# Is it possible for me to be both an INFJ and an INFP, like a hybrid of both types?



## Cross (Sep 9, 2012)

Reasons I'm not much of an INFP: logical thinking doesn't and didn't elude me as much even early on in life, whereas the achilles heel of an INFP would be extraverted Thinking.
Reasons I can be more of an INFP than an INFJ sometimes: I can talk non stop in the speech form taken by Extraverted Intuition, talking about random things wether real, unreal, or even considerably unimaginable and unfahomable for others. I may sometimes be extremely reserved thinking about my ideals and morals at the same time.

Would it be possible for me to be both? I utilize both my Fi, Ni, Fe, Ne with my Ni and Fi not markedly greater in comparison to the other (or so I think). Even in description I can easily tip to one side or another and these are my normal modes of thinking and behaving.

Additionally, if there were questions that could help me tip towards either INFP ro INFJ, I believe that I'd fall under INFJ by answering that honestly, but I'd welcome you to try though as this side of the forums seems interesting.


----------



## snowbell (Apr 2, 2012)

No. Different functions. Go by the functions to figure out what you are, not the profiles and their behavior descriptions.


----------



## electricky (Feb 18, 2011)

Nah, they are two pretty distinct types, and I doubt that you are two people in one.

Being Te inferior doesn't mean being bad at logical thinking, it's more of.... well, having a complicated relationship with Te. You can peek through here to see what I mean: http://personalitycafe.com/infp-articles/76770-recognizing-inferior-function-ifps.html

The talking style you're talking about could easily be Ni too (I think Ni can be even more nonstop than Ne :laughing: ..... but really it depends on what you're getting at here)

You wanted questions? There's plenty in the stickies.... http://personalitycafe.com/whats-my-personality-type/99679-whats-my-type-questionnaire.html


----------



## Cross (Sep 9, 2012)

snowbell said:


> No. Different functions. Go by the functions to figure out what you are, not the profiles and their behavior descriptions.


But even in comparison of the functions, I still can't gague it. Theoretically as stated in some forms of literature it goes something like: just because you frequently use Ni, doesn't mean you can't use Ne, Si, or Se, and so on and so forth... it's just that these other functions will generally require the expenditure of more energy and may tire the individual out. I think that the use and preference of cognitive functions would be a different mix, measure, and intensity for everyone, since we are all different. In my case, be it description, cognitive function, etc... it's seems as if the dominant and auxilliary functions of mine are overlapping. The case would be easier if it's choose one, but in my case it's one or the other.

Theoretically, these descriptions and cognitive functions are meant to describe what others would be if they polarize towards certain preferences. Mine is somehow strung in between by the final preference, the attitude in life, which is Perception vs. Judging. Mine just verges more on the judging side... just a little more. I'm an INFx for sure though. My preferences for them are quite strong. I get why you meant No... because that means you're either one or the other... but a strong side of me seems to resonate well with theoretical descriptions of the INFP as well as their cognitive functions. Behavior, description, or actions wise... the way the cognitive functions are arranged for energy dispensation... it's as if it's spells well for me in some way too.

Given the way I present myself, do I seem more INFJ or INFP to you? I'm just curious of how I come across other people.


----------



## Cross (Sep 9, 2012)

@ElectricSparkle, the grip of extraverted thinking seems like something I'd struggle with just as much as the grip of extraverted sensing... I know I'm not making sense about all of this. I filled out the questionaire. Hopefully this can shed more light on the whole thing.



1. Impression: She's happy! I like that.


2. Because the car broke down, I might frown. I don't know anything about vehicles, or at least not as much. I'd defnitely observe what everyone would do or what the state of the engine would be in after the hood (did I say that right) is flopped up, despite not knowing anything about.

3. I want to go to the party. Maybe I can meet some interesting people there. I'm not going to try to be the life of the party though.

4. It depends on what was said. I might voice out my anger depending on what belief that clashed with no matter how close (or otherwise) that friends is to me. I have varying responses depending on the belief that was clashed with. If it's about taste in music, I wouldn't say anything but I might become silent and uncomfortable hearing that. If the friend said something that seems oppressing and offensive to the rights of another person, I wouldn't hesitate to go monster mode.

5. I observe and rethink and deliberate... It's always like this apparently. Even though my initial reaction would be resistance, I just want to consider that something might be outside me. I want to do these things alone, and if another person does it with me, I might display my outward dislike, distrust, and my stand against whatever clashed with my beliefs, though I may be internally working things out and I may remember this thing for quite some time.

6. People taught me the values I know. Some were told, others were stories, other things I inferred myself from the situation (I wouldn't want things to turn out like this no matter what they do! sort of thing). My values are very important to me, and the only way I can change them is through logical analysis. If I don't logically plan which would be the better choice or wether a principle is worth holding on to, I would be difficult and rigid and no one can persuade me - in any attempt to persuade me I may react with verbal attacks using both logic and the personal flaws of the other person to say derogatory things.

7.a. I can't say the differentiating thing... It would probably be the way I get angry, or the way I approach people... All of these things seem to make me different from other people. I have a way of mirroring their actions. Even if I'm happy, I may feel sad and reflect that through my face if another person is sad.
7.b. My weaknesses in general: But you said one thing... and since you said change, it's got to be realistic. The way I get angry. When I am so mad, I can't stand being around other people... I can be so sensitive and defensive through being extremely rude and offensive. I make people feel miserable when I'm mad, just by word of mouth, and I'm good at that. If I choose not to say anything, I may storm away or become extremely unresponsive, which uspets people too. When people talk to me when I'm angry, I do not answer even when asked... when prodded or when persistently asked I... explode in a fit of rage. This may include Physical violence depending on the degree of my anger.

8. In all situations. I love my hunches! Chasing them is really interesting, but I don't fully trust them all the time. I like to keep gathering more and more info and data about my hunches and I love testing them if they're right or wrong. I evaluate and then rethink and reshape my way of thinking this way.

9.a. Imagining stuff up: I don't just mean one thing, my imagine can reshape the world like in a fiction novel, that vividly describes every bit of detail it can, and moving the events around through an undetermined plot.
b. CONFLICT: Watching people go at each other, ranging from slight verbal attacking to brutal physical attacks (the ones with the internal organs left exposed). I can watch them and I can stand them, but only for a short amount of time apparently... Afterwards... I just feel so exhausted.

10. I do not repress my internal thinking, only my external presentation - when around people. I do not like displeasing other people because I will become displeased as well.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

You may use a lot of functions, and I do too. I could be ISFJ too, maybe. However, my inclination is to go with the one that really jumps out at me more. I'd be a very odd ISFJ, and am still somewhat odd an INFJ, but between the two, the way INFJ blends together seems to work out a lot better than the way ISFJ works together.

For example, I don't really use Si + Fe together much, whereas I use Ni + Fe together a lot. As for inferior functions, I can fit the inferior response of both Se and Ne to an extent. Which makes sense, as I'm definitely a heavy Si _and_ Ni user. That said, Ne inferior only happens to me when I'm really freaked out. Like, really really really. Inferior Se is on the other hand a pretty regular, daily part of me.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

> I utilize both my Fi, Ni, Fe, Ne with my Ni and Fi not markedly greater in comparison to the other (or so I think).




