# I need help



## SiFan (Mar 10, 2015)

Renton said:


> I agree... I also feel like my primary function is a perceiving one - Ne or Ni.
> 
> ....
> 
> ...


Let's drop the test idea.

First, you are clearly an Introvert. Not even debateable. Could be you often seem Extroverted; but, so do lots of other Introverts. I usually score as 55% Extrovert on those I/E tests.

You use Fe all the time, mention thinking before speaking, and you are certainly an F type. Fits fine. You're an Introvert with Fe as your second function. Your general approach to situations is optimistic and comfortable which favors Ni as your Dominant. Plus you mention that S tend to be weaker functions-- i.e. could not be part of your Lead; and Se would fit as Inferior.

I agree with @Starbuckskat and others who picked or favored *INFJ* ("The Protector") as your correct type (including, really, you).

So, Yes; of course you are sensitive. Also, by the way, your Feeling-oriented subjective thinking works perfectly fine, especially since F types are perfectly willing to include T objectivity and logic in decision making.

You can read detailed views of INFJ from these sources: *P*ersonalitypage* . **H*umanmetrics *. **16*personalities

As always, You have the final say as to your correct type.

















​


----------



## Simpson17866 (Dec 3, 2014)

SiFan said:


> You can read detailed views of INFJ from these sources: *P*ersonalitypage* . **H*umanmetrics *. **16*personalities


 Most of those won't be very helpful to the current Functions discussion: only the first one describes the Cognitive Functions INFJ, the second and third both describe the MyersBriggs INFJ instead.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

Hm. I dunno, I think Sifan is on the right track except for the assumption of introversion. I am seeing what looks like a shy extrovert, personally. I suppose you need to do some research at this point, eh, Renton? Good luck!


----------



## SiFan (Mar 10, 2015)

Simpson17866 said:


> Most of those won't be very helpful to the current Functions discussion: only the first one describes the Cognitive Functions INFJ, the second and third both describe the MyersBriggs INFJ instead.


The first description comes from PersonalityPage. It does mention leading cognitive functions in the heading and list the INFJ functions stack (after the description). However, the type description is much like those from the other two sources as regards mention/involvement of specific cognitive functions. 

Really, the second source, Humanmetrics, does best with cognitive functions via the "Functional Analysis Of The INFJ" which follows the description proper. It discusses workings for each of the four chief (stack) INFJ functions.

Anyway, based upon one rather lengthy and tedious functions-referenced INFJ description/analysis, I'm inclined to believe the best descriptions for choosing ones type are those which speak in everyday terms about the type's inclinations, interests, feelings, quirks, weaknesses, and strengths.


to @Fenix Wulfheart



> Hm. I dunno, I think Sifan is on the right track except for the assumption of introversion. I am seeing what looks like a shy extrovert, personally. I suppose you need to do some research at this point, eh, Renton? Good luck!


Expect so. 

Regarding the Introvert 'assumption', I did make one error: @Renton does not say she thinks before she speaks. In fact, she says she often speaks before she thinks and that it has gotten her into trouble. (However, she does say she thinks before acting; and, "acting" would sometimes include speaking-- as in initiating a conversation, objecting to some claim, etc..) Guess I might consider this a notable Extrovert indicator except that I do the same fairly often.

Thing is, however an Introvert may get into a conversation (with or without much thought), at some point he/she will do some thinking about it and decide whether or not it merits much attention. When the decision is "No"-- e.g. we're into 'small talk', light banter, etc.-- we may well speak 'without (much) thinking'; and, yes, sometimes we'll mess up.

And, in any case, Ni is often a virtually transparent function. Ni Doms, like INFJs, may easily go through most of a day unaware of its activities.

Meanwhile, we have some strong Introvert indicators. 

On the '_at home on Saturday_' question, Renton's reply was ...



> It depends on my mood or how tired I am... also if those friends are really close to me or not. If they're just people who I don't like to spend time with that much, I won't go. If they're really close to me, I'll definitely go.


Not the answer of someone, an Extrovert, who looks to friends for energy and fun. Basing her decision upon whether the friends are "really close to me or not" is decidedly non-Extrovert. But, it's exactly what an Introvert, particularly an INFJ, would do.


On the '_You got a whole day to do whatever you like_' question, the reply was ...



