# Trying to settle the seemingly endless INFP vs. ENFP debate



## 460202 (May 22, 2017)

Did this on another thread, and thought I'd post it here. I'm bored, really. My sister's gone, so I'm all alone with nothing to do and I'm too lazy to complete my assignment even though it's due tomorrow, so here I am. 

I'm pretty sure I'm an INFP. I don't know. I've always seen myself as an introvert, although socially, I'm somewhere in the middle - not too introverted, and those who see me as such have a distorted view of me. I think Jung's description of the introverted attitude suits me better, given how I think I respond to an object, but I do relate strongly to the explorative nature of the extroverted type. I've also reflected on many major decisions I've made in my life and they seem almost entirely under the influence of Ne. For example, I've been in a few relationships where I've had _really_ strong feelings for the guys I was with at the time and felt very attached to them, but have ended the relationships because I'd gotten "bored" or felt like they had nothing more to offer me, which seems to point towards a prioritization of Ne over Fi.

I don't believe I'm capable of analyzing myself objectively. So, here.

I answered this questionnaire about an hour ago. Maybe less than that. Anyway, good luck, and thank you.

*Question one. Are you vegan or vegetarian for moral reasons? Is your bedroom messy?*
Nope, and almost never.

*Question two. Describe your ideal partner.*
I have a tendency to see myself as the center of the universe, so a guy who's not entirely selfless and doesn't just roll over and tell me what I want to hear. I dated a guy who was a total pushover and that just brought out the worst in me. A guy who's assertive and strong-willed. I'm torn between enjoying being told I'm right and wanting somebody who doesn't agree with me on everything because I love to debate and have my opinions challenged. I don't tend to like macho guys. A "man's man" is just not my type, because I really can't talk sports or cars or anything guys are generally into. I like sensitive guys, but I have little patience for men who overly sappy and do weird shit like write poems and essays about how in love they are. I am romantic, though. I just don't like to be ostentatious about love or romance. A guy who's not controlling, but is good at getting stuff done, and just generally able to take care of the kind of stuff I'm terrible at. Somebody who'll push me to be more decisive, hardworking or to follow through on something, but at the same time, somebody who I can have fun with, especially if I can have tons of fun with him just by talking to him. Somebody who doesn't try to read my mind or assume he knows what I'm thinking or how I'm feeling at all times. Not antisocial, but not an extreme extrovert, who needs to be surrounded by people at all times. I tend to get bored easily, and I have broken up with guys because I've gotten bored and felt like I'd gotten all out of a relationship that I could, so I don't necessarily want a guy who'll constantly be changing, but it would be ideal if he always has something new and exciting to talk about. Nice hair. Doesn't put "grease" in his hair. I'm not an affectionate person, but I do like to play with a guy's hair, so if it's slimy or crunchy or has random spikes or shaved bits... I wouldn't say it's a dealbreaker; I'd just rather you not.

*Question (?) three. Tell me what you like to think about.*
Anything. Really, I could think about anything. Say a word and I'll think about everything related to it. It's not difficult to set my brain off, but it is difficult to get me to put my thoughts into words, because they come and go so quickly. This question made me think a lot, and I like thinking. Right now, I'm thinking about thinking, and more specifically, about how I think. My sister is sitting opposite from me, and I'm thinking about how she thinks, in comparison to how I think. I actually asked her how she thinks, and we just had the strangest conversation. She was confused at first, and said it's a weird question, but eventually started rambling. She said she thinks out loud, mostly, but there's some thoughts that she cannot share. I asked if its because she doesn't know how to articulate them or if it's because she _shouldn't_ say them out loud. She picked the latter. 

*Question (?) four. Tell me what you love to do.*
What a strange question. I like to think and I like to talk. I like taking in new information, although not in a physical sense. I'm not a very physically active person. I can sit in a room for an entire day without getting bored, as long as I'm constantly getting some form of external stimulation, through WiFi or TV or books or radio or company. I like to go out for walks, and I like to "explore," but it's in a very passive sense - like I'm just standing back and taking in what's around me. Skydiving and roller coasters just aren't my thing.

*Question five. Are you very ambitious? Do you like to compete? Describe. Or (choose between the first two and this one) Do you have big dreams? Describe them.*
I'm absolutely not ambitious. I can be competitive when it comes to things I really care about, which usually pushes me to work harder. I can be competitive at games too, which is something that runs in my family. Some people say we take board games too seriously, but I believe that the competition is what makes them so much more fun. 
I always have big dreams. I have no simple goals, like, "I would like to get married and have three kids." My dreams are more like, "I like photography right now but sitting back and taking pictures are boring so I'm going to become a photojournalist and maybe someday I can join Reporters Without Borders and make a difference in the world," or, "I find diseases to be interesting so I'm going to become an epidemiologist, and some day I'm going to make a biological discovery and will hopefully win a Nobel Prize." Sometimes I act on these "dreams," and sometimes my dedication to them dies when I'm done brainstorming, but I've never been able to follow through on my ideas. My dreams are capable of turning into plans, but sooner or later, I'll lose interest and decide to follow a new dream.

*Question six. What are your friends like? What do you like to do with them?*
They're all very different. There's one extreme introvert, a few extreme extroverts and a few more in between. Most of them have different ideas of fun to me, and really enjoy going to clubs or parties. Most are female, since I'm very much a girl's girl rather than a guy's girl. I find it much easier to get along with girls than with guys, because they're more likely to be interested in the same things that I'm interested in. Despite this, a lot of my acquaintances were guys, since I was a kid. I guess girls put more effort into building and maintaining friendships, generally. There were a lot of guys I knew in school who I could talk to for hours and never get bored of, but I never really considered them my friends.
I like to just sit and talk. A key factor in deciding whether somebody I get along with really well is my friend rather than just an acquaintance is imagining being stuck in a room with them for an entire day and wondering whether or not we'd be able to talk to one another and keep from getting bored. It's weird, because I'm generally a quiet person.

*Question seven. Do you ever feel as though you wear a mask?*
No. Never. There are sides to me that are repressed, but it depends on what's going on around me in the moment. There are certain situations and people who draw out different sides of me. Sometimes, I'll come across as really stuck-up and aloof. Sometimes, I'm uninhibited and goofy and unafraid to be the center of attention. Sometimes, I'm really shy and self-conscious. Sometimes, I'm pretentious and douchey. It really depends on what side of me is being drawn out, based on who I'm with and how they see me. I'm very independent and individualistic, and I don't succumb to peer pressure, but if someone is so rigid in their view of me that they'd make a big deal if I did anything to threaten that view, I'd rather avoid doing so. Like, if I get excited and ramble on about something and somebody who thinks they know everything about me says, "Oh my God, you're actually talking," I'm going to get really irritated and angry. I'm not very confrontational and prefer to avoid arguments, so I'd probably just try to avoid being put in that uncomfortable situation again whenever I'm around that person, by playing up the side of me they believe is all me, and repressing the rest.

*Question eight. Are you comfortable with yourself?*
Absolutely. More than most people, I believe. Very accepting of my shortcomings. I'm not really insecure. 

*Question nine. Would you ever consider going to a bdsm/sex house?*
I know I would be uncomfortable in that kind of setting, but I'd go out of curiosity, just to see what it's like. I wouldn't partake in anything, though.

*Question ten. Do you like to perform? Would you ever consider comedy?*
It's fun, but it's not something I'd consider dedicating my life to. I'm more interested in the behind-the-scenes work. I did a lot of performing growing up - dancing, mostly - but once for a class I'd been attending, I submitted a script and my play was selected out of about thirty. It was very rewarding to see it performed.
I would not. I'm good at thinking on the spot. I can never sit back and think up anything funny. I feel like to be good at comedy, you'd have to be good with planned comedy, and I'm just not. I'm also not great with timing or with physical acting. I love and am good at improv in comedy, however.

*Question eleven. Do you like answering questions about yourself such as these?*
I don't know. I don't like it, but I don't dislike it. It's not difficult for me to answer, but can be boring, and it takes a really long time for me to complete these questionnaires because I do them in between doing other stuff like writing essays (which I'm doing now) or watching movies and I get distracted and start surfing the web.

*Question twelve. Would you ever yell 'build a wall'? Would you ever say 'woman's rights are human rights'? Do both of these phrases disgust you? Do tell. Questions like these may or may not be used for your typing, depending on your description and explanation.*
Neither of those phrases disgust me. I would never yell, "Build a wall," but as somebody who lives in a country where people cross the border and are welcomed with open arms, I understand the importance of wanting to take whatever measures possible to combat illegal immigration. I see a lot of people from the States online complaining about Trump wanting to build a wall, which, yes, is a dumb idea, but they don't seem to be able to differentiate between legal and illegal immigration. 
Obviously, women's rights are human rights, but I've met too many people who preach this but don't feel the same way about men's rights. 

*Question thirteen. Are you a good listener? Do you do any of the following? Nod, and smile, say "Aw" and such, don't interrupt? Describe your listening style.*
I consider myself a good listener. People often come to me to talk about their feelings because they know I won't butt in or make them feel like their feelings aren't valid; I'll just sit back and listen and let them express themselves if that's what they want. I interrupt when I think of something to say. I don't usually nod too much and I absolutely don't react emotively by saying, "Awww," or gasping or anything like that. I do say, "Mmm," here and there just to let them know that I'm still listening. I do get distracted and my mind wanders away a lot, and if the conversation is boring, my thoughts would just be somewhere completely different. If the conversation is stimulating, my focus will be drawn back on topic whenever my mind wanders off.

*Question fourteen. Would you use a plastic bag or board to kill yourself or someone else?*
No. If I wanted to kill someone else, I'd make it look like a suicide. So, hanging. 

*Question five. Romantic comedies?*
Yes! I have a friend who compares me to Lizzy Bennett because I enjoy everything I consider ridiculous. That's how I feel about romantic comedies. The more over-the-top and cheesy, the more I have fun watching them.

*Question six. Physics?*
God, no. In high school, there were facets of physics I found interesting, such as electricity. Otherwise, I just can't get into it. I'm more of a biology and psychology person. 

*Question seven. Farts?*
Some people find them funny. I don't, however.

*Question eight. Do you believe in the importance of exercise and participate daily?*
I believe it's important to get regular exercise, maybe about once a week. I can't get into the routine of exercising regularly, so I need something to push me to do so. Exercising daily seems a bit excessive, to me. My sisters do it. I can't. 

*Question 18.5. Physical examinations? Would you rather have peace or exposed corruption?*
Wouldn't everyone rather have peace? Although, exposed corruption over hidden corruption any day. I do think that in order to achieve peace, corruption would have to be exposed, but I'll admit that I shrivel up in conflict and do my best to avoid those situations.

*Question nineteen. Did you notice any "inconsistencies" in these questions prior to this? Vent here*
Um, no. I don't think so. 

*Question 19.5. What did this test remind you of? *
At times, it seemed like a parody of most questionnaires. I did like this questionnaire, though. I think it's good for gauging functions. 

*Question 20. What if someone told you, "Stop eating"?*
I'd probably just look at them really weirdly and be confused and wonder what their problem is. Depending on my mood, I'd either remain silent, ask why, or say no.


----------



## NeedsNewNameNow (Dec 1, 2009)

I've found it the most difficult to distinguish between E and I in most type. Because they share the same functions, and introverts spend some of their time acting more extroverted and vice versa. There are times I wonder if I'm ENTP and not INTP.

I think it helps to look at the inferior function. What function gives you the hardest time. For me, I think I handle Si fairly well. Yes there are times details stress me out, but it's nothing compared to how I struggle with Fe. Especially with all the pleasantries that go along with it. A lot of it seems like pointless rules and does nothing but try to boost others feeling in an seemingly fake way, so I'll skip it thinking everyone can see it's fake and so doesn't really matter to anyone, and find myself in trouble for it, because it turns out that stuff actually does matter to people. So seeing that Fe is my worst, I'm probably INTP not ENTP. 

So for you, would you say that Si or Te causes you the biggest trouble?


----------



## navi__x3 (May 20, 2017)

I'm not the best at typing, so I won't do that..
But I noticed you said you could spend all day in a room as long as there is wifi, movies, games etc.. I'm on mobile so I can't access your post readily but I think you mentioned linking that to introversion. 
My husband is an ENTP, also a Ne Dom, an archetype version of the ENTP actually and that is his ideal day


----------



## Mr Castelo (May 28, 2017)

Okay, I think that I don't have the same level of knowledge on cognitive functions and Jungian psychology in general as you seem to have, but I'll try to help, anyway.

In my opinion, you show more Ne and Te than Fi and Si. Sure, Fi and Si are introverted functions so it's hard to perceive them, but even then, when I compare you to the INFPs that I know, I see less Fi and Si and more Ne and Te. My INFP friend's life revolves around his values, feelings, likes and dislikes, etc. To him, Ne is merely a tool which he uses to connect everything and fit everything together around his Fi. Also, he's terrible at planning things, he may try to, but I can spot a hundred of holes in his plans as soon as he starts to tell them to me. So he talks about doing things (usually something related to his values), and although he can come up with a poorly constructed plan in order to do these things, he almost never comes down to actually doing them. From what I gathered from some of your previous posts (and correct me if I'm wrong here), you have actually done some of the things that you had considered doing in the past, and as I see it, ENFPs are way more prone to act on their plans (at least for some time before they change their mind again) than INFPs. ENFPs are extraverts, so they already are more likely to act than INFPs, and they have tertiary Te... you know where I'm getting at. Moreover, you seem to be more reckless and decisive than the INFPs that I know, they can come up with some crazy ideas, but they rarely act on them, and I don't think that they would like to spend their entire lives (or most of it) chasing after new possibilities even though it does excite them to do so, what they really want to do is to find their one true passion in life and stick to it.

Anyway, I know that I used a lot of comparisons here and that's not really my style, but I'm not that familiar with how the Ne/Si stack works so I have to use what I got. Maybe this doesn't help at all, but I would like to give you my opinion anyway.


----------



## 460202 (May 22, 2017)

NeedsNewNameNow said:


> I've found it the most difficult to distinguish between E and I in most type. Because they share the same functions, and introverts spend some of their time acting more extroverted and vice versa. There are times I wonder if I'm ENTP and not INTP.
> 
> I think it helps to look at the inferior function. What function gives you the hardest time. For me, I think I handle Si fairly well. Yes there are times details stress me out, but it's nothing compared to how I struggle with Fe. Especially with all the pleasantries that go along with it. *A lot of it seems like pointless rules and does nothing but try to boost others feeling in an seemingly fake way*, so I'll skip it thinking everyone can see it's fake and so doesn't really matter to anyone, and find myself in trouble for it, because it turns out that stuff actually does matter to people. So seeing that Fe is my worst, I'm probably INTP not ENTP.
> 
> So for you, would you say that Si or Te causes you the biggest trouble?


I used to be certain I was an inferior Te, but I read something about Te acting up under stress on this very site, somewhere, about how it behaves similarly IXTJs, EXFPs and IXFPs, because our Te is unconscious, although IXTJs do not have the same negative view of their Te as lower Te users though because Te is their prioritized judging function. I do find that I relate very well to both inferior Te and inferior Si descriptions, which is why I believe trying to figure out my dominant function is the way to settle this once and for all.

However, your feelings towards Fe are very similar to my feelings towards Si, which is a big help. I'm extremely antagonistic towards it. Te is useful to me. When I'm stressed out or angry, I flip a switch and go into Te mode and I get things done once and for all, or put my foot down. It's good. It's assertive, and organized, and competent. I most certainly don't have fun or even experience a sense of relief when I use Te, but it helps me to _do_ something. I get something out of it. 

Si is just useless, most of the time. I chafe at any "narrow," rigid, subjective view somebody might have of me, or the world, or anything, but I know I lean back onto my own subjective ideals at times, for example, in thinking that I cannot be an ENFP because I don't run around sprinkling fairy dust and rainbows on people. All Si is good for making me a hoarder, or the kind of boring person who goes to the same restaurant and orders the same meal every time I eat out.

I'd also read somewhere that inferior Sensing types tend to ignore what's going on with their bodies when they're engrossed in something conceptual that they find more fascinating (or rather, that is prioritized). For example, when I'm completely fixated on something interesting, I often won't even notice that I am hungry until somebody asks me if I want to eat. I spend most of my time alone, so if I do realize that I'm about to faint from starvation, I'll usually just fix up the easiest, most convenient meal so that I can get back to doing something that is more interesting to me. I've been underweight for most of my life and have even been hospitalized several times due to my bad eating habits. I have wondered if this is more of a low S thing than an inferior S thing, so can you relate? 

Thank you for your input.


----------



## 460202 (May 22, 2017)

navi__x3 said:


> I'm not the best at typing, so I won't do that..
> But I noticed you said you could spend all day in a room as long as there is wifi, movies, games etc.. I'm on mobile so I can't access your post readily but *I think you mentioned linking that to introversion. *
> My husband is an ENTP, also a Ne Dom, an archetype version of the ENTP actually and that is his ideal day


I did not link this to introversion, although I used to for a long time. I realize now that this may be on account of me needing external stimulation. I spend most of my time on my own, but I have easy access to new information and to other people, so I'm constantly finding new ways to entertain myself and new things to explore. I think a hell of a lot, and spend more time thinking about stuff than anything, and can go a long time thinking without talking (which might be linked to my 945 enneagram type), but I'm trying to figure out whether or not what I'm constantly thinking about is something I've gathered (and am building on) from the external world. I can think about myself and my feelings and my interactions with others, and try to figure people out, for ages without getting bored, but I'm not sure as to whether this is on account of the high Fi or introversion.

My ENTP sister is pretty much the same way, although she does enjoy some face-to-face interaction when she gets bored.

Anyway, thank you for sharing your thoughts.


----------



## 460202 (May 22, 2017)

Mr. Castelo said:


> Okay, I think that I don't have the same level of knowledge on cognitive functions and Jungian psychology in general as you seem to have, but I'll try to help, anyway.


Second time someone's said something like this in the past few days. I've got to stop talking as though I know everything.



> In my opinion, you show more Ne and Te than Fi and Si. Sure, Fi and Si are introverted functions so it's hard to perceive them, but even then, when I compare you to the INFPs that I know, I see less Fi and Si and more Ne and Te. My INFP friend's life revolves around his values, feelings, likes and dislikes, etc. To him, Ne is merely a tool which he uses to connect everything and fit everything together around his Fi. Also, he's terrible at planning things, he may try to, but I can spot a hundred of holes in his plans as soon as he starts to tell them to me. So he talks about doing things (usually something related to his values), and although he can come up with a poorly constructed plan in order to do these things, he almost never comes down to actually doing them. From what I gathered from some of your previous posts (and correct me if I'm wrong here), you have actually done some of the things that you had considered doing in the past, and as I see it, ENFPs are way more prone to act on their plans (at least for some time before they change their mind again) than INFPs. ENFPs are extraverts, so they already are more likely to act than INFPs, and they have tertiary Te... you know where I'm getting at. Moreover, you seem to be more reckless and decisive than the INFPs that I know, they can come up with some crazy ideas, but they rarely act on them, and I don't think that they would like to spend their entire lives (or most of it) chasing after new possibilities even though it does excite them to do so, what they really want to do is to find their one true passion in life and stick to it.


I've heard that INFPs tend to live their lives slowly, while ENFPs live their lives quickly. Like, they're constantly doing one thing, and then they hop onto another, whereas the INFP is more... I don't know. Reluctant to act? Slower to start and slower to leave? Anyway, I've always considered myself a very "slow and steady" person, which might be due to the fact that I'm a type 9 enneagram, but when I step back and look at my life, especially at the past four years or so when I've had complete control over my life, there's just been one big thing after another. 

I'm leaning towards ENFP right now, which is strange considering just yesterday, I was leaning towards INFP, but I am reluctant to type myself as such due to one reason. A few weeks ago, I'd filled in a questionnaire and started a thread which I am too lazy to link you to, asking to be typed (wondering if I was an NFP or an STJ) and INFP was the unanimous decision. One user had typed me by letters, saying I showed a very pronounced preference for introversion due to me being pretty much controlled by my subjective view of things. He argued that the object got no say, and I read over my questionnaire, and realized he was right. It was all about _me_, and how _I_ defined something, and how _I_ felt about the object. 

