# Which of these models makes more sense to you?



## athenian200 (Oct 13, 2008)

1. Jungian Model










Theory: Human character is based primarily upon which of the four Jungian functions dominates your mind. This basic character is also influenced by the I/E orientation of that function, and is modified to an extent by which balancing auxiliary you choose to support the primary function. 

When using this model, the most similar types are those which have the same dominant function, and the least similar are those which use the opposite of it.

2. Keirsey Model










Theory: Human character is based primarily on the four classical temperaments of antiquity. This basic character can be explained in terms of abstract vs. concrete language, and utilitarian vs. cooperative attitudes. It is modified to an extent by informative vs. directive roles within each temperament.

When using this model, the most similar types are those which belong to the same temperament, and the least similar are those in the opposite temperament. For instance, ENTJ and ESTJ would have opposite character, because the Rational and Guardian temperaments are opposites.

3. Pseudo-Quadra Model










Theory: Human character is based primarily on the preferred I/E orientation of EACH of your four functions. This basic character forms four distinct groups with one type each having one of the quadra's preferred functions as dominant. It is modified to an extent by which half of each function pair you prefer most.

When using this model, the most similar types are those which belong to the same quadra and prefer all the same function orientations. The least similar are those in the opposite quadra, which prefer the opposite orientations of all functions.

4. I/E Cohesion Model










Theory: Human character is based primarily on the preference order of your four Jungian functions. This basic character creates the most irreconcilable differences. Thinking is thinking, feeling is feeling, sensing is sensing, etc.

When using this model, the most similar types are those with the same function order, but with opposite function orientations. 

5. Pure Dichotomy Model










Theory: Human character is based primarily on the four dichotomies that MBTI tests for. Each one makes a statement about your basic character independently of the others. What you see is what you get, because Jungian functions and Keirsey temperaments do not exist independently of these factors. We have four independent dimensions on a scale which can be analyzed in a variety of interesting ways, but that's it.

When using this model, the most similar types are all those with three letters in common. The least similar is the type with no letters in common.


----------



## Ikari_T (Apr 10, 2012)

The Jungian and the Keirsey model makes the most sense to me. The pseudo-quadra, cohesion, and pure dichotomy models would not have made much sense without the J and K model to back it up. Showing those models to newcomers will perplex them.


----------



## athenian200 (Oct 13, 2008)

Ikari_T said:


> The Jungian and the Keirsey model makes the most sense to me. The pseudo-quadra, cohesion, and pure dichotomy models would not have made much sense without the J and K model to back it up. Showing those models to newcomers will perplex them.


Even so, you would agree that the Keirsey and Jungian model are different, right? I think that Keirsey's system is actually fundamentally different from Jung at this point. It's not really based on the same thing anymore, even though it's using the same four letters.

Not that his system doesn't make sense, it just doesn't look like Jungian theory to me at all... it looks like he used the dichotomies to re-invent the classical four temperament theory instead.


----------



## Sixty Nein (Feb 13, 2011)

All of them make sense, because having solid internal logic is pretty simple. It is what outside of these logic that matters, and there is no real proof that any one of these are particularly great at reflecting the reality of what is true or not. It's just a matter of what is more interesting really, and I like socionics because of the fact that it amuses me for some strange reason.

In reality the only thing that truly matters is I vs. E (which isn't really gravely important in the first place), and the shadow of oneself which can be comprised of whatever the fuck.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

delphi367 said:


> Even so, you would agree that the Keirsey and Jungian model are different, right? I think that Keirsey's system is actually fundamentally different from Jung at this point. It's not really based on the same thing anymore, even though it's using the same four letters.
> 
> Not that his system doesn't make sense, it just doesn't look like Jungian theory to me at all... it looks like he used the dichotomies to re-invent the classical four temperament theory instead.


That's because Keirsey's system is based on MBTI, which is based on Jung. It's cognitive function telephone. 

