# ENTP, INFJ or INTP? redux



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

I have always gotten the T/F split on MBTI, JCF and Socionics tests and I have mistyped as an INFP, an INTP and now I am typed as an INFJ. I've always considered myself to be an introvert and it is extremely interesting that I have scored as every single INXX type possible (including INTJ). but the only extroverted type, I ever get in ENTP. I never seriously considered INTJ as a possibility since I am warm, friendly _albeit_, extremely socially awkward around other people. I know that I value Ti over Te. That's also one of the reasons I rejected INFP as a possibility; I way more rational than emo but since I view myself as "caring"; I'm wondering if I am confusing being very socially awkward with introversion and possibly borderline extroversion? I also view my caring as somewhat unnatural; as I view it as the rational way to be. I see it as _right_, something that is logically sound; as something I _should_ be, as opposed to something I feel is natural. I found the INFP forum too mushy, the INTP forum, too dry but lots of fun and while I like the INFJ forum; I feel that I am not naturally as empathic as most of other INFJs. I _know_ the right thing to do; so I do it but I always feel like I'm putting on an act when I do it.

I also view my communication style as being Nx-Ti-Fe-Sx or Nx-Fe-Ti-Sx as is reflected in the following videos:


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

On a PerC Cognitive Function test, I got INTP, INFJ and ENTP but *that was based on my selecting the introversion option as opposed to the extroversion one*. When I went back to the following page and selected the extroversion option; I got ENTP first.

This is the result of my latest test:



> Based on your cognitive functions, your type is most likely:
> Most Likely: INTP
> or Second Possibility: INFJ
> or Third Possibility: ENTP
> ...



It appears that approximately 80% of people who took the following test in the Personality Test resources forum, claim that it is highly accurate.

http://personalitycafe.com/personality-test-resources/163699-johns-personality-test-25-questions-2.html

I have scored as an ENTP every single time I take it. 


*Test scores*

Take #1

*41% entp* 
30% intp 
9% infp 
3% enfp 
3% entj


Test retake:

*33% ENTP* 
27% INTP 
12% INFP 
9% INTJ 
4% INFJ 


Take #3

*34% ENTP*
20% INFP 
20% INTP 
8% INTJ 
7% INFJ


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

I am good at understanding other people's feeling but often have no clue what _I'm_ feeling. I usually know the _right_ thing to do in social situations but don't often actually "feel" anything when I do it. I almost always feel somewhat detached form other people and the external world.


----------



## LadyO.W.BernieBro (Sep 4, 2010)

Eerily similar.

Sometimes, l just feel like an aimless vessel with reasonably good social skills :laughing:

l think my attitude toward most groups l find myself around is a large part of what caused me to be at least be seen as an extrovert...by way of associating with extroverts and doing what they do.

But then, l'm not sure at what point one really experiences themselves as being what they are. l could be a slightly detached, obvious extrovert.

l think l'm forced to rely on Fe more than l naturally would, because all that l seem to do with Ti is introspect and aside from discussing thoughts and ideas that l've already developed, it's not much for friendly interaction.

lt could be why Fe feels ''fake'' to me, although l'm sure l engage it more naturally than l realize and just can't understand what kind of effort someone who doesn't value it would have to exert.

So, that was was meant to illustrate that your situation may be similar rather than tell my life story 

l do have one old friend who is INFJ, it's like she really wants to maintain relationships (and does) but l still seem to actually ''look'' like an extrovert next to her. She would laugh out loud if l suggested l was INFJ too, she just has that very natural introvert presence which you may be describing.

Of the introverts l've known, the Ni dominants would see me as being more obviously extroverted. How do you view extroverts in your life?

lf l asked them (and l wouldn't have to since l can already tell how they regarded me), they would simply say l'm not ''obnoxious'', but am no doubt an extrovert. INP types seem to recognize a middle ground.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

OMG WTF BRO said:


> Eerily similar.
> 
> *Sometimes, l just feel like an aimless vessel with reasonably good social skills* :laughing:
> 
> ...


Yes, I do have reasonably good social skills, particularly one on one; not so much in groups. I find most groups to be way too stressful for me. Yes, while I'm good at Fe; it never really seems natural to me. I am very uncomfortable talking about my own feelings - assuming, I even _know_ what they actually _are_ at any given time but I am amazing at identifying _other_ people's emotions. I always know what someone _else_ is feeling. I think that I come across as an extrovert in public but it's a _skill_; that I've perfected throughout the years. I used to be really quiet and shy as a child but I _consciously_ developed an extroverted exterior to counteract the relentless bullying that was omnipresent. 

But this is the thing: while I _do_ sometimes experience strong feelings; I feel completely _detached_ from them and other people, most of the time. When I am friendly to people, I am extremely _convincing_ because I really do in fact _mean_ it; I just don't feel _anything_ inside me when I'm doing that. Sometimes I feel like a mechanical _robot_ just going through the motions. Do you ever feel like that? I want to make it crystal clear that what I am describing isn't anything like apathy. I am very passionate and enthusiastic about pretty much everything in life. I just don't seem to have any feelings unless I am reacting to something in the environment, because my default _modus operandi_, is to be completely detached from my emotions. I can act very emotional without actually feeling anything. Does that make any sense at all to anyone or am I just some kind of freak?


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

I suspect your current INFJ label is probably correct, but that's pretty much just based on your posts in this thread (and your profile).

Feel free to ignore this suggestion, but I'd be curious to see your results — including the percentage scores — on the two tests I link to in this post (which include the official "Step I" MBTI).


----------



## Becker (Oct 19, 2013)

The fact that you're rationalizing your feelings, discerning if they're natural or not instead of "understanding" them makes you a rational, logical thinker. You're also overanalyzing this concept in a way so you can go according to your "ideals," an intuitive thing.

So if you're undecided in every aspect of your personality, go through this checklist.

Extrovert vs Introvert: Do you prefer to spend time with people or alone? Do you prefer your rich inner world of feelings and ideas or the outer world of people and solving life's problems?

Sensing vs Intuitive: Do you readily see the world for what it is or has been, or what it could/should/would be?

Thinking vs Feeling: Do you, key word: "naturally," find interest in the social aspects of life such as caring for others, or do you find interest in solving problems with rational ideas/conventional ways?

Perceiving vs Judging: Are you laid back and easy-going or strict and rule following? Do you live in a world of structure and organization or would you rather take in information to structure and organize your mind?


----------



## LadyO.W.BernieBro (Sep 4, 2010)

TreasureTower said:


> Yes, I do have reasonably good social skills, particularly one on one; not so much in groups. I find most groups to be way too stressful for me. Yes, while I'm good at Fe; it never really seems natural to me. I am very uncomfortable talking about my own feelings - assuming, I even _know_ what they actually _are_ at any given time but I am amazing at identifying _other_ people's emotions. I always know what someone _else_ is feeling. I think that I come across as an extrovert in public but it's a _skill_; that I've perfected throughout the years. I used to be really quiet and shy as a child but I _consciously_ developed an extroverted exterior to counteract the relentless bullying that was omnipresent.
> 
> But this is the thing: while I _do_ sometimes experience strong feelings; I feel completely _detached_ from them and other people, most of the time. When I am friendly to people, I am extremely _convincing_ because I really do in fact _mean_ it; I just don't feel _anything_ inside me when I'm doing that. Sometimes I feel like a mechanical _robot_ just going through the motions. Do you ever feel like that? I want to make it crystal clear that what I am describing isn't anything like apathy. I am very passionate and enthusiastic about pretty much everything in life. I just don't seem to have any feelings unless I am reacting to something in the environment, because my default _modus operandi_, is to be completely detached from my emotions. I can act very emotional without actually feeling anything. Does that make any sense at all to anyone or am I just some kind of freak?


Ehhh, l'm not able to fake it as easily as some people but more easily than many thinking types.

l don't have trouble expressing emotions that are inconsequential or just mimicking what people around me are doing for the sake of it.

l'm not sure which direction it points in, as both FJ and TP types can be excellent actors. 

l_ can_ tell when a person is ''Fe trolling'' as it were,showing intense emotion that they don't really feel. l find that ISTP or INTP may be least likely to see through this, as types that value Fe but don't have it high enough in the function stack to always make the most use of it or can be easily blinded by it.

Sometimes ENTP will also fail to recognize it, but generally we could do the same thing if we wanted to so we understand that there's a possibility the other person may not be sincere(same with ESTP).


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

reckful said:


> I suspect your current INFJ label is probably correct, but that's pretty much just based on your posts in this thread (and your profile).
> 
> Feel free to ignore this suggestion, but I'd be curious to see your results — including the percentage scores — on the two tests I link to in this post (which include the official "Step I" MBTI).


Well, on the first one, I got INTJ and the description of that doesn't fit me at all. I am way too caring to be that. Te isn't really my strongest suit: A typical comment on my university essays was: "Excellent ideas, could be better organized".



> INTJ
> INTJ: Have original minds and great drive for implementing their ideas and achieving their goals. Quickly see patterns in external events and develop long-range explanatory perspectives. When committed, organize a job and carry it through. Skeptical and independent, have high standards of competence and performance - for themselves and others.
> Dominant function: Introverted Intuition.
> Auxiliary function: Extraverted Thinking.
> ...





> Big Five Test Results
> 
> 
> Extroversion |||||||||||||| 58%
> ...


Is SLUEI=ENTP? I'm not surprised; I usually score borderline E or I on these type of tests. I preferred the 2nd test. On the 3dPsyche, I usually get INFJ.



TreasureTower said:


> ExistentialExistencial | 3D Psyche
> 
> 
> Existential State
> ...


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

Becker said:


> *The fact that you're rationalizing your feelings, discerning if they're natural or not instead of "understanding" them makes you a rational, logical thinker*. You're also overanalyzing this concept in a way so you can go according to your "ideals," an intuitive thing.


Hmmm . . . interesting. How does N differ from T? When I was in a therapy group once, the facilitator got mad at me for "intellectualizing" my feelings and to this day; I'm still not really sure what she meant. Yeah, intuition is the one thing I have no confusion about.



Becker said:


> So if you're undecided in every aspect of your personality, go through this checklist.
> 
> Extrovert vs Introvert: Do you prefer to spend time with people or alone? Do you prefer your rich inner world of feelings and ideas or the outer world of people and solving life's problems?
> 
> ...


Introvert (but I do sometimes like to hang out with my friends), Intuitive, I relate equally to both T and F. (I'm thinking of pursuing careers in web design and therapy. I guess I live in a world of ideas, so; I love coming up with new ideas but I do love art and want to make the world, a better place). Again, I relate to both J and P. I dislike structure but I don't get anything done unless I plan for it. I value creativity very highly.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

OMG WTF BRO said:


> Ehhh, l'm not able to fake it as easily as some people but more easily than many thinking types.
> 
> l don't have trouble expressing emotions that are inconsequential or just mimicking what people around me are doing for the sake of it.
> 
> ...


I don't actually "fake" my expression of emotion, in the sense that it isn't manipulative or calculated. It's more like a skill that I've perfected over the years; kind of like riding a bike. I'm very good at it because I've been learning how to master it from a very young age; so in that sense; I guess it does come "naturally" to me but I feel completely detached from my feelings. It's odd because no one who knows me would ever believe this, because I can be dramatic and emotionally expressive without actually feeling anything inside.

Yeah, I totally relate to that. I often can't tell if _I'm_ sincere half the time but I can always tell if other people are. I am extremely good at reading them. I have this bizarre relationship with Fe. I don't really "feel" it but it can become highly addictive. I almost view it as an art form. I can be highly empathic in an intellectual sense. I know what other people are feeling and what they need. It could be because I live in a world of idea,s as opposed to feelings and those ideas are the _only_ things that are _real_ to me. Well, based on your post; I guess we can safely rule out INTP as an option then - unless there exists such a thing as an extremely empathic INTP. LOL. I connect to other people the easiest, either through interest in similar ideas or humour.


----------



## Becker (Oct 19, 2013)

TreasureTower said:


> Hmmm . . . interesting. How does N differ from T? When I was in a therapy group once, the facilitator got mad at me for "intellectualizing" my feelings and to this day; I'm still not really sure what she meant. Yeah, intuition is the one thing I have no confusion about.


N has nothing to do with T, you're either a sensor/intuitive or a feeler/thinker. Your facilitator was probably a feeler and unable to intellectualize, which was why she got mad.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Becker said:


> N has nothing to do with T, you're either a sensor/intuitive or a feeler/thinker. Your facilitator was probably a feeler and unable to intellectualize, which was why she got mad.


Bad stereotype. If anything, feelers are the _best_ at intellectualizing emotions, because it is their dominant function, and they are thus also the best at logically expressing their feelings in this manner. A thinker however, who represses feeling in this way, might get angry at someone else not fulfilling the logical expectations (both thinking and feeling are logical but deal with logic differently) they have on others.

With that said, I doubt the example has nothing to do with thinking or feeling in the end, but probably more with personal issues from the mediator. People sometimes ascribe way too much to functions.


----------



## Becker (Oct 19, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> Bad stereotype. If anything, feelers are the _best_ at intellectualizing emotions, because it is their dominant function, and they are thus also the best at logically expressing their feelings in this manner. A thinker however, who represses feeling in this way, might get angry at someone else not fulfilling the logical expectations (both thinking and feeling are logical but deal with logic differently) they have on others.
> 
> With that said, I doubt the example has nothing to do with thinking or feeling in the end, but probably more with personal issues from the mediator. People sometimes ascribe way too much to functions.


It's a problem a lot of people have, they repress their emotions and take them out on others. Mostly because things don't go their way or they're irrational, blowing things out of proportion.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

TreasureTower said:


> Well, on the first one, I got INTJ and the description of that doesn't fit me at all. I am way too caring to be that. Te isn't really my strongest suit: A typical comment on my university essays was: "Excellent ideas, could be better organized".
> ...
> E 5	16 I
> S 2	24 N
> ...


I'm involved in a few too many type-me threads at the moment (not just at PerC), but I'll be back to this one at some point in the near future. I suspect I'll end up browsing some of your posts from other threads as well.

For the moment...

You scored INTJ on the official MBTI, and the only borderline score was the J, but...

On T/F, 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 I think that's probably more true of female INFs than male INFs. 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 INF women (and maybe especially 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).

On the Big Five test, as you noted, you scored as a Limbic (and quite strongly Limbic) ENTP, but your E and T scores were both in what I'd call the borderline (40%-60%) range.

That strong Big Five P-equivalent score surprised me, and it's moved me to being more of a fence-sitter on your J/P preference. If you're interested in quite a lot of input from me on J/P, you'll find it here.

I'd say there's no reason to doubt your N, and I'm still leaning pretty strongly I. And maybe it's fair to say I still have a _mild_ F lean and an even milder J lean.

If you want a boatload of input from me on your T/F preference, you'll find it in the posts linked to at the bottom of this one (all from Snowable's type-me thread).

The first linked post includes roundups of online profiles for the four IN types. If you're interested, one possible way you could give prospective type-me contributors more information to go on is to read through some profiles of the two (or three) types you consider the most likely and post about anything in them that provokes a notably strong "that's me" or "that's not me" reaction.

Alternatively (or in addition), if there are any posts you can think of in your PerC history (questionnaire posts or whatever) that include a particularly large quantity of self-description/analysis, you might think about linking to one or more of them in this thread.

If you look at the spoiler in the second linked post, you'll see that, consistent with your sense of being somewhat "detached" from your feelings, that post briefly addresses what I see as a tendency for INFJs (especially) to feel like they're more emotionally detached (less warm and "touchy-feely") than they think INFJs are supposed to be — what with their "Fe-aux" and all. Since I didn't note it in that post, I'll note here that Jung went on and on about what he viewed as _all_ introverts' fraught relationship with their emotional side. "Both [extraverts and introverts] are capable of _enthusiasm_," he explained. "What fills the extravert's heart flows out of his mouth, but the enthusiasm of the introvert is the very thing that seals his lips."

The third and fourth listed posts (especially) have a lot of T/F input (and links to even more) — and you should _not_, under any circumstances, feel the slightest obligation to follow any of my links or otherwise pay any attention to anything in this post beyond what you're otherwise inclined to do for your own selfish reasons. (I'm a hardcore T, myself.)


one
two (just the spoiler)
three
four


----------



## LadyO.W.BernieBro (Sep 4, 2010)

TreasureTower said:


> I don't actually "fake" my expression of emotion, in the sense that it isn't manipulative or calculated. It's more like a skill that I've perfected over the years; kind of like riding a bike. I'm very good at it because I've been learning how to master it from a very young age; so in that sense; I guess it does come "naturally" to me but I feel completely detached from my feelings. It's odd because no one who knows me would ever believe this, because I can be dramatic and emotionally expressive without actually feeling anything inside.
> 
> Yeah, I totally relate to that. I often can't tell if _I'm_ sincere half the time but I can always tell if other people are. I am extremely good at reading them. I have this bizarre relationship with Fe. I don't really "feel" it but it can become highly addictive. I almost view it as an art form. I can be highly empathic in an intellectual sense. I know what other people are feeling and what they need. It could be because I live in a world of idea,s as opposed to feelings and those ideas are the _only_ things that are _real_ to me. Well, based on your post; I guess we can safely rule out INTP as an option then - unless there exists such a thing as an extremely empathic INTP. LOL. I connect to other people the easiest, either through interest in similar ideas or humour.


l get you.