My Fi is very strongly present. What I do though when deciding types is seeing how they _fit together_. My Fi seems well-developed for enneagram reasons, not due to MBTI reasons. Enneagram doesn't explain why we turn to certain functions, but it can influence it strongly. The key is that this just means we'll score high on those functions, not that they'll fit together in the way they do in a given type.

I would hazard that you are _not_ INFP, from what I am gathering. I don't know well enough to decide on a type for you, though.

As a comment, you seem to communicate more similarly to me than all INFPs I have encountered. 




> but a strong side of me seems to resonate well with theoretical descriptions of the INFP as well as their cognitive functions.




Hmmm. Could you expand?

You could be right, as I'm just speculating based on what I'm seeing. It seems you're much more likely not to be a Ji dominant.


----------



## OldManRivers (Mar 22, 2012)

By MBTI I have always been INFJ. By cognitive functions, it could be either INFJ or INFP. I know that under stress i become very different - as long as I am the center of the stress. I shift into an emotionally cold, purely logical mode, socially correct, but letting nothing get in the way -until the problem is solved,. That developed when I had some high-stress projects. Competed them, then went back to standard, worked through the damage, repaired my broken associations as best I could.

If a loved one is in peril, It is much the same except a with touch of homicidal ideation also.

Way I see it, the test have probably at best plus or minus 20% in repeatability. The more one knows the easier it is to subconsciously choose the answers to make the results come out - so it has poor test /retest validity, especially to a dedicated hobbyist of the subject.

Thing is, in real life we can choose whatever response we want in a given situation. Ultimately, one's intellect, value system and biases have much more to do with behavior that an arbitrary test result. So my type is ME, a very unique type (only one of us in the world.)

So the type falls under the category of small stuff. Don't sweat the small stuff.


----------



## Cross (Sep 9, 2012)

bearotter said:


> My Fi is very strongly present. What I do though when deciding types is seeing how they _fit together_. My Fi seems well-developed for enneagram reasons, not due to MBTI reasons. Enneagram doesn't explain why we turn to certain functions, but it can influence it strongly. The key is that this just means we'll score high on those functions, not that they'll fit together in the way they do in a given type.
> 
> I would hazard that you are _not_ INFP, from what I am gathering. I don't know well enough to decide on a type for you, though.
> 
> ...


You know, I reread my results and the way I present myself to the world is very INFJ too. I can be an INFP when my cognitive functions simply shift. We can use them after all right, it's just that we're quite masterful in using most of them than the others. 

An INFJ can work well with others even though they would rather work independently given that Fe seeks harmony, Ti, when developed can dictate what must be done through stricter logic rather than illogical motives and planning, and Ni converges the aspect of the group converging everyone together in this manner. The combination can make for efficient group efforts with an INFJ. I believe that is why the description of INFJ's was made, it was to summarize an effect of the cognitive functions. Conversely INFP's have difficulty working with others. Their standards and ideals can be extremely high due to Fi, which dictates what is more meaningful rather than what is more efficient, Ne which seeks to think of things that aren't there and that probably should be there when fused with Fi (I do hope my thoughts are going the right way with this, please politely correct me if I'm mistaken, your ideas are welcomed and imortant in this thread), and with a developed Si, one can look at the things that do not make something perfect and the missing details. They're said to hold very high ideas and standards, and I can be quite like that, while I argue how group meetings are logically inefficient, fallible, and pointless due to the lack of proper standards that the people I work with hold > and this is when argument is stirred.

*Example 1:*
I hate working with groups towards a project. I just can't seem to utilize my functions to work with others, which is quite odd for me because I tend to love being around others, but when you set up a group project, I will not work with you because I see how pointless it is to invest energy in something that isn't even at part with my standards and to utilize work ethic that is substandard. I hate comments like "let's just get this over with" because I'm a "when you do something, give it your all, otherwise, don't give at all". I always end up being a type of person that's "If you want something done, you've got to do it yourself!" That is so not INFJ. The cognitive functions I hold cannot justify me acting this way, and it happens often but not all the time. How can my Fe uphold harmony when I don't lend a hand or when I think that everything everyone does is pointless? How can Ti justify that one has to maintain perfections and quality rather than looking at plans to get at least something done rather than none at all.. 
*
Opposition:*
I can utilize my cognitive functions sometimes though, and I have a tendency to do this more often than the above example I gave. I lend a hand, knowing everything won't turn out well, I maintain congenial relations with others. I plan logically and practically for my goals and actions. Details are the least of my worries in these instances, because I can give it my best and that's all that would count, perfect or not.

In the first example, I may have been using my shadow functions. I was under stress then. I don't know, but it may be one possibility, just theoretical additions.

*Example 2:*
Ok, this is and has no relationship to stress, but may be a demonstration of how much I utilize my Fi and Ne. I have a tendency to want to talk about random things, anything at all, and they are not completely related, just vaguely. My friends have described me as random during these times, but I've had so much fun in such instances. This kind of conversation is my record breaker 6-9 hours straight, talking with someone close to me about anything under the sun and anything that might not be under the sun. I love stringing it together with logic, the occult, religion, philosophy, subjectivism and meaning. It deeply pleases me when the talk winds up towards deeply held morals, which I may or may not defend during the progression of the conversation.

I will admit I am new to MBTI and the cognitive functions, but I used what I know about them to put these things together. Please feel free to politely correct me if I'm wrong, but I'd also love to hear what type I come across others as. As you've told me, I seem more like you @bearotter, and I really do think I ground towards the INFJ a lot more too, but sometimes, just sometimes I cannot see sense or meaning and logic in other aspects of life:

For example going to war: People will feel sad, distraught, and may die by the misled corruption that their leaders may have stirred, while their leaders will sit comfortably and not partake in the fight, as they justify they must lead. Logically speaking the head must not be severred from the body, else the body will be useless, thus the importance of a leader, but I just cannot accept this. It is illogical of me, and if I try to it is too much energy dispensation for me to come to grips with. If it were up to me, I'd probably fight in war if it broke out here in southeast asia, because I will not be comfortable having others die to protect me while I sit in a safer recluse. In the same way, I believe a leader should fight in the front lines, because he must lead everyone into war


----------



## Cross (Sep 9, 2012)

OldManRivers said:


> By MBTI I have always been INFJ. By cognitive functions, it could be either INFJ or INFP. I know that under stress i become very different - as long as I am the center of the stress. I shift into an emotionally cold, purely logical mode, socially correct, but letting nothing get in the way -until the problem is solved,. That developed when I had some high-stress projects. Competed them, then went back to standard, worked through the damage, repaired my broken associations as best I could.
> 
> If a loved one is in peril, It is much the same except a with touch of homicidal ideation also.
> 
> ...


