tfw am ISTP
tfw no ISTP gf
Tfw am ISTP
Camden Wood
Brayden Clark
girls cannot be introverts. they live and breathe in the social sphere like a fish does in water
Isaac Allen
She'd cheat for ESTP, and you'd probably be ok with it so long as you got to watch.
Anthony Ortiz
They can dude. The most common female type is ISFJ
Tyler Long
Dont project your fantasies onto me you pathetic worm
Michael Hall
but i do know that feel
Zachary Cox
they get their dopamine from validation
does not matter what they are
Justin Ross
Well doesn't everyone? No one is immune to validation
Kevin Young
fake news. less than 5% of females are introverts while at least 30% of men are
Hudson Jenkins
>tfw INTJ
Feels good being on top.
Alexander Perry
sauce? on it
James Price
>men are everything that i am/like and women are everything i am not/dislike
stop
Nathan Ortiz
tfw optimistic yet lonely 23-year-old INFP
tfw no younger thoughtful/innocent INFP gf
Ethan Cox
fuck off with this pseudoscience
Kayden Ward
Its bullshit but i believe it all
Thomas Flores
Let me ask you a few questions. Have you ever used technical data or analytical thought to solve a problem? Have you ever enjoyed scenery, food, or even a shower? Have you ever imagined something and thought about what it would be like? Have you ever had feelings about something, regardless of wether those feelings were negative or positive?
If yes, you now believe in Jungian cognitive theory.
Camden Hernandez
What in the shit fuck are you talking about?
Nathan Diaz
Hire an escort. One ISTP to another.
Austin Thomas
>Have you ever used technical data or analytical thought to solve a problem?
Thinking
>Have you ever enjoyed scenery, food, or even a shower?
Sensing
>Have you ever imagined something and thought about what it would be like?
Intuition
>Have you ever had feelings about something, regardless of wether those feelings were negative or positive?
Feeling
Parker Turner
Fuck that shit bro. I want a qt gf, not a fucking std ridden whore
Noah Gonzalez
Surprisingly, escorts/prostitutes suffer from a lower rate of STD's because they're more conscientious of it. You can look it up.
Henry Myers
user I ...
You're sounding like a fundamentalist christian right now. Being able to think doesn't even begin to imply that either the jungian thinking functions aren't made up bullshit.
Isaiah Parker
>Being able to think doesn't even begin to imply that either the jungian thinking functions aren't made up bullshit.
I get why you think that. It's because you're confusing Thinking in the Jungian sense for "thinking" in the normal sense, which is just introspecting and can be used to describe Ni, Si and even Fi. Thinking is just data. It's about technical data vs human values. Te for examples is not about "thinking" at all, it's about observing technical data in the real world, and doing work based on that data.
Funny though how your criticism inadvertedly went to Thinking, and specifically because you misinterpreted Thinking for Ti only, which is the Thinking function that "thinks" in the traditional sense. Which makes sense, because to you as an INFP Ti is foreign and alien, you don't really understand it and would rather just have it go away. But Te isn't, and your interpretation of Thinking made you think as if Ti is the only type of Thinking, so you, somewhat understandably called bullshit.
Dylan Bailey
>only 1.7% of girls are INTP
Wtf will I ever find a gril who is as anti social and autistic as myself?
Jace Walker
Imagine being ENTJ lol
Jeremiah Gomez
user you're aware none of that's falsifiable right? How would you do a test for Te?
Bentley Foster
It is falsifiable
Refer back to . Have you ever done any of those things? Then you just tested and confirmed it's true. It really is that simple. Jungian cognitive theory describes your mind, in other words how you function on a basic level. Therefor it is observable, as all you have to do to observe it is to observe yourself, or rather your own mind. You're constantly looking for some external data to confirm this theory, while the answers are in front of you. All you have to do is look inward and observe your own mind at work.
Though what you're doing here is kinda typical for a person with Te as their last function. IxFPs will look for an overwhelming amount of Te evidence (test, measurement, data) if they are dealing with something they don't want to believe is true. While a dominant or auxiliary Te user would probably look at the data there is and say "hmm, that is probably true" or "hmm, that is probably not true".
