# ISFP 5w6



## Jangogigalo (Sep 5, 2013)

Hey guys, brand new to the forum, was wondering if ISFP, 5w6 are rare to come by? I don't see many threads about them.


----------



## Father of Dragons (May 7, 2012)

To me, ISFP 5w4 seems more likely theoretically. However I could see 5w6 definitely. I'm imagining as an example a very cerebral, precise painter or artist. Perhaps Pablo Picasso-esque? Although he in particular is probably more 5w4 or 4w5. At any rate there aren't any rules when it comes to mbti/enneagram combinations, and in my mind there's no reason for there to be. 5w6 ISFP isn't common, but it doesn't mean you aren't one.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

thwoomp said:


> To me, ISFP 5w4 seems more likely theoretically. However I could see 5w6 definitely. I'm imagining as an example a very cerebral, precise painter or artist. Perhaps Pablo Picasso-esque? Although he in particular is probably more 5w4 or 4w5. At any rate there aren't any rules when it comes to mbti/enneagram combinations, and in my mind there's no reason for there to be. 5w6 ISFP isn't common, but it doesn't mean you aren't one.


This is a very poor understanding of both ISFP and enneatype 5. An ISFP navigates the world through dominant Fi and has nothing to do with being a painter or even being cerebral. In combination with enneatype 5, Fi would probably latch onto ideas that the Fi type would find important to them in order to gain some deeper understanding through the logos of Fi-Te and thus gain a sense of control over these ideas, developing a sense of security to deal with the inherent anxiety that comes with all the mind types.

There is nothing that says an ISFP has to be this or that wing were the ISFP a type 5; what determines wing has to do with the focus of understanding. Is it more important that the understanding is unique to oneself and is understood through oneself or is it more important to understand something through the various external systems that exist? An ISFP 5w4 would focus more in trying to understand things solely through the lens of Fi, "This is how I understand it", but an ISFP 5w6 would try to understand things more through the lens of Te, "This seems to be the generally accepted understanding of this".


----------



## Snow (Oct 19, 2010)

Never heard of a 5 ISFP but it's possible. Don't let any structure define you, though.


----------



## Father of Dragons (May 7, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> This is a very poor understanding of both ISFP and enneatype 5. An ISFP navigates the world through dominant Fi and has nothing to do with being a painter or even being cerebral. In combination with enneatype 5, Fi would probably latch onto ideas that the Fi type would find important to them in order to gain some deeper understanding through the logos of Fi-Te and thus gain a sense of control over these ideas, developing a sense of security to deal with the inherent anxiety that comes with all the mind types.
> 
> There is nothing that says an ISFP has to be this or that wing were the ISFP a type 5; what determines wing has to do with the focus of understanding. Is it more important that the understanding is unique to oneself and is understood through oneself or is it more important to understand something through the various external systems that exist? An ISFP 5w4 would focus more in trying to understand things solely through the lens of Fi, "This is how I understand it", but an ISFP 5w6 would try to understand things more through the lens of Te, "This seems to be the generally accepted understanding of this".


Fair enough, but I feel like you are assuming that my description of surface characteristics isn't based upon what would seem to make sense internally. I suggested that 5w4 would be more likely precisely because ISFP is an Fi-dominant type: although they have Te, it seems more likely to me that Fi would have an individuating influence rather than an objectifying one, ie the 4, the individualist.

My example of a painter was simply an example, perhaps a bit stereotyped. However, ISFPs, "The Artist", have Se as their secondary function, so it seems more likely that their talents would lie in a more physical realm such as the creation of art in some fashion. I will admit cerebral was probably a misleading choice of words, but the idea of 5w6 is the ideal scientist, someone who collects, catalogues, constantly seeks to expand their knowledge in an objective fashion. So I suppose it might be more accurate to suggest an ISFP 5w6 would be very methodical compared to other ISFPs in the way they approach their interests, whatever they may be.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

thwoomp said:


> Fair enough, but I feel like you are assuming that my description of surface characteristics isn't based upon what would seem to make sense internally. I suggested that 5w4 would be more likely precisely because ISFP is an Fi-dominant type: although they have Te, it seems more likely to me that Fi would have an individuating influence rather than an objectifying one, ie the 4, the individualist.


But you cannot draw such conclusions. I'm an INTJ so therefore I prefer Te over Fi but I'm wing 4. It doesn't work that way and the way enneagram correlates if it does with MBTI.


> My example of a painter was simply an example, perhaps a bit stereotyped.


Extremely and what you describe isn't necessarily an ISFP at all.



> However, ISFPs, "The Artist", have Se as their secondary function, so it seems more likely that their talents would lie in a more physical realm such as the creation of art in some fashion.