I agree. After all this would not be called theory if it were a scientific law and universal truth right. MBTI does not govern how we become individuals and individuate, and yet my mind lavishes the thought of this theory as if it is both savory and sweet at the same time. I beg your pardon if I have over indulged in this, but this also gives me a great opportunity to see other perspectives from other people. For reasons that elude me, the opinions of others and what they think of me hold meaning to me, of uncertain value.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

I think you're an intuitive not a feeling type. Introverted Feeling types who routinely are judging or comparing against an inner ideal. Basically people who operate from the standpoint of whether or not they like something or find it agreeable, disagreeable, significant, insignificant and so on. Feeling is about evaluation, the only difference with Fe is the standard for that evaluation is generally external not an internal image. 

You sound like an Intuitive (and I'm not completely convinced that you are an introvert). My first guess was some sort of Intuitive+Thinking type like INTJ or ENTP, but its sort of hard to know, though you seem to resort to pointing out logical inconsistencies much more than making evaluative "do I like or dislike x" type statements. The whole becoming something of a physical animal when under stress tends to be more typical of people with inferior sensation function. The fact you 'own' your thinking also makes me think you are not a feeling type, as many of them can be downright antagonistic toward thinking. 

In short the traditional Ni-dominant is the seer. Think Darth Vader or Voldemoort. In ancient times this person would have been a shaman or soothsayer. Such a person is said to have proclaimed to Julius Caesar a warning about 'the ides of march.' More recently people like Edgar Casey, Nostradamus, Nietzsche, Swedenborg and others could probably be counted in that category. The person who basically goes into his own head to 'see'. Modern variants of such people might be mistaken as con-artists, or hacks, or people who get caught up in paranormal things. When paired with thinking it produces something of a very abstract thinker (Nietzsche and probably Jung himself). The key to introverted intuition is its timelessness and unrelatedness to anything in the real world. The bible is filled with such people, including Jesus himself. People who prognosticate about things that could not and would not ever exist in the tangible objective world like the underlying state of humanity (unlike a Ne-dom who must always relate his intuitions to actual objective things like how the stock market will perform next year, or what the interests rates are likely to do next week).


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

LiquidLight said:


> IPeople who prognosticate about things that could not and would not ever exist in the tangible objective world like the underlying state of humanity (unlike a Ne-dom who must always relate his intuitions to actual objective things like how the stock market will perform next year, or what the interests rates are likely to do next week).


Care to explain this further, but more about auxiliary position? I also second LiquidLight tha based on what I've read, the OP seems to be a thinker type, not a feeler type. I also second Ni and Ti being more likely than Ne and Ti or Ni and Te.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

The example I always use is from the beginning of the Book of John when he writes


> In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.[SUP]2 [/SUP]He was with God in the beginning. [SUP]3 [/SUP]Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. [SUP]4 [/SUP]In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. [SUP]5 [/SUP]The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[SUP][a][/SUP] it.


If we just look at this from a non-theological standpoint in its implications and just take the words for what they are this is classic Introverted Intuition. The author, John, is going off about things that have no relationship to anything tangible in the real world. He talks firstly about 'in the beginning' without ever explaining what he means by this. The beginning of time? The beginning of what? From the get-go we've lost any grasp on objectivity. And then he starts talking about God's word and how the word was God. Again insight or hunches about two things that can never be proven to be tangible in the real world. God and his word. A religious cynic might just as easily conclude that John is simply being flowery and making stuff up (as Ni-doms are often accused of). "In him was life and that light was the light of mankind." Again this is heavy stuff. How would John really know this? And what in the real world could we challenge this by? And what exactly is the light of mankind.

When you look at it this way you begin to see why Introverted Intuition MUST be balanced by a flatly objective Sensation function or a person would be liable to float off into the ether really quickly. Their Se, even though they try to reject it consciously, must be flatly objective (extraverted) in order provide a real-world balancing agent. It is also why people of this type have a tendency to be viewed as aloof or just flat out strange or eccentric. People who sort of spend all day in their imaginations and fantasies with a tendency towards extreme impracticality. (Myers I think missed the mark in declaring that Ni-doms MUST be Js because in reality these would be among the most P of P types. She was making the supposition that these type's supporting functions would speak as loud as their dominant, which seems to contradict Jung who says that these types become almost captured by their visions or physical states). Many a classic introverted intuitive might go as far as to go into a trance or hypnotism to further realize their visions (note by doing so there is also a complete rejection of sensation and the world as it is). 

Extraverted Intuition being an objective (extraverted) function is there to counter the wildness of introverted sensation. In a Ne/Si type, it is Si that provides the subjective (introverted) perception. The Si type is the person who only concerns themselves with how a sense experience comes off to them, and thus is someone who lives in a perception is reality disposition as it relates to the input from their five senses. Thus in order for the Si type to not float off into the ether and think that all experiences were subjective, they need to have the hunch or the notion that things might not be how they see them. The notion that there may be more that meets the eye. That's where Extraverted Intuition comes in. It is the function that balances Si by providing the possibilities that there is more out there than what the person thinks they are observing. Thus Ne is always objective, always related flatly to the real world. Yes it is intuition, and as such, takes on a sort of nebulous, ethereal quality, but the intuitions always deal with tangible things. The journalist sniffing out a story. The pollster making a guess about who will be elected president (where the Ni-dom might well make that same guess based on their own vision of what the mood of the country is, again something that can never be tangibly proven). The Extraverted Intuitive sees the horns of the bull and decides that they can also be handlebars. People always get confused and say that Ne is the function that makes people see things eccentrically, but it is actually Si that is the subjective function. Ne is the hunch and so the Ne-dom is someone sort of captured by their hunches, but their perception of objects via their five senses and the ability to see things in a unique and subjective way is still driven by their Si function (assigning this to Ne instead of Si is really just a repression of that inferior Si function - the person just doesn't see themselves as using Si, in much the same way a Thinking type might deny their Feeling function in favor of cold technical logic).


----------



## Cross (Sep 9, 2012)

@_LiquidLight_, your words are so soothing, though I think that was not the intention. It's the fresh new perspective that you've seen multiple aspects of myself, pointing at multiple shades of the picture while looking from different windows each time.

LOL I'm typing and retyping this reply because I'm having difficulty finding the right words to say. I think this might be related to my thinking cognitive functions. I appreciate how you recognize my logical analyses in this, because a lot of people around me would beg to differ. They say I'm too illogical and I'm easily affected by the slightest things that people say and do, which is very true about me. The truth is I would have loved to say I like or dislike these types... but my subjective point of view may be looked upon harshly, and yet these were the first things that came into my head: I like INFP and INFJ personalities, that's why I navigated to this part of the forums, away from the INFJ forums, which I've rarely done since I got here at the cafe'. I just don't want to offend other people who are very strict on MBTI and the Jungian theories and make them scowl at my posts, so I put a great amount of effort into arranging my words to be logically sound with more objectivity than subjectivity. I rarely do this, but then again, I believed the need arose.

