# INFP - Confirm/Deny?



## Wuthering In The Willows (Jul 2, 2013)

Having researched the theory, I have decided I'm probably an INFP.

I approached this through a series of deductions, and in a process of elimination decided my type.
_
WARNING: COPIOUS AMOUNT OF TL;DR. The word count is approximately 1200.
_​
*1. Remove the "E":* I decided I was not just introverted from a behavioural perspective, but also from a Jungian one. Jung once described introverts as having this layer between themselves and the world where things get processed internally, and the world does seem to get processed through this layer as I observe it. This makes me suspect a Dominant I function.

*2. Remove the "S":* I'm contemplative, enjoy theoretical topics and philosophy, start with the big picture and thinks globally without going too far into details, and enjoy novel ideas. I usually think abstractly but sometimes at the cost of thinking realistically. Not necessarily N Dominant in my functions, but it's highly unlikely that I'm N Inferior. This makes me either: INFP, INTP, INFJ, INTJ, ISFP, or ISTP. However, I really don't show all that much Se. I tend to be too detached from the here and now and have troubles "letting loose", and my thoughts tend to drift away from the physical world and the present to the past, the future or something outside the time-space continuum. Either my Se is a puerile function, or not used at all. This probably makes me an INxx type.

*3. Remove the "J":* Now, I wondered whether I had Ji/Pe or Pi/Je going (P or J). I honed in on the N function by choosing between Ni and Ne. Ni involves having a strong internal vision, connecting the world to the individual and in working out where a person or thing is in the present in order to determine where it came from and to where it was going. This often leaves Ni users with a "sixth sense" of sorts. Ne, however, involves connecting things within the external world to find patterns (thinking globally), being inquisitive, and exploring several ideas. 

The latter suits me more by my reckoning. Although I am stubborn, often I find myself second guessing my ideas or changing my mind about things (a couple of times I decided to reject MBTI theory before going back to it having decided it made some very valid points, and a few months ago I told my friends "modern music is dead" before exploring indie music some more and deciding there were enough good indie artists to counter this). I think I have more Ne than Ni. And also, Ne is the only Extraverted function I really identify with, while I identify to at least some respect with all the Introverted functions. What also proved P over J was not having much Te or Fe. Which brings me to...

*4. INTP vs. INFP.* According to MBTI theory, ISFP is the sibling type to INFP due to the Fi Dominance of both functions. But I actually consider INTP to be my sibling type despite this due to being Introverted with Ne/Si; I even have an INTP sibling (I identified him as such, and he is probably unaware of the theory). So if there's another type I could be, it could very well be INTP. However, having considered the arguments in favour of INFP and INTP, I decided I was Fi Dominant, rather than Ti Dominant.

The main arguments for Ti were: I'm intelligent (any type can be intelligent, and besides I'm not a genius or anything), I don't express my emotions too much openly (but I do feel them deeply and can talk about them with people I trust), I'm an Atheist (any type can be an Atheist), I became an Atheist because I thought the Bible was illogical (and suffered heaps of existential angst from lack of faith for a while afterwards), the process of deciding on my type (I don't think you have to be a Ti user to work out functions this way).

The main arguments for Fi were: far more emotional as a child, feels emotions deeply on the inside, made quite a few decisions in life based on internal ideals, being optimistic despite myself, and being brooding and friendly at the same time.

I found the Fi arguments much less counterable, and this made me decide on INFP.

And here's a little function breakdown, as well.