I'm not sure where the I/E cohesive model comes from, but if it's at all related to the alternative interpretation of Jung that I argued in your other thread, then INFJs are more similar to INTJs than ENFPs, for example. They are still Ni doms. If I'm off, and it comes from somewhere else, who developed this model? Where did it come from? Thanks!


----------



## dinkytown (Dec 28, 2013)

The pure Jungian model is the only one that really makes sense.


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

I don't like any of the systems, since they all have some major flaw(s.) Out of all of them Jung has the most potential. I can see why a lot of them use his theory as the starting point for their own theories.

Edit: I was hasty in my reading of the OP. I took it as the systems instead of the grouping models.

I don't like all the Ns and Ss grouped together. I would say grouping the people with the same functions makes the most sense. The Pseudo-Quadra Model is the closest. I understand ENTJs and ESFPs more than any of the other types.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

The pseudo-quadra makes more sense, grouping together by cognitive functions.

Jungian, I don't use Te or Si and neither seem similar to Ti or Se. 

Keisey, I don't use Fi. 

I/E Cohesion Model, I don't use Te or Si. Again.

Pure Dichotomy Model, ESTJ don't share ANY cognitive functions with me. 

I get the sense they're trying to come up with reasons to lump sensors with sensors and intuitives with intuitives for those four systems.


----------



## athenian200 (Oct 13, 2008)

PaladinX said:


> That's because Keirsey's system is based on MBTI, which is based on Jung. It's cognitive function telephone.


Yeah, but I still don't like how people mix in elements of Keirsey's system with MBTI, pretending like it's all the same thing. Many of them don't realize that he has built and backed up his typology with something other than functions, and thinks NF and SP are diametrical opposites. In Jungian terms, ISFP and INFP can't be opposites, nor can ESTJ and ENTJ.



> I'm not sure where the I/E cohesive model comes from, but if it's at all related to the alternative interpretation of Jung that I argued in your other thread, then INFJs are more similar to INTJs than ENFPs, for example. They are still Ni doms. If I'm off, and it comes from somewhere else, who developed this model? Where did it come from? Thanks!


The Five Levels of the Four Jungian Functions

Here's the last mention of it I remember. There was a test I encountered years ago that ranked the four functions this way, too.


----------



## athenian200 (Oct 13, 2008)

monemi said:


> The pseudo-quadra makes more sense, grouping together by cognitive functions.


I actually invented that one myself, a long time ago. I noted that there were four types with functions in the same orientation, and found that it was often helpful to look for both pairs at the same time in confusing type situations. I kind of had the four groups in mind, but didn't really have a name for them.

I later found that Socionics had done something very similar, although their function definitions are different so it's not the same. Ever since then, I adapted the names and called them "pseudo-quadras," because they only _approximate_ the Socionic versions. Much of the rest of the theoretical underpinning is missing.

Arguably, what I've done is almost analogous to what Keirsey did, in a way. He took the dichotomies of MBTI, and used them to put his own spin on classic temperament theory. I took the Quadras from Socionics, along with Beebe's process roles/archetypes, and used them to put my own spin on Jungian/MBTI theory. 

The cool thing about the psuedo-Quadras is that in Beebe terms... they're all one another's Parent, Child, and Animus. The opposing pseudo-Quadra contains everyone's Opposing Personality, Witch/Senex, Trickster, and Demon. So your own pseudo-Quadra contains all the positive, ego-syntonic roles... while the opposing one contains all the negative, ego-dystonic roles. 



> Jungian, I don't use Te or Si and neither seem similar to Ti or Se.


Well, actually, I didn't draw the Jungian model well. Se and Si are the most distinct, and then ESTP and ESFP are the same type (Se dom) with different balancing auxiliaries. ISTJ and ISFJ are also the same type (Si dom) with different balancing functions. 

It's not until we get to the I/E cohesion model that one of them claims Te and Ti are basically the same.



> I get the sense they're trying to come up with reasons to lump sensors with sensors and intuitives with intuitives for those four systems.


I'm tempted to agree... Keirsey's model is particularly bad about this.