Charles Hughes
user I don't think me having a mind prooves your specific description of how the mind works. That's like saying faries must take all the food from my stomach and replace it with shit because I eat food and poop. Also
>demanding evidence before calling something a science implies you have weak thinking functions, unlike myself the devilish and cerebral INTJ that looks at random shit and decides if it's true or not with my powerful mind alone
LMAO
I wish I was better educated so I could articulate all the issues I have with your post right now, what a bunch of baloney.
Carter Campbell
>user I don't think me having a mind prooves your specific description of how the mind works.
But i didn't say that. I didn't say "Jungs theory is true because you have a mind". I said "you can OBSERVE Jungs theory in real lifr because what it describes is your mind". You're just strawmanning me at this point.
>That's like saying faries must take all the food from my stomach and replace it with shit because I eat food and poop.
No its more like me saying "Food turns to shit. You can observe this because when you eat food you shit out later." And then you saying "But how do i know the fairies didn't take all the food from my stomach and replace it with shit?". The difference is you can hardly observe your own digestive system without cutting yourself open, but you can observe your own mind.
Landon Rogers
>>demanding evidence before calling something a science implies you have weak thinking functions,
You dont have weak thinking functions because you demand overwhelming amounts of evidence. You demand overwhelming amounts of evidence because you have weak thinking functions. The fact that you demand overwhelming amounts of external measurements and data is EVIDENCE for the fact that you have weak thinking functions, not the REASON. Its an effect not a cause
> unlike myself the devilish and cerebral INTJ that looks at random shit and decides if it's true or not with my powerful mind alone
Where did i say that? Lol. Bw its not about looking at random shit and "figuring it out with your powerful mind". Its about looking AT your mind.
Ryan Walker
So the extent of Jung's theory is that people have minds? Why is it Jung's theory if everybody can observe it? Wouldn't self typing be easier if we could all just observe the Si in our heads?
Elijah Gonzalez
I'm not demanding overwhelming evidence, just any way in which Jung's functions can be tested for other than "just knowing that they're true" like some sort of presuppositionalist
Jaxson Morris
>So the extent of Jung's theory is that people have minds?
No, it's describing how minds work.
>Why is it Jung's theory if everybody can observe it?
Because no one bothered to explain it and write a book about it before he did? I'm sure Newton wasn't the first to observe gravity yet he was the first to write equations about it.
>Wouldn't self typing be easier if we could all just observe the Si in our heads?
It would, but only if you're honest with yourself. A lot of people find self typing to be more accurate and easy than tests, but only because they are honest with themselves and understand the theory well. You can also just observe your behaviour. Though less reliable, it is much easier. And that is what i talked about here .
>observe the Si in our heads?
Interestingly that's what you just did. As an INFP, Si is your "inward looking function". Paradoxically, by trying to look inward and thinking you failed("why cant i do it?"), you just looked inward and proved the point.
Its not "just knowing". It's observing it and confirming it's true.
David Morales
>Wanting to date your own type
Are people really that narcissistic?
Zachary Smith
Well why can't I obseve them then?
They obviously just typed themselves as whatever they thought was the "best" type
Isaac Myers
>Well why can't I obseve them then?
Because you don't know what you're looking at. Read up on functions.
Jeremiah Nelson
TiSe is duals with FeNi. You want an ENFj gf.
Matthew Scott
No bro i want an ISTP gf.
Mason Bailey
Then you probably aren't TiSe.
James Allen
Don't listen to him user, follow your dreams and your heart. In any case he's paid to be here
>$0.02 has been deposited into your sociotypes.com account
Nolan Russell
Epic argument brother
Joshua Wood
>dumbass does't understand statistics
The ISFJ is an outlier. Look at the density right below it - all extroverts
Liam Sanchez
What am I supposed to be arguing for/against sister?
Zachary Lopez
Or he's not basing his wants on your shitty poster. Fuck yourself with a knife, nigger
Lucas Hall
We've had this discussion a million times - you don't seem to want to understand.
