# NF Grouping Denies My Function



## pinkrasputin (Apr 13, 2009)

Out of all the functions, I would probably say Fe is the hardest one to relate to naturally. I am an ENFP Ne-Fi-Te-Si. As an Fi user, I create my morals and values from within. It often will conflict with Fe in a environment where I am being asked to include external stimulus while making my decisions or values. Fe will often set aside personal values for the common good of the group. This is an opposing function. 

The NF grouping has led to so much misunderstanding. People who are not intuitive feelers often think that all NFs are the same. This is quite frustrating and doesn't help anyone to get to know functions better. NF includes Ne-Fi and Ni-Fe. My internal values and how I derive them are the most important thing to me. I can see being grouped with any other function I don't possess in the top 4 stacking, rather than Fe. That is how important my values are to me and how different we are from each other. I don't like to be included in "NF" statements because I can't understand if a person is speaking about Ni-Fe or Ne-Fi. 

I can see more similarities with Ti, than I can with Fe. As an ENFP, I see way more similarities with other dominate extroverted perceivers (Se), than I can with all NFs. And it is because of the Fe/Fi clash.

I also think automatically grouping Fe/Fi together under the title NF has gotten us to know and understand us each other (Fe/Fi users) less. We automatically assume we are so much the same (why do we sometimes have conflicts?) that we are not focused on understanding the other more and respecting just how different we really are from each other. We do less research to really understand where the other person is coming from because of the inappropriate NF umbrella.

My goal is to have an understanding that Fe and Fi do not work the same and we have entirely different outlooks. It is strange to me how we are grouped together.


----------



## kateykinz (Nov 19, 2009)

I do agree to an extent, but where did it ever say that all NFs are alike and should get on with each other? Personally I thought it was clear that anyone of any type could clash, and particularly Fi and Ti users could clash badly with just about anyone given that their system of values/logic comes from within without the need for external validation - two Fi users can clash just as badly as an Fi and Fe or Fi and Ti or Fi and Te user.

Would it make more sense to you to group the MBTI types into 4 groups dependent on their main judging function, since it is the judging function that most affects how we act?

Fi - INFP, ISFP, ENFP, ESFP
Fe - ENFJ, ESFJ, INFJ, ISFJ
Ti - INTP, ISTP, ENTP, ESTP
Te - ENTJ, ESTJ, INTJ, ISTJ

If so, how would you name the new groups? And what then of the problem of dom-tert loops - those people who pass on their auxillary judging function in favour of their tertiary function?

But the above groupings aren't ideal either, because I have Fe as an auxillary function and I have issues with anyone who has a judging function first because they judge and act before taking the time to run it properly through their perception filter.

Maybe grouping any types is just a bad idea altogether?


----------



## rowingineden (Jun 23, 2010)

Actually, I like those groupings a lot.

FP - "The Revolutionaries" or, "The Activists"
FJ - "The Healers"
TP - "The Innovators"
TJ - "The Pragmatists" or, recycle "The Rationalists"


----------



## penchant (Sep 20, 2010)

I think there is probably more similarities between people that share the same attitude of the judging or perceiving function. Fi and Ti are in many aspects more similar than Fi and Fe, and so are Se/Ne and all the rest. But then, that grouping is really what the J or P in MBTI is telling, namely which is your extraverted function.

I rather prefer SP, SJ, NJ, NP if one wants to subgroup further... but then that might be only because I'm Ni-dominant. :happy:


----------



## pinkrasputin (Apr 13, 2009)

penchant said:


> I think there is probably more similarities between people that share the same attitude of the judging or perceiving function. Fi and Ti are in many aspects more similar than Fi and Fe, and so are Se/Ne and all the rest. But then, that grouping is really what the J or P in MBTI is telling, namely which is your extraverted function.
> 
> I rather prefer SP, SJ, NJ, NP if one wants to subgroup further... but then that might be only because I'm Ni-dominant. :happy:


I think the NJ grouping would be a brilliant idea. It would help to define Ni better as it would be clearer where the Ni stops and the separate judging functions begin. The same for Si and the SJ grouping.


