Tribe.net. Local Connections Wyatt http://INTJ.tribe.net/thread/25e11619-4107-4344-ba5c-f41ef882d6f1#5b3981a4-ad24-4219-b66b-fc6d06441522 2010-01-01T19:26:06Z 2010-01-01T19:26:06Z

as well, I think this also demonstrates the importance of actively exploring and developing ourselves, perhaps through our inferior and tertiary functions... and our shadow functions. It is important to know who we are, and who we are not. And how would we know unless we have tried? Of course, some jelly beans just LAND where they want to be. And they don't have to travel very far at all. How sad for those jelly beans. On the other hand, they may be think how sad it is for us that have to travel so far to get to where they are already at! But is does make me think that they are not inclined to have to grow so much... after all, what challenges would you have to overcome on your journey if there is really no journey? If those jelly beans are constantly happy, is that more important that what they have learned about themselves or others?

Wyatt 2010-01-01T19:26:06Z Wyatt http://INTJ.tribe.net/thread/25e11619-4107-4344-ba5c-f41ef882d6f1#a571bffe-3f6f-4cbf-8047-d74d55fc2e89 2010-01-01T19:16:47Z 2010-01-01T19:16:47Z

Take some jelly beans. Divide them up proportionally so that you have 1000 distributed in the following way: INTJ = PURPLE BEANS = 0.016 x 1000 = 16 ENFP= YELLOW BEANS = 0.047 x 1000 = 47 INTP = BLUE BEANS = 0.016 x 1000 = 16 ENFJ = ORANGE BEANS = 0.047 x 1000 = 47 INFJ = RED BEANS = 0.016 x 1000 = 16 ENTP = GREEN BEANS = 0.047 x 1000 = 47 INFP = WHITE BEANS = 0.016 x 1000 = 16 ENTJ = BLACK BEANS = 0.047 x 1000 = 47 ISTJ = PURPLE HALF BEANS = 0.047 x 1000 = 47 ESFP = YELLOW HALF BEANS = 0.140 x 1000 = 140 ISTP = BLUE HALF BEANS = 0.047 x 1000 = 47 ESFJ = ORANGE HALF BEANS = 0.140 x 1000 = 140 ISFJ = RED HALF BEANS = 0.047 x 1000 = 47 ESTP = GREEN HALF BEANS = 0.140 x 1000 = 140 ISFP = WHITE HALF BEANS = 0.047 x 1000 = 47 ESTJ = BLACK HALF BEANS = 0.140 x 1000 = 140 Now, put those thousand into a hat and shake them up. Now dump them on the table. This is roughly where we "land" in life; i.e., what we are born into, from a "type" perspective, in our american life (I think distributuions may vary across country and culture). Those beans that your type are "near" represent your family, friends, external "influences". Those that are "available" to you. Potential high school dates, potential friends (and enemies), teachers, parents, policemen, etc. Everyone who touches your life. Now, acording to family means (money = opportunity), type values (which are expressed), individual will (which is not expressed by this model), etc, we are able to "move" a certain distance. Although not very far, and not very fast. So, at some point, you begin seeing NF jelly beans congregating in certain places, NT jelly beans congregating in other places, SJ in others, SP's in others. They may not "make it" completely to that congrating point, although they are headed in the direction over their lifetime... our life is not without a time limit, and we have desires and inulgences along our way that cause us to "stop and smell the roses"... So what we see is a more of a gradually concentration of certain beans toward certain places according to what there values are... and now we look around and find ourselves surronded by a little different crowd, etc. My point is this: we may not find ourselfs "landing" near our "perfect" textbook partner or friend types in this life. And the direction we are inclined to follow that our core values lead us toward may not really point us to "find" them. Actually, often times it may be quite the contrary. And this is where it is important, I think, for our community values to instill in us a social sense.... a well roundedness so that we "mix" with other people who are NOT like us... because the treasures we find are often not what we were looking for, nor where we thought we would find them. A good experiment. I hope you try it.