Not necessarily. That's a poor understanding of what Se is about and what functions in general are about. Functions are perspectives that you view the world through. Nothing says an Se type would have an inclination towards any physical activity stereotyped to be associated with Se. Se is simply the perspective of seeing things for what they are as they are, nothing more, nothing less.



> I will admit cerebral was probably a misleading choice of words, but the idea of 5w6 is the ideal scientist, someone who collects, catalogues, constantly seeks to expand their knowledge in an objective fashion.


According to R&H and I already wrote my critique based on the passage that is copied in the 5 forum and how none of that accurately describes type 5.



> So I suppose it might be more accurate to suggest an ISFP 5w6 would be very methodical compared to other ISFPs in the way they approach their interests, whatever they may be.


No, not necessarily at all.


----------



## Father of Dragons (May 7, 2012)

Alright, well it seems you have respect for different understandings of both enneagram and mbti than I do. That's fine and I'm sure from your carefully developed position you are probably more correct than I. That position is probably more advanced than mine, but based on the sources I am interested in, what I am saying isn't incorrect. I am a big fan of R & H and Kiersey, I lean more towards his ideas than the JCF. 

Just curious, for you, a seeming ardent believer of cognitive functions, what is your opinion on Keirsey? Im honestly curious because he seems very divergent from the ideas you hold. I know some people think he's not so great, do you feel that way?
@ephemereality so you see this.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

I don't support Keirsey's views at all and I think his views are mere caricatures of what Jung initially was trying to describe. Keirsey is describing social archetypes, not necessarily people per se, and especially not how they think and function at a deeper level that Jung was trying to get at. In other words, I find Keirsey's system extremely superficial and pointless.


----------



## Father of Dragons (May 7, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> I don't support Keirsey's views at all and I think his views are mere caricatures of what Jung initially was trying to describe. Keirsey is describing social archetypes, not necessarily people per se, and especially not how they think and function at a deeper level that Jung was trying to get at. In other words, I find Keirsey's system extremely superficial and pointless.


I'm not surprised you feel that way considering your opinions expressed above. I prefer the way that Keirsey embraces the concept of the 16 types as a "type sorter" and re-arranged the original types in that fashion, starting with generalizations and then working from there.

I personally feel that the essential idea behind the Jung cognitive functions is flawed. The idea essentially is that by creating a very complex model, you can completely model and understand human behavior in a deterministic way. I won't deny that great insights can/have come from the concept of the Jungian functions, but I feel it is an attempt to understand creatures which are more malleable and complex than even such a system can understand accurately. To me it comes across as overly esoteric, impossible to measure, and overly complicated for what I get out of it.

At any rate, different strokes for different folks, so it would seem.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

thwoomp said:


> I'm not surprised you feel that way considering your opinions expressed above. I prefer the way that Keirsey embraces the concept of the 16 types as a "type sorter" and re-arranged the original types in that fashion, starting with generalizations and then working from there.
> 
> I personally feel that the essential idea behind the Jung cognitive functions is flawed. The idea essentially is that by creating a very complex model, you can completely model and understand human behavior in a deterministic way. I won't deny that great insights can/have come from the concept of the Jungian functions, but I feel it is an attempt to understand creatures which are more malleable and complex than even such a system can understand accurately. To me it comes across as overly esoteric, impossible to measure, and overly complicated for what I get out of it.
> 
> At any rate, different strokes for different folks, so it would seem.


So you say that instead of trying to embrace complexity and deal with the issues that come with complex systems and over time try to improve its accuracy, it is better to do the opposite and simplify despite the fact that simplification may not be capable of even closely capturing reality at all...? 

And how is the Jungian model deterministic? It is if anything the MBTI that suggests that people become this or that way because this or that environmental issue in one's childhood or because you were born as X type. Jung has a very open and loose system and he doesn't think type is anything set in stone or that it must have one absolute cause or that it leads to one absolute effect. Type simply is. It determines how people seem to perceive the world around them and in some cases where type is developed to the extreme, it can have negative consequences on people's mental health and social life which is what he noted in his patients, ergo the need to develop a model to explain this facet of human psychology.


----------



## Father of Dragons (May 7, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> So you say that instead of trying to embrace complexity and deal with the issues that come with complex systems and over time try to improve its accuracy, it is better to do the opposite and simplify despite the fact that simplification may not be capable of even closely capturing reality at all...?
> 
> And how is the Jungian model deterministic? It is if anything the MBTI that suggests that people become this or that way because this or that environmental issue in one's childhood or because you were born as X type. Jung has a very open and loose system and he doesn't think type is anything set in stone or that it must have one absolute cause or that it leads to one absolute effect. Type simply is. It determines how people seem to perceive the world around them and in some cases where type is developed to the extreme, it can have negative consequences on people's mental health and social life which is what he noted in his patients, ergo the need to develop a model to explain this facet of human psychology.


