# Tactless ISFP or sympathetic INTJ?



## eccentriK (Jul 5, 2013)

Alas! the knowledge of MBTI often comes in the way of determining one's own type. It's like some sort of self perception warping thing.

I'm getting more Fi perceptions out of you.

Fi Ne to be precise...love your vocabulary. It kinda gave me the hint.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 24, 2012)

synaesthete said:


> Ne over Ni because i have an asystematic, chaotic kind of thinking, and, when with people, i often begin to be strangely loquacious, saying every oddity that comes to my mind.
> but sometimes when i'm alone i tend to be focused, deep, "subconscious", etc. like a Ni.
> 
> when i'm in nature i often feel like merging, melting, rhytmically mingling with everything
> ...


Saying random things to people isn't Ne. If anything, it seems like a reflection of introversion because you're not treating the external world as something wholly separate from yourself. You just say whatever comes to mind because all the world exists in your mind. And your mind seems to flow any which way it wants. 

I'd say your dominant function is an introverted perceiving function, so we're looking at Ni or Si. *Holds up hands* Now, before you object to Si ("_of course_ it can't be Si!"), let me say that Jung's Si is nothing like MBTI's Si. The latter is a stifling version of Te, and it really makes no sense as an introverted perceiving function. But Jung's Si is beautiful and completely logical within the context of his theory. 

Si is subjective Sensation, not photographic memory, traditionalism, or any other MBTI BS. As Jung describes it (not in quotes because those are hard to read):

Sensation, which by its very nature is dependent on the object and on objective stimuli, undergoes considerable modification in the introverted attitude. It, too, has a subjective factor, for besides the sensed object there is a sensing subject who adds his subjective disposition to the objective stimulus. 

In the introverted attitude sensation is based predominantly on the subjective component of perception. What I mean by this is best illustrated by works of art which reproduce external objects. If, for instance, several painters were to paint the same landscape, each trying to reproduce it faithfully, each painting will be different from the others, not merely because of differences in ability, but chiefly because of different ways of seeing; indeed, in some of the paintings there will be a distinct psychic difference in mood and the treatment of colour and form. These qualities betray the influence of the subjective factor. 

The subjective factor in sensation is essentially the same as in the other functions we have discussed. It is an unconscious disposition which alters the sense-perception at its source, thus depriving it of the character of a purely objective influence. In this case, sensation is related primarily to the subject and only secondarily to the object. 

How extraordinarily strong the subjective factor can be is shown most clearly in art. Its predominance sometimes amounts to a complete suppression of the object's influence, and yet the sensation remains sensation even though it has become a perception of the subjective factor and the object has sunk to the level of a mere stimulus. 

Introverted sensation is oriented accordingly. True sense-perception certainly exists, but it always looks as though the object did not penetrate into the subject in its own right, but as though the subject were seeing it quite differently, or saw quite other things than other people see. Actually, he perceives the same things as everybody else, only he does not stop at the purely objective influence, but concerns himself with the subjective perception excited by the objective stimulus.

Subjective perception is markedly different from the objective. What is perceived is either not found at all in the object, or is, at most, merely suggested by it. That is, although the perception can be similar to that of other men, it is not immediately derived from the objective behavior of things. It does not impress one as a mere product of consciousness -- it is too genuine for that. But it makes a definite psychic impression because elements of a higher psychic order are discernible in it. 

This order, however, does not coincide with the contents of consciousness. It has to do with presuppositions or dispositions of the collective unconscious, with mythological images, with primordial possibilities of ideas. Subjective perception is characterized by the meaning that clings to it. It means more than the mere image of the object, though naturally only to one for whom the subjective factor means anything at all. 

Introverted sensation apprehends the background of the physical world rather than its surface. The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, of the primordial images which, in their totality, constitute a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror with the peculiar faculty of reflecting the existing contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but, as it were, _sub specie aeternitatis_, somewhat as a million-year-old consciousness might see them. Such a consciousness would see the becoming and passing away of things simultaneously with their momentary existence in the present, and not only that, it would also see what was before their becoming and will be after their passing hence. 

Naturally this is only a figure of speech, but one that I needed in order to illustrate in some way the peculiar nature of introverted sensation. We could say that introverted sensation transmits an image which does not so much reproduce the object as spread over it the patina of age-old subjective experience and the shimmer of events still unborn. The bare sense impression develops in depth, reaching into the past and future.


