Sign Up | Log in |

Scotty MBTI

Myers Briggs type and personality details of 'Scotty'
Scotty MBTI type
Realm:


Category:
Politicans and Leaders

Part of:
Personality Databank

[Personality Databank MBTI list]

TOTAL MBTI VOTES: 82


INTP - 39
INFP - 17
ESTJ - 13
INTJ - 4
ISTJ - 4
INFJ - 2
ISFJ - 2
ISTP - 1

[Famous INTPs]

Log in to vote!

TOTAL ENNEA VOTES: 42


5W4 - 17
4W5 - 11
6W5 - 5
9W1 - 5
3W4 - 2
5W6 - 2

[Famous Enneagram 5]

Log in to vote!

Old (unmoderated comments)

Okay. @shahenshah all-in is fighting to get it French again x)And the French side is looking very un-French. Well I guess this is what these PD profiles have devolved to. Oh well, it's entertaining@scotty Are you "Neutral Party" XD If you are then GET A FUCKING LIFE.

MBTI type of Scotty

. . .

Find out about Scotty personality type

. . .Information about Myers Briggs Type Indicator of Scotty. . Make magic functions great againScotty, My dear.Which of the 16 personality types is Scotty?. Make magic functions great againYOURE LITERALLY A FUCKING MONKEY GO BACK TO AFRICA YOU FUCKING GORILLASTFU YOU YARD APE PIECE OF SHITSomething about not being Ti, what that was supposed to mean I don't know though. when did i say you were not intp. Join me Scotty. . . I guess I fell right into your trap then, is that more aspie or retard. Pick one. I'm glad you appreciated it. And "humour" is setting off my spellcheck. Nice aspie humour. I wasn't referring to the literal sense of the word, as you already know. Nope, not buying it no friends, try again. Entertaining purposes, stupid fuckerYou were all over me this morning FAGGOT so don't sass me. What type of woman do you think I am. Give that to your whorish online girlfriends@scotty I apologize for Bonita's cuntiness. She's a cookie cutter, Starbucks drinking, Ugg boots wearing basic ass bitch. Autistic bitch misleading the retards about my voice recording. Always makes about him. Unhealthy inferior Fi. ESTJ. Yeah, I think so. I trust his INTP typing but he comes very ISTJ-Ne ish to me. The way he comes across online makes him appear ISTJ subtype Ne. Are you talking about my letter-to-functions mapping. The problem I have nowadays is with axis typing and that is mainly because all evidence seems to show that functions don't come in pairs (you are on one axis or the other). Looking at scores from Dario's function test that I've seen posted, it is really an extreme rarity to see someone actually appear to fit on an axis, defined by having either the top two perception or judging functions being opposite. You really have to be gullible to think that people work like that. If that makes me an ISTJ 6 then so be it, but I know that ISTJ doesn't fit me at all from really any definition. 6w5 reasonings are linear and one dimensional as it first. You follow your one dimensional function order and typing by dichotomies, which is another one dimensional framework, which later you develop to the environment. You don't seem to trust most of this site things such as spams or alt accounts, which often are made by one dimensional as it first but later developed reasonings. After all, your way to talk or respond is purely some kind of counterphobical 6 that makes us think that your gut fix is 1. I'm still curious about Scotty's ennea because the more I read him the more I see him as a 6w5. lord scotty trascends. Hey, Scotty, when does the bunny will return. I don't like this new avatar. :-(Scotty, even you disappointed me and making me to shame, you are my son; you are a Lannister. I hope you vote for my friend TrumpScotty - The best INFP retardad who think is INTPI got used to the funny bunny. you do not really learn it. Really, I'm tired of explaining to you, your retarded autistic. If a bloody INTP is bum, lazy and with maturity begins to stop neglecting the repressed feelings and now has more responsibility is because the fucking Fe and Si are influencing of the shit development of INTP, your unlimited idiot. You use arguments ''magic function'' because you is a moron who does not accept different arguments, you just think that if a ISTP start to be interested in abstract subjects and strategy you will simply say that it is a INTx because the damn stereotype, fuck you your fool. As for why I call function magic "magic", it's because falls in the same trap as astrology or palm reading or other forms of magical thinking. It creates conclusions/outputs that have no business being made from the available facts/inputs. . . maybe. Probably Sp/SxMy problem with function magic is mainly due to it leading to incorrect conclusions. For example, you have someone take a MBTI test and get INTP or figure out that Ti and Ne make sense for their top two functions. Or in reverse, you can't figure out if someone is INTP (Ti-dom) or INFP (Fi-dom) so you check to see if they have more Fe-ish (INTP) or Te-ish behaviors (INFP), and then as a result use that label to invent facts about them (that they are Thinking or Feeling dominant). It's not a matter of being down-to-earth but rather being accurate and coming to accurate conclusions. If someone's religion is telling them to drain their blood to cure cancer, should we "respect their beliefs". What about a 641 tritype. Using a language that is not your main can lead into unconscious redundance. I think 6w5 for Scotty is a really good point and I have to agree. Not to say, but he gives me a strong ISTJ vibe, thing that could be explained by the 6w5. ''Sixes are the ultimate doubters. The core of type six is that they are out of touch with inner guidance. They are habitually uncertain about things they have every reason to be certain about. They seek out substitutes for their inner-guidance that they can reference internally for counsel, direction and advice. Under stress, they have no trust in their ability to independently know and compulsively fixate on demanding proof. I think Scotty could be more of a 6 really. 