# INFJ vs INTP vs INFP? Help a MBTI newbie out



## Snowable (Jun 9, 2013)

I've been doing a bit of research regarding MBTI for quite a while now, but despite this, I'm still not very confident when it comes to me typing myself and others. One of the reasons for me doubting my type is that my results range from INTP to INFP to INFJ. Initially, when I started getting into typology, I would get INTP, which I thought was strange, considering that even though I am rather logical, I've always saw myself as more of a feeler. Thisled me to typing myself as INFP, which _still_ seems a bit off to me. So, it's just been quite the confuzzle-ation for me. I'll post my recent cognitive functions results and I'll answer the questionnaire available on the forums.



*Your Cognitive Functions:
Introverted Intuition (Ni) ||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 12.945
Introverted Feeling (Fi) |||||||||||||||||||||| 10.17
Extroverted Feeling (Fe) |||||||||||||||||||| 9.45
Introverted Thinking (Ti) ||||||||||||||||| 7.76
Extroverted Intuition (Ne) |||||||||||||||| 7.395
Extroverted Thinking (Te) |||||||||||| 5.24
Introverted Sensation (Si) || 0
Extroverted Sensation (Se) || -0.43

Your Introverted Intuition (Ni) is very developed.
Your Extroverted Intuition (Ne) is moderate.
Your Introverted Thinking (Ti) is moderate.
Your Extroverted Thinking (Te) is moderate.
Your Extroverted Feeling (Fe) is moderate.
Your Introverted Feeling (Fi) is moderate.
Your Extroverted Sensation (Se) is low.
Your Introverted Sensation (Si) is low.*

_
1) What aspect of your personality made you unsure of your type?_
Well, there are a few. Considering that I was initially typed as an INTP which is weird because I think I'm way more sensitive than a thinker would be. Also, depending on who I'm with, I can range from extremely bubbly, quirky and almost ENFP-like with friends and then to extremely distant introvert with people I'm not as comfortable with.

_2) What do you yearn for in life? Why?_
At the moment, I'd love some freedom in my life. I absolutely _hate_ being helpless and unable to do the things I want to.

_3) Think about a time where you felt like you were at your finest. Tell us what made you feel that way._
I'm not too sure whether it's my finest moment per se, but the other day, I helped out this girl in my college who's despised by the majority of the students. When I first went there, I wasn't actually too sure why people disliked her so much, because other than being irritating, she was fine. Anyway, I was having lunch while doing my math assignment in the cafeteria and so was she. She came over and told me she had trouble with that particular subject and I decided to help her out in the best way I could. I felt pretty good because I knew that the majority of the students might've not been willing to overlook the remarks surrounding her to help her out.

_4) What makes you feel inferior?_
My relatives' perception that I'm a cold-hearted robot with no emotions. There was a time in my life when I was an angsty teenager, which is not surprising considering I grew up in a dysfunctional family, and people didn't like my so-honest-it's-bitchy attitude. They used to compare me to him so much, ya know, with remarks like "Oh, he's so nice and cute and cuddly, why dontcha be like him? You don't gotta be so cold-hearted!". It didn't irritate me because they thought I was 'worse' than him, but because they thought I lacked a heart. If there's one thing I had in abundance, it was emotion, albeit not positive at the time. They still do it today and it irks the living hell out of me.

_5) What tends to weigh on your decisions? (Do you think about people, pro-cons, how you feel about it, etc.)_
How I feel about it and how it would affect other people. Usually in that order. If I know that I will feel _horrible_ after making the decision, but it'll make others feel better, I probably wouldn't make the decision. On the other hand, if I'd feel slightly upset at the most, I'd just carry out with the decision. 

_6) When working on a project what is normally your emphasis? Do you like to have control of the outcome?_
The project is pretty much the most important thing. And that everyone's doing their job. I'm kind of a control-freak in that sense. I'm also a bit perfectionistic, so if it doesn't turn out exactly how I pictured it, I may get a bit upset.

_7) Describe us a time where you had a lot of fun. How is your memory of it? _
I recently reunited with a childhood best friend. We went to an amusement park and planned to ride all the rides. Sadly, we couldn't do all that because all the biggest rides were out of order. Instead, we rode those little kiddy rides and screamed our heads off, for the heck of it. I had an awesome time goofing of with her.

_8) When you want to learn something new, what feels more natural for you? (Are you more prone to be hands on, to theorize, to memorize, etc)_
I want to understand the material as _much_ as possible, and I know that everyone wants to, but I want to understand it from every possible angle. It be barely related to the topic at hand, but I'd still wanna understand it.

_9) How organized do you to think of yourself as?_
Pretty organized most of the time. My life is usually a mess until I feel like cleaning it up. Then, it becomes a mess again.

_10) How do you judge new ideas? You try to understand the principles behind it to see if they make sense or do you look for information that supports it?_
First thing's first, I wanna see whether the idea makes sense in that particular situation. I am _very_ thorough when it comes to finding flaws in something, so the second I see that it's flawed, I'll look for a different idea or polish up the former idea.

_11) You find harmony by making sure everyone is doing fine and belonging to a given group or by making sure that you follow what you believe and being yourself?_
That's kinda hard because I feel so alienated most of the time and all I want is to relate to someone while being able to retain my beliefs and personality. So, both I guess?

_12) Are you the kind that thinks before speaking or do you speak before thinking? Do you prefer one-on-one communication or group discussions?_
I think before I speak and I prefer one-on-one communication.

_13) Do you jump into action right away or do you like to know where are you jumping before leaping? Does action speaks more than words?_
I like to know what I'm getting into and I _strongly_ believe that action speaks louder than words. If someone did an asshole thing, but had good intentions, it's hard to overlook their asshole actions.

_14) It's Saturday. You're at home, and your favorite show is about to start. Your friends call you for a night out. What will you do?_
Watch the show, obviously. I'd just tell em that I'll follow them some other time.

_15) How do you act when you're stressed out?_
I withdraw into my shell and not talk to anyone. 

_16) What makes you dislike the personalities of some people?_
Ingenuity, dishonesty, and narrow-mindedness. I actually refuse to be friends with these type of people.

_17) Is there anything you really like talking about with other people?_
Music, books and life. Although, the other day, I had an amazing discussion with someone about the ancient civilization. It was one of the most stimulating discussions I've had in a while.

_18) What kind of things do pay the least attention to in your life_
My surroundings. I can get so messy sometimes. When I was still living with the family, my OCD mother used to arrange all my crap in my room. It irritated the absolute hell out of me because I couldn't find anything after that, ironically.

_19) How do your friends perceive you? What is wrong about their perception? ? What would your friends never say about your personality ?_
My friends probably perceive me as a hilarious, fun person. If they were into typology, they'd probably type me as an ENFP. They're wrong about me being an extrovert, for sure. They would never say that I'm narrow minded or shallow. They'd also wouldn't say that I lack imagination and curiosity (which is probably where all my fun-ness comes from)

_20) You got a whole day to do whatever you like. What kind of activities do you feel like doing?
Listening to music, reading a book or surfing the interwebz. That's pretty much what I do on a daily basis. 
_


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

Snowable said:


> I've been doing a bit of research regarding MBTI for quite a while now, but despite this, I'm still not very confident when it comes to me typing myself and others. One of the reasons for me doubting my type is that my results range from INTP to INFP to INFJ. Initially, when I started getting into typology, I would get INTP, which I thought was strange, considering that even though I am rather logical, I've always saw myself as more of a feeler.


Before I read the questionnaire I would like you to answer some questions.
When you say you have researched MBTI, could you give some links to the information?
You said you got typed as an INTP, but dismissed it due to you seeing yourself as a feeler even tho you are rather logical, what is a "feeler" according to the information you've gathered and what is a "thinker" according to that information?


----------



## Dreamer777 (Jan 15, 2011)

your cognitives test result says your Ni is higher than your Ne, what do you believe about yourself with Ni and Ne, which one do you believe to be stronger in you, Ni or Ne?


----------



## Snowable (Jun 9, 2013)

Acerbusvenator said:


> Before I read the questionnaire I would like you to answer some questions.
> When you say you have researched MBTI, could you give some links to the information?
> You said you got typed as an INTP, but dismissed it due to you seeing yourself as a feeler even tho you are rather logical, what is a "feeler" according to the information you've gathered and what is a "thinker" according to that information?


As for research regarding cognitive functions, here's a few (I honestly couldn't get all of the sites. The research was done for quite a while, so I may have forgotten the sites I've read earlier):
http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/9813-mbti-functions-explained.html
MBTI truths: The Functions Explained
http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/74942-specific-examples-cognitive-functions.html
Understanding the Myers Briggs Type Indicator: The 8 Cognitive Functions

As for the dichotomies, it was mainly the MBTI page on Wikipedia. Not to be arrogant or anything, but I found the dichotomies not too difficult to understand. As for what I perceive a feeler or a thinker to be, I think a feeler is someone who uses their feelings to judge and to make decisions, usually subjectively. Feelers want to maintain harmony, whether it be external (Fe) or internal (Fi). Thinkers, on the other hand, tend to be more objective and detached when making decisions or judging. It's more about how reasonable and logical the outcome is once the decision has been made. That's pretty much what I understand of the feeling vs thinking dichotomies. I might be wrong, so please correct me if I am.


----------



## Snowable (Jun 9, 2013)

Dreamer777 said:


> your cognitives test result says your Ni is higher than your Ne, what do you believe about yourself with Ni and Ne, which one do you believe to be stronger in you, Ni or Ne?


The Ni vs Ne thing is also one of the reasons I doubted my type in the first place. I'm not stereotypically Ni-dom in the sense that I am psychic and I can foresee the impending future or anything like that. If my understanding of Ni is correct, I do take into account every possible angle in a situation and I'm good at looking at the bright side of things. As for Ne, I don't have crazy imaginative thinking like how I think most Ne-doms do, but there are a few moments each day where I'll just get an idea or two out of nowhere (is that Ni or Ne?). 