----------



## Dastan (Sep 28, 2011)

The Jungian Model, but without claiming that the auxiliary function must have the opposite attitude of the dominant function.

And also the pure dichotomy model (being an own system with no need of accordance with the other ones) because it is 'robust', it would also work without the existence of functions, it doesn't need any 'speculative impositions' like the others.

At last that crazy Pseudo-Quadra thing, it is speculation based on speculation based on speculation. It demands too much.


----------



## Ikari_T (Apr 10, 2012)

The Jungian model is the more traditional model to understand the types using functions. The Keirsey model further explain the models giving them individual identities that the general masses can understand. Knowing these two basic models, the last three models are used to furthermore understand the nature of these types. 

I'm just saying the last three makes slightly less sense. They all make sense in their own way though.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Ikari_T said:


> The Jungian model is the more traditional model to understand the types using functions. The Keirsey model further explain the models giving them individual identities that the general masses can understand. Knowing these two basic models, the last three models are used to furthermore understand the nature of these types.
> 
> I'm just saying the last three makes slightly less sense. They all make sense in their own way though.


How does it make more sense to put types together that don't share cognitive functions?


----------



## braided pain (Jul 6, 2012)

Of those, I'd have to go with the pseudo-quadra model, for the reasons @Kathy Kane and @monemi have said.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

Quadra.


----------



## The Exception (Oct 26, 2010)

Pure jungian, followed closely by quadra. Least is pure dichotomy.

I'm a big believer in jungian functions and their order and orientations. I think that's more important than how many of the 4 letters you share in common.


----------



## Pancreatic Pandora (Aug 16, 2013)

Ikari_T said:


> The Jungian model is the more traditional model to understand the types using functions. The Keirsey model further explain the models giving them individual identities that the general masses can understand. Knowing these two basic models, the last three models are used to furthermore understand the nature of these types.
> 
> I'm just saying the last three makes slightly less sense. They all make sense in their own way though.


Keirsey doesn't use cognitive functions though. It was based on MBTI which indeed was a simplification and reinterpretation of Jung in an attempt to create an accessible system but it seems to me far removed from the original (Jung). If you believe they are compatible then you'd have to explain things like how the Guardian temperament makes sense given that Jung never even described Si-doms as traditional. Or the idealist temperament and how he didn't picture intuitive feelers as idealistic the way Keirsey did.



Btw @delphi367 , I noticed the threads you've been making. What is your goal?


----------



## Ikari_T (Apr 10, 2012)

monemi said:


> How does it make more sense to put types together that don't share cognitive functions?


Based on the data being presented here, it won't be enough to understand it. 

Rationals are based on NT; Artisans are based on SP; Idealists are based on NF; and Guardians are based on SJ

Keirsey doesn't care about cognitive functions, but more on the career path/goals of each group. 

Here's more info: Keirsey Temperament Sorter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If you want other sources, just google it. 

I can't explain Keirsey that much. I can only go as far as Jungian functions.


----------



## athenian200 (Oct 13, 2008)

Pancreatic Pandora said:


> I noticed the threads you've been making. What is your goal?


I'm trying to figure out how most people look at typology in their heads, and what sort of things might influence them to look at things in those ways.

I'm also trying to do a sort of metacognitive thing where I examine the way different types look at type theory, and use that as a way of determining their type. However, I didn't find much.

Lastly, I'm trying to figure out how far Keirsey's influence goes in the MBTI community. Do people just sort of use his temperaments as general categories and ignore the rest? Do they believe those types are inherently more similar, etc? I am, admittedly, dedicated to clarifying the differences between Keirsey and Jungian theory. 

People sometimes try to combine the cognitive functions with his theories and start talking of things like the "NF version of Ni," or the "SP version of Ti," or whatever. I think they do this because of their confusion about the distinct nature of these theories which are only unified by their use of four dichotomies.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Ikari_T said:


> Based on the data being presented here, it won't be enough to understand it.
> 
> Rationals are based on NT; Artisans are based on SP; Idealists are based on NF; and Guardians are based on SJ
> 
> ...