The problem is that I seem to be an introvert, by Jung's definitions (and by the universal definition of introversion in a social context) as well as an Ne-dom, which doesn't makes sense with regards to how we interpret and apply Jung's method of typology today.

Comparing my first questionnaire with this one is... interesting. I was all alone when I had completed the first questionnaire, and I had company and had scattered my energy across several activities when I had completed this one. I think being alone while filling in the first one had caused me to sink into my introverted functions, and that being engaged with the external world had drawn out my extroverted functions while I was doing this questionnaire. You seem to be typing me based on interacting with me in general, however, so I am taking your thoughts into deep consideration.



> Anyway, I know that I used a lot of comparisons here and that's not really my style, but I'm not that familiar with how the Ne/Si stack works so I have to use what I got. Maybe this doesn't help at all, but I would like to give you my opinion anyway.


No worries. Thank you. I appreciate any input. 

Quick question before I go: how would your INFP friend answer question fourteen?


----------



## brightflashes (Oct 27, 2015)

Of the two, you seem like an ENFP.


----------



## Mr Castelo (May 28, 2017)

Flower Hat said:


> Second time someone's said something like this in the past few days. I've got to stop talking as though I know everything.


Haha, sorry.



> I've heard that INFPs tend to live their lives slowly, while ENFPs live their lives quickly. Like, they're constantly doing one thing, and then they hop onto another, whereas the INFP is more... I don't know. Reluctant to act? Slower to start and slower to leave? Anyway, I've always considered myself a very "slow and steady" person, which might be due to the fact that I'm a type 9 enneagram, but when I step back and look at my life, especially at the past four years or so when I've had complete control over my life, there's just been one big thing after another.


Yes, I think that INFPs definitely are slower to act than ENFPs. One of the reasons I think that INFPs can take some time to end one thing (mainly personal projects) and jump to the next one is because they can get attached to them beyond what their Ne finds interesting, their Fi can "slow them down" because they see personal value in what they have accomplished, making them a little more reluctant to leave that behind in order to pursue a new idea (I think that tertiary Si also takes a role in this).

Interestingly enough, my INFP friend is also a 9, but he's a 9w8, I believe (he is anger issues incarnated).



> I'm leaning towards ENFP right now, which is strange considering just yesterday, I was leaning towards INFP, but I am reluctant to type myself as such due to one reason. A few weeks ago, I'd filled in a questionnaire and started a thread which I am too lazy to link you to, asking to be typed (wondering if I was an NFP or an STJ) and INFP was the unanimous decision. One user had typed me by letters, saying I showed a very pronounced preference for introversion due to me being pretty much controlled by my subjective view of things. He argued that the object got no say, and I read over my questionnaire, and realized he was right. It was all about _me_, and how _I_ defined something, and how _I_ felt about the object.
> 
> The problem is that I seem to be an introvert, by Jung's definitions (and by the universal definition of introversion in a social context) as well as an Ne-dom, which doesn't makes sense with regards to how we interpret and apply Jung's method of typology today.
> 
> Comparing my first questionnaire with this one is... interesting. I was all alone when I had completed the first questionnaire, and I had company and had scattered my energy across several activities when I had completed this one. I think being alone while filling in the first one had caused me to sink into my introverted functions, and that being engaged with the external world had drawn out my extroverted functions while I was doing this questionnaire. You seem to be typing me based on interacting with me in general, however, so I am taking your thoughts into deep consideration.


Yeah, your mood can definitely affect how you answer things so it's difficult to know what's more natural for you, I think only deep introspection can answer this question. But I don't think that being a Ne-dom and an introvert by Jung's definitions is possible, if you use Ne as your dominant function, then you do interact with the world objectively and use it as a main source for your ideas, thoughts and overall mental energy. It's possible that, in the case of Ne being your dominant function, you're so used to use Ne that it seems less conscious to you. Even if Ne is in a conscious position, intuition still is unconscious.



> Quick question before I go: how would your INFP friend answer question fourteen?


I asked him this question and he said that he would use the plastic bag (after asking me plenty of questions about what the hell I was asking him).


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Is it possible you're an INFP who're just more 'ENFP' online?

I mean, when we talk online, we only ever discuss things we're interested in (otherwise why are we here) and that lends itself to chatting away and you could come across as more of an extravert to others on a forum, about something that interests you, because you're passionate about it, got an interest in it, so it's easier to talk for days.

In real life though, where not everything you do is something you're passionate about, you're more likely to keep to yourself yeah?
Not likely to spark up a conversation with someone out of nowhere about anything?

I mean consider just walking up the shop to buy milk, I'll just hand over the milk, say "just that mate", pay and say "cheers" that's it, done.

I imagine an ENFP would be like "just the milk, hey mate, how 'bout this weather today? it's freezing. it's like a blizzard out there, you been busy mate? yeah good stuff anyway can't stay and chat, yeah Paywave is good, weird how that works, anyway seeya later mate, have a good one".

You know. It's stereotyping, but people with an extraverted dominant function are more likely to chat with people - to interact with people - that they don't know etc, in real life.

That's how I imagine it anyway.

I've done some reading overnight and come to the conclusion I'm an INFP - I read Dario Nardis 8 Keys to Success book and resonated with Fi and Ne the most. In that order, as well, so that's what I'll role with.

Hey maybe you should get the book and have a read yourself, it's great stuff, not expensive either.
You're obviously way into this stuff so it'd be worth it if you haven't already, it's got little tests where you can test yourself for each function and see how you relate to them all, not to mention it's a gold mine regarding cognitive functions.

From what you've said I'd go with INFP too.


----------



## UnicornRainbowLove (May 8, 2014)

I'll try to be systematic. I've cherrypicked a few interesting descriptions of Ne and Fi from PT. I'll see where you fit and don't fit, but please fill in the blanks where I can't.

Now, Jung did see extroverts as being outgoing and reading the description of Ne doms gives a strong sense of someone extroverted. Therefore, if you're an introvert (in the colloquial sense) there should already be large portions of the Ne type you don't relate to.

Btw, going off on tangents is, as I read it, is not directly included in the description of the Ne type.


*Extraverted intuition type*
-_Always chasing possibilities._ You seem oriented toward talking and thinking. That's what you said you liked to do and what you wanted a possible boyfriend to do with you. You never gave too many daily life examples of where you seek adventure. Actually you said your exploration was dominantly "passive", as in reading and taking in information. In your last questionnaire I got the impression that your immersion into the outside world was rather limited and working on it would benefit you.
I find ENFPs often partake in overly many activities and may even be promiscuous. Of course that comparison may be unfair due to your age. You simply may not have had the time and opportunity yet to go down that line. 
-_Newly discovered possibilities are forceful motivators that Ne is prepared to give up anything for. Morality isn't founded in feelings or thoughts but in a loyalty to chasing adventures/possibilities._ This does seem to fit in many ways. You've changed boyfriends and educations out of boredom and feeling trapped. This may obviously come from too quick commitment and inability to control your enthusiasm, but it falls in line with the Ne description since you didn't use other kinds of judgment. On the other hand, I'm not sure you're in the grip of this too often.
-_Is in a state of expectation of the future._ I can't say. Do you keep an eye out for what'll happen next?
-_Builds actively on the object._ Perhaps this is where the idea of "going off on tangents" comes from, although I doubt it. I imagine that you do this a lot.
-_Doesn't like stability._ I don't know, but I imagine you would say you quickly grow bored?
-_Enthusiastic and inspiring to others._ I doubt you would see this as your strongsuit. You said your body language was an obstacle toward becoming a comedian.
-_People of this type are often in business and politics. They like changing environments._ Yes, there is a certain sense of this. At least ideally you desire jobs that are full of outside stimulation and newly arising possibilities. How you'd actually feel in them I can't say for sure.
-_Ne women like men with possibilities in them._ I cannot adequately assess that through what you said about your ideal partner, but it did seem to me that you didn't want your partner to change you, but rather help you toward goals set by yourself. I imagine that you wouldn't mind men with financial, networking and intellectual capabilities to get you places, which I think is what Jung meant, but that's a widely shared preference among women although not all of them would seize all the opportunities it gives. 

Some of your Ne seems solely mental, like a form of intuition for an introvert who's interested in the ideas rather than possibilities. In PT the part of chasing possibilities is much more pronounced for the type itself rather than the "coming up with ideas". If Ne is the dominant factor within the psyche it should cause you to take a lot of action.


*Introverted feeling type*
-_Feels a sense of superiority, devaluation or disdain toward the objective emotions and values._ I thought you showed this to quite an extent. You claim to be independent, individualistic, don't succumb to peer pressure, and don't participate in popular civil rights movements but play them down a bit. Also you didn't like macho guys, but then again perhaps that isn't a widely held ideal by women.
-_Longs for a strong intensity of emotions. Chases deep emotions._ You didn't state this, so I can't be sure. 
-_Is liable to selfabsorption and overemphasis on the I._ You said you sometimes felt the world revolved around you. 
-_Usually hard to get to know/to open up._ You expressed a dislike for men trying to "read" you, at least if they do it too much. Fits that you're quiet.
-_Uintelligible thoughts - at least when opening up in a therapeutic way._ While you seem to have a strong fascination with your own self and have thought about it at lenghts, which makes you rather eloquent, I have a hunch that if you were to explain just a few layers deeper about your changing attitudes that it would be very hard for the rest of us to understand your reasoning. 
-_Frequently melancholic._ I can't say.
-_Secretive emotions._ You may ramble, but you also seem to not have very visible emotions to others, and I'm guessing your family are scratching their heads to understand you.

Nothing seems to strongly go against Fi as your dominant function. You're enigmatic and have an extremely personalized value system that devalues a lot of what others find to be of importance. 
Being the armchair psychologist I am I see a lot of your changing outward behaviours, plans and moods as an exploration of yourself. Playing out different personalities isn't unlike creating them in books. In that sense your exploration will often be much more introverted than you give it credit for. 
On the other hand you didn't display a strong yearning for evocation, but perhaps that is in reality often the root of many of your dreams? A lot of what you wrote here had to do with how you relate to Ne, but I would like to hear something about how you relate Fi as well to get a fairer comparison.

While you show many signs of Ne, I think for consistency reasons it's more sound to say you're an INFP.


----------



## 460202 (May 22, 2017)

brightflashes said:


> Of the two, you seem like an ENFP.


Why's that?


----------



## 460202 (May 22, 2017)

Turi said:


> Is it possible you're an INFP who're just more 'ENFP' online?
> 
> I mean, when we talk online, we only ever discuss things we're interested in (otherwise why are we here) and that lends itself to chatting away and you could come across as more of an extravert to others on a forum, about something that interests you, because you're passionate about it, got an interest in it, so it's easier to talk for days.


That's an interesting thought. I've always thought that due to the fact that when you're typing your thoughts (as opposed to speaking them out loud) that you've got more time to sit down and work through your introverted functions And give them to rumination they need, so they can be articulated more clearly than they are in real life. It's just a theory. 



> In real life though, where not everything you do is something you're passionate about, you're more likely to keep to yourself yeah?
> Not likely to spark up a conversation with someone out of nowhere about anything?


I don't know. I want to say no, but I know that in university, despite being more of a loner, it was really easy for me to have a good, long conversation with a stranger as long as the moment was right and we just hit it off. I don't know. It just depended on the person and the moment. It's like 50/50 thing. Like, I'm either hot or cold with people.



> I mean consider just walking up the shop to buy milk, I'll just hand over the milk, say "just that mate", pay and say "cheers" that's it, done.
> 
> I imagine an ENFP would be like "just the milk, hey mate, how 'bout this weather today? it's freezing. it's like a blizzard out there, you been busy mate? yeah good stuff anyway can't stay and chat, yeah Paywave is good, weird how that works, anyway seeya later mate, have a good one".
> 
> You know. It's stereotyping, but people with an extraverted dominant function are more likely to chat with people - to interact with people - that they don't know etc, in real life.


Doesn't sound like me at all. Sounds like my XSFJ mother, though. Doesn't sound like my ENTP sister at all either, though she can be quite charming. Although, I know comparisons aren't a great way to type. 



> I've done some reading overnight and come to the conclusion I'm an INFP - I read Dario Nardis 8 Keys to Success book and resonated with Fi and Ne the most. In that order, as well, so that's what I'll role with.
> 
> Hey maybe you should get the book and have a read yourself, it's great stuff, not expensive either.
> You're obviously way into this stuff so it'd be worth it if you haven't already, it's got little tests where you can test yourself for each function and see how you relate to them all, not to mention it's a gold mine regarding cognitive functions.


The Keys2Cognition guy? I'll try to find the book, but I'll admit that I'm not a fan of tests in general. Keys2Cognition typed me INFP with ENFP and INTP suggested as alternates. Personality Junkie typed me INTP. 



> From what you've said I'd go with INFP too.


Thank you for your input, but is there a reason why I seemed more INFP?


----------



## 460202 (May 22, 2017)

Mr. Castelo said:


> Yes, I think that INFPs definitely are slower to act than ENFPs. One of the reasons I think that INFPs can take some time to end one thing (mainly personal projects) and jump to the next one is because they can get attached to them beyond what their Ne finds interesting, their Fi can "slow them down" because they see personal value in what they have accomplished, making them a little more reluctant to leave that behind in order to pursue a new idea (I think that tertiary Si also takes a role in this).
> 
> Interestingly enough, my INFP friend is also a 9, but he's a 9w8, I believe (he is anger issues incarnated).


I tend to not get "attached" to any of my many hobbies or projects so I don't really feel anything other than guilt for wasting time and money on them when I've abandoned them. 



> Yeah, your mood can definitely affect how you answer things so it's difficult to know what's more natural for you, I think only deep introspection can answer this question.


I think that introverted functions are "activated" when you're alone / introspecting and extroverted functions are "activated" when you're interacting with other people / the external world. I can't decide which of those things comes more naturally to me.



> But I don't think that being a Ne-dom and an introvert by Jung's definitions is possible, if you use Ne as your dominant function, then you do interact with the world objectively and use it as a main source for your ideas, thoughts and overall mental energy. It's possible that, in the case of Ne being your dominant function, you're so used to use Ne that it seems less conscious to you. *Even if Ne is in a conscious position, intuition still is unconscious.*


Yes, I believe that Jung had stated that Ne was unconscious in his description of the Extroverted Intuitive type.



> I asked him this question and he said that he would use the plastic bag (after asking me plenty of questions about what the hell I was asking him).


I was just wondering, because I know that when I was answering that question I was lazy to delve into it and answered sarcastically because that was the first thing I could think of. I wondered if an Fi-dom would take the question more seriously and would delve more deeply into it.


----------



## brightflashes (Oct 27, 2015)

Flower Hat said:


> Why's that?


Hey, sorry, I'm about to go to work, but I wanted to let you know I saw your reply and to know I'll get back to you either here or a PM later. I can say, though, that a big indicator is just how much Ne you use. It seems too much to be an aux.


----------



## brightflashes (Oct 27, 2015)

@Flower Hat

Well, my case canceled, so I'm home again. First, I think your two conscious functions are Ne and Fi for sure. So, the only thing to go by from there is which order are they in? 

I'm an INFP and I identify with many of your responses. For example, being able to think about anything, just spending time with your friends talking (that connection for me and exploring ideas and other people's experiences is so interesting), the not wearing a mask thing is probably exactly how I would have responded (just using different words). So, I see either a fellow INFP or an ENFP cousin.

The reasons I would go E instead of I is that you seem more tolerant of interaction than I am. I don't think I'm a particularly good listener, for example, but other people seem to think that. You also seem much more exploratory than I am. While I have a variety of interests, I tend to stay at home to explore them rather than going out. Also, the answering questions about yourself - I absolutely love to answer questions about myself. I think I'm probably pretty self-absorbed when it comes to self-reflection.

The not being able to be objective about yourself comment, by the way, I totally relate to a lot.

Potential biases with my observations:

- I am profoundly introverted; it's my strongest of all the dichotomies. So, sometimes other Introverts who are less so tend to feel more Extraverted to me. 
- I am also a type 5 Enneagram, so withdrawal and isolation is sort of a thing for me.
- Age range and developmental stage. I'm 36, partnered up, and have two kids, so the way I perceive the world would be very different from someone at a different age and developmental stage. I remember being much more social, for example, about 15 years ago.

Hopefully that lends a bit more clarity to my reasoning. Something I'd really recommend is to spend some time on the INFP and ENFP subforum and see which one feels more like "home" to you. I can say that people on both forums are extremely nice and wonderful, but INFP just feels more like "home base" for me.


----------



## 460202 (May 22, 2017)

UnicornRainbowLove said:


> Btw, going off on tangents is, as I read it, is not directly included in the description of the Ne type.


It's not. I think it's just something that most people (myself included) see as stemming from Ne. Expanding on ideas and stuff. 



> _Always chasing possibilities._ You seem oriented toward talking and thinking. That's what you said you liked to do and what you wanted a possible boyfriend to do with you. You never gave too many daily life examples of where you seek adventure. Actually you said your exploration was dominantly "passive", as in reading and taking in information. *In your last questionnaire I got the impression that your immersion into the outside world was rather limited and working on it would benefit you.*


I don't know if it's limited. My parents seem to think so. I guess my interactions with the external would are very limited in a physical sense, but socially, I believe that both I and my parents exaggerate how limited my interactions are. I think I called myself a recluse in the last questionnaire, because my parents always describe me as a recluse, but I neither avoid social interaction nor do I actively seek it out. I do think it would benefit me to work on how I deal with the outside world, since external pressure tends to push me to do things that I tend to ignore or put off. 



> I find ENFPs often partake in overly many activities and may even be promiscuous. Of course that comparison may be unfair due to your age. You simply may not have had the time and opportunity yet to go down that line.


Many activities? I had too many hobbies growing up. I still feel bad about the amount of money my parents had spent on me every time I took on something new, because ultimately I'd end up getting bored with my hobbies. I still have a problem in taking on a lot more than I'm capable of handling. I do a lot of people's homework for them, just to help out or because it seems interesting, even when their major is completely different to mine.

I'm not promiscuous at all, but I do consider myself romantically and sexually assertive. I was a late bloomer, however, based on... standards set by people I know. Didn't start dating until almost a year after I graduated high school, which isn't that unconventional, come to think of it. 

I've lurked through a lot of threads, especially INFP ones. I don't relate to the promiscuity or social boldness of ENFPs, but I don't relate to the passivity of INFPs (especially 9w1 INFPs, like myself) in such situations either. I could never just stand back and wait for someone to approach me when I'm interested in them, especially when it comes to romance. If I like a guy, and I know he likes me, I will do something about it. 

Of course, comparing myself to other NFPs is kind of a stupid, lazy way to type. Everyone types based on different methods and have different impressions of the types, and... Oh, I was trying to make a point here and I got distracted watching _Friends_. You should know that I am an adult on Ritalin. 



> _Is in a state of expectation of the future._ I can't say. Do you keep an eye out for what'll happen next?


Always. What's may happen next is actually a major factor in my decision-making process. Motivates me, too.



> _Builds actively on the object._ Perhaps this is where the idea of "going off on tangents" comes from, although I doubt it. I imagine that you do this a lot.


Yes, this might be where people associate Ne with tangents. I do think that I do this a lot, but I also think that it causes me to become fixated on something. Sometimes people just want to state their opinion on a topic and then move on, but I'll have so much more to say and I'll want others to give their input / respond to my thoughts, so I'll keep talking, and they'll be all like, "Okay. We've moved on from that. Talking about something else now."



> _Doesn't like stability._ I don't know, but I imagine you would say you quickly grow bored?


I do, but I'm not sure how I feel about stability. I want to feel free to do whatever I want, whenever I want, but I understand that this is not a responsible or pragmatic thing to want. I understand the importance of stability, especially financial stability. I'm very easygoing with regards to stability in relationships, however.



> _Enthusiastic and inspiring to others._ I doubt you would see this as your strongsuit. You said your body language was an obstacle toward becoming a comedian.


True. This is absolutely not me. People do come to me to vent or just talk about their problems / feelings, but I'm not deliberately doing anything to make them feel like they can talk to me. I believe this is more common in INFPs than ENFPs?