6 often have that insecure emotionality to them that Scotty might mistake for being a 4. There's also a strong lack of respecting other people's individuality regarding what typing system they choose, all in the name of being down-to-earth. And between 4w5 and 6w5 it's clear which enneagram would rather be seen as down to earth rather than imaginative. And honestly I don't think 4w5 INTP is possible like 5w6 INFP isn't possible. As far I understand, 4w5 corelates with strong Feeling, 5w4 with strong Intuition, and 5w7 with strong Thinking. Scotty, i'm ESFP with Te developed. You who tink that is funcion magic because YOU is the bitch of Jung theory. There's a bazillion sites that give regular MBTI tests by the letters, but not CT. CT is special because they test for presence of tertiary and inferior functions and use that as a criteria for typing. Anyway I guess I think I know where this will lead. Unending circles. Again, not tackling the problem. Using deflections. That doesn't suggest that typology is BS, that's your unproved assertion which i am asking you to prove. Calling them out on their bullshit on their own site will discourage what you call their fellow magicians. You've plenty of time, ample vocabulary and sure ideas to argue them. I think your unwillingness only shows that you're unsure of your own self. All sites like traffic, what's the point. You don't look like someone who'd shy away from a small challenge. That's why I'd rather just talk about this stuff on neutral grounds and hope that eventually people come to their senses and CT's popularity shrivels away. Jeez, the drama. Who gives a fuck what the correct typing thingy is. As long as the language used is universal and people are having fun it's all great. Fucking scholars. 'MERICA. Jesus every other page on this site is filled with anti-CT stuff. If he is so confident he should argue them actually. @scotty Their comment section is public, you have ideas, use them there. . See you can then demonstrate how functions are magic and that Myers attempt to convert that magic into something credible is much better than the underlying theory. You've all the firepower ready, I just wish you use it on them. I have problems with CT too but honestly all the anti-CT stuff I see is mostly hot air. I have yet to see a well argued dismantling of CT. And the function magic IS very important to cover, because it is the foundation of their tests. Their type tests actually look for the PRESENCE rather than the ABSENCE of inferior functions, which gets it ass backwards. Anyway, even in their "MBTI for Skeptics" article, they fall back on MBTI (the letter based test with 4 dichotomies) in most cases when it comes to defending "MBTI" from stuff like accusations of it being bullshit. The empirical backing of the letters does not back function magic. But the flat out false thing is stuff like "INTPs will demonstrate more 'Si' than ISTPs or INTJs"@bobnickmad: I'm not defending the scientific validity of MBTI. It is an imprecise measure of human behavior, this has been extensively empirically proven. For example it truly seems to be the case that Ne users move their eyebrows a lot when they talk. If every disagreement about someone's type or what a function means ends with, "Well, that's just your MBTI system," though, how can I know that I'm not just seeing Ne to unconsciously protect my eyebrow theory. You could always write your arguments here and I could argue on your behalf. How about that. You are aware it's no UFO theory. Instead of being dishonest with yourself, you should actually tackle the problem face on. You're constantly strawmanning them. They are aware of limitations of their field. Yes typology does have problem, you're assessment of it as complete bullshit is rather controversial. You and CT guys can debate it out and demonstrate how their way is bullshit. No, it's like if I made a site about UFOs and had one page on there talking about how dubious their existence is, and then built the rest of the website around detailing some space alien conspiracy involving UFOs. Self-aware bullshit spew is no better than self-unaware bullshit spew. So. . . You'd rather repeat your comments here than send them packing with your irrefutable case. I hear you. How's that. Their "on record about their views" page makes it pretty clear that they are aware that what they are writing about is bullshit, and the rest of the site makes it pretty clear that they write about it anyway. So you have time to rehash the same statements against on all pages of MBTI Databank but you can't find time to write one cohesive comment on their website. Sounds absurd to me. But sure. They are on record about their views on nature of typology & Jung quite clearly. Straw-manning them in a place where they can't even defend their position