I do admit I do extravert from time to time and I love going to parties on certain occassions, talking to people, making friends, especially empathizing and helping others solve problems. Where light exists, so do shadows right? I am 2 sides of a coin in this manner. After observing myself throughout the life I've lived so far I'd say I'm quite an introvert though. To validate this, I'll tell you how this is now one of the best times of my life. I finally have my own room and I can stay locked up in this room of mine for days and days and sometimes even weeks. Just me and my thoughts! I love this so much, but sometimes I'm happy about this and I just want to spread happiness, so I go onto forums, go to parties and smile and be happy with other people. It's exhausting to talk to other people I admit and I can drive myself crazy if I stay around people for a few days without enough alone time to give myself. I have a tendency to go out to talk to other people sometimes rather than often; but I almost always have a tendency to daydream and think of how beautiful the sky is or imagine stuff up.

You've held my hand while I walked through the way I use my cognitive functions with you though, and I want to learn and keep learning and observing myself. It's just so fascinating how the mind works. Thank you for giving me a walkthrough on this. If you want to tell me more I'd love to hear it as well.

You know, you might be right about me. All I can acknowledge is that concrete or logical analysis can only take me so far and cannot help me dive into the realm of the occult, i.e. that which is hidden. This however is quite adventurous!


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

> I do admit I do extravert from time to time and I love going to parties on certain occassions, talking to people, making friends, especially empathizing and helping others solve problems. Where light exists, so do shadows right? I am 2 sides of a coin in this manner. After observing myself throughout the life I've lived so far I'd say I'm quite an introvert though. To validate this, I'll tell you how this is now one of the best times of my life. I finally have my own room and I can stay locked up in this room of mine for days and days and sometimes even weeks. Just me and my thoughts! I love this so much, but sometimes I'm happy about this and I just want to spread happiness, so I go onto forums, go to parties and smile and be happy with other people. It's exhausting to talk to other people I admit and I can drive myself crazy if I stay around people for a few days without enough alone time to give myself. I have a tendency to go out to talk to other people sometimes rather than often; but I almost always have a tendency to daydream and think of how beautiful the sky is or imagine stuff up.


Most of this we would explain as being largely unrelated to type. Though Jung makes some allusions to behavior and introversion/extraversion when he uses those terms he is largely speaking psychologically. The extravert being someone generally predisposed to the objective fact-based (or agreed-upon) observable world and introvert generally being predisposed to look inwardly first to their own subjective perceptions or judgments. In order to have self-awareness we must be able to perceive and judge the world around us, and make ourselves objects and perceive and judge ourselves relative to the world around us (otherwise we wouldn't be able to tell the two apart). That's what the functions do from Jung's perspective. Ego regulating mechanisms.

You have to understand though that while MBTI gives lip service to this, their definitions of Introvert/Extravert follow more the behavioral science/Adlerian model where these things are measured in terms of sociability, expressiveness, etc. I think the Jungians would mostly scoff at this because behavior is generally circumstantial and what motivates someone to act one way in a given circumstances can be influenced by a million things from how they've been raised or socialized, to shame and fear. So you sort of have to be able to distinguish the two a little bit. When Jung speaks of Introverted types he is talking about people whose initial go-to focus will be an internal one. What do I think? How do I feel? How does this experience register to me? And so on. Now everyone does this to a degree but with introverts it is their go-to method. Extraverts will have the tendency to do the object, to move toward the outer world. To focus on the world around them, and not interject anything from within onto it. Think of extraverted sensation, where no subjectivity of perception gets imposed onto an object. The sky is just blue, not 'the sky is the color of my grandmother's house' or whatever (that's a bad example). Extraversion relates to 'what is' objectively and often measurably, where introversion deals with 'what is relative to me.' Its one of the reasons Freud saw introversion as a form of narcissism because of its insistence of self-focus. 

Remember Cognitive Functions are not tools. It's not "when I drive I use Se" and "when I'm looking at a beautiful painting I'm using Fe" or whatever. It doesn't work quite like that. They are more like habituated preferences. General ways of approaching yourself and the world. So when an event occurs and you need to make sense of it, your dominant function will be the go-to mechanism to guide that process (say you use Thinking or Feeling or Intuition or Sensation) and the inferior function will be the rejected perspective. Your shadow self (but understand rejected doesn't mean not utilized, just not consciously chosen).


----------



## Cross (Sep 9, 2012)

LiquidLight said:


> You have to understand though that while MBTI gives lip service to this, their definitions of Introvert/Extravert follow more the behavioral science/Adlerian model where these things are measured in terms of sociability, expressiveness, etc. I think the Jungians would mostly scoff at this because behavior is generally circumstantial and what motivates someone to act one way in a given circumstances can be influenced by a million things from how they've been raised or socialized, to shame and fear. So you sort of have to be able to distinguish the two a little bit. When Jung speaks of Introverted types he is talking about people whose initial go-to focus will be an internal one. What do I think? How do I feel? How does this experience register to me? And so on. Now everyone does this to a degree but with introverts it is their go-to method. Extraverts will have the tendency to do the object, to move toward the outer world. To focus on the world around them, and not interject anything from within onto it. Think of extraverted sensation, where no subjectivity of perception gets imposed onto an object. The sky is just blue, not 'the sky is the color of my grandmother's house' or whatever (that's a bad example). Extraversion relates to 'what is' objectively and often measurably, where introversion deals with 'what is relative to me.' Its one of the reasons Freud saw introversion as a form of narcissism because of its insistence of self-focus.


Ah, I haven't thought that thre would be other ways to determining this than using objectivity to measure introversion and extroversion. I thought it was a kind of nature that would automatically show. What activities might I go about doing to try and see different perspectives on how I can be an extrovert and introvert without relying just on behavior?

>when I see the sky, I think it's blue, but I dont' think I'd remember the color of something else like a house. When I see the blue sky, the first thing I see as infinity colored with blue, as if I could fall into the blue sky with time being limitless as I plummet, such as how a balloon would disappear into the sky when it's too far for the eye to see... It's often after other cues: people asking qustions or telling me otherwise that my knowledge kicks in and tries to tell me how odd my thinking is > that the sky is merely a blue color due to the translucency of gas molecules mixed together to form air, and when light is bent through this, it presents as a certain shade of blue within a spectrum of other colors it could possibly emobody.

@_LiquidLight_, I hope I'm not taking up too much of your time and patience on this.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

Extraversion and introversion as Jung conceived them dealt primarily with psychological orientation. That orientation might produce effects such as someone being more withdrawn or expressive, but not necessarily. It really deals with whether or not someone is oriented to the outside world (that is the world outside of their own head) or the subjective personal experience. In either case neither exists in a vacuum. If a person sort of consciously prefers extraversion (i.e. they are an extraverted type like ESFP or ENTJ or whatever) there is also a counter reaction, via their inferior function (which will always be introverted). Think of it like a see-saw, with conscious extraversion being balanced by the largely unconscious introversion of the inferior function. This is one of the reasons why Jung thought that most people were in practice closer on the I/E scale if you could measure such a thing in general. (I should point out that MBTI and Myers do not share this point of view but rather assume the closeness in I/E is the result of the dominant/auxiliary function not the dominant/inferior). Jung was looking at things from the standpoint of conscious/unconscious presentation -- who the person thinks they are (dominant) vs. who the person is trying not to be or repress (inferior). MBTI basically only deals with who the person thinks they are. 