>bases his image of a gf on jungian theory
>gets mad when i extrapolate on his own system for him
Levi Moore
What discussion, I have no idea who you are, and wtf makes you think you know who I am?
Kayden Jackson
You're wrong though. Intertype relations state that "identity" (your own type) is also an optimal match.
Thanks but he just doesn't understand the theory and takes it too literal. Why would he be paid to be here anyways? There is no money to be made off socionics and it's not a political thing so there is no incentive to shill. I have nothing against socionics, there are always people who take things too literally or don't really understand what they're talking about.
Benjamin Brown
My dad is an ENFJ. I'm an INTP, you can imagine the communication barrier
Sebastian King
>optimal
Debatable, since the relations are based on not ideals or abstract notions in itself (i wish i had ISTP gf), rather the experience of communication. The 'idea' shouldn't be optimal to an identical type.
>Thanks but he just doesn't understand the theory and takes it too literal. Why would he be paid to be here anyways? There is no money to be made off socionics and it's not a political thing so there is no incentive to shill. I have nothing against socionics, there are always people who take things too literally or don't really understand what they're talking about.
You clearly are the one who doesn't understand if you think that identicals 'want' each other in an abstract fashion. Stop calling others clueless when you are ignorant yourself.
No matter.
Christopher Nelson
Have you literally never heared of a paid test, or advertising revenue? Also socionics.com doubles up as this bizarre dating site. Anyway it's not important why someone shills, what's important is that they're doing it. Here's some other times that poster was posted with the exact same filename
desuarchive.org
desuarchive.org
desuarchive.org
Luke Richardson
>since the relations are based on not ideals or abstract notions in itself (i wish i had ISTP gf), rather the experience of communication.
What a dumb way to say "its not based on what you want but on how you communicate in real life". And no, thats not even true. It's based on the idea that polar opposites attract because they support eachothers weak functions and thus they "complement" eachother.
>The 'idea' shouldn't be optimal to an identical type
What the fuck are you even talking about?
My point was literally that your own type is also a good match according to intertype relations. Gtfo with your pseudointellectual word salad, you don't even know what you're talking about.
Camden Butler
>Have you literally never heared of a paid test,
no one takes those, certainly not anyone from here
>or advertising revenue?
There are no ads on socionics.com
Look man i get you don't like socionics but lets not get schizophrenic. The fact that one autist keeps posting these doesn't mean anything. There are plenty of people here who shill for something out of their own interest and desire to talk about it. MBTI threads for example usually are populated by the same regular posters. I also think the reason you dislike socionics is because you dislike that guy who keeps posting about it, which while understandable is just stupid. He didnt make the theory, why would you deprive yourself of something simply because one autist you dont get along with also happens to like it?
Gabriel Smith
It's not just one autist though, there's multiple of them, and they have a tendancy to clique it up when there's multiple in a thread. My problem with socionics is that it's bullshit and doesn't add anything of worth not the guys peddling it, though they don't exactly endear me to the concept with their constant shilling and snide attitudes. They give off culty vibes you know. I've also yet to encounter one that can actually point out some sort of significant difference between socionics and plain mbti.
Cooper Sanders
don't forget to report and ignore the centaurnigger
Jackson Hall
I guess I expressed that poorly. My multiple autists I meant there was multiple that made the threads not just people that are socionics bullies in the threads themselves since I doubt the user that made these
desuarchive.org
is the same guy as the one ITT
Ryder Mitchell
>It's not just one autist though, there's multiple of them, and they have a tendancy to clique it up when there's multiple in a thread.
But first you said its one guy shilling it? Regardless, i think what you're referring to is when some people get angry at you for using the same pics. That doesn't really have anything to do with socionics.
>My problem with socionics is that it's bullshit and doesn't add anything of worth not the guys peddling it,
Honestly if anything it's MBTI that's bullshit. MBTI was made by two housewives for a magazine for housewives. It was just ment to be a feature in that magazine. Still they didn't do a bad job at all considering they had no experience with psychology. Socionics was developed by an actual scientist.