> I'd spend the whole day at home, I like to stay at home doing nothing, maybe playing around with my hobbies. I do everything unproductive that proves my laziness and procrastination haha.
> I'd also like to do something with my friends, just casually hanging around.


And, you can bet "my friends" means pretty close friends. Purely an Introvert reply.


Lots of other indicators.










_* SiFan *_​


----------



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

@Renton

So right of the bat, I want to say that you're a young INFJ, mostly because I see a lot of myself in what you've written here. Just in general, I don't doubt you're intuition; you don't seem to be overly concerned with the sensory world and you don't seem like you necessarily like to settle in what you know like sensors are wont to do. One thing I noticed over and over in what you wrote was that you're a very relational person and you definitely have a focus on people and your relationships, which would seem to indicate Fe. You don't strike me as an INTP, and honestly I don't see much Ne in you. If you're fairly certain of your introversion, and you're a dominant intuitive, then that's what makes you Ni-dom, and if I had a nickel for every time an Ni-dom thought they were Ne just because they acted in ways that are generally "P", saw many possibilities, got excited about ideas, or generally didn't conform to the overly mystical and reserved stereotype of what INxJs are like, I would be a very rich man.

Something you've probably heard, but is worth repeating: the J in IxxJ is essentially meaningless. Yes, Js are closure-oriented, planful, and prefer structure. Just being a J doesn't mean that you readily do those things, especially if you're an IxxJ. The IxxJ's dominant function is irrational/perceiving: Si or Ni. What do either of those actually have to do with structure and plans? This is my biggest issue with the J/P dichotomy, that it is so unlike the others. Just being a judger doesn't mean that you structure your life--that takes discipline and work to do, which most MBTI tests fail to mention. In fact, often times the whole J/P thing gets reduced to "Js are disciplined and Ps are not." It's sad, and it justifies the Zodiac comparison with typology. Basically, don't judge yourself on whether or not you Judge or Perceive, especially if you're an introvert.

Another important thing: you've mentioned on a few occasions that your brain likes to create situations in which you don't match up with a type. Fight that urge like your life depends on it (especially if you are an INFJ). The only thing that "makes" you a certain type is an established pattern of preferences. So even if you contradict a type in one situation, that doesn't mean you aren't that type. Funnily enough, if you knew all of the reasons behind why you acted contrary to type in a given situation, and in-depth analysis would most likely reveal you _were_ acting in accordance with your type. The only time a single instance should make you question your type is if it becomes a pattern, in which case that's something you should actually concern yourself with.

If you haven't already, I'd recommend you read my post http://personalitycafe.com/whats-my...14-how-type-yourself-accurately-honestly.html. It's pretty long, but apparently it's worth the read, and it might shed some helpful insights into how you've been thinking about this.

I have some other thoughts, but I won't write them here because I don't want to turn this post into another one of my giant walls of text. I'd be happy to respond to any questions you have, explain some more things about typology, etc.


----------



## Renton (Nov 26, 2015)

I couldn't post on this thread sorry... I've been reading and searching about this for days... again and of course I still couldn't reach a conclusion. I feel like I got into a paradox or something and can't get out.  my brain won't be settled until I found my type. I know I'm obsessed haha and it doesn't feel healthy at all. x)



Fried Eggz said:


> It's not conclusive; I simply lean that way slightly with your questionnaire answers. If you are intuitive, you simply haven't shown that side of you very much in your questionnaire. Your answers are often stereotypically intuitive, which I imagine will fool a lot of people; e.g. your focus on the future. The problem is, sensers often say that sort of thing too and it's not a clear factor in type.
> 
> The intuition that Carl Jung described is about opportunity, spirituality and greater purpose; and sensers have these things, but intuitives _create_ these things. You don't seem particularly focused on intuition in your questionnaire and your answers tend to be quite focused on concrete reality. But that doesn't mean you are a senser, just that your questionnaire comes across that way to me.