It's hard to say which one I think is stronger in me because if I knew, I probably wouldn't need to post this.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

I suspect your current INFJ label is probably correct but I should also note that, of the four MBTI dimensions, T/F is the dimension where I'm least satisfied with the standard ways MBTI sources tend to describe the essence of the dimension, so I think there may be a greater possibility with T/F than with the other three dimensions that someone might end up with mixed or in-the-middle results (or otherwise confused) even though they really have a significant preference. Besides being somewhat entangled with male/female, I think T/F may well turn out to be two or more personality dimensions somewhat incorrectly rolled into one — with the result that, to a substantially greater degree than the other three MBTI dimensions, it may be fairly common for someone to be, in effect, a T (and even a fairly strong T) with respect to certain T/F facets and an F (and even a fairly strong F) with respect to certain other T/F facets.

In my four years of participating in type-me exercises online (mostly at INTJforum), the situation where I've most often encountered what I'd call a messy mix on a dimension is the situation where an IN woman is puzzling over her T/F preference. I'd say I virtually always get "mixed signals" on T/F when I'm analyzing INT women. I think F males are a somewhat more recognizable creature. With female T's, there's usually some significant stuff there that, if it was a male subject, I'd think was a more significant F indicator. And in particular, I'd say a fairly typical male INT is likely to be independent/aloof — as far as the importance of other people in his life — to a degree that, besides distinguishing him from other males, is also likely to distinguish him from the majority of female INTs.

I've often noted that I think it's not uncommon for INFs (male and female both) to test as INTs, at least partly because many of the F choices on typical MBTI tests (including the official test) are choices that are more likely to appeal to SFs and EFs than INFs — and not only do I think that's more true of INFJs than INFPs, I think it's probably even more true of female INFJs than male INFJs. I think male F's are often aware that they differ from cultural male stereotypes in ways that make them more "F-ish" than average whereas, by contrast, I think INFJ women who compare themselves to cultural female stereotypes (not to mention the majority of actual women) are reasonably likely to think of themselves as more T-ish than those "feeler" women (EFs, SFs and, especially, ESFs). In any case, it's certainly been my experience that it's considerably more common for an INFJ (male _or_ female) to mistype as INTJ (and later conclude they're really INFJ) than _vice versa_. I think that, in some ways, it's fair to say that INFJs are both the "least F" of the F's and the "least NF" of the NFs.

With that as background, and given that you're pretty clearly an IN, I'm inclined to take the fact that you've generally (it sounds like) been inclined to think you're an F as a pretty solid F indicator, although not definitive.

I'd be curious to see your results on the official "Step I" MBTI, which you can take here.

There's a well-established fifth temperament dimension that isn't included in the Myers-Briggs typology and is often referred to as "neuroticism" (although it isn't a psychological disorder). The Big Five/SLOAN typology labels it Emotional Stability and refers to the two poles as Calm and Limbic. Being Limbic on that dimension tends to be associated with, among other things, anxiety/worry-proneness; emotional sensitivity/volatility; proneness to annoyance/irritation; self-consciousness; and (sometimes) depression. I'm Limbic, and it makes me less of a cucumber than some of my fellow INTJs. Your OP makes it sound like you may be Limbic, and being Limbic can sometimes muddy the water for somebody trying to figure out their T/F preference.

If you're interested, I'd also be curious to see your results — including the percentage scores — on this similarminds Big Five/SLOAN test,, which will (purport to) type you on the Emotional Stability dimension (in addition to the four Big Five dimensions with substantial MBTI correlations). And I've put some more information about the Big Five and that similarminds test in the spoiler.


* *




Here's a table that shows which Big Five dimension essentially corresponds to which MBTI dimension:


*SLOAN dimension**SLOAN poles**corresponding MBTI poles*ExtroversionReserved vs. SocialI vs. EEmotional StabilityCalm vs. Limbicn/aOrderlinessOrganized vs. UnstructuredJ vs. PAccommodationEgocentric vs. AccommodatingT vs. FInquisitivenessInquisitive vs. Non-CuriousN vs. S

I kind of like the linked Big Five test both because I think it does an OK typing job and also because, unlike the official MBTI and many of the online type tests, it's not "forced choice." It gives you five choices for each question — an "in the middle" choice as well as mild or strong in each direction. For that reason, it's reasonable to expect the SLOAN percentage scores to have something to say about the _strength_ of your preferences. With a forced choice test, that's not really true. Somebody with, say, a mild S preference could easily take a forced choice test and, assuming they knew themselves well and interpreted the questions properly, end up choosing the S response for almost all (or all) of the questions, with the result being a very high S score. (That said, I think scores that are close to the middle on forced choice tests tend to be _some_ indication that your preference on that dimension — in whichever direction — is probably on the mild side.)

BUT NOTE: Although I kind of like the similarminds SLOAN _test_, I _don't_ think much of the corresponding personality type descriptions at the similarminds site, for a number of reasons, one of which is: Most MBTI sources reflect the perspective that it isn't better to have one preference rather than its opposite on any of the four MBTI dimensions. The descriptions at the similarminds site, on the other hand — somewhat consistent with Big Five sources generally — definitely favor Accommodating over Egocentric (F over T) and Organized over Unstructured (J over P). So I recommend using the similarminds test as a sort of double-check/quantifier for the MBTI dimensions, but I think the personality descriptions in a typical MBTI source are better.



Also, in case they're of any use to you, the next spoiler has online profile roundups for the four IN types.


* *




_INTJ Profiles_
MBTI Manual (2nd Ed.)
MBTI Manual (3rd Ed.)
Keirsey (Please Understand Me)
Kroeger & Thuesen (Type Talk)
Hirsh & Kummerow (Lifetypes [abridged])
Berens & Nardi
personalitypage: Portrait
personalitypage: Personal Growth
personalitypage: Relationships
personalitypage: Careers

_INTP Profiles_
MBTI Manual (2nd Ed.)
MBTI Manual (3rd Ed.)
Keirsey (Please Understand Me)
Kroeger & Thuesen (Type Talk)
Hirsh & Kummerow (Lifetypes [abridged])
Berens & Nardi
personalitypage: Portrait
personalitypage: Personal Growth
personalitypage: Relationships
personalitypage: Careers

_INFJ Profiles_
MBTI Manual (2nd Ed.)
MBTI Manual (3rd Ed.)
Keirsey (Please Understand Me)
Kroeger & Thuesen (Type Talk)
Hirsh & Kummerow (Lifetypes [abridged])
Berens & Nardi
personalitypage: Portrait
personalitypage: Personal Growth
personalitypage: Relationships
personalitypage: Careers

_INFP Profiles_
MBTI Manual (2nd Ed.)
MBTI Manual (3rd Ed.)
Keirsey (Please Understand Me)
Kroeger & Thuesen (Type Talk)
Hirsh & Kummerow (Lifetypes [abridged])
Berens & Nardi
personalitypage: Portrait
personalitypage: Personal Growth
personalitypage: Relationships
personalitypage: Careers



If your test results seem to narrow you down to two (or three) likeliest possibilities, a possible way to give prospective type-me contributors more information to go on is to read through some profiles of those types and post about anything in them that provokes a notably strong "that's me" or "that's not me" reaction — but, if you're going to take those linked tests and post your results, you may want to do that first and wait to get some more feedback on those (and your OP) before you decide which profiles it makes sense to be reading.

As a final note: To the extent that you've been trying to type yourself by way of cognitive function tests, that's a mistake, IMHO. Assuming you have reasonably well-defined preferences, I think you're more likely to correctly type yourself using dichotomy-based tests than cognitive functions tests. And if you've got one or more preferences that are in or near the middle, I think dichotomy-based tests are more likely to correctly indicate that situation as well. Even cognitive function aficionados generally don't claim that there's any test they can point you to that's particularly likely to give you results that place your dominant function in first place and your auxiliary function in second place — never mind ID-ing your tertiary and inferior functions in any easy-to-spot way. Dario Nardi's considered one of the leading cognitive functions guys and his test is arguably the most-linked-to cognitive functions test — but, as further discussed in this post and this post, INTJs typically get high Ni scores _and high Ne scores_ (with Ni not substantially favored over Ne), and high Te scores _and high Ti scores_ (with Te not substantially favored over Ti), when they take Nardi's test.

Above and beyond the test problems, I don't think the cognitive functions are the appropriate way to frame MBTI type — and that's actually the majority view out in the real world, although you'd never guess it from browsing MBTI-related internet forums. I think Reynierse is probably correct (in the article linked below) to call the functions a "category mistake." Just in case you have any interest — and _only_ if you have any interest — in hearing why I consider myself a "dichotomies guy," you'll find quite a lot of explanation in this long INTJforum post..

Links in INTJforum posts don't work if you're not a member, so here are replacements for the two links in that post:

McCrae & Costa article
Reynierse article​
In any case, as a last note on the functions front: _Don't_ make the mistake of getting thrown off by those silly online Ni descriptions that make it sound like, if you're an IN_J, you should be reading people's minds and having prophetic future visions.

PLEASE NOTE: I'm both an MBTI dweeb and a hardcore T, and I don't do long posts like this (most of which are recycled anyway) as selfless, other-oriented "acts of service" — so please don't feel the slightest obligation to take either of those tests or follow any of those links or otherwise pay any attention to anything in this post beyond what you're motivated to do for your own selfish reasons.


