rather than discord with neo conservatives, vote here https://www.misterpoll.com/polls/626018

I'm still convinced on the ISFJ

0

no he actually changed in a very short period of time in the late 80s and went from calmly talking like that on shows to calling everyone incompetent, my point isn't that those are his actual values but that loud and dumb trump is an act

0

kinda weird that the loud, dumb retard who says whatever's on his mind was so great at feigning humility, intellect, restraint and a desire for a simple family life until the mid-late 80s happened.. what a psychopath!

0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lnrMpKqZtD0&ab_channel=CNN hmmm

0

Introvert: he's clearly handling the media well enough... (sarcasm)

Sensing: apparently sensing is an advantage in election speeches

Feeling: apparently people are starting to type based on literally, he's feeling more than thinking. After the wall, (facepalm) people still type him as a thinker trying to get publicity stunts/attention?

Judging: I'm sorry, he's too organized and lack the ability to really understand things

0

Perhaps enneagram 8 seems too ... exagerrating of his so called"dominance". I vote enneagram 7. I don't see eneagram 3, he has wealthy connections since birth, and someone with wealthy connections who is enneagram 3, would probably (never say anything as such notbenamed on Television). 

7
THE ENTHUSIAST
Enneagram Type Seven

The Busy, Variety-Seeking Type:
Spontaneous, Versatile, Acquisitive, and Scattered

Scarteered and spontaneous seems correct, since the last thing you could claim is that he is organized with his financial affairs or political affairs.

I also argue that his work ethic is a stress point arrow. Thus, his growth arrow is enneagram 5 - which means he would be better off if silent (keeping his mouth shut).

0

I think he desires both superiority and dominance. However, his actions over the past several years (and throughout much of his life) scream "GIVE ME ATTENTION" more than anything else imo. His boasting and willingness to adopt phony identities/spread false information to pander to people also seems more 3 than 8. Also how he has to turn everything into drama. I do think 8 is a very close second option though, I'll say that.

0

As a kid he was rebellious and conflictive, the other boys followed him as a leader, he even hit his music teacher once, so, he had no respects for authority. Due his behavior, he was sent to the military academy at age of 13. I think he is an 8 raised in a 3ish society, educated by his father with 3ish values. Bussines world is also a 3ish "place", so is not weird for him to be competitive, but he still being kinda authoritarian and too confictive. I don´t believe he wants to be better than others, but to feel he's over them (Dominance). 

0

couldn't have put it any better tbh thanks for always translating my dumbass jokes

1

Trump is a businessman before all else, focused on achievements and his own self-image/success. He clearly knows how to manipulate people by pandering to certain fears and desires. I highly doubt he even cares that much about much of the stuff he talks about; the whole “wall” thing is pandering to people who fear immigrants, the “Christian/pro-life” persona is pandering to evangelicals, and the “strong” persona is pandering to people who value strength and power as an important aspect of the country. He likely believes in some of the stuff he says, but a lot of it is obviously exaggerated or even fake. Like a 3, he knows how to be successful, and he will say whatever he needs to say and adopt any image he needs to adopt to get people to support him and maintain his following.

That's my interpretation of him, at least.

1

trump has always been loud (and bad) there is no evidence that shows he's just using the foundations of democratic elections to get more votes, he's just always been loud and dumb tbh (like all republicans haha) trust me his tweets are 100% serious too, what a disgusting (bad) person yikes

0

I agree with the last voter - ESTP and Enneagram 8.  Brash and "in the moment".

There's not a lot of evidence of extroverted intuition we can point to.  Extroverted sensing is more apparent.

The rest of the stack below from tman look right - so agreed on all those.

Which sounds correct to you? 

ENTP's are one of a kind, unique, fun, spontanteous, insistent, smart, enthusiastic, positive, spiritual, intuitive, social, creative and charismatic people.

ESTP's focus on action in the moment. They are engaged with their environments and solve practical problems quickly. ESTPs are excellent in emergencies, when they can apply their logical reasoning to situations where immediate action is necessary. Long-term goals are less interesting to the ESTP, who prefers to see tangible results in the moment.

0

He doesn't control his tongue, his speeches are aggressive and strongly believes in his ideas. He's an 8, too brutaly honest about what he think. 3s would be more worried about winning more voters in their campaign, being populist and more flattering, even thoug a w4, and his speeches would be very planned, as well as his reactions in debates, he would be so more responsive and with words full of glibness. 3s intellectualize their relations with people (they are disconnected from their own feelings). Trump is too reactive for me to be a 3 (basing on his tweets), but think is pretty obvious he has a component of it in his personality. 

0

Ne= often seems like he's inrupting himself, reacts imdeantly, comes up with ideas of the top of his head

Ti= dose what he thinks is a good idea

Fe= cars what others think good a playing to a crowd

Si= often dons't thinl through the pratical side of what he says

0

Has anyone given thought to INFJ 1w2 for Trump?