isn't a sign of integrity either. They are not worth my precious time. You have all the reasons to engage those fools. Seems a bit dishonest to me that you're unwilling to demonstrate your claim. I'd watch out for your comments on their page I shared though, in case you reconsider not chickening out. Anyone with a working brain can see the foundations of their function magic are astrological/anecdotal. Interest in something does not make it not bullshit. I can understand how typology isn't perfect or a hard science at all but calling it astrology demands a proper demonstration. "CelebrityTypes function magic does not hold up to actual scrutiny any better than astrology" - In that case I'm sure you'll be able to demonstrate how. @scotty, it's definitely not complete BS, there is enough in it to keep generations of scholars and general public interested in it, seems like you've personal stakes against them but that isn't my concern. To call them on their BS however, you should try engaging them in a discussion or debate, that link's comment section is a good place to start. CelebrityTypes function magic does not hold up to actual scrutiny any better than astrology. You can observe people and see for yourself if the model satisfies your observations, but since this is not done in a systematic, rigorous way, you can only defend it for yourself. But since people observe people through their own subjective lenses, you can claim it's objective evidence. @ruby I'd even go as far as to say CT recognizes their system is complete bullshit, but they also realize that there is a sucker born every minute. So, MBTI is not empirical. As far I can see, one can defend functions the same way one defends philosophical assertions. So, in order to deal with MBTI functions, the best way is 1) to recognize that it's not objective from a scientific perspective. If one is ok with that, 2) we should then try to see if it rests on a logical, step-by-step basis. :Cognitive functions and Buddhist schools). @bobnickmad, I'd rather say nothing than a mess of information which hasn't been shown to have any validity. If people shifted their attention to writing more about letters, you'd have plenty of stuff to read. As for Big 5, it hasn't really made it into pop psychology at all, but people do write about it. Lol, I'm definitely behind Anti-Scotty. Anyway, what I mean with objectivity is that though you might never be able to absolutely determine someone's type forever, some function descriptions, some arguments, etc. You can't just make up whatever. Scotty is probably an INFP with Si developed that demonstrates a inferior Te very aggressive and chaotic. Scotty fears the different and only trust the same authorities Jung - being that it was not 100% sure and there several neuroscientific theories that demonstrate how the brain is constantly cognitive change - typical demonstration Si acting against Ne. My problem with stuff like The Big 5 or typing people by the letter (I vs E, S vs N, T vs F, J vs P) is that it seems pretty pointless. Ok, I already know that, what's the point of taking a test to reconfirm this stuff. The same with typing people by letters. Do I need to explain why this feels very wrong to me. So, except for other people to decide your worth on them in a shallow manner, with what they help you as a person. Also, the functions can be individualized. Two Fi users can have very different values and see themselves in different ways, two Ti users can have very different logic frameworks in which they judge the world. So, the function's big problem is a question of proof, while the Big 5 and MBTI by letters the problem is a question of usefulness. @Xavi, they aren't *invalid* so much as *limited*. And I have done that, and you can too. You don't have to discard things completely. The main practical use I see for MBTI is as a tool in the workplace and elsewhere for being able to take a certain test which explains personality diversity in somewhat simple terms. And it has a huge advantage over Big 5 because it is way more popular/widespread/known and its axes are much "nicer" in word choice, so people won't build superiority complexes about being more "conscientious" or whatever. If they are to transpose their test score into function magic interpretations, they will end up with tons of misinformation, because a different process is assumed for the function magic descriptions (typing based on functions) versus the method they used to type themselves (based on the test). I understand what you mean scotty and I agree. I had long discussions on this subject. Typology on the internet, on CT, even official MBTI is full of flaws, ungrounded claims, studies that don't match up with rigorous methods of statistics. We should also ditch the claim that it has scientific validity and use it as a tool for entertainment as I do. It's a perfect reality check for function magicians who may be deluded into thinking that INTPs have more "Si" traits than INTJs, for example. @Xavi, I was never claiming that it was super scientific. Only Anti-Scotty (Butterfly) was strawmanning me about that. What isn't a tangent is that this observational study actually provides a grounding in reality. Properly used data can help clear out the bullshit that has brewed from countless iterations of rehashing function magic theories, and everyone coming up