----------



## Dreamer777 (Jan 15, 2011)

Snowable said:


> The Ni vs Ne thing is also one of the reasons I doubted my type in the first place. I'm not stereotypically Ni-dom in the sense that I am psychic and I can foresee the impending future or anything like that. If my understanding of Ni is correct, I do take into account every possible angle in a situation and I'm good at looking at the bright side of things. As for Ne, I don't have crazy imaginative thinking like how I think most Ne-doms do, but there are a few moments each day where I'll just get an idea or two out of nowhere (is that Ni or Ne?).
> 
> It's hard to say which one I think is stronger in me because if I knew, I probably wouldn't need to post this.


i agree with you that you posted this post because you are unsure of your type as in everything included Ni, Ne, etc, but i find sometimes when people ask us questions it can help us to really focus on what they're asking to possibly bring out an answer to help us even realize more about our type. so that's why i asked.

i think taking in every angle of a situation is typical INFJ / Ni


----------



## Snowable (Jun 9, 2013)

reckful said:


> I suspect your current INFJ label is probably correct but I should also note that, of the four MBTI dimensions, T/F is the dimension where I'm least satisfied with the standard ways MBTI sources tend to describe the essence of the dimension, so I think there may be a greater possibility with T/F than with the other three dimensions that someone might end up with mixed or in-the-middle results (or otherwise confused) even though they really have a significant preference. Besides being somewhat entangled with male/female, I think T/F may well turn out to be two or more personality dimensions somewhat incorrectly rolled into one — with the result that, to a substantially greater degree than the other three MBTI dimensions, it may be fairly common for someone to be, in effect, a T (and even a fairly strong T) with respect to certain T/F facets and an F (and even a fairly strong F) with respect to certain other T/F facets.
> 
> In my four years of participating in type-me exercises online (mostly at INTJforum), the situation where I've most often encountered what I'd call a messy mix on a dimension is the situation where an IN woman is puzzling over her T/F preference. I'd say I virtually always get "mixed signals" on T/F when I'm analyzing INT women. I think F males are a somewhat more recognizable creature. With female T's, there's usually some significant stuff there that, if it was a male subject, I'd think was a more significant F indicator. And in particular, I'd say a fairly typical male INT is likely to be independent/aloof — as far as the importance of other people in his life — to a degree that, besides distinguishing him from other males, is also likely to distinguish him from the majority of female INTs.
> 
> ...


Ha! Actually, I really, _really _appreciate the time you probably took to write out that whole post. Thanks so much! I'll definitely be reading up on those in the meantime. Also, I've taken the SLOAN test and the MBTI Step I, so here's my results. 
SLOAN test:

Extroversion||||||26%Orderliness||||||||||||||58%Emotional Stability||||||||||||48%Accommodation||||||||||||50%Inquisitiveness||||||||||||||58%
*
Extroversion* results were low which suggests you are very reclusive, quiet, unassertive, and private.
*Orderliness* results were moderately high which suggests you are, at times, overly organized, neat, structured and restrained at the expense too often of flexibility, variety, spontaneity, and fun.
*Emotional Stability* results were medium which suggests you average somewhere in between being calm and resilient and being anxious and reactive.
*Accommodation* results were medium which suggests you are moderately kind natured, trusting, and helpful while still maintaining your own interests.
*Inquisitiveness* results were moderately high which suggests you are intellectual, curious, imaginative but possibly not very practical.
Your *Global5/SLOAN type is RLOEI
Your Primary type is Reserved
*
Global 5: sloan RLOEI; sloan+ |R|xoxi; primary Reserved; R(74%)L(52%)O(58%)X(50%)I(58%)

Step I: INFJ

And you have a point with the cognitive functions test. I've always gotten kinda weird results whenever I took it. I'm also glad that there's someone who understands the T vs F thing that I and people like me are prone to having.

EDIT: Despite my Primary type being Reserved according to this test, I feel like I lean more towards Limbic like you've said after reading the description. Just thought I'd mention that.


----------



## Snowable (Jun 9, 2013)

Dreamer777 said:


> i agree with you that you posted this post because you are unsure of your type as in everything included Ni, Ne, etc, but i find sometimes when people ask us questions it can help us to really focus on what they're asking to possibly bring out an answer to help us even realize more about our type. so that's why i asked.
> 
> i think taking in every angle of a situation is typical INFJ / Ni


Sorry, didn't mean to come off as uncooperative or anything. I'd be glad to answer more questions if it means finding out my type.


----------



## Dreamer777 (Jan 15, 2011)

Snowable said:


> The Ni vs Ne thing is also one of the reasons I doubted my type in the first place. I'm not stereotypically Ni-dom in the sense that I am psychic and I can foresee the impending future or anything like that. If my understanding of Ni is correct, I do take into account every possible angle in a situation and I'm good at looking at the bright side of things. As for Ne, I don't have crazy imaginative thinking like how I think most Ne-doms do, but there are a few moments each day where I'll just get an idea or two out of nowhere (is that Ni or Ne?).
> 
> It's hard to say which one I think is stronger in me because if I knew, I probably wouldn't need to post this.


no worries Snowable apology accepted easily my dear 

back to the above comment you made, i really see Ni more stronger in you than Ne, i am also inclined to believe as well as @reckful believes also, that you seem INFJ


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Snowable said:


> I've taken the SLOAN test and the MBTI Step I, so here's my results.
> SLOAN test:
> 
> Extroversion||||||26%Orderliness||||||||||||||58%Emotional Stability||||||||||||48%Accommodation||||||||||||50%Inquisitiveness||||||||||||||58%
> ...


On your final EDIT: Just in case you're misunderstanding, Reserved and Limbic aren't opposites. Social/Reserved is the SLOAN version of E/I and Calm/Limbic are the two poles of the separate Emotional Stability dimension (that doesn't have a corresponding MBTI dimension). And, in fact, as I understand it, there's actually a mild correlation between being introverted and being Limbic — i.e., an introvert is somewhat more likely than an extravert to be Limbic (above-average in Neuroticism).

On your Step I MBTI scores, F and J were the least clear, but they were both moderate. As I noted in my first post, scores on forced choice tests (like this one) should generally just be taken as an indication of how confident you should be that you came out with the right preference, rather than an indication of the strength of the preference. Particularly, as I said, because I think INs have a tendency to get T/F scores that are T-skewed, I'd say your moderate F score is a pretty good F indicator. And I've often said I think youth tends to exert something of a P skew, so the fact that you're choosing the J response to 15 out of the 22 questions at age 19 is a pretty good J indicator as well.

_On the other hand_... as I also noted in my first post, the SLOAN test, because of its Likert-scale design, can arguably make a better claim to give you some indication of the _strength_ of your preferences, and you came out in what I'd call the middle zone (between 40 and 60%) on four of the five dimensions. A definite introvert at 74% (the "R" score), but barely Limbic (52%), mildly N (the 58% "I" score), the exact middle on T/F, and mildly J (the 58% "O" score).

Although the SLOAN-equivalent N score was mild, I really don't see any reason to question your N preference, based both on your clear MBTI score and also based on what's in your PerC posts (and I've now read pretty much all of those). And I suspect the strength of your N preference is greater than the 58% score would suggest.

Between the moderate MBTI score and the 58% SLOAN-equivalent J score — and also based on the descriptions in your PerC posts — I think it's somewhat unlikely you're a P, although I'm not ruling it out. I'd say the idea that you have a relatively _mild_ J preference seems the most consistent with both your SLOAN score and your posts.

So, not unexpectedly, that leaves T/F as the dimension with the most uncertainty. In four years of internet forum participation (more at INTJforum than here), I've done more posting on T/F stuff than any other MBTI-related area, so there's lots of stuff I could recycle or link you to on that subject and I'd be more than happy to do back-and-forths with you (to the extent that you're interested) on any or all of my T/F perspectives. But, on the other hand, that might be overkill/unnecessary in your case if — from looking at profiles, for example — you're actually pretty confident that INFJ fits you quite a bit better than INTJ does. So, for now, I'll just give you a more limited dose of additional T/F input (in the spoiler).


* *




In your reply to Acerbusvenator, you said...



Snowable said:


> As for what I perceive a feeler or a thinker to be, I think a feeler is someone who uses their feelings to judge and to make decisions, usually subjectively. Feelers want to maintain harmony, whether it be external (Fe) or internal (Fi). Thinkers, on the other hand, tend to be more objective and detached when making decisions or judging. It's more about how reasonable and logical the outcome is once the decision has been made. That's pretty much what I understand of the feeling vs thinking dichotomies. I might be wrong, so please correct me if I am.


... and the idea that thinking and feeling are different mental ("cognitive") decision-making functions — with T being more logical and F being more oriented toward values and/or emotional vibes — is a common T/F framing that goes all the way back to Jung. But, as discussed in this post, I'd say there's actually been an evolution of the consensus among MBTI theorists over the years about what the T/F preference is really about, from a more Jungian perspective to viewing the essence of T/F more in terms of the F's _people orientation_ — with the latter perspective being substantially more consistent with the Big Five conceptualization of the dimension.

Looking at the table (from Thomson) in that linked post, though, you should keep in mind what I said in my first post about INFJs arguably being the "least F of the F's." In the course of my type-me-thread experiences, it's been pretty common to hear INFJs (male and female both) somewhat resisting the INFJ label because they feel like they're not as warm and/or sympathetic and/or "touchy-feely" and/or emotionally expressive as they think they would be if they were F's. And some of this confusion stems from inappropriate Fe descriptions — and by "inappropriate" I mean, in particular, inappropriate in the context of a functions model that says that INFJs are Ni-Fe. I'd say the confusion basically originates in the fact that Jung's "Fe" description was a description of Fe _as manifested in an Fe-dom_ (i.e., an _extravert_ with an F preference), and much of Jung's description of Fe and Fe-doms involved stuff that Jung said was characteristic of extraverts generally — and was _not_ characteristic of introverts of any type. For further discussion of why Jung wouldn't have associated warmth and emotional expressiveness with INFJs (or any other introvert), see this post and this post. (And in case you've also been led to believe that their "Fe" will tend to cause INFJs to adopt (or defer to) majority group values — a similar Jungian misapplication — see this post.)

There's a lot that Jung got right and a lot that Jung got wrong, and you definitely shouldn't think I'm endorsing every aspect of the Jung quotations in those linked posts. But I do think that, especially for INFJs whose introversion is fairly strong, their introversion plays a major role in their tendency to feel like they're not as "F-ish" as they think they should be (and, in some cases, would prefer to be) in _emotional_ terms. But I also think that an N preference — and maybe especially when coupled with a J preference — tends to be associated with a significant degree of what you might call _emotional detachment_. Myers referred to SFs — rather than the F's in general — as the "sympathetic and friendly types."