Wyatt 2010-01-01T19:16:47Z Wyatt http://INTJ.tribe.net/thread/25e11619-4107-4344-ba5c-f41ef882d6f1#8eb592b9-3284-48af-9101-8f7f011593b1 2009-11-30T18:11:26Z 2009-11-30T18:11:26Z

I find it funny that you respond that way- so exacting (and how do you calculate past general round numbers? X7.6%? really!), and you also responded in terms of statistics as well, mind you (that is, you have given a confidence interval - and judging from your Samuel Clemmons quote, I'm thinking that you must think it immoral?). I am teasing you of course. I often respond to my boss or other people that way when I can tell they are applying pressure for an answer (it means they are concerned and trying to balance schedule, costs, and risk). They are often just looking for an answer like, "I am certain," or, "I am positive," which, after all is said and done, leaves much to the imagination. If I give a vague answer like that, it means they are free to blame me when, in retrospect, they just simply "bet wrongly," and usually rediculously as well. However, if you give them an answer like "87.6%", first, they look at you like you are nuts. After all, what have you been doing? Spending all of the company's valuable resources trying to figure out the odds of your solution as opposed to WORKING the solution? And you're not even 100% sure? You must be a terrible engineer. We'll go find someone else who is 100% sure and knows what they are doing. So, my standard answers now are more vague than that. I either reply 99.999% sure, or 50%. 99.999% meaning that I'm am sure it will work, but I also may have to continue to work solutions along the way. 50% means it is a crapshoot, and we haven't really found something reliable yet. The thing is you get better at guesstimating this stuff the more you do it, and the more situations you find yourself in like it. Else, someone else does. So it is a bit of salesmanship. Sell yourself, or perish (after all, if you are not working these types of problems, then your skills are fading... they don't stay the same). So, while I certainly see where you are going with this, and agree in theory with what you are saying, at the end of the day, I have to eat. And when my competitors are making outrageous claims, and winning jobs because the people supplying those jobs are too dense to make a calculation themselves to see the rediculousness they themselves are creating on the odds, or simply want to hold someone else reponsible for their own failings, then that tells me that incentives in the system itself must be fixed. And I'm sorry, I don't have more that a natural lifetime to spend waiting for that. My hunger cycles go in periods of 3 per 24 hours ideally. I can go longer, and have, but would really rather not. Incidentally, there is a cartoon I find particularly funny involving redundant systems... It has a scientest telling his government contractor to "Halt! the launch of the rocket! We are only 50% sure that it will work due to a glitch in the design", to which the government program responds in the next cartoon by simply launching two rockets at $10 billion a piece. There is much truth in this.

Wyatt 2009-11-30T18:11:26Z Vicky Jo http://INTJ.tribe.net/thread/25e11619-4107-4344-ba5c-f41ef882d6f1#de7cbe47-ba35-4469-ba89-3e1259b1f46e 2009-11-30T08:20:25Z 2009-11-30T08:18:35Z

87.6% sure. ;-) Trust me, I've had to grapple with own episodes of "being certain" that I was right about things that really were nothing more than judgment calls. Sigh! On the other hand, there are "good bets." I'm fond of those. :-)

Vicky Jo 2009-11-30T08:18:35Z Wyatt http://INTJ.tribe.net/thread/25e11619-4107-4344-ba5c-f41ef882d6f1#515da56a-1731-4a86-91dd-4d590b893a9e 2009-11-30T00:50:30Z 2009-11-30T00:50:30Z

Hmm... and in your professional opinion, how certain are you about all of this, VJ? ;oP

Wyatt 2009-11-30T00:50:30Z Vicky Jo http://INTJ.tribe.net/thread/25e11619-4107-4344-ba5c-f41ef882d6f1#193a3adb-d034-4f58-bacb-bff2b6b45e56 2009-11-29T20:59:46Z 2009-11-29T20:59:46Z

In the example of the book (and mind you, the entire book is devoted to the topic of feeling certain), two examples that were shared were 1) a stockbroker telling a client "it's a sure thing," versus saying "it's a 99.99999% sure thing." That tiny amount of doubt is more truthful, and impacts the client differently; and 2) medical doctors who were "sure" a client did not have a particular disease, and then the client DIES from their over-confidence. I don't think the distinction you indicate really exists. (Does not Mark Twain say, "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.") How can we separate so-called logic and statistics from the individual who believes in them? And when it comes to the realm of psychology, I don't think logic and statistics are to be trusted beyond other forms of "knowing." As my husband indicated in his "Failure of Sensation" video, sometimes INTJs use logic, facts, and reason to deceive and cover up the fact that they do NOT know what they are talking about. Pride in their competence becomes primary, and any vulnerability is hidden over. They simply "forget" to mention they "aren't sure." In the case of whether or not ENFPs and INTJs are suitable in relationship with one another, there is NO amount of statistics or logic that could be generated that justify a declarative statement that these two psychological types could not enjoy a thriving relationship. Certainty is a moral issue that pertains to everybody. Just look at the topics of religion, abortion, capital punishment. Anybody who is "too certain" in these realms is (IMHO) not to be trusted. My type guru associates being too certain with the 8th function in our psychological type pattern -- it is the place where we may unconsciously do evil. Just look at how *certain* Hitler was that the Jews were destroying the Aryan bloodline. So yes, recognizing it as a moral question is entirely appropriate. -Vicky Jo :-)