Dominant Fi: I feel emotions deeply, but my emotions are internal in nature. I don't really have much Fe, as my values are abstract internal values, rather than external ones decided by other people. I'm not susceptible to peer pressure and I guess my integrity is good. I'm friendly, but I have no problems saying "no" to people. I'm also argumentative, and come across as aloof, and sometimes even boorish. I'm loyal to friends and need intimacy, but my loyalties are personal in nature (I don't want to be married, as love is not a thing which needs a signed piece of paper to confirm). And I also let my emotions have a say in my decision making, which actually does work out well for me for the most part.
Auxiliary Ne: I think globally, make connections, pursue new ideas and things, reconsider ideas (regardless of how strongly I hold them), and find meaning behind things. I guess most of my intelligence comes from this Ne function, but there's different kinds of intelligences and I don't profess to being a genius. And I have "artsy" interests, such as literature (guess which books I had in mind for my username?), music, movies, and philosophy. Having artsy interests doesn't necessarily make you an Ne user, but this doesn't refute my argument.
Tertiary Si: The Si function doesn't stack too highly due to me being offbeat and not following tradition too closely, even though it means I can sometimes be quite scatter-brained! But I do have a good long term memory, and I can organise and order things around and make and follow checklists. And although I don't hold grudges against people easily, when I do it's not easy to let go.
Inferior Te: I can be assertive when I want to be, think practically and organise the world around me. My morals also have a pragmatic bent to them. But I'm not a hugely practical person, and the Te function is more of an extension than a core component of my nature.

And some other trivia to get a better idea of who I am:
* Currently studying and training for a career in computers, with the emphasis on the programming aspect. I love computers!
* I play electric guitar... and sometimes I play the fool.
* Philosophical values are existential, and I believe values are (partially) subjective. I do have ideas about right and wrong, though.
* Music is a big passion of mine!
* I have a deadpan sense of humour.
* I have oratory gifts in public speaking and debating.
* Loves black comedy and "high-brow" comedy, but blue humour to me is quite crass.
* Enjoy science fiction and fantasy-typed stuff.
* I talk a lot when I'm in a talkative mood, but usually I'm a quiet guy.
* I did better in English-based subjects in high school than Physics or Calculus.
* Sometimes I write.
* Regular walks make me feel refreshed.
* I'm... and okay person, I guess. I try not to be a tool, but I'm not a saint.
* I like saying "I" a lot.

There's so much more I could say about myself, and it's hard to restrain myself from the keys.

Pat yourself on the back if you made it to the end. Having read all this, would you agree with my judgement, or would you defer. And why?


----------



## Wuthering In The Willows (Jul 2, 2013)

I'm bumping this thread, and I'll keep on bumping until the replies start coming. :laughing:


----------



## Wuthering In The Willows (Jul 2, 2013)

Bump.


----------



## Wuthering In The Willows (Jul 2, 2013)

Bump de bump.


----------



## Revolutionist (Jun 29, 2013)

Are you looking for acceptance or truly looking for the answer as to whether you are making the right call as to whether you are a INFP or not?


----------



## Wuthering In The Willows (Jul 2, 2013)

Looking for the answer. Acceptance isn't a priority of mine, and I'm just thinking about what type I am.


----------



## hosj (Jan 11, 2013)

Lol. Textbook INFP. I don't know what you are asking for, but you are an INFP if I've ever seen one.


----------



## Wuthering In The Willows (Jul 2, 2013)

Okay, thanks for your opinion. 

Any other takers?


----------



## Wuthering In The Willows (Jul 2, 2013)

Bump bump.


----------



## Wuthering In The Willows (Jul 2, 2013)

Bump, bump... bump. Bump...

Bump!


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

1) Removing the 'E': 
'E' removed.

2) Removing the 'S':
'S' removed. You didn't address something very important here. The pre-requisite presence of Si. Not the end of the world, but there is a notable bias/aversion here. I see this as reductive/absolute determination of the essence of something. 

3) Removing the 'J':
You put Se in a box and now you put Ni in a box. Again, reductive and absolute in your dealing with abstract topics (which you nevertheless do quite well). I am once again saddened at the lack of addressing the already-removed Fe. Way too much reduction happening here. Methinks Ti is being used copiously. Me also thinks Ni is being used.


4) INTP vs INFP:
I often hear that INFJ and INTP are conflatable. I don't see how, but I could definitely see, and have seen, INFJs mistype INTP and there is a natural connection there, I think. Anyway, I agree with you that INFP is a sibling type of INTP. They bear quite a few similarities, though I think that ISFPs and INFPs bear more similarities. Perhaps I just place a lot of emphasis on Ne. ISFP and INFP are similar in so many ways that, at least to me, don't matter as much as the ways in which INTP and INFP are similar. Tangent! However, that you seek to extricate this connection means, perhaps, that you don't indentify with ISFP and you find the association inconvenient to your line of reasoning (Ti line of reasoning?). Thus, by emphasizing the INTP connection, you can remove that inconvenience and further reduce the question. 