>Socionics was developed in the 1970s and 1980s, primarily by the Lithuanian researcher Ausra Augustinaviciute, an economist, sociologist, psychologist, and dean of the Vilnius Pedagogical University's department of family science.[3]
Which one would you put more stock in, two housewives or a university dean?
As for your question about what it adds, it's like MBTI+. It does everything MBTI does better, and then some. For example function theory is not a part of MBTI at all. All the function descriptions are stuff other people have written about in books copypasted and posted on the internet, or worse, some jerkoff who spreads his own interpretation as the truth. So something socionics adds would be providing a good standard for function theory, something MBTI doesnt do at all, instead of having multiple different interpretations conflict with eachother.
Hudson Martin
i just never met a female introvert irl. all introverts ive known have been male
Ryan Reyes
How many people have you known in general desu? You're an introvert aren't you? Wouldn't it make sense for introverts of both genders to avoid each other
Brayden Myers
Then you have a different definition of introvert. Introvert isnt the same as "socially awkward" or autistic. Introvert just means you value your subjective experience over objective data and experiences.
Josiah Barnes
>youtube.com
I have no idea what that is supposed to mean
Nathaniel Bennett
It's pretty on the nose desu
Michael Russell
>tfw INJP
>tfw everyone in my school was an ESPN
Aaron Green
I have no idea what you are trying to say now
Jason Jones
I was basically accusing you of being a socionics shill since you use all the same points and tone.
Nolan Stewart
Well whatever then. It's clear you're unwilling to budge on this subject when after taking my time replying to your questions you don't even read anything i say and just call me a shill. You do you i guess
Levi Clark
If I didn't at least glance over your response I could not have known you were one of them. It's perfectly acceptable to just zone out after reading the word "housewife" in situations such as these.
Carter James
I don't think just because it was made by bored housewives it's bad.
Socionics from my understanding is more mathmatical, both are built on combinations but MBTI has a more generalized approach but it makes people think that it's based off the letters rather than the functions so the discussions don't have much to go off and become meme tier. One thing I do like about socionics is that it puts my type as a perceiver, I think we do have a sort of judging approach but our dominant function is a perveiving one.
t.INFJ/INFp
Elijah Martinez
>Socionics from my understanding is more mathmatical,
It is, but imo the biggest difference between MBTI and socionics is that all that MBTI is the 4 letter types, the test, dichotomies/percentages and the type descriptions. It does not cover function theory at all, which imo is the most important part of Jungian Cognitive Theory, it's the core of the theory and MBTI does not even touch on it. Socionics does and it does so better than most other function descriptions i have read, so i think it'd make a good standard for function theory and function descriptions instead of having every faggot post his own interpretation which leads to a lot of confusion. You could also use Jungs own writings but those are a bit hard to understand because they're very "intuitive", which makes sense because Jung was an INFJ. I dont really care much for intertype relations though, ironically thats what socionics was designed for primarily kek.
>One thing I do like about socionics is that it puts my type as a perceiver, I think we do have a sort of judging approach but our dominant function is a perveiving one.
MBTI bases the last letter on how you interact with the world, so your first extraverted function. The idea behind is that that is more representative of how you actually act irl. Socionics bases the last letter on just your first function, which is how you think though you may not always act that way irl. Both make sense in their own way.
Michael Evans
Then why even bring up who made it? Surely someone on an anonymous image board must understand that words are more important than the people that speak them.
As for my understanding, crudely linking things together to force a pattern is not mathematical, it's just ugly. Every type is unique and so is its interactions with the other types. Sort of like numbers themselves or elements on a periodic table there are patterns but they are only beautiful when found and not forced. Then again I guess as an INFJ forcing patterns is sort of your thing.
>One thing I do like about socionics is that it puts my type as a perceiver
Well obviously everyone would rather be a perciever than a judger, but the switch is just a different choice of words to express different things. Also for the record, Socionics discussions are meme tier without exception.
>MBTI is the 4 letter types, the test, dichotomies/percentages and the type descriptions
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE. According to whom ever was MBTI percentages of each trait?