0

what a 6! he's turning this argument into sides by mentioning galaxy! Sad!

0

1. Oh please, I've interacted with you, Sleeper as well. You got very defensive over your type and would outright dismiss and insult people, it's there for all to see.
2. For one you have no proof, it's just something you created in your head and I debunked this "acting" excuse.
3. Except no it wasn't I actually went into detail, you didn't address my argument, simply asserted it was wrong. Even if what you were saying was correct you come in here with one thing as if that should be the deciding factor in this entire debate. Galaxy and I have brought up numerous points. If I addressed it and said how it's wrong than how am I dismissive? You did no such thing with me. You both just like to say "Oh you didn't understand my point" when I disagree with you, it's cowardly.
4. Word-salad omg. You need to give a reason why you think a certain thing. Idk why you think that you can just extrapolate things and that makes them somehow true. Spoiler-alert, it doesn't. I also don't understand why it is that when I give an explanation for a fact it is somehow invalid. But when you do it i.e Trump's "acting" it's all of a sudden a psychological phenomena or whatever. Difference is I actually explain, you just assert it's all an act despite the fact that I poked holes in that theory.

0

Idk why you people feel the need to constantly refer to me as PikUp, even if I was I don't understand why that would be relevant

0

Alright, I'm just not going to acknowledge you from now on lol

0

nah im boolin

0

Nice dicksucking on me, you obviously want my attention

0

Water is wet
0 [reply]
2018-08-02 12:30:16pm (post #2512)

nice dicksucking on galaxy though dollar

0

we live in a society

0

Again, I explained this. The presidency is a results-focused job. Not a freaking experience to be had. Again, you're just making shit up, this isn't something a rational human-being would say. It's something that an SJW with a bias towards Trumpo would say. Ok, so basically I tell you why I dismiss what you say and that makes me close-minded. You simply disregard my argument entirely and tell me I'm close-minded for disagreeing with you. Christ, the level of delusion. Yes, Kawaii because you are just the epitome of open-mindedness. You react with hostility towards anybody who disagrees with you and are dismissive, especially as it pertains to your type. Most people type me as an intuitive and sensor doesn't even mean close-minded. That's just you being close-minded. I even showed you a study releating to dogmatism in people high in openness and you just dismissed it as untrue because you didn't like it. I've asked her for evidence, I've pressed her on questions, Galaxy as well but Galaxy was cordial about it. She would simply act arrogantly and get angry. You're both dogmatic. Try again cupcake, you're still a feeler.

0

It's a job you idiot. Ofc anybody would be results focused. This is dumber than the argument that House is Te because he's a doctor. Percievers are also playful and spontaneous as Trump. You don't get to come in here with one bullshit thing and believe it decides the argument, try harder

0

That's because of Amazon. Someone who files for bankruptcy 6 times is certainly not anything remotely indicating J

0

bankruptcy is a precursor for P? its over for toys r us

0

Yes, like the 6 times he's filed for bankruptcy. Trump is the president now, he's in the spotlight more than ever. No shit you'd be more aware of his mistakes

0

ESTJ with very low J, this has probably been said before but look beyond all the antics as of recently and look how calculated he was before his rise to presidency

0

You'd have to have passed 4th grade first if you were to do that, you're overestimating yourself yet again. If you give me convincing evidence I will change my mind, you've yet to do so so I wont. You just expect me to take your word for it that you know more than me. This is a discussion. It not being a debate doesn't mean that you can just say anything. You're just playing word games at this point and gas-lighting cause as I've said time and time again you have no evidence, just your schizophrenic ramblings. I've read the entire discussion, even without context there's no excuse for trying to convince someone of something and expecting them to believe you without evidence. 

This is you trying to take the moral high-ground. Galaxy has kept his patience with you this entire time yet all you've done is talk down to and insult him, you're manipulative and I can see right through it. Spontaneity, inconsistency, and overall irresponsibility and slopiness is J? Give me a break. You're past the point of no return. Your justification for him actually being a J is a joke. You simply assert that he is acting, despite the fact that he has always been this way outside of the presidency. And you basically say that he makes decisions and is therefore a J which is just WOW. I think the fact that he changes his plans constantly and acts in the moment points to P or an "openness and changeability of ideas". Also give me a break with "edza" he's a clear J. Even if he's a P it's a very J-like one. He's awfully playful and witty for a J and that can't be planned beforehand. If he's so organized and planned than why does he make such obvious mistakes? Are you honestly arguing that that's part of his "artificial persona" or whatever? 

Stop doing it then. I didn't say this was a competition, I think you're plenty unreasonable but I can excuse that if it weren't for your rudeness, arrogance, and dogmatic attitude.