... Okay, my fingers are tired and I don't know if there's a point in transcribing more. Did any of the above resonate with you?


----------



## synaesthete (Jan 3, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Saying random things to people isn't Ne.


Yeah, but that was just a hint. i meant that i see connections, possibilities etc. like it's described in most Ne descriptions

And i realized that when i write i have that chaotic Ne kind of writing (i can't post links, but it's "INTP and INTJ writing styles")
but don't consider too much my writing here; sometimes i have some troubles constructing the sentences the way i want, since english is not my first language hahah



> If anything, it seems like a reflection of introversion because you're not treating the external world as something wholly separate from yourself. You just say whatever comes to mind because all the world exists in your mind. And your mind seems to flow any which way it wants.


yeah, nice, but that can probably be inverted. i don't know, but it could also mean that i "spread" myself in the world because _my mind_ exists in the world; that i dissolve my ego in the outside



> I'd say your dominant function is an introverted perceiving function, so we're looking at Ni or Si. *Holds up hands* Now, before you object to Si ("_of course_ it can't be Si!"), let me say that Jung's Si is nothing like MBTI's Si. The latter is a stifling version of Te, and it really makes no sense as an introverted perceiving function. But Jung's Si is beautiful and completely logical within the context of his theory.
> 
> Si is subjective Sensation, not photographic memory, traditionalism, or any other MBTI BS. As Jung describes it (not in quotes because those are hard to read)


wow, i've always been dissatisfied with these MBTI Si descriptions! i've always seen it like you, _a stifling version of Te_. but now i start to comprehend. i could definitely have that Si! but i don't think as a primary function. why would you say so?

now INFP makes mooore sense to me: Fi Ne Si Te
seems perfect

my illusion of Se was because i have strong Enneagram 7 needs XD


----------



## Coyote (Jan 24, 2012)

synaesthete said:


> but don't consider too much my writing here; sometimes i have some troubles constructing the sentences the way i want, since english is not my first language hahah


That actually makes a big difference. Your written English has a poetic, sensual feel. 



> yeah, nice, but that can probably be inverted. i don't know, but it could also mean that i "spread" myself in the world because my mind exists in the world; that i dissolve my ego in the outside


I considered that, but it didn't sound like the case for you. There's a subtle difference, which I'm not sure I can articulate. 

Basically, a strong extravert sees himself in the world -- he is the world. A strong introvert sees the world in himself -- the world is him. Solipsism must seem like the most ridiculous concept to an extravert, but I'm like, "Yeah, I could see that."

In your first post, you said: "i don't think it's wrong to kill animals, nothing is wrong, all is permitted, but animals suffering is my suffering." Nothing is wrong, all is permitted. That sounds a whole lot like chaos magick's "Nothing is true, everything is permitted," which is so utterly introverted. Belief makes truth. The inside matters more than the outside.

BTW, I also don't think that your vegetarian explanation reflects an Fi way of looking at things. Fi is very similar to Ti in terms of conceptual attraction. If something captures my interest, I'm going to explore it until I'm satisfied with my own understanding. An Fi-dom's focus and methods are different, but he still wants to fully grasp the idea. 

Your explanation made it sound like you internalize the animal's suffering, more as a sensation than any ideal. The fact that you said you don't have morals or ethics just doesn't sound like an Fi-dom, at all. That's like a Ti-dom saying he doesn't have ideas and doesn't care about logic. Like ... huh?



> wow, i've always been dissatisfied with these MBTI Si descriptions! i've always seen it like you, a stifling version of Te. but now i start to comprehend. i could definitely have that Si! but i don't think as a primary function. why would you say so?


I actually wasn't sure either way, it just seemed possible. Sensation seems very important to you, in a positive way ... but you seem to add something to the sense-perceptions, something that makes them valuable and personal. Jung's Si is my auxiliary function, and I felt a connection with some of the things you wrote.

I should probably clarify that I don't use MBTI. I learned it years ago, but its inconsistencies drove me up the wall. Then I read Jung's original text, and it was like coming home. Everything was nice, neat, and made sense within a cohesive theory. Unlike MBTI, with its collections of stereotypes masquerading as thoughtful personality descriptions. (And I resent the fact that genuine Si-doms are pretty much screwed in trying to find their MBTI type.)