So one of the ways we can tell a person's type, usually over a long period of time, is to figure out whether the person's go-to orientation will be toward the outer, objective world, or back toward the self. One will come more naturally and one will feel more wrong. If we ask "where does the threat come from," you might well expect extraverts to say "from within," (saying things like "I don't trust myself," or "I'm not sure how I'd feel" or "I don't know what I'd do in x situation" as examples). Introverts almost as a rule must constantly retire inward because it is the outside world that they think will consume them. Because extraverts are habitually turned outward there is a tendency for them to be very sensitive about personal or subjective matters. The introverted feeling of an Extraverted Thinking type is, for example, vulnerable to thinking everyone is attacking them personally, or that their values or emotions or ideas are superior, or that their mission or purpose is somehow more special than that of someone else. These are manifestations of the sensitivity of their inferior introverted function. Because they are so used to looking at everything from an objective, non-personal standpoint, when they are forced to face their own subjective standpoint, to make themselves the object as it were, it is always touchy and sensitive. This goes for any extravert. The introverted intuitions of an Extraverted Sensation type will often be wacky, conspiratorial and out in left-field (yet they may see themselves as brilliant). The introverted thinking of Extraverted Feeling types has a tendency to be wonky with ideas not well thought through (often projected negatively at thinking establishments like Academia or the scientific community). 

Introverts on the other hand, so used to being locked up in their own houses, step out into the objective world with a degree of caution. Imagine someone who spends most of their time in their home and then has to come out in the real world. There might, with this come a degree of touchiness and sensitivity and thus the Thinking of an Introverted Feeling type is critical, authoritarian, tyrannical and super focused on simple ideas (see Freud). The Feeling of an Introverted Feeling type is hypersensitive and unrefined making for a person whose emotional expression is just uncalculated. Touchy one moment, ecstatic the next. The intuitions of a Si-dominant will take all of the normal possibilities that Ne throws out and give them a negative slant making them hyperbolic, prone to worry and always expecting the worst of a myriad of negative outcomes. 

It is this interplay between the conscious/unconscious, who the person thinks they are vs. who they are trying to not be (but also really are) and where you fall in the spectrum that are central to the concept of type as Jung conceived it. These are psychological orientations. Do I self-reference first or do I reference what is around me first with regard to Thinking, Feeling (evaluating emotions), my five senses or my intuitions? Usually if you begin to focus on the things that you hate in other people, don't think you are, don't ever want to be, they will begin to fit a pattern and that pattern will often be clearly extraverted or introverted. I'm of the belief that to find your type work from the bottom up. Figure out what you aren't, because we lie and delude ourselves about our egos and our personas. We are often unaware of the degree of influence of environment or parents and so on, but if you begin with what gets on your nerves, that is much more honest way of seeing things and it facilitates the type of self-growth that typology is all about. No one can answer that question for you, save for a trained Jungian analyst, but it should be come fairly apparent the more you think about it. Now that may not translate neatly into an MBTI type, but you should gain at least an idea of say whether or not you are a Feeling type or a Thinking type, prefer Sensation over Intuition etc. ONe of them should begin to feel more 'you' and the other 'not you'. The 'not you' is a likely indicator of your inferior function so you can just work backwards to figure out your dominant in most cases.


----------



## Cross (Sep 9, 2012)

I'll try what you've mentioned then LiquidLight.

The things that I lie to myself about in trying to be someone I'm not but end up regretting my decisions are the following.

1. Thinking I'm a very friendly and congenial person. I go around and meet new people, saying hi and introducing myself. I put on a smile and be nice as much as I can. This is all I can do because deep inside, it's like a whirlpool of insecurity and doubt ALWAYS forms. Other people say I'm very confident, friendly, and kind, whenever I speak to them, wether it's my smile or tone of voice. When I decide not too, they call me shy and at other times unfriendly. Even if the conversation is going so well, there are these thoughts that are there and I know they're there, but I try to fight them. Ideas such as: You're a terrible person | You're not good enough | You make other people miserable | The other person hates me - they're all there.

2. I'm lonely - this is why I go out to meet people in the first place. After I go to parties and talk to others and such, I go home, so tired and often regret that I left home. It's not that I pissed someone off, because I rarely do. It's because I love solitude. If I am lonely, it's definitely pleasing to me. The only time I don't like being alone is in the dark, but I can stand it just as well during a power outage at night.

3. I always want to please other people. Sometimes I just want to be really really selfish. I don't want to leave the house even though my closest friends want to see me. I don't want to help other people I don't like. I want to play computer games all day without a care in the world. I do care about what they think in a way, because whenever I do something selfish, no matter how petty that might be, there is always a linger feeling that I hate. Guilt? Discomfort? Self-loathing? I don't know, but I don't always care about what others think of me.

4. I am practical and I don't care about what other people think. I'd go out in boots if it were raining, and in our country, though it's a tropical one, people hesitate to go out in boots because it's hot. Whenever I go out in clothes that aren't in style... people always stare or look at me in an odd way. My friends make fun me. What society thinks of me or how I perceive they think of me... it always goes on in my head. I wish be alone, do eccentric things, do what I want and deviate from norms, but the what would people think? I don't know why I have to think about what they want or what they think, but it always has something to do with the result of my actions. I say sorry over and over again for no apparent reason. I smile to please. This is how I'd always do it. Maybe because in growing up, my mom would always say: What would other people think of you? and it just got stuck there.

Things that get on my nerves:

1. Being in a crowded area: Sometimes I honestly don't understand why I force myself to go to a bar or a party, or some mall where people cram in. Maybe just for a change of scenery? I am interested in meeting new people and sometimes observing from afar. Curiosity is what really drives me to get to know another person, but I am not interested in shallow conversation. I love asking questions about what other people think and feel. What has meaning to them and what does not. These things make it interesting to get to know another person, but being around so many people (a crowd) can really throw me off and make me upset. My favorite parties and trips always include close friends, and I don't mind adding more friends to my friends list, but I'd want to connect to them in not just a way that I can connect with an acquaintance. I want to connect on a deeper level, even with strangers. These things seem to be what I'd naturally do.

2. Too much noise. You can drag me to a party that I'd rather not be in, but if it's too noisy or there is too much distortion in the background - garbage, smoke, cockroaches and other pests, etc... I might just want to retreat inward inside my happy place - the world built on imagination. I can disconnected slightly from the reality around me like it's an ability of mine. I have the ability to drown out noise and images and other things and easily connect back to reality again if I wanted to. I think I learned that growing up in a very small house without my own bed room. I've loved doing this. Always helped me study and arrange theories, concepts, a view of another world, etc. without any connection to reality. My internal imagined world was my private place, and my happy place.

3. Too much expectation. Ask too much of me, without giving me a say on this, and I just get so irritated. To describe what too much is like: You can ask me to do chores around the house - it'd be my pleasure to pitch in. If you tell me how appreciative you are, it will make me very happy. If you ask me to keep doing more and more and don't do anything, up to a point where I get sleepy and tired and you don't let me rest, you're going to get it especially if you show no appreciation whatsoever. If that happened then you just ditched me out of nowhere, I am going to go into monster mode.