I don't agree with dismissing the cognitive functions. I'm also unimpressed by Keirsey's career path/goals for my group. He definitely has an N bias.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

monemi said:


> How does it make more sense to put types together that don't share cognitive functions?


I don't know if it makes more sense, but it at least makes equal sense. Let's look at an example:

INFJ: Ni Fe Ti Se
INFP: Fi Ne Si Te
ESTP: Se Ti Fi Ne

Nobody is ever going to mistake an INFJ or INFP for an ESTP. Ever. (Though INFJ is a wildcard that can appear as any type, we are unique in this way. but disregard that.) But no INFP is ever going to mistype themselves as an ESTP. They will an INFJ though. Even though we share no functions. Because we are both introverts and feelers. It is difficult for many to figure out if intuition or feeling is first. Or whether they are using Fe or Fi, Ne or Ni, Ti, or Te. But they are both in slots 1 and 2. Whereas the ESTP is in 3 and 4. I realize the actual function is different but the ordering is more similar. This also comes up a lot between INTJ and INTP. INTJ and ESFP share same functions but the two types are so absurdly different, more different than any type in the NF or NT model for example.


----------



## athenian200 (Oct 13, 2008)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Nobody is ever going to mistake an INFJ or INFP for an ESTP. Ever. (Though INFJ is a wildcard that can appear as any type, we are unique in this way. but disregard that.) *But no INFP is ever going to mistype themselves as an ESTP.* They will an INFJ though. Even though we share no functions. Because we are both introverts and feelers. It is difficult for many to figure out if intuition or feeling is first. Or whether they are using Fe or Fi, Ne or Ni, Ti, or Te. But they are both in slots 1 and 2. Whereas the ESTP is in 3 and 4. I realize the actual function is different but the ordering is more similar. This also comes up a lot between INTJ and INTP. *INTJ and ESFP *share same functions but the two types are so absurdly different, more different than any type in the NF or NT model for example.


But an INFP could mistype as ISFP, or vice-versa. An INFP could also type as INTP, I've seen that happen way too often, LOL. I've also seen ISFJs mistype as INFPs. 

It's not like a type has to identify with their shadow to make temperament theory specious.


----------



## Kazoo The Kid (May 26, 2013)

Quadra makes a lot of sense to me.

I relate very well to INTJs because under certain situations I can be extremely similar to them.

Mature elderly people of two opposite types tend to behave very similarity overall.

However most of us are young so its hard to see the comparison.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

FearAndTrembling said:


> I don't know if it makes more sense, but it at least makes equal sense. Let's look at an example:
> 
> INFJ: Ni Fe Ti Se
> INFP: Fi Ne Si Te
> ...


Most of the ESTP mistypes aren't ESFP's or ESTJ's though. I see a lot of ENTP and ISTP mistypes. People that don't know the person might mistake an ESFP for an ESTP. But you rarely see an ESFP mistake themselves for an ESTP. ESFP's find ESTP alarmingly cold most of the time. ESTJ's find ESTP alarmingly chaotic most of the time. SP's don't have that much in common beyond Se. ESTJ doesn't have anything in common with ESTP beyond a similar communication style. 

It would make sense if individual ESTJ's and ESTP's were often confused which one they are. But they aren't. Even being SP's, you don't find ISFP's confused whether they are ESTP's or ESFP's wondering if really they're ESTP's.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

monemi said:


> Most of the ESTP mistypes aren't ESFP's or ESTJ's though. I see a lot of ENTP and ISTP mistypes. People that don't know the person might mistake an ESFP for an ESTP. But you rarely see an ESFP mistake themselves for an ESTP. ESFP's find ESTP alarmingly cold most of the time. ESTJ's find ESTP alarmingly chaotic most of the time. SP's don't have that much in common beyond Se. ESTJ doesn't have anything in common with ESTP beyond a similar communication style.
> 
> It would make sense if individual ESTJ's and ESTP's were often confused which one they are. But they aren't. Even being SP's, you don't find ISFP's confused whether they are ESTP's or ESFP's wondering if really they're ESTP's.