Again, there's a boatload of other T/F stuff I could recycle or link you to, but I'm somewhat inclined to hold off (at least) until I get your reactions to this post and see (among other things) if you're still viewing your T/F preference as unresolved.

Also: As I mentioned in my first post, one possible way for you to give prospective type-me contributors more information to work with is to read through some profiles of your most likely type(s) and post about anything in them that provokes a notably strong "that sounds just like me" or "that's not me" reaction. You thought of yourself as an INTP when you first came to PerC. To what extent (if any) has your current (tentative) INFJ label been the result of finding that INFJ profiles match you better than the alternatives? I'd be curious to hear if there are particular aspects of INFJ profiles that you think fit you particularly well (or don't seem to fit). If your T/F preference is the one that's closest to being borderline, that might suggest that you'd find INTJ profiles to be the "next best" fit. If you've done some perusing of profiles of all four of the IN types, would you say that's the case, or would you pick INTP or INFP as the second-best fit?

=========================================

As a final note: Other readers interested in participating in this type-me thread may be interested to know that Snowable posted another set of questionnaire responses here.


----------



## Snowable (Jun 9, 2013)

reckful said:


> On your final EDIT: Just in case you're misunderstanding, Reserved and Limbic aren't opposites. Social/Reserved is the SLOAN version of E/I and Calm/Limbic are the two poles of the separate Emotional Stability dimension (that doesn't have a corresponding MBTI dimension). And, in fact, as I understand it, there's actually a mild correlation between being introverted and being Limbic — i.e., an introvert is somewhat more likely than an extravert to be Limbic (above-average in Neuroticism).
> 
> On your Step I MBTI scores, F and J were the least clear, but they were both moderate. As I noted in my first post, scores on forced choice tests (like this one) should generally just be taken as an indication of how confident you should be that you came out with the right preference, rather than an indication of the strength of the preference. Particularly, as I said, because I think INs have a tendency to get T/F scores that are T-skewed, I'd say your moderate F score is a pretty good F indicator. And I've often said I think youth tends to exert something of a P skew, so the fact that you're choosing the J response to 15 out of the 22 questions at age 19 is a pretty good J indicator as well.
> 
> ...


Trust me, so far, I find your posts extremely helpful, so keep it up if you have anything else you'd like to put on the table. As for what matches me the most, I'll go through the characteristics that I feel are very me and also not very me. You're right about the INFJs being the least Feelers of the Feelers (weird phrasing). With some personality profiles describing the INFJ as some sort of person that's extremely selfless and would, without second thoughts, drop everything they're doing to help anyone and everyone, it definitely threw me off when I first got into typology. Along with that, INFJ is the rarest type, and because of that, I found it unlikely to be typed as INFJ. But, _then_, I actually read up descriptions of INFJs that didn't describe them as activists out to save everyones' lives, and it clicked with me. Here's some characteristics of my personality that I feel are extremely similar or the extreme opposite of the personality types I've thought I could be:

As for how INTP I am, I am such a procrastinator. I procrastinate so much, I don't even know how I get work done (yet I do, albeit at the last minute). I relate so much to that one Calvin and Hobbes comic strip in which Hobbes asks Calvin why he hasn't done his project yet, and Calvin says that he has to be in the last minute mood panic to get it done. According to some personality profiles, the INTP is described as not liking the idea of being a leader or controlling others. I, on the other hand, kinda enjoy leading people and I think I'm pretty good at it. I might also be obsessed with correctness. I can get irritated if someone uses the wrong word or incorrect grammar when they write or speak. My friends have called me a grammar nazi before. Besides that, I'm quite comfortable with a lack of schedule and I actually enjoy doing things spontaneously (I believe this is more of a P-thing rather than an INTP thing, but I may be wrong). I also lack confidence in some of my answers. Just look at how many times I've written the word 'may', 'might' and the such in this post and my previous posts. I enjoy intellectual pursuits and I like reading theoretical books about physics and math, but I may not be very good at it. I just read it because I find it interesting, not so much to be good at it.

I'm gonna use my understanding of the INFJs and their characterics from this forum (I've spent some time in the INFJ forums, to test the waters), in this case, because you know, I don't really relate so much to the INFJ personality profile that you find around the Interwebz. As I've stated before, I am _not _prophetic or psychic in any sense. However, I frequently have hunches when it comes to people. I can usually tell, right off the bat, whether I'll get along with someone in the future when I've just met them. However, I am not a skeptic when it comes to people and I _will_ give them a chance to prove themselves if I've heard bad things about them because it's only fair to do that. Ah, I also am really into the idea of justice. I take into account other peoples' feelings and it is used as a basis for my decisions (for situations that involve other people, that is). However, when it comes to things such as my future (job, love life, etc), I will put my happiness and dreams first and not what other people think I should do. As I've said before, I look at a situation from every possible angle, and I usually have difficulty taking sides because of this. I may not be the most sympathetic of people, but I am extremely empathetic and I can know what it's like to be them (which further makes it harder to take sides). I may not seek out to help people, but when I notice that someone is struggling or someone is asking for help, I will definitely help or offer it. My friends see me as a great counselor from the love life aspect, despite having little experience with romantic relationships. They say it's because I offer them different points of view which yields more of an understanding. However, I sometimes have difficulty showing my feelings. I am not a touchy-feely person but I have been described as understanding and caring. I am extremely blunt. I don't really like sugarcoating things, but it's not because I'm insensitive, but rather because I think it's easier and more helpful to be honest. Of course, I don't tell people I don't like that I don't like them, because I do value external harmony. I am usually tolerant to those whom I dislike. With close friends, I can go on a very long rant and I will be very, very expressive when I do. My mom laughs at me when I do, because my face makes all types of expressions, my voice drips with emotion and I use all types of hand gestures (And I've suspected her to be an ENFJ which means she's Fe-dom! You know you're bad when an Fe-dom calls you out on your expressiveness.) One aspect of the INFJ that I don't relate to so much is the lack of sentiment and nostalgia. I frequently look back on past memories and I like things that evoke a feeling of nostalgia in me.

Wow, I think that's the longest post I've written in my time at PerC. Hope it helps out!

EDIT: I've got to remember to post stuff that I feel is important when I'm actually typing it out rather than _after_ posting it and ending up editing it. Sigh. I'd like to talk a bit about how I seem ENFP-ish with friends. Is that a weird thing? I'm usually the quietest person when I meet someone, but once I'm close friends with them, I end up being really kooky, energetic and loud. I can turn it on and off though. I can be whacky one second and all serious the next. Is that something that should be taken into account?


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

reckful said:


> PLEASE NOTE: I'm both an MBTI dweeb and a hardcore T, and I don't do long posts like this (most of which are recycled anyway) as selfless, other-oriented "acts of service" — *so please don't feel the slightest obligation to take either of those tests or follow any of those links or otherwise pay any attention to anything in this post beyond what you're motivated to do for your own selfish reasons.*


You mean that people actually _exist_; who would take your recommended tests or links for anything other, than "their _own_ selfish reasons"?

:shocked:


----------



## Dreamer777 (Jan 15, 2011)

snowable said:


> trust me, so far, i find your posts extremely helpful, so keep it up if you have anything else you'd like to put on the table. As for what matches me the most, i'll go through the characteristics that i feel are very me and also not very me. You're right about the infjs being the least feelers of the feelers (weird phrasing). With some personality profiles describing the infj as some sort of person that's extremely selfless and would, without second thoughts, drop everything they're doing to help anyone and everyone, it definitely threw me off when i first got into typology. Along with that, infj is the rarest type, and because of that, i found it unlikely to be typed as infj. But, _then_, i actually read up descriptions of infjs that didn't describe them as activists out to save everyones' lives, and it clicked with me. Here's some characteristics of my personality that i feel are extremely similar or the extreme opposite of the personality types i've thought i could be:
> 
> As for how intp i am, i am such a procrastinator. I procrastinate so much, i don't even know how i get work done (yet i do, albeit at the last minute). I relate so much to that one calvin and hobbes comic strip in which hobbes asks calvin why he hasn't done his project yet, and calvin says that he has to be in the last minute mood panic to get it done. According to some personality profiles, the intp is described as not liking the idea of being a leader or controlling others. I, on the other hand, kinda enjoy leading people and i think i'm pretty good at it. I might also be obsessed with correctness. I can get irritated if someone uses the wrong word or incorrect grammar when they write or speak. My friends have called me a grammar nazi before. Besides that, i'm quite comfortable with a lack of schedule and i actually enjoy doing things spontaneously (i believe this is more of a p-thing rather than an intp thing, but i may be wrong). I also lack confidence in some of my answers. Just look at how many times i've written the word 'may', 'might' and the such in this post and my previous posts. I enjoy intellectual pursuits and i like reading theoretical books about physics and math, but i may not be very good at it. I just read it because i find it interesting, not so much to be good at it.
> 
> ...


infj


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Although I continue to lean INFJ, both the F and J are mild leans, and your latest post is definitely something of a J/P mix. I'm going to plant three posts in quick succession here, with the second one relating to J/P and the third one relating to T/F. The rest of this post will just be a few reactions to some of the specific stuff in your latest post.



Snowable said:


> With some personality profiles describing the INFJ as some sort of person that's extremely selfless and would, without second thoughts, drop everything they're doing to help anyone and everyone, it definitely threw me off.


Although you indicated that this threw you off _at first_ and you later read some more balanced profiles, and at the risk of being somewhat repetitive with part of my last post, I'd like to add a little more discussion of this issue.

I don't think there's any question that there's what you might call an "other-orientation" that's associated with an F preference but... it's complicated. Setting aside the "facets" issue (discussed at the start of Post 3 of this 3-post set) — where somebody who's supposedly an F _overall_ might nonetheless be more of a T with respect to one or more of the T/F facets — I'd say there are significant differences among the F types in terms of how whatever service-to-others streak they have is likely to manifest, and I talk quite a lot about that issue in several of the posts I link to in my INTJforum T/F-post roundup (also in Post 3).

