# Ok let's try to type me again... sorry



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

> Well im generally really harsh on myself, both when typing and in general, but what I was getting at is ive noticed I have a tendency to mention about the uses of the theory as a guideline to helping yourself and others, yet I dont put that into practise in relation to myself.
> 
> I find that arrogant of me given my own insecurities and it annoys me so I call myself out on it.


Wow, your whole mentality here is so Fi dom, it's not even funny. =P But I digress.

I mean, this stuff doesn't have to be about self-improvement on any level. It's simply just about self-recognition. Just, whatever you want to do with it. If you still want to continue to pursue this stuff, here's what I *recommend*: If you get the fundamentals of type, please, I beg of you, please forget that the type descriptions even exist, because those things are absolutely awful (some are even insulting of certain types, whether or not intentionally, or just the product of stupid people who wrote them). I don't care how many people say that "Oh, but stereotypes have truth in them!" It's for your own well-being. I've been under the destructive hypnotic effects of the type descriptions in the past before, and it can be absolutely brainwashing. Fortunately, I got out of it through examining this stuff much further until I got into the Jungian side of things, which has been enlightening! As long as you ignore the type descriptions, aside from getting the basics of what an introvert it, what an extrovert is, what a thinker is, and what a feeler is (I recommend you ignore the J/P and N/S stuff as much as possible, *unless* you're reading it from Jung or any Jungian theorist - this doesn't include Kiersey or the Please Understand Me books), then this stuff shouldn't be problematic.



> That's it!! That's exactly what I thought it was for and it was the mindset I tried to come into this theory with, but for some reason there is this horrible subconscious part of me that just rejects it utterly and it fights me all the way....I cant really explain it very well.


In this case, I recommend you go with your gut and reject it. Maybe you just don't want to be classified by this system, and that's totally fine (I have a bad feeling that a lot of people are like you around here).


----------



## Kittann (Apr 12, 2010)

Worriedfunction said:


> the INFP's here are....well extremely soppy and wet





Worriedfunction said:


> the combination of functions within the INFP make for a very....weak and useless personality.


Charming dude. I’m going to go cry in the corner now. :tongue: We're not all the same y'know. (And I liked you so much because of your Blade Runner quote and Queen/Mask avatar. *sigh*)

(My guess would be INTP)​


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Really, the cognitive functions are mentalities above all, that produce personality patterns. That's all you need to understand if you want to type yourself.


----------



## Worriedfunction (Jun 2, 2011)

Kittann said:


> Charming dude. I’m going to go cry in the corner now. :tongue: We're not all the same y'know. (And I liked you so much because of your Blade Runner quote and Queen/Mask avatar. *sigh*)​
> (My guess would be INTP)​


Yes I know. That's why I said it was probably just me projecting. I also expressed my utmost guilt at having the thought in the first place, although I did apologise for it in this thread: http://personalitycafe.com/infp-forum-idealists/84214-s-need-love-too-praise-us-3.html#post2082844



> Ignoring the stupid comments I made in my 'type me' thread recently; it was out of anger, frustration and projection at myself, not INFP's and for that I dont think I could apologise enough.


Like I said there: I apologise, I think because I believed myself to be an INFP I was projecting what I see as MY weak personality and soppyness onto all INFP's out of foolish frustration.



JungyesMBTIno said:


> Really, the cognitive functions are mentalities above all, that produce personality patterns. That's all you need to understand if you want to type yourself.


In fairness that was what I was trying to do, but for me I have to have the understanding come suddenly, like an epiphany, or else I just dont get it. This is what I felt when reading all the different cognitive functions from 'Gift's Differing'; I just couldnt grasp their meaning.

*EDIT* Actually I wanted to add that ive never really put much stock in the descriptions, afterall most people will be able to relate to MOST of what is in them, which is exactly why they are so poor. For example just recently I wanted to test this theory myself and decided to look up all the type descriptions to see how many I could relate to at a time. I came up with INTP/INFP/ISFJ/INFJ/INTJ/ISFP and even ENTP.

To me this proves just how unreliable they are. Which is why I wanted to understand the cognitive functions and try to relate them to myself; unfortunately many of the descriptions of the functions, (In books and online both Jungian and not), are just as problematic as the type descriptions in that no two people seem to agree on them and worst of all I can relate to most of them as well.

Of course this could just be that I do not understand or comprehend the cognitive function's at all and have misunderstood their definitions.

An example of this possible misunderstanding is that, (in no particular order of preference):

1) I care what others think even if I dont want to and about how my actions affect them - Fe

2) I care about my own personal feelings and drives and wish to keep them separate from the influence of others - Fi

3) I often look outside of myself for something which will confirm an idea ive just had - Te

4) I will dwell upon an idea introspectively and look at it from all angles to see how it fits, or how I can make other things fit, around it. - Ti?