It's just a matter of perspective I guess. You and I share functions, but they are so misplaced I think that difference is larger than INFP and INFJ, for example. I have said before that ISTP is good at everything I am bad at. Same could probably be said for ESTP. ISTP and ESTP have been called mechanics or operators. You have extroverted sensing up front, and Ti right there to back it up. That is MUCH different than me. You are me, backwards. lol. You take in reality very clear through your senses, and bring it to Ti. Much different than what I go through. Bring hard reality to thought is one of the harder things for me to do. Whereas the INFP has feeling and intuition up front, and thinking and sensing bringing up the rear. Though I know none of the functions are the same, I feel that it still closer to my experience than what you go through. We both have the same strengths and weaknesses. Our parts are different, but each combine in a way that makes us end up in a similar place. Whereas you and I, clearly have different strengths. 

If you're a reductionist, and break them down to their smallest pieces, ESTP seems more like INFJ. But if you step back, and see the big picture, INFP and INFJ are more alike. You have to put them in the larger context of relations to each other. Our most developed functions are feeling and intuition, our least are sensing and thinking, and we are both introverts. I see INFP and INFJ difference as a difference in degree, not in kind. I see INFJ and ISTP as different in kind. Though I know that is arguable, and just my opinion. But from a holistic approach, that transcends the reduction of parts, I see INFP, ENFJ, INTJ, and ENFP as more like me.


----------



## Ikari_T (Apr 10, 2012)

monemi said:


> I don't agree with dismissing the cognitive functions. I'm also unimpressed by Keirsey's career path/goals for my group. He definitely has an N bias.


I do agree that his approach is quite confusing. When you raised the question, I was a little confused as well when I started to think about it. I feel like the Jungian model and the MBTI functions makes more sense. 

However, I would prefer to look at the letters individually. For example, an ENFP and an ESFP might not have the same dominant functions. But being only one letter apart, they can relate to each other very easily. At the same time, you can still argue that "because of their secondary function still matches, of course their personality can relate." Or, in the case of ENFP and ESFJ, it can still work due to the feeling function being existent in the primary and secondary domain. But what of the ENFP and ENTP? Then the validity of functions become complex? Maybe functions is not the best way to explain relationships. Maybe it's not their purpose.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

FearAndTrembling said:


> It's just a matter of perspective I guess. You and I share functions, but they are so misplaced I think that difference is larger than INFP and INFJ, for example. I have said before that ISTP is good at everything I am bad at. Same could probably be said for ESTP. ISTP and ESTP have been called mechanics or operators. You have extroverted sensing up front, and Ti right there to back it up. That is MUCH different than me. You are me, backwards. lol. You take in reality very clear through your senses, and bring it to Ti. Much different than what I go through. Bring hard reality to thought is one of the harder things for me to do. Whereas the INFP has feeling and intuition up front, and thinking and sensing bringing up the rear. Though I know none of the functions are the same, I feel that it still closer to my experience than what you go through. We both have the same strengths and weaknesses. Our parts are different, but each combine in a way that makes us end up in a similar place. Whereas you and I, clearly have different strengths.
> 
> If you're a reductionist, and break them down to their smallest pieces, ESTP seems more like INFJ. But if you step back, and see the big picture, INFP and INFJ are more alike. You have to put them in the larger context of relations to each other. Our most developed functions are feeling and intuition, our least are sensing and thinking, and we are both introverts. I see INFP and INFJ difference as a difference in degree, not in kind. I see INFJ and ISTP as different in kind. Though I know that is arguable, and just my opinion. But from a holistic approach, that transcends the reduction of parts, I see INFP, ENFJ, INTJ, and ENFP as more like me.