Some individuals of questionable integrity will use the skill for emotional manipulation. Since l can see how easily l could and know that l still manage not to, l do trust that there are other people who easily could and choose not to also.

l think people tend to resort to nefarious purposes when they feel disadvantaged or intimated; usually unbalanced and not able to interact with thinking types well.

lt's sometimes mentioned here that a feeling type may not ''feel'' like they're feeling, and a thinker doesn't really ''feel'' like they're thinking either, but many thinkers will definitely feel what they're feeling very intensely.
lf you can't recognize either mode as requiring more effort, you're probably pretty balanced, like many INFJ's tend to be :kitteh:


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

reckful said:


> I'm involved in a few too many type-me threads at the moment (not just at PerC), but I'll be back to this one at some point in the near future. I suspect I'll end up browsing some of your posts from other threads as well.
> 
> For the moment...
> 
> ...





> 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.


Yeah, I agree with this.
I just took another test from one of the links you gave me and once again got: INTJ. LOL.



> The Robinson-Shur Type Assessment (RSTA) suggests that your 4 letter personality type is:
> 
> INTJ


Then I took it again and got:



> The Robinson-Shur Type Assessment (RSTA) suggests that your 4 letter personality type is:
> 
> INFJ


In Keys to Cognition, I usually get INFP but I really consider the 3D Psyche test to be the most accurate. I am both perceptive and judging oriented. It really depends on what aspects of it are being asked. While I am disorganized, messy and frequently late. I am not at all spontaneous and need to plan things first. I get really stressed out by change and have difficulty being adaptable.


*Links*


* *




http://personalitycafe.com/whats-my-socionics-type/161623-i-thought-i-give-questionaire-whirl-so-please-give-me-your-suggestions.html

http://personalitycafe.com/infj-forum-protectors/159881-am-i-infj-intp.html

http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/151459-ti-vs-ni.html

http://personalitycafe.com/socionics-forum/164141-iei-atypical-eii-lii-can-subtypes-clarify-disparities-type.html

http://personalitycafe.com/socionics-forum/166014-ile-lii-iei.html

http://personalitycafe.com/type-5-forum-investigator/149455-self-observation-compulsion-how-do-you-stop.html

http://personalitycafe.com/type-5-forum-investigator/152932-ambivalent-new-friends-relationships-do-you-scare-easily.html

The Narcissistic parent and romantic relationship





http://www.keirsey.com/sorter/personal_page.aspx



> Your KTS-II History: Retake the KTS-II
> 
> Name Date Temperament & Type
> TreasureTower Oct 28, 2013 Idealist Counselor (INFJ)



http://www.teamtechnology.co.uk/report/online/

INFP
73%
INFJ
71%
INTJ
68%
INTP
66%
ISFP
66%
ENFP
62%
ISTP
60%
ENTP
58%
ISFJ
58%
ENFJ
56%


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

@TreasureTower —

Thanks for rounding up those links!

I'm in the middle of a few too many things at the moment, but I wanted to check in and let you know that following up on this thread is on my "to do" list.


----------



## Van Meter (Sep 28, 2012)

I would bet money that you're Infj, 50$. I'm not overly emotional or gooey. I originally scored Intj on an official paper test, but eventually I knew that it wasn't correct. I identified with the type description maybe 60-70%? Shortly after reading around the net, I knew that I was Infj, which can also be a heavily intellectual and seemingly a thinking type. I also identify in what you said about going to the Infj forum, I don't really enjoy that very much, because its just an Fe festival, which is merely an expressive function and not what Infjs are really made of. Infj is Ni.

Also, hopefully I don't offend anyone, but Infjs are majority female, who without a doubt, tend to use more emotion by nature, whereas men use more logic and are typically dryer. So I'm saying that maybe that may contribute to why you may not identify with some Infj, even if you are female. That's just not the right way to look for your type, you're better off reading or watching some really good breakdowns of what an Infj is, don't look to other Infj examples as it can make you even more confused.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

reckful said:


> @TreasureTower —
> 
> Thanks for rounding up those links!
> 
> I'm in the middle of a few too many things at the moment, but I wanted to check in and let you know that following up on this thread is on my "to do" list.


ExistentialExistencial | 3D Psyche


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

[1 of 8]

_Nam Myoho Renge Kyo
Nam Myoho Renge Kyo
Nam Myoho Renge Kyo
Nam Myoho Renge Kyo_

*ding!*


* *




INfP



Having now read a boatload of your PerC posts, I think @Teybo was not only right about your P, but also right to suggest that you aren't particularly close to the borderline in that respect. You seem like a pretty clear IN_P to me.

If you've looked at the T/F posts I linked you to, you know I think T/F is the messiest of the four MBTI dimensions, and that I typically get what I call "mixed signals" when I'm dealing with T women — including, more often than not, characteristics that, _if the subject was male_, I'd be pretty strongly inclined to take as F indicators.

So... I have to say I'm significantly more _open to the possibility_ that you're an INtP than I am to the possibility that you're an E, S or J. But I also think that, assuming the T/F dimension isn't such a jumble that it's misguided to expect that many people (at least) will be located on more or less the same position on the "T/F spectrum" with respect to most of T/F's "facets" (whatever they all may be), then it's fair to say I have a significant F lean in your case.

Apologies for the first-draftiness and disorganization of some of what follows — the topic headings make it look somewhat more organized than it is — but, as you know, I'm way overdue to get this posted (not to mention being more or less equally behind on type-me posts for several other people). To the extent that you're inclined to post responses (which I'd certainly encourage), feel free to _take your time_, partly just on general principle but partly because it's likely to be a little while before I'm in a position to get back to this thread.

*Dichotomies vs. functions*


* *




As you may already know from other PerC posts (like this one), I'm pretty much a "dichotomies guy" when it comes to the MBTI, and I think your type-me history is a pretty good example of how someone can be steered off course by cognitive functions framings.

As noted in that linked post, Isabel Myers was a strong believer in the notion that there are many noteworthy aspects of personality associated with various preference _combinations_ — e.g., things that NTs and SJs tend to have in common. And there's unquestionably a lot of overlap between what a typical dichotomy-centric analysis is likely to tell an ISTJ about what they're like and what a typical function-centric analysis is likely to tell that same person. And if the dichotomy-centric analysis says "X, Y and Z are characteristics that I_SJ's tend to have in common" and the function-centric analysis says "X, Y and Z are characteristics that Si-doms tend to have in common," what's the difference, right?

But there are, in fact, some pretty substantial differences between what a dichotomy-centric framework will lead you to expect and what a function-centric framework will lead you to expect, and one good example is the difference between the J and P versions of each type — e.g., the differences between INTJs and INTPs. If you've spent much time on MBTI-related forums, you've probably heard at least one poster claim that it's all but impossible to be in the middle on J/P because, ZOMG, moving from J to P _flips all your functions_. Here's one from INTJforum:



> The differences between INTJ and INTP couldn't be greater. ...
> 
> People who try to figure out if they're INTJ or INTP don't know the first thing about typology. The two types are so different, I don't even see how anyone can think they are one or the other. INTJ: Ni, Te, Fi Se; INTP: Ti, Ne, Si, Fe. It's completely fuckin' different!


Well... for starters, it's worth noting that Jung spent far more of Psychological Types describing the things he thought _all introverts_ and _all extraverts_ had in common than he did describing all eight of the functions put together — and, in the Foreword to a late edition of the book, he explained that he'd stuck the function descriptions at the back (in Chapter X) for a reason. So Jung thought an INTJ and an INTP would have quite a lot in common simply because they were both introverts, never mind their shared N and T preferences. And Jung also said that more people were essentially in the middle on E/I than were significantly extraverted or introverted — so, as fundamental as Jung thought E/I was, he certainly didn't share that quoted poster's inclination to insist that, if a preference was fundamental to his typology, _everybody had to have a preference_.

As further discussed in this post, if you focus too exclusively on the eight "cognitive functions" — many of which, in the forms typically discussed on internet forums, are not particularly Jungian — and you lose sight of the things that introverts, N's, F's, NFs, and etc. have in common, you're making a mistake that's pretty much only found in forum posts and other dubious internet sources. It's a perspective that's inconsistent with Jung, inconsistent with Myers, and inconsistent with all the respectable MBTI sources, including authors — like Berens and Thomson — whose work is more function-centric than dichotomy-centric.

As already noted, if you subscribe to the functions model most commonly encountered on MBTI forums, switching a person's J to P purportedly flips each of their "top four" cognitive functions to the opposite attitude — so an Ni-Te-Fi-Se (INTJ) turns into a Ti-Ne-Si-Fe (INTP). Someone whose MBTI analysis revolves more around the four dichotomies (and dichotomy combinations) than the functions is likely to expect INTJs and INTPs to be quite similar, since they'll tend to share all the characteristics that introverts have in common, N's have in common, T's have in common, NTs have in common, and so on. By contrast, if your analysis revolves mostly around the functions, you're more likely to expect INTJs and INTPs to be (as that INTJforum poster put it) "completely fuckin' different!"

Alas for those with the latter perspective, there are some real-world facts that call that perspective into question. First, as I understand it, there's now a fair amount of data — both MBTI data and data with respect to the corresponding Big Five dimension — that suggests that J/P is a continuous personality dimension that exhibits something like a normal distribution, with most people not that far from the middle. Since Jung thought middleness was common on (at least) the E/I dimension, I suspect that data might not have surprised him — assuming he'd ended up accepting Myers' adjustments to his type categories.

And second, "Am I INTJ or INTP?" is the most common dilemma encountered in type-me threads at INTJforum — and _by a pretty wide margin_. If INTJs and INTPs are anything like _opposites_, how could that be? Why is there this endless parade of people who have _read up on the MBTI (including the functions)_, and read INTJ and INTP profiles, and ended up concluding (1) that they relate better to INTJ and INTP descriptions than any other types, and (2) that they relate pretty much equally well to INTJ and INTP?

For several months now, over the course of several type-me threads, you've been considering INFJ and INTP your top two candidates. And I'm here to tell you that, from my dichotomy-centric perspective — which I respectfully submit is a more _reality-based_ perspective than the alternative — having INFJ and INTP be anybody's top two doesn't make a lot of sense. Why? Because INFJs and INTJs are pretty close cousins and INFJs and INFPs are — oh, yes, they are, dammit — pretty close cousins, and INFJs and INTPs are _more distant cousins_. Although it's not quite this simple, it's _mostly_ fair to say that INFJs and INTPs differ from each other in most of the ways that INFJs and INTJs differ _and_ in most of the ways that INFJs and INFPs differ. So... it makes no sense to have INFJ and INTP on your short list and not have INFP on your short list, based on the dubious notion that INFJs and INTPs are "Ti-Fe types" and accordingly have things in common (taking into account their _lower functions_) that neither shares with either INFPs or INTJs.

But wait! There's more! One thing we know for sure is that you're an IN, so the four IN types are truly the only contenders. And what's the _one_ IN type you've pretty much always been the most sure you're _not_. That's right: INTJ. And I'm pretty darn sure you're not an INTJ either, so we at least agree on that. But the point is, if I'm right about how dichotomy-flips and close-cousinships interact, and if we know somebody's an IN, and if the one IN type they're the most sure they're _not_ is INTJ, then what does that suggest their likeliest type is? The IN type that's the least like the INTJ, right? And which one is that? _Hint_: it's not INTP.

I already mentioned that there are about a bazillion "Am I INTJ or INTP" type-me threads at INTJforum. You know what the next most common dilemma is? That's right! "Am I INTJ or INFJ?" And that's pretty common, too. By contrast, "Am I INTJ or INFP?" is a rarity. Because dichotomies.

A number of your posts have indicated that you relate to the great majority of the stuff you read in INFJ profiles, but that you _don't_ relate to most of the stuff in INFP profiles — and I don't think that makes much sense, in light of the fact that there's a tremendous amount of overlap between the two. I think that, like INTJs and INTPs, INFJs and INFPs are probably more like each other, on average, than either is to any other type.



*INs*


* *




I'd say the particular spin on the MBTI that Keirsey's most famous for is his view that splitting Myers' 16 types into NFs, NTs, SJs and SPs creates four sub-groups that each have characteristics in common (and differ from the other three groups) to an extent that significantly exceeds any other two-letter groupings. And I think he has a lot of interesting things to say about each of those sub-groups, but I also think he stresses that particular foursome too much, at the expense of the things that INs and NJs and STs and etc. have in common. But in any case, Keirsey never said there weren't interesting things that could be said about the other combinations — and, for what it's worth, Myers' preferred foursome was NT, NF, ST and SF.

As for me, although I agree that I have some significant things in common with my fellow NTs, I've increasingly come around to the view that, if I had to pick a group of four MBTI types to really be my "kindred spirits" group, it would be the INs rather than the NTs. And, consistent with that perspective, and for what it's worth, here are June 2013 membership stats for PerC (as posted by @Teybo):

INFP	3723	0.21
INFJ	2580	0.15
INTP	2228	0.13
INTJ	1876	0.11
ENFP	1352	0.08
ENTP	1112	0.06
ENFJ	514	0.03
ISTP	527	0.03
ISFP	506	0.03
ISTJ	437	0.02
ENTJ	401	0.02
ISFJ	314	0.02
ESTP	159	0.01
ESFJ	102	0.01
ESFP	117	0.01
ESTJ	97	0.01

And here are the type membership percentages at Typology Central as of August 2012:

INTP 17
INFP 17
INFJ 16
INTJ 12
ENFP 10
ENTP 8
ISTP 4
ENFJ 3
ENTJ 3
ISFP 3
ISTJ 2
ISFJ 1
ESTP 1
ESFP 1
ESTJ 1
ESFJ 1

And here someone may object: But, reckful, come on. Everybody knows that INs are the folks who freaking _live on the internet_, so the fact that there are a lot more of them on any particular website may not say as much as you might otherwise think about their greater affinity for the theme of that website. And to that I'd respond: There may well be _something_ to your objection, but you might want to ponder whether the fact that INs are the folks who _live on the internet_ might also be another piece of strong evidence in favor of viewing IN as a very significant type group.

I've often said that the four IN types are the types best characterized as the "born students." They're the types most likely to be found learning something for the sheer joy of learning, and the types most likely to begin their response to "What do you hope to accomplish in your life?" by saying (to quote a female PerC INTJ), "I want to learn as much as I can."

The MBTI Manual calls INs the "thoughtful innovators" and says they "are introspective and scholarly. They are interested in knowledge for its own sake, as well as ideas, theory, and depth of understanding. They are the least practical of the types." In Type Talk, Kroeger & Thuesen note that INs "would rather speculate as to why Rome is burning than actually fight the fire. They are speculative, reflective, introspective, conceptual, and highly abstract in orientation."

I'd say INs are the nerds. INs are the folks who tend to be the most serious about the world of literature and philosophy and the arts, and to take one or more divisions of pop culture _seriously._ The INs' church is the library. As already noted, the INs are the folks most likely to more or less live on the internet, and to fail to see much of a significant distinction between the internet and so-called "real life." INs are the most independent thinkers, and the most likely to define themselves strongly on the basis of their independent perspectives. (Not "special snowflake" unique, necessarily, but independently arrived at, and often more minority/subcultural than culturally mainstream.)

As previously noted, one of the reasons you've been thinking you're probably INFJ or INTP rather than INFP is that you relate to "Ti" but don't much relate to "Te" — but, notwithstanding the most popular cognitive functions model, the fact is that most INs, partly for the reasons I've just described (their highly _analytical_ natures), tend to feel like they relate pretty well to substantial parts of typical Ti descriptions. As one collection of evidence, and as further discussed in this post, INTJs are supposed to be "Te types" but there's a 350-post thread at INTJforum that shows that, when INTJs take Nardi's keys2cognition functions test, they get high Te scores _and high Ti scores_ — and Te isn't substantially favored over Ti.

And as for INFPs being "Te types"... Well, first of all, it's supposed to be their _inferior_ function, right? And second, given that modern Te descriptions are dominated by things that MBTI TJs (and especially E_TJs) tend to have in common, what right-thinking, dichotomy-oriented person would expect a typical INFP to relate well to Te?

And speaking of dichotomies, and as already noted, I actually think your preference is clear on _three_ of the four dichotomies, and the third (J/P) is my next topic.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

[2 of 8]

*J/P stuff*


* *






TreasureTower said:


> I also don't put much stock into the whole J/P thing anyways; as it is just something Myers threw into the MBTI, in order to squeeze out a cookie cutter type. J/P has nothing whatsoever to do with Jung. I am far more interested in the cognitive functions.