There was this one time, my girl friend stayed over at my house. She asked me to do some things for her - launder her clothes, get her something to eat, let her sleep on my bed. It was fine and all. We were both tired that day but she went to sleep and I stayed up because she had school the next day and I didn't. Then she wakes up just a little later. She gets her uniform and just up and had to leave. She doesn't say a word. I volunteer to accompany her to a place she can get a ride. She doesn't talk to me. No thank you's no nothing. I kiss her good bye and she just leaves. I got so angry the next time we chatted online - I blew everything she ever did wrong to me in her face and if she tried to say something I wouldn't let her speak. I arranged my words logically to form a sort of indirect attack and I concluded heavily that she was a complete disappointment of a woman after all of that. It hurt her deeply.​
I've done things, similar to the example above, to very close people in my life. I don't understand why I feel the need to get so defensive - why the anger mechanism triggers my thinking to shift, but it does and I go offensive when I'm angry, which is why I take comfort in solitude and my internal mind and it's workings and the inner world I've created. Nobody gets hurt there no matter how much anger I let loose. I can blow up the world I've made and remake it anytime I want to, or if I feel helpless I can instantly create another figure or person that comes out of nowhere to aid me and tell me how to go about life, and then I can create a series of events on how the problem would be solved - all thought up and imagined.


----------



## Cross (Sep 9, 2012)

For clarity of this thread; and for a little more introspection, I'll post more answers on these tests here. That and I just want to have a little fun with this.

*1) What aspect of your personality made you unsure of your type?*
The F for feeling (judging function) and the J for Judging (attitude)

*2) What do you yearn for in life? Why?*
A simple life where I'd be able to have the most freedom. I also yearn for wisdom and virtue. I ask too much out of life this way.

*3) Think about a time where you felt like you were at your finest. Tell us what made you feel that way.
*I miss highschool. It was definitely a rough time, but my mind enjoyed expansion at this point. I enjoyed and stretched the limit of my imagination this way.
*
4) What makes you feel inferior?*
Apparently what other people think of me. If someone tells me I'm inferior I may just think that, unless eveyrone else around me disagrees. 
*
5) What tends to weigh on your decisions? (Do you think about people, pro-cons, how you feel about it, etc.)*
Somehow it's always what people think. Even when nobody's around me, I'm always thinking what other people will think or what I'll make them feel. Even if I show others I don't care what they think, I still do care and it makes me feel uncomfortable.

*6) When working on a project what is normally your emphasis? Do you like to have control of the outcome?*
Most often, quality because I'm a perfectionist; but sometimes I'd settle for what can be done optimally or most efficiently at the moment. Yes I do want to have control over the outcome.

*7) Describe us a time where you had a lot of fun. How is your memory of it?*
I watched a comedy show on tv and kept on laughing. There was this other time, I was just reading a novel, but I had so much fun. Sometimes I enjoy having fun outdoors too - like going to shopping malls, parties, arcades, amusement parks, etc., but the most fun would be derived from spending it with my closest friends, whom I could trust more than anyone.

*8) When you want to learn something new, what feels more natural for you? (Are you more prone to be hands on, to theorize, to memorize, etc)*
I have to use my imagination. Reading the word isn't enough. I have to imagine what it would be like even if there are no pictures in a textbook. I can also imagine sensing something like what a particular fruit would taste like, what some song would sound like, etc. Some people do it hands on - that is unnatural for me. I'm naturally more of an Imaginary hands on learner.

*9) How organized do you to think of yourself as?*
I am disorganized... There's usually clutter in my room. The stuff in my bag is just stuffed there and I have difficulty finding it. I can plan a day out, but it takes me time. Organization isn't one of my strong suits.

*10) How do you judge new ideas? You try to understand the principles behind it to see if they make sense or do you look for information that supports it?*
Initially, I'd try to understand it first. It's usually after I've formed an idea or concept associated to it that I'd search for supporting information.

*11) You find harmony by making sure everyone is doing fine and belonging to a given group or by making sure that you follow what you believe and being yourself?*
I find harmony when everyone else is doing fine. I find disharmony in the fact that I think differently from them and it bothers me when I do even though I love to think differently from other people. Sometimes in school, I know I'm right, and everyone else thinks differently, and before the teacher/professor says I'm right right, I feel an immense amount of discomfort because everyone thinks a different thing. I feel confident when I've swayed them over to my way of thinking.

*12) Are you the kind that thinks before speaking or do you speak before thinking? Do you prefer one-on-one communication or group discussions?*
I think before speaking, although I sometimes accidentally slip up on this. I sometimes shock myself when I blurt out something without giving it much thought. I prefer one to one communication. Group discussions make me tense.
*
13) Do you jump into action right away or do you like to know where are you jumping before leaping? Does action speaks more than words?*
I think before I leap as well and I look ahead at that point. When I'm stressed, I act the opposite and I get so flustered I rush and just mess everything up sometimes. I believe actions speak louder than words in my opinion.

*14) It's Saturday. You're at home, and your favorite show is about to start. Your friends call you for a night out. What will you do?*
It depends on which friends of mine called. If I don't feel they're that close, I might decline. If they are close friends but we've been going out frequently in the recent days, I might decline, but if they do this pleading thing, I might force myself to accept despite hating leaving the house. I will find another way to watch the TV show in the future (but sometimes I fail at this).

*15) How do you act when you're stressed out?*
Like a monster. I can lash out at other people and make them feel miserable. If I'm alone, I find meditation, contemplating my thoughts, imagining stuff up, or sleeping to be the best courses of action.
*
16) What makes you dislike the personalities of some people?*
When other people are selfish and inconsiderate of other people's feelings and needs, and if they choose to oppress other individuals and violate their human rights. I likewise dislike it when they do not consider how I feel, what my needs are, and violate my rights too.
*
17) Is there anything you really like talking about with other people?*
I like talking about people's problems. It makes me feel like I can help by just listening and offering advice if that might be solicited. Conversely, I'd rather not talk about my personal problems and make others feel bad, but I might discuss this with you depending on many factors.
*
18) What kind of things do pay the least attention to in your life*
Managing my life properly. I tend to just go and do whatever I want to. I have a tendency of not paying attention to anything, and just shutting everything out completely and retreating into a world created by my own imagination.

*19) How do your friends perceive you? What is wrong about their perception? ? What would your friends never say about your personality ?*
They say I'm bookish, an academic, shy, impractical, illogical, overly dramatic, sometimes I act like a girl/lady, and they might say I'm kind and caring.
Sometimes my friends don't notice how logical and practical I can be (given that I seem to not show it properly). I also think that other people who are close to me don't realize I can be selfish at times because I feel burned out or that too much is expected of me and they are shocked to find me angry in a horrible offensive way.
My friends would never say I'm an outgoing, sociable, and playful party-goer. I do enjoy going to parties sometimes, but they kind of nailed me there because I'm more of a stay at home person.