I don't feel any closer to ESTJ or ESFP than I do to INFJ or ENFJ. ISTP and ENTJ are easier to relate to. I dislike that you're presuming I'm not seeing the big picture. Just because you relate to other intuitives and feelers regardless of them not sharing the same cognitive functions as you do, I don't relate to other sensors and thinkers when I do not share the same cognitive functions as they do. But people really really really seem to want to lump me in with them. From you're perspective, maybe we look alike and you don't really give a crap. But it's a shitty grouping if you ask me.

Not to say that you have to relate to the grouping I'm saying. I just don't see why everyone else is supposed to accept these groupings so often.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Ikari_T said:


> I do agree that his approach is quite confusing. When you raised the question, I was a little confused as well when I started to think about it. I feel like the Jungian model and the MBTI functions makes more sense.
> 
> However, I would prefer to look at the letters individually. For example, an ENFP and an ESFP might not have the same dominant functions. But being only one letter apart, they can relate to each other very easily. At the same time, you can still argue that "because of their secondary function still matches, of course their personality can relate." Or, in the case of ENFP and ESFJ, it can still work due to the feeling function being existent in the primary and secondary domain. But what of the ENFP and ENTP? Then the validity of functions become complex? Maybe functions is not the best way to explain relationships. Maybe it's not their purpose.


It only makes sense for intuitives who are happier being grouped with other intuitives. They have a gut reaction against being grouped with sensors. Probably because if they were honest with themselves, they don't want to see similarities with sensors. Suddenly introverted intuition and extroverted intuition are closely related when they're being grouped.

Of course, you can relate to whoever you want to relate to. Just don't be surprised if sensors don't all relate to sensors. Si and Se are very different. Ne and Ni look equally different to me. Se and Ne look more alike to me than Se and Si.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

monemi said:


> I don't feel any closer to ESTJ or ESFP than I do to INFJ or ENFJ. ISTP and ENTJ are easier to relate to. I dislike that you're presuming I'm not seeing the big picture. Just because you relate to other intuitives and feelers regardless of them not sharing the same cognitive functions as you do, I don't relate to other sensors and thinkers when I do not share the same cognitive functions as they do. But people really really really seem to want to lump me in with them. From you're perspective, maybe we look alike and you don't really give a crap. But it's a shitty grouping if you ask me.
> 
> Not to say that you have to relate to the grouping I'm saying. I just don't see why everyone else is supposed to accept these groupings so often.


I honestly haven't paid attention to other groupings that don't relate to INFJ. I have no idea what group you belong with, but it ain't with me. So I am not defending you being grouped with ESFP or whoever. But I think Jung and Keirsey group INFJ the best. 

Not accusing you of really not seeing the big picture in general, but the quadra model is the most reductionist. And the one you seem to relate to the most. So your position is reductionist.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

monemi said:


> It only makes sense for intuitives who are happier being grouped with other intuitives. They have a gut reaction against being grouped with sensors. Probably because if they were honest with themselves, they don't want to see similarities with sensors. Suddenly introverted intuition and extroverted intuition are closely related when they're being grouped.
> 
> Of course, you can relate to whoever you want to relate to. Just don't be surprised if sensors don't all relate to sensors. Si and Se are very different. Ne and Ni look equally different to me. Se and Ne look more alike to me than Se and Si.


That isn't it at all. Well, maybe for some. I think ISFJ are pretty close to INFJ. Closer than ESTP or ISTP imo. I have no problem being grouped with sensors. I just don't think ESTP and ISTP are the right ones.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

FearAndTrembling said:


> I honestly haven't paid attention to other groupings that don't relate to INFJ. I have no idea what group you belong with, but it ain't with me. So I am not defending you being grouped with ESFP or whoever. But I think Jung and Keirsey group INFJ the best.
> 
> Not accusing you of really not seeing the big picture in general, but the quadra model is the most reductionist. And the one you seem to relate to the most. So your position is reductionist.