So I don't use MBTI's descriptions of the functions or types, and I don't agree about how the functions "go together" (like Fi>Ne>Si>Te). I follow Jung's theory, in which the order of importance is dominant->inferior->auxiliary. And a developed auxiliary will share the attitude of the dominant (of the conscious), which is why I'm Ti-Si (with plenty of f'ed up Fe). 

A big part of the personality is the inferior, and it's going to reflect the worst parts of yourself. In your descriptions, you bashed extraverted judging ... but there doesn't seem to be any sort of ambivalence, which I'd expect from an inferior function. There's also not much to suggest that you identify with an introverted judging function. I do see Si and Ne, so I'm inclined to call it your primary axis. Sensation seems far more valuable to you than Intuition, so that'd point to Si-dom with Ne-inf.

Obviously, it's up to you to make the decision. All I can do is offer information to help your determination. In service of that goal, I'll transcribe some of Jung's Si-dom description. (The bit last time was just about Si itself, not the personality type associated with it.) So, here we go:

The predominance of introverted sensation produces a definite type, which is characterized by certain peculiarities. It is an irrational type, because it is oriented amid the flux of events not by rational judgment but simply by what happens. Whereas the extraverted sensation type is guided by the intensity of objective influences, the introverted type is guided by the intensity of the subjective sensation excited by the objective stimulus. 

Obviously, therefore, no proportional relation exists between object and sensation, but one that is apparently quite unpredictable and arbitrary. What will make an impression and what will not can never be seen in advance, and from outside. Did there exist an aptitude for expression in any way proportional to the intensity of his sensations, the irrationality of this type would be extraordinarily striking. This is the case, for instance, when an individual is a creative artist. 

He may be conspicuous for his calmness and passivity, or for his rational self-control. This peculiarity, which often leads a superficial judgment astray, is really due to his unrelatedness to objects. Normally the object is not consciously devalued in the least, but its stimulus is removed from it and immediately replaced by a subjective reaction no longer related to the reality of the object. This naturally has the same effect as devaluation. 

His development alienates him from the reality of the object, leaving him at the mercy of his subjective perceptions, which orient his consciousness to an archaic reality. He lives in a mythological world, where men, animals, locomotives, houses, rivers, and mountains appear either as benevolent deities or as malevolent demons. That they appear thus to him never enters his head, though that is just the effect they have on his judgments and actions. He judges and acts as though he had such powers to deal with; but this begins to strike him only when he discovers that his sensations are totally different from reality. 

[Regarding inferior Ne:]
His unconscious is distinguished chiefly by the repression of intuition, which consequently acquires an extraverted and archaic character. Whereas true extraverted intuition is possessed of a singular resourcefulness, a "good nose" for objectively real possibilities, this archaicized intuition has an amazing flair for all the ambiguous, shadowy, sordid, dangerous possibilities lurking in the background. 

----

Since you seem inclined toward Fi-dom, I figure it'd be fair to transcribe some of the original Fi description too. That would also serve to ease the discussion about what counts as Fi specifically, and what is merely a reflection of introversion. Randomness to follow ....

It is continually seeking an image which has no existence in reality, but which it has seen in a kind of vision. It glides unheedingly over all objects that do not fit in with its aim. It strives after inner intensity, for which the objects serve at most as a stimulus. [Note: I can see why you'd identify with this part. I do too, in a Ti-ish way.]

The depth of this feeling can only be guessed -- it can never be clearly grasped. It makes people silent and difficult of access; it shrinks back like a violet from the brute nature of the object in order to fill the depths of the subject. It comes out with negative judgments or assumes an air of profound indifference as a means of defence.

The primordial images are, of course, just as much ideas as feelings. Fundamental ideas, ideas like God, freedom, and immortality, are just as much feeling-values as they are significant ideas. Everything, therefore, that we have said about introverted thinking is equally true of introverted feeling, only here everything is felt while there it was thought. [Note: You didn't go into any detail about your interest in philosophy and such, so I have no idea how much you relate to this part.]

[Regarding inferior Te:]
Although the unconscious thinking is archaic, its reductive tendencies help to compensate the occasional fits of trying to exalt the ego into the subject. If this should nevertheless happen as a result of the complete suppression of the counterbalancing subliminal processes, the unconscious thinking goes over into open opposition and gets projected. The egocentrized subject now comes to feel the power and importance of the devalued object. She begins consciously to feel "what other people think." Naturally, other people are thinking all sorts of mean things, scheming evil, contriving plots, secret intrigues, etc.