It might be because English isn't my native language as I said before. I know I'm not a sensor. (To be honest, sometimes I wish I was a sensor.) I know lots of sensors in real life, it's almost like I'm surrounded by SPs, and I can clearly see the difference. I guess I couldn't show it in questionnaire because it made me restless to think my answers, so I just... went with the flow haha. Anyways. Thank you for answering though, I love different types of point of view.



lookslikeiwin said:


> If that's the case, maybe you really are an ENTP then. You do kinda seem like how I was when I was in a loop (aux-inf is less of a thing, but I was definitely there in high school). It manifests a little differently as I kind of resented the Fe mentality since it was so bad on me, but similar enough.
> 
> If this is the case it might be something like this (approximately):
> Ne: You want to be interested in things and appreciate a wide variety of subjects, but without any particularly strong drive, you don't get very excited about anything in particular, which may cause you to seem more reserved than you really are.
> ...


Thank you! You explained it very well. I feel like all of these are really familiar with my situation, but still... I'm not sure. 



mistakenforstranger said:


> Yeah, I think you're a 4 or a 7. You can look up all the other types. Sometimes they paint 4s are being really dramatic. My experience with 7s is that they're usually on the go, and doing things, running from problems. 4s don't run away, they wallow in their imagined suffering, seeing themselves as victims a lot of the time.
> 
> https://www.enneagraminstitute.com/misidentifying-4-and-7/
> 
> ...


I actually wanted to find my mbti type first, but when I couldn't find my type, I thought it would be helpful to find my enneagram type so I can have a more clear view on this too. Eventually, thinking about enneagram made me more confused, so I took a break on that. I feel like I want to find my mbti type first.



SiFan said:


> Let's drop the test idea.
> 
> First, you are clearly an Introvert. Not even debateable. Could be you often seem Extroverted; but, so do lots of other Introverts. I usually score as 55% Extrovert on those I/E tests.
> 
> ...


I wonder why you think I'm definitely an introvert to the point that's not even debateable? haha. I'm not very sure. (I read why you think that in your other post, I understand you) I've been watching videos on youtube about this by introverts... I didn't feel like I was connected to them in that level. They all are like... very reserved and quiet people haha. I don't think I'm like that. (I'm more bubbly and 'crazy' - even one of my teachers called me that. x))

I actually think I'm such-a-fe-user haha, but the problem is that... Is it high Fe or low Fe? I never understand that. I think it's because I couldn't understand how Ti affects you... but I know Fe very well, so maybe I just think I'm a huge Fe user because I understand Fe more than Ti.



KalimofDaybreak said:


> @Renton
> 
> So right of the bat, I want to say that you're a young INFJ, mostly because I see a lot of myself in what you've written here. Just in general, I don't doubt you're intuition; you don't seem to be overly concerned with the sensory world and you don't seem like you necessarily like to settle in what you know like sensors are wont to do. One thing I noticed over and over in what you wrote was that you're a very relational person and you definitely have a focus on people and your relationships, which would seem to indicate Fe. You don't strike me as an INTP, and honestly I don't see much Ne in you. If you're fairly certain of your introversion, and you're a dominant intuitive, then that's what makes you Ni-dom, and if I had a nickel for every time an Ni-dom thought they were Ne just because they acted in ways that are generally "P", saw many possibilities, got excited about ideas, or generally didn't conform to the overly mystical and reserved stereotype of what INxJs are like, I would be a very rich man.
> 
> ...


I've been waiting for your answer! I love your knowledge and 'intuition' on this haha. 
I actually feel more close to INFJ... but whenever I see an INFJ and how they act in real life, or see INFJs who are very 'moody'... I feel like; nope. It's almost like I look at a group of people that I don't belong in. I'm not good at explaining myself on this sorry... x)
You're right, I have a 'relational side' and I can see that it's definitely Fe, but how people recognize whether it's high or low Fe?

hahaha this is great!
"and if I had a nickel for every time an Ni-dom thought they were Ne just because they acted in ways that are generally "P", saw many possibilities, got excited about ideas, or generally didn't conform to the overly mystical and reserved stereotype of what INxJs are like, I would be a very rich man."

The problem is that... when I look at SPs around me, I can see their 'P' side. I even got so many details with them about this haha, but sometimes I also see some traits that make me 'not-J' in myself. I don't know... I have a spontaneous side too. 
You're right... It's not right to think Js always get the job done or Ps are always procrastinators and like messy people, but... I feel like Js and Ps have a 'special energy' to them in general. (I can't describe it haha.) and I can see that certain 'J energy' in myself sometimes, but not always.

