Chacham's Journal: Verbiage: MBTI: ESTP is objective, INFP subjective.

Within the MBTI, the most objective type is ESTP, which are the four objective traits. The most subjective is its opposite, the INFP. The reason a P is subjective, is that the IP means the P is extraverted but internally the person is a J, which is subjective.

ESTPs accept things as they are, and let everyone know how they feel. INFPs see things in their own personal way and rarely if ever let anyone know, until they reach a level where they feel content with themselves, and then they teach the world. Until then, however, they just wonder why noone understands things as they see them (the INTP is the same way with logic judgements, except the INTPs being objective in their judgements are easier to understand, and thing people who don't understand are considered "stupid", unlike the INFPs who consider people morally incorrect).

INFPs can be wonderfully informative when sharing their own personal views with their well thought out values. However, some tend to be self-righteous and down right coercive, the best example of this (that i know of) being Kane from the Kung Fu shows in the 70s.

INFPs that grow up without an N as a parent tend to act like what their parents want to see or INTP until their twenties or so when they begin to have an identity crises and try to find themselves. Even when they do, they can be hard to spot, as they won't share their feelings with most people right away. I mistook one co-worker for an INTP once. After he notified me he tested as INFP, i came to a better appreciation of him.

Interestingly enough, it seems that most people (from my reading so far) on the MBTI has been INFP.

Heh

[grub]

I'll wager our exchance in my journal got you thinking about this!

me the INTJ

Re:Heh

[Chacham]

It probably added to it, but i am still reading the stuff, and this was a JE i was thinking about posting a while ago. The book i am currently reading is called "Speed reading people". I have to skim alot because he misses the point half the time. Hopefully, after the first chapter he'll have something interesting to say.

Re:Heh

[grub]

It's interesting, no doubt, but with 6 billion people there are 6 billion distinct personalities so I try not to read too much into the various psychobabble. Although the Myers-Briggs tests still seem (to me, a layperson) like the best attempt at pigeonholing the virtually infinite combinations of neurons in our collective skulls.

Re:Heh

[Chacham]

Yeah, the point is not to identify each person, that impossible, or to group everyone, that's useless. Rather, to identify what functions are availible for people to use, and how that affects us. When Jung noted the four functions and the two attitude types, Briggs realized it was a goldmine and dropped her work for his. It doesn't explain the way each of us are individuals, it doesn't even attempt to explain the ego which is the very basis of character development, rather it explains the functions we emplo