In any case, it's virtually always a mistake to describe a _typical_ person of any type as "extremely" anything, and selfless is no exception. I'd say an ISFJ is the type most likely to be someone who, as you put it, is "extremely selfless and would, without second thoughts, drop everything they're doing to help anyone and everyone" — but that that's an exaggerated way to put it, even for ISFJs. With INFJs, the issue of who _deserves_ to be helped is more likely to come into play, and that's far from the only complication.

I'd say all the INs (INFs and INTs both) share at least some significant potential to be the kind of people who will more often feel deeply and meaningfully stirred by aesthetic experiences than by their day-to-day interactions with others. And I think it's reasonably characteristic of an INF (and maybe especially an INFP) for their F preference to be more prone to take the form of a drive to somehow "serve humanity" or "make the world a better place" than a notably strong service-to-others streak directed at the people they're interacting with on a day-to-day basis. I'd say passionate involvement in, e.g., environmental or other progressive causes is pretty characteristic of INFs.



Snowable said:


> I procrastinate so much, I don't even know how I get work done (yet I do, albeit at the last minute).


All other things being equal, I'd say this is more characteristic of P's than J's, but... I think it's also fair to say that it's pretty much just _human nature_ to have _some_ significant proclivity to procrastinate things that are both (1) things that are relatively low on our stuff-I-_want_-to-do list and (2) things we can probably, in the end, get away with doing later rather than sooner.

If you're talking about something where there's a real deadline, and there could be significant bad consequences if the deadline isn't met, and there's at least arguably some not-insubstantial probability that you might miss the deadline if you wait until close to the last minute — either because the task takes longer than expected, or because one or more competing and must-attend-to-now tasks end up popping up and interfering — then I'd say neurotic IJs (like me!) may well be the types most averse to leaving _important_ things until the last minute. I think neurotic IJs are probably the quintessential risk-averse, worrywart types.



Snowable said:


> INTP is described as not liking the idea of being a leader or controlling others. I, on the other hand, kinda enjoy leading people and I think I'm pretty good at it.


I'd say that neither INTPs or INTJs are particularly fond of being leaders. We'd rather be the brains behind the leaders, while leaving it to the leaders to handle the people-management side of things. I'd say that INTJ posts at INTJforum, consistent with typical INTJ profiles, indicate that a typical INTJ's temperament gives them the _ability_ to be a reasonably good leader (moreso than a typical INTP, and with the caveat that INTJs don't tend to be champs in the people-skills department), but that an INTJ is somewhat inclined to try to avoid the leader role unless the circumstances are such that the INTJ feels like, if they don't take charge, the project won't end up properly managed. I'd say INFJs are more natural leader/managers, overall, than either of the INT types — although not as likely to happily take to the leader role as ENFJs.



Snowable said:


> I might also be obsessed with correctness. I can get irritated if someone uses the wrong word or incorrect grammar when they write or speak. My friends have called me a grammar nazi before.


Especially if you're an F, I'd say this would be significantly more in-character for an INFJ than an INFP — but it's also more characteristic of INTJs than INFJs. As between INTP and INFJ, I'm not sure.



Snowable said:


> I like reading theoretical books about physics and math, but I may not be very good at it. I just read it because I find it interesting, not so much to be good at it.


I'd say this isn't really strongly out-of-character for any of the IN types. As among those four, I'd say the strong interest part would be _least_ typical of an INFP, while the maybe-not-so-good-at-it would be somewhat more likely for an INF than an INT — but it's actually pretty common for INFJs to end up being scientists. In fact, in Gifts Differing, Myers noted:



Myers said:


> Among research scientists and design engineers, [INTJs and INFJs] stand at the top. INTJs are somewhat more likely than INFJs to be interested in scientific and technical matters, but when INFJs are interested, they appear to be just as good.





Snowable said:


> One aspect of the INFJ that I don't relate to so much is the lack of sentiment and nostalgia. I frequently look back on past memories and I like things that evoke a feeling of nostalgia in me.


I don't know where that impression would have come from, but I wouldn't say INFJs are notably nostalgia-averse.



Snowable said:


> I seem ENFP-ish with friends. Is that a weird thing? I'm usually the quietest person when I meet someone, but once I'm close friends with them, I end up being really kooky, energetic and loud.


Never missing a chance to quote myself, here's an old INTJforum post I've already recycled at least once here at PerC:



reckful said:


> Although, all other things being equal, an introverted child can certainly be expected to feel/act more introverted than an extraverted child, it's also quite typical for an introverted child, growing up in an untroubled family/school environment in which she excels (and which mostly involves interaction with familiar people), to feel/act significantly more extraverted than she will as an adult. That was true for me in spades. I'm pretty strongly introverted, but was something of a class clown in my school days, and significantly more gregarious than in my adult incarnation (while at the same time being significantly less gregarious than my extraverted classmates).



In general, the differences between introverts and extraverts tend to be substantially more pronounced when they're dealing with strangers or not-too-close acquaintances than when they're dealing with their family and friends.

Assuming you end up reading my next two posts and the posts they link to, you'll see that they address a number of the other issues in your latest post, so I won't repeat any of that here.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

On J/P, the first point I'd make is that, if you've read that there's no way somebody can be an "X" on the J/P dimension, see this post. As I understand it, both MBTI and Big Five data suggests that all four of the MBTI dimensions may exhibit something more like a normal distribution (with lots of people either in or near the middle) than some kind of bimodal distribution with an empty middle zone. Jung himself said he thought more people were essentially in the middle on E/I than were significantly extraverted or introverted — and, FWIW, my internet forum (and RL) type-me experience suggests that J/P might be the dimension where middleness is the most common.

In any case, if you're interested in a long J/P post from me, you'll find it here.

That last linked post was largely put together by rounding up a number of earlier posts, and it covers quite a lot of what I think I sort of understand about J and P, but for some reason I left out a discussion of the famous J/P _decision-making_ issue — and the (to me) somewhat misleading idea that J's generally find it _easier_ to make decisions than P's. So the next spoiler has my take on that. It's recycled from a post where INTJs and INTPs were the types under discussion, but I'd say most of the INTJ stuff should apply equally well to INFJs.


* *




A few thoughts on INTJs and INTPs and decisions.

Although, all other things being equal, I'd agree that J's have more of a core drive to have something _settled_, I'd also say that, _for INTJs_ — partly due to other aspects of their overall MBTI temperament — if it's an important decision, and if it's the kind of decision that could, from an objective standpoint, turn out to have been the _right_ decision or the _wrong_ decision, an INTJ is not very likely to make what most people would consider a _rushed_ judgment. (An INTJ might be somewhat faster, and willing, to reach a decision than an INTP but... so would a turtle, potentially. )

What's more — and, again, assuming it's an _important_ decision — I wouldn't say INTJs are notable sinners in the sense of being likely to stick with a decision and refuse to reconsider it in the face of new facts or evidence that it isn't working out well. (Again, yeah, maybe more likely to sin that way than an INTP, but...)

And now let's turn to the most horrible kinds of decisions everybody faces in life (at least to an INTJ) — namely, really big _life decisions_ where there probably is no such thing as a _right answer_ (or at least no way to very confidently determine it in advance, and maybe not in hindsight either). For those kinds of decisions — law school or film school; career or employer choices; etc. — I think it would be wrong to say that the J of an INTJ means they're significantly less likely to _agonize_ over one of those decisions, or feel really "at sea" about one of those decisions, than an INTP or any other type.

In fact, I think there are reasons to think an INTJ might tend to agonize _more_ about one of those life decisions than other types. For one thing, because of the J's greater drive to have things settled, I'd say it's more important to the average J to feel like whatever decision they ultimately make will turn out to have been the right one. A P is somewhat more likely to be OK with viewing their decision as _tentative_, and more comfortable with the notion that, oh, well, if Plan A doesn't work out, I can always switch to Plan B and give that a try.

And as a final, maybe more minor note, I think an INTJ may be more prone to overagonize about a big life decision than at least some other types because an INTJ is more prone to _overanalyze_ than some other types. An INTJ is probably more inclined than most types (although not more than INTPs, I wouldn't say) to feel like, if they just think about the decision long enough, and gather enough information, etc., dammit, they'll hopefully end up _figuring it out_ — or, in any case, that the more INT-ish analysis they do, the more _likely_ it will be that they'll make the right decision. You'd expect an ESTP, by contrast, to be somewhat more likely to exhibit an attitude along the lines of "Who the hell knows? Life's a crapshoot. Flip a coin."


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

I'd arguably be remiss if, before I went ahead and linked you to a bunch of my INTJforum posts on T/F, I didn't first link you to a long "T/F's a mess" post that I more recently made in a PerC type-me thread by an IN_J woman struggling with her T/F preference. I mentioned in my first post in this thread that "I think T/F may well turn out to be two or more personality dimensions somewhat incorrectly rolled into one — with the result that, to a substantially greater degree than the other three MBTI dimensions, it may be fairly common for someone to be, in effect, a T (and even a fairly strong T) with respect to certain T/F facets and an F (and even a fairly strong F) with respect to certain other T/F facets." The relatively recent "Step II" version of the MBTI breaks T/F into five facets and suggests that a person can end up on the T side of one or more of them while being on the F side of the others, and the most widely-used Big Five test (the NEO-PI) similarly breaks the Big Five version of the T/F dimension into six facets and takes the position that you can be, in effect, a T with respect to some and an F with respect to others.

So... here, if you're interested, is that T/F's a mess post. It's l-o-n-g and, I should probably note, hardly required reading.