----

It's important to note what's unique to a personality, and what's not. Fi's most singular trait is its focus on feeling-values and ideas. If a personality isn't revolving around that, then it's not dominated by introverted feeling. Similarly, if Te doesn't hold some sort of dark power over you, then it's probably not your inferior. 

But your desire for conflict, for trouble, to feel the depths of the darkness ... that sounds like your inferior at play. It's definitely not "weak," and it seems to be prowling the external world for new toys. That's what gives me the impression of inferior Ne. Obviously, though, you know your dark side far better than I ever will. (Thank goodness! )


----------



## synaesthete (Jan 3, 2016)

Coyote said:


> That actually makes a big difference. Your written English has a poetic, sensual feel.


I just have some difficulties in expressing myself smoothly; probably in my mother language that sensual feel is even more emphasized 



> I considered that, but it didn't sound like the case for you. There's a subtle difference, which I'm not sure I can articulate.
> 
> Basically, a strong extravert sees himself in the world -- he is the world. A strong introvert sees the world in himself -- the world is him. Solipsism must seem like the most ridiculous concept to an extravert, but I'm like, "Yeah, I could see that."


yeah, definitely, now you convinced me




> In your first post, you said: "i don't think it's wrong to kill animals, nothing is wrong, all is permitted, but animals suffering is my suffering." Nothing is wrong, all is permitted. That sounds a whole lot like chaos magick's "Nothing is true, everything is permitted," which is so utterly introverted. Belief makes truth. The inside matters more than the outside.
> 
> BTW, I also don't think that your vegetarian explanation reflects an Fi way of looking at things. Fi is very similar to Ti in terms of conceptual attraction. If something captures my interest, I'm going to explore it until I'm satisfied with my own understanding. An Fi-dom's focus and methods are different, but he still wants to fully grasp the idea.
> 
> ...


then i have some troubles with the specific vocabulary. what's intended by _feeling_? to me feeling is far apart from morals, ethics and every other vertical fixed dogma; defined, pre-shaped values to me are _dead_, inauthentic.
morality, justice, right, rationality, truth, and every other fixed idea are alienating spooks. i don't want and i can't be _limited_ by these kind of ghosts

i just believe that what you're describing as sensation for animal's suffering is what i thought was my feeling

i don't see feeling as a dead idea, but as a shimmering, always moving perception.
but something "from the heart". surely not a "logic" thing: for that reason i was thinking about Fi





> But your desire for conflict, for trouble, to feel the depths of the darkness ... that sounds like your inferior at play. It's definitely not "weak," and it seems to be prowling the external world for new toys. That's what gives me the impression of inferior Ne. Obviously, though, you know your dark side far better than I ever will. (Thank goodness! )


hahah i'm in touch with my shadow

you're probably right, but i find it difficult to believe that i have in some ways "repressed" intuition: it's something that i've always valued a lot



> Similarly, if Te doesn't hold some sort of dark power over you, then it's probably not your inferior.


Te, as you say, is very detached from me. too much

do i have to pair dominant and inferior in some ways?

probably i use
Si-Ne-Fi/Ti



> I should probably clarify that I don't use MBTI. I learned it years ago, but its inconsistencies drove me up the wall. Then I read Jung's original text, and it was like coming home. Everything was nice, neat, and made sense within a cohesive theory. Unlike MBTI, with its collections of stereotypes masquerading as thoughtful personality descriptions. (And I resent the fact that genuine Si-doms are pretty much screwed in trying to find their MBTI type.)
> 
> So I don't use MBTI's descriptions of the functions or types, and I don't agree about how the functions "go together" (like Fi>Ne>Si>Te). I follow Jung's theory, in which the order of importance is dominant->inferior->auxiliary. And a developed auxiliary will share the attitude of the dominant (of the conscious), which is why I'm Ti-Si (with plenty of f'ed up Fe).


yeah, Jung seems much better, i have to read that book, to comprehend deeply these things.
mbti is just for company polls haha


----------



## Coyote (Jan 24, 2012)

synaesthete said:


> you're probably right, but i find it difficult to believe that i have in some ways "repressed" intuition: it's something that i've always valued a lot


Eh. "Right" is a relative term, and useful only to the extent that it helps you find what you're looking for. As long as you're using personality theory to explore yourself (not just find a box), I don't think you can go wrong.