0

Dollar, the thing is that I’ve only been explaining exactly how what I’m saying is being misrepresented and this only shows that your reading comprehension skills are under par. I could try to dumb it down to an explanation a fourth-grader could easily understand but I’m neither obligated nor willing to do that for someone who is obstinate about holding to their views. Maybe ask someone else. I’m bored of doing that now. And just because I just about never agree with your opinions and can’t seem to ever change your mind (hint: it’s not because I’m incapable of convincing people, but because you’re willing to throw out logic in order to defend your opinions) doesn’t mean that I’m “the most close-minded and opinionated person on this site.”

Galaxy, I appreciate that you’ve taken the time to actually explain what your perspective is, and it does a good job of showing the disconnection. Post #2392 rides on assumptions about him based on something you’ve observed as behavior that indicates a P preference but what’s beneath is—contrary to what many people looking at him would believe—in fact J. What makes you think he would be a perceiver is what I would call insufficient because of #2387; there’s too much room there for him to still be judging and I insist that based on all that you and I have already proposed, he is more likely to have a judging preference. It might be strange to you that you’d look at “hazy P Trump” and think there’s a judger behind that, but that “hazy P” Trump isn’t enough to be sure of a perceiving preference. It’s like looking at Annie Clark and saying “that’s a perceiver” when she describes herself in a way that could only make you think she’s J. To that end, I am demanding of certainty and evidence, and you could interpret all this as me asking you to convince me he’s P given what I already know, but I recognize that I seem like I’ve closed myself off that way. The only way you could realistically convince me is if you brought forth the idea that my idea of J/P is wrong, and I’ve corrected you once on that already.

And please don’t mention “gaslighting” when I’m the one here trying to bring this discussion away from that. I’m relieved to see you not exercise what Dollar seems to be, which is seeing this discussion as a debate where two parties have unmovable opinions which will be backed up by everything thrown at them. This is a learning opportunity, not an arena to see who or what comes out on top and what doesn’t.

3

Are you high right now? You just claim to be an expert and to know more than others, you didn't respond to a thing I said and just claim that I'm "Misinterpreting" without explaining how and that I'm doing exactly what you said, again without explaining how. You aren't open to new ideas, gimme a break, you're the most close-minded and opinionated person on this site.

0

Very funny, Galaxy, considering you did exactly what I highlighted as a big problem in the way you argue—ignore the idea conveyed altogether and pick at details that don’t represent what the message is trying to get to you. You kind of didn’t even do that and tried to make a judgment on what I said without actually addressing any of it, and it’s really sad to me that someone who loves to talk about how focused they are on learning and openness and all that would do such a thing. And “your concession is accepted” is a classic, classic case of that anti-learning attitude where the objective wasn’t ever to discuss but to try and look like you “won” something. You might as well not have said a word in this thread and declared “You’re wrong, I’m right, and I win.” Just because you wrote some more words out doing exactly what you’d been doing doesn’t make your declaration look any more legitimate.

1

Your concession is accepted

0

Bravo! You did it again.

0

Aww that's cute, you think you have a point lmao it's like watching a 5 year old trying to learn trigonometry 

0

Hahaha yes very funny meme that doesn’t have anything important to do with the thread

0

Brilliant! What a splendid display of embodying just about everything I accused you of while still getting distracted from the main idea and going on with your nonsense. I truly mean it when I say thank you. I’m finally certain that both of you are knowingly or unknowingly intellectually fraudulent and I’m glad it’s been brought so clearly to light.

0

"Nothing yet?" That's projection if I ever did see it lmao. Evidence is giving somebody a reason to think something. It's not a buzz-word. It's something that is so crucial and basic to any sort of discussion that somebody who mocks the idea of it shouldn't be taken seriously. Also you're a hypocrite since you rag on about evidence when you have it and scold people for thinking anything that hasn't been objectively proven. You don't have a real argument so rather than be upfront about it you try and pass off these ridiculous schizophrenic ramblings of yours as something being worthy of respect. You try to present us as pseudo-intellectuals but all you're spouting is a bunch of word salad in a sad attempt to come across as intelligent. You're not doing any sort of critical thinking. You're just claiming to be an authority on the matter, giving us no reason to believe you and then scolding us for it. Only things that you're a professional at are being a gas-lighting pseudo-intellectual loser.

As for #2414 Your premises I don't accept as they are incorrect. See you're not actually arguing anything. You simply assert that he's a certain way and that anybody who thinks otherwise doesn't understand what they are talking about. You mock the idea of evidence. Nobody is asking you for that much, that was a straw-man. All we're saying is that "DERP I know a guy that knows Trump" isn't actual evidence. Maybe you do, maybe you don't, how should I know? If you can't see why we wouldn't simply take your word for it than you're simply an idiot though. Tell me sweetie, whose to say you aren't simply lying? Is it not in the realm of possibility? A high possibility even. People told you why he's a P and you just respond with "Derp seriously?" you did the same thing on the histionic personality disorder entry. You simply deny evidence to the contrary and act as if your personal extrapolations count as anything. Not only that, but you'll outright deny others as evidence.