And as a supplemental note: @Abraxas has helpfully posted the "official" descriptions of the five subfacets of each of the four MBTI dichotomies (from the MBTI Step II Manual), so you can read about the MBTI T/F subfacets (and/or the E/I, S/N or J/P subfacets) in these posts:

Extraversion / Introversion
Sensing / Intuition
Thinking / Feeling
Judging / Perceiving

In any case, regardless of how messy T/F might turn out to be, and for better or worse, most of the T/F posting I've done at INTJforum over the past four years has been under the assumption that it makes sense — for many people, at least — to ask, "Are they a T or are they an F?" And the spoilers that follow are a collection of some of those posts.

Following up on my first-post caveat — and I _especially_ mean it this time — this collection involves quite a lot of posts, and they tend to be on the long side, so please read any or all of them only to the extent that you're inclined to do it for your own selfish reasons. And on the other hand, to the extent that you — or anyone else — ends up reading any of this stuff, you can safely assume that I'd be very interested in any reactions and feedback you'd be moved to provide, positive or negative. Although it probably wouldn't be kosher for you to name (or quote) any of the other INTJforum members, feel free to quote me at will if there are things you want to comment on in any way. And in that regard, please keep in mind that, even if you disagree with my specific MBTI analysis of some personality characteristic I describe, if you have a strong "that's just like me" or "that's not like me at all" reaction to the description (or any other noteworthy reaction), those reactions could end up being useful data for me or anybody else who's participating in your type-me project over here.

Assuming you're an N, one way to ponder whether you're T or F is to think about whether you're NT or NF. As you may know, David Keirsey is an MBTI theorist who's known for grouping the 16 MBTI types into four sub-groups, including NTs (the "Rationals") and NFs (the "Idealists"). Since I recently tuned up my two old INTJforum posts on NTs and NFs for posting at another forum, I'm going to paste the (slightly) revised versions here rather than linking to the INTJforum posts.

1. Here's reckful on NTs and NFs:


* *




I already described what I call "N-world" — the abstract (immaterial and more "eternal") world of ideas, knowledge, scientific laws, the arts, etc. Both NTs and NFs are oriented toward N-world, but an NT's orientation will tend to be more _impersonal_, while an NF's is likely to be more people-oriented. Note that this doesn't mean that an NT may not have a strong interest in psychology. Virtually any subject that's reasonably rich can end up being the focus of an NT's scholarly interest. But it's fair to say that, all other things being equal, the NT will be more likely to have a more "academic" interest in the field and the NF will be more likely to be a therapist. (Caveat: Everybody has to make a living. So the NT psychologist might well be a therapist even if his passion for the field was more scholarly.) You might say the NT psychologist will tend to be more interested in _studying_ people (in the abstract), where the NF psychologist will be more focused on coming to understand/enlighten/heal particular individuals (although E vs. I could also be a factor in that respect).

NTs (and especially INTs) are the quintessential scholar/scientist/geek types, and INT's are the consummate computer programmers. When I refer to an INT as an "abstract thinker," I'm not just referring to how an INT thinks; I'm referring to _what kind of person_ an INT is. Learning and analyzing are things you'll often find an INT doing in his spare time. I've heard INTs described as relating to the world as if it was a museum. You'd expect the audience for _Nova_ or any TV show offering science as entertainment to have an audience dominated by NTs — but note that lots of NTs' interests run more toward the humanities than the "hard sciences." NT's are also often described as being "systems" people — _i.e._, people who are driven to create systems that elegantly and efficiently accomplish various purposes (computer programs being a perfect example).

I don't think there's a comparable, familiar stock character that captures "essence of INF" quite as well as "thinker/geek" captures INT.

I think of NF's as the "self"-oriented types. By that I don't mean selfish, or even self-centered (necessarily, anyway). What I mean is that an NF, more than the other types, is likely to cherish the view that each person is a unique individual who adds up (or, ideally, can come to add up) to some kind of meaningful whole, and whose life ideally consists of a kind of journey of self-discovery and self-improvement in which each passing year will find you wiser about yourself, and also a better and/or expanded person, than you were the year before.

For example, an ENFP (I speak from some personal experience) may demonstrate a tendency to stumble into disasters (often somewhat self-inflicted) that look to certain observers like sorry wastes of time and energy that would better have been avoided, while the ENFP is more likely to take the view that valuable lessons were learned, and she's a better/wiser/stronger person, going forward, than she otherwise would have been.

NOTE: As with a number of MBTI type characteristics, a person's age may muddy the water. It's probably fair to say that, all other things being equal, a 20-year-old of any type is more likely to think of life as a journey of self-discovery in which they'll end up "adding up" to something respectably resembling a "meaningful whole" than they will when they're 30, or 40. So the best gauge for you may involve comparing yourself to your fellow 20-year-olds, rather than comparing yourself to the general population.

An NT spending his spare time learning about something, or learning how to do something, is also engaged in activity that _could_ be referred to as "self-improvement," but an NT is more likely to view what he's doing in impersonal (not "self"-oriented) terms — _i.e._, as expanding his knowledge or repertoire of skills (with the meaningfulness focus being more on the knowledge/skills, rather than on the person).

Looking at the characteristics associated with N, you might think that the term "intellectual" would tend to fit all N's (NTs and NFs both, and especially INTs and INFs) — and it does, to a significant degree — but an INT is significantly more likely than an INF to be someone for whom "intellectual" is one of the first words that would come to mind in describing them.



2. And here's Keirsey (with some editorial kibbitzing from reckful) on NTs and NFs:


* *




Here's a caveat before you read the Keirsey NF descriptions. I'm of the view that, while the four MBTI dimensions are largely independent of each other, if you focus on some of the specific personality traits that they can affect, there are various ways for the influence of one MBTI preference to either reinforce or, on the other hand, mitigate/balance the influence of another. You may have heard it said that ENFPs are the "most introverted" of the extraverts — implying that there are aspects of either N or F or P (or some combination of them) that to some extent cuts against E, causing an ENFP to be (or at least seem) less "extraverted" (in one or more specific respects) than other E's. I think, at least with respect to Keirsey's take on NFs, that it may be fair to say that NFPs are somewhat _more NF_ than NFJs. Although INFJs and ENFPs are in the same group (in terms of Keirsey's four temperaments), my take is that a typical INFJ (the "least NF of the NFs," by reckful's reckoning) is at least as close (if not closer) to a typical INTJ as a typical INFJ is to a typical ENFP.

So am I saying that a typical INFJ isn't likely to identify with Keirsey's NF descriptions, or be just as likely to identify with Keirsey's NT descriptions? No — but I think an INFJ is more likely to read some of Keirsey's NF descriptions (and reckful's as well) and feel like they fit pretty well but maybe feel exaggerated or otherwise a bit off of dead center.

In my NT/NF intro, I noted that it was arguably harder to briefly describe what a quintessential INF was like than a quintessential INT and so, in rounding up Keirsey quotes, I was somewhat amused by the abstruseness of this description: "We encounter a special difficulty in attempting to put into words the nature of the [NF]. Where the [other types] pursue ordinary goals, the goal of the [NF] cannot be seen as other than extraordinary. ... The purposes of SPs, SJs, and NTs are understood by SPs, SJs, and NTs alike, although they may not embrace them. ... None of these understand the aim of the NF, and in turn, the NF cannot really grasp the others' commitment to what seems to the NF to be false goals. For the NF pursues a strange end, a self-reflexive end which defies itself: becoming. ¶ While the SPs, SJs, and NTs can go after their goals straightforwardly and at full throttle, the NF's search for self is circular and thus perpetual: How can one achieve a goal when that goal is to have a goal? The NF's 'truest' self is the self in search of itself, or in other words, his purpose in life is to have a purpose in life. Always becoming himself, the NF can never truly be himself, since the very act of reaching for the self immediately puts it out of reach."

Keirsey says: "Although [NFs] make up only about 12 percent of the general population, ... their influence on the minds of the populace is massive, for most writers come from this group. Novelists, dramatists, television writers, playwrights, journalists, poets, and biographers are almost exclusively NFs. Technical and scientific writers tend to be NTs, but writers who wish to inspire and persuade, who produce literature, most often are NFs. ... The theme of people in restless search of self runs through novel after novel, is voiced by protagonist after protagonist, and is the source of agony in drama after drama. ¶ The search for meaning as a necessary pilgrimage for _all_ people is advanced by the NFs in their writings. Very often the other types ... are troubled by the thought that they _ought_ to be pursuing these values, even if, somehow, the search for meaning and integrity does not beckon to them. This reluctance of 88 percent of the world to join the search for self-actualization is a great source of mystification to the NFs."

Keirsey also points out that, "where the SPs are drawn to the performing arts, the NFs are drawn to the arts which involve verbal and written communication," and he notes that, "more than any other group, NFs can speak and write fluently, often with poetic flair."

Keirsey says: "Whether a guru of Esalen or a teacher in a more traditional setting, the profession of transmitting ideas and attitudes tends to attract NFs. Together the SJs and the NFs make up the bulk of public school teaching faculties. Very few SPs or NTs staff the schools of the nation. If the NTs do go into teaching, they gravitate toward higher education. ... SJs outnumber NFs in the teaching field ... roughly three to two. As their subject matter, the NFs tend to choose the humanities and the social sciences."

Keirsey notes that "NFs ... show little interest in buying and selling or any commercial occupations, nor do they find the physical sciences particularly attractive. They prefer to work with words, and need and want to be directly or indirectly in communication with people." And he also notes that money "is one of the least important things to NFs."

Comparing NTs and NFs, Keirsey says: "Although he is apt to be passionate in his pursuit of a creative effort, the NF can be an intellectual butterfly, flitting from idea to idea, a dilettante in his pursuit of knowledge when compared to an NT."

And: "As with the NT, the NF is future-oriented and focused on what might be. But, rather than thinking about the possibilities of principles as does the NT, the NF thinks about the possibilities of people, 'actualizing the potential' of others and of himself. As with his perception of himself, so it is with the NF's perception of others: Whatever is, is never quite sufficient. The thought that the visible is all there is is untenable for an NF." NFs' "hunger is not centered on _things_ but _people_. They are not content with _abstractions_; they seek _relationships_. Their need does not ground in _action_; it vibrates with _interaction_."