----------



## Pyroscope (Apr 8, 2010)

I don't really know how to relate to Fe either. I kind of understand how to 'emulate' it in considering my own personal values and how I could feel violated if my values contained this agreed-upon external value but it's not the same.
I'm kind of curious as to explanations why NF and NT are chosen instead of NP and NJ. I just don't see any reason why Ni and Ne would be more similar to each other than Si and Se are together. Especially when it feels like there's a trend of Ps understanding each others attitudes of changing/adapting and going for things on more spontaneous terms. Obviously it happens differently with intuitive types but things already happen differently for the different types due to the other factor of preferred judging functions.
I sort of get the feeling like NFs and NTs are grouped in those because Ne and Ni are found to both be weird and ethereal seeming to others and like it's easier to differentiate between F and T so why not go for that? Funny considering Se and Si get mixed up just the same, I guess maybe it happens because N functions get asked more about because of the bias of there being more Ns about?


----------



## penchant (Sep 20, 2010)

pinkrasputin said:


> I think the NJ grouping would be a brilliant idea. It would help to define Ni better as it would be clearer where the Ni stops and the separate judging functions begin. The same for Si and the SJ grouping.


I'm not sure I'm following you...

NJ, NP, SJ and SP are really just lumping people together based on their primary perceiving function. All Ni types are in the NJ category.

I guess the reasoing behind grouping S types by J/P and N types by F/T is that those dichotomies are what makes the most difference for S types and N types respectively. I simply don't agree with that and think that Ni/Ne makes more of a difference than NT/NF, even for someone with N as auxiliary.

Or did I miss your point?


----------



## penchant (Sep 20, 2010)

Pyroscope said:


> I don't really know how to relate to Fe either. I kind of understand how to 'emulate' it in considering my own personal values and how I could feel violated if my values contained this agreed-upon external value but it's not the same.
> I'm kind of curious as to explanations why NF and NT are chosen instead of NP and NJ. I just don't see any reason why Ni and Ne would be more similar to each other than Si and Se are together. Especially when it feels like there's a trend of Ps understanding each others attitudes of changing/adapting and going for things on more spontaneous terms. Obviously it happens differently with intuitive types but things already happen differently for the different types due to the other factor of preferred judging functions.
> I sort of get the feeling like NFs and NTs are grouped in those because Ne and Ni are found to both be weird and ethereal seeming to others and like it's easier to differentiate between F and T so why not go for that? Funny considering Se and Si get mixed up just the same, I guess maybe it happens because N functions get asked more about because of the bias of there being more Ns about?


My experience during my short time here is that F/T actually seem to be harder for most people than S/N. :happy:


----------



## Pyroscope (Apr 8, 2010)

penchant said:


> My experience during my short time here is that F/T actually seem to be harder for most people than S/N. :happy:


 It might be just my personal bias coming out then :mellow: I tend to just feel like Ni and Ne get lumped together a lot. Maybe it happens just as much as with T and F functions. Do you feel the current four dichotomies are the best way of grouping?


----------



## Random Ness (Oct 13, 2010)

Hey, I like the NF grouping. I love my NFs. <3 But it makes more sense to have ST, SF, NT, and NF instead of randomly switching the letters being grouped together for half the types.


----------



## OrangeAppled (Jun 26, 2009)

I agree with the OP in many ways...... NFJs & NFPs are coming from opposite thinking processes in a way, but I feel we meet in the middle, and this is what people see on the exterior. It's like 2 (or 4) different ways to often reach similar conclusions. It rounds out what an idealistic mindset may look like when you see the various roads taken to reach an observable temperament.

Basically, I feel I have more in common with an ENFJ than an ESTJ, despite sharing the same cognitive processes as an ESTJ; same goes for me & an ENTP - despite both being NPs, I don't feel much similarity in mindset. The thing is, both an ENFJ and I use evaluative reasoning (feeling) and perceive with intuition, even if the functions are oriented differently. This is often enough similarity for our mindsets to have a lot of common ground. I may understand how an INTP or ESFP _reaches_ a conclusion better though, but often the conclusion is quite different from where I'd end up.

I find grouping types in different ways (different from the Keirsey temperaments, I mean) highlights various "overlaps" between types. I don't know if one grouping is better than another, or if each simply offers a new way to look at types & how they compare to one another. 

I like the NP & NJ groupings when looking at underlying processes (the NeJi/JiNe mindset or the NiJe/JeNi mindset), but the NF & NT groupings usually make more sense from an observable standpoint.


----------



## SuperunknownVortex (Dec 4, 2009)

pinkrasputin said:


> My goal is to have an understanding that Fe and Fi do not work the same and we have entirely different outlooks. It is strange to me how we are grouped together.