As I note at the start of the long J/P post I previously linked you to, J vs. P — contrary to what you sometimes hear from forumites who overemphasize (at the least) the functions at the expense of the dichotomies — is _not_ only about whether the (purported) extraverted function in your top two is a judging function (T or F) or a perceiving function (S or N). Myers emphasized that J/P also deserved to be viewed as a _separate dimension of personality_ — and the chapter in Gifts Differing about the "Effect of the JP Preference" is actually the longest of the four chapters devoted to the dichotomies.

The official MBTI types you J or P based on certain personality characteristics common to J's and P's, rather than by making any determination about the attitude of one of your "cognitive functions;" — and, as further discussed in that linked post, it appears that the J/P dimension is essentially tapping into the Big Five _Conscientiousness_ dimension. And both versions of that dimension of human personality now have decades of data supporting their validity — including studies that show that identical twins _raised in separate households_ are substantially more likely to match on that dimension than less genetically similar pairs.

And when it comes to straight-up J vs. P stuff, you sound substantially more like a P than a J to me — which is consistent with the fact that your P-equivalent score (30%) on that SLOAN (Big Five) test was your second-most-definite score. I suspect the fact that your official MBTI score was more mixed (and mildly J) may have reflected the fact that, although you're a P at the gut (temperament) level, you have what you might call "J aspirations."

I'm currently involved in @greylee's type-me thread, as you know, and she also came out P (albeit more borderline P) on the SLOAN test and J (but "moderate" J, as compared to your "slight" J) on the official MBTI, and she offered this explanation for the difference:



greylee said:


> I think the different results for J/P have to do with the questions asked. The MBTI test asked me whether I like to schedule things and whether I like to be organized, while the Big Five test asked me if I am actually organized.


And, as I said to her:

I often describe the MBTI preferences — at least in terms of many of their aspects — as "temperament tugs." In cases where you're conflicted and one side of the conflict is more the "gut level" or "natural inclination" you and the other side is a more rational/calculating side of you that, to some degree, wants to rein in (or thinks you _should_ rein in) your more natural inclinations for the sake of external results or for any other reason, your MBTI preference is more likely to correspond to the "natural inclination." In describing the right frame of mind for taking the official MBTI, the MBTI Manual explains:



 MBTI Manual said:


> Some people have trouble finding the correct frame of mind for answering the MBTI. When reporting the results to some people, they say they reported their "work self," "school self," "ideal self," or some other self they now consider atypical. The frame of reference desired in respondents is what has been termed the "shoes-off self." The "shoes-off self" fosters an attitude in which one functions naturally, smoothly, and effortlessly, and in which one is not going "against one's grain." The function of the MBTI is to provide the first step toward understanding one's natural preferences.


I think J/P is a dichotomy where it's common for people on either side to somewhat wish for a bit more of what's on the other side. Talking to a J woman who aspires to be more of a P (and considers herself closer to the middle than I think she is) and who had recently been reading The Tao of Pooh, I pointed out that it's J's that have to read books to teach themselves to go with the flow. P's read books about how to get some damn discipline and organization into their lives. The going-with-the-flow bit comes naturally to them. 

Going all the way back to the MBTI's roots, Jung viewed temperament as, to a substantial degree, the source of people's _crazinesses and difficulties_ as much as their strengths. To some degree it makes sense to look to temperament preferences to explain the things we do that _fail_ to perfectly match the circumstances. If a J and a P have an important, somewhat involved phone call to make, each one's perfectly capable of writing out a list of points they want to be sure to cover — or planning/rehearsing a few of the most important things they want to say. But if they _err_ significantly in the planning department, a well-defined J is significantly more likely to have erred on the side of over-planning the call (which is not that likely to have hurt the call, but may have wasted a fair amount of the J's time), while a well-defined P is significantly more likely to have under-planned the call, saying, "Screw it, let's do this" a bit too soon, and over-relying on her ability to successfully improvise "in the moment."​
And speaking of Jung: It isn't entirely correct to say that Jung's notions of judging and perceiving didn't encompass much of Myers' characterizations of the J/P dichotomy. Although Jung didn't exactly describe a separate J/P dimension of personality, he did make a strong distinction between what he called the "rational types" (the J-doms) and the "irrational types" (the P-doms) and, if you read through Psychological Types looking for two-kinds-of-people-in-the-world descriptions that seem to line up reasonably well with Myers' descriptions of J's and P's, you'll mostly find them in Jung's descriptions of the J-doms and P-doms. Jung said P-doms "find fulfilment in ... the flux of events" and are "attuned to the absolutely contingent," while J-doms seek to "coerce the untidiness and fortuitousness of life into a definite pattern." He said a J-dom tends to view a P-dom as "a hodge-podge of accidentals," while a P-dom "ripostes with an equally contemptuous opinion of his opposite number: he sees him as something only half alive, whose sole aim is to fasten the fetters of reason on everything living and strangle it with judgments."

Compare that J-dom/P-dom ("rational" type/"irrational" type) Jungian dichotomy with these entries from this Myers/Briggs table that PaladinX recently posted:


*Judging Types**Perceiving Types*

Live according to plans, standards, and customs not easily or lightly set aside, to which the situation of the moment must, if possible, be made to conform.


Live according to the situation of the moment and adjust themselves easily to the accidental and the unexpected.


Make a very definite choice among life's possibilities, but may not appreciate or utilize unplanned, unexpected, and incidental happenings.


Are frequently masterful in their handling of the unplanned, unexpected, and incidental, but may not make an effective choice among life's possibilities.


Being rational, they depend on reasoned judgments, their own or borrowed from someone else, to protect them from unnecessary undesirable experiences.


Being empirical, they depend on their readiness for anything and everything to bring them a constant flow of new experience--much more than they can digest or use.


Are inclined to regard the perceptive types as aimless drifters.


Are inclined to regard the judging types as only half alive.


Here's a sampling of P-ish stuff from your PerC posts:



TreasureTower said:


> 11. What have people seen as your weaknesses? What do you dislike about yourself?
> 
> I procrastinate a lot, am messy, frequently late, disorganized. I dislike my inability to sufficiently motivate myself to do anything. ... I dislike my fear of incompetence and being engulfed by everyone and everything to rule my life.





TreasureTower said:


> 13. In what areas of your life would you like help?
> 
> I really need to be much more proactive and organized - especially when it comes to doing things in the real world.





TreasureTower said:


> I am scattered and have numerous interests. ...
> 
> My #1 biggest problem in my life _is_ willpower. I constantly struggle to apply myself. Disciplining myself is a major hassle. :blushed:





TreasureTower said:


> Yes, to unhurried; I hate being rushed, ever.
> Yes, I can spend long periods of time doing absolutely nothing and I am frequently drained and/or tired. I love being in my head; just allowing whatever random thought to flow in and out of my mind. ...
> 
> I view reality as continuous, fluid and flowing.





TreasureTower said:


> The only problem I have with otherwise IEI being a near-perfect fit for me is that I have a really poor conception of time but with that one exception; that description fits me accurately.





TreasureTower said:


> I have a great deal of trouble getting myself organized to do anything but once I get started; I usually complete whatever it is. I am also a perfectionist. ...
> 
> I am extremely disorganized and frequently late for everything but that may also be due to in part to my being a perfectionist and suffering from occasional bouts of intense anxiety. ... I also have moderate ADD and mild Dyslexia (mixing up letters and numbers).
> ...
> I am also in a fair bit of debt from overspending on things I didn't really need.





TreasureTower said:


> On MBTI, I would score a P 80% of the time but on Cognitive functions, I would get J a lot more frequently. I realize that my J/P preference are very different in the external world than in my own personal one.





TreasureTower said:


> The packing example too, I don't have any anxiety there, I sort the whole job in the last 20 minutes before leaving, I figure it all out just fine, maybe I even look organized but I think I just look fast at sorting the job instead because I don't plan ahead at all.





TreasureTower said:


> I relate to both J and P. I dislike structure but I don't get anything done unless I plan for it.





TreasureTower said:


> I am both perceptive and judging oriented. It really depends on what aspects of it are being asked. While I am disorganized, messy and frequently late. I am not at all spontaneous and need to plan things first. I get really stressed out by change and have difficulty being adaptable.





TreasureTower said:


> If something grabs my interest; I will pursue it with little concern for my physical well being. One day, a few months ago; I was on the computer for hours and despite being in severe physical agony; I kept ignoring my discomfort, until I was close to practically screaming from the inadvertent, self-imposed pain. It took me about 3 weeks to recover from this. That's not the only incident I can think of. I often forget to eat or sleep and frequently find my bodily urges to be - forgive the expression  - a royal pain in the ass. ...
> 
> So, I have to guard against getting sick or injured due to my willful recklessness and if injured or ill; then I will feel tormented by my body, until I recover. Sometimes, I feel like I have a love/hate relationship with it. I have for example, remained in unhealthy relationships, just because I liked the sex; even though the relationship was emotionally harmful to me. Similarly with food and sleep: I have overeaten to the point of painful excess, to practically starving myself. I have stayed in bed for hours upon hours and also forced myself to stay awake, when I was dead tired. I don't trust myself in the world of Si, because I can be an out of control glutton for sensual experiences.





TreasureTower said:


> I originally did think that I was sp/sx but after reading the description of 5 so/sx; it fit me better as sps tend to take care of themselves better than the other two leading variants.


I'll start with _punctuality_. But first, as an introduction to the punctuality issue, let me mention the _neatness_ issue. Internet forumites inclined to badmouth the MBTI (or the J/P dichotomy in particular) as a collection of _superficial stereotypes_ often point to the notion that J's are neat and P's are messy and roll their eyes. And it's true that, to a large degree, neat/messy isn't a very good J/P indicator, _especially if you're talking about NJs and NPs_. Neatness, to the extent that it functions as at least a half-decent type indicator, is more of an SJ thing than a general J thing. But FYI, there are _no_ J/P items on the official "Step I" MBTI that relate to neatness.

Punctuality, on the other hand... can be an excellent J/P indicator. Not a _definitive_ indicator, and that's first and foremost because it's generally a mistake to take any _one_ personality-related characteristic as definitive with respect to any of the MBTI preferences. That said, though, if you're talking about one of those people who's _almost never late_ to anything — and, in fact, is much more likely to be somewhat early, because they habitually allow extra time for unexpected delays — that's not a bad J indicator. And if you're talking about one of those people who's _chronically late_ to things, that's actually a substantially stronger P indicator than almost-never-lateness is a J indicator. Why the asymmetry? Because, as I already noted, it makes more sense to look to temperament if you're trying to explain why somebody has a tendency to _err_ in one direction or the other than if the attitude or behavior in question is something that pretty much just _makes sense_ from a rational perspective, regardless of anybody's "personality type." It's not that hard to imagine a P — and especially a mild P — with somewhat of a temperamental tendency to run late eventually _learning her lesson_ and adjusting her attitudes and practices to compensate for the temperamental tugs, with the result that she ends up being reliably J-like in the on-time department. By contrast, why would a J with a temperamental tendency to be on time want to willfully adjust their attitudes and practices to be habitually late?

Somewhat related to the punctuality issue — and likewise good P indicators — are the "poor conception of time" and the tendency to allow yourself to get caught up in whatever's calling to you in the moment to the _extreme degree_ that you describe — where you end up going without food, going without sleep, and "ignoring my discomfort, until I was close to practically screaming from the inadvertent, self-imposed pain. It took me about 3 weeks to recover from this."

It's likely that being Limbic also contributes to this aspect of your personality. The most well-established version of the Big Five is McCrae & Costa's NEO-PI-R, which breaks down each of the five factors into six "facets." The Neuroticism facets include "Impulsiveness," which McCrae & Costa describe as "the inability to control cravings and urges. Desires (e.g., for food, cigarettes, possessions) are perceived as being so strong that the individual cannot resist them, although he or she may later regret the behavior." But the Conscientiousness (J/P-equivalent) facets include "Self-Discipline," and McCrae & Costa note that "Low self-discipline is easily confused with impulsiveness. Both are evidence of poor self-control."

I consider myself Limbic, but really don't relate to the impulse control issues you describe. Incurring "a fair bit of debt from overspending on things I didn't really need?" Hell, no. When it comes to spending/saving and the MBTI, the EPs tend to be the biggest spenders and so, not surprisingly (_because dichotomies_), the IJs tend to be the most frugal savers. And there's no question that all four IN types are somewhat prone to get lost in their heads at the expense of attention to the physical world, but your extreme behavior in that regard — to the point of "often forgetting to eat or sleep" — is much more consistent with IN_P than IN_J.

You say, "My #1 biggest problem in my life _is_ willpower. I constantly struggle to apply myself. Disciplining myself is a major hassle." Is it possible an INFJ would experience will power problems from time to time? Of course. Almost everybody experiences will power problems from time to time, and sometimes procrastinates things they really don't like to do for as long as they think they can get away with it. But someone who refers to willpower as their "#1 biggest problem in my life" is substantially more likely to be a P than a J.

"Fear of incompetence" is also worth a P point or two, especially for an N. Another NEO-PI Conscientiousness facet is "Competence," which McCrae & Costa describe as "the sense that one is capable, sensible, prudent, and effective. High scorers on this scale feel well prepared to deal with life. Of all the [Conscientiousness facets,] competence is most highly associated with self-esteem and internal locus of control." As you already know if you've read that long J/P post I linked you to, I've often referred to the NJs as the "know-it-all" types. Not to beat a dead horse but, here again, _any_ type can worry about their competence in an area of life that, objectively speaking, isn't one of their strong suits and _any_ type can feel relatively competent in areas of life where they're, you know, _competent_, but if an IN is prone to _err_ in one direction or the other, then a tendency to feel _overly_ sure of themselves is more characteristic of IN_Js and, on the other hand, if you ask someone what they dislike about themselves and the first thing they mention is "I dislike my fear of incompetence," that's more characteristic of a IN_P.

Myers said she thought ISFP was probably the most modest of all the types, so it makes sense that their closest cousin among the N's (INFP) might well be the most modest N type. But, that said, I think there's a pretty big difference between the average INFP and the average ISFP in that regard — and I'd also say that one of the reasons such a large percentage of successful creative artists are INFPs is that it's hardly uncharacteristic of INFPs to think of themselves (at least in their upbeat moments) as special and/or talented in the areas of life they're most passionate about.

You say you "view reality as continuous, fluid and flowing" — and you say that like it's a good thing! As you know if you read the "J/P sorter" in my linked J/P post, that's a quintessentially P posture toward the world and, as previously noted, Jung thought so, too — assuming you're looking at Jung's J-dom and P-dom descriptions. Jung said P-doms "find fulfilment in ... the flux of events" and are "attuned to the absolutely contingent," while J-doms seek to "coerce the untidiness and fortuitousness of life into a definite pattern." What the P is inclined to more glowingly describe as "continuous, fluid and flowing," the J is more inclined to view as messy, chaotic and in need of proactive structuring.

Jung also said that your conscious functions (usually the top two) are the ones that are capable of being _directed_ by your _will_, while the two unconscious functions tend to "fall into the category of things that simply 'happen' to one" and, if you extend that notion from S/N and T/F to J/P — which arguably makes sense — then that notion is consistent with the passive attitude you describe in this post:



TreasureTower said:


> I look more to others to help me become more disciplined and organized. I usually have my head in the clouds and have lots of difficulty doing anything Se-based to improve my situation. I also really relate to this which falls under ILI Te creative:
> 
> 
> 
> > A view of the external environment being efficient, reasonable, and making sense is essential to their well-being and sense of inner peace, but they do not feel a pressing need for being proactive or productive themselves in that area.


On the J side... you _do_ say, "I am not at all spontaneous and need to plan things first. I get really stressed out by change and have difficulty being adaptable" — which unquestionably, viewed in isolation, has a J-ish flavor. But, on top of the fact that, in the face of all the P indicators, that sounds something like "the exception that proves the rule," that post also sounds consistent to me with you being someone who has learned (perhaps the hard way) that planning is desirable _as a means to an end_ — the end being the avoidance of unpleasant surprises — rather than you being someone who plans partly for _temperament_ (rather than rational means/ends) reasons because you positively enjoy the process of planning things and/or the state of having things all planned out. In another post, you say, "I relate to both J and P. I dislike structure but I don't get anything done unless I plan for it" — which seems more consistent with a P planning _despite_ her gut inclinations than a J indulging her gut inclination to structure/schedule the world.

You repeatedly stress the central role of humor in your life, and the fact that your humorous/absurdist take on the world "defines" you:



TreasureTower said:


> 9. What has made you cry? What has made you smile? Why?
> 
> Absolutely anything and everything makes me smile or more accurately laugh. If I weren't already a Buddhist; hands down, humour would be my religion. I am constantly seeing the absurd in life and just about everything about it, is hilarious to me. Other than that, I guess, children, animals and artists make me smile.