5) I often have explosions of creativity that seem to come out of the air from nowhere - Ne

6) I am often subjectively aware of the idea of an object and it's influence upon me from experience ie: this mars bar I dont remember but THIS one was from that time I.. - Si

Those are the functions im aware of in myself, but the thing is, as I said before, my understanding of them may not be the same as someone elses. In fact I may be downright wrong about them.

On top of this I have no concept of which ones I use more, to do that I would have to have an immensely strong sense of self...which I do not possess.

When I look at it like this I get the nagging impression that this theory is only useful to those who already know who they are, which defeats the purpose of anyone not sure even bothering in the first place.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

> In fairness that was what I was trying to do, but for me I have to have the understanding come suddenly, like an epiphany, or else I just dont get it.


Actually, so do I, so I think you're on the right track.



> This is what I felt when reading all the different cognitive functions from 'Gift's Differing'; I just couldnt grasp their meaning.


I totally understand that, since that is probably among the most mediocre resources on cognitive functions (anything with Keirsey's name on it should not be expected to handle cognitive functions well, let alone personality type, since he's really a temperament theorist, which is not really personality typing).



> 1) I care what others think even if I dont want to and about how my actions affect them - Fe


Fi users are like this also, since they are F types. It's just that the ethics they adhere to are more personalized and uninfluenced by the values of others. They have their own internal values compass, so to speak, while Fe types are able to adapt to the values of others or adapt the values of others to themselves, but don't really have this internal, super original values "compass" that Fi users have (which is Fi).



> 2) I care about my own personal feelings and drives and wish to keep them separate from the influence of others - Fi


This pretty much makes you a default Fi user.



> 3) I often look outside of myself for something which will confirm an idea ive just had - Te


Right.



> will dwell upon an idea introspectively and look at it from all angles to see how it fits, or how I can make other things fit, around it. - Ti?


This is probably Ne, since the N functions deal with perceiving ideas, not the J functions (T or F).



> often have explosions of creativity that seem to come out of the air from nowhere - Ne


Yup, Ne. Ni is more deliberate with it's creativity and has more active control over it, since it's an introverted function.



> I am often subjectively aware of the idea of an object and it's influence upon me from experience ie: this mars bar I dont remember but THIS one was from that time I.. - Si


Yup. This automatically makes you some kind of Si user (as an Ni dom, Si is extremely bizarre and foreign to me, including what I got from you in this description).



> Those are the functions im aware of in myself, but the thing is, as I said before, my understanding of them may not be the same as someone elses. In fact I may be downright wrong about them.


Overall, you seem to have a great understanding of them. Your only real issue here seems to be self-confidence in what you think you know.

If you're an introvert, you're either an Si dom or an Fi dom, but since you seem so confident about being an N type (which is highly believable from what I've seen of you), then you're an Fi dom. Noticing this stuff doesn't come easily and automatically for anyone. You just have to start paying attention to trends about yourself and others that relate to the theory if you want to feel more confident with it.


----------



## Worriedfunction (Jun 2, 2011)

Thanks for the insight JungyesMBTIno, it's been extremely helpful.




JungyesMBTIno said:


> I totally understand that, since that is probably among the most mediocre resources on cognitive functions (anything with Keirsey's name on it should not be expected to handle cognitive functions well, let alone personality type, since he's really a temperament theorist, which is not really personality typing).


 Well that's true, I do own 'Please understand me' and my understanding of it is that it is about the temperaments and I took it to be separate from something like 'Gifts Differing' which is by Isabel Briggs-Myers, who came up with this MBTI theory as adapted from Jung's with her mother Katherine Cook Briggs. Obviously from your name I can get an understanding that you approve of Jung's theory more so than the MBTI.
Actually to be fair your name downright states it.

Which I can understand since neither Katherine Cook Briggs or Isabel Briggs-Myer's are psychologists. Although whether that title alone is sufficient for credibility is questionable.

In fact gift's differing does do a pretty good job of explaining the functions, but as you have observed I sometimes second guess my own understanding due to past experiences where I jumped to conclusions which were completely wrong and suffered because of it.

Whether or not that would make me a sensor of some kind, or if it is merely that I have developed my Si function a bit more and it has made me more balanced is....up to me really, I need to think about it.

In any case most of my problems are confidence based as you quite rightly observed. That has more to do with environment that anything else, which im sure anyone could relate to. I think growing up I recieved mixed messages from my parents at times, I personally believe they are great parents and im lucky to have them, but noone is without their flaws.

Of course you cannot always blame parents either, 'environment' is a very encompassing word that means something a lot bigger than just your general surroundings.

ps: Thinking about it a lot of the functions I identified with and given what we've been discussing, does point towards INFP.


----------