*20) You got a whole day to do whatever you like. What kind of activities do you feel like doing?*
Anything, but I'd rather spend it in my room alone, unless a good friends asks me to do something fun. I can do so many things at home: Watch TV, read a book, surf the web, play video games, cook food or have food delivered to my house, play music, listen to music, read the news, contemplate about what the future might hold, create an imaginary world and think of what would happen from a certain point of time at a certain location within my imaginary world... the fun activities are endless for me when I'm alone at home, and it doesn't get boring.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

Your best fit MBTI type is probably INFJ.


----------



## zallla (Oct 11, 2011)

LiquidLight said:


> It is this interplay between the conscious/unconscious, who the person thinks they are vs. who they are trying to not be (but also really are) and where you fall in the spectrum that are central to the concept of type as Jung conceived it. These are psychological orientations. Do I self-reference first or do I reference what is around me first with regard to Thinking, Feeling (evaluating emotions), my five senses or my intuitions? Usually if you begin to focus on the things that you hate in other people, don't think you are, don't ever want to be, they will begin to fit a pattern and that pattern will often be clearly extraverted or introverted. I'm of the belief that to find your type work from the bottom up. Figure out what you aren't, because we lie and delude ourselves about our egos and our personas. We are often unaware of the degree of influence of environment or parents and so on, but if you begin with what gets on your nerves, that is much more honest way of seeing things and it facilitates the type of self-growth that typology is all about. No one can answer that question for you, save for a trained Jungian analyst, but it should be come fairly apparent the more you think about it. Now that may not translate neatly into an MBTI type, but you should gain at least an idea of say whether or not you are a Feeling type or a Thinking type, prefer Sensation over Intuition etc. ONe of them should begin to feel more 'you' and the other 'not you'. The 'not you' is a likely indicator of your inferior function so you can just work backwards to figure out your dominant in most cases.


This was very insightful and interesting to read. It is still not crystal clear for me how to interpret the reactions though and I wish you could elaborate. Are the things that bother one most the things related to the least developed functions and if so, why? Are they among the four first functions and if so, why exactly, why not among the four most ignored functions (from 5th to 8th)? What could be said about a person who 

a) is greatly annoyed by people who: control, manipulate, hurt, intrude physically (sudden and unwanted proximity, noises etc.), mentally or emotionally; provoke, share or force to share and express emotional reactions; assume that you have to be able to get along with everybody; expect you to do things because others do no matter if it makes sense or not.
b) does not think he/she is: good at or even willing to self-revelation and personal, emotional expressions; natural at socializing, very talkative, funny, engaging, fast and natural at finding new acquaintances; self-confident in the physical arena; party animal; willing to be reckless and careless or to let go of self-control.
c) does not want to be (and does not think he/she is): overly egocentric or cruel; overly kind or dependent on other people; shallow chatterbox who has very little clever, individual or insightful to say; people pleaser or overly emotional person who has no motivation for intellectual and mental pursuits; unable to differ from the mainstream?


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

Zweetner said:


> This was very insightful and interesting to read. It is still not crystal clear for me how to interpret the reactions though and I wish you could elaborate. Are the things that bother one most the things related to the least developed functions and if so, why? Are they among the four first functions and if so, why exactly, why not among the four most ignored functions (from 5th to 8th)? What could be said about a person who
> 
> a) is greatly annoyed by people who: control, manipulate, hurt, intrude physically (sudden and unwanted proximity, noises etc.), mentally or emotionally; provoke, share or force to share and express emotional reactions; assume that you have to be able to get along with everybody; expect you to do things because others do no matter if it makes sense or not.
> b) does not think he/she is: good at or even willing to self-revelation and personal, emotional expressions; natural at socializing, very talkative, funny, engaging, fast and natural at finding new acquaintances; self-confident in the physical arena; party animal; willing to be reckless and careless or to let go of self-control.
> c) does not want to be (and does not think he/she is): overly egocentric or cruel; overly kind or dependent on other people; shallow chatterbox who has very little clever, individual or insightful to say; people pleaser or overly emotional person who has no motivation for intellectual and mental pursuits; unable to differ from the mainstream?


To each of those questions a person would need to ask themselves "why?" Simply pointing out character traits isn't enough since character traits and behaviors represent the end-result of thought processes and not the beginning. Many of the things you articulate are largely circumstantial. No one is overly emotional with no motivation for intellectual and mental pursuits 100% of the time only circumstantially. So the question you have to ask is why? And under what circumstances? 

This is where trying to use an MBTI type as a cover for all this ("I do x because I'm XXXX type") is too superficial and misses the point of the whole exercise. If you were to be analyzed by a psychologist they might just as easily conclude all of those traits to be a mild form of Narcissistic Personality Disorder, or Avoidant Personality Disorder. A more analytical psychologist might say that all these behaviors and dispositions are the result of the avoidance of real pain or fear or stem from guilt ("I feel bad about something I did") or shame ("I am a bad person.") 

Max Jacoby, a prominent Jungian analyst makes the point that much of human behavior and dispositions can be traced directly to a reaction to guilt and shame or the avoidance of it (if you don't want to be seen as the life of the party the question is "why?" What would happen if you were and why is that so bad to you? Would be embarrassed?) You have to understand these things are much, much more complex than "my type makes me do this." Your type is just a filter through which you see yourself and the world not the defining characteristic of your psyche (it was never intended that way by Jung and not intended that way by the MBTI folks either). 

All the above sounds like is someone who has a miserable self-image (literally ashamed of himself and thus unwilling to stand boldly in his own shoes) not some typological orientation. 

See it doesn't matter whether the cause of a problem is one function, or a shadow function or something because identification doesn't fix anything. You have to understand that the very things that aggravate, annoy, or inspire you are all within you. Anytime, as in the first question, these things are projected outwardly, you are not owning your own potential to also be these things and thus you perpetuate the problem. I would ask this person under what circumstances do they themselves _"control, manipulate, hurt, intrude physically (sudden and unwanted proximity, noises etc.), mentally or emotionally; provoke, share or force to share and express emotional reactions; assume that you have to be able to get along with everybody; expect you to do things because others do no matter if it makes sense or not."_If the person responds, "never. That's not me." They're likely deluding themselves. That's the point of this whole exercise in typology is to recognize the fullness and richness of an individual and that starts by recognizing not just the 'good' aspects of yourself that you 'own' but also the negative or shadow aspects that you only see when they are manifested in other people. Whether or not its a shadow function or complex or whatever that's causing it is only identifying the issue which is only the first step, but solving the issue means tackling those (often emotional and touchy) issues head on and being brave about it. 

Jung's typological theory (and really his whole psychology upon which all of this MBTI stuff stands) centered around the idea of individuation or the process of becoming yourself. Finally putting aside all the blaming of parents and upbringing, the guilt, the anger, the shame, the projection, and realizing one's self as a complete person capable of tremendous good and tremendous evil. Judge, jury and executioner all coexisting in the same person. Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, both living in the same man (which is why stories like that are so powerful because they speak to the human experience). Identifying types was only meant to aid that process. To provide a rule of thumb or framework to help it easier to understand, but never meant to mask or hide behind (as many people do) and say "Well that's just the way I am." So does it matter someone's type? Not as much as they think in most cases. It sort of like identifying a left handed person vs. a right handed person, but that makes little difference if you are looking at the sum total of a person's life. It says nothing of hopes, fears, desires, it just says the person prefers their left hand. Similarly with type. 