TreasureTower said:


> Extra Info: I am very sensitive to other people's feelings except in the case of humour and maintaining my boundaries. ... As for my sense of humour: Humour _defines_ me and is, my life. If it weren't for my ability to laugh at life's absurdities, I probably wouldn't even be here. In that sense you could say, that if I were to believe in any type of "God"; it would be the God of humour. I _could not_ exist without my humour and I _wouldn't want_ to exist without my Nichiren Buddhist practice.
> 
> My sense of humour is based on irony and can sometimes be quite dark. It has no filter and I _refuse_ to rein it in for _anyone_. I have no desire to hurt anyone's feelings ever but if I find something that amuses me; I'm going to damn well say it.





TreasureTower said:


> I am absolutely obsessed with humour. I love to wisecrack and see the absurd in almost everything.





TreasureTower said:


> I am rarely serious and know how to have fun.


Of the four IN types, the one that this all sounds the most _uncharacteristic_ of is INFJ — and I'd say that's especially significant given the emphatic centrality and strength of your _absurdist wiseass_ streak.

For starters, INFJs are the IN types most prone to _take life seriously_. And that's not to say that an INFJ is unlikely to have a good sense of humor or joke around quite a lot. But, when it comes to the aspects of life that many would say deserve to be taken seriously and/or treated with a certain reverence — including especially the kinds of stuff that NFs tend to focus on — I'd say that, among the INs, the INFJs are the _most reverent_ ones. There's an _earnestness_ that both IN_J types are prone to when it comes to the things that matter to them and, on average, I think the INFJs outdo the INTJs in the earnestness department — and especially in the reverence/respectfulness department.

I recently had the pleasure of typing a female INFJ at Typology Central who turned out to have four relatively clear preferences — yes! it can happen! — and here are a few samples from her:



> I don't think I'm better than [all those people my age who I can't understand.] ... But I take life very seriously.





> I often appear lighthearted on the _outside_, or like a mature, lighthearted person, but I'm very serious (and often dramatic) when people get to know me well, and even more so on the inside.





> I always take other people seriously unless it's really, really obvious that they're joking about something. People often laugh at me and say "You thought I was serious?", then I feel really embarrassed and creep back into my turtle shell.





> *6. What in life do you find to be of importance?*
> I find taking life seriously and treating everything special as special as it is is a big thing for me. This translates into chastity, ... for example. Kindness, humility (I need to work on that one), strength (of mind, not body), love, and faith are all big ones, too. Anything along the lines of those.



If you're interested, here's an old INTJforum post I did on which types are the "punkish" types (in the sense of, as I described it, "N-style, cultural/attitudinal punkishness"). I concluded that, if there was a single quintessential "punk" type, it was the INTP — and that, to arrive at the other three _likely punk candidates_ among the MBTI types, what you do is hold the N steady and flip one (and only one) of the other three INTP preferences. Hence ENTP, INFP and INTJ. "So the best punk candidates," I concluded, "are three out of the four NTs and one of the NFs. You might say INFPs are the most lovable (least caustic) of the punkish types."

To partly recycle a point I made in that long J/P post I linked you to: If there are two types I'd be most inclined to associate with more of a "life is a game" attitude, they're the NTPs. And again, if you're working from a dichotomies perspective and INTPs are the IN types _most_ likely to exhibit a kind of _absurdist_ angle on the world, which IN type would you expect to be the least likely? Wait, I'll answer that: INFJ!

Similarly, which of the 16 types are the ones most associated with what you might call a _respectfully reverential_ attitude toward things? I'd say the SFJs. And who are their closest cousins on the N side of the great S/N divide? The NFJs. (And as a side note, and as further discussed below: if you look at the occupational statistics in the second edition of the MBTI Manual, which types are the most likely to have religious occupations? INFJs are No. 1 — and it's not a very close race — and ENFJs are No. 2.)

And now let's turn to your tongue-biting propensity — or rather, your lack thereof. You explain: "My sense of humour is based on irony and can sometimes be quite dark. It has no filter and I _refuse_ to rein it in for _anyone_. I have no desire to hurt anyone's feelings ever but if I find something that amuses me; I'm going to damn well say it." Well, OK, then. And you want to know which of the four IN types is the _least_ likely to just give whatever wiseassy streak they may have _free rein_ and adamantly refuse to take anyone else's tender sensibilities into account? You guessed it! INFJ! And honestly, I don't think that's a very close call.

But note: I'm not suggesting that I think you're very likely to end up rubbing somebody the wrong way. As already noted, in my analysis of the "punkish" types I ended up including INFPs but said they were "the most lovable (least caustic) of the punkish types." And you've told us that, as a general matter, you think you tend to come across as "warm" and "caring" (with a "high EQ"). Correct me if I'm wrong, but I suspect that, when you're "refusing to rein in" your "dark" and "ironic" sense of humor, you're generally making whatever the remark may be with the expectation that everybody will understand — or, at least, _should_ understand — first, that you're joking, and second, that your underlying intent is playful rather than mean-spirited. And I suspect the fact that you have no malicious intent is a big part of the reason why you really don't think anybody else should have a right to complain. If they do, they're at fault for _taking you the wrong way_, right? — whereas a more "caustic" INTP is more likely to be found, on occasion, letting loose with an "ironic" remark with more bite, and less likely to be taken aback if somebody takes offense.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

[3 of 8]

*Limbic stuff*


* *




As previously noted, you came out Limbic (rather than Calm) on the Big Five "Neuroticism" dimension and, as described in the post with the test link, being Limbic tends to be associated with, among other things, anxiety/worry-proneness; emotional sensitivity/volatility; proneness to annoyance/irritation; self-consciousness; and (sometimes) depression.

I suspect that the _self-consciousness_ associated with being Limbic may be a substantial part of the explanation for your chronic feeling that, when you're interacting with other people, you're "playing a role" that feels somehow "unnatural" — even though you're essentially being honest — and you feel like the real you is in some kind of one-step-removed position, watching yourself perform. You've said:



TreasureTower said:


> When I am socially interacting with other people, even including close friends; I am compulsively watching myself watch myself. I always feel as if I'm playing a role. That's why I find interacting with people so draining because I can never just _be_ present and in the moment; unless of course, I'm by myself, then the mask comes off and I can be my authentic self.





TreasureTower said:


> You're sort of correct, "performing" may be misleading; it's rather the _perception_ that I am playing a role.
> ...
> While I did consciously create a social persona in childhood, I am not really playing a part anymore; it just _feels_ that way because I don't feel grounded in my body.
> ...
> Like most people, I have a strong need for companionship, however I intrinsically dislike relating to other people not because I don't like them; in fact I do like other people. It just feels _unnatural_ for me to interact with them because I am much more comfortable withdrawing into myself.


I pointed out in one of my earlier posts that Jung went on and on about what he viewed as _all_ introverts' fraught relationship with their emotional side. "Both [extraverts and introverts] are capable of _enthusiasm_," he explained. "What fills the extravert's heart flows out of his mouth, but the enthusiasm of the introvert is the very thing that seals his lips."

And I also think that an N 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."

So... put I and N together, and throw in Limbic, and you're likely to be talking about somebody who feels like, rather than their "real" emotional responses unimpededly and "naturally" flowing forth from their mouth, they're instead in some kind of awkward-in-between position and, to some degree, "faking it" — not necessarily in the sense of saying anything that's fundamentally _false_ (as you've noted) but in the sense that the persona who's interacting with the outside world feels one or two or three steps removed from the underlying emotional layer.

But the last thing I'd note on this issue is that although, all other things being equal, I think a Limbic IN and a Calm ES are likely to differ substantially in terms of the sense of emotional distance/detachment they'll typically experience in interactive contexts, I also think that, to some degree, it's just normal _human nature_ (and a good thing, too) for people to experience at least one or two degrees of detachment from their raw emotional responses to things. So I think it's probably a mistake for a Limbic IN to assume that, for any substantial percentage of all those other people out there, their interactions with others tend to reflect anything like a 100%-natural "flow out of their mouths" (to use Jung's phrase) of their raw, spontaneous emotional reactions that causes them to feel completely (as you put it) "grounded in their bodies."



*Relationships*


* *




As you undoubtedly know, both I/E and T/F have roles to play in how sociable someone's inclined to be. An EF is the most quintessential "people person," and an IT is the best candidate for hermithood, and IFs and ETs are the in-betweeners.

And guess which types are the most likely to feel tormented by what seems to be an internal war between a deep desire to relate to their fellow human beings and a host of misgivings and avoidance propensities (with an accompanying love of solitude)? That's right: the IFs. And especially the INFs. And most especially the Limbic INFs.

And what's more, while I'm rolling, as between Limbic INFJs and Limbic INFPs, the Limbic INFPs.

And here's you:



TreasureTower said:


> 16. How do you feel about romance/sex? What qualities do you want in a partner?
> 
> I have an approach/avoidance situation going on with romance. I like it for all of the good things like closeness, cuddling, doing fun things together, sex and having long, meaningful convos about life. I hate it for the emotional messiness, frightening intensity, possibility of emotional disconnection, unpredictability and demands on my time or energy. I much prefer sticking to friendships - with the sole exception of the lack of sex - most of the good and very little of the bad.





TreasureTower said:


> Like most people, I have a strong need for companionship, however I intrinsically dislike relating to other people not because I don't like them; in fact I do like other people. It just feels _unnatural_ for me to interact with them because I am much more comfortable withdrawing into myself.





TreasureTower said:


> If there was one word that would describe me as regards to acquiring new friends - let alone a new relationship; it would be _extreme_ *ambivalence*. Don't get me wrong, I really like people especially at a safe distance but I find personal interactions more stressful than most, I believe.
> 
> I experience myself as feeling completely vulnerable whenever things seemed to become close. I am consistently on the fence about whether or not I want to become closer to people or avoid them. While the possibility of being hurt might play a small part in this; I don't think it's the main reason. I just really hate being dependent on anyone for any reason.
> 
> ...





TreasureTower said:


> Well, I am quite happy living in my own head but when I need other people; I really do. ...
> 
> Well I do feel things; I may not have any clue exactly as to _what_ I am feeling but usually the best way for me to figure it out, is by interacting with others. ...
> 
> I am terrible of determining distance in relationships. I either am too effusive, scaring people off, too aloof, causing others to erroneously assume I'm uninterested or most likely; going back and forth between the two. I don't do this to confuse anyone but because I usually can't tell - at least in the beginning stages of any friendship/relationship anyway.


It's something of an oversimplification, but not too far out of line, to characterize this as your Limbic IN parts doing battle with your F — and, to some extent, your gender. You say that, like "most people," you have a "strong need for companionship," and I'd note that the types with the _least_ "need for companionship" are probably male INTs — and that female INTs, while less naturally aloof than male INTs, are nonetheless significantly less likely to experience this "extreme ambivalence" (to use your phrase) with the kind of painful intensity you describe.

But so, as it happens, are INFJs — although for the opposite reason.

What types are the best candidates for marriage, because they're the types whose passions and attitudes are the most consistent with the idea that love, rather than being a wild rose that will die if you pick it, is something that can be domesticated and committed to and locked in for the long term? The SFJs, that's who. And who are their closest counterparts on the N side? The NFJs. Limbic INFJs, like all the NFs, are apt to have (at least arguably) overly romantic notions of love and, like Limbic INFPs (to say nothing of the Limbic INTs), are apt to find dating somewhat fraught and awkward — but, as compared to an INFP, an INFJ's temperament includes a substantially stronger desire/capacity to "lock in" in the relationship department.

I think INFJs are among the types most prone to err on the side of sticking with a bad relationship too long. By contrast, in listing an INFP's characteristic weak spots, personalitypage notes that INFPs "may have difficulty maintaining close relationships, due to unreasonable expectations." Keirsey, after describing what he viewed as the NF tendency to romanticize relationships, also warned that NFs could tend to be restless/fickle — prone to find that any relationship that they've been in for a significant length of time is somehow _not enough_ — but I'd say that's substantially truer for NFPs than NFJs.

But note: I'm certainly not meaning to suggest that there aren't lots of INFPs out there in successful long term relationships. There are lots of people of every type in successful long term relationships. But, relatively speaking... I do think it's fair to say that the "love is a rose" attitude, and/or a proneness to start to feel suffocated or vaguely restless/dissatisfied as a relationship starts to become "settled," and/or a tendency to find that, in their internal "approach/avoidance" battle (as you described it), the _avoidance_ part tends to feel bigger than the _approach_ part, are characteristics you're more likely to find in an INFP than an INFJ.

Along with having the least need for companionship, INTs are also the types who care the least what anyone else thinks of them. But you've explained that you're quite sensitive and vulnerable in that department. You say:



TreasureTower said:


> If people - especially those I care about are cruel, dismissive, demeaning, and uncaring towards me; it can really unhinge me; though I will do my best to hide it. I get really freaked out if/when that happens and view the world as unsafe.


There's quite a lot in the relationship-related stuff I've quoted that, while I wouldn't call them entirely "typical" for any type, would be much more uncharacteristic of an INTP than an INFP. An INTP fearing the "frightening intensity" of romance, and the "possibility of emotional disconnection"? An INTP getting "really freaked out" and "unhinged" when people are "dismissive" or "uncaring"? An INTP being strongly fearful of "feeling completely vulnerable whenever things seemed to become close" and "emotional dependency" and "being engulfed by other people"?

I'm not meaning to suggest that an INTP — or any other type — is a robot, or otherwise immune to fears and disappointments in the relationship department or to resentment when it comes to being "dismissed." But INTs (Limbic or not) are probably the most aloof, and the least vulnerable, in the relationship department (and with respect to whether anyone else appreciates them) — and what you're describing sounds like an above-average sensitivity in those areas.

Similarly, I'd say it's unlikely that one of an INTP's chronic relationship difficulties would involve a tendency to be "too effusive" at times, thereby "scaring people off."

And turning back to INFJ/INFP differences, I'd say an INFJ would be substantially less likely than an INFP to "hate" a romance for its "demands on my time and energy"; or to feel "consistently on the fence about whether or not I want to become closer to people or avoid them"; or to "hate being dependent on anyone for any reason"; or to "fear both having other people place expectations on me that I cannot meet as well as emotionally investing in them in any way."

As you know if you read the collection of INTJforum posts in a male INFJ's type-me thread that were linked to in one of those Snowable-thread posts, I think INFJs are strongly inclined to "emotionally invest," and are more likely to err on the side of over-investing than being too skittish or fickle in that department. INFJs can be positively martyrlike — similar in that respect to their ISFJ cousins — when it comes to the fulfillment they find in responding to "demands on their time and energy" from a romantic partner. Where the INFP is significantly more likely to feel somewhat _trapped_ in the face of a needy partner, the INFJ is more likely to feel gratifyingly locked in and invested. And, probably needless to note, an above-average aversion to "controlling" types is more characteristic of P's than J's. (J's are the controlling types, natch — which doesn't mean you want to be around when a J/J clash is happening, but it means that a J is less likely to hold the simple fact that they're on the controlling side against a fellow J.)

And again, as I've noted before, I think male/female adds a layer of complication here but, nonetheless, that collection of quotes makes you sound somewhat more like a female INFP than a female INTP to me.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

[4 of 8]

*Moar F > T*


* *






TreasureTower said:


> 17. If you were to raise a child, what would be your main concerns, what measures would you take, and why?
> 
> I adore children and I have been told that I have an unusual ability to relate to them.


There have been a number of threads at INTJforum over the past few years on the "Do you want kids?" issue and, if the many respondents over there are anything like a representative sample, it appears that a spectacularly high percentage of INT women feel like they're mildly to strongly lacking in the _maternal instincts_ department, and they most often report that they either don't want kids or have significantly mixed feelings — separate and apart from the economic issues — about whether having kids would turn out to be an overall plus in their lives.

People often point to SFJs as the ultimate "mom types," and I agree with that — and I'd also say the F is the single biggest factor.

So I'd say "adoring" children and feeling like you have an "unusual ability to relate to them" is worth a couple points on the INF > INT side.



TreasureTower said:


> I used to post on a Reality TV message board because, well, I really like reality TV and was looking for other people who shared that interest. That said, I abhorred the virulent and relentless flaming that went on there. I am much happier posting at PerC because, that was never really my thing. While I enjoy humour and will not hesitate to take it as far as it can go; that is not the same as cruelty, meanness and tearing other people down.


I'd say this quote favors NF over NT in a couple of respects. Reality TV? Yikes. Hopefully needless to say, there are people of _all_ types who _dislike_ reality TV for one reason or another, but I'd say the two preferences most likely to contribute to someone "really liking" reality TV (including to the point of "looking for other people who shared that interest" on a reality TV forum) are S and F — and we know you're not an S. I'd say NTs are the types you'd be least likely to find watching reality TV — and TV in general, for that matter. Assuming that a substantial part of your serious affection for reality TV comes from the fact that you enjoy getting caught up in the participant's lives, following their ups and downs, sharing their joys and sorrows and traumas and victories and defeats and all that, I'd say that's a pretty decent F indicator. There's no question women make up the majority of the readership of magazines like _People_, right? — and I think T/F plays a significant role in that.