Similarly, Kroeger and Thuesen state that NFs "eat, sleep, think, breathe, move, and love people."

Kroeger and Thuesen also say NFs "are the idealists of life and they tend to serve causes that advance human interests. ... As idealistic do-gooders, NFs articulate and champion various causes."

Moving to the subject of relationships, Keirsey says: "Both the NF female and male respond to their mates with sympathy, tenderness, and frequent, passionate expressions of love, both verbal and nonverbal. ... NFs are not afraid of using poetry, music, and quotations to enhance their courting relationships; the romantic developments in the lives of NFs thrive on receiving these tokens of affection and dedication. NFs have a flair for dramatizing their courtships, making each the perfect love. A storybook flavor permeates their courtship behavior. ... Seeing their identity as mate is a major part of their personality. ... Just as the possible rather than the actual lures NFs in other parts of their lives, so do the possibilities in relationships inspire them. When a relationship is being established, the recipient of the NF's attention is apt to be the center of his world. The pursuit is given almost single-minded attention and no effort is spared in the wooing. ... Both NF males and females are likely to be blind to any flaws in their beloved in the early stages of a romance."

Keirsey also says: "A danger an NF faces in his intimate relationships is that he will move from relationship to relationship rather than making the necessary effort to develop those already existing. The NF's tendency to experience anticipation as more attractive than consummation can cause him to use his energies pursuing the dream at the expense of what is actually available. Once an NF believes that he or she knows all there is to know about another, disinterest sets in; restlessness and a sense of boredom develop. NFs, as do other types, want a certain amount of variety and change in their lives. Other types, however, may seek this through intellectual pursuits, adjustment of living routines, vacations, new activities. The NF is most vulnerable to seeking this through searching out new relationships, more often than not at the expense of deepening those already existing."

reckful here: I would interject that, to the extent that there's a "fickleness" flavor to the preceding paragraph, I think it's somewhat more likely to apply to an ENF and/or NFP (and especially an ENFP) than an INF or ENJ, but I'd agree that it will tend to be true that, for any NF (as compared to an NT), the relationships in her life are likely to be a focus of her restless energies, with the result that she'll generally tend to want to have some kind of development/change going on in the area of people and relationships — although, with luck, it either won't involve her SO or it will involve her relationship with her SO growing and evolving (—cue roll of male INTJ eyes—) in satisfying ways, rather than the replacement of her SO.

Keirsey says "NF children are apt to enjoy 'people' toys, dolls or animals to which they can attach a personality, and these treasured toys become very much a part of the NF's life. ... The NF child is apt to play with all his toys as fantasy objects, just as does the NT, but the NF is more likely to weave stories around them rather than try to understand them."

Comparing the school interests of Keirsey's four main temperament groups, he notes that the SP student "gravitates toward music, drama, art, crafts, mechanics, construction, or anything active, while SJs tend to enroll in clerical or business classes, the NTs in math and science, and the NFs in the humanities and social sciences."

reckful again: I wouldn't make too much of the NT = sciences and NF = humanities thing. I'm strongly T and I was very good at math/science, but I was always drawn more strongly to the humanities. Keirsey himself is an NT and does psychology (obviously). I'm Limbic, as you know, and it may be that, all other things being equal, a Limbic (more emotional) NT is more likely to be drawn to the humanities than a Calm NT — but I'm just speculating. In any case, I think it's better to think of an NT as a "scholar" (and/or "engineer," used broadly) than as a "scientist," if by scientist you mean the hard sciences.



3. And I've decided to tune up (slightly) another old INTJforum post and paste it here rather than link. In the spoiler in this post, I already described what I called "an evolution of the consensus among MBTI theorists over the years about what the T/F preference is really about, from a more Jungian perspective to viewing the essence of T/F more in terms of the F's _people orientation_ — with the latter perspective being substantially more consistent with the Big Five conceptualization of the dimension," and this next spoiler takes issue with the perspective that T/F involves a cognitive _decision-making_ function and the core difference between T's and F's is that T's tend to make decisions using logic and that F's tend to make decisions based on "values" and/or emotions.


* *




A lot of people with some exposure to the MBTI, if asked to describe what T/F is about in 25 words or less, will end up saying something like "T's tend to make decisions based primarily on logic (and/or 'principles' and/or objective consequences), while F's tend to make decisions based on values and/or emotions" — and I think that's a somewhat misleading perspective.

There's no question that — even if I'm right that the essence of T/F is better understood as something else (or, more accurately, several something elses) — there are plenty of real-world decision scenarios where T's and Fs will make different decisions (or the same decision but for different reasons) in such a way that "T=logical/objective and F = values/emotions" ends up being an arguably reasonable sloppy shorthand for what happened. But I think that, overall, using the logic/objective vs. values/emotions frame as the basis of your T/F understanding will often distort what's really going on more than it sheds light on the situation.

As a general rule, T's and Fs both make decisions using logic. It's how people think! Speaking very broadly/schematically, you could say that every significantly involved decision that anybody makes (T or F) is essentially a cost/benefit analysis among possible acceptable outcomes, and that anybody's values, to the extent that the decision-maker has values that are relevant to the decision, are going to be brought to bear both in terms of deciding what acceptable outcomes are — you could say some values are somewhat absolute and trump defeat by cost/benefit means — and deciding what the nature and magnitude of the relevant costs and benefits are.

In one of the INTJforum posts linked to below, I talk about a couple of differences between T's and F's in terms of how they relate to emotions — with F's placing a somewhat higher value on emotions in and of themselves, and also tending to find emotions more meaningful as guides to the truth (to what the relevant facts are, to some degree) and/or to what matters (i.e., to some extent, to what is valuable).

So, to me, the better way to frame "how an F makes decisions" is to think of the F sitting there using logic and weighing values and facts — exactly like the T — but to also understand that, to the extent that there are emotions that relate to the decision in one way or another, they are likely to play a greater role in the F's logical analysis. So, for example, if the issue is whether a daughter should be allowed to go to a summer camp she really wants to go to, an F mother's logical decision-making might differ from the T father's logical decision-making in ways like these:

(1) If, when the family visited the summer camp to check it out, Mom got a vague "bad feeling" about what kind of people ran the camp, she's more likely to trust that that bad feeling meant something, even if she can't explain it. There's really nothing "illogical" about this. She may be wrong about the camp staff or right — T's and F's both often make decisions based on incorrect or misunderstood facts — and she may be wrong about how reliable her vague feelings are as guides to whether she should trust her daughter with somebody. But again, that's another factual error, and reasonable people can disagree about the extent to which you should trust those kinds of feelings as guides to people. (You have to base your decision on something.)

(2) If her daughter will be heartbroken if she can't go to the camp, Mom may consider that heartbreak a more important negative cost to take into consideration than Dad, whose attitude may be more along the lines of everybody has plenty of disappointments to deal with, and it's important for children to learn you can't have everything you want, and a parent's primary responsibility is to teach his kids life lessons, not make sure every day is happy, and so on. There's nothing more or less "logical" about the mother's or father's viewpoints with respect to the relative value of the daughter's short-term emotions. In doing their respective rational cost/benefit analyses, Mom's just treating the daughter's emotional ups and downs as a more important benefit/cost to weigh in the balance.

And so on.

If somebody said Mom made her decision based more on "emotions," you can see how, in some sense, that could seem to be a reasonable shorthand way of looking at the situation.
But, given the way the T/F dimension is often framed — as if T's and F's went about the overall decision-making process using entirely different cognitive functions — it's not hard to imagine someone with an F preference who's trying to figure out their type sitting there thinking, hmm, when there's an important decision to be made, I think I tend to be rational and use logic. I don't think I tend to get carried away by my emotions and let them override my rational thinking — or let some blindly held "value" override a logical analysis. And in a case like that — and I emphatically think that's how the majority of INFJs (and probably INFPs as well) will view their decision-making tendencies — I think the logic/consequences vs. values/emotions way of framing T/F is more likely to mislead somebody (and maybe especially an INF) than help them determine their preference.



4. A-a-a-nd, what the heck, here's a paste from a couple more INTJforum posts, this one on what I see as a noteworthy association between NFs and "New Age" and/or mystical beliefs.


* *




The whole world of stuff that gets lumped under the "New Age" umbrella — in the words of Wikipedia, that "decentralized Western social and spiritual movement that seeks ... the attainment of the highest individual human potential ... [and] includes aspects of astrology, esotericism, metaphysics, alternative medicine, music, collectivism, sustainability, and nature ... [and is also] characterized by an individual approach to spiritual practices and philosophies, and the rejection of religious doctrine and dogma" — tends to be much more N than S, but among N's, it's also fair to say than NFs tend to make up the "New Age" core. At the risk of annoying some of the NFs in the audience, I think it's fair to say that the more _flaky_ any particular New Age practitioner seems, the more likely it is that they're an NF rather than an NT.

The mystical flavor of some N (and especially Ni) descriptions goes all the way back to Jung, who mostly considered the abstract/concrete component of N/S a component of I/E instead, and conceptualized an N preference primarily in terms of a special ability to perceive the contents of the unconscious and to envision, as Jung put it, "possibilities as to whence [something] came and whither it is going." Jung's Ni-dom portrait has a pretty strong _mystical visionary_ aspect that I don't think a typical INTJ (for example) is very likely to identify with.

And it's not uncommon for MBTI tests — both dichotomy tests and functions tests — to include one or more N questions (or Ni or Ne questions) that I suspect an NF or NP is more likely to choose the N response to than an NTJ. I'd say NTJs are the most _grounded_ of the N's in a number of ways, with the result that the N responses are sometimes too mystical/flaky/whatever to appeal to an NTJ.