A few other things stuck out:


a) Thinking of oneself on a scale of intellect. Even using the word 'intelligent' is an Ni buzzword to me. Surprisingly, Ne types almost never do. It's an extension of the absolute abstractions of Ni, I think. Ne is more objective, perhaps? It doesn't really matter... or seem to be a consideration? ... to us? I know that I am intelligent and I suppose it's a prerequisite... but what is intelligence? I mean, really, what does that even mean? Does it mean anything as a word or as an idea? It all is what it is and reducing it like that chafes a bit. Also, does it matter? I think it matters a lot to Ni types... but it couldn't matter less to me, or to the xNFPs I have asked. They would answer as I do, that we don't know what it is but we have some quality and other than that it isn't something to consider.


b) Strongly focused on conclusions and also strongly informative about conclusions and logic. You do all the logical and comprehension leg-work. This is indicative of an introverted attitude in both cases. Ni and Ti, that is.


c) Fe isn't decided by other people, not at all, especially paired with Ni. INFJ susceptible to peer pressure? The opposite of that! INFP is often susceptible to peer pressure, due to Si and also if those peers have earned subjective valuation by Fi. Ne also makes the INFP fundamentally credulous and naive/gullible, which can lead to being led. INFJ is not gullible in the least... and if they are, they will undoubtedly be quite intolerant of such a quality in themselves... where INFPs are Ne and Ne is all about naivety. They tend to own it and find it desirable... they may even ardently defend their naivety.


d) Your Aux Ne descriptions are Ti-driven and not particular to Ne over Ni at all. I'd argue they vaguely lean Ni.


e) You don't understand Si at all and likely don't possess it. It ties into the Ne naivety. Unable to divine or 'know' anything, the INFP must rely on precedence and mundane comparisons to function. A database of sensory impressions of the past inform almost every impression of what might happen in the future. There is no abstraction or 'knowing' in this, no divination and no genius. I saw it once and it seems like the same thing so it is probably the same thing. Fundamentally naive and only able to defend by citing precedence or past experiences to block potential future possibilities. Low order Si says "it won't work because it's never worked for me". This is a central aspect of INFP. I know because I am also an Si-tertiary.


f) Pragmatic morals are Fe. Fi morals are never pragmatic. What they are is stubborn and decisive and subjective/reticent as hell. Another good word is idiotic - which is Greek (ιδιωτικός - idiotikos) for private or personal. LOL, cool, right? The INFP values something, from a candybar to a person to a band to a frog to a thought, and they simply tell you they do (informative rather than collaborative about what values are assigned) and if you push it, they will get defensive and decisively blow you off. Like, you go after the logic of their valuation of something, and they answer with Te, which is very business-like and terse. They may simply shrug, or not be able to speak, or they will be formal: "I appreciate your concern but that's how it's gonna be." ... and silence. Essentially, they, for the briefest moment, become ESTJs. Whatever formality or business is necessary, is done, then silence. It is very unlikely that any effort to debate or push their value will take place at all. Very unlikely indeed.


g) Programming is more the realm of Ti, I think? I am a programmer, sometimes, and those who are most interested in it tend to be Ti... I know most I work with, and those interested in CS/IT lean xxTP. That's not definitive, but I mention it anyway. I taught an INFP friend to program and he thought it was interesting... though I think he was mostly humoring me, his good friend. Even then, it took an immediate need to force his interest. A business need occuring immediately. Pragmatics.


h) That same INFP friend is a musician. Like all INFPs, his musicianship is deprioritized. Like Kurt Cobain, John Lennon, Fiona Apple, Regina Spektor, etc... the music takes a backseat to the essence to convey. I don't think that INFPs think that music can convey an essence? I don't know. They tend to, I think, focus on lyrics? They are never noted as exceptional instrumentalists. I can't imagine an NFP playing an instrument for it's own sake, though I guess it's not impossible. I know one INFJ who is a great guitar player... which was done privately but for it's own sake.