But it sounds like the reality TV forum you posted on was relatively unmoderated, with the result that — as in the majority of largely unmoderated forums, as I understand it — there was quite a lot of "virulent and relentless flaming" there, and I'd say your strongly negative reaction to that stuff is also worth an F point or two. All other things being equal, I'd say the NTPs (in particular) may well be the types most likely to be _amused_ by online flaming, rather than "abhorring" it.



TreasureTower said:


> I _do_ care about not offending others and I don't really have a problem reining in my emotional expression, _unless_ the particular _nature_ of that expression is important to me. For example, if I am upset with someone; I am extremely unlikely to just go off on them. I will figure it out in my head, a way to both get my point across effectively; in a way that _both_ the other person is likely to understand _and_ is most likely to respond the most favourably to.


This whole paragraph has a classic F ring to it. There's _no_ type that never bites their tongue or makes an effort to be tactful — and, on the flipside, all the IN types prize authenticity — but, all other things being equal, an NT is significantly more likely to suffer from bluntness-to-a-fault than an NF.

You say:



TreasureTower said:


> I am never forceful with expressing my viewpoints and I intensely dislike people who run roughshod over other people's feelings. While I do enjoy persuasion - especially logical, and am often good at it; unless I consider it to be some kind of life or death thing; I almost always back off. The only exception to that, is when I believe that mine or another person's rights are being trampled upon: That is the only time that I can come even close to being considered, "forceful".


Again, everybody bites their tongue from time to time, but "never forceful"? You say you "almost always back off" unless it's "some kind of life or death thing." Especially considering that you're Limbic (which is likely to make you more annoyance-prone than you'd otherwise be), I'd say this aspect of your personality gets you _both_ F points and P points. TJs (and especially Limbic TJs) are undoubtedly the types most prone to venting (and sometimes "forcefully"), and that makes which types the least prone to venting? Bingo: the FPs. INFJs are substantially more tactful/diplomatic than INTJs, but I wouldn't expect a typical INFJ (and especially a Limbic INFJ) to describe themselves as "never forceful with expressing my viewpoints."

What follows is a roundup of additional quotes that I thought were worth some points on the F side. I've already noted that, as among the T's, I think INTs are arguably the most aloof/insensitive types in the people-relations department — and so I view some of the following quotes as being worth more INF>INT points than F>T points. The repeated emphasis on your warmth, supportiveness, concern for others' feelings and "extreme" empathy doesn't exactly match up with a typical INTP portrait. INT women are the women most likely to complain (legitimately) that one of their people-relations difficulties is that people tend to find them more emotionally cool than cultural female stereotypes suggest they're supposed to be.



TreasureTower said:


> Yes, I am extremely sensitive to the emotions of others.
> I do my best to avoid conflict and solve problems - within reason. I won't back down if I know I'm right. I only ever back down from something if A): after some reflection, I decide that I am wrong or B): I decide the matter is too trivial not to compromise or give in.
> ...
> I do try to act kind and caring to either strangers, neutral people or people who have been good to me.
> ...





TreasureTower said:


> I do pay close attention to both how I feel and how others feel. In fact, whenever I say/do anything that might possibly offend/hurt another - even if I believe that my actions were thoroughly justified; I still feel bad for the other person because I can't help but be aware how my actions may have impacted them. I often feel that I am far too much of an empathy, for my own good. I tend to absorb other people's feelings like a sponge.
> ...
> I do give my feelings free rein but I am frequently somewhat calculated in my expression of them; as I want to do my damndest to make sure that I affect the other person's perception/behaviour in the most effective way possible. I am usually extremely aware of how my behaviour impacts on other and am usually able to channel it productively - except when I am feeling unwell, either physically or mentally; then I sometimes do dumb things but I do my utmost to avoid taking any precipitous action, until I feel like myself again.





TreasureTower said:


> I am an extreme empath and can usually tell what other people are feeling at any given moment; so an strong expression of emotion - especially negative ones, anger in particular - seems much more intense to me; than what the other person is actually expressing.





TreasureTower said:


> I excel at expressing positive affectionate feelings and I am a naturally cheerful person.
> ...
> I have a need to be around other people, like I get a craving for Chinese food. Once I've satisfied my craving I am quite content with my own company.





TreasureTower said:


> I have always gotten the T/F split on MBTI, JCF and Socionics tests and I have mistyped as an INFP, an INTP and now I am typed as an INFJ. ... I never seriously considered INTJ as a possibility since I am warm, friendly _albeit_, extremely socially awkward around other people.





TreasureTower said:


> 20. How do you choose your friends and how do you behave around them?
> 
> I choose my friends based on common interests, values and beliefs. I am warm, supportive, and playfully sarcastic around them. I also choose people based on how objective, compassionate, interesting and how respective of my boundaries, they are.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

[5 of 8]

*NF > NT*


* *




The third and fourth linked posts from Snowable's thread include quite a bit of input from me (and Keirsey) on NFs vs. NTs, including the idea that NFs are the most "self"-oriented types — by which I don't mean selfish, or even self-centered (necessarily, anyway), but rather 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 is a journey of self-discovery and self-improvement in which each passing year finds them wiser about themselves, and also a better and/or expanded person, than they were the year before.

You said that you consider the "Existential" type description at 3D Psyche the "most accurate" profile of yourself that you've found _anywhere_, and 3D Psyche expressly notes that its "MBTI approximation" is NF (and I agree). Here's most of it (with some bolding by me):



3D Psyche said:


> Another name for it would be Psychological—The best concept to define the focus of this state is meaning. It is the state of essence and purpose. It represents a psyche that is physically relaxed, but emotionally tense and rationally flexible. *We are in this state when searching ideals, meanings, significance or transcendence; when we are involved in abstract reverence. We look to reflect on our values; conceive and expose our feelings.* We are devoted to ideas, and enjoy exploring and elaborating on them; being focused on emotional concepts and experiences.
> 
> By definition, this is the state of focus in abstraction, conception and valuation. Its main characteristic is pondering sentiments or placing values on concepts, all while avoiding physical stress. This defines our ability to be exalted, repulsed or devoted to abstract ideas, while being absent from physical surroundings or escaping what is tangible or presented to the senses at the moment.
> 
> ...


The quest for meaning in life, with the emphasis on feelings and values, is quintessentially NF. The "Archetype" is identified as "Therapists" — a quintessential NF occupation, and one that you've said you're considering.

Just as importantly, for purposes of this thread, I wouldn't say that profile sounds any more like an INFJ than an INFP. And in fact, I'd say it sounds like a mildly better fit for an INFP. As noted below, an INFP is somewhat more likely to be well-described as "self-absorbed" than an INFJ. And an INFP is substantially more likely than an INFJ to "dislike definite, predictable and rigorous things," and (as previously discussed) to "overlook physical abilities, facts or needs."



TreasureTower said:


> 2. What are your most important values?
> 
> To know the truth about anything and everything. Fairness, compassion, objectivity and courage.


As previously discussed, "to know the truth about anything and everything" could fit any of the IN types reasonably well. But "fairness, compassion, objectivity and courage" sounds more like an NF's short-list than an NT's short-list.



TreasureTower said:


> 6. Interested in health/medicine as a conversation topic? Are you focused on your body?
> 
> I am very much into alternative medicine and nutrition. My apartment could double as a mini health store. ... However, I am not now and never have been focused on my body. That and supressing my emotions was probably why I got so sick in the first place. I do try to force myself to maintain a regular yoga practice, however. As far as a conversation topic is concerned, I only discuss it, when my friends complain of various ailments and I share my knowledge with them because I want them to be happy and healthy.


As I'm guessing you can testify from your own experience, the cultural group that's "very much into alternative medicine and nutrition" is a somewhat NF-dominated group — and I think that's one of the reasons there are significantly more women than men in it.

The third Snowable-thread post I linked you to includes a section where I talk about the fact that the NFs are the types most associated with "New Age" beliefs and practices — including yoga, alternative medicine and nutrition, not to mention eastern religions (which I discuss more below).



TreasureTower said:


> 18. A friend makes a claim that clashes with your current beliefs. What is your inward and outward reaction?
> ...
> My spiritual practice means a lot to me but I am very tolerant of people who disagree with it. I guess my political beliefs would probably be a much better example. I have strong leftist liberal leanings and all of my friends happen to fall into that category. I could not be friends with bigots, people who value money over the health and happiness of others, manipulators and liars.





TreasureTower said:


> 19. Describe your relationship to society. How do you see people as a whole? What do you consider a prevalent social problem? Name one.
> 
> ... My relationship to society? I think that there should be greater distribution of wealth to heal the ever widening gap between the rich and the poor. I see a prevalent social problem is the way we deal with the mentally ill. It is really difficult because you need to find an ethical balance between maintaining the rights of the individual with the powers of a society to adequately address those concerns. Many mentally ill people waste way because, nothing can be done to help them without their consent. There is far too much emphasis on a me-me-me/looking out for number 1 mentality and not enough about caring about the needs of others. In the states, gun control would be number one on my list.


The only MBTI dimension that's been consistently linked to political views is S/N, with S's tending to lean conservative and N's tending to lean liberal — and Big Five studies have found the same correlation with the Openness to Experience factor.

I'm an NT (and a reasonably strong T) and a political lefty but, nonetheless, I'd say the emphasis and tone of the stuff in these quotes ("heal the ever widening gap"; "valuing money over the health and happiness of others"; "caring about the needs of others") is somewhat more characteristically NF than NT.



TreasureTower said:


> I usually know the best method to use; what's ideally going to work the best. I sometimes view relationships like a chess game in that way. I know what behaviour will yield what response sort of thing. So, I enjoy doing it. I like to be friendly, please people, flirt and banter with other people and when I get the response I seek; it's electrifying and if I don't, I try harder to perfect my technique but that doesn't mean that I'm not sincere or that it's in any way, fake - if that makes any sense?


This sounds significantly more INF than INT to me. Both INFs and INTs prize being authentic and hate to be fake, but INTs are also characteristically disinclined to bring their active, strategic mental focus to bear on how they and the people they're close to act in terms of relationships. Like so many of the relationship-oriented aspects of personality, I think there are male/female differences, too, and I'd say the average male INT is going to be significantly more disinclined to think about relationship behavior in a calculating "chess game" sort of way than a female INT. But in your case, you're not just focusing that way semi-grudgingly (and somewhat against the grain) because you've learned that it's effective; you say you "enjoy doing it" and it's "electrifying" when your strategies end up getting you "the response I seek" — and I'd say that's worth a point or two on the F side.



TreasureTower said:


> I care about justice and making the world a better place. I place a higher value on how something affects people than anything else; so, in order for me to get behind anything; it must be both ethical and logical. IOW, it must be the _right_ thing to do as well as make logical sense to me. For example, I believe in universal health care. To me; there exist no possible logical argument that can ever convince me that it's okay to let people die due to lack of funds, etc., etc. I have the WWF logo in my sig because I feel passionately about the value of making sure that no species goes extinct.





TreasureTower said:


> I always have a keen eye out for any kind of perceived injustice or unfairness to me or others.


Although there's nothing in those quotes that would be strongly _out of character_ for an NT, they have more of an NF ring. The strong drive to "make the world a better place," emphasizing that you "place a higher value on how something affects people than anything else," is quintessentially NF, as is having a particularly "keen eye out" for cases of "injustice or unfairness."

Here's a point I've made in several type-me threads:

If there's an MBTI type most likely to cherish movies like _Braveheart_, I'd say it's the NFJ. There seems to be something about the combination of NF with J that leads people to particularly love stories where powerful evildoers finally get their (often violent) comeuppance at the hands of the noble, oppressed little guys and justice is served ... [and] it sounds to me like you've got a fairly strong streak that corresponds to that special hate that it seems to me that NFJs (and perhaps INFJs especially) are prone to have in the face of some powerful person or group inflicting oppression/injustice/etc. on some underdog or disadvantaged group, and that special calling to nobly stand up for the oppressed and fight the oppression.​
So... OK, I realize you're going to respond, "Ha! I get INFJ points!" if _Braveheart_ is one of your favorite movies. But my point, in the context of _this_ type-me thread, is that, as between NTs and NFs, an above-average sensitivity to cases where someone (or some group, most often a minority) is being discriminated against or otherwise treated unjustly by the powerful (or the mainstream culture) is more quintessentially NF — and if your response to those kinds of evils is more along the lines of preach-enlightenment-to-the-blind than bring-down-the-mighty-hammer-of-justice, that's arguably somewhat more INFP than INFJ. When it comes to certain kinds of anti-humanitarian evildoers, I think there are no types that _love to hate_ (and are prone to nurse/cherish their grievances) with quite the vengeful passion of the NFJs. And, by contrast, I suspect INFP may be the likeliest pacifist type. Where would you place yourself on the pacifist-avenger spectrum?


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

[6 of 8]

*NP > NJ*


* *






TreasureTower said:


> My favourite book is Kafka's _The Trial_, not because some people might consider it bleak or depressing. ... The story is about the way that one chooses to frame reality can determine both the choices they make as well as their fate. I derive tremendous enjoyment from examining a perspective from vastly different angles and coming up with my own unique understanding of it because I strongly believe that with the exception of undisputed verified facts, the only way to get to truth in any theoretical construction where the truth is relatively fluid and open to interpretation, is to view that lens from different perspectives and make up one's own mind as to where the "truth" actually lies.





TreasureTower said:


> So, while both SEI and IEI describe me the best; I am very sure that I am a Ni dom because I am always seeking to look at reality from varyingly different angles. ...
> 
> My favourite works of art and fiction involve ideas that turn reality on its head and see all of the fascinating possibilities involved in deconstructing that single reality. That's precisely what happens in _The Trial_. The protagonist, Joseph K,. operates in a mentality that views reality one way and is forced throughout the course of the novel, to become exposed to different interpretations; which he never understands, to his ultimate detriment.
> 
> One of the most fascinating courses that I ever took examined a single historical event and showed completely incompatible, disparate political interpretations of it; while nevertheless remaining solidly true to the facts. Another work of art that I enjoyed tremendously was the film, _Rashomen_ by Akira Kurosawa, which is about an event and how everyone who was involved in said event; had completely different interpretations of what actually happened. Yeah, I think I just convinced myself that there can be no other possibility, than IEI.


Yikes. Since I'm dichotomy-centric rather than function-centric, I'm more inclined to talk about NJs and NPs than "Ni types" and "Ne types." But, whichever labels you want to use, your strong tendency — which you've now described in _many_ posts — to love looking at things from multiple angles and revel in the fact that, in many cases (at least as you see it), there's no "one truth" but rather a multiplicity of _possible truths_ (relative to the observer's individual perspective) is quintessentially Ne (NP) and _not_ Ni (NJ).

Any mature NJ certainly understands that there are lots of things about the world that are most accurately viewed as matters of individual opinions and values, but an NJ is less likely than an NP to use the word "truths" to refer to those things, at least partly because NJs are also characteristically believers in a realm of less relativistic truths.

And what's more, and maybe most importantly from a typological standpoint: regardless of what any particular NJ's ultimate philosophical views about the nature of "truth" might be, a typical NJ has a _preference_ for more solid, non-relativistic truths. So, for example, a particular INFJ counselor might well tell you, if queried in high-level-philosophical terms, that many of the most important "truths" about life are ultimately matters of individual perspective — while also having a strong tendency, at the _temperament_ level, to believe that she more often than not, by virtue of her above-average insight into psychological/social/etc. matters, _knows what's best_ for the other people in her life (clients and friends alike).

As between IN_Js and IN_Ps, I really don't think there's any question that IN_Ps are the ones more characteristically inclined to be relativistic, and to think and speak in terms of "my truths" vs. "your truths." And what's more, and maybe most importantly from a typological standpoint: that relativistic multiplicity of truths isn't just something an INFP is likely to accept in some kind of grudging, deferring-to-reality way (the way an INFJ might). Instead, like you, INFPs are characteristically jazzed by the rich multiplicity of possible "truths," and the freedom that offers each special-snowflake INFP to find (and/or _make_) her own "truths."

As you say, "I derive tremendous enjoyment from examining a perspective from vastly different angles and *coming up with my own unique understanding* of it."

Here's Linda Berens describing Ne:



Berens said:


> When you find yourself letting your mind wander endlessly through thoughts that cannot be said, developing hypotheses from data, or inferring the meaning of something, you are engaging in extraverted iNtuiting. Using this process, we tune in extemporaneously to a multitude of possibilities and potentials. This helps us understand shifting relationships and meanings and be responsive to them as they occur.
> 
> Extraverted iNtuiting involves seeing things "as if," with various possible ways of representing reality. Using this process, we can hold many different ideas, thoughts, beliefs, and meanings in our minds at once with the possibility that they are all true. ...
> 
> Extraverted iNtuiting involves realizing that there is always another view. An example is when you listen to one friend tell about an argument and understand perfectly and then listen to another friend tell a contradictory story and understand that view also. Then you wonder what the real story is because there are always so many different possible meanings.