By the way, I read your post. I consider to read some books on this too, because I actually know nothing! To sail to a sea that you know nothing about is fun but tiring at the same time.  But the problem is that... I'm so damn impatient with finding my type!


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

@lookslikeiwin there is no such thing as a loop in MBTI or Jung or Socionics. It's something a random forummer made up.



KalimofDaybreak said:


> So right of the bat, I want to say that you're a young INFJ, mostly because I see a lot of myself in what you've written here.


That's circular reasoning. I wouldn't normally criticise it, but I've read your Ni descriptions and they don't seem to be remotely in line with Jung.



Renton said:


> I wonder why you think I'm definitely an introvert to the point that's not even debateable? haha. I'm not very sure. (I read why you think that in your other post, I understand you) I've been watching videos on youtube about this by introverts... I didn't feel like I was connected to them in that level. They all are like... very reserved and quiet people haha. I don't think I'm like that. (I'm more bubbly and 'crazy' - even one of my teachers called me that. x))


Do you want to be typed in MBTI or functions?

Sifan's approach is MBTI, where introversion = antisocial and extroversion = social. In Jungian functions, extroversion means being objectively focused, and introversion means being subjectively focused.



Renton said:


> I know I'm not a sensor. (To be honest, sometimes I wish I was a sensor.)


I'm not typing you as a senser, but I wish you'd stay open to it. There's a Se-dom on here, who thinks he's a Ne-dom; he teaches science at degree level, and he thinks sensers are the dumb people who struggle with science. There are a LOT of sensers on this forum who are adamant that they are intuitive because there's so much anti-sensing stuff out there.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

Actually Introversion and Extroversion are a cognitive orientation to amount of energy input required to operate at peak levels on a physiological level. This is brain chemistry, and can be measured. It has nothing whatsoever to do with sociability. Introverts need less energy from outside, so they get overwhelmed more easily in loud or busy environments.

If you find you always need to be doing several things at once or need to go and do things all the time, you are an extrovert. If you need to be on the internet all the time and fall asleep if you just sit around thinking, you are an _extro_vert. If you can happily sit and daydream for hours, you are probably an introvert.

Functions are more reliable, as introversion and extroversion vary greatly in individuals due to the simple cognitive set point (and the "swing" that shows tolerance gained from practice).

Also, @Renton, you seem more like an ENFJ to me in Socionics terms (the EIE), which is similar to but not the same as MBTI. If you feel you are an introvert, though (Which you don't seem to know XD), then INFJ in MBTI sounds legit.


----------



## SiFan (Mar 10, 2015)

Renton said:


> ....
> 
> I wonder why you think I'm definitely an introvert to the point that's not even debateable? haha.


Good point. Seems like way too much debate over something that's not debateable!











> I'm not very sure. (I read why you think that in your other post, I understand you) I've been watching videos on youtube about this by introverts... I didn't feel like I was connected to them in that level. They all are like... very reserved and quiet people haha. I don't think I'm like that. (I'm more bubbly and 'crazy' - even one of my teachers called me that. x))
> 
> ....


Don't know which Introverts you watched. Here are a couple good INFJ speakers ...











However, it may be that your correct type is the one just mentioned by @_Fenix Wulfheart_ : *ENFJ* ("The Giver"). It's a rare, highly regarded Extrovert type which it is considered suited to rather Introvert-inclined Extroverts.

You can read Descriptions of ENFJ via links below and possibly visit the ENFJ forum to get a feel for fitting in.

*The Giver/Teacher/Protagonist*
ENFJ from ... *P*ersonalitypage* . **H*umanmetrics *. **16*personalities










​


----------



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

Fried Eggz said:


> That's circular reasoning. I wouldn't normally criticise it, but I've read your Ni descriptions and they don't seem to be remotely in line with Jung.


It's only circular if you're coming from the perspective that my understanding of Ni (and my self-understanding based on that) is wrong. Why do you think this of what I've written?


----------



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

Renton said:


> I've been waiting for your answer! I love your knowledge and 'intuition' on this haha.






Renton said:


> I actually feel more close to INFJ... but whenever I see an INFJ and how they act in real life, or see INFJs who are very 'moody'... I feel like; nope. It's almost like I look at a group of people that I don't belong in. I'm not good at explaining myself on this sorry... x)


Yeah...it isn't perhaps the best way to determine type, but being unlike those of a certain type is usually a red flag. Of course, it's always valid to question whether or not this person is actually an Ni-dom, but that's beyond the scope of this thread. So the more prevalent question is what specifically you don't relate to.