i) I've never seen an INFP play the fool. They can be class clowns, especially when young... so I guess it depends on what you mean.


j) Music as a passion is weak to the point of useless, but I get the impression you didn't mean it to be weighty.


k) I don't think INFPs are particulary good at oration. Honestly, they seem to suck at it... though it's clear they are intelligent when they talk. I'll refer you back to the INFPs I have already cited for that. INFJs, among many other types, are excellent communicators. That is why so many INFJs are journalists. Given a subject they know and a little preparation, they are umatched at conveying information very clearly. INFPs would struggle here. It must have to do with Ti, because xNTP/xNFJ seem to be the breadwinners here over xNFP/xNTJ. That last bit is just personal opinion/experience.


l) Judging something as 'crass' is vaguely Fe to me... and that you seem to engage the essence would be Ni. INFP, on the other hand, would use Fi/Te and Si: *shrug and wince* "Uhm.... I just didn't really like it. It was kinda ... boneheaded. It just wasn't funny." or "He said it and my jaw dropped to the ground and.... rolled away. Why would they even have that in there? Kids are watching this. So stupid." or, just as likely: "It was pretty terrible. I laughed. *laughs* But, yes, I agree, terrible. *laughs* but, what do I care?"


m) INFPs, above else, are OBSESSED with morality. Obsessed. However, they are so ruminative and naive about it, that it's always just something that tears them up inside and never manages to reach any conclusions or comprehension or anything... it's literally an endless wrestle of guilt and second-guessing. It's a hell to be always unsure, always worried, always unable to know what to do or what to be... and that INFPs can engage that in the abstract just makes it a more exposed nerve. Constant uncertainty and guilt is the hallmark of INFP.


I made it to the end, but, sadly, only made it to m.


I think you are an INFJ. I am fairly certain that you are Ni. I know you aren't an INFP. Since you are probably an Ni, I know that you cannot share or socialize your conclusion on this, your 'knowing' of what is accurate. I won't try to do that. Take all this as a suggestion for further study and as a step on a journey. I don't mean it any other way that that. Hopefully, the added data will help you intuit a conclusion.


----------



## Wuthering In The Willows (Jul 2, 2013)

You make quite the convincing argument for INFJ. Yeah, I don't seem to have a strong preference towards Thinking or Feeling, and maybe they're used interchangeably. If anything, my Intuition seems more Dominant. One reason for me to consider Ne over Ni is how I keep second guessing myself and remain inquisitive. But I do have a drive to come to conclusions about things nevertheless, which is Ni. I could see myself as an Ni user. I also posit the idea of an Inferior Se. I don't really "let loose" or get caught up in the here and now and tend to instead detach myself from the physical world in lieu of the mental one. First I'll elaborate on a few things you've said. 



arkigos said:


> e) You don't understand Si at all and likely don't possess it. It ties into the Ne naivety. Unable to divine or 'know' anything, the INFP must rely on precedence and mundane comparisons to function. A database of sensory impressions of the past inform almost every impression of what might happen in the future. There is no abstraction or 'knowing' in this, no divination and no genius. I saw it once and it seems like the same thing so it is probably the same thing. Fundamentally naive and only able to defend by citing precedence or past experiences to block potential future possibilities. Low order Si says "it won't work because it's never worked for me". This is a central aspect of INFP. I know because I am also an Si-tertiary.


I was aware that Si involves forming impressions and relating things in the present with the past. It also involves having an attention to detail. Now, I'll admit that I had been shoehorning myself into some of the functions so I talked more about attention to detail than I did the past impressions. I don't really use the past in decisions made in the present as the present could turn out differently. Attention to detail could just as likely be attributed to Se anyway and is more of a Sensor thing in general. I admit to struggling with this, and this can be a sign of Inferior Se in INFJ.



arkigos said:


> g) Programming is more the realm of Ti, I think? I am a programmer, sometimes, and those who are most interested in it tend to be Ti... I know most I work with, and those interested in CS/IT lean xxTP. That's not definitive, but I mention it anyway. I taught an INFP friend to program and he thought it was interesting... though I think he was mostly humoring me, his good friend. Even then, it took an immediate need to force his interest. A business need occuring immediately. Pragmatics.