Yes, I have the same question. 'You' Fi dominants or auxiliarys baffle me.


----------



## penchant (Sep 20, 2010)

OrangeAppled said:


> I agree with the OP in many ways...... NFJs & NFPs are coming from opposite thinking processes in a way, but I feel we meet in the middle, and this is what people see on the exterior. It's like 2 (or 4) different ways to often reach similar conclusions. It rounds out what an idealistic mindset may look like when you see the various roads taken to reach an observable temperament.
> 
> Basically, I feel I have more in common with an ENFJ than an ESTJ, despite sharing the same cognitive processes as an ESTJ; same goes for me & an ENTP - despite both being NPs, I don't feel much similarity in mindset. The thing is, both an ENFJ and I use evaluative reasoning (feeling) and perceive with intuition, even of the functions are oriented differently. This is often enough similarity for our mindsets to have a lot of common ground. I may understand how an INTP or ESFP _reaches_ a conclusion better though, but often the conclusion is quite different from where I'd end up.
> 
> ...


Yeah this is really it. I don't like the NF grouping, becuase it doesn't resonate with my self-understanding, but I can see that it makes sense for an external observer.


----------



## penchant (Sep 20, 2010)

Edit: So, apparently I'm just restating what you have already posted... I'll blame it on my low Se... :crazy:



Pyroscope said:


> It might be just my personal bias coming out then :mellow: I tend to just feel like Ni and Ne get lumped together a lot. Maybe it happens just as much as with T and F functions. Do you feel the current four dichotomies are the best way of grouping?


Or, in my mind even more probable, we mostly get N types around here, as the S types aren't as interested, so that cuts out most of the N/S problem and we are left with distinguishing NTs from NFs and the E/I and P/J problems. But, you are right, it might not be very relevant to grouping.

And, absolutely that Ti/Te and Fi/Fe gets grouped together. I would say I have a fair understanding of the distinctions between them, at it annoys me a lot at times, how people expect the introverted and the extraverted attitude of the function to behave the same. So, yeah, maybe at times I'd even prefer talking about Pi, Pe, Ji and Je... (not that T/F or S/N aren't important though...)

And Ni/Ne... I could never be Ne. :crazy:


----------



## Pyroscope (Apr 8, 2010)

penchant said:


> Or, in my mind even more probable, we mostly get N types around here, as the S types aren't as interested, so that cuts out most of the N/S problem and we are left with distinguishing NTs from NFs and the E/I and P/J problems. But, you are right, it might not be very relevant to grouping.
> 
> And, absolutely that Ti/Te and Fi/Fe gets grouped together. I would say I have a fair understanding of the distinctions between them, at it annoys me a lot at times, how people expect the introverted and the extraverted attitude of the function to behave the same. So, yeah, maybe at times I'd even prefer talking about Pi, Pe, Ji and Je... (not that T/F or S/N aren't important though...)
> 
> And Ni/Ne... I could never be Ne. :crazy:


 I think that makes a lot of sense in regards to why T and F is harder for people to distinguish, but it does seem like there are a fair few who have trouble deciding whether they use Ne or Ni. The N/S problem of whether they're N or S may be less frequent but what orientation their N is can be really confusing for many. They do seem to have different thought styles to me, but perhaps because on here there is so much N with N interaction Ne-users and Ni-users start to blend? They come to incorporate a bit of their views as they're frequently 'working' with users having the other view in a way? That's probably a bad way of describing it... Idk...

That thought about Pi/Pe and Ji/Je is interesting, like a reversal of the way things are now? Instead of deciding on whether T or F is used (which always seems very different in its usage depending on whether it's introverted or extroverted) figuring out which directions your mental approach to the world go and then figuring out what influences those directions most? I guess it might lead to different stereotypes but it sounds like a cool new approach roud:


----------



## penchant (Sep 20, 2010)

Pyroscope said:


> I think that makes a lot of sense in regards to why T and F is harder for people to distinguish, but it does seem like there are a fair few who have trouble deciding whether they use Ne or Ni. The N/S problem of whether they're N or S may be less frequent but what orientation their N is can be really confusing for many. They do seem to have different thought styles to me, but perhaps because on here there is so much N with N interaction Ne-users and Ni-users start to blend? They come to incorporate a bit of their views as they're frequently 'working' with users having the other view in a way? That's probably a bad way of describing it... Idk...