Vicky Jo 2009-11-29T20:59:46Z Wyatt http://INTJ.tribe.net/thread/25e11619-4107-4344-ba5c-f41ef882d6f1#f7096f70-6edf-4ffb-b189-1cb8e0d603c7 2009-11-29T01:06:46Z 2009-11-29T01:06:46Z

The difference between "certainty" and "highly likely" doesn't seem to me to be a moral issue at all. It seems to simply be a dispassionate issue of logic and statistics. I think the perceptions of some people, and how they choose to wield those perceptions as weapons and defenses are quite another issue, indeed deserving of moral exploration. I am assuming this is what the person who is quoted is really talking about?

Wyatt 2009-11-29T01:06:46Z Vicky Jo http://INTJ.tribe.net/thread/25e11619-4107-4344-ba5c-f41ef882d6f1#31253087-f97a-4daa-bfd6-870fe876af7e 2009-11-24T23:38:12Z 2009-11-24T23:38:12Z

Quote: "I'd like to briefly explore the notion of the moral difference between certainty and the highly likely." -Robert A. Burton, M.D. From the book "On Being Certain: Believing You Are Right Even When You're Not" :-)

Vicky Jo 2009-11-24T23:38:12Z ashley http://INTJ.tribe.net/thread/25e11619-4107-4344-ba5c-f41ef882d6f1#bd6d035e-c8cf-43fe-854a-26f420532f88 2009-11-22T13:21:46Z 2009-11-22T13:21:46Z

Peta, INTJ could feel activated and energized socially and emotionally by ENFP, but there won't really be any mental challenge there, as in the case of ENTPs or even mature INFJs, for instance. As fo modality, ENFPs are too divergent, erratic and unfocused for INTJ on the long run.

ashley 2009-11-22T13:21:46Z Vicky Jo http://INTJ.tribe.net/thread/25e11619-4107-4344-ba5c-f41ef882d6f1#db3ef3fa-e285-42ca-ba57-5073a4e15a3a 2009-11-22T02:28:52Z 2009-11-22T02:28:52Z

As a technicality, type is not a trait-based model. It describes the forms of *consciousness* we prefer. In the case of ENFPs, they prefer extraverted iNtuiting and introverted Sensing forms of consciousness -- which INTJs CAN be allergic to. (They are allergic to it in themselves also, FWIW.) When we are around people who have different type patterns than we do, it may bring up our resistance if our ego doesn't like the same kinds of consciousness. Every time we are around that person (form of consciousness), we feel tense and cranky, because we want that form of consciousness to go away. Maybe a metaphor would be perfume. Some kinds of perfume smell great, and we enjoy being in their presence. Other forms of perfume are turn-offs, and we think the person stinks. Type is (metaphorically anyway) about identifying the forms of "perfume" that you prefer and want to inhabit or co-habit with. As we grow older, our tolerance grows and find ourselves better able to appreciate kinds of perfume we used to dislike intensely (IF we have developed at all). Traits -- things like whether someone is happy or sad -- are not aspects of the type model. Talking about traits rather than types is a common misattribution FWIW. -Vicky Jo :-)

Vicky Jo 2009-11-22T02:28:52Z Peta http://INTJ.tribe.net/thread/25e11619-4107-4344-ba5c-f41ef882d6f1#3c5acd24-5f35-4825-a815-ce9b288ca0c9 2009-11-21T20:12:16Z 2009-11-21T20:12:16Z

Sure; I guess I'm just saying that there are certain traits that tend to go with being an ENFP, and certain traits that all ENFPs (that I've come across, anyway) tend to have which I personally find unappealing, at least in the sense of having a direct personal relationship with a person. I found this curious because ENFPs are supposed to be very compatible with INTJs and if anything, it's the direct opposite (for me, at least). I understand what you're saying about people of the same type being extremely different though, and obviously the MBTI is not an exhaustive way of examining someone's pyschology lol, and I'm starting to realise if anything it seems to be a lot less useful than I had originally imagined.