with their own interpretations of function magic. You both are intelligent and more than capable of intelligent discussion. For me though typology is a dead subject. Scotty that is an original source, that's correct but it's not known for validity. Believe me I've asked around. It will never be scientific sadly. Ah typology is at best a general insight into very general outline of people's psyche. Types can't be proven and therefore traits and functions stacks can't be made for them. It's all for fun mostly. People fighting over how valid their way of typing is quite funny. You're wasting energies on a dead subject. Probably never will. Use Big 5 for scientific measures. Imams of truity however can tell all of your traits in 15 minutes just for a few dollars with a claim that it's 100% scientific, empirical, provides 72 virgins. It's a good deal for believers. I am just questioning how valid that supposed observation is. How actual people self reporting these positive traits is even half truth. Seems like a cult that guarantees affirming all it's followers just a few dollars. Not bad if you need such affirmation. What is hilarious are the double standards you use, firstly ridiculing an observational study for a) not being "scientific enough", and b) for the site its results are mirrored on, and then a few minutes later go on to wonder why people aren't more into Jung's ramblings. It's an observational study I assume, which is not perfect, nor the absolute truth (which you will continue to strawman me about). . . Organisations pay these people to tell how "creative", "organised", "commanding" their employees are. Things they could access on their own btw. I also love how people reject Jung's books because they are "bullshit" in favour of it's simplistic bullshit in form of MBTI manual that's designed to please people with an aim to squeeze the money out of them. Then again most "MBTI test" sites are full of these positive affirmations. Myers study has no scientific validation but because it suits your faith, it is the truth. I haven't seen one critical affirmation of the study. It is used by truity and similar sites to attract people who seek positive affirmation. Pay a hefty sum and they'll tell you how incredible you are. Truity is just a mirror of Myers studies. Why do you insist on bringing up the mirror's name. I agree you. Church of CT with it's hocus pocus has nothing to say in front of truths of Truity. Where is the research backing of CelebrityTypes function magic. NOWHERE. Of course. CelebrityTypes just invents its own truth from function magic which often times is in direct conflict with reality. The only thing I endorse on Truity are the Myers studies which it lists nicely at the end of each type description. And it's completely free. Gods of topology have revealed themselves. Winds of faith blowing. Infidels must be destroyed. You mean sites like CelebrityTypes, who take money from their faithful and feed them bullshit in return. CelebrityTypes mainly just rambles about their astrological function magic, and you can pay to see how their resident monkeys typed additional celebrities along with a side of fact-free content. Truth is with the imams of Truity (and similar sites) though. There is also a guarantee of 72 virgins after death. CT church wouldn't survive with it's infidel idolaters. @butterfly : I think you didn't get well my point . Where is the objectivity in MBTI . People use different tools to type , so what's the objective judge in all that . Saying "there are typings objectively better than others" means either there is this objective consensus evidence based or there ultimately is this sure typing that the more you are close to the better the typing is. What i always say is, an insult is only one when the person attacked feels insulted. We shouldn't fall into a tactic old as humanity. Evidence climbing up for ESFJ actually. I find scotty gregarious, cheerful and a people's person. No, that's how I see you. Like when nobody is on this site and everybody's sleeping, you walk among people's pages, climb on arguments columns, and sleep on profile pictures. He could be ISFJ imo. Huh. If you think that is an example of you understanding people then you are just wrong. Try again. You know, that cat that goes in the kitten's door, walks on the furniture, sleeps on the cushions. Like this site was made so Scotty could have a place to hang around. What has more importance is for Scotty to have a site he calls a home. I don't think 99% of scotty's votes are INxP. @butterfly consistency is idiosyncratic in a world of inconsistency, and I understand your bullshit system (which is NOT MBTI) perfectly fine. It is you who has a bias AGAINST typing people as certain types, in fact a strong bias against INxP, because you type by some really stupid stereotypes rather than anything even remotely systematic, and then justify your stereotyping by your OWN idiosyncratic mess (pot calling kettle black anyone. Scotty: The Showdown. I think scotty's J and S are his strongest dichotomies. I think you're mixing certainty with objectivity here. I'm not saying it's necessarily possible to know someone's type for sure when I say there is objectivity, and quite often I argue for humility, for example when I say Murakami may very well be an INFJ for various reason - or even just how I set up my arguments. Evaluating