"Agree with me or you're not thinking critically" Um no, you're manipulative, fuck off.

You change your mind constantly which just goes to show you don't know what it is you're talking about. Your inability to type yourself IS relevant because it brings your credibility into question. You can't claim to know more than others when you can't type yourself and have been studying this for a fraction of the length of time I or others have. "I think you're wrong because I disagree with your typings" well duh you moron ofc you would think I'm wrong, you can't use yourself as a reference. If you have to go back and forth between ENFP, ENTJ, ENFJ, ENTP, ESFP, and ESFJ types that are radically different. 6 out of 16 types than yes your ability to type is lacking. And you know yourself better than Trump or anyone so trying to type others and being so sure of it makes you profoundly ignorant. But as I said, it's the most incompetent people who think that they know the most.

0

Nothing yet? Then I'll gladly explain. In case you were ever truly confused about why I would ever dream of accusing either of you of being intellectually insincere, it's exactly because I have yet to see any real attempt from your side to try and understand just what I could possibly mean by pushing the idea of needing "evidence" aside in favor of… something else. I honestly can't be too sure you've understood what I've underscored for you here at all, and the fact that you're calling forth the idea of "burden of proof" (she says she won’t provide evidence? let me ignore the context and everything else and press this burden of proof thing I read about once) is so, so indicative of a facile and underdeveloped ability to either think critically or accept that there is, in fact, some notion of a grave misunderstanding obscuring what we're trying to communicate. I would be much more certain of your not being intellectually dishonest if you wouldn't misrepresent what I've been trying to communicate by pretending that I "don't like evidence" like #2463 seems to wanna say or that I'm criticizing the idea of "asking for evidence" without putting it into its proper context like #2460 does, or maybe even by trying to ask for clarification on what I meant if you were confused by it; but I do know neither of you are trying to act this way, because both of you are—to put it bluntly—poor in communicating to, against and with the main idea, instead having other people do the real critical thinking for you while still running away from breaking things down to actual, logical terms. Even if you come out replying to this comment in such a way that would indicate you perhaps "hiding" your reasoning and always knowing exactly why I'd been in the wrong, you've never communicated it and that's enough of a problem to prompt me saying all this.

What I'd started off #2414 with may have been a way to show how absurd it was that you'd be asking for what you're asking for but without the hyperbole, that would be exactly what you're asking for from me. I could violate people's privacy and give you detailed stories and accounts, but at the end of the day you'd be left with exactly what I gave you: my own word. Whether you trust it more written out or not written out, it's still me you'd have to trust and it makes absolutely no difference in how convincing the evidence should be. If you do think that's what would prompt you to change your mind, then you could only be a bona fide imbecile. All you have to do is picture your prototypical ENTJ businessman in place of your ESTP showman and you should begin to see why that argument makes sense.

Looking at Trump the way you do now leaves enough room for that to come in, and what I'm insisting is that the "enough room" actually leans in that direction. Without or without direct evidence, you should at least acknowledge that the room exists, and why going back to #2387 and seeing how all that falls into place shouldn't be difficult so long as I can trust your ability to think critically.

The only real room for doubt you can have is in my own understanding of Myers-Briggs, especially along where J/P are concerned. Maybe you don't trust that, but you'd really be mistaken to believe that your own understanding of what J/P means is better than mine considering how you've justified typings along that axis before. Of course, that's all coming from me, but I've long lost faith in the idea that a re-education awaits me. Please, by any means, rejuvenate it.

1

Can you explain comment #2425 to me?

0

What do you have against evidence? What has evidence ever done to you? How can you correct assumptions if you present no evidence? How do you come to conclusions without evidence. 

When you cant back up your argument "You missed the point"

0

Evidence of what? I actually don’t really ask for evidence for many things at all unless it directly has to do with people drawing conclusions based on incorrect assumptions, which is rare in the more theoretical discussions I tend to be interested in. I more so attack lines of reasoning, since that’s where people tend to lose track in typology-based communities.

And it doesn’t surprise me that you’ve missed the point yet again—focus on why “asking for evidence” doesn’t work here.

0

This is your cue to look up the definition of “gaslighting,” but before that, let’s try this: give me a summary of everything that’s happened in this discussion and point out each person’s reasoning-related failings. Go comment by comment to avoid reductionistic storytelling. 

