Anyone willing to type me (again)?

You might not want my opinion since I typed you last time, but I'll list some signals I see.

J
-Te monotone articulation

-Te matter of factness

-Te blunt eyebrow raises

-Fi snarls

P
-Ne naïve eyes, deep in sockets.

-Si scowls

FiNe seems correct based on your reserved energy and lack of perk ups.

The type I identify most with is TiSe, so I am confused as to why my facial expressions come across as so FiNe (lol). I don't relate to Ne at all. However, I do get how people would see Te in my speech. Other types I have considered are ISFP and INTJ (I tested as INTJ on all the cognitive function based tests I've taken, though I know that doesn't mean much). Still, I am about 90% positive I have Ni and Se.

oh gosh, I was like "is that Ti or unseelie Fi?  " when watching the video in the morning. as weird as it might seem, i do find that they're mistakable in some cases. The lack of Fi emotional flow consuming the face also made me dunno Fi-lead and then I was saying to myself: 'morse, it's the unseeliness of the Fi that give off this effect'. I must confess that you look almost identical to a neighbor that I had as a child. She was an adult and I was little but I remembah her vividly (she was the mother of one friend in my building and I was sometimes in her apartment)... I am completely sure that woman was Ti-lead and alpha... and the resemblance really confused me (together with the whole picture). I don't think TiNe is impossible, even though your speech seems Te-monotonic and the shape of your mouth emits an Fi-snarl-about-to-happen-but-never-happening premonition. I'm completely sure of the Si/Ne function pair usage, though.

Out of curiosity what exactly do you mean by you can't synthesize multiple concept information? I think I relate but it sounds kind if vague.

I do agree that I used a lot of the stereotypical definitions. I realize that no specific behavior can really be completely linked to a function, but in my understanding of it based off of everything I've read about the functions, Se and Ni seems to describe the behaviors best. Like you said, Ne/Si people could engage in all the behaviors, but I think their reasoning and the intricacies of how they go about them would be different. Are there better descriptions of the functions than MBTI and Jungian theory somewhere?



Hmm...It's a bit hard to explain for me. I probably didn't word it well either. It's something I've mainly noticed with learning the sciences and having to remember all the details of a subject and then how it relates to another subject later on. Another example would be if someone is telling me a story and I am trying to get an understanding of what they mean, often times people will draw from many different aspects of the situation (how they feel about what happened, how it could have happened, why they think it happened, what it reminds them off, etc.) to tell the story. This leaves me confused and unsure of what they're trying to communicate.
If I want to know what happened, that's all I want to know. If I want to know how they feel about it, that's all I want to know. I don't really want to have to link the things together.

Thanks!
So just in reading the first post I do see what you mean. Some of the things I said sound more Ne/Si. However, I do feel strongly that I have to "explore" things in a concrete way. I don't like trying to make sense of abstraction. I also find the description of Ni's map like "fractal art" kind of meaningless (not to be insulting). It just doesn't click with me. I guess I am confused as to how this would actually look in reality? I am just not a very abstract person in general, so that's why I lean towards having TiSe.
One part that stood out to me is


This is something that often doesn't come out in my videos for whatever reason, but is something I notice myself doing all the time in person. I will look at something to the point that I've seen everything there is to see about it, and then zone out like what is later described for Ni. I don't feel like there is any internal searching going on. It's simply just looking at the object, and understanding the object. Once I've seen it, I feel like I know everything about it as a whole, even if I can't explain it tangibly.