Jonathan White
Well when I am talking about MBTI I am referring to the function stacks and I can understand the approach can be irritating as these threads are full of people who take it like a meme but in a way it sort of is as the Archtypes are essentially memes. In general people who actually have an understanding of MBTI tend to look at the functions too and don't take the type descriptions seriously as they're overly positive especially of intuitives.
Both can apply for introverts I think, online I think I have a stronger sense of control of my Fe which helps me apply my Ni/Te. I consider it organized chaos.
They did and I don't disagree with you, essentially what I was getting at.
The world is mathmatical, the golden ration is everywhere. I'm not good at maths myself but I'm constantly seeing it everywhere, I don't thing it takes away from peoples uniqueness rather it adds to it.
Zachary King
I understand you but that is in the most literal sense not MBTI. MBTI is quite literally just the test, 4 letter types, dichotomies and type descriptions, the latter being a total meme. The function theory stuff is all from different sources that have nothing to do with mbti.
>>MBTI is the 4 letter types, the test, dichotomies/percentages and the type descriptions
>REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE. According to whom ever was MBTI percentages of each trait?
The dichotomies are calculated on a "midway point", the 50% mark. You don't even know what you're talking about. Stop replying to my posts, i'm sick and tired of trying to explain shit to you and getting replied at with shitposts.
Jason Nelson
>Which one would you put more stock in, two housewives or a university dean?
user I can still read your post from earlier
>every type has a mirror, duality, relation activity, quadra ect
>these relationships follow a strict pattern without exceptions
>this adds to the uniqueness
It really doesn't The golden ratio is overblown but even so it goes against your logic, at a glance it appears chaotic and unbalanced and is in itself an irrational number. Nothing like the clean cut monotony of socionics. Besides
>I see mathematics everywhere
You can say that about finding yourself in a room with 2 cups and 3 plates "there's mathematics everywhere!". It doesn't mean anything since mathematics was invented to measure the world so of course it matches up all over the place.
>The dichotomies are calculated on a "midway point", the 50% mark
yikes, I hope you don't actually think that
Jordan Garcia
I never mentioned them, I was responding to your response to the other guy.
Maths is an attempt to communicate values we use in the world in which we can compare it to itself. This is what Ying/Yang is, every hill has a Shadow and Jung goes into this. Binary is just one way of looking at it but it doesn't necessarily mean in terms of opposites (ie Salt and Pepper) and I don't think all combinations work the same which is what I mean by uniqueness. I don't want a sensor, I want an ENxP.
Nolan Baker
If all the combinations don't work the same then what's the point in having the combinations in the first place? Sure if you tried hard you could force any two things to be "yin and yang" relative to one anouther but I don't see what that achieves other than a bit of fun. You could also compare any two things and have one of them be more like an apple or an orange, 1 for instance is obviously like an apple in comparison to the orangness of 2. But as I said it's not very useful.
Grayson Parker
>This is what Ying/Yang is, every hill has a Shadow and Jung goes into this.
This. Yin and Yang is the fundamental nature of the universe. Naturally the human mind follows the same patterns as the universe. After all why would it be any different?
Eli Roberts
Why? Do ISTP girls have a reputation as being whores?
Colton Campbell
Sure 4,8% is more but it's not that much really...
Jason Morgan
Actually, satistically the most common female type is ISFJ. Your iq must be right around 10 or 20 for you to think otherwise when it's literally written in front of you in clear language.
Eli Carter
INTP is pretty common for males dude. Its quite a bit more
Dylan Reyes
i know that original feeling brother
Brandon Kelly
>INTJ and ENTJ the rarest female types
really makes you think
Josiah Barnes
I honestly wonder why
oregano
Juan Gomez
>tfw INTP and diagnosed sperg
Angel Cook
I wouldn't say that around 5 people of 100 is pretty common.
Luke Ortiz
>i care about a four-letter combination that can totally describe my personality and helps me determine who i should and shouldnt associate with
literally 1 microstep above caring about your start sign
Joshua King
this is fucking bullshit desu. they say that intp and infp are incompatible
i wish the global 5 caught on more desu. it seems better
Gabriel Sanders
star sign*
im retarded
Tyler Baker
>Your iq must be right around 10 or 20 if you don't immediately believe something without question or further investigation