As already mentioned, I think of the NJs as the types most likely to come across as know-it-alls, and know-it-alls are not people whose declarations tend to have a "this is _my_ truth" (or "this is my perspective") tone, but rather people with more of a tendency to sound like they think they know what _the_ truth (or the _correct_ perspective) is — for _you_ as well as them.

By contrast, as you've noted in multiple posts, it's a real hackle-raiser for you when somebody purports to tell you what you should believe. As you put it:



TreasureTower said:


> Extra Info: I am very sensitive to other people's feelings except in the case of humour and maintaining my boundaries. I will _not_ tolerate anybody telling what to think or feel - especially in regards to myself. I am extremely vigilant about this.


When @Teybo — who'll be the first to admit his posts demonstrate a noteworthy NJ vibe in this respect — tried to convince you you were a P in a way you found objectionably know-it-ally, you said:



TreasureTower said:


> At any rate, it seems that you are deliberately ignoring my main argument; which is not based on PJ but on _my truth_, as being the most important thing. If you either can't or are unwilling to understand and/or respect that; then, we are done here.





*INFP > INFJ*


* *






TreasureTower said:


> I do care about humanity and want to help make a better world; although, I don't really think about it all that often. I know that I can be very caring and have a very high EQ, but I am extremely awkward in social situations. I usually put my own needs first, 'though.





TreasureTower said:


> I may not think about humanity on a daily basis, but no question, I would love to make the world a better place. I don't know how much you know about my spiritual practice, Nichiren Buddhism, but the idea is based on this concept referred to as "human revolution"; which basically mean that by creating the person we want to be; we can change the world, or something like it.
> 
> So, while I do want to do my part to serve humanity: ie. the WWF link in my sigline; I want to do it creating some novel theory the revolutionizes the world - preferably in an ingenious work of art of literature. 'K, off to take my humble pills now. :tongue:


Here's what I recently told a young female NFP type-me subject at another forum: 

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 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 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 INFPs. And an INFP artist's desire for self-expression is reasonably likely to include at least some sense that the people who read her novels or poetry or whatever and are exposed to her perspective will be enlightened or otherwise have their lives improved.

And I'd also say that there's no question that an INFP — and especially an INFP with no family responsibilities — can end up being a fairly _self-absorbed_ person (and you've described yourself as "more self-absorbed than sacrificing"). Not _selfish_ in the sense of being unfair to others or wanting more than her share or otherwise violating the golden rule, but self-absorbed in the sense that, consistent with some of the NF descriptions in my last post, her goals of self-discovery, self-improvement, self-expansion, experiencing life "in the full," etc. are her central focus, rather than any kind of service-to-others drive.​
As I previously mentioned (in the relationship context), ISFJs are the types most often pegged as demonstrating a service-to-others streak _to a fault_, and INFJs are their closest cousins on the N side. When it comes to the service-to-others side of things, I think the average INFJ is significantly more likely to demonstrate a strong streak along those lines than the average INFP.



TreasureTower said:


> I realised that despite my usage of Ne to some extent; I am in fact Ni dominant. I was confused by this because a lot of things interest me, but I like to explore one topic at a time, in depth. This likely explains why I did much better in my studies when I was able to focus on one or not more than two subjects at a time, and felt burnt out when I had to study many courses at once. ... It also explains my frustration with an INFP friend of mine who jumps from topic to topic; when I want to explore a single topic in more depth before I investigate another one.


A preference for concentrating on one thing at a time, in depth, is mostly an introvert thing, and I wouldn't say it's uncharacteristic of INFPs. The Ne-_doms_ (ENTPs and ENFPs) are infamous (going all the way back to Jung's original description) for a tendency to flit from one unfinished project to the next but, again, their extraversion plays a substantial role in that. Myers explained that "one advantage of the introverts is their inherent continuity. ... Introvert children, entirely ignoring many of the distracting outer stimuli, follow their own quiet bent, and parents of restless little extraverts marvel at the introverts' 'powers of concentration.'" She noted that extraverts "are often impatient with long slow jobs" while introverts "tend not to mind working on one project for a long time uninterruptedly."


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

[7 of 8]

*The ineffable truth*


* *




Although any type can be religious, some types are more likely to be religious than others, and I'd say there are also significant differences among the types in terms of the kinds of religious beliefs and attitudes they're likely to exhibit. As one example, and as you may know, although a large majority of Americans will tell a pollster that they're "religious" to one degree or other, the subset of people for whom religion really plays a large role in terms of their sense of who they are and the values they live by is a considerably smaller group.

The statistics in the MBTI Manual suggest that the MBTI preference with the strongest correlation with religion (both religious interests and religious occupations) is F. And if you look at just religious _occupations_, there's also a pretty strong J correlation, and a milder N correlation.

So, overall, an NFJ is arguably the most likely candidate to view their religious beliefs as a core element of their lives — and I'd say NTPs are among the least likely candidates. I think NTs are arguably the most likely MBTI sub-group to be atheists or agnostics, and the results of MBTI/religion threads at INTJforum certainly seem consistent with that idea. I think it's fair to say that the majority view among MBTI theorists is that NTs are the types least likely to accept any "truth" on the basis of some "authority," and that's just one of the reasons I'd expect NTs — especially in any society where there's any significant cultural pressure to be religious — to be the most likely to be unapologetically non-religious. And my sense is that NTs are probably also the types who, if they _are_ religious, are least likely to end up with a firm, committed devotion to one particular organized religion — as opposed to a more general/amorphous/spiritual kind of religious philosophy. And I'd say an INFP is significantly more likely than an INT to be religious, but also that, all other things being equal, an INFP's spirituality (like an INT's) is less likely than an INFJ's to involve subscribing to one particular organized religion. As previously noted (and further discussed in one of those previously-linked T/F posts), I think NFPs are the types most likely to subscribe to new-agey spiritual beliefs.

Your particular kind of spirituality strikes me as quintessentially INFP in multiple respects. First, you view it as involving _personal truths_ rather than truths that you view as applying to people generally (whether they realize it or not). As @itsme45 noted in one of your other threads, you use "logic" in a fairly unusual way when you characterize various of your beliefs (including Nichiren Buddhism) as "logical." On the one hand, you say that you require your beliefs to be "logical" — and you criticize beliefs in an anthropomorphic God as failing to pass muster by that standard and accordingly "requiring me to give up my brain" — but, as most people would use the term, Nichiren Buddhism can no more claim "logical" support than many anthropomorphic-God religions. At the end of the day, what "logical" seems to mean to you, in the context of your spirituality, is a combination of (1) being unable to be logically _disproven_ — which is true of many religions (including anthropomorphic-God religions) that don't make unwarranted claims about the aspects of the world that science can reach, and (2) feeling like it "makes sense" to you in a _personal truth_ kind of way, where you wouldn't necessarily expect it to similarly "make sense" to another person (regardless of how "logical" that other person might be).

I'd say that, all other things being equal, INFJs are substantially more likely than INFPs to be more conventional in their beliefs. Appendix D to the Second Edition of the MBTI Manual includes lists of occupations "empirically attractive ... to the sixteen types," based on the CAPT MBTI data bank. Specific occupations are listed in mixed case and composite occupational categories are shown in UPPERCASE. (And note that the rankings in each list are based on the percentage of the applicable type making up the total number of respondents in the listed occupation or category. So, for example, the fact that art/drama/music teacher is the #2 occupation on the NF list doesn't mean that it's the second most common occupation among the NFs in the CAPT database. It means instead that, among the art/drama/music teachers in the CAPT database, the percentage of NFs was higher than the percentage of NFs for all but one other occupation.) And the No. 1 and No. 3 occupations on the INFJ list (out of around 200) are "Priests, monks" and "Clergy, all denominations." "Religion: Educator, all denominations" is No. 8; and "RELIGIOUS WORKERS, ALL DENOMINATIONS" is No. 12. By contrast, the INFPs' top 30 only has one religious entry — "Religion: Educator, all denominations," at No. 7 — and the broad category of "RELIGIOUS WORKERS, ALL DENOMINATIONS" is No. 90. So INFPs are slightly more likely than average to have religious occupations, but INFJs are the quintessential religious workers. (ENFJs are the runners-up.)

None of which is to say that a typical INFJ isn't reasonably likely to subscribe to the notion that everyone should be free to believe/disbelieve what they wish in the religious area and/or refrain from trying to (overbearingly, at least) _convert_ anyone else to their own beliefs. But I think it's fair to say that the kind of person whose _career choice_ involves a particular established (and relatively conventional) religion is generally a person who views the "truths" of that religion as being somewhat more solidly established and applicable to the world generally than someone who, say, spent a significant amount of time as an atheist or agnostic, later adopted Nichiren Buddhism as their own "personal truth" and currently (I suspect) remains open to the possibility of someday adopting one or more different spiritual practices if they end up "making sense" at that time.

As further discussed in this post, I think that, if there's a quintessential "creative artist" type, it's probably the INFP. And one of the things that I think is particularly characteristic of INFP artists (especially) is the notion that their art — in whatever medium, verbal or non-verbal — is in some way reflecting/expressing certain _ineffable truths_ about people and/or the world that can't be fully captured by directly expressing them in words. And that streak runs through quite a few of your posts, both in terms of your attitude toward art and your attitude toward your spirituality.

There's a recognizable subset of "mystical seeker" religious/spiritual types who are substantially more likely than other types to expect to receive their religious "truths" in the form of a _felt_ experience — triggered by art, or meditation, or chanting, or other practices that don't involve the expression of the truths in straightforwardly verbal tems. You might say they take a somewhat passive/receptive attitude toward the truth, where they're like a radio scanning the universe for a signal that, at the right moment and under the right conditions, they find themselves _tuned into_, at which point they have a kind of revelation or epiphany about the nature of the universe that, notwithstanding how _compelling_ and "true" it feels — or the extent to which it might be said to "make sense" to the seeker — is quite likely to be something (1) that they'll be unable to straightforwardly describe/summarize in words in a way that they'd expect to be convincing to another person (since, you might say, it needs to be _experienced_ as much as _explained_) and (2) that they wouldn't necessarily expect to be convincing to another person in any case, since the other person's "truth" might turn out to be substantially different.

And you've come to view this epiphany-oriented approach to your self-education — with respect to typing and other matters as well as more spiritual matters — as a manifestation of "Ni," but it's really more characteristic of IN_Ps (and especially INFPs) than IN_Js. And it's not that it's particularly uncommon for an INFJ to have something of a mystical streak, but an INFJ — like their close cousin (and Ni cousin, from a functions perspective) the INTJ — is more likely to be someone for whom the central beliefs/perspectives/values their lives revolve around are more proactively and effortfully and gradually developed and refined by way of observation and education and logical analysis than received by means of some kind of ineffable aesthetic/spiritual vision/revelation that occurs in an instant, with or without the assistance of some mind-opening medium (art, chanting, etc.).

Here's you:



TreasureTower said:


> Beauty is something divine that flows through each one of us and throughout the universe. It is the recognition of anything that is outstanding in either the aesthetically pleasing or the sublime. Primarily, beauty is different disparate things converge into one fantastical or aesthetically pleasing whole which still allows the tension of seamlessly combining into one unified oneness without obfuscating the disparate intricate parts.





TreasureTower said:


> I love art and experience this great sense of oneness with the universe whenever I am around it. ... I love patterns, metaphors and symbolism and I love to make interconnections between things and unify them into a single whole.





TreasureTower said:


> I am also very aware when I see Fi being misused. For example: A person will tell me that they feel that something is right or wrong and that something; is either logically or realistically impossible. ... For me to consider inwardly as well as outwardly, their opinion as in anyway meaningful; they would need to use some T/F (logic/value) reasoning , or else it seems completely irrational to me. In contrast, while it is often hard to understand, Ni/Ne is not really "irrational" at all. It just can't always be explained by logic because it happens at such a deep level in the psyche and because it is so personal. I know that you understand this; because when you figured out your dominant function, "it was like being hit by a train". That in a nutshell in N and I seriously wonder if non N doms can really understand it as fully as Ni/Ne doms. ...
> 
> At any rate, when I read both the definition of Ni, as well as the INFJ description; something just clicked for me; which I unfortunately can't logically explain. Maybe in time, it will be possible to subject it to further analysis but I need time to thoroughly absorb it, before that can happen.





TreasureTower said:


> After reading about the various functions and type descriptions; something totally amazing about everything I had read, just clicked in my head, and it occurred to me that I am Ni - have always been Ni but was unhappy because I was neglecting it. For me, experiencing my Ni was the greatest experience ever. It was about so much more than type theory could ever be. Realizing that I am an INFJ has made my entire life make sense to me. After my profound revelation - which I still cannot put into words; I now completely understand what N doms like Aquarian mean when they - seemingly out of nowhere - have that thrilling "A-ha" moment.
> 
> The truth is that I have always used Ni; I just didn't realize it; I just thought I was wasting my time daydreaming. ... Before JCF and MBTI, I think I was terrified of my Ni and wanted to somehow "justify" it by turning it into T - bastardising Ni in an attempt to logically define it and not valuing it for what it was. I mean I do still use Ti but that is not my main function. I can try to futilely extract all of the info I want from Ti/Fe and never really understand why I was so unhappy. When I had my "Ni-gasm" yesterday; it was the most awesome thing ever. I had always believed that I needed art or a relationship to experience this but all I really have to do; is to trust my own instincts.





TreasureTower said:


> That's what I experienced in a nutshell the other day but for possibly the first time; I didn't jump to analyze it in anyway and allowed it to percolate. I never before realized how my prejudice towards Ni had been blinding me and robbing me of my true essence.


And here's some of your back-and-forth with @itsme45 about the extent to which your Nichiren Buddhist perspective is "logical":



TreasureTower said:


> TreasureTower said:
> 
> 
> > Well, I believe that at a fundamental level that we are all connected so, I think it makes sense to try to have a positive influence over others but unless it's someone who really matters to me; I may express it more than I actually feel it.
> ...


I can't really overemphasize how alien most of those just-quoted posts of yours sound to me. And I've spent over four years as an active INTJforum participant and can assure you that, assuming the INTJs at that forum are a reasonably representative sample, I'm a pretty typical INTJ in that regard. So, if you're going to view things from a functions perspective, it definitely doesn't make sense to ascribe your approach to spirituality and _personal truths_ as "Ni."

As among the INs, I think there's only one type that fits those quotes pretty well, and that type is INFP. And if I had to choose a second-most-likely type in that regard, it would be INTP, not INFJ. And that's consistent with the idea that, if one of the cognitive functions is primarily responsible for that side of your personality, and if it's an N function, and if it's not Ni (because, as just noted, INTJs are very unlike that), that leaves Ne — which corresponds to NP.

N in general is, to a significant extent, about what you might call _connecting the dots_, and "Aha!" moments of one kind or another are charactistic of every N type. But an NJ's characteristic "Aha!" moment is more likely to be a moment when they _figure out_ a pattern that's _really out there_ (at least as they see it) — and by "really out there" I mean "real" in the sense of existing in the world _independent of the NJ's subjective perspective_. A typical NJ is signicantly less likely than you to experience a thrilling "Aha!" sensation when it occurs to them that, "Aha," I've just thought of a third (or fourth or fifth) "true" way to view that same set of facts! NJ is more about winnowing down the possibilities and settling on the _one_ correct (or best) truth/explanation/interpretation, while NP is more about reveling in the multiplicity of possible truths/expanations/interpretations.

And so, hand in hand with that, the NP connect-the-dots process tends to have more of a _creative_ aspect to it. The NP is less likely than the NJ to view any particular dot-connection activity in terms of simply figuring out an existing connection that's already there in the world (even if no one else had previously discovered it) and more likely to view it as _creating_ a perspective on the facts that doesn't necessarily exist "out there" (independent of the human mind) and that it's possible _no one else would ever have thought of_ other than this particular NP.

I'd say that's one of the reasons NTPs, rather than NTJs, are the quintessential inventor/entrepreneur types, and why the ranks of successful creative artists have (as I understand it) significantly more INFPs than INFJs.

To reprise part of an earlier quote:



TreasureTower said:


> I don't know how much you know about my spiritual practice, Nichiren Buddhism, but the idea is based on this concept referred to as "human revolution"; which basically mean that by creating the person we want to be; we can change the world, or something like it.
> 
> So, while I do want to do my part to serve humanity: ie. the WWF link in my sigline; I want to do it creating some novel theory the revolutionizes the world - preferably in an ingenious work of art of literature.


"Changing the world" not by changing the, you know, "world" (directly, anyway), but instead by changing how you (and others) _think about_ the world, is a quintessentially NP notion/ambition.