Any type is capable of programming, and just as you could argue that Programming is a Ti-realm, I could just as easily argue that Te-users could utilise programming. It is a practical field with a wide range of applications, and Te-users could program as a means to an end.



arkigos said:


> h) That same INFP friend is a musician. Like all INFPs, his musicianship is deprioritized. Like Kurt Cobain, John Lennon, Fiona Apple, Regina Spektor, etc... the music takes a backseat to the essence to convey. I don't think that INFPs think that music can convey an essence? I don't know. They tend to, I think, focus on lyrics? They are never noted as exceptional instrumentalists. I can't imagine an NFP playing an instrument for it's own sake, though I guess it's not impossible. I know one INFJ who is a great guitar player... which was done privately but for it's own sake.


To be honest, I'm not very technical with my guitar playing. I can play the chords and do a bit of lead stuff, but I'm not mind blowing with the instrument. For me, the musicianship is deprioritised in favour of songwriting.

I don't know if INFPs believe music, or art in general, conveys an essence, but I do. To me, art is the closest thing to a psychic medium in a universe devoid of any supernatural power. I see art as being the channeling of one's emotions and thoughts into a physical medium which an audience would receive through their five senses and then receive the "psychic imprint" an artist left. And there is a symbiosis between an artist and their audience. Although I don't believe an artist should ever make art "just" to please the listener. For any further proof of why this is wrong, just tune in to any modern pop radio station of your choice. Art should also be made for the artist themselves.



arkigos said:


> i) I've never seen an INFP play the fool. They can be class clowns, especially when young... so I guess it depends on what you mean.


I was merely making a pun... which I stole from John Lennon. I can be playful as a person, but I also have a brooding side to me as well. Come to think of it, I come across as brooding AND playful at once. Yeah, I'm... complicated.  I'm not much of a trouble maker, though.



arkigos said:


> j) Music as a passion is weak to the point of useless, but I get the impression you didn't mean it to be weighty.


Yeah, any type can enjoy music. I was just adding in some personal information about myself to make myself seem more "vivid" as a person, in order for you to understand more about what I'm like.



arkigos said:


> k) I don't think INFPs are particulary good at oration. Honestly, they seem to suck at it... though it's clear they are intelligent when they talk. I'll refer you back to the INFPs I have already cited for that. INFJs, among many other types, are excellent communicators. That is why so many INFJs are journalists. Given a subject they know and a little preparation, they are umatched at conveying information very clearly. INFPs would struggle here. It must have to do with Ti, because xNTP/xNFJ seem to be the breadwinners here over xNFP/xNTJ. That last bit is just personal opinion/experience.


I do well at oratory, but having conversations is a bit more of a struggle. I don't always think on the same wavelength as the person I'm talking to, and this can sometimes lead to confusion.



arkigos said:


> l) Judging something as 'crass' is vaguely Fe to me... and that you seem to engage the essence would be Ni. INFP, on the other hand, would use Fi/Te and Si: *shrug and wince* "Uhm.... I just didn't really like it. It was kinda ... boneheaded. It just wasn't funny." or "He said it and my jaw dropped to the ground and.... rolled away. Why would they even have that in there? Kids are watching this. So stupid." or, just as likely: "It was pretty terrible. I laughed. *laughs* But, yes, I agree, terrible. *laughs* but, what do I care?"


Those quotes were confusing. Were you trying to show the way an Fi-user judges something? And not only do I judge things on their essence and whether or not they agree with my values, but I also judge things on how logical they are. "Does it make sense?" Possible Ni-Fe-Ti axis at work when judging something's value? Come to think of it, I might be rationalising the things I like a bit too much for an INFP. An INFP would be less concerned with how original a thing is if they like it.