> _People of this type are often in business and politics. They like changing environments._ Yes, there is a certain sense of this. At least ideally you desire jobs that are full of outside stimulation and newly arising possibilities. How you'd actually feel in them I can't say for sure.


So far, I've done okay in them. I enjoy them, and I last longer in them, but I still feel like I'm going to flake away sooner or later. The reason why I want to go into a career in research is because you're constantly exploring new perspectives and gaining new information, and I'd be less likely to get bored than I'd be in a career where I'd constantly have to apply information or just do the same things over and over again. 



> _Ne women like men with possibilities in them._ I cannot adequately assess that through what you said about your ideal partner, but it did seem to me that you didn't want your partner to change you, but rather help you toward goals set by yourself.


I absolutely do not want anybody - friends, family members, acquaintances, boyfriend - to change me. To draw out a better side of me is one thing, but to influence me so strongly that I will not be able to think for myself without consulting others is a nightmare for me.



> *I imagine that you wouldn't mind men with financial, networking and intellectual capabilities to get you places*, which I think is what Jung meant, but that's a widely shared preference among women although not all of them would seize all the opportunities it gives.


Absolutely not. I don't like the people close to me to get involved in my professional life. Anything I do in terms of my career and education I want done because of me alone. Might have something to do with the fact that my mother's a teacher and growing up, she was overly involved in my academic and social life.



> Some of your Ne seems solely mental, like a form of intuition for an introvert who's interested in the ideas rather than possibilities. In PT the part of chasing possibilities is much more pronounced for the type itself rather than the "coming up with ideas". If Ne is the dominant factor within the psyche it should cause you to take a lot of action.


I'm exactly halfway between taking action too quickly and thinking too much without acting. 



> _Feels a sense of superiority, devaluation or disdain toward the objective emotions and values._ I thought you showed this to quite an extent. You claim to be independent, individualistic, don't succumb to peer pressure, and don't participate in popular civil rights movements but play them down a bit. Also you didn't like macho guys, but then again perhaps that isn't a widely held ideal by women.


Yes. This is absolutely me. 



> _Longs for a strong intensity of emotions. Chases deep emotions._ You didn't state this, so I can't be sure.


I don't know. When a strong negative emotion is triggered, I want to think about them deeply, and sometimes can't help but do this, but I also often mess around to avoid dealing with discomfort or embarrassment or shame or just any feeling that I don't like. I act on my feelings, but I really don't think that I chase deep emotions. 



> _Is liable to selfabsorption and overemphasis on the I._ You said you sometimes felt the world revolved around you.


Yes. Everyone on Tumblr hates Geminis. I often take this as a personal attack on myself. 



> _Usually hard to get to know/to open up._ You expressed a dislike for men trying to "read" you, at least if they do it too much. Fits that you're quiet.


I absolutely hate people trying to read my mind or assuming they know everything about me, especially when it contradicts who I truly am, and I do believe that I'm difficult to get to know, especially since people often only get to see one side of me depending on which side they draw out. However, I don't think I'm difficult to "open up." I often think I am, but I sometimes get carried away in the moment and have in the past shared too much information with strangers. I'm not really emotive or sappy, but depending on the moment, the conversation, the people involved and how they make me feel, I can open up. It's weird. Sometimes, I can open up really quickly with strangers, but I struggle to do so with people I've known all my life.



> _Uintelligible thoughts - at least when opening up in a therapeutic way._ While you seem to have a strong fascination with your own self and have thought about it at lenghts, which makes you rather eloquent, I have a hunch that if you were to explain just a few layers deeper about your changing attitudes that it would be very hard for the rest of us to understand your reasoning.


Your hunch is correct. 



> _Frequently melancholic._ I can't say.


I don't know. I don't think so. In high school, a boyfriend of one of my friends asked me why I'm always sad, and I just thought that was the weirdest thing I'd ever heard. 



> _Secretive emotions._ You may ramble, but you also seem to not have very visible emotions to others, and I'm guessing your family are scratching their heads to understand you.


I think they _think_ have me figured out, but they're often wrong in their assumptions, especially when they're trying to guess how I'm feeling / if I'm feeling anything. 



> Nothing seems to strongly go against Fi as your dominant function. You're enigmatic and have an extremely personalized value system that devalues a lot of what others find to be of importance.
> Being the armchair psychologist I am I see a lot of your changing outward behaviours, plans and moods as an exploration of yourself. Playing out different personalities isn't unlike creating them in books. In that sense your exploration will often be much more introverted than you give it credit for.
> On the other hand you didn't display a strong yearning for evocation, but perhaps that is in reality often the root of many of your dreams? A lot of what you wrote here had to do with how you relate to Ne, but *I would like to hear something about how you relate Fi as well to get a fairer comparison.*


Okay. I don't know where to start. 

A year ago, I introduced my best friend from high school to cognitive functions. She read Jung's descriptions and simplified versions of them. She read Fi, and then reread Ti in order to understand Fi better (since Jung had stated that Fi works in very much the same way that Ti does, though it operates in a different realm). She texted me a screenshot of the Fi description and said, "That's you! That's _so_ you! I understand you so much better now!" 

The part she had sent me was of Jung describing Fi as "inaccessible" and "silent" and how others may assume that the Fi isn't feeling something because the feeling runs so deeply. I definitely believe that the way Jung had claimed Fi types come across is how I look on the outside. Wait - what definition of Fi are we going on here? I'm just going to speak about Fi as most people interpret it today.

As a child, I was very, very sensitive. I remember always having been private in dealing with my emotions, and I've never really relied on anybody else to help me feel better when I'm down. I'm still a bit too sensitive, probably, especially to being embarrassed or made fun of. I was always seen as temperamental and a lot of adults enjoyed making fun of me (and still do) because they found it amusing to annoy me. I always found their motives behind making fun of me more hurtful than their actions. I didn't cry about being made of often, but I remember getting extremely irritated very often, shutting myself down and not wanting to talk to that person (sometimes, I didn't want to talk to anybody) and sometimes temporarily door-slamming somebody, only to treat them as my best friend the next time we interact. I hate it when people don't pay attention to me when I want them to, and I hate it when people don't leave them alone when I want them to, and I've been this way my entire life. 

I've also always been a weird combination of sensitive to my own feelings, inconsiderate to the feelings of others, and compassionate and a bit of a pushover. I remember having a lot of friends in primary school who I had helped out in some way, only for them to take advantage over how much I wanted to help. It's weird, but I'm still easily walked over while still retaining some intense kind of hard-assed, steely, don't-tell-me-what-to-do quality. It's difficult to explain. It's easy for me to get lost in my feelings of the moment, and it always has been. Somebody can treat me like crap, and I'll put my foot down and decide that enough is enough, but the next time I see them, I'll be so caught up in having fun that how I'd previously felt (even if it's an ongoing thing) just wouldn't matter. Just a month ago, somebody in my family who's very close to me had done something horrible and deceitful towards my sister, and I was very quick to put my foot down and say that nobody deserves to be treated in such a way, and so on. But, I hang out with her one night and I got so carried away in the moment that all I cared about was the fact that she makes me feel good. I cannot for the life of me hold a grudge against anyone, but I will always hold onto all of the negative effects they had on me, regardless of how positive my view of the person is. I never forget anything I've felt strongly about. 

I'm still all about feeling "emotionally comfortable" in the moment. As much as I hate to admit it, because almost nothing bothers me more than feeling "controlled" or under the influence of somebody, I definitely let the way people saw me influence how I behave just to avoid feeling uncomfortable or put on the spot. I have a weird issue in that I hate it when somebody makes a big deal about me saying or doing something as if something has "possessed" me to do so or as though what I'm doing is not in line with who I am. I don't know why, but it bothers me so much. That being said, if somebody expects me to behave in a particular way constantly, I'll do it, just to avoid the comments that annoy me. I will even refrain from doing something fun if I know they'll make a big deal out of it, as though I'm incapable of being fun or whatever. Like, I'm at my best and most comfortable with strangers or people who don't assume they know everything about me and don't have any expectations of me. At the same time, if somebody tells me to do something, and are especially pushy about it, I'm not going to do it even if I kind of want to (if I really want to do it, or I have to, I might). I also absolutely hate being told how I feel or what I'm thinking. If I didn't explicitly state my feelings, then I don't believe anybody has any reasons to assume.

I will admit that I tend to assume that everyone should understand exactly how I'm feeling, even if I don't say anything. I do believe that I'm pretty good at figuring out the underlying feelings and motives behind someone's behaviour, and so I often assume that others should understand my feelings without me having to do anything to make them clear. 

I'm not great in conflict situations, and I often withdraw from them and do almost nothing to help those involved, even if the issue somehow affects me. I don't like conflict, so I don't want to be a part of it. Alternatively, I have a habit of turning everything into a joke in order to avoid negative feelings. A few weeks ago, I went to visit my parents and my grandmother was in town, and I ended up resorting to a using a combining of withdrawal and humour as defense mechanisms during a fight between my grandmother and my sister. I was involved in the conversation, but my sister had suddenly exploded with rage after my grandmother had said something that had upset her, so I pretty much acted like I wasn't a part of the situation. In fact, I acted as though I wasn't even in the room. The two of them were screaming at each other, and my mother had walked in, inserted herself into the conversation and began cheerfully talking about her day as though she was completely disconnected from the actual situations. Between my sister and grandmother yelling at each other, she kept commenting on something completely pointless and seemed so blissful. I remember thinking that watching them was like watching a sitcom, and I kept laughing to myself. 

I have a knee-jerk reaction to anything that pisses me off, even though I internalize my anger. I feel like I get annoyed more than I get hurt, and when something somebody says really hits me, I become blunt and snarky. I mean, I think that there's a fine line between snark and just downright being an asshole, and when somebody really does something to annoy me, I definitely cross that line. I sound like I'm joking, but my remarks are too bitchy to be brushed off as jokes.

I haven't always been as easily annoyed by people making assumptions about me as I am now. I used to just feel free to be myself, but in my late teen years, I became more and more conscious of the differences between who I am and who people thought I was. I realized that a lot of actions and motives contradicted who I thought I was / who I wanted to be, because I didn't really think about how others were defining me incorrectly or in a way that zoned in on one small part of me (which was probably why I tested as ISXJ the first time I took the test). The second I noticed these inconsistencies, I started to dig into myself and sometimes used tools such as numerology in order to help me do so.

I absolutely hate the "hive mind" vibe I get from groups of people. Whether it's a group of women, or INFPs, or Geminis, or fans of a certain TV show or something, I just can't stand how they get together and act as they all share the exact same personality and desires and interests. I hate the whole, "We love this! We want that! We always do this and we never do that!" thing. I just don't like other people telling me who I am, or what I want, or what I should want, just because we have something in common. I'm firmly of the belief that every individual has their own unique personality, which is probably why I hate MBTI profiles so much. At the same time, I do love connecting with someone based on something we have in common, especially if it's a trait that most people consider strange. I get really excited in such circumstances. I like feeling like someone gets me, although I also kind of like the fact that I probably will never be truly understood.

Oh, and I can't let moral inconsistencies slide. I loved _Harry Potter_ as a child, because it was exciting. I can't read the books now, because I absolutely can't tolerate the level JKR plays to the Protagonist Centered Morality trope. It drives me insane. I have no chill when it comes to moral inconsistencies. I'm good at poking holes in moral arguments (although even I'll admit that my logic tends to be all over the place) especially with regards to "groups" or "movements." Feminists, anti-feminists, SJWs, anti-SJWs, pro-choicers, pro-lifers... all have very "fluid" and therefore hypocritical senses of morality. I still internally beat myself up over anything I might have done as a child or in the past that I consider immoral, even if it was telling a tiny white lie that hadn't affected anybody, because I know how I feel about that sort of thing now. 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I feel like all of this stems from Fi. I'm sure I left some stuff out, though.



> While you show many signs of Ne, I think for consistency reasons it's more sound to say you're an INFP.


Thank you for your help. Sorry that I'd taken so long to reply. While I was typing out a response yesterday, there was a glitch in my Internet connection, and then I got carried away doing other stuff.

As a note, my ESTP sister just typed me INFP. She went from ENFP to ISTJ to INFP. She seems certain. I trust her perceptions.


----------



## 460202 (May 22, 2017)

brightflashes said:


> @Flower HatWell, my case canceled, so I'm home again. First, I think your two conscious functions are Ne and Fi for sure. So, the only thing to go by from there is which order are they in?


My issue is that I seem to use Fi and Ne independently. I can't tell which function is used to bolster or feed the other. I feel like I use TONS of Fi and too much Ne to be an Ne-aux, and too little Ne to be an Ne-dom.



> The reasons I would go E instead of I is that you seem more tolerant of interaction than I am. I don't think I'm a particularly good listener, for example, but other people seem to think that. You also seem much more exploratory than I am. *While I have a variety of interests, I tend to stay at home to explore them rather than going out. *


Me too. However, I can't tell whether this is by choice or not. Often I _have_ to stay at home to explore, but I don't know whether I'd go out to explore more actively if I was given the chance.



> Also, the answering questions about yourself - I absolutely love to answer questions about myself. I think I'm probably pretty self-absorbed when it comes to self-reflection.


I can think about my responses deeply, but I can't sit down and and type responses without getting bored or distracted. I do prefer listening to others answer such questions or respond to my answers to actually answering them.



> I am profoundly introverted; it's my strongest of all the dichotomies. So, sometimes other Introverts who are less so tend to feel more Extraverted to me.


I used to assume I was the same way. Now, I'm not so sure. Other people certainly see me this way, but they're often incorrect, and I've gotten caught up in others' perceptions of me before. 



> I am also a type 5 Enneagram, so withdrawal and isolation is sort of a thing for me.


I've got a 5 in my tritype. 945. What might a 945 INFP look like in contrast to a 945 ENFP?



> Age range and developmental stage. I'm 36, partnered up, and have two kids, so the way I perceive the world would be very different from someone at a different age and developmental stage. I remember being much more social, for example, about 15 years ago.


So... you've become more and more withdrawn with age? 



> Hopefully that lends a bit more clarity to my reasoning. Something I'd really recommend is to spend some time on the INFP and ENFP subforum and see which one feels more like "home" to you. I can say that people on both forums are extremely nice and wonderful, but INFP just feels more like "home base" for me.


Neither of them do, but it's mainly because I'm too individualistic to appreciate the "we" vibe you see on the subforums of each type. 

Thank you for your participation.


----------



## brightflashes (Oct 27, 2015)

@Flower Hat

If you're a 945, then you're most likely an INFP. Those are the three withdrawn Enneatypes. While it's definitely possible for an ENFP to have a 945 enneagram tritype, it would be much more unlikely since ENFPs aren't going to be as withdrawn as tritype 945. 

To each of the other things you mentioned:
- I don't really pay attention on whether I use Fi or Ne together or not. I consider that Fi is my brain's operating system. Everything gets run through that. So, when Ne, Si, and Te get "run" on my Fi system, these three functions are colored by my Fi operating system. 

- If given the choice, I'll stay inside every single time. I have to be dragged out to be around people. I'll even not go to the doctor because I don't want to be around people (but then, what I do when I'm sick is probably affected by being sick). 

- It's the distraction that seems so much more Ne to me. Fi seems to have much more of an inward focus. However, this could be related to attention or some other cognitive influence.

- I'm 36. My brain isn't programmed anymore to seek out social acceptance and partnership the way it is during adolescence (11-25) and young adulthood (18-30). Developmentally, I'm at a phase in life where raising my kids and focusing on my work are much more important to me. When I was 18-24, I was pretty social, though I was obviously an introvert. Between ages 24 and 30, I felt that I *needed* some time with other people outside of my home life. Right now, I feel more content to just socialize with people who I work with and spend most of my time nurturing my relationships with my children and partner. 

- It's possible you could be an ISFP or an ESFP, but I doubt it. That would explain the restlessness, though. For me, and many INFPs that I interact with on here, they just feel "home" talking on the INFP forum. 

- - - - - - - - - - 

I'm not certain that I have much more to add. It seems that you're on the right path to discovering what your MBTI type is.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

@Flower Hat - hey, sorry to jump in on the convo but you said this



> I'm not promiscuous at all, but I do consider myself romantically and sexually assertive. I was a late bloomer, however, based on... standards set by people I know. Didn't start dating until almost a year after I graduated high school, which isn't that unconventional, come to think of it.
> 
> I've lurked through a lot of threads, especially INFP ones. I don't relate to the promiscuity or social boldness of ENFPs, but I don't relate to the passivity of INFPs (especially 9w1 INFPs, like myself) in such situations either. I could never just stand back and wait for someone to approach me when I'm interested in them, especially when it comes to romance. If I like a guy, and I know he likes me, I will do something about it.


This is the thing about dominant Fi, it's personal.

So while one INFP might feel like approaching people and being sexually assertive is the wrong thing, it doesn't work for them, it just 'feels' wrong - they don't want to be imposing, as they wouldn't like to be imposed upon etc.. another INFP, using the same process, might feel in themselves that approaching someone else and being sexually assertive is the right thing to do - it's might feel right for them - they'd prefer someone who finds them sexually attractive to come over and say hi, so they feel it's only right for them to do the same thing.

Same dominant Fi, two totally different results.

Fi is a tricky one because it's so personal.

You could get 100 INFPs in a room and have none of them be similar to each other.

Anyway, I'm sure you already are well aware of that.
Just saw something and thought I'd jump in, lol. :/


----------



## Mr Castelo (May 28, 2017)

brightflashes said:


> If you're a 945, then you're most likely an INFP. Those are the three withdrawn Enneatypes. While it's definitely possible for an ENFP to have a 945 enneagram tritype, it would be much more unlikely since ENFPs aren't going to be as withdrawn as tritype 945.


I believe that the reverse effect is just as possible: she could be an ENFP being mistaken for an INFP due to her withdrawn tritype, so I don't think that bringing Enneagram into this is very helpful.



> - It's the distraction that seems so much more Ne to me. Fi seems to have much more of an inward focus. However, this could be related to attention or some other cognitive influence.


You touched on a good point here. @Flower Hat is it possible that you have some kind of attention disorder? You seem to be very distracted by everything and, while I think that having high Pe does make you more prone to distractions, maybe an attention disorder might be affecting how you perceive your functions. You did say that you're on Ritalin, but I'm not sure if you were joking or not.


----------



## brightflashes (Oct 27, 2015)

Mr. Castelo said:


> I believe that the reverse effect is just as possible: she could be an ENFP being mistaken for an INFP due to her withdrawn tritype, so I don't think that bringing Enneagram into this is very helpful.


::nods:: I personally loathe mixing the theories, but I was the one who brought it up. The reason I did was to express just how introverted I am to serve as a contrast to explain my potential bias. The two theories stand alone and, I believe, that mixing them can lead to confusion and misinformation about both theories.


----------



## 460202 (May 22, 2017)

Turi said:


> @Flower Hat - hey, sorry to jump in on the convo but you said this
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I know. I just get too carried away sometimes in comparing myself to other INFPs or ENFPs, which I'm aware is dumb. It's just that I'd come across so many threads where INFPs are like, "_We_ always wait for somebody else to make the first move." I think I stupidly fell into the trap of attributing this to being an INFP because others did this too. I think I read something on one thread where somebody had said that INFP type 9s in particular are always passive and slow to act in romance. 

Yeah. I was being dumb.


----------



## 460202 (May 22, 2017)

Mr. Castelo said:


> I believe that the reverse effect is just as possible: *she could be an ENFP being mistaken for an INFP due to her withdrawn tritype*, so I don't think that bringing Enneagram into this is very helpful.


This is exactly what I thought. I looked into my tritype, and thought that I took action too often (and too quickly) to be an INFP 945. I thought I was slow and withdrawn, but not slow and withdrawn enough to be an INFP 945. It's the entire reason as to why I started to wonder if I might be an ENFP instead. That, and I kept comparing my use of Ne to the way I see it in my ENTP sister and INTP dad.

I personally find Enneagram incredibly helpful in typing people. I think Enneatypes influence the result a lot, if you don't try to figure them out first and then pick out anything that could come from or be enhanced or washed down by the enneagram type. For example, a type 2 ISTJ might come across as incredibly Fe and may get mistyped as ISFJ or something. 



