. The INxJ types often tend to fit most people interested in MBTI due to the selection process involved in those who gravitate to MBTI in the first place, and further by the abundance of unique qualities those types are inflated with.

If she’s instead an useelie SeFi, the unseeliness (link) may not only lead to an affiliation with a “T” designation but also to the “I” temperament, since if you define extroversion as “social extroversion” then it not only conflates with “E” but also with “F” (people), according to the standard MBTI. It’s a very twisty game, and even then there’s no directly 1:1 translation from MBTI to CT.

  • This reply was modified 10 months, 3 weeks ago by Auburn.
  • This reply was modified 10 months, 3 weeks ago by Auburn.
  • This reply was modified 10 months, 3 weeks ago by Auburn.
  • This reply was modified 10 months, 3 weeks ago by Auburn.
  • This reply was modified 10 months, 3 weeks ago by Auburn.

© Copyright 2012-2020 J.E. Sandoval
SEE HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION

DISCLAIMER

The content on this site is not
intended for medical advice, diagnosis,
or treatment. Always seek the advice
of your physician or other qualified
health provider with questions you
may have regarding a medical condition.
For more information visit this link.