I did consider INFJ as a type for a while, but decided against it. I just didn't really identify with the Fe function based on what I read about it. Fe users were described as being able to read other people like a book (INFJs especially, who are stereotyped as being nature's psychiatrists), following social values and making others comfortable. I can understand people about half the time, maybe, but I can't read someone like a book. My understanding of people is hit and miss. I usually do well at understanding the motives of people and fictional characters and in thinking about why they did what they did, but I can also be very poor at reading people's emotions or in picking up on some basic social cues. Of course, if someone was trying to sell me something I'd make sure it wasn't a con, usually I try not to assume what wasn't said by people and instead work with what they have actually said. I'm not always incredulous a person, but naivety to me is a flaw. A flaw to be despised, and not worshiped. One should not be content with their ignorance.

And the reason why I rejected Christianity was because I thought it was illogical. Would an INFP be as quick to dismiss something they held so strongly simply because some things didn't make sense, or would they defend their cherished belief at the expense of blanking out the facts? Yes it did cause me some existential angst until I came to accept that I could impose my own meaning on the universe (Ni at work?), but that doesn't change the fact I rejected an illogical belief.

To sum it up, I can see myself as having Ni and Ti, but I'm a bit skeptical about the Fe.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

@_Wuthering In The Willows_

An astute point about programming. I was mostly using personal experience on that one - theoretically, I am sure many types, especially Te types, or lower order Ti types, could find their motivation. But, programming for its own sake does indeed seem to be the purview of Ti. Maybe that is the difference? I don't know.


I created a false dichotomy with the instrumentalism argument. I think INFJ would have similar priorities to the INFP. 


Your follow-up about music conveying an essence is distinctly Ni. Beautifully written, actually. I am again and again struck by the xNFJ ability to convey abstract information in a way that captures the essence of it perfectly. With Ne, we just swing around for a half an hour until we have just covered so much ground that we are pretty sure we've got it. The danger of Ni is that the heartseeker can be based off a false context or just otherwise be mistaken. Once it's struck, it's hard for the Ni to pull the arrow back out. It's also very annoying to them! Ne doesn't have this problem, quite the opposite, it is very difficult for the Ne to know anything at all that they can't systemize with Si. Ne just barrages us with all the possibilities. Ne leads to true agnosticism. Ni leads to a strong sense of truth.


Good oratory and bad conversations is a hallmark difference of INFP and INFJ. It's the difference of on the fly vs prepared... and and the fact that Ne is fundamentally 'social' and shared. It works well on the fly and is also is very plagiaristic. It forms a piecemeal of ideas in a shared environment. When we are having fast-paced discussions, the faster they get the more the NFJs recede from the conversation. It's not that they don't understand, it just that in order to continue with the conversation you have to humor a lot of half-formed ideas and bounce around within them, socially. The Ni is waiting for it's target to emerge - some truth to strike onto. I usually find that as we are going on and on, the xNFJ will be tooling around on their phone or something, listening with their intuition... or, if they already have a strong opinion, of course, then it's gonna be a fight to the finish to convince them of anything.




> An INFP would be less concerned with how original a thing is if they like it.


In my experience, they are still pretty concerned with ... the essential N virtue of a thing... which usually goes hand in hand with how much they like it. I am nitpicking here. Picking nits.




> I did consider INFJ as a type for a while, but decided against it. I just didn't really identify with the Fe function based on what I read about it. Fe users were described as being able to read other people like a book (INFJs especially, who are stereotyped as being nature's psychiatrists), following social values and making others comfortable. I can understand people about half the time, maybe, but I can't read someone like a book. My understanding of people is hit and miss. I usually do well at understanding the motives of people and fictional characters and in thinking about why they did what they did, but I can also be very poor at reading people's emotions or in picking up on some basic social cues. Of course, if someone was trying to sell me something I'd make sure it wasn't a con, usually I try not to assume what wasn't said by people and instead work with what they have actually said. I'm not always incredulous a person, but naivety to me is a flaw. A flaw to be despised, and not worshiped. One should not be content with their ignorance.
> 
> 
> And the reason why I rejected Christianity was because I thought it was illogical. Would an INFP be as quick to dismiss something they held so strongly simply because some things didn't make sense, or would they defend their cherished belief at the expense of blanking out the facts? Yes it did cause me some existential angst until I came to accept that I could impose my own meaning on the universe (Ni at work?), but that doesn't change the fact I rejected an illogical belief.
> ...