0

She's so incpable, it's pretty sad really lol

0

Are you getting nervous? I can go over how I interpreted this discussion, why I'm still sticking with my original perspective, and even where you're missing the point all in plain English if you'd like—that would be much more a favor to you than going on about how you're totally caught up in your own head and are making poor connections that come from a perfunctory understanding of what you're talking about.

But let's take a look first: you're trying really hard to bring about questioning of the extent of my intellectual capabilities instead of questioning why what you're caught up on is useless. To anyone with their thinking cap on, it shouldn't be hard to see the hilarity in you talking down on my intellect when you just can't seem to get past something that doesn't even matter in this discussion. Have you considered that someone who can't type themselves perhaps sees their own self in a way that could not be settled on a type in accordance with the same criteria they use to type other people? Maybe that they recognize the futility of the system trying to reconcile sides to them that they can't decide a preference in? ISTJ is the most logical type because S, T and J all represent ideas in Myers-Briggs that would hint at a near inability to consider things outside of strict logic and presence, not because people who are ISTJ are necessarily the most logical or that ENFPs are illogical or whatever magical extrapolation you can come up with. Also really funny you bring up the Dunning-Kruger effect. Guess who's the victim to that here?

1

"I know words, I have the best words" -Strawberry Crisis

0

More gas-lighting from strawberry the fraudulent intellectual. Asking for evidence of claims in a debate is apparently irrational. I can't with this. Strawberry you're a Russian troll and I don't have to supply evidence. i just know it to be true. Your type is relevant. If you can't type yourself than why would you be this authority on typing others that you present yourself to be? Even on the other site you said ISTJ would be the most logical type. So why would you an ENP think that you're more logical and know more than others? You hold your own opinion on a pedestal. Classic Dunning Kruger effect

0

"In one ear, out the other" applies to you and Galaxy here, not me. Funnily enough, you're actually extremely guilty of asking for "evidence" when the idea of even speaking in concrete terms is in fact absolutely absent from the discussion, and your asking for proof ad nauseum may look like you pulling everyone back into reality, the real world, the rational, and the logical… but it absolutely doesn't do that, and is just you exercising what you do best: pulling buzzwords out a hat that Smart People in Debates use when they see red when they don't apply.

My type isn't relevant to the discussion here and my (inexistent) indecision on it has nothing to do with my ability in typing other people.

1

I'm not going to believe you just cause you say so. And you get on people about evidence all the time. If you want to guide people than present evidence

0

In one ear, out the other :/ I had higher hopes for you. But if you wanna type others with no evidence to back up your claims and can't even decide on a type yourself than whatever

0

Oho, how scary. I've explained exactly why whatever you're hinting at doesn't apply to this discussion and while I think anyone is entitled to criticize others' viewpoints, I do think it's laughable that you of all people are the one trying to lecture other people on how to convince others correctly.

fyi, a close-minded approach is one that restricts the outlook of the discussion, aka whatever this trying to pin me down on "lack of evidence" is trying to be while ignoring the larger picture that I'm trying to guide non-J/3 voters toward.

1

The burden of proof is on you, people not agreeing with you (especially when you present no evidence) doesn't make them uninformed. Whenever evidence is presented that doesn't support a persons conclusion the gas-lighting and mockery begins I've noticed on this site. If you'd like to be taken seriously and actually seek to learn something than maybe stop being so close-minded. Drop the ego as well. Remember, the people who are the most sure of themselves end up being the most incompent more often than not.. Strawberry, Kawaii, I'm addressing you both more so than the others. 

0

re: teru it would be nice if there were tangible, accessible evidence of what he projects not really being who he is, but I think that part to typing him should hardly be a roadblock even looking at him upfront. I shouldn’t do the digging around for it because I’ve done my own digging and don’t want to elaborate on anything that doesn’t need to be elaborated upon; whatever you’ll find from old interviews isn’t how I decided upon on my own views and the “evidence” behind what I’ve decided upon isn’t meant to be accessible in the first place. I think a big thing I tried to emphasize was that even if you assume him to be transparent and real, you’ll notice that typing him another way would make far more sense than what he’s usually typed as while accounting for a side that could (and does) exist that isn’t reflected by that more superficial typing, as that what he shows speaks for itself already. Maybe I’m disillusioned into believing that because I’m far more certain of it in a way others might not be, but I really don’t think it’s that difficult to imagine.