and judging people is just HARD. I also agree with you that a lot of the additions to MBTI, like lower function grips and physical cues, are dubious, but the reason I've come to trust the parts I do is because I have had so many experiences where they seem on the spot and many agree with me and rely on these cues as well. My problem with Scotty is that he rejects a lot of the most commonly accepted additions to MBTI, like tertiary and inferior functions, and adds things like that an INTP is going to have more Te than an INFP. Upon doing this he will RIDICULE the commonly accepted stuff (and people who use it [for example referring to me as an insect and astrologer on multiple occasions]), displaying and freely admitting that he does not understand any of it properly (which is what I mean when I say he doesn't understand MBTI). He does occasionally have the interesting, useful insight though and he definitely does provide a unique perspective. Socially he's also a fun, interesting and vital part of this community. ^^I don't agree with the "Scotty doesnt understand MBTI" or "is bad at reading people". In my sense he perfectly understands what MBTI is and after having seen the obvious flaws (at least with the typing way "commonly" known) chose to adopt a particular attitude to reduce them to a minimum. I've seen you state several times that objectivity exists in MBTI butterfly. I must disagree. Meaning, there should be a standardization of knowledge among typers. Instead of that, there are too many disparities, people learn MBTI on their side, and do theories on their side. And since MBTI is a whole theory, if we want to be consistent with ourselves then we should use it at it purest form, but if im not mistaking what is widely spread today is a model with other people add-ons. (like type dynamics). If i'm not mistaking, it is even said that the only means to be sure of someone type is through professional test. To respond already to INFPs' favorite argument about "objectivity in subjective areas" (from my experience IRL or on other forums ) : i do agree there are specific cases where objectivity might exist , just like Einstein or Napoleon for example. There are many nebulous cases where honestly, who can say which type is better "objectively" . ( trick question, the answer is no one, if someone can say by himself this is better than this then it isn't objectivity, objectivity doesnt come from people, it comes from the outside world). INFP's that are created by TJ's tend to be rather narcissistic, psychotic and Nazis like me. I'm proud to be a Machiavellian INFP. I hate people because all are stupid, empty, superficial and find the center of the universe. Pathetic . . . We are not special, we are only human beings made of rotten and weak organic material. These humans are unhappy that like to wear masks and enter the illusion that the system in the comfort just to satisfy us and leave the fear of cruel reality. I'm Nazi sociopath INFP and I identify a lot with Dylan. I hate people because all are stupid, empty, superficial and find the center of the universe. . . We are not special, we are only human beings made of rotten and weak organic material. These humans are unhappy that like to wear masks and enter the illusion that the system in the comfort just to satisfy us and leave the fear of cruel reality. I'm Nazi sociopath INFP and I identify a lot with Dylan. I hate people because all are stupid, empty, superficial and find the center of the universe. . . We are not special, we are only human beings made of rotten and weak organic material. These humans are unhappy that like to wear masks and enter the illusion that the system in the comfort just to satisfy us and leave the fear of cruel reality. I'm not sure if you're actually serious, but anyway: Imo it seems like Scotty has his own system (Ti+Ne) and since people don't respond to it, he gets mad and expresses it childishly by being difficult and douchy (Inferior Fe). You're making it sound as if INFPs are incapable of having discussions without turning into nervous wrecks. They have some of the highest average results in the school system and professions best fitted for them is stuff like college professors and psychologists. It's only compared to types like INTJ an INFP is "too passionate". Te of INFP's serve as individual supplement and little external focus. Briefly speaking, Thee to INFP serves to organize more to himself than to organize the inner world and control Fi. Te-grip INFP is honestly just a second-rate INTJ. They won't be doing anything absurdly wrong, and you won't really be able to tell what their real type is without extensive observation; they are just doing everything an INTJ is doing just slower and less of it usually, and they are miserable about holding all their feelings back and ignoring the ones of others. In fact we're nerds the lot of us. We have some of the best school results and stuff. The real blank-eyed, do-gooders are ISFJs, ESFJs, etc. INFPs are still intellectualists at heart and reasonably good at it. Not usually nurses and primary school teachers, etc. So I disagree that Scotty is INFP in any form or fashion. Their emotional life is largely unconscious and the average INTP gets by either awkwardly trying to rationalize social situations OR just "going with the flow" in a grossly hypocritical manner (Inferior Fe). I mean, this is the reason a lot of people find INTPs quite unpleasant. Since he is the only one who understands his ivory tower stuff, constantly going around adding new stuff to it, he can just fly around here, feel self-satisfied and call everyone stupid in childish Inferior Fe outbursts. *chirps some more*Scotty paints in other what sould be seen in own. Who said INTPs need to tolerate stuff that contradicts reality. I'm no sensor or judger, that much is for sure, you can try to work your function magic to your heart's content. He is pretty obsessive on measuring stuff up to "reality" and rejecting purely abstract concepts which is not how IxFPs act. OP should really take what's back from the abyss on the edges of itScotty's page definitely became something worse than expected. imgur. com/wa0yeUr. Scotty, fuck you, your racist who think N is more inteligent than S I am ESFP with Te developed and i gonna fuck your assScotty, fuck you, your racist who think N is more inteligent than S I am ESFP with Te developed and i gonna fuck your assScotty, fuck you, your racist who think N is more inteligent than S I am ESFP with Te developed and i gonna fuck your assScotty, fuck you, your racist who think N is more inteligent than S I am ESFP with Te developed and i gonna fuck your assScotty, fuck you, your racist who think N is more inteligent than S I am ESFP with Te developed and i gonna fuck your assScotty, fuck you, your racist who think N is more inteligent than S I am ESFP with Te developed and i gonna fuck your assScotty, fuck you, your racist who think N is more inteligent than S I am ESFP with Te developed and i gonna fuck your assScotty, fuck you, your racist who think N is more inteligent than S I am ESFP with Te developed and i gonna fuck your assScotty, fuck you, your racist who think N is more inteligent than S I am ESFP with Te developed and i gonna fuck your assScotty, fuck you, your racist who think N is more inteligent than S I am ESFP with Te developed and i gonna fuck your assScotty, fuck you, your racist who think N is more inteligent than S I am ESFP with Te developed and i gonna fuck your assScotty, fuck you, your racist who think N is more inteligent than S I am ESFP with Te developed and i gonna fuck your assScotty, fuck you, your racist who think N is more inteligent than S I am ESFP with Te developed and i gonna fuck your assScotty, fuck you, your racist who think N is more inteligent than S I am ESFP with Te developed and i gonna fuck your assScotty, fuck you, your racist who think N is more inteligent than S I am ESFP with Te developed and i gonna fuck your assScotty, fuck you, your racist who think N is more inteligent than S I am ESFP with Te developed and i gonna fuck your assStephen Hawking, is that you. I saw your cog functions in an image you posted here. Why that. I'm wondering what the fudge about offensive pages targeting Scotty, too. Search 'scotty' and see how much shit comes up. And that's just the stuff that HASN'T been deleted yet. I do agree with most of it. Pretty much, but those are more expectations of their strength, and the "average INTJ" is pretty much equal in everything within those tiers. Also you certainly can't expect all the functions on Tier 2 or Tier 3 to be equal. It differs between people, because not all INTJs are the "average INTJ". I like it because, like Socionics, it integrates all 8 functions into the model rather than handwaving away 4 of them as "shadow functions. "Basically, if my understanding is correct, Scotty believes that people have four tiers of equally-developed functions rather than a hierarchy from most developed to least developed. I'm very intrigued. Scotty, I found this paper that actually seems to support your 4-tier system, you may find it interesting: https://www. capt. pdfFugoff ENFP, I was here first. And as a presumptive ISTP, I'm a minority and I get special treatment anywayLol, what happened on his page. Scotty scotty SCOTTY. Come quick. . . . . . People now think you are me, scotty. You can tell them that's not true. Shut up INTP loser and bow to ENTJ greatnessThis used to be a quiet, peaceful place with interesting discussions and respectful disagreements. Lately it has all gone haywire. Check "recent inscriptions" and figure. Possible spamming: 5 ESTJ votes. . . . Perhaps more facts about you. The question that should be posed is: what does one use MORE of, Ti or Fi. Types are not binary. One can display Fi traits despite displaying more Ti traits. Sheep-like behavior is the mechanism. The people follow. I meant of course adult ADHD. ESTP kids are ADHD poster boys of course. What does that make them. Also my focus in typing bias doesn't stem from unfairness, but from that the way people type here doesn't match at all with MBTI test results. My reactions are more of impatience and a low attention span (I have been considered ADHD), than of a cognitive preference. Also it is tough to relate my logic because it is internal and not pre-packaged. :PScotty's strong reactions are Te ("How can't you see it. ") and his typings are about fighting stereotypes which is Fi stuff ("yet another proof consensus is just sheep-talk"). The running assumption in this thread notwithstanding, this doesn't preclude scotty's being logical or being nice (all types can be both). Most of his arguments are good especially when he