As for the "repression" of your intuition, that might be an issue with the word's connotation. (Just like "feeling" is a bit confusing.) It might be more helpful to think of your dominant (conscious) and inferior (unconscious) in terms of a finger trap. As long as you're calm, you're fine. But if you try to yank free, you're trapped. The harder you fight, the worse it gets. 

So if you're psychologically healthy (which you seem to be), the inferior is pretty mellow. You're not trying to defend yourself against it; there's no war. The problems arise when you try to rid yourself of its influence, and you quickly find that you can't. The more you try to shake the monkey from your back, the harder it clings. (And then it smashes feces into your hair.)

And I do understand about valuing the inferior. I may resent Fe when it's being imposed on me, but I sure do find it interesting. I have a graduate education in international relations and military history; I'm fascinated by what happens when cultures clash and evolve, or when the dark side of Fe is exposed. That's my inferior at play, but it's positive as long as it remains under Ti's leadership (intellectualizing rather than feeling). When I have to personally deal with social conventions, when Fe tries to interfere or even run the show -- then things get nasty. I just have to prevent that battle from starting.

If you're not fighting your intuition or your extraverted unconscious, I don't think you're going to experience many problems. Ne will just operate in the background, trying to exert its influence where it can. If it stays within its proper bounds, then you'll likely experience it as a normal part of your personality. Ya know, that kinda weird part that delights in destruction, like a kid playing with matches.



> do i have to pair dominant and inferior in some ways?


Under Jung's theory, yes. Think of it like, "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction." Introverting your conscious will extravert your unconscious. Accepting sensation into your conscious will drive intuition into the unconscious. Same with feeling and thinking.



> probably i use
> Si-Ne-Fi/Ti


That would work, within the confines of the theory. But is that what you actually think?



> then i have some troubles with the specific vocabulary. what's intended by _feeling_? to me feeling is far apart from morals, ethics and every other vertical fixed dogma; defined, pre-shaped values to me are _dead_, inauthentic.
> morality, justice, right, rationality, truth, and every other fixed idea are alienating spooks. i don't want and i can't be _limited_ by these kind of ghosts
> 
> i just believe that what you're describing as sensation for animal's suffering is what i thought was my feeling
> ...


Honestly, I'm not the best person to ask about Fi, as my Feeling has been turned outward. I don't really know what it'd be like if my Feeling were not only introverted, but fully accepted into my conscious. The best I can do is look at it intellectually.

Much of what you're condemning is extraverted judgment (Fe and Te). It sounds like you assume morals and ethics must come from the outside world, as "dogma" or "defined, pre-shaped values." Those are extraverted values, ones given to you by the world. You can still come up with your own ... though maybe they tend to be called "principles" when you decide them for yourself. And for that, the introverted judging functions (Fi and Ti) will come into play. 

Ti isn't just "logic," and it's possible to have convictions without being an Fi type. Years ago, I tried to go vegan but felt physically terrible. So now I compromise by buying "humane" animal products, like cage-free eggs and grass-fed butter. There's no real logic behind it; I could talk about vitamin content and such, but really, it's just what I feel is right. I don't like living creatures being farmed and treated like objects. Life matters ... for some reason.

Maybe that's where Ti and Fi differ. Because when I get to something that I can't explain, like why "life" is so important, I start wanting to explore it. I haven't been able to figure it out yet, but I do think about it on a regular basis. And "think" is the right word there. I don't consciously "feel" much, not when it comes to the big questions.

For example: Ask me about God, and I'll furrow my eyebrows. I'll ask for clarification on your definition, then I'll discuss the concept of God ... or gods, or a life force, or "the universe." I may get distracted by wondering whether our universe exists within a black hole, and whether the Big Bang was the black hole collapsing. I'll ask if you know the physics behind black holes, then I'll probably go look stuff up on the internet to figure out whether the theory could work. 

You sigh at me, then try asking about freedom. I again ask for a definition. That conversation would probably go toward the concept of freedom, what patterns have been established by history, how much freedom humans really need or want, etc. Generally, it's not personal. 

... Maybe that's what you mean by "logic" versus "from the heart." I know what it feels like when something is from the heart (e.g., "life matters"), but I still try to intellectualize it, to figure out exactly what that means, why it's important, and how to handle contradictions. Maybe Fi doesn't do that. Maybe it does the opposite, taking intellectual ideas and trying to feel something in them. I can't quite fathom how that would work, but it sounds plausible. Is that how you would describe your own methods?


----------