0

don't know if you guys noticed but you're having seriously different interpretations of who trump really is, I'm sure I've heard him say things like "I'm actually very different from how I portray myself" in interviews from back in the 80s and on face value he's also very different now from how he acted back then, if you wanna convince people doing some digging will be more useful than a "just trust me on it"

0

Really? If this is actually how you justify ESTP for him by functions, then it doesn't look like you type people by their cognition at all but instead as though you were reading off a checklist of traits that each function exhibits without focusing at all on the Cognitive Functions as they exist in esse; what a shallow, comminuted analysis of someone's cognition. There isn't any such thing as "Fe > Fi" when it comes to the functions because people wouldn't be able to use an unvalued Cognitive Function in the first place—at best, you can only mimic behavior (as decided by stereotypes of what the really mean) based on whatever functions you do value. A simplistic mathematical comparison to describe literal functions in the brain cannot be simplified to reduced terms in the first place, especially since your comparisons imply that one's functions are balanced in such a way that cannot be adequately described as a presence paired with an absence; believing anything else shows that your idea of someone's cognition is dependent purely on what you can visibly identify and compare to surface-level traits you've decided fit a function. In other words, I am absolutely appalled.

"Being focused on how people see him" does not imply Fe at all, and pairing this with "how he follows his internal values" just further shows how you've been caught up in stereotypes, examples, and references to how you believe functions show themselves as opposed to unearthing one's mental intricacies for what they are. The way Trump exhibits his narcissism is in fact very Fi, as this should create a "gap" of sorts between him and those who fuel his self-worth, considering that he is blind to the emotional atmosphere and has a natural inclination to follow along what feelings he can latch on internally. The way he conducts himself and speaks with people is an obvious indicator of his leading with Extraverted Sensing and fueling his own vanity with a "disconnected” link to others through his very own Introverted Feeling. And whoever said he's more focused on how people see him more than how he follows his internal values? As though you could compare these two functions directly as though it were an equation you could solve—and so incredibly inaccurately. You would hardly know what his internal values truly are unless they were "tested" for by the environment and therefore extrapolated, but this is a strange approach to the Cognitive Functions in the first place where you isolate traits rather than look at the whole that the person embodies.

And this Introverted vs Extraverted Thinking comparison is ridiculous. Even if you assume his tactics are constantly adapted to new situations as opposed to not planned far in advance, how is this at all related to the logical side of his cognition? Since when was Te about planning things in advance? And Ti about adapting to new situations? Even with your isolated traits approach that I see so many people misled into using for themselves, this is a very warped view of what these functions stereotypically stand for and I have no clue how you could arrive at such a conclusion. For people who look at cognition the way you do, manipulating your perspective on what set of traits should take priority over another set of traits in order to fit your ever-changing view of your own idea of how functions piece together to form types is far inferior to lining up how much the traits of the function you can relate back to a person and then deciding a type based on their strengths. But this an extremely superifical analysis that is dependent on clichés and stereotypes for how functions are supposed to work, and I would advise you not to use it if you had any respect for one's cognitive processes. Who knew our resident Function Knight would type this way? You really never fail to surprise.

0

he is focused on how people see him more than how he follow his internal values. Fe>Fi.his tactics are constantly adapted to new situation not planned long time before. Ti>Te

1

I forgot to add: I think the case for Trump being a genuine ESFP is strong enough that I entreat CelebrityTypes to reconsider their typing for him. The problem with observing Trump's traits and mannerisms in isolation is that it would likely lead someone into believing that he's a tertiary Fe user but stripped down to the marrow of each of the Cognitive Functions and what they represent in essence as opposed to how they stereotypically manifest in people, Trump has a very clear and obvious neurobiological preference for both Se and Te. Typing him as an Fe valuer is not only a very rudimentary and brumous view of how his cognition truly works, but it also ignores such an essential aspect of his character and what he truly values: what he himself desires, how he acts upon what he desires, how he distinguishes himself, and the pith and core of what relates these values back to his true being.

Any type that values Fe carries a subconscious dependency on the emotional environment administered by a group of people, the key idea here being emotional. Trump in some manner is helpless to his environment, but this helplessness is derived from all that relates to the immediate—being locked into the present and living through it as one being forcefully extended into an otherwise impervious reality, succumbing to the might of the evernear instant and weaving through the sensations within it; in this regard, he is not carried by a current that guides him in a world created by the emotional arena but rather one that focuses purely on sensation. The way Trump relates to feeling is purely through the lens of Introverted Feeling, where he gauges his own interests against those of the world and only looks outside by comparing what he understands inside to what he experiences and perceives outwardly—this is his primary judging process: self-interest, self-concern, self-image, self-attentiveness, and personal standards are all key concepts connected to the idea of essentially being Fi that should elucidate his preference for it through demonstration.

Trump's connection to Extraverted Thinking is drawn by his need to seize control over and to diminish the vulnerability created by the overwhelming perspective provided to him by his own megaconscious Extraverted Sensing. Being in the tertiary position, Trump's control over this function is unstable and undeveloped, hence why his Te isn't as refined as it is in those who lead with it. He executes his actions with force (due to being dominant in Se), but as for the criteria preceding the execution of his thought process: it is far too arbitrary and inconsistent to imagine it being in a leading role, which is why the conflict errs toward fickle-mindedness despite having little sense of logical uncertainty clouding his consciousness.