engages with the other persons' viewpoints as well. If he manages to keep his cool and engages in these discussions with less seriousness he'll do great. Just a suggestion. I can see INTP. Scotty seems like a good guy, to bad he can be such a spiteful, mean bunny at times. youtube. com/watch. He reminds me of many INTPs I know. INTPs are not robotic logic generators, but usually are really funny, fluid and assured in their ways of thinking (not in their way of believing or conviction like Fi users). Scotty is INTP with Fe developed. He no shows traces of Fi and Te; He shows no strong idealism in the comments and when it unfolds and demonstrate different options gives it does not use objectivism or sarcasm as many INFP's tend to do; He simply tries to expose the logic of his argument and there is no extreme changes when someone is talking about something he does not agree. However, it is noted Fi coming from his comments when he disagrees with something or think you read something wrong, which is not like Scotty,This asshole made the whole page bold. . . If there really is a preferred function they will speak for themselves leaving no need to look at inferior functions. But I don't know much on this matter so feel free to correct me. There is little to no research on them for the moment on cognitive functions. Only a handful of people like Dario Nardi are taking this approach. PS: I think it's possible to use some kind of axis model without going full retard on FM. Re: function magic. Your strong functions are going to repress their opposite weaker opposite functions. FM is using presence of a naturally repressed function as justification for a type, or absence of that function as a justification against a type. Self-identified INTJs are generally more Si-ish than INTPs, and INFPs are generally more Fe-ish than INTPs. You could go and claim a vast amount of people are mistyping but when the vast majority of people type based on an MBTI test, you end up with a huge rift between function magicians who have their own idea of how types work, and people who take the test. @iamjoey well you did say you have high amount of Se, so ESTP isn't way off, right. Maybe because whoever it was just read this: http://mbti-databank. com/index. php. . . . . No explanation. The function axes make perfect sense but Scotty would rather use the word ''function magic'' in a very condescending manner to feel superior to anyone who doesn't accept his system. As an inferior function, Te originally manifests as the inability to set one’s external desires or plans into motion. As Te matures, the user finds themselves steadily more able to source the resources they require to make their dreams a reality. The inferior-Te monologue (prior to maturation): “I have many goals I want to accomplish but often have trouble tangibly setting them into motion. I fear being perceived as incompetent by others. As Fe matures, its user will feel increasingly comfortable making and keeping emotional commitments to others, as they grow more confident in what is expected of them. The inferior-Fe monologue (prior to maturation): “Feelings make me freeze with anxiety because I don’t know how to moderate them. ”Even if he shows Te-users behaviors, I think his Fi behaviors only comes on stress, as I said, he has very Fi-ish threats, but, If we come with something deeper, INTPs can develop very well their superego functions, and, show them in stress/shadow behaviors, thats what could happen with his Fi, the fact that he comes very pissed off is really threaten by a 'undertaken function that comes like a zombie'(. ). It is senseful. He's really passionate about his typing method and he even show unassertiveness and passive-aggressive behaviors sometimes but he doesn't lose the logical point and he comes very pissed off when illogical typings appears. 20 foot hurdle to jump over for an INTP but some goofy thing about "personal attachment" which might as well be a fabrication that he accepts as reason for being Fi dom. @Jamz, why would an INTP be expected to discard a tighter method. " I somewhat agree with you. I remember a now-deleted comment on H. P. Some of of the people on the 5w4 page who claim that INTPs are more likely to be 5w6 also demonstrate these kinds of stereotypes in their reasoning. However, I'd say these people are in the minority, and the majority of users on this site seem to have a good understanding of INTPs, from my experience. I think he cares a lot about his typing method to a personal level while an INTP would be more doubtful and discard his method faster( maybe to a fault). But anyways we really have no reason to doubt him that much. It is. The more models we use the the closer we get a picture to reality because every model has limitations. And also the mbti and enneagram measure different things anyways. INTP 4w5. . . Also, there IS evidence of inferior Fe, and it being overactive (which fits perfectly with INTP 4—as a 4, his Fe fused with his Ti and turned it into pseudo-Fi). This explains his belligerence and temper when people question his logic, and also explains why he's extremely dispassionate in every other circumstance. Ironically, while in nearly every other case I object to Scotty's use of the word "function magic," it seems like some of you guys actually are applying function magic to Scotty himself so as to avoid