(Part 2) Top products from r/mbti

[2 of 4]

• How curious are you? Do you have more ideas then you can execute? What are your curiosities about? What are your ideas about - is it environmental or conceptual, and can you please elaborate?
  
  • I think this is something I struggle with on a daily basis. I like many things, or so I like to believe. Like I feel that everything’s interesting and everything is connected somehow through symbols. I like thinking about these symbols and connections constantly. So my ideas are about concepts mostly. I can’t remember facts if I can’t attach them to concepts that make sense to me.
    
  • This has been my latest conflict I have to say. I started a career in EE, and then I shifted to computer science. I’ve wanted since I was an undergrad to start a research path, but I’ve been struggling to find something I really really love. I am not good at taking decisions, but an academic path looks now like my best bet for not working in a desk never again (I like having my own desk at home, though).
    
  • I’m confident everything will be good at the end, and I am confident I can do almost anything. Not trying to be cocky, is just that I know I’m physically and mentally capable of learning anything (in the realm of normal stuff, of course I won’t build a heavy falcon myself), so unless that does not change, I’m good. On the other hand, being so certain about that backfires at me, filling my head with “what ifs”
    
  • I have this bad habit of reading (and most of the time not finishing) books in parallel, now I’m reading about
    
    • Carl Jung (https://www.amazon.com/Jung-Short-Introduction-Anthony-Stevens/dp/0192854585 mostly motivated by understanding this mbti thingy)
      
    • About network science (https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/complex-network-analysis/9781680505399/ and https://www.amazon.com/Networks-Introduction-Mark-Newman/dp/0199206651 because network analysis can be applied to almost anything)
      
    • Machine Learning (http://shop.oreilly.com/product/0636920052289.do) because is what the cool kids do in IT now or so I’ve learned, I’m more into software architecture though, and
      
    • EGB (https://www.amazon.com/G%C3%B6del-Escher-Bach-Eternal-Golden/dp/0465026567) which is a beast and I wanted to get my feet wet about cognitive science and semiotic. I am at about 40% of all of them,
      
  • I pick a chapter until I finish it, and then I move on to the next book, when I have time. I’ve lost interest in reading fiction, I get that from reading graphic novels and manga, mostly. If it matters something, currently ongoing mangas I like are Hajime no Ippo, One Piece, Vinland Saga and The Promised Neverland.
    
• Would you enjoy taking on a leadership position? Do you think you would be good at it? What would your leadership style be?
  
  • I’m not very good at getting stuff done so I would probably suck as a leader of anything. But hey, I am good listening to people and helping them improve. I also don’t think I’m a good teamplayer. I’m bad at following instructions if I don’t trust them. During college I was the guy that ended redoing the work of others during group assignments, because I either I was not satisfied with their work or I was not good at giving instructions. I didn’t know at that moment I was being a dick and I know now, and it’s not something I’m proud of. I'm working on it.
    
• Are you coordinated? Why do you feel as if you are or are not? Do you enjoy working with your hands in some form? Describe your activity?
  
  • I used to draw more when I was younger, and did a bit of woodwork also. I had plants. I like to cook, and have strong opinions on food. I like creating stuff with my hands, I consider myself a creative person. In short, I am coordinated, but not so with team activities like team sports.
    
• Are you artistic? If yes, describe your art? If you are not particular artistic but can appreciate art please likewise describe what forums of art you enjoy. Please explain your answer.
  
  • It’s hard to pin down what kind of art I like, I just know I like something after I’ve seen it or told about, with no particular topic. I don’t understand sculpture, and I vaguely get poetry. Regarding drawing, I appreciate the flow and light in shapes. I was into human figure for some years, and I did a lot of drawings that were good.
    
  • I know a bit of guitar and ukulele, but I never played for others than girls I like. I am too shy of my voice, my singing and technique, I know it needs improving. I took singing classes once but with only the gist of it I got it’s something that requires more discipline and time than what I’m willing to spend.
    
• What's your opinion about the past, present, and future? How do you deal with them?
  
  • uhm, now I strive to live a life that maximises happiness and minimizes regret. At my age I think I know enough about the things I can control, and play along with that hand, always with the best intentions, and I am optimist about the future.
    
  • Sometimes I regret not being like this in the past, however, and I see myself revisiting things I would have done better, like studying more, eating better, loved more.
    
• How do you act when others request your help to do something (anything)? If you would decide to help them, why would you do so?
  
  • I always help, I believe in karma as a thing (I mean, not religiously) and that life has been really good to me. I don’t help when I know I can’t help, or when I’m being ordered to or asked in a bad way i.e. makes me feel bad. I have trouble noticing these situations though.

It is certainly possible for an INFP to develop competence at a martial art; one of my favorite athletes growing up was Mike Tyson; while he was focused and dedicated (ending with the fight vs. Michael Spinks on June 27, 1988) he was very, very good--for over three years head-and-shoulders above anyone else in the world.