The first question whenever a person identifies some characteristic ("i hate going out with friends," or whatever) is to ask "why?"


----------



## Vanishing Point (Oct 2, 2012)

Gettingacrossthebridge said:


> You know, I reread my results and the way I present myself to the world is very INFJ too. I can be an INFP when my cognitive functions simply shift. We can use them after all right, it's just that we're quite masterful in using most of them than the others.
> 
> An INFJ can work well with others even though they would rather work independently given that Fe seeks harmony, Ti, when developed can dictate what must be done through stricter logic rather than illogical motives and planning, and Ni converges the aspect of the group converging everyone together in this manner. The combination can make for efficient group efforts with an INFJ. I believe that is why the description of INFJ's was made, it was to summarize an effect of the cognitive functions. Conversely INFP's have difficulty working with others. Their standards and ideals can be extremely high due to Fi, which dictates what is more meaningful rather than what is more efficient, Ne which seeks to think of things that aren't there and that probably should be there when fused with Fi (I do hope my thoughts are going the right way with this, please politely correct me if I'm mistaken, your ideas are welcomed and imortant in this thread), and with a developed Si, one can look at the things that do not make something perfect and the missing details. They're said to hold very high ideas and standards, and I can be quite like that, while I argue how group meetings are logically inefficient, fallible, and pointless due to the lack of proper standards that the people I work with hold > and this is when argument is stirred.
> 
> ...


 I am a warm and kind of sweet in person but when I start on a project I like to have the role of what I'd term as being "the producer": Having an overall vision in mind, pairing the most suitable people to most suitable task, think about efficiency and manage the process. I'm pretty good with people and keeping the group spirit congenial is a strenght. I like a personalble and warm atmosphere but don't like rush jobs or substandard work. I can also sometimes be a huge perfectionist and don't like it if someone likes to mess with "my vision" for the project. In defining that framework...in that stage I find I tend to not like to work with people. Maybe it's Ni-Ti.  I see that as a very INFJ work method. Collaborating and the human side plus receiving input in HOW we'd do it comes after the framework's in place.


Gettingacrossthebridge said:


> *Example 2:*
> Ok, this is and has no relationship to stress, but may be a demonstration of how much I utilize my Fi and Ne. I have a tendency to want to talk about random things, anything at all, and they are not completely related, just vaguely. My friends have described me as random during these times, but I've had so much fun in such instances. This kind of conversation is my record breaker 6-9 hours straight, talking with someone close to me about anything under the sun and anything that might not be under the sun. I love stringing it together with logic, the occult, religion, philosophy, subjectivism and meaning. It deeply pleases me when the talk winds up towards deeply held morals, which I may or may not defend during the progression of the conversation.


 I do that too, but I think it's the impressionistic way Ni spews out symbols etc. and if you don'y edit it to a "coherent" sensible form it's just fireworks, but usually it's like snapshots verbally of the different places of the already existing inner idea structure I've acquired rather than random brainstorming. Like there is a village you know but no-one else has seen and you take snapshot photos of it and show your friends. It looks random and other's can't visualize what the whole village looks like because you don't have a 3d model of it. But it's not like an evolving string that starts with potato and leads to cat then to garbage truck, from scratch to the next and so on, if that makes sense.


----------



## Cross (Sep 9, 2012)

Vanishing Point said:


> I am a warm and kind of sweet in person but when I start on a project I like to have the role of what I'd term as being "the producer": I like a personalble and warm atmosphere but don't like rush jobs or substandard work. I can also sometimes be a huge perfectionist and don't like it if someone likes to mess with "my vision" for the project. In defining that framework...in that stage I find I tend to not like to work with people. Maybe it's Ni-Ti.  I see that as a very INFJ work method. Collaborating and the human side plus receiving input in HOW we'd do it comes after the framework's in place.
> 
> I do that too, but I think it's the impressionistic way Ni spews out symbols etc. and if you don'y edit it to a "coherent" sensible form it's just fireworks, but usually it's like snapshots verbally of the different places of the already existing inner idea structure I've acquired rather than random brainstorming. Like there is a village you know but no-one else has seen and you take snapshot photos of it and show your friends. It looks random and other's can't visualize what the whole village looks like because you don't have a 3d model of it. But it's not like an evolving string that starts with potato and leads to cat then to garbage truck, from scratch to the next and so on, if that makes sense.


Oh thank you for sharing your views with me on this! Yeah... I kind of get that how perfectionism in the light of efficiency can work with Ni Ti cognitive functions. But, the thing that got me most was how you described the random word spewing I, rather that we, do. I can tell you too, I'm certainly not brainstorming, for that's a weaker aspect of me, but sometimes I just need to be able to explain how these incoherent thoughts of mine are connected to each other for others to get it. Sometimes I may not realize that it seems quite incoherent for others to have data presented to them like this during conversation. Thank you so much for sharing!


----------



## Hycocritical truth teller (Aug 29, 2011)

That would be odd...you see i would understand someone claiming to be between ENFP and INFP but not sure.
But let's analyze your claim:

You caim to have:
INFJ - Ni,Fe,Ti,Se
INFP - Fi, Ne, Si, Te

Which would mean you have all 8 functions as your top 4 functions...and no shadow functions...because there is no function left haha
It has more sense to say you are between ISTJ and INFP for example but they use the same functions in different order. Which would mean you are actually unsure of your order.
But these are two completely different types.


----------



## Cross (Sep 9, 2012)

Hycocritical truth teller said:


> That would be odd...you see i would understand someone claiming to be between ENFP and INFP but not sure.
> But let's analyze your claim:
> 
> You caim to have:
> ...


Yeah I sort of found out during the progression of this thread.
:laughing:

I particularly enjoyed preconceiving other type possibilities too, but apparently INFJ seems to be the one that matches the most.


----------



## Le9acyMuse (Mar 12, 2010)

You're pretty symptomatic of an INFJ to me. The way you type alone implies some subjective imagination. Your ability to continuously speak seems to be of the 6 tendency. F and T are functions that focus on and arrange people and systems (both of them focus on both people and systems, but T is more depersonalized). T and F dominants usually have a sense of order (this is what would be done...this is what I would do...) in their sentiments because their ideas are primarily on how to manage systems in logical ways. Your text didn't have that. And it wasn't structural or experienced in affects like Sensation. It wasn't objectively Intuitive either. There was a psychological discretion (subjectivity) in your thoughts.

I'm sold on INFJ.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Hycocritical truth teller said:


> That would be odd...you see i would understand someone claiming to be between ENFP and INFP but not sure.
> But let's analyze your claim:
> 
> You caim to have:
> ...


People don't use functions "in order." The order relates to what they are more easily able to see influencing themselves than others in terms of functions. It has nothing to do with structure controlling the person.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

> 10. I do not repress my internal thinking, only my external presentation - when around people. I do not like displeasing other people because I will become displeased as well.


This sounds like Fe (other people's feelings latching onto your own).


----------