Or maybe just that it in general is harder for other people to observe introverted functions in action, and that it is often possible to mimic functions by use of other functions alone or in combination. You are probably right in that people tend to conform to others, but then we also have the type specific forums, which I think to some extent should counter-balance that here.

Could it be that the Ne/Ni (and any other Xi/Xe) distinction simply seems clearer from the Xi point of view? I don't think Ni/Ne or Ti/Te are hard to get, but find Fi/Fe and Si/Se more difficult.



> That thought about Pi/Pe and Ji/Je is interesting, like a reversal of the way things are now? Instead of deciding on whether T or F is used (which always seems very different in its usage depending on whether it's introverted or extroverted) figuring out which directions your mental approach to the world go and then figuring out what influences those directions most? I guess it might lead to different stereotypes but it sounds like a cool new approach roud:


Pi/Pe and Ji/Je is great, but it only gets you so far. What you get then is IP, IJ, EP and EJ. I think this is the socionics way of grouping for temperament. My main objection to this grouping is that, while it is admittedly interesting, it is so theoretical that it has a very limited practical use, since it does not refer to any function but rather relies solely on attidude and the rational/irrational distinction. (Note though that it is IP and EJ that are the rational types and IJ and EP that are the irrational types as per Jung, since the I means the P/J relates to the auxiliary and not the dominant.)

For practial use, I think the T/F and S/N needs to be retained, and I'd rather explore further why we don't talk about SF and ST temperaments instead of SP and SJ.

In the end though I think that the Keirsey temperaments, together with an interaction style analysis as per Linda Berens (Interaction Styles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), makes for the most accesible practical use of type groups.


----------



## Psychosmurf (Aug 22, 2010)

I've thought about it, and considered the idea that function attitudes are more important than function order. So...

How's this for a grouping:

INTP, ENTP, ISFJ, ESFJ 

ESTJ, ISTJ, ENFP, INFP

INFJ, ENFJ, ISTP, ESTP

ISFP, ESFP, INTJ, ENTJ

:mellow:


----------



## rowingineden (Jun 23, 2010)

Psychosmurf said:


> I've thought about it, and considered the idea that function attitudes are more important than function order. So...
> 
> How's this for a grouping:
> 
> ...


Bahaha, no way should xNFPs be categorized in the same group as xSTJs. Just... no. :tongue: Function order matters a lot. It's hard for xSTJs and xNFPs to relate to each other at all, because what one prioritizes and has refined is what the other has dismissed and pushed further back. I imagine that probably is true for the other groupings, too?


----------



## Psychosmurf (Aug 22, 2010)

rowingineden said:


> Bahaha, no way should xNFPs be categorized in the same group as xSTJs. Just... no. :tongue: Function order matters a lot. It's hard for xSTJs and xNFPs to relate to each other at all, because what one prioritizes and has refined is what the other has dismissed and pushed further back. I imagine that probably is true for the other groupings, too?


The classification does have its strengths. For example, it groups together types that have the same dom-tert loops, such as INFPs and ISTJs.


----------



## penchant (Sep 20, 2010)

Psychosmurf said:


> The classification does have its strengths. For example, it groups together types that have the same dom-tert loops, such as INFPs and ISTJs.


What else does it do?


----------



## penchant (Sep 20, 2010)

Random Ness said:


> ISTJs have all different functions in their top four functions (Ni, Fe, Ti, Se vs. Ne, Fi, Te, Si) and their letter functions are reversed (N>F>T>S compared to S>T>F>N).


Yes, so we do agree in reality. It's just as usual the terminology around "opposite" and "different" that is not clear. This is why I put it as "opposite _attitudes_". For me the "opposite _function_" is always S vs N or T vs F (and possibly also with reverse attitude). So my way of putting it would be "opposite functions but with same function attitude"... :happy:

And, yes, please spare us from forced interaction with the STJs... :blushed: (or any type for that matter - we are after all INFJs... :laughing


----------



## kateykinz (Nov 19, 2009)

I'm coming round to the idea that my husband is ISTJ rather than ISFJ. We really do approach life from different angles, but the outcome is normally the same so we share a lot of the same views and values even if we don't share too many of the same interests, or communicate in the same way. Maybe I'm lucky and I've just got an extremely lovely version of an ISTJ who doesn't hide his emotions as much as others, and shows me on a daily basis that I am his world, but I have the feeling that ISTJs are too often put down without good reason, based on a few negative stereotypes.


----------