> You touched on a good point here. @Flower Hat is it possible that you have some kind of attention disorder? You seem to be very distracted by everything and, while I think that having high Pe does make you more prone to distractions, maybe an attention disorder might be affecting how you perceive your functions. You did say that you're on Ritalin, but I'm not sure if you were joking or not.


No. My mother had me tested. LOL.

I was half-joking. I am on Ritalin. My iron deficiency tends to affect my concentration pretty severely, although being distractible is still just a part of my personality. I do sometimes wonder if genetics has some thing to do with attention. My sisters and I are all easily distracted and easily entertained by stupid things.


----------



## 460202 (May 22, 2017)

brightflashes said:


> If you're a 945, then you're most likely an INFP. Those are the three withdrawn Enneatypes. While it's definitely possible for an ENFP to have a 945 enneagram tritype, it would be much more unlikely since ENFPs aren't going to be as withdrawn as tritype 945.


I know it's more likely, which is a big reason as to why I typed as INFP for so long. But I don't think that likelihood should be a deciding factor. My sister is a type 2 ESTP. Uncommon but not impossible.



> I don't really pay attention on whether I use Fi or Ne together or not. I consider that Fi is my brain's operating system. Everything gets run through that. So, when Ne, Si, and Te get "run" on my Fi system, these three functions are colored by my Fi operating system.


I thought that the auxiliary function is there to support or feed the dominant function, but I'm not too sure as to where I'd read that. I distinctly remember being 17 and digging very deeply into who I was, and into who other people were. I can't remember whether I was digging into who I am as a way to explore all of these theories I was reading about, or I was exploring all of those theories as a way to dig into who I am.



> If given the choice, I'll stay inside every single time. I have to be dragged out to be around people. I'll even not go to the doctor because I don't want to be around people (but then, what I do when I'm sick is probably affected by being sick).


Hmm... For me, it depends on my mood. 



> It's possible you could be an ISFP or an ESFP, but I doubt it. That would explain the restlessness, though. For me, and many INFPs that I interact with on here, they just feel "home" talking on the INFP forum.


Definitely not Se-Ni. I see major differences in how I talk with NJs and SPs with regards to Ni. Convergent Ni vs. divergent Ne. As for Se - my ESTP sister and I were both explorers growing up, but were were explorative in very different natures. I'm a very spontaneous person. I'm not afraid to drop everything in my life and devote myself to something new. She doesn't see me as spontaneous, though. For her, spontaneity is very physical. It's trying weird new foods, randomly deciding to take a hike into the mountains to swim in a stream, or impulsively deciding to spend the night bar-hopping. 



> I'm not certain that I have much more to add. It seems that you're on the right path to discovering what your MBTI type is.


I feel a bit stuck in a cycle here, so I disagree. Thanks for your help.


----------



## Mr Castelo (May 28, 2017)

Flower Hat said:


> This is exactly what I thought. I looked into my tritype, and thought that I took action too often (and too quickly) to be an INFP 945. I thought I was slow and withdrawn, but not slow and withdrawn enough to be an INFP 945. It's the entire reason as to why I started to wonder if I might be an ENFP instead. That, and I kept comparing my use of Ne to the way I see it in my ENTP sister and INTP dad.
> 
> I personally find Enneagram incredibly helpful in typing people. I think Enneatypes influence the result a lot, if you don't try to figure them out first and then pick out anything that could come from or be enhanced or washed down by the enneagram type. For example, a type 2 ISTJ might come across as incredibly Fe and may get mistyped as ISFJ or something.


Yeah, I agree that Enneagram can be helpful when typing others, but in this case, I think it might not be of help as much. I mean, yes, you could be an withdrawn ENFP due to your tritype, but I don't think that excludes you being an INFP either.

I'm curious to know how you see your use of Ne compared to the way you see it in your dad and sister, that certainly might be of help.



> No. My mother had me tested. LOL.
> 
> I was half-joking. I am on Ritalin. My iron deficiency tends to affect my concentration pretty severely, although being distractible is still just a part of my personality. I do sometimes wonder if genetics has some thing to do with attention. My sisters and I are all easily distracted and easily entertained by stupid things.


Ah, I see.


----------



## 460202 (May 22, 2017)

brightflashes said:


> Hopefully that lends a bit more clarity to my reasoning. Something I'd really recommend is to spend some time on the INFP and ENFP subforum and see which one feels more like "home" to you. I can say that people on both forums are extremely nice and wonderful, but INFP just feels more like "home base" for me.


Lurked through the "You know you're an INFP when..." and "You know you're an ENFP when..." threads, and based on MBTI stereotypes, I felt like such a thinker. Both kind of made me want to rip my hair out. 

The ENFP one sounded like it was written by a bunch of kids in their early teens going through a, "I'm so weird and random!!!!! XP" phase. Often, they all sounded like Fe users but I tried to push cognitive functions from my mind. 

I made it further into the INFP one. I know they were all joking around, but they seemed to take a lot of pride in being asocial and completely out of touch with the rest of the world. It was all a bit babyish and cutesy for me. There was stuff about attempting to "feel" the answer to mathematical equations and buying the last toy in a toy store because it looked lonely, and all of this childish crap was coming from adults. 

I knew going into it that I wasn't likely going to have a "My people!" type of reaction to either group, but I did think that perhaps I'd feel like I fit in with one more than the other. I hate "I" or "me" or "you" being turned into "we," and my strong, hostile reaction to being "put in a box" (in general, and with regards to both threads) pushes me further towards typing myself as Fi-dom. That being said, I've looked through a lot of old "Type me" threads as well, and I am going to consider ISFP.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Yeah see the more I learn about Fi the more I think it's not me.
I think there's a difference between having passion/convictions/beliefs and being headstrong about them, and being an Fi dom.

I think an Fi dom is basically consumed by their own emotions, like they burn them up.
Overwhelmed. At least that's how I understand it.

Hey why don't you do something like this:
http://personalitycafe.com/whats-my...orded-myself-taking-16personalities-test.html

I just took the 16personalities test on my phone and basically just spoke while taking it, chipping in my thoughts on why I answered the way I did on each question.

If you do that we'll see how you test and how you approach the questions, get a feel for your thoughts (in real time) and see how it goes?

I've also come to realise that Fi can manifest in various ways in basically all of the types and not wanting to be crammed in a box isn't necessarily an Fi-dom trait. It's just Fi in anyone.


----------



## 460202 (May 22, 2017)

Mr. Castelo said:


> Yeah, I agree that Enneagram can be helpful when typing others, but *in this case, I think it might not be of help as much.* I mean, yes, you could be an withdrawn ENFP due to your tritype, but I don't think that excludes you being an INFP either.


You're right. Even though you make me sound like a "special case."



> I'm curious to know how you see your use of Ne compared to the way you see it in your dad and sister, that certainly might be of help.


Come to think of it, I'm not sure that comparing myself to them is all that helpful, since ages and Enneatypes and other external factors play a role in we use our Ne. For example, my dad is an INTP 952. 5w6, to be specific. My sister is an ENTP 836. I'm no expert on type 6, but I do know that there's not an an ounce of 6 in me. I do believe that my Ne is more likely to come across as more frenetic in comparison to theirs because of this. I don't tend to feel strongly bound to anything, or anybody.

For the sake of the argument, I will contrast their Ne with mine, however. 

My dad is... quite like me in how he lives his life. A lot of it has to do with our similar Enneagram types (I'm 9w1, and I thought he was too, but I realize not that 9w8 hits the nail on the head). However, he's a lot more slow to act than I am (he's also a lot more amiable than I could ever be, although I know that this has not always been the case). Last year I thought I was committed to something. Something new came along and I spontaneously dropped what I was doing to move forth with the new thing. I didn't really think about it. My mother tried to steer me to stick with what I was doing, but my mind was made up - there was more I could get out of the new thing, and so I will do the new thing. My dad gets bored easily. He's just as capable of giving up on something and moving forth with something else as I am, but he's got to be sure of it. He'll come up with a new idea (a major idea that affects everyone's lives) and then he'll sit and think about it for a while, and eventually, if he's absolutely certain he wants to do it, he will. Often, he'll multitask between the new project and the old one (I say project but what I really mean is "career path") for as long as he feels he has to (or wants to). He's a better finisher than I am, but not a great one (neither is my SFJ mother - the only real "finishers" in the family are my ENTJ and ESTP sisters, but even then, ESTP isn't all that great unless something else is pushing her to complete something). He talks concepts, almost exclusively. When he talks economics, he's not concrete in the least. He loves to discuss theology and spirituality, but he's more conclusive than I am. We both play Devil's advocate but he's not satisfied with not having his questions answered. 

I say this is an unfair comparison because as a father, he kind of _has_ to be slower to act, but at the same time, there's a major difference in how we were as children. He often says that in his early childhood, he questioned everything. His Ne didn't seem to show much, other than through him having been interested in a wide variety of things. When he talks about himself as a child, he's describing someone who was so profoundly introverted that he wasn't really interested in the outside world at all. This could not be more opposite to who I was as a child. I was shy and often (but definitely not always) waited to be approached by others, and to be perfectly honest, from the ages of about 10/11 to 17/18 I was rather insecure about my social skills (and appearance) and was always sensitive to being judged. But, I was still very interested in the world around me. I often lost myself to it - a part of me hates to admit that, but often I use that fact (and my actions when "losing myself" to the environment) as factors in trying to figure myself out and understand myself better. My ESTP sister and I were explorers. If a place was off-limits, we'd immediately jump at the chance to explore it. I entertained so many topics such as theology, biology, art and physics from an early age, but I was specifically interested in the paranormal. I believed anything anybody told me and had to prompted to look into some sort of internal framework to judge new information (usually by my parents or teachers). I loved the idea of building words and so writing and playing make-believe were most fun to me. I jumped from hobby to hobby and devoted myself to different career paths every time I learned something new in school. Generally, I just liked to go out and _do_ stuff, while my dad was more concerned with what was going on inside his head than in all the possibilities around him. His interest in the external world was just... soccer. 

I feel like the Fi was always there and was always strong, but I definitely wasn't as rigid and hostile in dealing with the ways other people see me and I definitely didn't chafe at the "narrow" view people have of me and how their "narrow views" weren't congruent with who I am until I was 17 and really start to dig into who I was. I should probably go seeking out Fi doms to find out how their Fi worked when they were children. I knew an ISFP. Haven't spoken to him since March, and it might be weird to call him up and ask him about what he was like as a child, but... I'll find someone. Or I'll go through ISFP forums.

My sister... she self-typed as ENTP based on cognitive functions when she was about 15. A year later, she took a test and came out ENTP. I'm seriously questioning this typing. She's a total 8w7, but the 7 doesn't seem to enhance the Ne as much as it should in an Ne-dom. She sometimes seem to focus primarily on the concrete. She hates it when things don't go according to plan. She definitely has the functions for SFJ/NTP... I tend to type her tentatively as ENTP on the basis of her being an extrovert and using Fe pretty... explosively. She could just be an unhealthy Fe-dom. It's no use me comparing myself to her considering she might not be Ne-dom at all.


----------



## UnicornRainbowLove (May 8, 2014)

@Flower HatI'll give some different viewpoints to what you wrote to give a more coherent response. It all depends on which method you use for typing, and I think they give interesting views on the same person and her traits and problems. Please keep in mind I'm just a random guy on the internet who makes conclusions he doesn't quite have evidence for or is expert enough to make, so don't take it too seriously. I'm just giving my view. 

Just reading your posts it appears to me that you have a hasty mind, are more caring than you present yourself as, have a high intelligence and tend to hide away from problems and emotions. So with that in mind....

My preferred "typology" is the five factor model. Here it seems clear to me that your strongest trait is openness to experience. I imagine you would score high in all the subfactors; Imaginative, aesthetic sensitivity, attentiveness for inner feelings, intellectual curiosity, and of course a big preference for variety. This is linked to absorption, which, despite your distraction, I think you relate to. 
In the Big Five version of extraversion I would actually think you are relatively average. You certainly like to seek out a bit of stimulation all the time. I think you're high in neuroticism (which may to an extent explain if you withdraw at times), somewhere above the middle in agreeableness and low in conscientiousness.

In my best interpretation of Jung's original work you are an introvert with a feeling preference. You are focused on the subject and devalue the object; It seems very pronounced in you to not like when others try to press an outside opinion down on you, and your emotions guide what is right in the moment. It seems to me that you have created an internal view of how you and the world are, and get upset/annoyed when there is a discrepancy between it and the object. You are independent because you refuse to conform to or accept the object, and also you have little skill in engaging with it (which is why you withdraw from conflicts and hurtful situations) since doing so would require you to accept it to some extent. You don't even like categories that other people have made because you dislike fitting into any of them. From this and your previous questionnaire you are a postergirl for Jungian introversion. 
While you certainly fit parts of Ne as well, and it may be your auxiliary instead of Ni, it doesn't to an outsider like me appear to be your core personality.

Typing by letters it's a somewhat different matter since introversion here betrays Jungs primary definition and focuses on the other aspects of it. Introverts, as you read about them on official websites, need some alone-time, prefer one-on-one conversation and work better alone than in groups. Probably you still fall mostly on the introverted side, but from some of your answers it may equally be that you are in fact an ambivert and therefore both ENFP and INFP descriptions will feel not quite right and not quite wrong. I would, however, believe that if you were to be put in a room with just ENFPs that you would stand out. xNFP is okay, but INFP seems like the best fit from type descriptions.

Going by cognitive functions as they are currently understood on the internet today, well, you are probably an ENFP. I perfectly get how others here have mentioned ENFP as your true type since you show Ne in the form that it's often talked about today. I may be wrong in my understanding of Jung, but to me it seems that his Ne sees "real possibilities" like what he could do right now or what's below the surface of other people and how to use that or get it out. Ni sees unreal possibilities, or rather possibilities within the mind, and so they would work well as artists or writers. But nowadays Ne is about an explosion of ideas, being easily distracted and wanting variety. 

Regarding everything you wrote about Fi: I suppose one can certainly infer Fi from it, but most of all it was a confirmation of your enneatype 9. I remember I got almost confused when reading your first questionnaire. You mentioned many parts and events in your life that were or indicated systematic problems. Had it been me I could have barely thought of anything else but how problematic it all were and try to solve it somehow. Yet, at least from how you worded it all, it did seem that you were sad in the most crucial moments and times, but you didn't express a long-lasting anger or frustration of your own weaknesses and situation nor any inclination to change it. It was like these were to your conscious mind just things that happened to you, but it was guided by your unconscious mind wanting to address everything that makes strong negative emotions and stress bottle up inside.
All other types tend to view everything around them as being problems to solve, but the Nines tend to view their surroundings as just being the way they are, so they never assert themselves in it and become neglectful. They have this need for everything to be OK and have emotional comfort. This is visible in how you don't engage in conflicts, how you give up when things get hard, and in how you don't seem to citicize yourself as much as others do. 
The thing with Nines is that problems are elusive to their minds. Their need for comfort always drags their attention away from them and the thought construct dissolves. It is possible that your delight in distractions is caused by this (although of course perhaps distraction is why you don't easily focus on problems). 
Here is a video about Nines in therapy, if you're interested.


----------



## 460202 (May 22, 2017)

UnicornRainbowLove said:


> @Flower HatI'll give some different viewpoints to what you wrote to give a more coherent response. It all depends on which method you use for typing, and I think they give interesting views on the same person and her traits and problems. Please keep in mind I'm just a random guy on the internet who makes conclusions he doesn't quite have evidence for or is expert enough to make, so don't take it too seriously. I'm just giving my view.


I prefer using cognitive functions as my primary method of typing, but I know that fall into the habit of typing based on a conflation of methods. I can see the argument for almost anything as long of the result makes sense in context of the method used (i.e. I will be pretty firm in an argument against a typing if somebody claims to type based on cognitive functions or letters but settles on a conclusion based on overall impression of a type / the person). 



> Just reading your posts it appears to me that you have a hasty mind, are more caring than you present yourself as, have a high intelligence and tend to hide away from problems and emotions. So with that in mind....


Agree with the first point. Not sure about the others.



> My preferred "typology" is the five factor model. Here it seems clear to me that your strongest trait is openness to experience. I imagine you would score high in all the subfactors; Imaginative, aesthetic sensitivity, attentiveness for inner feelings, intellectual curiosity, and of course a big preference for variety. This is linked to absorption, which, despite your distraction, I think you relate to.
> In the Big Five version of extraversion I would actually think you are relatively average. You certainly like to seek out a bit of stimulation all the time. I think you're high in neuroticism (which may to an extent explain if you withdraw at times), somewhere above the middle in agreeableness and low in conscientiousness.


I certainly have tested as all of the above.



> In my best interpretation of Jung's original work you are an introvert with a feeling preference. You are focused on the subject and devalue the object; *It seems very pronounced in you to not like when others try to press an outside opinion down on you, and your emotions guide what is right in the moment. It seems to me that you have created an internal view of how you and the world are, and get upset/annoyed when there is a discrepancy between it and the object. *You are independent because you refuse to conform to or accept the object, and also you have little skill in engaging with it (which is why you withdraw from conflicts and hurtful situations) since doing so would require you to accept it to some extent. You don't even like categories that other people have made because you dislike fitting into any of them. From this and your previous questionnaire you are a postergirl for Jungian introversion.
> While you certainly fit parts of Ne as well, and it may be your auxiliary instead of Ni, it doesn't to an outsider like me appear to be your core personality.


True. I see this more and more in myself, especially the bolded part. It's all about _me_, and the response the object elicits in me, and when something seems to clash with my view (which I'm aware is far from perfectly objective) I'm pretty quick to shut it down and disregard it as being "narrow" or whatever. At the same time, I find that I do this when _I_ am the object in question. Not sure how objective I am in trying to perceive others. I think that I'm a weird mix of credulity and wanting to learn more, and being resistant to labeling things and putting them into boxes when those "labels" and "boxes" are contradictory to things as I see them.



> Typing by letters it's a somewhat different matter since introversion here betrays Jungs primary definition and focuses on the other aspects of it. Introverts, as you read about them on official websites, need some alone-time, prefer one-on-one conversation and work better alone than in groups. Probably you still fall mostly on the introverted side, but from some of your answers it may equally be that you are in fact an ambivert and therefore both ENFP and INFP descriptions will feel not quite right and not quite wrong. I would, however, believe that if you were to be put in a room with just ENFPs that you would stand out. xNFP is okay, but INFP seems like the best fit from type descriptions.


_Hate_ type descriptions. You probably already know that. The idea of me operating on the same processes - biological or psychological - as others is all fine and dandy to me. Inevitable, even. But I am firmly of the belief that personality is unique. It's in the definition of the world, after all.

I probably _do_ fit into the INFP description best, but I really don't like that descriptions focus more on what you do and what you think rather than on _how_ you think. Hate being told what I want, and how I behave, and what I feel and think, which is why I prefer cognitive functions, and probably why I hated those "You know you're an INFP/ENFP when..." threads as much as I did. 



> Going by cognitive functions as they are currently understood on the internet today, well, you are probably an ENFP. I perfectly get how others here have mentioned ENFP as your true type since *you show Ne in the form that it's often talked about today.* I may be wrong in my understanding of Jung, but to me it seems that his Ne sees "real possibilities" like what he could do right now or what's below the surface of other people and how to use that or get it out. Ni sees unreal possibilities, or rather possibilities within the mind, and so they would work well as artists or writers. But nowadays Ne is about an explosion of ideas, being easily distracted and wanting variety.


I do, but I'm not sure that Fi comes second to it. That's my problem. I can't decide whether Fi is feeding Ne or if it's the other way around.



> Regarding everything you wrote about Fi: I suppose one can certainly infer Fi from it, but most of all it was a confirmation of your enneatype 9. I remember I got almost confused when reading your first questionnaire. You mentioned many parts and events in your life that were or indicated systematic problems. Had it been me I could have barely thought of anything else but how problematic it all were and try to solve it somehow. Yet, at least from how you worded it all, it did seem that you were sad in the most crucial moments and times, but you didn't express a long-lasting anger or frustration of your own weaknesses and situation nor any inclination to change it. It was like these were to your conscious mind just things that happened to you, but it was guided by your unconscious mind wanting to address everything that makes strong negative emotions and stress bottle up inside.
> All other types tend to view everything around them as being problems to solve, but the Nines tend to view their surroundings as just being the way they are, so they never assert themselves in it and become neglectful. They have this need for everything to be OK and have emotional comfort. This is visible in how you don't engage in conflicts, how you give up when things get hard, and in how you don't seem to citicize yourself as much as others do.
> The thing with Nines is that problems are elusive to their minds. Their need for comfort always drags their attention away from them and the thought construct dissolves. It is possible that your delight in distractions is caused by this (although of course perhaps distraction is why you don't easily focus on problems).