Renton said:


> You're right, I have a 'relational side' and I can see that it's definitely Fe, but how people recognize whether it's high or low Fe?


It depends on how much you prefer thinking that way. Do you naturally think in terms of relationships or does it take effort for you to do that? I'd say thinking in relationships would be things like considering others' feelings, values (both yours and everyone else's), and desires. If this is difficult for you, then that could be a good indication that it's lower feeling, but if not then that probably indicates higher feeling. Of course, relational thinking is just one aspect of Fe, but it's a start.



Renton said:


> hahaha this is great!
> "and if I had a nickel for every time an Ni-dom thought they were Ne just because they acted in ways that are generally "P", saw many possibilities, got excited about ideas, or generally didn't conform to the overly mystical and reserved stereotype of what INxJs are like, I would be a very rich man."


Well more than a few of those nickels would have been contributed by me. 



Renton said:


> The problem is that... when I look at SPs around me, I can see their 'P' side. I even got so many details with them about this haha, but sometimes I also see some traits that make me 'not-J' in myself. I don't know... I have a spontaneous side too.
> You're right... It's not right to think Js always get the job done or Ps are always procrastinators and like messy people, but... I feel like Js and Ps have a 'special energy' to them in general. (I can't describe it haha.) and I can see that certain 'J energy' in myself sometimes, but not always.


This is the exact dilemma that makes me dislike the J/P dichotomy. In the end, it has very little to do with how we actually think. But if we're going to go with it, the question is which you prefer. Even if you don't always do it, do you prefer to have a schedule or some kind of structural framework for you life/projects?

Here's an example from myself: George R.R. Martin (haven't read his books, I just know the quote) once described two kinds of authors, architects and gardeners. Architects plan everything out and gardeners plant seeds and let everything grow on its own. He described himself as more of a gardener than an architect, and and I am far more an architect than a gardener. I've tried gardening. I don't have the green thumb. In your endeavors (artistic or otherwise), which approach do you think you might prefer?



Renton said:


> By the way, I read your post. I consider to read some books on this too, because I actually know nothing! To sail to a sea that you know nothing about is fun but tiring at the same time.  But the problem is that... I'm so damn impatient with finding my type!


Haha, you'll get there. But yes, sailing a sea without a map usually ended poorly for the sailors (it is remarkably easy to die at sea). At the very least, try to read Chapter X of _Psychological Types_. You can find a lot of verbatim descriptions of the types around the internet here, and those can lend some significant insights.


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

KalimofDaybreak said:


> It's only circular if you're coming from the perspective that my understanding of Ni (and my self-understanding based on that) is wrong. Why do you think this of what I've written?


Your Ni descriptions fail on basic Jungian principles; it is highly rational, logical and detached from feeling. It does have an intuitive slant, but intuition is not at the core of the description.


----------



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

Fried Eggz said:


> Your Ni descriptions fail on basic Jungian principles; it is highly rational, logical and detached from feeling. It does have an intuitive slant, but intuition is not at the core of the description.


Can you be more specific? This doesn't help me get at the heart of the problem you're seeing.


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

KalimofDaybreak said:


> Can you be more specific? This doesn't help me get at the heart of the problem you're seeing.


Your Ni descriptions are intuitive, but from my experience, they're centred around Ti, not Ni.


----------



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

Fried Eggz said:


> Your Ni descriptions are intuitive, but from my experience, they're centred around Ti, not Ni.


So would a more intuition-centric description have elements of both feeling and thinking in it? I know that when I write my attempt is to get away from any other functions as much as possible, but I guess that if Ti was means to do that, then that would probably fail, and that does go against Jung's general holism.


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

KalimofDaybreak said:


> So would a more intuition-centric description have elements of both feeling and thinking in it?


I would expect more of a balance. There was a lot of logic in it.



KalimofDaybreak said:


> I know that when I write my attempt is to get away from any other functions as much as possible, but I guess that if Ti was means to do that, then that would probably fail, and that does go against Jung's general holism.