the pseudo-contradiction of an INTP who isn't cool-headed or Socratic. If he is an INFP, where is the Fi evidence. I made the same mistake earlier in the thread but corrected myself, realizing that what I interpreted as Fi was actually an individualist, hotheaded manifestation of Ti. Additionally, the notion that an INTP wouldn't use facts and statistics to justify propositions is absurd. theory; it's fact-then-theory (object -> subject) vs. theory-then-fact (subject -> object). No need to move the goalposts and proclaim the impulsive reliance on facts a result of overactive inferior Te—inferior Te necessitates Fi, and there's little definitive evidence of Fi. Scotty doesn't seem like he's in the grip of Te; he just seems too impatient to explain his system in depth. I see a clear difference between his offshoot and Moolfreet's in that Moolfreet's system is fluid and alters itself arbitrarily to fit the specific individual, while Scotty's system is rigid and generalized, hence why he objects to in-his-view "edgy" typings. The typings that don't fit his theory reliably and consistently (i. e. Then you are probably an INTP with strong traces of Fe. It really notice that their arguments are to attempt to show the logic calmly and patient even with the debate developing rather, I believe a INFP to expose your main idea and realize that it is being ignored would end up exposing more Te and speak more objectively and could even use sarcasm. When in reality they actually share a lot with people of the 15 human types. I relate to both Ti and Fi, but Ti more. . . @Scotty, INFP's and INTP's may look like a lot, especially if the INFP is more assertive and promote knowledge that is usually the Ti function is more common inside. If you have a strong idealistic value in what you do and see as something transcendental for yourself where will dispertar enormous feelings of satisfaction to be able to do, it's because you're probably INFP. If you are still in doubt, read this: http://mbti-notes. tumblr. It was an over the top reaction to someone (not on this site) who was using Te really stupidly and frustrating me with it. All just externalized logic that was disconnected not only from itself, but from reality and trying desperately to tell me I was wrong about something when I wasn't while twisting themselves in logical knots. I agree that an INFP is more likely to get angry at Te users but an INTP can too for different reasons. When you talk about "inferior Te" you are, at the very least, typing him IxFP. " Bobnickmad: "Imo, lower Te makes more sense than Ti-dominance. "Manecleis: I don't know what you're talking about, I never did type Scotty anything. Hence why I found the INTJ hypothesis interesting. Scotty is like a INxP he definitely uses Ne-Si - observe trends and think about the possibilities and make connections within the frame but hardly accepts exceptions. It is more common Fi's hate Te function than Ti's. Ti understand that Te is necessary for development, Fi understands Te as something ''cruel and evil'', the way Scotty does. ) So, I guess Scotty is a well-articulated INFP within what he likes. You can use it as a hint or whatever when you treat it like what it is: an inferior function. And since I must repeat myself: where are the arguments for Fi and Ne. You have him typed as INFP, these have to be the main points. That's not logical. Scotty, the ISTP or INTJ hypothesis are actually interesting and worth investigating. Statistics are close to "in your face" evidence that do no fit INTP in my opinion, but I may be wrong. Manecleis, I disagree. Leaving Scotty's very personal view on how MBTI works/should work, I can't help but notice how intellectually dishonest it is to type him INFP when the lead argument is that he uses Te methodology and lines of reasonings (or at least that's how you interpreted the "statistics" he uses). Yup, INFP's inferior function, people, so in short, their "blindspot" in decision-making processes. Otherwise, you're just giving a bunch of bullshit and trying to confuse the hell out of him for no reason. Honestly, the goal for me citing statistics is to provide potentially relevant data that people can use to adjust their thinking, not so much in the scope of the character being discussed, but in a more general sense too. I do value efficiency in that regard, but that is not unusual. That is just communication. I've actually had someone practically yelling in my face about how I am an INTJ due to how often I do so. I don't *feel* like an INTJ at all but this person was convinced that I fit the full model. I think the 3 test results I have obtained are: INTP, INFP, ISTP. Never INTJ. . . And I build that much off analysis of my own cognition. I can't reconcile some of the most basic things about these 4 function kits with my own inner self. You're right, but you seem to make statistics the proof and basis of your thinking, in a very efficient way, when Ti would start from a very develop theory (not facts, even though observation plays a good part in it, it still is one's perspective) and use the numbers for what they are (just numbers) being able to make them say anything. I do see Te over Ti in your posts. But I'm not you and you probably know yourself. @thedude, it makes no sense to say statistics are not related with Ti. Because having incorrect beliefs is supposed to bother