Ouch. Brutal, because it's all true, now that I think of it. I feel very exposed. 



> Here is a video about Nines in therapy, if you're interested.


Will check it out later. It's not working right now for some reason.


----------



## 460202 (May 22, 2017)

Turi said:


> I think an Fi dom is basically consumed by their own emotions, like they burn them up.
> *Overwhelmed*. At least that's how I understand it.


Disagree with use of the word "overwhelmed." I believe a Thinking type would more likely be "overwhelmed" by emotions due to not being particularly adept at or comfortable with dealing with emotions. Just theorizing. 



> Hey why don't you do something like this:
> http://personalitycafe.com/whats-my...orded-myself-taking-16personalities-test.html
> 
> I just took the 16personalities test on my phone and basically just spoke while taking it, chipping in my thoughts on why I answered the way I did on each question.


Very interesting idea. Won't lie; I didn't watch the whole video. My sister walked in and started to imitate your accent, so I wasn't able to focus on the video all that well either.



> If you do that we'll see how you test and how you approach the questions, get a feel for your thoughts (in real time) and see how it goes?


I'll think about it. 



> I've also come to realise that Fi can manifest in various ways in basically all of the types and not wanting to be crammed in a box isn't necessarily an Fi-dom trait. It's just Fi in anyone.


I think an Ne-dom would have entertained all of the ideas just for the sake of it before the information reaches Fi, and the ENFP says, "That's not me," or even decides that it's stupid to assume that others have the same weird habits as you just because you're of the same type as them. I don't know. I guess I'm stereotyping.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

@Flower Hat I don't even have an accent. Everyone else has one.

With 'overwhelmed' eh.. do some more reading.. as I understand it, Fi dom manifests as a wave of emotions constantly bubbling up inside. To me, overwhelmed is an accurate description but I've only read a handful of books on it all, not as much as most people here + my original interpretation of Fi was apparently misguided.

I'm being told both here and on Facebook that Fi is.. conscious.. if something seems wrong.. you actually think, does this fit with my beliefs/morals/values etc. I haven't read that bit in any of the books.
I've thought it was unconscious.

But some people are suggesting some sort of thought process is involved with Fi doms, checking to see if what they're seeing fits with their belief system.

Ne confuses the heck out of me now and I find it's very easy to confuse Ne and Ni, because Ni can create loads of new ideas etc, the thing is, from what I've been told, is that they're relevant/related to the subject at hand.
This part tripped me up. I thought I was too random/creative for Ni to be me.
But that's false. It's just a different way of being creative (as is every function).. and Ni can create ideas seemingly all over the shop, but they're not really, they're pretty relevant, it's more focused than Ne.


Just for kicks, when you brainstorm ideas, do your ideas seem focused or just all over the shop?

Brainstorm some words/ideas from the word "blue".


----------



## Mr Castelo (May 28, 2017)

Flower Hat said:


> You're right. Even though you make me sound like a "special case."


To be honest, I do think it's more likely that you're an "introverted" ENFP due to your withdrawn tritype, but I don't want to jump into conclusions here, and there's still evidence for INFP. Your sister typed you as a one, and she probably has a more accurate perception of you than me, an internet stranger.



> Come to think of it, I'm not sure that comparing myself to them is all that helpful, since ages and Enneatypes and other external factors play a role in we use our Ne. For example, my dad is an INTP 952. 5w6, to be specific. My sister is an ENTP 836. I'm no expert on type 6, but I do know that there's not an an ounce of 6 in me. I do believe that my Ne is more likely to come across as more frenetic in comparison to theirs because of this. I don't tend to feel strongly bound to anything, or anybody.


Yeah, you're right, but it might be good to have some perspective. Type 6 can restrain Ne a lot because it likes to have security and stability, which is more like Si.



> My dad is... quite like me in how he lives his life. A lot of it has to do with our similar Enneagram types (I'm 9w1, and I thought he was too, but I realize not that 9w8 hits the nail on the head). However, he's a lot more slow to act than I am (he's also a lot more amiable than I could ever be, although I know that this has not always been the case). Last year I thought I was committed to something. Something new came along and I spontaneously dropped what I was doing to move forth with the new thing. I didn't really think about it. My mother tried to steer me to stick with what I was doing, but my mind was made up - there was more I could get out of the new thing, and so I will do the new thing. My dad gets bored easily. He's just as capable of giving up on something and moving forth with something else as I am, but he's got to be sure of it. He'll come up with a new idea (a major idea that affects everyone's lives) and then he'll sit and think about it for a while, and eventually, if he's absolutely certain he wants to do it, he will. Often, he'll multitask between the new project and the old one (I say project but what I really mean is "career path") for as long as he feels he has to (or wants to). He's a better finisher than I am, but not a great one (neither is my SFJ mother - the only real "finishers" in the family are my ENTJ and ESTP sisters, but even then, ESTP isn't all that great unless something else is pushing her to complete something). He talks concepts, almost exclusively. When he talks economics, he's not concrete in the least. He loves to discuss theology and spirituality, but he's more conclusive than I am. We both play Devil's advocate but he's not satisfied with not having his questions answered.


In my opinion, type 9w8 is quicker to act than 9w1 due to the 8 wing, but INTPs are also prone to extensive analysis of their ideas, and when taking into account your dad's age and family position, yeah... there isn't much to discuss here. He's not being satisfied with not having his questions answered probably stems from Ti.



> I say this is an unfair comparison because as a father, he kind of _has_ to be slower to act, but at the same time, there's a major difference in how we were as children. He often says that in his early childhood, he questioned everything. His Ne didn't seem to show much, other than through him having been interested in a wide variety of things. When he talks about himself as a child, he's describing someone who was so profoundly introverted that he wasn't really interested in the outside world at all. This could not be more opposite to who I was as a child. I was shy and often (but definitely not always) waited to be approached by others, and to be perfectly honest, from the ages of about 10/11 to 17/18 I was rather insecure about my social skills (and appearance) and was always sensitive to being judged. But, I was still very interested in the world around me. I often lost myself to it - a part of me hates to admit that, but often I use that fact (and my actions when "losing myself" to the environment) as factors in trying to figure myself out and understand myself better. My ESTP sister and I were explorers. If a place was off-limits, we'd immediately jump at the chance to explore it. I entertained so many topics such as theology, biology, art and physics from an early age, but I was specifically interested in the paranormal. I believed anything anybody told me and had to prompted to look into some sort of internal framework to judge new information (usually by my parents or teachers). I loved the idea of building words and so writing and playing make-believe were most fun to me. I jumped from hobby to hobby and devoted myself to different career paths every time I learned something new in school. Generally, I just liked to go out and _do_ stuff, while my dad was more concerned with what was going on inside his head than in all the possibilities around him. His interest in the external world was just... soccer.
> 
> I feel like the Fi was always there and was always strong, but I definitely wasn't as rigid and hostile in dealing with the ways other people see me and I definitely didn't chafe at the "narrow" view people have of me and how their "narrow views" weren't congruent with who I am until I was 17 and really start to dig into who I was. I should probably go seeking out Fi doms to find out how their Fi worked when they were children. I knew an ISFP. Haven't spoken to him since March, and it might be weird to call him up and ask him about what he was like as a child, but... I'll find someone. Or I'll go through ISFP forums.


The way you described your childhood makes me think that you first developed Ne, then Fi, but I don't buy the "all types develop their functions the same way" theory. I don't think that cognitive functions are that... orderly, you probably use one here and there when you're a child and goes on experimenting them until your brain unconsciously decides which ones are more suitable for you, it's not something set in stone. When I was a kid, I was way too much sensitive, I liked to learn new things and sometimes would spend hours daydreaming about something, but I enjoyed going outside and playing with my friends, I could be very energetic as much as could be very quiet. I probably seemed more like an ISFP or INFP than INTJ. My INFP friend said that he was more like an ENFP when he was a kid, but then he went through puberty and became more INFP. He also went through some traumatic stuff, which I believe affected his development in some way, but he's an INFP now for sure.

Anyway, I couldn't draw a lot of conclusions from your post, which is a shame, sorry. I think you really should look more into the inferior functions, I don't think that looking at how much Ne you use will lead to something productive. You might think that there's not much difference between inferior Si and tertiary Si or inferior Te and tertiary Te, but I think there's a big one. I'll use my INFP friend and his ENFP ex-girlfriend as examples: my INFP friend is very sensitive and has crazy ideas, but he's way more stable in his choices than his ex-girlfriend (she was an 7w8, so that's another factor). She wasn't as sensitive as him and she would quickly recover from having her feelings hurt, on the other hand, he could go on months lamenting about how his feelings were hurt, he would get stuck in one of those Fi-Si loops where he would replay the same experience and relive the same feelings brought by it over and over again. His ex-girlfriend didn't get stuck in those loops at all, she was quick to recover and quick to get back into action, make new plans and restart her life no matter how many times were needed. She would dump her boyfriends just because she would grow bored of them, my INFP friend would never do that to someone. This may not be a fair comparison, but is the only one I've got... Sorry for not being of much help here.


----------



## 460202 (May 22, 2017)

Turi said:


> With 'overwhelmed' eh.. do some more reading.. as I understand it, Fi dom manifests as a wave of emotions constantly bubbling up inside. To me, overwhelmed is an accurate description but I've only read a handful of books on it all, not as much as most people here + my original interpretation of Fi was apparently misguided.


I think that this argument is over the word "overwhelmed" rather than over what Fi is. If "overwhelmed" in this context means something like, living and breathing something, then yes, I'd agree that Fi is "overwhelmed" by emotions. However, the "overwhelmed" has a negative connotation to it in that it implies that something is too strong or too _much_ to be handled. To say that a Feeling-dominant is overwhelmed by emotion in this sense would imply that the Feeling-dominant is not comfortable with dealing with their emotions, which directly contradicts the nature of being a Feeling-dominant.



> I'm being told both here and on Facebook that Fi is.. conscious.. if something seems wrong.. you actually think, does this fit with my beliefs/morals/values etc. I haven't read that bit in any of the books.
> I've thought it was unconscious.


The dominant function is conscious. The rest are unconscious. Jung had described the auxiliary function as "relatively unconscious," which is ambiguous, like all of his descriptions. I assume this means that while the auxiliary function is usually unconscious, it capable of being used consciously.



> Just for kicks, when you brainstorm ideas, do your ideas seem focused or just all over the shop?


I assume you meant "show," and I'd say I'm more the latter. 

It's weird. I see a big difference in how I discuss theories to the way Ni users do on this site. I usually see a big difference in my Ne and their Ni, but I was discussing something with an INFJ once and I saw a big difference in his Ni and my Si. He made these broad, vague statements about concepts. When I made vague statements, it's more concrete. Manifests in comparing my interpretation of somebody to my interpretation of a fictional character. Si.

Maybe I'm deluding myself here. I always wonder if my "ideas" or the possibilities I chase are more physical and concrete than I give them credit for, which would make me Se and not Ne.



> Brainstorm some words/ideas from the word "blue".


The word blue makes me think of the phrase "out of the blue," but I think that might have something to do with the fact that I've just been told to brainstorm and basically come up with ideas out of the blue. Although, it's probably not really out of the blue because I'm getting all of this from the word "blue." I think it might also be because I have the word "random" in my head, because you said that you used to think that you felt you were too "random" to be Ni. It's weird, because I don't think Ne is random at all. If I _am_ Ne - and I think I am - then Ne is certainly not random, because I don't believe my thought process random. I'd actually consider it "connected" or "engaged," which makes sense to me since Ne is an extroverted function. Anyway, my thought process is kind of like a spider diagram. Like, if somebody mentions A, then a would branch out into B, C and D, and B would branch out into E, F and G, and C into H and I, and D into J, K and L, and then, for example, point G would be the most interesting to me, so I'll mention / discuss it to see how others respond, and I guess that jumping from A to G would seem random to someone who can't read my mind, and that's why Ne might be perceived as "random." I don't know. I think that Se would work in a similar way, but with regards to the concrete / physical / experiential. It's interesting to think about. If I am Ne, and I'm thinking this way with regards to theories and concepts, then does that mean that when I'm imagining or recalling something physical like the way something smells, that Si is going to be more "linear" and Se is going to be "random?" Oh. Right. I was supposed to talk about "blue" stuff. The ocean is blue. Actually, no, the ocean is water, and water is colourless, but the ocean reflects the sky... right? I was never good at physics.


----------



## 460202 (May 22, 2017)

Mr. Castelo said:


> To be honest, I do think it's more likely that you're an "introverted" ENFP due to your withdrawn tritype, but I don't want to jump into conclusions here, and there's still evidence for INFP. Your sister typed you as a one, and she probably has a more accurate perception of you than me, an internet stranger.


Some background: I have three sisters. ENTJ typed me as INFP, and didn't think twice about it. ESTP (the one you're referring to) went from ENFP to ISTJ to INFP. ENTP typed me as ENFP because she firmly believes that I'm an Si-inferior. I have an ESFJ friend who types me as INFP and an ISTJ friend who types me as ENFP and is very firm in that conclusion.

INFP is the consensus.



> The way you described your childhood makes me think that you first developed Ne, then Fi, but *I don't buy the "all types develop their functions the same way" theory. *I don't think that cognitive functions are that... orderly, you probably use one here and there when you're a child and goes on experimenting them until your brain unconsciously decides which ones are more suitable for you, it's not something set in stone. When I was a kid, I was way too much sensitive, I liked to learn new things and sometimes would spend hours daydreaming about something, but I enjoyed going outside and playing with my friends, I could be very energetic as much as could be very quiet. I probably seemed more like an ISFP or INFP than INTJ. My INFP friend said that he was more like an ENFP when he was a kid, but then he went through puberty and became more INFP. He also went through some traumatic stuff, which I believe affected his development in some way, but he's an INFP now for sure.


I agree. I believe that even inferior functions manifest themselves in one's behaviour from an early age. Development of them is a different thing. 



> Anyway, I couldn't draw a lot of conclusions from your post, which is a shame, sorry. I think you really should look more into the inferior functions, I don't think that looking at how much Ne you use will lead to something productive. You might think that there's not much difference between inferior Si and tertiary Si or inferior Te and tertiary Te, but I think there's a big one.


I don't know. I relate to both descriptions of inferior Te and inferior Si. I did a Socionics test not too long ago and my result was IEE / ENFp and I compared the descriptions of how the functions manifest in an ENFp to how it manifests in an EII / INFj, and I definitely related to the ENFp description more, especially when it came to lower functions.



> I'll use my INFP friend and his ENFP ex-girlfriend as examples: my INFP friend is very sensitive and has crazy ideas, but he's way more stable in his choices than his ex-girlfriend (she was an 7w8, so that's another factor). She wasn't as sensitive as him and she would quickly recover from having her feelings hurt, on the other hand, he could go on months lamenting about how his feelings were hurt, he would get stuck in one of those Fi-Si loops where he would replay the same experience and relive the same feelings brought by it over and over again. His ex-girlfriend didn't get stuck in those loops at all, she was quick to recover and quick to get back into action, make new plans and restart her life no matter how many times were needed. She would dump her boyfriends just because she would grow bored of them, *my INFP friend would never do that to someone.* This may not be a fair comparison, but is the only one I've got... Sorry for not being of much help here.


Yeah... they _both_ sound like me. I definitely have bouts of... obsessively holding onto old feelings. It's weird. If you, for example, hurt me today, I'll get upset about it and attempt to doorslam you, but then if you do something to make happy or just enjoy your company tomorrow, I absolutely won't care about any negative feelings I ever had. Then, if you piss me off again a year from now, I'll sit and think about what you'd done a year ago and fixate on it. So, I'd say I both recover quickly and hold on for too long.

Why would your INFP friend _never_ do that?


----------



## Mr Castelo (May 28, 2017)

Flower Hat said:


> Some background: I have three sisters. ENTJ typed me as INFP, and didn't think twice about it. ESTP (the one you're referring to) went from ENFP to ISTJ to INFP. ENTP typed me as ENFP because she firmly believes that I'm an Si-inferior. I have an ESFJ friend who types me as INFP and an ISTJ friend who types me as ENFP and is very firm in that conclusion.
> 
> INFP is the consensus.


I see... that certainly makes things more complicated since I believe that all those people know you relatively well.



> I don't know. I relate to both descriptions of inferior Te and inferior Si. I did a Socionics test not too long ago and my result was IEE / ENFp and I compared the descriptions of how the functions manifest in an ENFp to how it manifests in an EII / INFj, and I definitely related to the ENFp description more, especially when it came to lower functions.


I have yet to read about Socionics, seems to be a bit overcomplicated.



> Yeah... they _both_ sound like me. I definitely have bouts of... obsessively holding onto old feelings. It's weird. If you, for example, hurt me today, I'll get upset about it and attempt to doorslam you, but then if you do something to make happy or just enjoy your company tomorrow, I absolutely won't care about any negative feelings I ever had. Then, if you piss me off again a year from now, I'll sit and think about what you'd done a year ago and fixate on it. So, I'd say I both recover quickly and hold on for too long.


How would you react if the person had done something that goes against one of your values (a big one)?



> Why would your INFP friend _never_ do that?


I don't know exactly why, but I believe that that goes against one of his personal values, when he grows attached to people, it's hard for him to let go of them even if they're boring or annoying (I think that the conflict-aversion of 9 contributes to this). Also, he has this weird thing where he kind of believes that everyone has the same values as him or is as passionate about them as him. I think he knows in a conscious level that this is not true, but he can act like it is. For example, he got angry at me once because I don't hate the Catholic Church as much as him since they had commited various atrocities in the past, he has a very bad impression of the church and believes that everyone should have the same bad impression. He uses facts to justify his hatred for the Catholic Church, but I know that he really hates it just because he grew up in a catholic family and his family forced him to go to church and he didn't like it; he does this to basically everything, he uses facts (Te) and personal impressions of things (Si) to justify _all_ of his values (Fi). That's why I say that everything is centered around Fi for him, his thoughts, feelings, values and actions all stem from it in some way or another, to the point where he can forget that other people think in a different way than him (if you do something, he immediatly attributes that action to what he assumes is one of your values, then judges you based on that). If someone has hurt him in the past in a specific way, he thinks about never doing that to someone else because the person might feel as hurt as he felt when someone did that to him.

On the other hand, his ENFP ex thinks in a similar way to him, but her life is definitely centered around Ne, and not Fi. In fact, she would use Fi to justify Ne, when she dumped one of her boyfriends out of boredom, she said that it was because she valued her independence, even though I know that's not exactly the case because she has told me so. I would question her choices in life because they seemed too impulsive, and she would twist facts to justify them. She seemed to go against everything that Si represents (stability, sameness, attachments to personal experiences/memories) even if doing this would cause more harm than good just for the sake of it. As she herself said to me once, she likes to feel like her life is spiraling out of control, but she has to have just enough control to avoid completely crashing, that's what having freedom means to her. My INFP friend definitely wouldn't like to live like this, he would get tired of it pretty fast, he doesn't like to have his life all planned out or completely in control either, but he definitely likes to have some stability, some place/person where he can always come back to at the end of the day. I believe that his ENFP ex would like to have this too, but she often forgets about this or acts as if she doesn't really need something like that in her life.

I rambled a bit here, but at this point I'm trying to use everything that I have in my hands to help you find your type because this is looking pretty tricky to me.


----------



## robert666 (Mar 18, 2015)

> I've also reflected on many major decisions I've made in my life and they seem almost entirely under the influence of Ne. For example, I've been in a few relationships where *I've had really strong feelings for the guys I was with at the time and felt very attached to them, but have ended the relationships because I'd gotten "bored" or felt like they had nothing more to offer me*, which seems to point towards a prioritization of Ne over Fi.