That does not mean an INFP who trains at a particular sensing-heavy task or skill becomes "good with sensing"; in the case of Tyson, for example, once he stopped training/drilling constantly (after a serious of personal tragedies lead him into a deep depression, and at the urging of ESTP promoter/enabler/leach Don King, fired his ESFP trainer Kevin Rooney) his skills eroded with stunning swiftness; he was by no means a "natural fighter".

To give another example--in 1984, while preparing for the Olympic trials, Tyson befriended and trained with future opponent ISTJ Evander Holyfield, and Holyfield made a very interesting comment: he mentioned that Mike had remarkable skills on the speed bag, on which he obviously practiced constantly, but that when they played a game of pick-up-basketball--a sensory activity neither of them focused on--he was awful, relative to himself and others, most of whom were presumably SPs and SJs.

When INFPs become accomplished at a sport, or playing an instrument, etc. they tend to operate in a primitive STJ-ish manner; they tend to have and rely on a number of extremely well-grooved but essentially rote movements or sequences or combinations. SP improvisational wizzards they are not. With Tyson, for example, the right-hook to the body followed immediately by an uppercut with the same hand was one such rote combination: https://youtu.be/AMydMkEB97k

If the above interests you, this book about Mike and his ENTJ mentor/adoptive father/first trainer is a great read:

https://www.amazon.com/Iron-Ambition-Life-Cus-DAmato/dp/0399177035

https://www.si.com/boxing/2017/05/30/mike-tyson-cus-damato-iron-ambition-book-excerpt

>It gives me that mental stimulation I desire and that I feel I am genuinely am good at and don't need to have talent for because no matter what, so long as I put in the effort, then I got it down.

That's exactly the right attitude to have. :)

If I can make a recommendation, pick yourself up a copy of "A Transition to Abstract Mathematics" or a similar text and start working your way through it. You start with logic tables and learn about set theory. You'll enjoy it if you are interested in the "whys" of math, and if you end up picking math as a major, it will be helpful stuff to review ahead of time.

An ex-FBI guy called Joe Navarro pretty much spent his entire life doing that. He wrote a book called What Every Body is Saying, that I think you'd be really interested in. (If you care at all about developing Fe)

Also, what I'm about to say might hit you a bit harshly, but you don't seem to get the implication, so let me just say that what I meant by this comment was that your experience with people's smiling might be because a lot of people are projecting a smile towards you, rather than smiling genuinely.

I recommend The Portable Jung. It's on my bookshelf, and it's your best bet.

Still looking for recommendations, but since posting, I've pulled together a list of books that seemed interesting. Wondering if anyone has any opinions?

MBTI Manual

Jung: A Very Short Introduction

Psychological Types

The Archetypes and The Collective Unconscious

Jung's Map of the Soul: An Introduction

Simple and effective?

"Gifts Differing" Isabel Briggs Myers

"Please understand me" David Keirsey

"The Tavistock Lectures" Carl Jung via von Franz(afaik) edit: It's actually this: https://www.amazon.com/Analytical-Psychology-Practice-Tavistock-Lectures/dp/0394708628

There is a book on that subject here: Soul Types

I met the author, and got a TL;DR. The basic finding was that a person tended to be drawn to and stick with a faith if it fed their dominant cognitive function. People were quickest to leave a faith if it violated their dominant function.

This is the short summary I read to get acquainted with Jungian psychology at large. There's a few different ones out there. It's super enriching.

For type specifically, there's no substitute for "Psychological Types". I recommend chapters 2, 10, and any relevant definitions from chapter 11. I also recommend getting the revised translation, since it's a much easier read (the one available online is an older edition), but that costs $$$ :(

There's actually a book written about this topic: https://www.amazon.com/Hitler-Biography-Ian-Kershaw/dp/0393337618

... :P

Here's a quick rundown:

• He considered introversion/extroversion to be the biggest difference above everything else.
  
  
• He described 8 types of personality, but also said that most normal people would not really fit either type and could only be classified on introversion/extroversion.
  
  He ordered functions like this:
  
  
• First the dominant one in the person's I/E direction.
  
  
• He noted that most people also have a secondary function. He didn't mention the direction of it but we can conclude that it's direction would be the same as the dominant one.
  
  
• In every type description he briefly described a suppressed function that is opposed to the dominant one in every way (For introverted intuitives this was a primitive extroverted sensing)
  
  
• A third function isn't mentioned anywhere, instead he noted unconscious suppressed functions that balance out the dominant one.
  
  We can conclude from this that he viewed personality as if it was in an equilibrum, with people falling to their underdeveloped side when in stress. Since he put so much weight on I/E and didn't mention the direction of functions except the dominant and it's opposite, I believe we can conclude that in is model the second function wasn't opposite to the primary one.
  