This is also why Trump could not possibly value Ti, as there is too little regard placed on being internally consistent when it comes to his reasoning. Trump is supremely extraverted, and a victim to the functions that form dependencies on what is external; perhaps that's why some have more trouble spotting his Fi. Maybe instead of forcing people into becoming poster boys for types that don't represent them, we should look more carefully at their thought process and correctly name the functions valued in their cognition.

1

“I can confirm that this and this about Trump is true, so the perspective that supports this and this while being fully compatible with what gets projected outwardly is much more likely to be true than yours that only accounts for what gets projected outwardly. The merit behind this perspective can be observed without confirmation of this and this being true, and it is indeed more meritable than your own perspective.”

”Provide me with the evidence that this and this is true.”

I don’t care about convincing you—I’ve provided you with the information you need and that’s that.

0

I’m not avoiding it because a) you’ve never looked up from why what you’re asking for is irreasonable, so you hadn’t been in a position to press me on dumbing it down in the first place b) I’ve explained exactly what I meant by that and why it isn’t even that important after you’ve read and understood my first comment and take the suggestions I illuminated for you into account. You’re hung up on something that doesn’t matter because it’s irrelevant as long as you know exactly what I provided you with after that and how it shapes my perspective.

0

“Evidence” and “examples” aren’t necessary because that’s not what you need. I don’t know if you realize this, but you’re breaking this down into a simplistic form of exchanging ideas that doesn’t apply to either how you’ve “presented evidence” or how I’m suggesting to look at it from a better perspective. You know exactly why I think I know better than you, and you’ve done a very poor job of explaining how you could possibly know better than me.

And do you really think you’re doing any better than calling me a fool and leaving? If anything, what you’re doing is worse because you’re dumbing this down to a level where you’re comparing me telling you to look more carefully and use MBTI correctly to how the power of suggestibility by authority figures forces people into doing things they otherwise wouldn’t do. Your surface-level analysis is what prompted me to say that and the fact that you’re being stubborn about seeing it only your way tells me that you couldn’t even fathom for yourself how you could look at exactly what you’ve already known in a way that supports J, 3, and whatever extra I either know or have mentioned.

You’re not leaving room for logic; you’re closing yourself off into your own reality.

1

Then allow me to criticize how you “gain knowledge”: you made no visible attempt to level with my viewpoint, you refused to reconsider your own viewpoint given new assumptions I suggested you take into account, and you attempted to place yourself above me with irrelevant, pretentious and misguided statements like “my intention isn’t to hurt your little feelings.” This isn’t how someone who truly “keeps a detached approach” and wants to learn as opposed to challenge for the sake of it acts—it’s how someone who wants to appear smarter than they really are acts. I’m far less disturbed by the fact that you’re skeptical of what I’ve presented about Trump than that you can’t seem to figure out where this perspective lands given everything you already know about him.

0

Yikes. Do you want a testimony from Joanna? Or maybe I should get Scott to swear proof of his being J to you on oath. Maybe they should get together and film him in his apartment? Let’s break it down since you’re clearly missing the point: Donald Trump is visibly an ESTJ and a 3w4 provided that you take into account the fact that both he exaggerates the degree of “unplannedness” he operates at and that people look at the  bits of genuine perceiving-related traits he has and assume that his entire character is bent around those traits even though they’d be filling in bits and pieces of his personality that are clearly incorrect. I could not have told you that he exaggerates that side of him to lure in supporters that believe he’s “keeping it real” and that he doesn’t—in fact—have zero control over what he does and that he is very much driven by a sense of needing to establish a halt with decision and closure even though he tries to obscure these J/Te related traits because every politician who has ever been in the running makes a show out of how incredibly on top of everything they are, which isn’t bold, attention-grabbing or relatable; what would a “people’s man” like him do? You can figure out all of this yourself with the same “evidence” you’re using to support your case.

And we’re not in court. This isn’t a formal debate, and nor would I even call it a debate. People who type Trump as whatever you’re typing him as either don’t know what J/P means or don’t have a good picture of who he really is, and I’m just providing you with a different angle to look at him with. You can choose not to believe me or whatever but it’s not even a question of having to believe me—it’s always been staring you in the face and you’re either unable to or refusing to see how this perspective weaves its way into what you already see. I’m sorry I can’t provide you with the evidence you need but nothing is ever that straightforward, but I’ve highlighted two things you may not have had to work with before (at most through inference) that may aid you in seeing how both 3 and J work for him: he does decide with the intention to create judging-related closure, and his public persona isn’t really who he is as typology would say he is. That’s all that’s relevant, after all. I’d love to ask you to show how your opinion is somehow more valid than mine when you’re working with less information on Trump and a misinformed idea of what judging and perceiving stand for. That you’d fathom even thinking my opinion ill-informed is actually laughable—what’s all that about anyway? I offered you something interesting, and you've only reacted sourly to it.