> *I love to debate* and have my opinions challenged.





> I can sit in a room for an entire day *without getting bored, as long as I'm constantly getting some form of external stimulation*, through WiFi or TV or books or radio or company.





> Sometimes I act on these "dreams," and sometimes my dedication to them dies when I'm done brainstorming, but *I've never been able to follow through on my ideas*. My dreams are capable of turning into plans, but* sooner or later, I'll lose interest and decide to follow a new dream*.





> A key factor in deciding whether somebody I get along with really well is my friend rather than just an acquaintance is imagining being stuck in a room with them for an entire day and* wondering whether or not we'd be able to talk to one another and keep from getting bored.*





> It's not difficult for me to answer, but can be boring, and it takes a really long time for me to complete these questionnaires because I do them in between doing other stuff like writing essays (which I'm doing now) or watching movies *and I get distracted and start surfing the web.*





> I had too many hobbies growing up. I still feel bad about the amount of money my parents had spent on me every time I took on something new, because *ultimately I'd end up getting bored with my hobbies*. I still have a problem in taking on a lot more than I'm capable of handling.





> Always. What's may happen next *is actually a major factor in my decision-making process*. Motivates me, too.





> The reason why I want to go into a career in research is because you're *constantly exploring new perspectives and gaining new information*, and I'd be less likely to get bored than I'd be in a career where I'd constantly have to apply information or just do the same things over and over again.





> I can think about my responses deeply, but *I can't sit down and and type responses without getting bored or distracted*.





> I'm a very spontaneous person.* I'm not afraid to drop everything in my life and devote myself to something new*.





> *Last year I thought I was committed to something. Something new came along and I spontaneously dropped what I was doing to move forth with the new thing.* I didn't really think about it


.


----------



## 460202 (May 22, 2017)

Mr. Castelo said:


> I have yet to read about Socionics, seems to be a bit overcomplicated.


It's based on cognitive functions rather than on letters or profiles. It's not really much more complicated than Jung. Personally, I think that between Myers, Kiersey and Socionics, Socionics is best. This is a pretty good site. Socionics Se is a similar to Myers Te, but otherwise I enjoy the method of typology. 

I like Socionics' method of categorizing the types. While Kiersey splits the types into Idealists (NF), Guardians (SJ), etc., Socionics separates the types into four Quadras: Alpha (SFJ and NTP), Beta (STP and NFJ), Gamma (SFP and NTJ) and Delta (STJ and NFP), which makes more sense given they all use the same cognitive functions. I also prefer Socionics' type notation - for introverted types, the last letter (J or P) is dependent on which function is dominant, so Myers' INFP becomes INFj, since the superior function for the type is Fi, a judging function. I think I'm over-explaining.

I'd say that I'm definitely a Socionics ENFp. The functions work very much the way they do in me, and while Socionics does see extroverts as more likely to be sociable and introverts to be less so, extroversion versus introversion is more dependent on where your focus lies, where your psychic energy flows and on what your dominant function is. 

It's weird, because as I'm typing this, I feel like my issue is more with regards to my method of typing. I'm a Socionics ENFp, a Jungian INFP (I imagine a Jungian aux Ne type would use Ne very much the way I do, but I believe my primary mode is introverted), and probably a Myers-Briggs INFP as well, or at least an INXP (Myers' Feeling function sounds very Fe), despite initially testing as an ISXJ (I believe that my impression of myself was based very much on how others defined me back then, and it was actually through researching the MBTI that I started to notices discrepancies between my actions / behaviours / thought process and the way I and others had defined me).

The issue is applying cognitive functions as they are broadly understood today. Except for Si. I like OG Si. Myers' Si is terrible - I cannot comprehend what had led her to equate Si with tradition and routine when what it really was was abstract sensory impressions.

I understand the difference between Ne-Fi and Fi-Ne, and the difference between inferior Si and inferior Te, but I'm struggling to pick whether I'm one or the other. I could easily just type as INFP, because according to Jung and Myers, I believe I would be one, but our - and by our, I mean, everyone on this site and off it who type by functions - Neo-Jungian method, I'm absolutely lost. Too much Ne to be Ne-aux. Too little Ne to be Ne-dom (I _think_). 



> How would you react if the person had done something that goes against one of your values (a big one)?


Nothing, really. Depending on who it is, I might be disappointed, and if I am a "victim" in the situation, I'll probably put my foot down and try to cut that person out of my life, but I can't control anybody and expect them to live according to my values. I can only control my actions as a response. I hope that I wouldn't get too carried away in how much I care about the person (if I do care about them) to let anything bad they to slide. I'm just not in the place to bring the person to justice. If there's one thing I can't stand, it's hyprocisy. If this person preaches one thing and then did something to contradict that, I'd be quick to judge and verbally attack the person. Something that I forgot to mention in my explanation of how I use Fi is that for as long as I can remember, I could sniff out a moral inconsistency from a mile away. As a child, I always pointed out how hypocritical my parents were in there punishments and judgments, and they always complained that I was "too technical" in that respect.

Okay, if we're talking "values" as in what's important me, then it's not my place to say anything. If we're talking "values" as in ethics and morals, then again, it's not my place to preach, because I'm not like the Goddess of Morality or something, but I would explain my point of view if I'm really hurt or disappointed and I got the impression that the person felt they were doing something that was morally acceptable. I believe in "moral absolutes." I don't like it when people say that Fi believes that anything that feels right _is_ right, because I do believe that it's important not to be selfish (although that would depend on your definition of "selfish"). Just don't intentionally hurt anybody. If you do something for yourself, and somebody feels hurt even though they're not affect, then that person needs to learn to focus on themselves. I also don't like it when people say that Fi just sit back and let people do whatever the hell they want - I believe people need to intervene sometimes in order to bring someone to justice. Like I said before, I believe in moral absolutes, but I believe that they need to come from within and people need to figure them out for themselves. If somebody is doing something because the rest of the world claims it's "the right thing to do," then the action doesn't really mean anything.

I feel like I went off track a little bit and the topic just got broader and broader. Sorry.



> I don't know exactly why, but I believe that that goes against one of his personal values, when he grows attached to people, it's hard for him to let go of them even if they're boring or annoying (I think that the conflict-aversion of 9 contributes to this). Also, he has this weird thing where he kind of believes that everyone has the same values as him or is as passionate about them as him. I think he knows in a conscious level that this is not true, but he can act like it is. For example, he got angry at me once because I don't hate the Catholic Church as much as him since they had commited various atrocities in the past, he has a very bad impression of the church and believes that everyone should have the same bad impression. He uses facts to justify his hatred for the Catholic Church, but I know that he really hates it just because he grew up in a catholic family and his family forced him to go to church and he didn't like it(I believe that I can relate to this kind of defense mechanism); he does this to basically everything, he uses facts (Te) and personal impressions of things (Si) to justify _all_ of his values (Fi). That's why I say that everything is centered around Fi for him, his thoughts, feelings, values and actions all stem from it in some way or another, to the point where he can forget that other people think in a different way than him (if you do something, he immediatly attributes that action to what he assumes is one of your values, then judges you based on that). If someone has hurt him in the past in a specific way, he thinks about never doing that to someone else because the person might feel as hurt as he felt when someone did that to him.
> 
> On the other hand, his ENFP ex thinks in a similar way to him, but her life is definitely centered around Ne, and not Fi. In fact, she would use Fi to justify Ne, when she dumped one of her boyfriends out of boredom, she said that it was because she valued her independence, even though I know that's not exactly the case because she has told me so. I would question her choices in life because they seemed too impulsive, and she would twist facts to justify them. She seemed to go against everything that Si represents (stability, sameness, attachments to personal experiences/memories) even if doing this would cause more harm than good just for the sake of it. As she herself said to me once, she likes to feel like her life is spiraling out of control, but she has to have just enough control to avoid completely crashing, that's what having freedom means to her. My INFP friend definitely wouldn't like to live like this, he would get tired of it pretty fast, he doesn't like to have his life all planned out or completely in control either, but he definitely likes to have some stability, some place/person where he can always come back to at the end of the day. I believe that his ENFP ex would like to have this too, but she often forgets about this or acts as if she doesn't really need something like that in her life.


Really relate to the red.
The blue is absolutely not me.



> I rambled a bit here, but at this point I'm trying to use everything that I have in my hands to help you find your type because this is looking pretty tricky to me.


I appreciate the effort. Thank you. I feel like I'm impossible to "put in a box," but I'm strangely proud of that.


----------



## 460202 (May 22, 2017)

robert666 said:


> .


So, your vote is ENFP? Thank you for your participation, but I do suspect that one could just as easily find a bunch of quotes of mine which point to Fi. Unless, of course, these are examples of Ne _trumping_ Fi...


----------



## Mr Castelo (May 28, 2017)

Flower Hat said:


> It's based on cognitive functions rather than on letters or profiles. It's not really much more complicated than Jung. Personally, I think that between Myers, Kiersey and Socionics, Socionics is best. This is a pretty good site. Socionics Se is a similar to Myers Te, but otherwise I enjoy the method of typology.
> 
> I like Socionics' method of categorizing the types. While Kiersey splits the types into Idealists (NF), Guardians (SJ), etc., Socionics separates the types into four Quadras: Alpha (SFJ and NTP), Beta (STP and NFJ), Gamma (SFP and NTJ) and Delta (STJ and NFP), which makes more sense given they all use the same cognitive functions. I also prefer Socionics' type notation - for introverted types, the last letter (J or P) is dependent on which function is dominant, so Myers' INFP becomes INFj, since the superior function for the type is Fi, a judging function. I think I'm over-explaining.


The Socionics' description of ENFp looks quite a bit like how I imagine that ENFPs (Ne-Fi-Te-Si) are, but with the inclusion of the other, less conscious functions, so it feels more complete. Like you said, its Se is similar to Myers' Te, and sounds very much like tertiary Te.

Edit: I've read the INTp profile in Socionics and I could relate greatly to it, more so than any other type description I've come across, I think... Really good stuff.



> I'd say that I'm definitely a Socionics ENFp. The functions work very much the way they do in me, and while Socionics does see extroverts as more likely to be sociable and introverts to be less so, extroversion versus introversion is more dependent on where your focus lies, where your psychic energy flows and on what your dominant function is.


My preferred definition of the introversion/extroversion dichotomy is this one (where your psychic energy flows to), and that's how I interpreted Jung's definition of it... Have I interpreted it wrong?



> It's weird, because as I'm typing this, I feel like my issue is more with regards to my method of typing. I'm a Socionics ENFp, a Jungian INFP (I imagine a Jungian aux Ne type would use Ne very much the way I do, but I believe my primary mode is introverted), and probably a Myers-Briggs INFP as well, or at least an INXP (Myers' Feeling function sounds very Fe), despite initially testing as an ISXJ (I believe that my impression of myself was based very much on how others defined me back then, and it was actually through researching the MBTI that I started to notices discrepancies between my actions / behaviours / thought process and the way I and others had defined me).


It's funny that others defined you as an ISxJ since it shares the same functions with xNFPs (in case of ISTJ).



> The issue is applying cognitive functions as they are broadly understood today. Except for Si. I like OG Si. Myers' Si is terrible - I cannot comprehend what had led her to equate Si with tradition and routine when what it really was was abstract sensory impressions.


Si as tradition I also don't understand, Fe seems way more like it, but Si as something like routine I can get why... When you don't seek sensory novelty and instead just stick to your own sensory impressions, then this is going to manifest itself through something like having a routine/preferring things to stay the same.



> I understand the difference between Ne-Fi and Fi-Ne, and the difference between inferior Si and inferior Te, but I'm struggling to pick whether I'm one or the other. I could easily just type as INFP, because according to Jung and Myers, I believe I would be one, but our - and by our, I mean, everyone on this site and off it who type by functions - Neo-Jungian method, I'm absolutely lost. Too much Ne to be Ne-aux. Too little Ne to be Ne-dom (I _think_).


I don't know if there's such a thing as too little Ne to be Ne-dom when considering your tritype, it makes sense to me.



> Nothing, really. Depending on who it is, I might be disappointed, and if I am a "victim" in the situation, I'll probably put my foot down and try to cut that person out of my life, but I can't control anybody and expect them to live according to my values. I can only control my actions as a response. I hope that I wouldn't get too carried away in how much I care about the person (if I do care about them) to let anything bad they to slide. I'm just not in the place to bring the person to justice. If there's one thing I can't stand, it's hyprocisy. If this person preaches one thing and then did something to contradict that, I'd be quick to judge and verbally attack the person. Something that I forgot to mention in my explanation of how I use Fi is that for as long as I can remember, I could sniff out a moral inconsistency from a mile away. As a child, I always pointed out how hypocritical my parents were in there punishments and judgments, and they always complained that I was "too technical" in that respect.


You seem to have a very reasonable approach to this kind of situation, you focus a lot on what you can and can't do to solve the problem. That's why I think that you seem to use Te quite a bit, you want to respond to problems, even moral ones, in the most logical way possible (both morally and rationally, if that makes sense). I think that INFPs struggle a bit more with this... they may want to be seen as rational/logical and try to act like it, but many times they either fail at it, or just ignore logic/rationality altogether. I'm not saying that all INFPs are irrational people, but external logic _is_ their Achilles Heel. I don't think that this seems to be the case for you, not as far as I know, at least.



> Okay, if we're talking "values" as in what's important me, then it's not my place to say anything. If we're talking "values" as in ethics and morals, then again, it's not my place to preach, because I'm not like the Goddess of Morality or something, but I would explain my point of view if I'm really hurt or disappointed and I got the impression that the person felt they were doing something that was morally acceptable. I believe in "moral absolutes." I don't like it when people say that Fi believes that anything that feels right _is_ right, because I do believe that it's important not to be selfish (although that would depend on your definition of "selfish"). Just don't intentionally hurt anybody. If you do something for yourself, and somebody feels hurt even though they're not affect, then that person needs to learn to focus on themselves. I also don't like it when people say that Fi just sit back and let people do whatever the hell they want - I believe people need to intervene sometimes in order to bring someone to justice. Like I said before, I believe in moral absolutes, but I believe that they need to come from within and people need to figure them out for themselves. If somebody is doing something because the rest of the world claims it's "the right thing to do," then the action doesn't really mean anything.


Yeah, I don't think that Fi is so irrational either, "what feels right is right", Fi is still a logical process just like Ti, but based on subjective values, so there's still a reasoning behind it.



> I feel like I went off track a little bit and the topic just got broader and broader. Sorry.


It's okay, I feel it's better this way to get your more natural "you".



> Really relate to the red.
> The blue is absolutely not me.


Okay, I'll try to sort this out.

"when he grows attached to people, it's hard for him to let go of them even if they're boring or annoying"

You colored everything in this with red with the exception of the "boring" part. I'm interpreting this as you being able to let go of people who are boring to you (which you said you have done before). This is something that I have a difficult time imagining an INFP doing, I mean, I think it depends on how you leave said person... I imagine that an INFP would take a lot longer to leave someone who they deem as boring in comparison to an ENFP, they would go through a lot of evaluation of the situation, possibly try to convince themselves that the person is not boring or that they being interesting is not something important to them, etc., if they really like the person for another characteristic they might even delude themselves into thinking that the person is not boring. In other words, I think that INFPs are a lot more resistant to boredom than ENFPs and get more easily attached to things/people.

"he kind of believes that everyone has the same values as him or is as passionate about them as him."

This is just my theory, but I think that this is kind of a problem with having dominant Ji when you're unhealthy and too deep in your own head. Ti-doms may start to think that everyone follows the same logic as them, Fi-doms may start to think that everyone follows the same values as them. Maybe this applies to all introverts if they're past a certain point, I don't know.

"she would use Fi to justify Ne, when she dumped one of her boyfriends out of boredom, she said that it was because she valued her independence"

If you relate to this because you also use your values to justify your Ne behaviour (impulsivety, constantly seeking new possibilities, etc.), then I definitely think you're an ENFP. If you relate to this because you have done the same thing (dumping your boyfriend out of boredom) in the past... well, I still think this is something that an ENFP is more likely to do, but nothing absolute.

"she likes to feel like her life is spiraling out of control, but she has to have just enough control to avoid completely crashing"

Yeah, I think this speaks more about her than about her type, haha.



> I appreciate the effort. Thank you. I feel like I'm impossible to "put in a box," but I'm strangely proud of that.


Your 4 fix is showing.


*Conclusion:*

I'm definitely leaning more towards ENFP for you now. You identified yourself with the Socionics' description of ENFPs, and even though it's not quite the same, it comes really close to what I define as Ne-Fi-Te-Si, also, it seems to use the definition that I prefer to use to distinguish Introverts from Extroverts. You define yourself as an introvert in the Jungian sense, I would like to know exactly how this definition applies to yourself.


----------



## robert666 (Mar 18, 2015)

Flower Hat said:


> So, your vote is ENFP? Thank you for your participation, but* I do suspect that one could just as easily find a bunch of quotes of mine which point to Fi.* Unless, of course, these are examples of Ne _trumping_ Fi...


That would depend on how you think one should identify the dominant function in action. So maybe a first question to be answered is, how would you determine that a dominant function is being used by someone, or at least what would indicate that a dominant function is most likely responsible for a certain behaviour. Without some way of making this judgement it would be impossible for you to decide between Ne and Fi.


----------



## 460202 (May 22, 2017)

Mr. Castelo said:


> The Socionics' description of ENFp looks quite a bit like how I imagine that ENFPs (Ne-Fi-Te-Si) are, but with the inclusion of the other, less conscious functions, so it feels more complete. *Like you said, its Se is similar to Myers' Te, and sounds very much like tertiary Te.*
> 
> Edit: I've read the INTp profile in Socionics and I could relate greatly to it, more so than any other type description I've come across, I think... Really good stuff.


Socionics Si is sort of a conglomeration of Jung's Si and both Jung's and Myers' Se. It's weird. 



> My preferred definition of the introversion/extroversion dichotomy is this one (where your psychic energy flows to), and that's how I interpreted Jung's definition of it... Have I interpreted it wrong?


This is how I understand it:

MBTI: Do you feel more energized after have been around other people and engaging with the external world (E) or after having spent time alone to sort out your thoughts (I)?

Socionics: Does your focus lie in what's going on around you and in gathering information / engaging with the external world (E)? Or does your focus lie in what's going on inside of you and in building internal frameworks to refer to when dealing with the external world (I)? [Sociability is a factor here, but is not the _deciding_ factor - the dominant function is the deciding factor]

Jung: Do you consciously allow the external world to define the object (E)? Or do you consciously draw away from the object to subjectively define it by focusing on the subject (I)? [Again, sociability is a factor. Another factor is the function. An INFP, for example, would primarily be subjective in their worldview, but would be objective and extroverted when using the Intuition and Thinking functions. Value focuses on the subject. Logic _is_ the object, i.e. logic is the facts. Some background: Jung had determined his definitions of the introverted and extroverted types by comparing Freud's theories with Adler's]. 



> It's funny that others defined you as an ISxJ since it shares the same functions with xNFPs (in case of ISTJ).


What's truly funny is that I think that if any of them had taken the test for me, _as_ me, they would have tested as N, given Myers' definitions of intuition and sensation. Ever since I was a child, I've been described as having my "head in the clouds" and as being "lost in [my] own world." Always felt like I was being made fun of, so a part of me was motivated to go the other way to prove those people wrong, which is might have been why I tested as S. That, and I've always been described as a realist and sensible.

I think based on MBTI letters, I'm an INTP. I tested as one on 16personalities, and I relate to the description... okay. I mean, I relate to it kind of but not totally. It's better than the overly fluffy and cutesy INFP and ENFP descriptions. I mean, I'm probably almost about 50/50 on the P vs J dichotomy, but I don't believe I'm a Myers F. At _all_.



> Si as tradition I also don't understand, Fe seems way more like it, but *Si as something like routine I can get why... When you don't seek sensory novelty and instead just stick to your own sensory impressions, then this is going to manifest itself through something like having a routine/preferring things to stay the same.*


I understand, but everyone's capable of having routines. My ESTP and ENTJ sisters do, but they're not nearly as rigid about sticking to it as my ENTP sister is. 

Tradition... _might_ be more linked with Fe. The three people I know who are obsessed with doing the most pointless things because it's tradition are two ESTPs and an ENFJ. 