Peta 2009-11-21T20:12:16Z Wyatt http://INTJ.tribe.net/thread/25e11619-4107-4344-ba5c-f41ef882d6f1#d60d3fe5-8000-4694-b082-c96284d80e05 2009-11-21T16:12:58Z 2009-11-21T16:12:58Z

Please don't forget that Type (MB, Kiersey Temprament, etc.) is simply a tool... a perspective... like looking though a colored lens. It is analogous to flattening.... so you take a 3D object and make it 2D. Sort of. You exploit certain truths, but at the expense of masking other truths. So it's not an end-all, be-all, one-stop conclusive analysis or source of understanding. It is simply one of many. For instance, it says NOTHING about ones maturity, or even if someone is a good person or not. At the end of the day, some people can be real jerks, no matter what their Type. And if you want the full vision of the 3D version of a person is, then I'm afraid you need more than one tool to look at it. My 2 cents. Maybe 1.5 cents, the dollar is down.

Wyatt 2009-11-21T16:12:58Z Zachary http://INTJ.tribe.net/thread/25e11619-4107-4344-ba5c-f41ef882d6f1#d63bf24f-f47c-4cc4-90f4-943524cbfde7 2009-11-19T16:34:33Z 2009-11-19T16:34:33Z

Don't forget that two ENFP's can express their personalities quite differently. Same can be said for all the types.

Zachary 2009-11-19T16:34:33Z jenine http://INTJ.tribe.net/thread/25e11619-4107-4344-ba5c-f41ef882d6f1#d2d33bf3-2a1b-43d2-b7d0-37c214c4763e 2009-11-05T23:55:34Z 2009-11-05T23:55:34Z

i am INTJ and my husband is ENFP. I find that we balance eachother. It is a lot of work sometimes, but we both learn a lot about ourselves and eachother through disagreements. He reminds me to open up and try new things, while I teach him to calm down and count the cost before leaping into a new adventure. We are both very stubborn and firm in our opinions, but he is better at resolving conflicts, the first to say sorry, and I can't imagine anyone else being able to deal with and humble me. If left apart we would have both become overly self-willed intolerable people. Together we somewhat blend in with others a little better. It works if both can learn to compromise equally.

jenine 2009-11-05T23:55:34Z Peta http://INTJ.tribe.net/thread/25e11619-4107-4344-ba5c-f41ef882d6f1#1c75f41a-4157-409e-9c9d-d0fb4bf554f4 2009-04-18T04:30:52Z 2009-04-18T04:30:52Z

So, the answer is probably not really, at least not overwhelmingly. In all honesty, I've met people of one type with whom I really click, and then there will be others of the same type whom I can't stand. And I guess it also depends of what you're looking for in a relationship to a point, aswell. Further to my post, I think that ENFPs probably match better with INTJs as friends, rather than as a romantic partner generally speaking. Well, for me anyway.

Peta 2009-04-18T04:30:52Z Vicky Jo http://INTJ.tribe.net/thread/25e11619-4107-4344-ba5c-f41ef882d6f1#5732950f-7d54-47f7-a05d-c40b493d6121 2009-04-17T17:15:38Z 2009-04-17T17:15:38Z

You might enjoy reading my article on this topic -- it was published in the Association for Psychological Type's magazine last year: http://www.typeinsights.com/Relationships.html -Vicky Jo :-)

Vicky Jo 2009-04-17T17:15:38Z Peta http://INTJ.tribe.net/thread/25e11619-4107-4344-ba5c-f41ef882d6f1#815ba583-ef4c-4725-b49c-42e6cecc1ff0 2009-04-17T16:45:52Z 2009-04-17T16:45:52Z

I've read a number of articles about how certain types are supposedly best suited with one or two other types. In particular, I keep reading about how INTJs are supposed to be best matched with ENFPs. Now, admittedly I haven't met many ENFPs (actually only one, who is my Mum's boss) but from what I've read lately it actually sounds like a terrible match. Judging from the one ENFP that I've met, and also from what I've read they seem to be quite unpredictable, emotional, compulsive, and a bit hyper active. Not meaning to bash ENFPs here, but this just seems like a very strange match. For instance with myself, I like to know that once someone makes a committment that they are actually going to follow through with it and not just change their mind on a whim so they can move onto something new. I actually find that type of behaviour very unsettling. I also have a strong distaste for people expressing their emotions too frequently, I find this equally draining. Anyway, I was just wondering whether anyone other INTJs felt the same way or whether there were trends at all regarding who we are most compatible with.

Peta 2009-04-17T16:45:52Z