1

Why are you trying to make this sound like a formal debate? You’re not turning it into one and you’re hardly trying to educate me—I’m only here to help you out in seeing a side to it that I’m convinced is true based on what I know and what you’ve shown to know. Maybe I should have mentioned it sooner. So what? I couldn’t tell you anything anyway and I instead offered to suggest that maybe you can’t take what you see at face value. I’ve explained it enough for you to be able to see where this side of the argument comes from, and it’s only up to you to connect the dots and see how it fits into what he really could be. And who cares if it’s a subjective take? It’s a more informed subjective take and I sincerely think you’d be stupid to use something as opaque as the persona he takes on as “evidence” for your take on his type once I’ve offered you this perspective.

0

I don’t really understand where this trying to sound intellectually superior thing comes from with you, but I know people who know him personally and I can tell you firsthand that he image he projects to the public is not the same person he actually is. Me not providing “evidence” for my argument doesn’t make me “unknowledgeable” considering I clearly explained that you’ll simply have to take my word for it. I know for a fact that you don’t know more than me about who this person really is because you’re merely parroting the same insight any YouTube commenter on Alpha Male Trump Compilation #4 could provide. The point is that Trump knows that this image works for him and has earned him his cult following, so he merely exercises it and fools his audience into believing things about him that simply aren’t true.

0

I honestly think I can only leave this at the fact that I know him better than you and that you’ll only have to take my word for it. Besides, seeing ESTJ 3w4 shouldn’t even be hard given what type 3 means and how Trump conducts himself.

0

Oh you’ve typed him 8w7 too? 

0

re: Galaxy if you really believe all this about how Trump operates, you're only typing the persona he projects, not who he actually is. edit: and based on The Functions, I can only see him being Te+Se, whichever being higher depending on how you view his directing and controlling.

0

Trump is pretty P. Many other republicans didn't like him precisely because he lacked conscientiousness and turned their typically serious political world into a game show of chaos.

2

I've already covered exactly why typing him P because of his unpredictability and impulsiveness is wrong. It's like people see that one side of perceiving in his spontaneity and decide all of a sudden that he must be the ESTP archetype despite the rest of him not matching up to that based on exactly what Myers-Briggs asks for. Your idea of J/P just sounds like J means "thinking about it more carefully and safely" while P means "being impulsive."

0

he clearly have a Percieving preference, his umpredictability and his impulsiveness, he is often submerged by the character that he created, like when he lie about the destiny sign(inf Ni) it was when he did not take the plane. even if his plays are prepared, he is far too risk taker in his strategy for a "J" type (even more for an SJ) . the way how"he take wake he wants" seem far motivated by "P" impulses  internalized for a certain moments rather than methodical "J" calculs . in economy he was a risk taker, that's why the "self made man" had to whine to his papa for saving his ass. his children are far more "J" in the managment of the family

2

Neither fickle-mindedness nor erraticism are inherently P qualities, especially when put into context to detach itself from the spontaneous/systematic idea introduced in Step II. I think edza has described it before as him being a very clear Jungian irrational while having a fair judging preference in MBTI. You can make a decision with the intention of holing yourself and committing into it or you can make a decision with the intention of retaining a sense of openness, uncertainty and changeability. Trump is planful, orderly, and conscientious, and anything seemingly contradictory he projects is only meant to enhance the persona he created. I guess I can see where typing him P comes from in that he makes decisions with little thoughtful or consistent justification, but his perceiving side would really show in his very momentary way of deciding—taking the lead by doing whatever he feels like as opposed to sticking to a preconceived plan. But despite that, his need to make those decisions to erase open-endedness is exactly what makes him more J in MBTI.

edit: I also really wish CT didn't already type him as an ESTP, otherwise I would have voted ESFP for him using The Functions

0

durr being white links with higher iq, being black links with lower iq. blah blah blah

0

N is linked with abstraction (abstraction is linked to intellectualism). he is certainly not abstract and despise every form of abstraction (including intellectualism)

0

N doesn't mean intellectual, and this is ironic coming from you lol

0

this guy is anti intellectual as fuck how could he have a shade of "N"

0

crazy people are intuitives 

0

He's erratic because he's a crazy person who shits out his mouth, not because he's an N.  ESTP, one of the worst.

0

ESTP 8w7, if not then ENTP 8w7. Pretty unconventional for an S so maybe N. For sure a P. Too erratic and inconsistent

0

Quadra wise he's 100% SEE/Gamma.  The SLE persona is his great façade.  

0

i knew that there is a lot of moron in earth but someone who is such a moron as far as voting trump as ISFJ is quite surprising .

0