> I don't know if there's such a thing as too little Ne to be Ne-dom when considering your tritype, it makes sense to me.


You have a point.



> *You seem to have a very reasonable approach to this kind of situation*, you focus a lot on what you can and can't do to solve the problem.


LOL. Really? I don't see it. Although, a lot of people do see me as the voice of reason, and they involve me in their problems. 



> That's why I think that you seem to use Te quite a bit, you want to respond to problems, even moral ones, in the most logical way possible (both morally and rationally, if that makes sense). I think that INFPs struggle a bit more with this... they may want to be seen as rational/logical and try to act like it, but many times they either fail at it, or just ignore logic/rationality altogether. I'm not saying that all INFPs are irrational people, but external logic _is_ their Achilles Heel. I don't think that this seems to be the case for you, not as far as I know, at least.


It's not. I consider myself logical. Other people consider me logical. Logical consistency, however, is something I'm terrible with.



> Yeah, I don't think that Fi is so irrational either, "what feels right is right", Fi is still a logical process just like Ti, but based on subjective values, so there's still a reasoning behind it.


I've seen so many people say that Fi takes a "If it feels right, it is right" approach, but this seems like such a selfish attitude to have. I mean, there are people who say that it "feels right" to cheat on somebody but if you're into someone else, it's not that hard to just break up with whoever you're with to figure things out.



> "when he grows attached to people, it's hard for him to let go of them even if they're boring or annoying"
> 
> You colored everything in this with red with the exception of the "boring" part. I'm interpreting this as you being able to let go of people who are boring to you (which you said you have done before). This is something that I have a difficult time imagining an INFP doing, I mean, I think it depends on how you leave said person... I imagine that an INFP would take a lot longer to leave someone who they deem as boring in comparison to an ENFP, they would go through a lot of evaluation of the situation, possibly try to convince themselves that the person is not boring or that they being interesting is not something important to them, etc., if they really like the person for another characteristic they might even delude themselves into thinking that the person is not boring. In other words, I think that INFPs are a lot more resistant to boredom than ENFPs and get more easily attached to things/people.


What's easy about letting go of people when they're boring is that at some point, you have nothing to talk about and just drift apart. Sometimes, annoying people are still fun, but in general, I put up with a lot of crap from annoying people.



> "he kind of believes that everyone has the same values as him or is as passionate about them as him."
> 
> This is just my theory, but I think that this is kind of a problem with having dominant Ji when you're unhealthy and too deep in your own head. Ti-doms may start to think that everyone follows the same logic as them, Fi-doms may start to think that everyone follows the same values as them. *Maybe this applies to all introverts if they're past a certain point*, I don't know.


Yes. It's easy to spot in unhealthy / "far gone" Si-doms in particular, when they're insisting that something is as they see it even though their perception of it is completely out of touch with what the object / situation is in reality. 

I think I'd consider somebody like this pretty illogical. I have this issue with Fe types, since they tend to expect everybody to jump in line with their values.



> "she would use Fi to justify Ne, when she dumped one of her boyfriends out of boredom, she said that it was because she valued her independence"
> 
> If you relate to this because you also use your values to justify your Ne behaviour (impulsivety, constantly seeking new possibilities, etc.), then I definitely think you're an ENFP. If you relate to this because you have done the same thing (dumping your boyfriend out of boredom) in the past... well, I still think this is something that an ENFP is more likely to do, but nothing absolute.


I had some sort of issue when I dropped out of university last year on a whim to study part-time from home, where I couldn't really explain why I wanted to change things so suddenly to my mother, so I said that it's because I work better on my own. It was a stupid argument, because I work better under external pressure, and I didn't really feel bored with what I was doing - the new thing just seemed so much better for me.



> "she likes to feel like her life is spiraling out of control, but she has to have just enough control to avoid completely crashing"
> 
> Yeah, I think this speaks more about her than about her type, haha.


I think you pointed out that she's a 7. Well, she's certainly an unhealthy one.



> Your 4 fix is showing.


Happens a lot online, or when I'm explaining myself in general. Doesn't show that much in real life.



> *Conclusion:*
> 
> I'm definitely leaning more towards ENFP for you now. You identified yourself with the Socionics' description of ENFPs, and even though it's not quite the same, it comes really close to what I define as Ne-Fi-Te-Si, also, it seems to use the definition that I prefer to use to distinguish Introverts from Extroverts. *You define yourself as an introvert in the Jungian sense, I would like to know exactly how this definition applies to yourself.*


Like UnicornRainbowLove had pointed out, I have an issue when others' view of something differ from my own. I didn't really notice this before - I always assumed that _my_ view was correct. It's weird because I do think that I let others' defining me in certain ways (organized, systematic, unemotional) influence how I saw myself, but at the same time, I was always surprised when I did something and somebody was shocked and acted as though I'd never do something like that. Now that sort of thing just annoys me. I mean, I know that I'm really introverted in a Jungian sense when it comes to my Feeling function, but I do think it dominates my personality. When I'm faced with something, it's always about me and how I respond to it and how I define it, and when outside opinions contradict my own, I am quick to shut it down. A Jungian extrovert would use outside opinions to define it - it's all about the object, even if you lose yourself to it.

EDIT: How did you get through that post of mine? _So_ many typos. I typed "there" instead of "their." Hate myself so much for that.


----------



## 460202 (May 22, 2017)

robert666 said:


> That would depend on how you think one should identify the dominant function in action. So maybe a first question to be answered is, how would you determine that a dominant function is being used by someone, or at least what would indicate that a dominant function is most likely responsible for a certain behaviour. Without some way of making this judgement it would be impossible for you to decide between Ne and Fi.


True. The way I see it, based on how I believe it is universally interpreted today, is the dominant function is how you live your life, and the auxiliary function is there to bolster it or "feed" it. Basically, I'd judge based on which function seems prioritized over all of the others, and which seems to be used consciously at all times.


----------



## Mr Castelo (May 28, 2017)

Flower Hat said:


> This is how I understand it:
> 
> MBTI: Do you feel more energized after have been around other people and engaging with the external world (E) or after having spent time alone to sort out your thoughts (I)?
> 
> ...


I think I see those three definitions as being more or less the "same", although the one who comes closer to my interpretation is Socionics', with MBTI's and Jung's definitions being side-effects to it, not exactly the "core". I find that Jung's descriptions of introversion/extraversion are a bit extreme, of course, he intended them to be that way, but it's hard for me to find nuance in his descriptions, Socionics' is simpler and more easily applied to reality, I think.



> I think based on MBTI letters, I'm an INTP. I tested as one on 16personalities, and I relate to the description... okay. I mean, I relate to it kind of but not totally. It's better than the overly fluffy and cutesy INFP and ENFP descriptions. I mean, I'm probably almost about 50/50 on the P vs J dichotomy, but I don't believe I'm a Myers F. At _all_.


I find it hard to relate to any of the MBTI descriptions, they're either too vague or too extreme, there's no in between.



> LOL. Really? I don't see it. Although, a lot of people do see me as the voice of reason, and they involve me in their problems.


I do think that you give this impression, maybe is your 9 and 5 fixes that give you this image of a rational peace-maker.



> It's not. I consider myself logical. Other people consider me logical. Logical consistency, however, is something I'm terrible with.


It does make sense to other people consider you to be logical when you use Te since it's external, logic consistency would be more like Ti, wouldn't it?



> Yes. It's easy to spot in unhealthy / "far gone" Si-doms in particular, when they're insisting that something is as they see it even though their perception of it is completely out of touch with what the object / situation is in reality.


I think I've been in a similar spot before, I thought that everyone was out to get me, borderline paranoid stuff.



> Like UnicornRainbowLove had pointed out, I have an issue when others' view of something differ from my own. I didn't really notice this before - I always assumed that _my_ view was correct. It's weird because I do think that I let others' defining me in certain ways (organized, systematic, unemotional) influence how I saw myself, but at the same time, I was always surprised when I did something and somebody was shocked and acted as though I'd never do something like that. Now that sort of thing just annoys me. I mean, I know that I'm really introverted in a Jungian sense when it comes to my Feeling function, but I do think it dominates my personality. *When I'm faced with something, it's always about me and how I respond to it and how I define it, and when outside opinions contradict my own, I am quick to shut it down.* A Jungian extrovert would use outside opinions to define it - it's all about the object, even if you lose yourself to it.


But when you're faced with a problem, wouldn't it make sense to resort to your dominant judging function? When I'm faced with one, I'm sure that I analyze it with external data and take others' opinions of it into consideration (although my own opinion still holds more value to me). I don't think that makes me an extrovert, I'm like this only in specific situations, most of the time, I focus on my own inner world. I don't know, maybe I'm mixing things up here, I'm not sure if I understand Jung's definition of introversion anymore. Maybe a Ne-dom would be more open to others' opinions indeed, I'm just trying to offer a different point of view.



> EDIT: How did you get through that post of mine? _So_ many typos. I typed "there" instead of "their." Hate myself so much for that.


Really? I don't think I noticed many of them... But then again, English is not my native language, so I tend to overlook typos and go straight to what the person means (I think that's how it should be for my native langague, but it's the other way around, haha).


----------



## robert666 (Mar 18, 2015)

Flower Hat said:


> True. The way I see it, based on how I believe it is universally interpreted today, is the dominant function is how you live your life, and the auxiliary function is there to bolster it or "feed" it. Basically, I'd judge based on which function seems prioritized over all of the others, and which seems to be used consciously at all times.


Seeing as you haven't been able to figure it out yet, I'd say that this description isn't quite enough. So lets be more specific, if you were observing someone day to day what do you think you would notice about his use of his dominant function. In other words are there any 'tangible' characteristics?


----------



## 460202 (May 22, 2017)

Mr. Castelo said:


> I think I see those three definitions as being more or less the "same", although the one who comes closer to my interpretation is Socionics', with MBTI's and Jung's definitions being side-effects to it, not exactly the "core". *I find that Jung's descriptions of introversion/extraversion are a bit extreme*, of course, he intended them to be that way, but it's hard for me to find nuance in his descriptions, Socionics' is simpler and more easily applied to reality, I think.


Jung was certainly hyperbolic in his descriptions. I have a tendency to be the same way, and I've noticed it in how I answer questionnaires / describe myself and my life. I make everything sound like a dramatic story. A lot of people,see this as a side effect of Si and Ne. I can see it. ESFJ Taylor Swift epitomizes this, for example.



> I find it hard to relate to any of the MBTI descriptions, they're either too vague or too extreme, there's no in between.


I don't find them vague at all. If anything, I believe they're too specific (and also under great influence of an intuitive bias - I'm of the belief that it was Myers who'd actually created the intuitive bias). MBTI profiles do not describe 16 personality _types_ or outlines, but describe 16 personalities, which should be unique to each and every individual (in my opinion). They blur the lines between how one thinks and what one thinks. It's like, "This is how you behave in X, Y and Z situations, and this is what you're interested in, and what you like, and what you don't like, and here's a list of your habits and a bunch of careers you should enjoy, and these are all your feelings and thoughts and beliefs." I'm exaggerating, obviously, but I often feel like trying to identify as a specific type description is like trying to squeeze yourself into a dress two sizes too small.

This is why I don't really enjoy typing based on overall impression of a type. It can be misleading, and once you've got the idea in your head, it's easy to cherrypick points that confirm your own hypothesis. I believe Si-Ne are most susceptible to this, but the rest of us are not immune.



> *I do think that you give this impression*, maybe is your 9 and 5 fixes that give you this image of a rational peace-maker.


I consider this odd since you've never met me. But, yes. I'm like a beacon for people with problems.



> It does make sense to other people consider you to be logical when you use Te since it's external, logic consistency would be more like Ti, wouldn't it?


Yes. Like I've said before, I'm great at spotting moral inconsistencies. Have been for as long as I can remember, and I have zero chill when it comes to moral inconsistencies. But I always ramble on about something, and then somebody else has to point out a logical inconsistency in something I've said / typed.



> I think I've been in a similar spot before, I thought that everyone was out to get me, borderline paranoid stuff.


I don't know if I'm out of touch, but I definitely tend to make everything about myself. Sometimes I'm just trying to show someone that I emphasize with them, and I end up talking about myself, but I do have this weird paranoid quality where I'm often wondering if a problem somebody is having has to do with me, or if I hear them laughing, I'll assume it's about me.




> *But when you're faced with a problem, wouldn't it make sense to resort to your dominant judging function? *When I'm faced with one, I'm sure that I analyze it with external data and take others' opinions of it into consideration (although my own opinion still holds more value to me). I don't think that makes me an extrovert, I'm like this only in specific situations, most of the time, I focus on my own inner world. I don't know, maybe I'm mixing things up here, I'm not sure if I understand Jung's definition of introversion anymore. Maybe a Ne-dom would be more open to others' opinions indeed, I'm just trying to offer a different point of view.


Jungian introvert: subjective, internally derived, contrarian
Jungian extroverted: objective, consensus-based

Oh, I didn't mean that I tend to do that when I'm faced with a problem. I just meant that in perceiving / defining an object, I don't want outside opinions and views to influence mine. This seems to be my primary mode. Comes from my conscious mind. 

The issue with Jung's descriptions is that we're all going to fit into one or the other based on the functions we're using, so an NFP would fit into the introverted description when using the F and S functions, and into the extroverted description when using the N and T functions, so defining one as either an I or an E can be misleading. There are plenty of ESXJs (and some ENXPs) who seem to perfectly fit into Jung's definition of an introvert when their Si kicks in.

I would think so. However, I do know that I tend to go looking for outside opinions on things for the sake of it, even on moral issues. I like to hear others' opinions, but I don't want their opinions to influence mine. Of course, speaking about opinions means that I'm concerned with the realm of value, and am therefore using my F function. Damn. I'm just running in circles here.


----------



## 460202 (May 22, 2017)

robert666 said:


> Seeing as you haven't been able to figure it out yet, I'd say that this description isn't quite enough. So lets be more specific, if you were observing someone day to day what do you think you would notice about his use of his dominant function. In other words are there any 'tangible' characteristics?


I... don't know. 

Crap. You've got me questioning my typing method, although I do admit that I can be inconsistent the approach I take. 

I don't usually go around typing people unless they ask to be typed or their thought processes become clear in some way. I'll pick up on functions, and eventually all of them will fall into place. I don't know how to describe it in a clearer way. All I know is that while the lower functions (inferior in particular) behave erratically and tend to be taken care of "lazily," people tend to give their all to their dominant functions. Uh... it's like somebody who seems to use Si, Ne, Ti and Fe will use their three less prioritized functions as a way to support the dominant function. If this person is an ESFJ for example, their life will revolve around objective value and external emotional harmony, and the subjective impressions forms by Si will be used to help maintain or build this external harmony. If this person is an ISFJ, objective values will be used to help support or form subjective impressions.

I don't think I'm explaining myself well.

Anyway. I appreciate that you're trying to help me figure out my true type for myself; I admit that I have a tendency to question others when they merely state what type they believe I am, regardless of what they type me as. However, I would be interested in learning of how _you_ would identify somebody's dominant function.


----------



## Mr Castelo (May 28, 2017)

Flower Hat said:


> I don't find them vague at all. If anything, I believe they're too specific (and also under great influence of an intuitive bias - I'm of the belief that it was Myers who'd actually created the intuitive bias). MBTI profiles do not describe 16 personality _types_ or outlines, but describe 16 personalities, which should be unique to each and every individual (in my opinion). They blur the lines between how one thinks and what one thinks. It's like, "This is how you behave in X, Y and Z situations, and this is what you're interested in, and what you like, and what you don't like, and here's a list of your habits and a bunch of careers you should enjoy, and these are all your feelings and thoughts and beliefs." I'm exaggerating, obviously, but I often feel like trying to identify as a specific type description is like trying to squeeze yourself into a dress two sizes too small.
> 
> This is why I don't really enjoy typing based on overall impression of a type. It can be misleading, and once you've got the idea in your head, it's easy to cherrypick points that confirm your own hypothesis. I believe Si-Ne are most susceptible to this, but the rest of us are not immune.


Yeah, maybe "vague" wasn't the right word... I think it's more similar to "ambiguous", like, I could interpret this as X, Y and Z, or this could be due to X, Y and Z, but you're right that those descriptions tend to be hyper-specific about behaviour.



> I consider this odd since you've never met me. But, yes. I'm like a beacon for people with problems.


Well, it's the impression I got from the way you write things (and from the content of what you wrote). Sorry, I have this problem where I create an image of how someone is by the way they type or talk, etc., I already have a somewhat concrete image of how you are in person in my head, it's something that I do unconsciously. And now I'm wondering if this is due to Ni or Si, or if both can do this, and I don't want to discuss about my type again now.



> Yes. Like I've said before, I'm great at spotting moral inconsistencies. Have been for as long as I can remember, and I have zero chill when it comes to moral inconsistencies. But I always ramble on about something, and then somebody else has to point out a logical inconsistency in something I've said / typed.


I consider myself to be somewhat good at both, to be honest... I like to have a laugh at SJWs and some extreme anti-feminists because most of them seem to be both logically and morally inconsistent. I don't know what this says about my cognitive functions, from what I've read, Te may overlook logical inconsistencies in favor of efficiency or "realism".



> I don't know if I'm out of touch, but I definitely tend to make everything about myself. *Sometimes I'm just trying to show someone that I emphasize with them, and I end up talking about myself*, but I do have this weird paranoid quality where I'm often wondering if a problem somebody is having has to do with me, or if I hear them laughing, I'll assume it's about me.


Now you reminded me of my INFP friend, he definitely does this sometimes when he tries to comfort me, haha. I'm actually a bit guilty of this too, interacting with my INFP friend made me realize that I fall on this behaviour sometimes, so I try to refrain from talking about myself in the rare occasion of when someone is opening up to me



> Jungian introvert: subjective, internally derived, contrarian
> Jungian extroverted: objective, consensus-based
> 
> Oh, I didn't mean that I tend to do that when I'm faced with a problem. I just meant that in perceiving / defining an object, I don't want outside opinions and views to influence mine. This seems to be my primary mode. Comes from my conscious mind.
> ...


Yeah, this all seems a bit confusing when you put things into perspective. For example, I don't think that a Ne-dom or Se-dom is consensus-based when it comes to thoughts or opinions, Fe-doms and Te-doms seem more like it because, well, the Je functions are build upon what is considered to be an objective consensus. Actually, this seems to be the opposite of how Ne-doms behave since Ne is about looking for new possibilities and different ideas/concepts, isn't it?

However, you talked about perceiving/definining an object, and in this case, I do agree that all introverts are subjective about it, and you seem to fit with this definition of the word from what you described... I was convinced of you being an ENFP, and now I'm not so sure about it anymore, great! One thing that is making me less sure of you being an extrovert is the way you choose to describe yourself, you don't use objective descriptions like "I act like this and that, I do this and that, my ideas are like this, people see me like this", I mean, you have described some things like that, but they're minimal and you talk more about them only when asked, you seem to prefer to talk about the thought-process behind your actions, your preferences, motivations, etc., subjective and internal stuff. Now, I'm aware that this may be due to the very nature of this thread (trying to gauge how your thought-process works), but I've seen things like this in other posts from you, and I have a feeling that you're like this in real life too. Like you said, you insert yourself in a conversation even if it's supposed to be about someone else.

But then again, maybe this is due to the nature of this thread and forum in general, people come here to talk about themselves, to make do introspection, so you're bound to sound more introverted-like when you do this, but I've noticed that extroverts tend to talk more about objective things, traits that others have observed in them, how they affect the enviroment around them, their relationships with other people, etc., it's about how others view them or how they fit with the outside world, with you, is more about how you view yourself and how things from the outside world fit with your own internal world. They look from without to look within themselves, and you seem to look directly from within.

Those are my thoughts for now, I won't make any conclusions here because I want to see what you have to say about this before forming one.


----------



## robert666 (Mar 18, 2015)

Flower Hat said:


> I... don't know.
> 
> Crap. You've got me questioning my typing method, although I do admit that I can be inconsistent the approach I take.
> 
> ...


This is why I didn't want to just tell you that you are a certain type.