I'm curious, do you find it obnoxious to base your opinions on feeling rather than logic/truth seeking? Because if so, I'd seriously consider Ti-Ne.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Fried Eggz said:


> Your Ni descriptions are intuitive, but from my experience, they're centred around Ti, not Ni.


Which ones? Ni really is pretty detached mentally.


----------



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

Fried Eggz said:


> I would expect more of a balance. There was a lot of logic in it.


Hm. I'll be more conscientious of that from now on. Can you give me an example of something with more feeling in it, just to give me an idea of what I'm working with.



Fried Eggz said:


> I'm curious, do you find it obnoxious to base your opinions on feeling rather than logic/truth seeking? Because if so, I'd seriously consider Ti-Ne.


Obnoxious? Usually not for myself, although when someone is making decisions/forming a worldview based on their feelings and are oblivious to that fact, that's usually what annoys me the most. In general I try to reason with my feelings, see if they hold water and justify them with logic. I will say I'm much more uncomfortable basing a thought solely on a feeling, but I think the sentiment is a bit more mild than you seem to be implying. Really what I find most obnoxious across the board is when people lack intellectual integrity or fail to see the full implications of their assumptions/beliefs.

This conversation inspired me to go back and revisit Chapter X a little bit, and I did a pretty thorough reading of both Ne, Ni and Ti. There was a lot in the Ti section that I found struck some pretty strong chords, but then again Ni was pretty equally matching. I really don't see Ne in myself, and honestly for most of that description I just related to the bits pertinent to intuition at large.

I've considered INTP before, but really it just came down to the fact that I think I'm too "feely" (for want of a better word) to have it fully repressed. I don't think I have that impersonal edge that T-doms seems to have, and usually if I come across that way it's just awkwardness (but then again I suppose that most INTPs might say the same thing...) so I really don't know. I don't feel like a thinker, but then again I don't think like a feeler either.

I tend to lean towards the i-x-x-e or i-i-e-e model for function-attitudes rather than Grant; I find that both of these are more consistent with Jung, while the former tends to allow for both Grant and Jung. In light of that, I suppose it's possible I have auxiliary Ti influencing me in more ways than I realized. Part of the reason I've strayed away from calling myself T-dom is the fact that the whole "needing to fulfill the perception" thing about Ni is exactly me. Whenever I start on a project, or even just a post for this forum, I always start with a vision of what I want it to be, and then work to fulfill that. My rational side always wants to be more critical about how meaning (in the case of something like a novel) is added in, but in general I always go back to the perception, or at least try to figure out how my ideas for meaning and the vision can be put together. That seems like a pretty important difference between rational and irrational, and is one of my main reasons for thinking Ni over Ti-dom.

Sorry, I just kind of mind-dumped on you. Been mulling this over most of the day.


----------



## blackgrimoire (Apr 24, 2016)

You are Ne dominant. It's so obvious. Extroverted Intuition is all about possibilities and brainstorming, reinventing ideas, having many interests, getting tired of things and always searching for something new, starting projects and not finishing them... Even in the way you write, putting down many ideas all at once. 
Your extraverted judging function is tertiary, so you can't decide quickly, but are prone to explore ideas, always finding "what if".
I would say ENFP, you don't show any Ti and are quite sensitive. You have some values which you can't really explain. Given your tertiary Te you tend to make plans, but being a Perceiver you have troubles sticking to them.
There is nothing that makes me think of an INFJ, honestly. Ni is not expansive like Ne.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

Ni is not expansive, but Te is. Again, Socionics, but the IEI type has conscious Te. It expands upon the logical framework. They also have strong Ne that they ignore, which comes out in the ability to easily shift perspective if they so choose, but doing so creates a sort of malaise if done too much.

This is one of the ways that MBTI function models say certain things cannot belong to a member of a certain type and Socionics laughs at it.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

KalimofDaybreak said:


> (...) That seems like a pretty important difference between rational and irrational, and is one of my main reasons for thinking Ni over Ti-dom.
> 
> Sorry, I just kind of mind-dumped on you. Been mulling this over most of the day.


You absolutely don't come off like a Ti-dom. Too Irrational dominant, yup.


----------



## SiFan (Mar 10, 2015)

Renton said:


> I took lots of tests... read about cognitive functions for months ...
> 
> ....


Merry Beltane! So, @Renton, have you decided upon your correct type?


