In case you haven't read that long J/P post I linked you to — and for the possible benefit of anybody else reading this post — here's some of my "J/P sorter":

J's have a tendency to feel that if you just leave the world to its own devices and let things _happen_, mediocrity is likely to result (if not chaos or something worse). If you want to have a good/meaningful experience, achieve good results, etc., it behooves you to plan/structure/filter the world. ...

P's are more likely to feel (or at least want to believe) that things tend to happen for a reason and have a way of working out for the best. If you plan/structure/filter too much, you're liable to get so caught up in your own net that you'll miss out on a lot of good stuff that you would have experienced if you'd let yourself drift/wander more freely, open to respond, moment by moment, to whatever the world throws your way. ...​
An IN_J's default attitude with respect to the quest for truth and meaning is more likely to be that, although it may be "out there," it's out there in a world with a pronounced tendency to present itself as a chaotic mess. An IN_J in search of hidden truths expects to have to _work at it_, and will more characteristically expect that whatever progress she may manage to make is more likely to take the form of a slow-but-sure lifetime effort, with each new insight building on previous insights, and with the outside world offering more resistance than cooperation (which is not to say there may not be some gratifying "Aha!" moments along the way). An IN_P on a similar quest for truth is more likely than the IN_J to view the quest as, to a substantial degree, a project in discovering the appropriate mode for receptively viewing/experiencing a world that seems to _have a message_ — albeit, perhaps, a relatively vague and ineffable message — that it wants to deliver to the IN_P adventurer who can manage to shuck her mainstream cultural blinders and wander around, trusting her instincts, until she happens onto the path that leads her up the right mountain (but with her "right" mountain not necessarily being anybody else's right mountain).

Here's another post of yours that addresses what you seem to think is a crucial difference between INFJs and INFPs when it comes to "logic":



TreasureTower said:


> I think that the reason that I confused Ni with Fi is that I make decisions according to a personal vision or framework but this framework doesn't necessarily have anything to do with ethics. It would be very difficult to explain it other than the fact that this framework embodies a vision of the world that is logically, aesthetically and ethically based. To explain it another way: You could describe the way I view myself as a creator or artist of my life and the concepts and theories, situations, people and environments are the paint and paintbrushes; so when I intuit that any one of those things may fit into this world view; I then investigate them for logical inconsistencies and only if they survive this rigorous process, do I find some way of integrating them into my consciousness. ...
> 
> I derive tremendous enjoyment from examining a perspective from vastly different angles and coming up with my own unique understanding of it because I strongly believe that with the exception of undisputed verified facts; the only way to get to truth in any theoretical construction where the truth is relatively fluid and open to interpretation, is to view that lens from different perspectives and make up one's own mind as to where the "truth" actually lies.
> ...
> I _know_ that I cannot be a Fi aux because there is no value I hold higher than objectivity. Few things exasperate me more than when someone tells me about a situation and the actions they intend to take to deal with it; when they are either unable or unconcerned with seeing it objectively. It particularly irks me when they want me to agree with their illogically subjectively based conclusions.


You differentiate between two different aspects of the world: aspects that involve "undisputed verified facts" and aspects "where the truth is relatively fluid and open to interpretation." And, as with so many of your posts, you make it clear that the latter category is the one that applies to a large percentage of the things that matter most to you (and to most people, for that matter), and that your overall attitude on that state of affairs is that you enjoy it and take naturally to it.

You "derive tremendous enjoyment," as you've told us, "from examining a perspective from vastly different angles and coming up with my own unique understanding of it." You enjoy being the "creator or artist of [your] life" and coming up with your own "unique understandings" of the truth.

Buuut then... at the end of what I've just quoted, you also say that you "cannot be a Fi aux" (or dom, presumably) "because there is no value I hold higher than objectivity. Few things exasperate me more than when someone tells me about a situation ... when they are either unable or unconcerned with seeing it objectively. It particularly irks me when they want me to agree with their illogically subjectively based conclusions."

The implication seems to be that you think that one or (maybe more likely) both of the following things is true of INFPs: (1) a typical INFP (because of "Fi") is someone who tends to be "unable or unconcerned" with logic/objectivity even with respect to the aspects of the world ("undisputed verified facts," etc.) where subjective perspectives are inappropriate; and/or (2) a typical INFP is someone who, with respect to aspects of the world where subjective perspectives rightfully apply, fails to properly appreciate the fact that those are not aspects of the world where it's appropriate for one person to be trying to impose their "subjectively based conclusions" on someone else.

And, with respect to #1, I'd say that that's a straw-manny characterization that isn't likely to apply to any reasonably intelligent/mature person of _any_ type (including INFPs) and, with respect to #2 (and consistent with a couple of my previous points), I'd say that, as between a typical INFJ and a typical INFP, it's the INFP who's more likely to be fundamentally relativistic about her values/philosophies and an INFJ who's more likely to have a temperamental tendency to seek to convince others that her viewpoint is the best.

I've previously mentioned that the third Snowable-thread post I linked you to includes a section where I talk about the fact that the NFs are the types most associated with "New Age" sorts of beliefs and practices, and that linked post further notes that, as between the INFJs and INFPs, I think a typical INFP is more likely to embrace mystical stuff than a typical INFJ — partly because I see _both_ T and J as, to some degree, "grounding" influences in that regard. Does it ring true for you in terms of your own life experience that the people typically (and/or most devotedly) interested in, e.g., alternative forms of spirituality (including Eastern religions) and mysticism, yoga, meditation, alternative medicine and nutrition are, to a significant extent, the same cultural subgroup — not in the sense of perfect correlation by any means, but in the sense that, if you know that somebody's pretty heavily into a couple of those things, you'd be inclined to suspect there's a better-than-average chance they'll also have an above-average interest in some of the other things? When you go to Nichiren Buddhist meetings, for example, would you say that you find yourself among people with some significant tendency to be interested in the other stuff commonly lumped under the "new age" umbrella, and who feel like _kindred spirits_ to you in a somewhat overall way?

If the answer to those questions is yes, and if I can ask you to focus back on typical dichotometric J/P characteristics for a moment, would you say that the go-with-the-flowish, easygoing P's seem to significantly outnumber the more decisive, controlled/controlling J's when you find yourself in a typical gathering of those folks?


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

[8 of 8]

*Etc.*


* *






TreasureTower said:


> When I first took the MBTI, I would get INFP half the time and INTP, the other half, but I never really felt that the INFP description fit me. Recently, I had been getting INTP more often but with just a slight edge of T over F. I even got ENTP a few times and even INTJ! - which based on the description; I knew couldn't possibly fit me. By studying the functions; I realized that I had high Ti and moderate Fe. I am not at all cold like the INFP description and having strong Fe would also account for me having a low to moderate I over E, as well.
> ...
> I've watched a few different Cognitive types videos and I related most to the communication styles of the XNTPs but then I again, I really don't know what I am like because I don't know how I look to others. I also resemble the INFJs style of speech as well. This was one of the major clues that I could neither be in INFP - not concise enough, or an INTJ - not enough vocal inflection.


To wrap up with this quote, and as you've heard, it hardly surprises me that, when you first took the MBTI, you came out "INFP half the time and INTP the other half" — partly because, as I noted in one of my earlier posts, I think it's not uncommon for INFs (male and female both) to test as INTs, but also because, if I had to pick a second-most-likely type for you, I'd pick INTP rather than INFJ.

And again, as I said at the start of this multi-post series, I think T/F is the messiest of the four MBTI dimensions and I typically get "mixed signals" when I'm dealing with T women. So... it would hardly shake me to my typological core if it turned out you were a female INTP — and, to the extent that you have any interest in reading any or all of those linked T/F posts of mine and/or otherwise pondering your T/F status, I'd definitely be open to further back-and-forths on that subject.

You say you're not "cold enough" to be an INFP. To the extent that the "cold" notion comes from Jung's description of an Fi-dom, I'd note that it's likely the people he had in mind in writing that description were _not_ people who would have come out INFP on the MBTI. To the extent that INFPs can be said to be characteristically "cold," they're pretty much just cold in the sense that all INs tend to be emotionally cool (relatively speaking) — i.e., the combination of introversion with the extra layer of emotional detachment that seems to go with an N preference. Anyone who knows a typical INFP at all well isn't likely to describe them as notably cold. The _opening sentences_ of the INFP description in the second edition of the MBTI Manual say INFPs "have a great deal of warmth, but may not show it until they know a person well. They keep their warm side inside, like a fur lined coat"; while the third edition notes that they're "likely to be sensitive, concerned, and caring." As between INFPs and INFJs, the average INFP is more easygoing and playful and, in any case, the aspects of Jung's Fi-dom portrait involving an air of domineering superiority and harsh judgmentalism are _not_ a good match for the average INFP.

You also say you're not "concise enough" to be an INFP but, as between INFJs and INFPs, I don't think INFPs are notably more concise. Function-centric theorists typically associate Ne with a tendency to brainstorm and think out loud and, although that's more pronounced in EN_Ps, I agree that it's also something that's characteristic of IN_Ps in circumstances where thinking out loud is (at least arguably) appropriate.

More than enough from me, eh?

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

Oh, except I'd be curious to know — but feel free to pass — how you respond to this somewhat famous ethics hypothetical:

A train is approaching a station and, unbeknownst to anyone on the train, there are five men tied to the track who are about to be killed. You're an innocent bystander at the station who just happens to be standing next to a switch and, if you throw the switch, the train will be diverted onto a side track, saving the lives of the five men. But, life being complicated, there's one man tied to the side track who'll be killed if you divert the train.

1. Do you throw the switch, and kill one man to save five? (NOTE: No clever messing with the facts. Assume for the sake of philosophical argument that you only have the two alternatives.)

2. Whichever way you answered #1, would you say you're substantially torn or does your choice pretty definitely seem like the right one to you?

3. If you feel pretty definite about your choice, do you nonetheless view this as a reasonable-folks-can-disagree thing, or would you be inclined to say that someone who made the other choice was _wrong_?

4. If you're inclined to view the other choice as _wrong_, how would you explain the rightness of your view to someone who said they'd make the other choice?


----------



## idoh (Oct 24, 2013)

can i also do this for fun? :tongue: i love scenarios

1. no

2. yes i was very torn. 

3. i can't really say either choice is right or wrong, it really does depend on the person

4. at first i thought i would pull the switch, because more lives would be saved that way; then, after a few seconds, i realized i would actually make the decision to not do anything. basically, if i was never even there in the first place, those five men would be destined to die, and the one person tied to the other rail track may survive. if i were to pull the switch, i tamper with their fate which means i would be directly responsible for the other man's death. although if i sat there as a bystander i would feel very guilty letting those five men die knowing i could have done something, i was not the one who tied them up to the tracks. you could say that i was part of the reason the five men die, but i would also be the reason that one man lives. actually, it wouldn't be my fault as much as it would be the guy who tied them up in the first place. and overall, i would tell myself things were meant to happen that way. oh also if i were to pull the switch, that would be direct proof that i killed someone, which could get me in trouble. if i did nothing, i'd be more innocent than if i pulled the switch, since i am not inclined by law to do anything.

edit: i would also like to take back what i said about my mbti and cognitive functions not matching (they match somewhat). though all of my tests give me INTP (NOT me), i found this book from arclight's post (it will help you @_TreasureTower_ ) and did it myself. on my own i realized i had to be ENxP, because extroverts seek outside stimulation and i would get bored if i was left to do nothing over the weekend with no computer or anything else to do but sit in a quiet room. no idea about T/F, i feel logical, i'm probably not


----------



## Octavarium (Nov 27, 2012)

Ok, I'm going to do this ethics thing too:

1. Throw the switch. I don't have any information about these men except how many there are, so it'll have to be a case of doing the least harm to the fewest number of people.

2. I'd say it's not so much the "right" choice as the less wrong choice, so I can't exactly claim that it's definitely _the right thing to do_ because either way, I'm going to be at least partially responsible for someone's death. Not totally responsible, because it's not my fault those men are tied to the tracks, so I wouldn't consider it anywhere near equivalent to murder. However, there are certain perspectives on this issue that seem definitely wrong to me, as explained below.

3. It's possible that there are reasonable arguments for the other choice, but the one that seems definitely wrong to me is the one that says, if I do nothing, I'm not responsible for what happened because I didn't actually kill anyone. You're not technically killing those five men, but you're letting them die. You can be held responsible for not taking action. So I'm not responsible for the fact that at least one person is going to die, because there's nothing I can do to stop that from happening, but I have to take responsibility for whichever choice I make. 

4. Here's how I'd explain the wrongness of the "if I don't do anything, I'm not responsible" perspective: if a child suffers or dies because their parents failed to take care of them, that would still be wrong, even if they didn't actively do anything to harm the child. So that establishes that people can be held responsible for not taking action. This situation isn't quite the same, because there isn't such a strong duty, but the general principle still applies. As I said, with the two choices we've been given here, I wouldn't really say one is right and one is wrong, because both will end in someone dying, but one involves fewer deaths, and since I don't have any other information, that's the only criterion I can judge it on.


----------



## Octavarium (Nov 27, 2012)

My other contribution to this thread is that the more I think about functions and dichotomies, the more I'm convinced that they don't line up in the way that Myers thought they should. In particular, it does seem like Ni applies better to NPs than NJs. For a long time I thought I couldn't be an IN_J because I don't relate to the mystical Ni descriptions like the items on Nardi's test, and because, if you define Ni as being about changing _the way we interpret_ the outer world (with that focus on interpretation including a focus on symbolism) and you define Ne as being about seeing potential, focusing on changing/improving what's already there rather than reinterpreting things, and that greater external focus leads to a greater focus on context, I relate more to Ne. I also relate more to Si than Se, so I concluded that I was an Si/Ne type, therefore either an SJ or NP. But in that particular version of Ni/Ne, I think Ne actually applies better to NJs and Ni applies better to NPs. Also, I would guess that most NJs (or at least, most IN_Js) relate more to Si than Se, since most Si descriptions have been written so that they apply to SJs (and ISJs especially), and same with Se and SPs/ESPs. Since INJs are closer to ISJs than ESPs, it makes sense from a dichotomy perspective to think they would relate more to Si.

I've taken Nardi's test a few times and I usually score as an INTP (although I think I scored INFP once). My results are reasonably consistent with what the theory says an INTP should be (Ti slightly higher than Te, Ne quite a lot higher than Ni, Moderate Si with low Se, and low Fe) although my Fi is quite a lot higher than it should be for an INTP, according to the model that test is using. But judging by @reckful's posts on the subject, and my own experience of looking at people's results on that test, that's not particularly atypical for INTJs.

So my point is, @TreasureTower, it sounds like Ni does fit you pretty well, but I'd actually consider that a reason to think you're more likely an INFP than INFJ, at least in the dichotomies framework.

Also I agree with @reckful that, if INTJ is the type you relate to least out of the INs, that's a good reason to think INFP is your most likely best fit. One of my reasons for settling on INTJ for my own type is that I relate quite strongly to INTJ, INFJ and INTP profiles, but less so to INFP. There was a time when I thought I should probably consider that I might be an S, and ISTJ was the only S type I could even remotely imagine myself being. So there's a pattern there of me relating more to types that have more letters in common with INTJ, and I think that's a good typing method for anyone who's confused between two or more types.


----------



## Octavarium (Nov 27, 2012)

@reckful, slightly off topic, and I don't intend to turn this thread into a religious debate... but since you did cover religion in your post series, have you ever come across this blog by an INTJ devout Christian? Of particular interest is this post, on the subject of how an INTJ can be a Christian. What do you make of it? I suppose you might say she's a mistyped INFJ, but I don't like to assume people are mistyped without good reason, there must be a few INTJ Christians out there and I would imagine that an INTJ Christian would take their faith as seriously as she does, since it would most likely be something they'd thought deeply about.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

gravity always wins said:


> @reckful, slightly off topic, and I don't intend to turn this thread into a religious debate... but since you did cover religion in your post series, have you ever come across this blog by an INTJ devout Christian? Of particular interest is this post, on the subject of how an INTJ can be a Christian. What do you make of it? I suppose you might say she's a mistyped INFJ, but I don't like to assume people are mistyped without good reason, there must be a few INTJ Christians out there and I would imagine that an INTJ Christian would take their faith as seriously as she does, since it would most likely be something they'd thought deeply about.


You're right. I think it's pretty likely she's a mistyped F. :tongue:

For one thing, it sounds like she's a "true believer" kind of Christian — i.e., the kind who views Christ's divinity as a fact — rather than someone who, if you took them in a room and gave them truth serum, would admit that Christ wasn't necessarily any more "divine" than Mohammed or Buddha (or maybe you and me), but his teachings tap into some transcendent thing or other and making the "leap of faith" serves positive psychological purposes in their life and bla bla bla (i.e., more of an NT-friendly religious flavor, at least as I see it). And I think INTJs are especially unlikely to be religious in that kind of (to my mind) naïvely and ignorantly ethnocentric (in effect) "true believer" way.

And for another thing, she's not just devoutly Christian, but she and her husband are "inner city missionaries" — which is an unlikely INTJ career and involves a strong sacrificial other-orientation that's much more characteristic of F's than T's.