Descriptions such as "All I know is that while the lower functions (inferior in particular) behave erratically and tend to be taken care of "lazily," people tend to give their all to their dominant functions." are fine to get an overall understanding of what a dominant function means, but this is still an abstract description and doesn't actually help one to figure out when someone is actually using it.

So here are some questions for you, feel free to elaborate in your answers:

Do you think that a person would prefer to use his dominant function most of the time?
Do you think that a person can use his dominant function for extended periods of time without getting "tired"?
Do you think that a person would get stressed out or uncomfortable if he was prevented from using his dominant function for any length of time?
Do you think that a person using his dominant function would experience something enjoyable, such as a buzz of excitement?
Do you think that a person would naturally gravitate towards using his dominant function, if he is not already using it?
Do you think that a person would prefer to use his dominant function in making life decisions?
Do you think that a person could be using his dominant function and not even be aware of it because it is a perfectly normal state for him to be in?


----------



## UnicornRainbowLove (May 8, 2014)

robert666 said:


> This is why I didn't want to just tell you that you are a certain type.
> 
> Descriptions such as "All I know is that while the lower functions (inferior in particular) behave erratically and tend to be taken care of "lazily," people tend to give their all to their dominant functions." are fine to get an overall understanding of what a dominant function means, but this is still an abstract description and doesn't actually help one to figure out when someone is actually using it.
> 
> ...


I wish more people would ask themselves these sorts of questions. You could go even further though. Which daily actions are governed by functions and which aren't, what does it mean to be consciously in control of a function like introverted sensing, how do you consciously control your internal sensations, how does an INFP do abstract math if thinking is directed toward reality and, even worse, an unconscious function over which there is little control? 

The framework seems awfully hard to establish.


----------



## robert666 (Mar 18, 2015)

UnicornRainbowLove said:


> I wish more people would ask themselves these sorts of questions. You could go even further though. Which daily actions are governed by functions and which aren't, what does it mean to be consciously in control of a function like introverted sensing, how do you consciously control your internal sensations, how does an INFP do abstract math if thinking is directed toward reality and, even worse, an unconscious function over which there is little control?
> 
> The framework seems awfully hard to establish.


I'm trying point out tangible ways to recognize a dominant function in action, so some of your suggestions would be too abstract or are not related to that objective. Yes the framework is hard to establish and that's to be expected since typology is not a hard science. I suppose this is why people resort to typing themselves and others by looking for the tertiary, or inferior or 19th function. Of course without practical ways to recognize the dominant function at work she would not be able to narrow down her type.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Do you direct your energy toward the *outside *world and get energized by *interacting with people and taking action*.. or do you direct your energy towards your *inner *world, get energized by *reflecting on your ideas/experiences*?


Do you take in information that is *real and tangible* and focus mainly on what you are perceiving with your *five senses*, or do you take in information by seeing the *big picture *and focus mainly on *patterns and interrelationships* you perceive?


Do you base your conclusions on *logic*, with *accuracy and objective truth* as the primary goals, or do you base your conclusions on *personal and social values*, with *understanding and harmony* as the primary goals?


Do you approach the world with *decisiveness *and tend to like *planning and closure*, or do you approach the world with *flexibility *and tend to like* spontaneity and openness*?


----------



## 460202 (May 22, 2017)

Mr. Castelo said:


> Well, it's the impression I got from the way you write things (and from the content of what you wrote). Sorry, I have this problem where I create an image of how someone is by the way they type or talk, etc., I already have a somewhat concrete image of how you are in person in my head, it's something that I do unconsciously. And now I'm wondering if this is due to Ni or Si, or if both can do this, and I don't want to discuss about my type again now.


I imagine both Ni and Si types would be able to do this. I think Pi types might be more inclined to construct sort of an archetype of somebody but this sort of thing isn't exclusive to them.

It's interesting, I think - I think that I only start to do this from a certain point, when I feel I've gotten enough information to do so. A few years ago, I started talking to this girl on Tumblr, and she asked me what colour my skin is so that she can have a more concrete image of me in her head. It was a little weird but I kind of get it. I tend to associate people with their avatars when I'm picturing a visual image when thinking of somebody, but this is rare, because I'm not a very visual person, when it comes to learning and memory and things alike. I think she was a sensor - I believe an S type would be more inclined to think more concretely and would therefore want an actual image in their head rather than an idea which would be harder to discern. 



> I consider myself to be somewhat good at both, to be honest... I like to have a laugh at SJWs and some extreme anti-feminists because most of them seem to be both logically and morally inconsistent. I don't know what this says about my cognitive functions, from what I've read, Te may overlook logical inconsistencies in favor of efficiency or "realism".


From my understanding of Jung's functions, I believe that everybody is capable of using all eight function-attitudes but are inclined to use / prefer particular attitudes when using each function. Basically, a Te type is capable of subjective thinking, but is more favourable to "swinging" outwardly when dealing with logic. I'm going to have to reread Jung - sometimes I worry that I've made some of this stuff up in my head.

I've heard this too, and it makes sense, I think. If it is logical to look at the facts, but the facts are logically inconsistent, then I believe Te would be inclined to ignore these inconsistencies, while Ti might question things and try to figure out the cause of these inconsistencies. Or Ti might simply argue against it on account of things being logically inconsistent. I sure as hell use moral inconsistencies as an argument against something.

I do this sort of thing too, but I do often find moral inconsistencies harder to tolerate, and logical inconsistencies funnier. One of the reasons I prefer the _Harry Potter_ movies to the books and why I really don't like it when people hold those books to such a high standard in terms of morality and "good lessons" is because of all the Protagonist-Centered Morality in those books. I can't stand this, but I'll let a logical inconsistency slide and even laugh at them, such as the way the Ghost Riders react to Lydia in_ Teen Wolf_. I still poke fun at groups who aren't consistent in their morals, though, but to be fair, they are going to be inconsistent on account of being groups and not individual (still, if you're going to align with a certain group, I believe you should be all in, rather than cherry pick and throw out the parts you don't like, otherwise what's the point?). I do think that sometimes, logical and moral inconsistencies do overlap - they're not mutually exclusive. I can't think of any examples off the top of my head



> Now you reminded me of my INFP friend, he definitely does this sometimes when he tries to comfort me, haha. I'm actually a bit guilty of this too, interacting with my INFP friend made me realize that I fall on this behaviour sometimes, so I try to refrain from talking about myself in the rare occasion of when someone is opening up to me


Just two months ago, at a family party, my cousin and I (an IXFP, probably N, and somewhere in the middle on the I/E spectrum - she's actually often referred to as me 2.0 because of the similarities in our personalities and behaviours) comforted a crying child by talking about ourselves. We were like, "We have siblings. We know how you feel. Now, here's a bunch of examples of us in similar situations..." and this probably didn't help the poor girl to feel any better at all.



> Yeah, this all seems a bit confusing when you put things into perspective. For example, I don't think that a Ne-dom or Se-dom is consensus-based when it comes to thoughts or opinions, Fe-doms and Te-doms seem more like it because, well, the Je functions are build upon what is considered to be an objective consensus. Actually, this seems to be the opposite of how Ne-doms behave since Ne is about looking for new possibilities and different ideas/concepts, isn't it?


Yeah... "consensus-based" wasn't a great term to use, since I don't believe perceiving functions require validation. Just doesn't make sense that they would; they are _irrational_ after all. They do require external stimulation, however, but everyone requires external stimulation in some way or the other, and everyone requires time to reflect, I'd say, which is why asking someone if they feel energized or drained after spending time with a bunch of people is a great way at deciding whether or not somebody is an introvert or an extrovert. I imagine in a situation where a group of people are brainstorming ideas to help society in some way, and ISFJ would feel energized, whereas an ESFP, who needs time to reflect and ruminate in the realm of value and concepts, would feel drained.



> However, you talked about perceiving/definining an object, and in this case, I do agree that all introverts are subjective about it, and you seem to fit with this definition of the word from what you described... I was convinced of you being an ENFP, and now I'm not so sure about it anymore, great! One thing that is making me less sure of you being an extrovert is the way you choose to describe yourself, you don't use objective descriptions like "I act like this and that, I do this and that, my ideas are like this, people see me like this", I mean, you have described some things like that, but they're minimal and you talk more about them only when asked, *you seem to prefer to talk about the thought-process behind your actions, your preferences, motivations*, etc., subjective and internal stuff. Now, I'm aware that this may be due to the very nature of this thread (trying to gauge how your thought-process works), but I've seen things like this in other posts from you, and I have a feeling that you're like this in real life too. Like you said, you insert yourself in a conversation even if it's supposed to be about someone else.
> 
> But then again, maybe this is due to the nature of this thread and forum in general, people come here to talk about themselves, to make do introspection, so you're bound to sound more introverted-like when you do this, but I've noticed that extroverts tend to talk more about objective things, traits that others have observed in them, how they affect the enviroment around them, their relationships with other people, etc., it's about how others view them or how they fit with the outside world, with you, is more about how you view yourself and how things from the outside world fit with your own internal world. They look from without to look within themselves, and you seem to look directly from within.


Now that you mention it... yes, I do this a hell of a lot. Think about how I think. Not just with myself, but with others. I know when I do something or I feel a certain way then I tend to reflect on all the time I've felt similarly and draw parallels between the situations and think about my behaviour and motivations until I've discerned a consistent pattern in my personality / what drives me. I believe that this is why I know myself as well as I do. 

I also see a big difference in how I try to explain myself or others to the way my ESTP sister tries to explain herself and others. She's all about what things are and how they act in the moment and how others respond to them in the moment and how they respond to others in the moment, and _that_ is what defines the objects, rather than anybody's interpretations. Might be extroversion. Might be Se.


----------



## 460202 (May 22, 2017)

robert666 said:


> This is why I didn't want to just tell you that you are a certain type.


I understand, but I don't think that it's unreasonable to ask why somebody's decided on a certain type for you. 



> Do you think that a person would prefer to use his dominant function most of the time?


Yes. All the time, if it's possible, but it's probably not. 



> Do you think that a person can use his dominant function for extended periods of time without getting "tired"?


Yes. Just the opposite, I think - if one is constantly using their dominant function then I believe they would feel like they've been "charged up," or invigorated, maybe even excited.



> Do you think that a person would get stressed out or uncomfortable if he was prevented from using his dominant function for any length of time?


Maybe not stressed out, but definitely stifled and suffocated. 



> Do you think that a person using his dominant function would experience something enjoyable, such as a buzz of excitement?


Yes.



> Do you think that a person would naturally gravitate towards using his dominant function, if he is not already using it?


I've never really thought about it before, but yes. I think a person would have a natural tendency to steer things in such a way that it would help them use their dominant function, even if it's not really necessary or fitted for the situation. 



> Do you think that a person would prefer to use his dominant function in making life decisions?


I think a person would use all four functions to make a decision, unless the functions are at odds with one another, in which case the preferred function(s) would get the final word.



> Do you think that a person could be using his dominant function and not even be aware of it because it is a perfectly normal state for him to be in?


Yes.


----------



## 460202 (May 22, 2017)

UnicornRainbowLove said:


> I wish more people would ask themselves these sorts of questions. You could go even further though. Which daily actions are governed by functions and which aren't, what does it mean to be consciously in control of a function like introverted sensing, how do you consciously control your internal sensations, *how does an INFP do abstract math if thinking is directed toward reality and, even worse, an unconscious function over which there is little control?*


That is an interesting question. There are so many different facets of maths, but even then, I believe your question begs the question of whether maths is more about concepts and patterns and therefore pulls on your N function or more about logic and systems and therefore pulls on your T function. Perhaps both?

Just in case this says something about my functions... I've always been good at maths, and I know that it's because I could easily understand how everything worked and then figured things out from there. If I understood the "system" things ran on, I could solve any problem. Of course, I wasn't good at all maths. I was good at geometry, trig and calculus. I've had to do statistics at a university level and I hated it, and sucked at it.


----------



## 460202 (May 22, 2017)

Turi said:


> Do you direct your energy toward the *outside *world and get energized by *interacting with people and taking action*.. or do you direct your energy towards your *inner *world, get energized by *reflecting on your ideas/experiences*?
> 
> 
> Do you take in information that is *real and tangible* and focus mainly on what you are perceiving with your *five senses*, or do you take in information by seeing the *big picture *and focus mainly on *patterns and interrelationships* you perceive?
> ...


Are you asking me? Or are you proposing that this is a better method of typology? That these are the questions one should ask themselves in determining their type? Or their dominant functions? 

These seem to be what I'd label as "Myers' letters"-based questions, and based on the MBTI, I am an INTP. I may come out as S or F or J depending on the test, but based on Myers' definitions, I'd say I'm N over S, T over F and P over J. I actually found a PDF of the original test and type descriptions online the other day. I did the test and came our INXP. I read the profiles for INFP, INTP and ENFP. I related to ENFP and INTP a lot better than to INFP - in fact there was a lot about Myers' description of INFP that sounded completely unlike me. 

For the sake of the thread, I'll answer these questions anyway. 



> Do you direct your energy toward the *outside *world and get energized by *interacting with people and taking action*.. or do you direct your energy towards your *inner *world, get energized by *reflecting on your ideas/experiences*?


Both. I imagine nobody who's psychologically healthy would only ever do one and not the other. I _think_ I'm more the latter, although I definitely understand what it's like to spend a lot of time with a group of people and just feel more and more energized the more time you spend together; it really depends on the situation and the nature of the conversation. I don't know. I generally score pretty high on introversion because I'm not particularly bubbly or sociable. I'm the kind of person who... when I start to do or "act," I feel motivated to keep acting and I dread stopping, and when I'm stopped, I feel frustrated. But when I sit and reflect, all I want to do is sit and reflect, and I don't want to start something or take action when I'm deep in thought. 



> Do you take in information that is *real and tangible* and focus mainly on what you are perceiving with your *five senses*, or do you take in information by seeing the *big picture *and focus mainly on *patterns and interrelationships* you perceive?


Again, both. We all do both. I have five senses and I use them, but apparently my explaination of how to discern the dominant function was too abstract, even though I felt it was pretty clear, which I guess means that I'm inclined to think abstractly. I'm pretty quick to see patterns and connections between things. I've been told that I'm observant because I can see past the "stuff."



> Do you base your conclusions on *logic*, with *accuracy and objective truth* as the primary goals, or do you base your conclusions on *personal and social values*, with *understanding and harmony* as the primary goals?


Okay, you're not going to get a straight answer here. I do both. Sometimes I _try_ to do both, but the situation calls for me to go one way or the other, but I really almost always do both, as I believe everyone should. If you only ever do one and not the other, then you're either an idiot or an asshole, and neither is better nor worse than the other. Sometimes, being an idiot can hurt people, and sometimes being an asshole can hold you back from getting the job done and doing things effectively.



> Do you approach the world with *decisiveness *and tend to like *planning and closure*, or do you approach the world with *flexibility *and tend to like* spontaneity and openness*?


Definitely the latter. I love to feel like I've got a lot of options, so if something doesn't work out, I can move on to the next thing. I'm not one of those people who are reluctant to make decisions or commit to something just because I'm afraid I might be stuck in it forever. If I want something, I go for it, and if I don't want it anymore, I leave. I'll work it out somehow. It's my problem to deal with. It's probably a good thing I have an Ne dad who always says, "If you don't like your job, quit your job. You'll always find a new one." My SJ mother is more reluctant to commit to something unless she's certain but less likely to flake away. She believes that novelty and excitement wear off, so you've got to find things that are going to last. She's got a point obviously.

On questions regarding order and tidiness in the external physical world, I usually score my points for the J column. I'm a neat freak. Total Monica Geller.


----------



## robert666 (Mar 18, 2015)

Flower Hat said:


> I understand, but I don't think that it's unreasonable to ask why somebody's decided on a certain type for you.


Not unreasonable to ask at all. I should have clarified that you wouldn't have accepted my typing just because I say so. So I figure it's better to get you to a point where you can make the decision.

It looks like you accept these characteristics of a dominant function that I listed in my previous post. So here's my next question. For each of these characteristics, please list how confident you would be in using it as a way of identifying your dominant function. Meaning that if each of those characteristics was a tool, how confident would you be in using that tool to make your decision.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

@Flower Hat yes we all do both, all the time, all this MBTI shit is about is preferences.

What do you _prefer_?

That's literally it. Preferences.

So you answer them with what you prefer - not what you do - but what you prefer. 

Then voila that's your mbti type.

Cognitive functions just confuse everyone, they're terrible for typing. They're a tool to b used after you know your mbti type for self development.


From your answers there I'd support the INTP results you get, your answer to the t/f question is just written from a logical point of view. So imo INTP.

But yeah of course we all use both opposites all the time.
It's just about preferences. 


Just imagine each question is like left and right hand when writing, which one is your dominant hand?
The other one you can use no doubt but you'll learn towards one preference and be better at it.


----------



## 460202 (May 22, 2017)

robert666 said:


> It looks like you accept these characteristics of a dominant function that I listed in my previous post. So here's my next question. For each of these characteristics, please list how confident you would be in using it as a way of identifying your dominant function. Meaning that if each of those characteristics was a tool, how confident would you be in using that tool to make your decision.


*Do you think that a person would prefer to use his dominant function most of the time?*
I wouldn't be all that confident in using this to figure out somebody's type. Something I've noticed in a lot of people with low Ne is that they talk about having lots and lots of ideas and expanding on ideas and riffing off ideas etc., but this is usually channeled into more concrete-based hobbies such as writing. In this way, I imagine a lot of people with healthy, developed lower functions can look like higher functions, so you've got to really put things into perspective and try to figure out which functions are favoured over the others, which isn't easy.

*Do you think that a person can use his dominant function for extended periods of time without getting "tired"?*
I think that this is a good one, because I believe people tend to feel drained after using lower functions for too long. I think if you're tugging at a certain function, and a person is visibly energized by using it then that's a big sign that using their dominant function.

*Do you think that a person would get stressed out or uncomfortable if he was prevented from using his dominant function for any length of time?*
I don't think that this point will be all that helpful. I think it would be more helpful in trying to determine which four functions somebody is using, rather than in determining the dominant one. I mean, if you're putting an ESTP in a situation that's very Si and Te heavy and calls for sensory consistency / familiarity and objective logic, that they would become very uncomfortable, but you're probably not going to be able to tell if it's because they're an ESTP or an ENFJ or an ENFP or something else.

*Do you think that a person using his dominant function would experience something enjoyable, such as a buzz of excitement?*
I'd be confident in using this point as a tool, but only when typing somebody in person - not online. I think you can tell when you're talking to somebody and they suddenly become very hyped up and excited about the topic and they feel the need to talk and keep talking. However, now that I think of it, it might be harder to tell in introverts. Might just be a way of picking up on somebody's highest extroverted function.

*Do you think that a person would naturally gravitate towards using his dominant function, if he is not already using it?*
I'd say that this point would be a _huge_ help in figuring out somebody's dominant function. The most helpful of the lot. If you put somebody in a situation with no rigid guidelines and a lot of freedom with regards to how to complete the task or whatever then that person would be inclined to tackle the task with their dominant function first, and would only begin to use lower functions as things move along, if/when necessary.

...that would make me an ENFP. I think I tend to tackle almost anything using Ne _first_. I'll have to think about it, though, because I'm not sure I'm being entirely objective, so I'm going to try to find something that would contradict this. If I can't, I'll settle on ENFP. It does make more sense since I'm pretty firm on the conclusion of me being a Socionics ENFp / IEE, and I think the Socionics method of typology is similar to how "we" (as in, people who type by functions in general) interpret cognitive functions today. 

*Do you think that a person would prefer to use his dominant function in making life decisions?*
I feel lazy to respond because the previous one was _really_ helpful. I'd be confident in using this, but different decisions pull at different functions, so it can be difficult. If somebody's functions are pulling them in different directions, then the decision they ultimately make would make the dominant function clear. 

*Do you think that a person could be using his dominant function and not even be aware of it because it is a perfectly normal state for him to be in?*
I wouldn't really use this as a way to decide on somebody's type. You don't know what you're not aware of, and you don't know what others aren't aware of. If somebody were to tell me that they habitually do something / think a certain way and then only after a while, realize they're doing it, then I'll take it into consideration in discerning functions, but it wouldn't be the deciding factor.


----------