Well, as much as I think I see Ti, I guess INTJ isn't impossible. Really, I read through your post and my reply again, and any and all indications I had of Fe were weak at best. I thought your logic was good and well considered, so maybe it is my bias that calls that Ti. 


I am suddenly curious about your thoughts on how you approach programming. To me, Ni is clear... likely dominant in you. Fe was anything but clear, but T is clear... I thought it was Ti, but I was pulling from pretty shakey stuff to get there.


That you don't get social cues is a bit of a pickle for an INFJ typing because they very very often cite their ability to read people and see what is inside of them. They really are natural psychiatrists... er, counselors. They are definitely heartseekers in that regard, but I personally think are lacking too much in objectivity to be ideal psychiatrists. That's a tangent, sorry. Excellent counselors. Great at listening, getting to the core of it, seeing the person and seeing the 'truth' of it and then giving advice. Very Dear Prudence stuff - pragmatic and cutting out the crap... with a strong social morals/interaction angle.


It's not ignorance... it's agnosticism. You see the truth, we see the 50 possible truths. We cannot easily rank them. We don't need to. Si does for us what Ni does for you. That is taken care of. Ne instead is fundamentally inclusive of concepts and truths. We store them all and attach to none. They are a repertoire for debate and for musings. Far from ignorant, it is often very educated. We do bear down on things and remove them, but we do that based on Si - what we have seen and expect to happen again due to precedence. N will give us no truth, no answers, only an array of perspectives to consider to keep Si from looping in on itself. Our naivety is therefore necessary to us. It's for this reasons that INFPs tend to stick to places and things that they know. They are very easily pulled and moved by a strong influence. Think John and Yoko (who was probably INFJ)... 


An INFP will stick with people he or she can trust based on precedence - and will probably very much fear other influences. When INFPs do break out of their comfort zones, it can be very difficult or traumatic for them... going to a party with people they didn't know, they will likely end up in the corner feeling guilty for even being there. Si will put them on the rack and they will not enjoy the new experience at all. It's not that they will judge the people around them by some Ni 'truth rule' (<--- and ENFJ gave me that term the other day.. I like it.) but that it isn't like what they know... it doesn't match a verified precedence. It will feel wrong... lacking in virtue, whatever. They will react decisively and stubbornly. Just think of all the people I cited already and this will make sense.


In light of the lack of Fe, and the fact that I can't actually argue strongly for Ti over Te.... perhaps consider INTJ? If you think Fi is more likely than Fe, then we need to question the T. Thanks for bearing with me!

@_Acerbusvenator_ will be better suited to this question, I think. Though come to think of it, I haven't seen him around. @_Teybo_ is an INFJ and is sure to offer a perspective unmolested by my own.


----------



## Wuthering In The Willows (Jul 2, 2013)

My Thinking and Feeling are more or less balanced, which means it's less of a question of deciding whether I'm Thinking or Feeling as it is deciding whether I use Fe/Ti or Te/Fi. The thing with me and my Thinking is that, while I may be competent at Thinking, it was a Function I had to grow into rather than one I started off with. For much of my childhood I was heavily emotional, and didn't start developing my Thinking until adolescence (i.e. the last few years).

Fortunately, INTJ is dominated by Intuition, not Thinking. This makes the idea of an INTJ developing their Thinking over time a bit more plausible than it would for someone whose Thinking is "ground zero" like it would be for an ENTJ or INTP. I guess that I could be an INTJ who developed differently. If my Fi function is Tertiary, it is very acute for a Tertiary one. There are also other INTJs who have a very potent Tertiary Fi (such as Christopher Hitchens). And the fact it is Tertiary could explain some of the lapses in the function (pragmatic morals, outspoken, not being afraid to say "no"). Whereas my Te Function may have taken longer to develop than it normally would. INTJs are stereotyped as being masterminds, capable of planning several steps ahead and engineering the world around them. Yes, I do plan ahead and have organisational skills. 