I'm trying to say that Jung's system of cognitive functions attempts to be a holistic explanation for human behavior, whereas Keirsey leans towards treating the 16 types as only a type sorter. The idea of a type sorter is much different than Jung's system, in that it is interested in simplicity for the purpose of insight and organization, but it stops its ambitions there. It is true that Myers had ideas of determinism in her theory, but Keirsey does not. 

If you read Keirsey's book, he explains that he is not trying to be a replacement for modern psychology; instead he is trying to create a system based on self-awareness and self-typing to help people better understand themselves and others. In this sense it is much more like the Enneagram. While it is true that some enneagram practitioners take that system too far and start to become rigid, in general it is all about learning about your self through introspection. There is not an attempt to pass itself of as an infallible science. Here is a statement by Keirsey that shows what I am mentioning:

_"Well now, is this too simple a way to approach the very difficult problem of identifying differences in personality? Of course it is. But only if the purpose is to define and explain the problem of individual differences to the satisfaction of behavioral scientists. But maybe it isn't too simple if the very practical purpose is that of devising a tool for identifying different kinds of personality."_

The way Jung's Cognitive Functions are thrown around is very much the opposite of this. There are claims that "no, you aren't type X, you are clearly using A and B functions in a tertiary loop, etc. etc. etc." It is too ambitious and I can't respect that people claim to know other people better than themselves using something that is virtually impossible to prove/disprove. I can respect something like neuroscience to explain this about people, but not an esoteric *theory *based on anecdotal evidence.

If you can find me some examples of Jung's cognitive functions being scientifically verified then I will perhaps have some more respect for the idea. However, one of the most fundamental concepts of modern science is that if a theory is impossible to disprove, it is not valid. 

Hell, I could make up a theory on the spot about how each person's behavior is made up of specific amounts of the colors red and blue. "The more red they have in them, the more intelligent they are, blue is more about socializing, but in some cases the red and blue can mix together to create a personality like ..." Now, I'm not saying Jung's cognitive functions are not much more thoughtful than that, but I wouldn't agree with you if you claim it is science, and that if I don't believe it I must be an idiot.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

The thing is, I am not sure Keirsey actually successfully achieves what he attempts to achieve. I don't see how his sorter helps people come to self-awareness when it doesn't deal with anything else than superficial human traits. And why must Jung's teachings be scientifically validated in order to be considered valid or important or relevant? Jung based his theory on the observations he made about the patients who came to his clinic and formulated his theory to help these people during therapy. It obviously worked to a degree since he kept doing it, meaning there is indeed some practical validity to the theory. 

And in the end, neuroscience is no different. It's based on observations about people but with more elaborate tools than the human mind that Jung was in possession of.


----------



## Father of Dragons (May 7, 2012)

I feel like we have different opinions on what is superficial and what is not. The value in Keirsey's types to me is in the process of discovering/choosing which type resonates the most for you. The value of the type-sorter is the ability to compare and contrast; each type is a foil for every other type and so you get a sense for how you fit into the larger spectrum of people out there. I would agree if you said it doesn't dig as deep as say the enneagram, but I personally get a lot out of the system. 

One of the strengths to me is how accessible other type's descriptions are in Keirsey's system. I find if I read about how an ENTJ's Jungian functions work I don't get the best understanding because the emphasis is on the mechanisms of Ni, Te etc. But, if I read "_For the ENTJ, there must always be a reason for doing anything, and people's feelings are usually not sufficient reason_." I can get a straightforward example of how someone typed as an ENTJ might be. I've known several people who would likely be typed as ENTJ, I even fell in love with one, and I know there is much more to each of them than Keirsey could ever describe. But I am comfortable with realizing that I can't completely understand how another person works, and in a way I am not sure I would want to.

I honestly would agree that Jung was an awesome guy, probably a genius, but I personally wouldn't say his theories are as valid as neuroscience. His ideas were from a time when psychology was all about speculation and theory, just like Freud's ideas. But the advances in modern psychology have not been kind to Freud; he is generally understood as having been completely disproved. If JCF were as popular as Freud's kinky ideas I'm not convinced that they would not have been similarly treated. 

The thing is that Jung's theories require an element of *belief*. You have to "buy in" to the system, to take a leap of faith that people are made up of these 8 functions. Neuroscience doesn't; it's possible to measure electric activity in the brain, the release of dopamine and other neurochemicals, the growth of brain cells. 