I don't personally relate to either model better because I don't personally relate to all four groupings in any of the groupings I've been thrown in with. You have a very insular perspective if you only look at the INFJ groupings and conclude it works. That isn't big picture thinking.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

FearAndTrembling said:


> That isn't it at all. Well, maybe for some. I think ISFJ are pretty close to INFJ. Closer than ESTP or ISTP imo. I have no problem being grouped with sensors. I just don't think ESTP and ISTP are the right ones.


You're looking at this from a perspective of who you personally relate best to. Assuming that because if it works for you typing, it works for others. How does that work for everyone else if it only works for some? That doesn't make sense. I'd expect that reasoning from an ISTJ.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

monemi said:


> You're looking at this from a perspective of who you personally relate best to. Assuming that because if it works for you typing, it works for others. How does that work for everyone else if it only works for some? That doesn't make sense. I'd expect that reasoning from an ISTJ.


But that is the premise of this thread. Which types are the most similar, and which are the least similar. What else am I supposed to go on besides my relation to other types? That is the initial barometer I use. To me, the quadra one is already wrong because it groups me with ISTP and ESTP. It has been falsified in my mind. The others haven't.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

FearAndTrembling said:


> But that is the premise of this thread. Which types are the most similar, and which are the least similar. What else am I supposed to go on besides my relation to other types? That is the initial barometer I use. To me, the quadra one is already wrong because it groups me with ISTP and ESTP. It has been falsified in my mind. The others haven't.


And none of them are right because none of them work for me. But you'd want to group me with unlike people anyway just because it works for you as an individual. Cute. 

I'm pretty sure there has already been a discussion on the SP board how we really don't have a whole lot in common and yet we're grouped together a lot. And ST's certainly don't don't have a whole lot in common. Ask XSTJ's how much they have in common with XSTP's.



I'm telling you that if I used your barometer, ALL of them are disqualified.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Woops! double quote


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

monemi said:


> And none of them are right because none of them work for me. But you'd want to group me with unlike people anyway just because it works for you as an individual. Cute.
> 
> I'm pretty sure there has already been a discussion on the SP board how we really don't have a whole lot in common and yet we're grouped together a lot. And ST's certainly don't don't have a whole lot in common. Ask XSTJ's how much they have in common with XSTP's.
> 
> ...


We can agree that none of them will be perfect, or even close. So we'll have to find the one that is least wrong. 

And it's just a fundamental disagreement. You said that you don't consider yourself any closer to ESFP, than you do INFJ. I consider the fact that you are both dominant extroverted sensors, much more relevant than anything ESTP and INFJ share. I consider you much closer to ESFP than INFJ. You don't. That fundamental disagreement is going to reverberate through any further discussion on this subject. So I actually am looking at the big picture, because this smaller debate is a microcosm of it.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

FearAndTrembling said:


> We can agree that none of them will be perfect, or even close. So we'll have to find the one that is least wrong.
> 
> And it's just a fundamental disagreement. You said that you don't consider yourself any closer to ESFP, than you do INFJ. I consider the fact that you are both dominant extroverted sensors, much more relevant than anything ESTP and INFJ share. I consider you much closer to ESFP than INFJ. You don't. That fundamental disagreement is going to reverberate through any further discussion on this subject. So I actually am looking at the big picture, because this smaller debate is a microcosm of it.


You aren't looking at the bigger picture anymore than I am because you are ONLY focused on how it affects you. You look at INFJ and declare: It fits! 

INFJ and ESFP have about the same amount in common with me.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

monemi said:


> You aren't looking at the bigger picture anymore than I am because you are ONLY focus on how it affects you. You look at INFJ and declare: It fits!
> 
> INFJ and ESFP have about the same amount in common with me.


lol. No, that isn't all I do. The way I compare INFJ reveals how I think in general about the subject. It shows what I consider more relevant, as I have explained through multiple posts. I consider sharing a dominant function with another type to be extremely relevant. Even though the types still have obvious differences, and I consider ordering as important or more so, than orientation. 