The most important point, though, maybe, is to emphasize that, on top of the possibility of weak and middlish preferences, even in a case where you're dealing with an INTJ with strong N and T preferences, the MBTI is still about _tendencies and probabilities_. So the existence of particular individuals whose beliefs/attitudes/etc. seem to run counter to what you'd expect just from their type isn't really inconsistent with the typology (properly viewed). And she herself admits she's an unusual INTJ (assuming she is an INTJ).


----------



## Velasquez (Jul 3, 2012)

CognitiveType visual reading is pseudoscientific shit.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

reckul said:


> I'd say this quote favors NF over NT in a couple of respects. Reality TV? Yikes. Hopefully needless to say, there are people of all types who dislike reality TV for one reason or another, but I'd say the two preferences most likely to contribute to someone "really liking" reality TV (including to the point of "looking for other people who shared that interest" on a reality TV forum) are S and F — and we know you're not an S. I'd say NTs are the types you'd be least likely to find watching reality TV — and TV in general, for that matter. Assuming that a substantial part of your serious affection for reality TV comes from the fact that you enjoy getting caught up in the participant's lives, following their ups and downs, sharing their joys and sorrows and traumas and victories and defeats and all that, I'd say that's a pretty decent F indicator. There's no question women make up the majority of the readership of magazines like People, right? — and I think T/F plays a significant role in that.
> 
> But it sounds like the reality TV forum you posted on was relatively unmoderated, with the result that — as in the majority of largely unmoderated forums, as I understand it — there was quite a lot of "virulent and relentless flaming" there, and I'd say your strongly negative reaction to that stuff is also worth an F point or two. All other things being equal, I'd say the NTPs (in particular) may well be the types most likely to be amused by online flaming, rather than "abhorring" it.


I think that you may have misunderstood. I have 0 interest in stuff like the Kardashians; the type of realtiy tv that I go for is more like Survivor Big Brother, The Amazing Race, The Voice, So You Think You Can Dance all of them competiton and/or strategy type shows. The types of shows that you are referring to, would put me to sleep. As far as the flaming aspect of it goes; there is a major difference between good-natured sarcastic bantering and relentless, mean-spirited bullying. I also hated all of the negativity on those boards.

I will add one more point. If I am an INFP like you suggest; then why did I practically run out of the INFP forum screaming, everytime I tried to get into it? Why did I enjoy the INTP forum, so much more? And how can I be an IEI in Socionics - there is no way I am an EII, and be an INFP in MBTI? And finally, why does practically everyone tell me that I'm practically oozing Fe? INFPs are described as being typically aloof and reserved and when it comes to my emotional expression; I am none of those things.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

reckful said:


> [5 of 8]Here's a point I've made in several type-me threads:
> 
> If there's an MBTI type most likely to cherish movies like _Braveheart_, I'd say it's the NFJ. There seems to be something about the combination of NF with J that leads people to particularly love stories where powerful evildoers finally get their (often violent) comeuppance at the hands of the noble, oppressed little guys and justice is served ... [and] it sounds to me like you've got a fairly strong streak that corresponds to that special hate that it seems to me that NFJs (and perhaps INFJs especially) are prone to have in the face of some powerful person or group inflicting oppression/injustice/etc. on some underdog or disadvantaged group, and that special calling to nobly stand up for the oppressed and fight the oppression.​
> So... OK, I realize you're going to respond, "Ha! I get INFJ points!" if _Braveheart_ is one of your favorite movies. But my point, in the context of _this_ type-me thread, is that, as between NTs and NFs, an above-average sensitivity to cases where someone (or some group, most often a minority) is being discriminated against or otherwise treated unjustly by the powerful (or the mainstream culture) is more quintessentially NF — and if your response to those kinds of evils is more along the lines of preach-enlightenment-to-the-blind than bring-down-the-mighty-hammer-of-justice, that's arguably somewhat more INFP than INFJ. When it comes to certain kinds of anti-humanitarian evildoers, I think there are no types that _love to hate_ (and are prone to nurse/cherish their grievances) with quite the vengeful passion of the NFJs. And, by contrast, I suspect INFP may be the likeliest pacifist type. Where would you place yourself on the pacifist-avenger spectrum?[/SPOILER]


Okay, first off, I have never seen that movie and frankly don't really have any desire to; they're just not my cup of tea at all. I actually loathe those kind of movies and view them as sentimental pap. I much prefer films that make you think; see the world differently and/or entertain in a spectacle kind of way.

Some of my favourite films (in no particular order): Life of Brian, Moulin Rouge, Chicago, Nurse Betty, Mulholland Drive, A Dangerous Method, Midnight in Paris, Some Like it Hot, Strangers on a Train, Logan's Run, A Room with a View, House of Games, Rashomen, Subway, Proof, Secret Window, Sliding Doors, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Dead of Night, The Palm Beach Story, Black Swan, 500 Days of Summer, Sex, Lies and Videotape, Delicatesson, The Age of Innocence, Mindtrap, The Piano, To Die For, A Fish Called Wanda and a few Indie flicks that escape me.

My favourite book of all time, is Kafka's The Trial. I generally prefer non-fiction to fiction. I don't care about "feel good" bullshit type movies; I prefer ones that have an alternative way of seeing reality. In general, I dislike movies dubbed as "chick flicks" and macho guy action movies.

As far as pacifism/vengeance goes; I care about justice, IRL that is; in a film; I don't care so long as the reason for the plot turning out the way it has, is based on logic. I don't particularly care for violence and gore in general; so, I guess I would choose pacifism over vengeance but I care far more about things making sense and being thought-provoking than stuff like that. I also prefer complex, multi-dimensional characters and prefer to see the world in shades of grey as opposed to black and white. The INFJs who I've encountered on PerC fit your characterizations far less than the IXFPs and the INTJs do, IMO. INFJs seem to be the most open-minded in their ethical views for the most part - on PerC anyway.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

TreasureTower said:


> I will add one more point. If I am an INFP like you suggest; then why did I practically run out of the INFP forum screaming, everytime I tried to get into it? Why did I enjoy the INTP forum, so much more? And how can I be an IEI in Socionics - there is no way I am an EII, and be an INFP in MBTI? And finally, why does practically everyone tell me that I'm practically oozing Fe? INFPs are described as being typically aloof and reserved and when it comes to my emotional expression; I am none of those things.


Actually, INFPs (and this would apply more strongly to a Limbic INFP) are not infrequently characterized as the quintessential _emo_ types — but note that you're not allowed to use that observation as an excuse to say, well, then, I can't be an INFP because I'm not sufficiently emo. :tongue:

What I'm sayin' is... again, I think you're under a misimpression if you think INFPs are notably "aloof and reserved." As I said in my last post, "To the extent that INFPs can be said to be characteristically 'cold,' they're pretty much just cold in the sense that all INs tend to be emotionally cool (relatively speaking) — i.e., the combination of introversion with the extra layer of emotional detachment that seems to go with an N preference." And I'd add that, as between an INTP and an INFP, the INTP is the one likely to be significantly less warm. And I'd also add that a _Limbic_ INFP's extra dose of emotional sensitivity/volatility is liable to make her come across as even less "aloof" than she might otherwise be.

As between an INFJ and an INFP, maybe the INFJ would be one notch less aloof and/or one notch warmer, but I'd say they're in the same ballpark in that regard.

Think about a gathering of Nichiren Buddhists or any other gathering you can think of where there are lots of NFs and try to think of a handful of the women (especially) who come across as introverted and on the P-ish side in terms of being more go-with-the-flowy/undisciplined/playful — i.e., likely INFPs. Are the people you're picturing people you'd describe as notably "aloof and reserved" and/or cold?

INFPs are introverts, but they're people-oriented and they're playful. I'd say _warm, witty wiseass_ sounds like a good INFP fit.

You say you're seen as "oozing Fe" but, as you know from my posts, I really didn't find much in your posts that struck me as being characteristic of INFJs and uncharacteristic of INFPs.

And I'm afraid I can't give you any helpful typing input from a Socionics perspective.

As for why you enjoyed the INTP forum much more than the INFP forum: As I said, I see INTP as a possibility for you. Can you describe the kinds of INFP forum posts that made you "practically run out ... screaming"?


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

reckful said:


> Actually, INFPs (and this would apply more strongly to a Limbic INFP) are not infrequently characterized as the quintessential _emo_ types — but note that you're not allowed to use that observation as an excuse to say, well, then, I can't be an INFP because I'm not sufficiently emo. :tongue:
> 
> What I'm sayin' is... again, I think you're under a misimpression if you think INFPs are notably "aloof and reserved." As I said in my last post, "To the extent that INFPs can be said to be characteristically 'cold,' they're pretty much just cold in the sense that all INs tend to be emotionally cool (relatively speaking) — i.e., the combination of introversion with the extra layer of emotional detachment that seems to go with an N preference." And I'd add that, as between an INTP and an INFP, the INTP is the one likely to be significantly less warm. And I'd also add that a _Limbic_ INFP's extra dose of emotional sensitivity/volatility is liable to make her come across as even less "aloof" than she might otherwise be.
> 
> ...


It's too bad, that you don't study Socionics because I think it does a much better job of typing people than MBTI. IEI in Socionics is like MBTI INFJ: NiFeTiSe except that they are far more P than J. I know that you aren't a fan of Drenth but his description of INFJ seemed to be written for me. Anyway, IEIs belong to the Beta quadra which is inclusive and based primarily on camaraderie where as EII (MBTI INFP) is based more on Delta; More sharing of feelings, individualistc, more introverted type of stuff. Well a meeting of Nichiren Buddhists is somewhat closest to Beta. They're light and easygoing: Alpha, XNTPs, and Delta, XNFPs: some sharing of experiences and how the practice helped them, but inspiration, a structure and group inclusiveness and camaraderie XNFJs (Beta) is key. Why did you quote "Nam Myoho Renge Kyo" the phrase that I chant, in your post? What does that have to do with anything?  There are more than one kind of personality type at those meetings but what I will say is that thy on the whoile, tend to be more positive, caring and inspiring than in the general population. They also tend to have shared values - another prominent characteristic of the Beta quadra.

Actually, since Fe is more dramatic and expressive than Fi, INFJs are generally much more emotionally expressive than INFPs. How much time do you spend on PerC, because with a few exceptions, most of the "warm, witty wiseasses" I've encountered, tend to be XXTPs or XXFJs - TiFe. There are a few INFPs who fit that description of course but they seem to be pretty atypical on PerC anyway. The vast majority of them seem overly serious to me.

Okay, well XNXPs tend to have Si as opposed to Se and tend to be less sensual than Se types. In Drenth's description: he compared INFPs who are far less materialistic then INFJs. I wouldn't necessarily classify myself as materialistic but I do enjoy luxury and consider myself to be very sensual and pleasure oriented - more like an INFJ over an INFP. 

The kind of posts that made me run out screaming were pretty much emo, navel-gazing type posts where people were emoting for reasons that I can't even begin to understand. Now, I realize that there are mistypes in every forum and that's why I reject Myers J/P portion of the MBTI. I really don't care to listen to any kind of venting in general but at least in the INFJ forum; the emoting is usually about something or someone; you rarely see an INFJ that is emoting without a very clear reason: like having a break up, for example. You rarely see this kind of post in there:

"I'm mad at the world. I hate life. I am so unhappy" etc. etc, *without there being any specific cause* underlying it. In the INFJ forum, there is almost always a very _specific_ reason for the emotion and the focus *is on the reason* - not the feeling, in general. I can relate and even empathise if I understand _why_ someone is upset but if they are upset because they are upset; it seems kind of pointless to me.

As for the INTP forum; I loved the anything goes type of humour; although some of it was a bit silly. The thing is that what I really wanted was more of a balance: some feeling so that I can emotionally connect with what I'm reading but not so much that I want to shoot myself. I personally hate even thinking about my own feelings and while I like to help people; I can listen but I prefer to give solution-based advice, rather than just commiserating. In the Sex and Relationship forum; it is almost always the IXFPs that tend to get really riled up. I can be passionate but I am rarely - if ever - emotionally invested in these discussions. About the only time that were to happen; is if I were to observe someone being unfairly ganged up on; that would likely upset me a great deal but otherwise, I stay pretty emotionally detached.

The fact is that the iNFJ forum - while still a bit too emo for me but still a better balance than the INTP forum; I can still tolerate it pretty well. I have not been able to stomach the INFP forum due to all of the self-referencing emotion driven posts in there. To sum up: If someone is suffering and they have a specific reason for that suffering; I can be highly empathic but if they are suffering and there doesn't seem to be an specific external reason for it; then it baffles me and makes me squirm. I have trouble listening to that because unlike the _causal_ related suffering; there doesn't seem to be any end in sight because they seem to be almost wallowing in that suffering rather than trying to snap out of it.

Does this answer any of your questions?

My late father was a wiseass and I guess I took after him. If there is humour to be discovered in any given situation; than I will be the one to find it.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

On the one hand, you're saying you don't think you're an INFP because they're more "aloof and reserved" than you are and, on the other hand, you're saying you don't fit in with the INFPs because they're more emo than you are (all that "emoting" and "venting"). Can you help me understand why that isn't inconsistent from your perspective?

You say that "since Fe is more dramatic and expressive than Fi, INFJs are generally much more emotionally expressive than INFPs," and that just sounds to me like a perfect example of cognitive functions analysis leading people off the rails. "Fe" is "dramatic" and "expressive"? In Fe-doms it is. They're extraverts. In INFJs? Just for starters, Jung didn't think introverts had extraverted auxiliary functions. And meanwhile, out in the real world, how relatively "expressive" and "dramatic" an INFJ and an INFP are is likely to depend more on their relative levels of introversion and whether (and how much) they're Limbic than the fact that one is a J and one is a P. And again, circling back to the INFP forum, you certain didn't find any shortage of dramatic expressiveness there, right?

ADDED: Speaking of wiseasses...



TreasureTower said:


> Why did you quote "Nam Myoho Renge Kyo" the phrase that I chant, in your post? What does that have to do with anything?


I was just wiseassedly framing my type verdict as an epiphany, but without any serious expectation that that would lend it any additional weight. :tongue:


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

reckful said:


> On the one hand, you're saying you don't think you're an INFP because they're more "aloof and reserved" than you are and, on the other hand, you're saying you don't fit in with the INFPs because they're more emo than you are (all that "emoting" and "venting"). Can you help me understand why that isn't inconsistent from your perspective?
> 
> You say that "since Fe is more dramatic and expressive than Fi, INFJs are generally much more emotionally expressive than INFPs," and that just sounds to me like a perfect example of cognitive functions analysis leading people off the rails. "Fe" is "dramatic" and "expressive"? In Fe-doms it is. They're extraverts. In INFJs? Just for starters, Jung didn't think introverts had extraverted auxiliary functions. And meanwhile, out in the real world, how relatively "expressive" and "dramatic" an INFJ and an INFP are is likely to depend more on their relative levels of introversion and whether (and how much) they're Limbic than the fact that one is a J and one is a P. And again, circling back to the INFP forum, you certain didn't find any shortage of dramatic expressiveness there, right?
> 
> ...


Okay, I think that you misunderstand what I mean by dramatic and emotional expressiveness. What I am referring to is being sensitive to the emotions of others and orienting yourself towards them. IOW, I can adapt myself to the mood of any given situation. I can tell what other people are feeling far better than I can tell what I'm feeling. I can instinctively intuit the mood of the people around me and actually express what they're feeling. I not only sense the emotions of those around me; I automatically can mimic them as well.l I am an empath, I absorb other people's emotions like a sponge and if someone is emoting and they don't know why; then I can't help them and I feel helpless and fear, that I'm going to be pulled into some black hole that I can't escape from because a lot of the posts in that forum seem; like a bottomless vast vortex of self-absorbed pain and suffering that I want no part of.

Fi is emotional to oneself; Fe is emotional to others. I found the WRONG kind of dramatic expressiveness. My Nichiren Buddhist groups are dramatic and expressive but in an upbeat, inspirational and positive way; I can never get enough of that. I don't wallow in my emotions; I flee from them but I connect best when I can relate both intellectually and emotionally to what someone is saying.

As far as extroversion and introversion being connected as to how expressive one is; I strongly disagree with you; that's probably why I scored as a SLOAN extrovert. I am very expressive and dramatic but I am also extremely introverted. When I am around others, I can be extremely expressive but its an act (albeit one I happen to be good at and enjoy) I put on because my natural state is going off in my head, thinking, imagining, daydreaming etc. To me, the outside world often feels like a dream to me; it never seems as real as whatever happens to be going on in my mind at any time. So, no I totally disagree with you there. My favourite part of any social interaction - no matter how positive, enjoyable, interesting, etc. is ALWAYS once I am once again by myself and can relive it in my head.

Well, Nam Myoho Renge Kyo - translates to mean: In devotion to the mystic law of cause and effect through sound; so I guess it kind of works. . .


----------