That being said, I am not certain it would be easy to apply the concept of dopamine exhaustion in trying to better understand one's self or others. So, I prefer systems that don't try to compete with modern psychology. Keirsey and the Enneagram aren't science, and I'm okay with that. If you prefer Jung's system that's fine too, but it's insulting and plain incorrect to completely shut down someone else's opinion based on something that is essentially not validly factual.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

thwoomp said:


> I find if I read about how an ENTJ's Jungian functions work I don't get the best understanding because the emphasis is on the mechanisms of Ni, Te etc. But, if I read "_For the ENTJ, there must always be a reason for doing anything, and people's feelings are usually not sufficient reason_." I can get a straightforward example of how someone typed as an ENTJ might be.


That's the problem. Keirsey isn't describing an ENTJ per se, he's describing a person who acts like a person he calls an ENTJ. But in terms of actual depth, the person could very well be an ESFJ for all I know. Or an INTP. 



> I honestly would agree that Jung was an awesome guy, probably a genius, but I personally wouldn't say his theories are as valid as neuroscience. His ideas were from a time when psychology was all about speculation and theory, just like Freud's ideas. But the advances in modern psychology have not been kind to Freud; he is generally understood as having been completely disproved. If JCF were as popular as Freud's kinky ideas I'm not convinced that they would not have been similarly treated.


What's wrong about qualitative science? It can be validated in the same way neuroscience does. 



> The thing is that Jung's theories require an element of *belief*.


And neuroscience doesn't? How do you know you even exist?



> You have to "buy in" to the system, to take a leap of faith that people are made up of these 8 functions. Neuroscience doesn't; it's possible to measure electric activity in the brain, the release of dopamine and other neurochemicals, the growth of brain cells.


Just because it appears tangible it doesn't mean it _is_ tangible. Or that what appears untangible is untangible. 



> That being said, I am not certain it would be easy to apply the concept of dopamine exhaustion in trying to better understand one's self or others. So, I prefer systems that don't try to compete with modern psychology. Keirsey and the Enneagram aren't science, and I'm okay with that. If you prefer Jung's system that's fine too, *but it's insulting and plain incorrect to completely shut down someone else's opinion based on something that is essentially not validly factual.*


And you're not doing the same? I am disagreeing with you and your opinion because yes, I think it is an incorrect view of reality that I find to be far too simplistic to fully describe it in detail. It may work for you, but just because it works doesn't mean it's good or actually works the way it's intended to work.


----------



## Father of Dragons (May 7, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> That's the problem. Keirsey isn't describing an ENTJ per se, he's describing a person who acts like a person he calls an ENTJ. But in terms of actual depth, the person could very well be an ESFJ for all I know. Or an INTP.
> 
> What's wrong about qualitative science? It can be validated in the same way neuroscience does.
> 
> ...


First of all, I am not doing the same. This entire time I have been expressing that my opinion is a valid one, whereas you have been overstating your *opinion *as *fact*. There is a very a large difference between the two approaches. I have been offering you respect for the fact that you believe what you believe, you have been showing me none.

Secondly, are you really disputing the scientific method? Science is based upon falsification; as I mentioned above, if it cannot be disproved, it's not science. Honestly, I would not consider Jung's theories to be even qualitative science as it is not based on empirical evidence. If you believe that Jung's conclusions based on theorizing about his patients is empirical evidence, you are incorrect. By that logic, the Enneagram is also a science. Neither of them are; if Jung's cognitive theories are science, I encourage you to find me a valid study that verifies them as such.

Thirdly, if you are going to start getting all existential and claiming I am somehow wrong because you are more in tune with how nothing really can be proven, that there is no such thing as fact, or something along those lines then I am not going to waste my time talking to you. I've been in multiple arguments where people seem to think that is a trump card, that questioning reality somehow invalidates everything I've said. It doesn't. If you are going to reply please say something insightful if you are going to say anything.


----------



## Galaxies (Apr 9, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> There is nothing that says an ISFP has to be this or that wing were the ISFP a type 5; what determines wing has to do with the focus of understanding. Is it more important that the understanding is unique to oneself and is understood through oneself or is it more important to understand something through the various external systems that exist? An ISFP 5w4 would focus more in trying to understand things solely through the lens of Fi, "This is how I understand it", but an ISFP 5w6 would try to understand things more through the lens of Te, "This seems to be the generally accepted understanding of this".


How much effort is required for an Fi-dom to understand things through the Te lens? I imagine that it'd be very draining. I know we shouldn't mix JFC with enneagram but your description is somewhat off.

I don't deny that Fi-doms can be type 5s, I just want to understand it better.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Galaxies said:


> How much effort is required for an Fi-dom to understand things through the Te lens? I imagine that it'd be very draining. I know we shouldn't mix JFC with enneagram but your description is somewhat off.
> 
> I don't deny that Fi-doms can be type 5s, I just want to understand it better.


Te is always informing an Fi type's psyche, so actually not that difficult at all, because whenever an Fi type would attempt to logically engage with the world, it would be through Te.


----------