  By the way, there are tons of other things that are opposites in MBTI, Jung's theories, modern psychology, and theories of other random people. For example the IEIE or EIEI function stack comes from this book written by a random person in 1983, but somehow has been adopted as THE canon model of personality in "jungian" MBTI circles.

MBTI Manual

Introduction to Type

Was That Really Me?: How Everyday Stress Brings Out Our Hidden Personality

Diagram by Anthony Stevens, Psychiatrist & Jungian Analyst - Source On Jung

Diagram by Jung - Source Introduction to Jungian Psychology: Notes of the Seminar on Analytical Psychology Given in 1925

Psychological Types is DENSE AS FUCK, so I'll point you to other material by Jungians who present Jung's ideas in a much more manageable and understandable manner.

> Marie von Franz's "Lectures on Jungian Typology"
___
> Jolande Jacobi's "The Psychology of C.G. Jung."

Many supposed sex differences are based on bad science (e.g. a study that deliberately ignored some of their data, as in the study using fruit flies that is the source of the myth that concludes that men are evolutionarily more predisposed to promiscuity) or studies that did not recognize their own limitations (e.g. the studies that concluded that women were more risk-averse, which only addressed certain kinds of risk that were not equally likely in each gender due to cultural influences). Source: Testosterone Rex.

Thus while I have heard, and have no reason to disbelieve, that more exposure in the womb to testosterone results in a longer ring finger relative to pointer finger, I am highly dubious of the claim that (a) there is a "masculine brain" and (b) that higher testosterone exposure is going to e.g. reduce someone's ability for empathy. Brains are complicated. Society is complicated. We have only begun a rigorous scientific study of humans (biologically, psychologically, socially) in the last 10-100 years, so it shouldn't be surprising that we don't have it all figured out yet. And psychology is the reason I included 10 in the range, because until the last few years it was widely considered acceptable to throw out the outliers in your data, aka p-hacking, resulting in our current reproducibility crisis in the social sciences.

Also you assume that there is no bias in the MBTI data, which is rather suspect. If there is truly evidence that women are more likely to be Fs and men are more likely to be Ts, I would look first to socialization and culture as the reason. However I strongly suspect that the reason this would show up in the reported results is that the tests are written in a biased manner such that women are more likely to answer as an F and men as a T, given societal influences.

Re this, for those who are curious: It can be shown via statistics that historically a male will have a greater chance of having >0 offspring in a given year if he has sex with only one partner multiple times, compared to many partners on the order of once each. To not get too bogged down in the details, the general idea is that at any given moment most women couldn't get pregnant, and data suggests that human males are not more attracted to human females at times when they can get pregnant, thus they are ~randomly sampling from the population, etc etc the point is that the idea that men are naturally more promiscuous than women is based on bad science, read the book I linked for more info.

Tl;dr: I think the fingers/testosterone correlation may be real, but that we have no scientific basis for extrapolating and making claims about the personality traits of the humans attached to those fingers.

http://www.amazon.com/Personality-Types-Using-Enneagram-Self-Discovery/dp/0395798671/ref=pd_sim_b_1?ie=UTF8&refRID=0QW0J2HS72X2DKKWB5Q3

That was the book I read on the Enneagram, and it went pretty deep into the downward spirals people can fall into, with a little about getting out of them. Reading about the patterns that people display made me more self aware about my own behaviors, the negative ones.

Once you figure out what your negative behaviors are, and you've got something you want to change, I would step out side of the MBTI network, so you're not limited in potential resources. Learning to exchange unhealthy defense mechanisms for healthier ones is just a matter of trial and error.

Honestly, the real problem here is that to complete a goal you need a starting point A, a finishing point B, and a path to connect the two. You have no point B because you don't know what you want to become. You have no point A because you're unsure of what to measure.

It is just way more efficient to fill in the path once you have your points. Asking for a path without those points? At best, everyone is going to fill you with well meaning crap that might not even apply to your situation. At worst you become a meandering wanderer who chases self help books and new age bullshit while they get further and further from solidifying an actual identity with every step.

You know there are many reasons why people commit murder. No joke, you should study that topic if it interests you instead of just passing on these very superficial insights. This book was recommended by some psychologist dude I know.

Also if you want to really be technical about it don't blame Thinkers blame (young) males they murder and get murdered at 10x the rate of females. Except for black American females who get murdered as often as non-black males, and black males who get murdered 10x more often than non-black males, usually by other young black males.

Gee I feel like Americans should have a discussion about this as all this negroe murder is raising the U.S. murder stats way above other countries like Canada and the lower-class black community is suffering. But for some reason you're considered slightly racist just by mentioning all of this because it draws attention away from the white racist boogeyman. Americans sure are weird.