Keirsey's Description of for knowledge. Some of them are so relentless in their searcRationals(NTs)

[Curtis24]

The Actual Difference Between Introversion and Extraversion

The Actual I/E Difference
I abstractly define it as "The desire and tolerance for tangible interaction." However, I believe that varies (If it's not absolutely obvious), and I believe whatever type is, is innate. An E is an E is an E, always, whatever their present mood. I believe it to be biological, and I'm not the only one: http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/199...runc_sys.shtml

I primarily post the above so that no one wonders if I have no idea what the I/E difference is, being that I've explained my conception of everything else. Others have explained the actual I/E difference (Which isn't as Jung or Myers, et al described) likely as well as I can.

+I've heard it described within the field of psychology as the "ease of stimulation." Introverts are more easily psychologically stimulated by external stimuli, and thus can't handle as much before blowing a gasket, so to speak.

I think most of the I/E thought differences are based on motivation. Firstly, the desire to interact with others can distract one from concentrating on a "problem." Second, the desire to interact with others will and does affect the type of "problems" one chooses to work on, and what he/she deems is an acceptable solution.

An ENTP is much more likely to search for an answer which could somehow improve their relations with others than an INTP. INTPs tend to search for horrible, ugly truths.

And here is some further info on the P-J axis:

Okay, let me give you some quick examples of allowance in my system which doesn't work in MBTI or Socionics.

-INTPs tend to be better at tactical, mechanical tasks like driving than INTJs. (This leads me to consider that Sensing may be higher due to the P preference, thus allowing a full order, say N-T-S-F for INTP, but I need to give it more consideration.)

-If you look at The N/S Diff., you'll see that I specify the tendency to concentrate on abstract concepts is "most noticeable" in NPs, and less so in (N)TJs...And, I got sidetracked and now I have to leave, so I'll get back to you.

[Curtis24]

The Actual T/F Difference
(I wrote this a few days ago. I totally don't lie on the couch anymore.)

I was just lying on the couch, analyzing what makes INTPs and INFPs different, and I believe I've figured out the actual difference between those who prefer T and those who prefer F: Complexity. (Respective complexity in logical and emotional processing, more specifically.)

It takes an F longer than a T to figure out if something is right or wrong, according to their values, because what they're using to process information emotionally is more complex, and grander, perhaps, than what the T uses in emotional processing. The emotion-based conclusions an F comes to will often be beyond the grasp of a T--indecipherable.

Similarly, the F will often come quickly to rather simple logical conclusions, whereas the T will perform a more complex, grander logical analysis, and come to logical conclusions quite beyond the scope of the F.

I'm sure you've noticed Ts instantly decide whether something is morally right or wrong, and move on, while an F insists on contemplating it further. And noticed Fs, upon being introduced to a complex, logical idea, say something like "Yeah, it could make sense," and be done with it.

Describing a difference (What I've done) is not the same as describing the cause of the difference. It is entirely plausible that there is something akin to a switch which is flipped T or F in everyone, which determines whether emotional or logical processing will be more complex in the individual.

I must concede to logic that any given decision must be the result of either logical or emotional processing.

Theoretically speaking, every tiny conclusion the brain produces is either like "X is correct/incorrect," or "X is wanted/unwanted." Logical, or emotional.

I'm sympathetic* when I care about someone, and so are a great many Thinkers.

*The real definition, I specify, since many are unaware of it.

I think it's an issue of complexity, just as I said in the OP. When I care for someone (Or an animal), I feel as they do, but likely not to the same level of complexity, if that person is an F.

Ideas are ideas, but the thinker will analyze them to greater complexity, on average, with respect to logic.

Okay, I think I've been able to integrate this with the OP, and my serial info. processing model, theoretically.

Imagine the consideration of a phenomenon--An idea, for example. It will be perceived, nearly continuously, for the duration of consideration. At many stages along the way, decisions are made about the phenomenon, judgments by both the Thinking and Feeling function. If the user has an F preference, more judgments will be made by Feeling. [Add: Potentially a great deal more, due to the "lean" of preference.]

Thus, the resulting notions will be more complex with respect to Feeling than with respect to Thinking.

Ethics would generally have logic involved in the creation, but the cause for each choice is always an F judgment. I happen to think some of the worst ethics ever followed or preached were developed by people with F preferences, however.

This is because forecasting (How do we achieve X goal?), if it is to be accurate, must be T-judgment derived. I've recently heard that serial killers make the best stock market analysts, because their emotional rationale (If even present) doesn't interfere.

Negative. T is the evaluation of what makes logical sense, and provides conclusions related to that. F is the evaluation of what one finds right, wrong, desired, or undesired, and provides conclusions related to that.

It's really a lot simpler than you think. Consider that for all intents and purposes, we use every function to think about anything.

Imagine the consideration of a phenomenon--An idea, for example. It will be perceived, nearly continuously, for the duration of consideration. At many stages along the way, decisions are made about the phenomenon, judgments by both the Thinking and Feeling function. If the user has an F preference, more judgments will be made by Feeling. Potentially a great deal more, due to the "lean" of preference.

Thus, the resulting notions will be more complex with respect to Feeling than with respect to Thinking."

Narrowing it down to T, according to me when things are built mentally, say "logical rule systems," it's T. It can be based on data input (sensing), or abstract analysis (intuition), or both. Once you decide "This creation makes sense," It's T output. Application is irrelevant.

Feeling is always emotion. Thinking is always logic. They are most likely both used during every conscious second in the mind of a "normal" person. Some people give more consideration to emotion, and some give more consideration to logic.

