Brain exploding occurring due to recent N vs S conundrum

Please help, for the sake of my brain.
Well, I've always though of myself as an INFP. Well...that is...until I started reading about the ISFP. Umm...
Let's see. I relate to both! I've always tested as INFP, but I don't really know if I answered the questions right.
Lots of people here are really good at typing, so I would like your opinion, do you see me as an INFP or ISFP, and why? Pretty please, tell me why :)

Perhaps you would note the HUMIAN philosophy basis of this conundrum.

David Hume: Enquiries Concerning Human Understanding

I had the same question about myself for a while because of my approach to music and art. It didn't seem very N, since I was mostly enjoying the sensations of the immediate process. After much consideration, I saw that I dealt with everything else from an N perspective and learned to trust what the tests had said. What part of the ISFP descriptions are you relating to?

Snail. The base to this dilemma is in regard to a discussion undertaken in chat, where I was introducing Hume to Trope. It was not regarding ISFP as such, just the contrast of Ideas and Impressions as described by Hume.

Impressions = information obtained from experience, learning and observation.
Ideas = abstracting an inferred experience, learned subject or observation the formulation of complex mental images through the integration of constructive systems of several impressions.

I also noted that it was such a philosophy that was the grandfather of Jungian type description, and it's descendants by association really.

Interesting. Thanks for the clarification.

I had a similar conversation once with another INTP and an ISTP in which I made the claim that the what we observe in the world around us is seperate from our perception of the object, and thus true and pure objectivity is outside the boundaries of human consciousness. It went on for a while, but you get the picture. The ISTP made the claim that the world she observed was, in fact, the world as it really was and despite my arguments to the contrary she couldn't grasp what I meant by such a statement. The INTP agreed with me readily.

Philosophy aside, it's simply a question of how you perceive the world around you. There's Ne and Se for the perceivers and I've said this before but some people simply don't have as strong a preference as others. This doesn't necessarily make you anything other than what you already are. My only suggestion is to go over the definitions and decide which is more applicable to you.

Both the ISFP and the INFP are Fi dominant, so it's entirely reasonable that there would be a great deal of overlap in the descriptions.

Originally Posted by Trope

The ISTP made the claim that the world she observed was, in fact, the world as it really was and despite my arguments to the contrary she couldn't grasp what I meant by such a statement. The INTP agreed with me readily.

It is evident that an intuitive would agree with another intuitive, it is not however a confirmation of the opinion.
For if you are unaware of the cognitive processes themselves, you are decreasing your awareness of objectivity. For although there would remain a subjective element, one could minimalise its influence by making an effort to impede its probable influence on perceiving the environment and constructs.

Originally Posted by NephilimAzrael

It is evident that an intuitive would agree with another intuitive, it is not however a confirmation of the opinion.

I realize this. My aim was simply to illustrate a parallel.

For if you are unaware of the cognitive processes themselves, you are decreasing your awareness of objectivity.

They were both aware of the cognitive processes and typology, but the ISTP was unsure of her type at the time.

For although there would remain a subjective element, one could minimalise its influence by making an effort to impede its probable influence on perceiving the environment and constructs.

Explain the relevance of this statement.

Subjectivity is inescapable and is the filter through which any objective reality must be perceived. That doesn't necessarily make me an N, because if it did, we would all be N types.

Manners Trope, it is Explain the relevance PLEASE.

Well, objectivity is infringed by our senses and subjectivity. If we were to attempt to enhance the human comprehension of objective reality we must accumulate information initially on the basis of our own biases. In doing such, we become aware of the influences on our perceptions, which alter the objective world to the subjective. Much in the same way that whatever does influence our perception of the impression alters our ideation of that same objects in our direct environment.

Should we (to greater and greater extents) consciously Deconstruct the impediments of cognitive and sensory limitations on our inferences, we can compare empirical evidence with deductive evidence. A concise negation of abstractive influences allows for a clearer picture of objectivity.

Relevance. The world before us is objective. How we perceive it is subjective and less accurate than the prevalent existence of empirical forms.
IOW: We see what we want to see rather than what is there.