​


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

@KalimofDaybreak

You seem Ni to me all right. I lean towards INTJ for you, moreso than INFJ. INTJ have Tertiary Fi, which means they strive to embody it rather than it being something they are automatically good at. Because they like it, they tend to learn to do it and also tend to think they are better at it than they are.

By similar logic, INFJ try to embody Ti. Same idea.

You seem to me to be naturally talented at thinking, and seeking Fi. Not so much naturally F and seeking Ti.


----------



## SheWolf (Apr 17, 2015)

Ahhh, @_KalimofDaybreak_ I forgot about your PM. I'm a terrible person. 

I always leaned INTJ for you, but certainly could see INFJ. I know you've been kind of debating between them.
@_Fenix Wulfheart_ is INFJ and I notice differences between you two.


----------



## SheWolf (Apr 17, 2015)

There are those that celebrate Beltane here? Excellent!










Sorry to derail. Carry on.


----------



## SheWolf (Apr 17, 2015)

myst91 said:


> You absolutely don't come off like a Ti-dom. Too Irrational dominant, yup.



Some people here have typed him LII (or INTP in MBTI)

Haha, no. If he was, I'd probably choke him. Ne PoLR and all.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

Heh. Blessed Beiltaine to all those that recognize the Solstice.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

@Renton

How are you doing narrowing things down? Have you any further questions? Any more help you need? I can talk to you about various Socionics resources that might help, but their applicability to MBTI is debatable. (I generally believe Socionics and MBTI have 50-70% crossover ability, but that is an opinion)

Have I gone over Cognitive Styles with you? Romance Styles? The difference between Valued and Unconscious versus Unvalued and Conscious in the functions? Quadras? Clubs? Temperaments? The Reinin Dichotomies?


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

blackgrimoire said:


> You are Ne dominant. It's so obvious. Extroverted Intuition is all about possibilities and brainstorming, reinventing ideas, having many interests, getting tired of things and always searching for something new, starting projects and not finishing them... Even in the way you write, putting down many ideas all at once.
> Your extraverted judging function is tertiary, so you can't decide quickly, but are prone to explore ideas, always finding "what if".
> I would say ENFP, you don't show any Ti and are quite sensitive. You have some values which you can't really explain. Given your tertiary Te you tend to make plans, but being a Perceiver you have troubles sticking to them.
> There is nothing that makes me think of an INFJ, honestly. Ni is not expansive like Ne.


This is actually really on point. My only point of contention with any of this has to do with conscious vs unconscious use of functions, and not everyone types with shadow functions.

@Renton
So anyway, in MBTI ENFP dichotomy testing seems pretty likely. By functions, I'd still leaning ENFJ with dat shweet unconscious Ne at the same strength as Fe.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

ShieldMaiden said:


> Ahhh, @KalimofDaybreak I forgot about your PM. I'm a terrible person.
> 
> I always leaned INFJ for you, but certainly could see INTJ. I know you've been kind of debating between them.
> @Fenix Wulfheart is INFJ and I notice differences between you two.


What sort of differences?


----------



## SheWolf (Apr 17, 2015)

myst91 said:


> What sort of differences?


Just a bit of a different temperament/focus. @_Fenix Wulfheart_ is a bit more "merry" in the actual sense of the word than he is. Kalim seems to have more of a Te "directness" that Fenix does not.

I'm exhausted at the moment so I don't have many details to give, but I've had conversations extensively with the both of them. Fenix is more in tune with direct emotions whereas Kalim has a bit more detachment. I tend to "get" more of what Kalim explains to me than I do with Fenix.

Fenix, hope you don't take offense to any of that! You're cool, too.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

ShieldMaiden said:


> Just a bit of a different temperament/focus. @_Fenix Wulfheart_ is a bit more "merry" in the actual sense of the word than he is. Kalim seems to have more of a Te "directness" that Fenix does not.
> 
> I'm exhausted at the moment so I don't have many details to give, but I've had conversations extensively with the both of them. Fenix is more in tune with direct emotions whereas Kalim has a bit more detachment. I tend to "get" more of what Kalim explains to me than I do with Fenix.
> 
> Fenix, hope you don't take offense to any of that! You're cool, too.


I see, if you can later get into more detail on where/how you saw the "Te directness", let me know


----------