Yes, and it's entirely within the definitional boundaries of my system. Not to say many people act purely on emotion, but in a T it is of secondary relevance--given less consideration, typically.

It would mean, and it is the case, that in a situation such as this, I have an emotional impulse (F, always), but then rationalize and forecast (T, always). Which means my actions will have a noticeable Tinge to them.

I'm sure I will have to mention this here, as well (I normally wouldn't): Behavior varies. That is, a T will usually simply be more detached, but on occasion will act nearly directly out of emotion

We're all driven by emotion, but it's the T preference which makes me okay with irritating people now in exchange for better understanding of thought and behavior in the long run. Which I think will help society.

An analogy to illustrate bipolarity resulting from only a slight preference: If there is a suspended plane, and it's tilted only slightly to one side, it will still result in at least the vast majority of spheres placed on it rolling off that side.

I think we agree, but I think you don't know it. I claim that my analogy accounts for the T "impulsion" to judge logically, and it all ties in with my notion of respective complexity. Because the T will make more logical judgments over any typical timeline, his resulting notions will be more logically complex, and emotionally simple.

[Curtis24]

The Actual N/S Difference
'Twas on the couch, yet again, that I may have discovered a basic explanation of the practical difference between those who prefer N, and those who prefer S. Specifically, the ability to concentrate on abstract objects or ignore them, and the ability to concentrate on the physical world, or ignore it.

One who prefers Intuition will tend to concentrate on abstract concepts, even when that would interfere with some concrete task being performed.

One who prefers Sensing will tend to concentrate on the physical world, even when that would interfere with some abstract task being performed.

The above is most pronounced in NPs with respect to Intuition, and SPs with respect to Sensing. (TJs and FJs lie closer to the middle.)

Ns can usually understand both preferences, because it's essentially impossible not to notice the real world once in a while. On the other hand, a Sensor spends little enough time in, and has little enough interest in the abstract world that he tends to lack the ability to grasp what it actually means to prefer Intuition to Sensing.

Quite often, he equates N with intelligence, instead of "preferring another state of mind," and erroneously thinks that if he's intelligent, he must have an N preference. As stated in the OP, it's the draw which defines a person. An N may be skilled at some concrete tasks, and an S may be able to solve abstract problems.

But it is not the N's natural tendency to be keenly aware of detail, and concentrate heavily on the concrete world; And it is not the S's natural tendency to regularly divorce his consciousness from his senses, and occupy himself with vague, abstract concepts.

The N must usually make an effort to be in touch with reality, and the S must usually make an effort to ignore it.

I've said before that fiddling around with perfect systems is an ENTP trait. I don't agree with most of your assessments.

Realistic-Imaginative are 1, not mutually exclusive, and 2, not at all related to J/P. Consider the INFJ and the ISTP, as hard counterexamples to your hypothesis.

Practical/Conceptual is only tangentally related to I/E due to motivation. Es are slightly more inclined toward problems with easy, immediate solutions due to the satisfaction they will receive from others as a result of solving them.

Experiential/Theoretic is tied to S/N, with respect to tendencies. Though balancing heavily affects this. To counter your proposition, I present the 16-year-old ISTP and the 16-year-old INTP. As a rule, the S laughs at theory, and the N could take or leave reality.

Traditional-Original: No, it's not tied to J/P. Consider the INTJ. While his decisions tend to be tied together based on logical connections, he is not explicitly traditional, only tied to his own past. It's difficult for him to change his own positions.

Some more stuff about Introversion vs. Extroversion:

When I analyze Jung through his work, what I believe is that he realized there are obvious differences in the degree people seem to want to be around others, and tangibly interact with them. This, I state, is the fundamental I/E difference, which is independent of function use.

But Jung, perhaps in creative haste, assumed that the behavior and function use (information processing) were locked in a causative relationship. Maybe he didn't think twice about it, or at least didn't want to openly second-guess himself. He applied an E/I orientation to each function, and equated it with object and subject (Because we do interact with objects, and we are ourselves).

I am now confident he was in error. He failed to consider that I and E behavioral differences may be caused by something independent of information processing. I am confident they are, and as evidence I offer people like Isabel Myers, Isaac Asimov, Dan Ariely, David Keirsey, myself, and countless other Introverted Perceivers. We clearly focus on objects, including people, more than we focus on ourselves

[Curtis24]

I find a diagram on the Internet explaining how it would be correlated to Sheldon's scheme:

Asthenic: IN-
Athletic: ET-
Pyknic: ES-
-

Don't know if that correlates with Krestchmer, though I used his terminology obviously.

[Agrippa]

I find a diagram on the Internet explaining how it would be correlated to Sheldon's scheme:

Asthenic: IN-
Athletic: ET-
Pyknic: ES-
-

Don't know if that correlates with Krestchmer, though I used his terminology obviously.

Sheldon used the more pro-active and dynamic version, which is still rather schizothymic, for his mesomorphs, like I said, probably because he had a socially selected sample, while Kretschmer used more of the average people and psychiatric patients.

So ET is not typically viscoes, but could correlate with what Sheldon had in mind.

[Curtis24]

Right, this is more what I'm thinking represent the extremes:

Leptosome: INTJ
Viscoes: ISTP
Pyknic: ESFP

[Curtis24]

Actually, I now believe that N-S can't be correlated to body type or "progressiveness". It is both related to education as well as physical markers that haven't been identified yet. N(Intuition) also seems to be a very modern development, occuring only infrequently in the past.

Supposedly the Corded People were the most progressives to date. I doubt they were N or spent a lot of time in abstract reasoning. There were probably a bunch of ISTJs and ISTPs who had to focuse most of their time on their environment.