This reminds me of like sports rankings. Everyone has their own formula. Some may favor wins and losses, strength of schedule, etc.. there are many different factors, and people prioritize them differently. We just think different factors are of differing importance. I have my own, unique special formula that I'm using. That's what Ti does, it focuses on the subjective factors. So this is subjective vs subjective here.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

FearAndTrembling said:


> lol. No, that isn't all I do. The way I compare INFJ reveals how I think in general about the subject. It shows what I consider more relevant, as I have explained through multiple posts. I consider sharing a dominant function with another type to be extremely relevant. Even though the types still have obvious differences, and I consider ordering as important or more so, than orientation.
> 
> This reminds me of like sports rankings. Everyone has their own formula. Some may favor wins and losses, strength of schedule, etc.. there are many different factors, and people prioritize them differently. We just think different factors are of differing importance. I have my own, unique special formula that I'm using. That's what Ti does, it focuses on the subjective factors. So this is subjective vs subjective here.


When you declare you're seeing the big picture, you are inherently saying that I am not seeing the big picture, you are dismissing my opinion. I'll let bygones be bygones, but don't dismiss my opinion like that.


----------



## athenian200 (Oct 13, 2008)

As another INFJ viewpoint, I find that I have the biggest conflicts with NFPs and STJs. I seem to get along surprisingly well with STPs, even though we often make a bad impression on each other at first.

I relate to INxJs and ISxPs the best, honestly. I don't know for sure about Extraverts.

I can get along with ISFJs and ENTPs because of shared Ti/Fe, but I wouldn't say I have a lot in common with them overall.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

delphi367 said:


> As another INFJ viewpoint, I find that I have the biggest conflicts with NFPs and STJs. I seem to get along surprisingly well with STPs, even though we often make a bad impression on each other at first.
> 
> I relate to INxJs and ISxPs the best, honestly. I don't know for sure about Extraverts.
> 
> I can get along with ISFJs and ENTPs because of shared Ti/Fe, but I wouldn't say I have a lot in common with them overall.


I agree, but I was coming at it from a different perspective. I also get along better with ESTP and ISTP, than INFP. Because I believe you get along better with your opposite, than your twin. Well, not your twin exactly. But a person who is just slightly different from you in everything, is the person you are least likely to get along with. Not your opposite, or twin. But a person who hits real close to home, but isn't quite there. That hits a particular nerve. So I get along with INFP and INTJ less, but I think they are closer to me. They grate on me more than others who are more different. So, in short, the people who I relate to more, tend to annoy me more.


----------



## athenian200 (Oct 13, 2008)

FearAndTrembling said:


> I agree, but I was coming at it from a different perspective. I also get along better with ESTP and ISTP, than INFP. Because I believe you get along better with your opposite, than your twin. Well, not your twin exactly. But a person who is just slightly different from you in everything, is the person you are least likely to get along with. Not your opposite, or twin. But a person who hits real close to home, but isn't quite there. That hits a particular nerve. So I get along with INFP and INTJ less, but I think they are closer to me. They grate on me more than others who are more different. So, in short, the people who I relate to more, tend to annoy me more.


Well, I do actually get along with INTJ and ENFJ, though.

I believe that the difference between INFJ and INFP is significant due to the functions being different. That's just it, I don't see them as relatable/similar in the first place. 

I find it somewhat upsetting to be told that I'm supposed to have more in common with them,_ just _because of N and F, and regardless of what I think of Fi or Si.

Fi is somewhat acceptable when it's used by an Ni user like INTJ or ISFP, but I absolutely HATE the Fi-Si combination. Likewise, Si is irritating, but it's less irritating when paired with Fe or Ti, like it is with ISFJs or INTPs. But when someone has that Fi-Si combo... ugh. All that will and emotion, all that dreariness and romanticizing of the past, all these irritating moral principles based on tradition with a blind eye to the future.

I know it's just me, though. Ni-Ti doesn't get Fi-Si, it's not their fault for being that way... but I don't think we're the same at all.


----------



## Rafiki (Mar 11, 2012)

Down with the pure dichotomy!!!!


----------