As one example: One of the most well-known MBTI books is Please Understand Me, by David Keirsey, and it includes a 70-question test to determine your type. The original version of the book included this question:

Are visionaries
(a) somewhat annoying
(b) rather fascinating​
This was supposed to be an S/N question. Response (a) was supposed to appeal to S's, and (b) to N's. But I thought it was a poor question because I'm a really strong N but also a pretty strong TJ and, to me, "visionary" has a spiritual new-agey theories-out-of-thin-air connotation, so I chose (a) annoying. I thought the question was better designed to separate NF's from S's than N's from S's. Well, lo and behold, it looks like quite a few NTs (and maybe especially NTJs) must have had the same problem, because Keirsey adjusted the question for purposes of the later version of the book. In Please Understand Me II, the question now reads:

Do you find visionaries and theorists
(a) somewhat annoying
(b) rather fascinating​
I still think the inclusion of "visionaries" makes it a weak question, but it's better than it was.

As another example: As I've said, I'm an INTJ with what I consider strong T and J preferences, and these Ni items from Nardi's cognitive functions test —


Experience a premonition or foresee the distant future.
Gain a profound realization from a mystical state or sudden release of emotions.
Feel attracted to the symbolic, archetypal, or mysterious.
— have too much of a flaky flavor for me to relate to them very well. To identify with that kind of stuff, I think it helps to be an NF or NP (or both), and it probably also helps to be at least somewhat prone to believe in ESP and/or other supernatural stuff — as Jung was. Jung most often gets typed as an INTJ, INTP or INFJ, and the people who consider him an INFJ sometimes point to his mystical bent as one of the reasons they think he was an NF rather than an NT.

FIRST FINAL NOTE: I should probably clarify that I'm not meaning to suggest that I consider it all that likely that an INFJ will have a significant mystical streak (or identify strongly with those Nardi test items) — and, all other things being equal, I think a typical INFP is more likely to embrace mystical stuff than a typical INFJ. (Again, I see _both_ T and J as, to some degree, "grounding" influences.) But, because I think an INTJ is significantly _less_ likely to relate to stuff with a mystical flavor, I most often point to INTJs when I'm making the point that I don't really think it's appropriate to characterize IN_Js (or NJs) in those terms.

SECOND FINAL NOTE: And just in case I've given you an overly strong impression that T's have a negative reaction to anything New-Agey, let me re-emphasize that, particularly if you're talking about less fringy/flaky New Age ideas and practices (meditation, yoga, eastern philosophy), you're likely to find plenty of NTs with at least a mild interest.



5. Moving (finally) to (what's left of) the INTJforum post roundup...


* *




I went to town in a male INFJ's "type me" thread a couple years ago, reading a heap of his prior posts and doing multiple posts of analysis, many of which are about T/F (and/or INTJ/INFJ specifically), and what follows is a roundup of most of the T/F stuff.

(Note that, if you're not an INTJforum member, links in posts don't work, so I've added a handful of supplemental links in this roundup. And in case looking at the posts makes you think you're missing more than you are, the vast majority of places where a missing link or image is indicated are (a) links to a quoted post where the quote is all you need, and (b) smilies.)


I think F's tend to have a core drive to do things that benefit others — from specific people in their lives (family, friend, clients, etc.) to humanity as a whole, and I talk about that in both sections of this post. The three links in that post that a non-forum member won't be able to view/click are:
The marriage of Mr. T and Mrs. F
Noble sacrifices #1
Noble sacrifices #2

Section 3 of this post talks about a couple of differences in the way T's and F's tend to relate to their emotions, and then launches into my discussion of INFJs and relationships. 
Sections 4 and 5 of that same post have more on INFJs' high expectations in the relationship department, not to mention their attitude toward birthdays.
Section 6 of this post concludes the relationship stuff with a short discussion of INFJs' tendency to stay "emotionally invested" in relationships.
Section 7 of that same post talks about being warm/fuzzy/touchy-feely, and my view that INFJs tend to be less so than most other F's, and that _male_ INFJs tend to be less so than female INFJs.
Section 8 of that same post contrasts IFs and ITs when it comes to sociability.
Section 9 of this post talks about the tendency of F's to be "people raters" — and, perhaps, for FJs to be the consummate producers of negative ratings.
Finally, for anyone who actually makes it to here — and I realize I'm speaking _very_ hypothetically — Persona questions her T *gasp* is a 150-post thread that resulted in the thread subject settling on INFJ as her type (after having considered herself an INTJ for a while). A couple of my posts in that thread are redundant with the previous links, but there were lots of contributors to that thread, and lots of long, interesting (to me, anyway) posts on various T/F issues.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Oh, and I forget to mention... _no rush_ replying to that mountain of stuff. I'm due for a vacation from this thread. :tongue:


----------



## Octavarium (Nov 27, 2012)

@reckful, I hope you don't mind me asking a question. Before I do, though, I should say that if it seems a bit creepy that I keep on popping up to ask questions about your posts, it's only because I'm interested in their content, and you are one of the few people around here who has much of an interest in discussing dichotomies, and who has an MBTI manual. So I am in no way trying to find out personal information about you or otherwise get closer to you than you'd be comfortable with. Just thought I should say that, because there are quite a few things I've been wondering about that the MBTI manual might have answers to, or that you might have some kind of perspective on based on your type-me thread participation.

Anyway, you said this:


reckful said:


> In fact, I think there are reasons to think an INTJ might tend to agonize more about one of those life decisions than other types. For one thing, because of the J's greater drive to have things settled, I'd say it's more important to the average J to feel like whatever decision they ultimately make will turn out to have been the right one. A P is somewhat more likely to be OK with viewing their decision as tentative, and more comfortable with the notion that, oh, well, if Plan A doesn't work out, I can always switch to Plan B and give that a try.


Meanwhile, the "official" step II descriptions from the thread you link to, include this paragraph about the "casual" facet of the P preference:


> People at this pole are comfortable postponing decisions, and often prefer to do so. They may postpone making an important decision until they are satisfied that they have considered it from all angles. For minor decisions, they may simply prefer to let a period of time pass before they make their final decision. When it is time to decide, they make a decision based on all the information that has been brought to their attention. They are able to make a decision before they are ready if circumstances require this, but they may change it if new information becomes available later. *On the other hand, when they have reached a decision after thoroughly weighing the issues involved, they may be quite reluctant to change it later. This is because they have invested so much effort in making the decision the first time.*


That last part seems inconsistent with the paragraph of yours I quoted. I'd rather weigh everything up carefully so that I can then come to a decision that I won't have to change later. It seems that according to you, that would be worth a J point, but according to the MBTI manual it would be worth a P point. So do you disagree with the MBTI manual, or is there something I'm misunderstanding? I'd be inclined to think it would be more of a J thing to want to make a decision you can commit to, but where possible I'd prefer to put off a decision/wait for new information if it means ultimately coming to a decision I won't have to change, and that sounds more like a P thing. For example, as I'm considering various possible careers for myself, I want to gather as much information as possible about each job before I commit to anything, even if that means putting off my final decision, because I don't want to start going down a career path and then discover that I hate it. So where does that fit into J/P?


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Octavarium said:


> @reckful, I hope you don't mind me asking a question. Before I do, though, I should say that if it seems a bit creepy that I keep on popping up to ask questions about your posts, it's only because I'm interested in their content...


I'd say it's pretty unlikely I'm ever going to find your "popping up" to reply to one of my posts "creepy," so no worries. As I recall, one of my first replies to you was a three-post extravaganza in one of your type-me threads in which I confessed to having stalked most of your posts as research — and I don't mind admitting that's pretty typical forum behavior on my part — so I'm hardly in a position to complain about anybody else keeping tabs on my posts.



Octavarium said:


> > On the other hand, when they have reached a decision after thoroughly weighing the issues involved, they may be quite reluctant to change it later. This is because they have invested so much effort in making the decision the first time.
> 
> 
> That last part seems inconsistent with the paragraph of yours I quoted. ...


I agree, and I'd say that last part is also somewhat inconsistent with J/P as typically portrayed in MBTI sources (going all the way back to Myers). On the one hand, it makes logical sense that, if a P's more "open-ended" (as the Step II manual describes it) approach has, in a particular case, caused the P to end up spending umpteen hours (and "so much effort") weighing a decision, that could make them more "reluctant" to change the decision later than they would be if it hadn't been such an effortful process. But, on the other hand, that wouldn't necessarily mean that the P's reluctance to change a decision would be greater than the reluctance that a J would experience _for other reasons_ — namely, for the reason that a J preference causes a J to have a more general preference (not necessarily tied to how much "effort" they spent on a particular decision) — to have things settled and decided, rather than leaving them "open-ended."

It's not uncommon to read in MBTI descriptions that, in their dealings with other people, INFPs tend to be above-average in terms of being agreeable and accommodating — unless and until somebody violates one of their core values, and then... watch out! And I think some people read too much into that, as if the point was that INFPs are real terrors where their values are concerned, when I think the point is more often intended to be that you shouldn't make the mistake of thinking INFPs are _too_ easygoing. And it may be that this is a case where the Step II Manual is noting that, notwithstanding the P's general tendency to be more open-ended and spontaneous and flexible than a J, _sometimes_ that can lead a P who's ended up "thoroughly weighing the issues" to feel like, yikes, I never want to think about that one again.

But... your guess is as good as mine.

I copied that post that you quoted from an INTJforum "Am I INTJ or INTP?" thread where one of the participants had told the OP, "If you make decisions too quickly and are too sure of them, you're probably an INTJ. If you don't make decisions fast enough and doubt them every step of the way, you're probably an INTP." And I think he had it right that INTJs can tend to be "too sure" of their decisions (once made) while INTPs are more likely to keep "doubting" them "every step of the way" — including _after_ their decision has (finally) been made. But I thought (and still think) that he was wrong that it's characteristic of INTJs to make _important_ decisions "too quickly." Like you, it sounds like — and I think we're both pretty strong J's — I have a tendency to agonize over important decisions, in part because I really want them to be final, and also (and the two are related) want them to be _right_. I'd say that, if anything, I'm more likely to _overthink_ an important decision than underthink it.

Then again, maybe our worrywart Limbic streaks are a significant factor here. :tongue:


----------