It's just that the INTJ stereotype just seems to throw me off; no way am I good at Chess or Calculus. I guess the personality descriptions do tend to idolise the types they're describing to make people of that type sound better than they usually are. I'm almost cringing at the idea of identifying myself as a "Mastermind" or "Consular" if I change the type I chose for my profile. This is where I have a bone to pick with Keirsey, and his associating of archetypes/stereotypes/caricatures with types. A good deal of the confusion in the forums and on the internet over a person's type can trace its way back to Keirsey's works. Behaviourism is only a symptom of a person's type, with the mechanics in their mind really being the deciding factor.

I would think that an INTJ could also deprioritise musical skill in favour of songwriting, even though an INTJ might be more likely to want to master their instrument. Roger Waters comes to mind, and I'm sure I could pull out a few other names for INTJ musicians who focus on songwriting if I search hard enough.

I think it'll help if my Feeling-traits were listed:
* I want intimacy.
* I need to talk about what's on my mind with people.
* Although I'm selfish, I'm never selfish to the point of inconveniencing people. In fact, I like helping people and enjoy doing acts of kindness and servitude.
* I try to think optimistically when possible, and install my optimism around others when possible. I do try and consider the situation realistically, but I try not to let the problems of the situation drag me down. They're just there for consideration when solving the problem.
* I'm generally friendly towards people, despite my sometimes brooding exterior. And if my social skills slip up, I make up for it with a rakish charm of sorts.
* Although there are times when I could offend people, I rarely intentionally offend them and try to get along.
* Friends mean more to me than family, but there isn't any beef between me and my family. And as I said before, it's hard to make me compromise on my values or succumb to peer pressure. And when this does happen, I'm resentful of this.
* People find me easy to approach, and I listen to what they have to say and try and offer advice.
* Reading physical emotions or understanding social norms isn't something I'm highly skilled at, even if I don't outright suck at these things. 
* Having said that, sometimes I can have the knack of getting into a person's brain and understanding why they did the things they did or what motivated them, whether the person is fictional or real. In fact, my understanding of fictional characters is part of why I did well in English.

Perhaps there are Fe traits in there after all? Maybe the Fe Function I have just isn't quite the same as how it's described in books and websites? The lower level of social skills can be a pickle for the Fe argument, but on second thought it might not be worth dismissing the idea of Fe simply because I slip up on social skills a few times.

I wanted to learn about programming because I saw it as being a practical field with great career opportunities. I have other passions, of course. Some passions of mine include music (as you can tell), philosophy and literature. But I couldn't make a career out of an English major or in playing an instrument and writing songs. Of course, programming is fascinating and stimulates the intellect. I would HATE to do a job which bored me day after day. But I wanted to tap into a job market which would have a lot of opportunities and good growth, and there's no shortage in programmers. Once I've finished learning about programming, I could tap into that niche and make a reliable, good living without too much competition. And also, programming is a means of solving a lot of problems and in developing services which could be used by potentially millions of people. So my means-to-an-end approach towards programming could suggest Te rather than the end-in-itself approach one could expect in Ti.

The difference between Te and Ti, to me at least, is Te is the "executive function". It seeks closure and looks for a practical way of solving problems. Ti is more theoretical and more interested in understanding, and Ti-users tend to be more intellectual. Especially when Ne is involved. My need for closure can be attributed to a Dominant Ni, and I'm not too practical a person, instead tending more towards the intellectual.

Then again, INTJ is the most "starry-eyed" of the xxTJ types, and also are there all that many intellectual xSTPs? -shrug-

My train of logic involves deductions. I think through eliminating options, and in making mental algorithms (IF 1 then A, or IF 2 then B or C). Talking to other people is helpful for stimulating my thinking, and I like to make lists, organise and categorise, and write down what's going on in my head.

As for Ni vs. Ne on philosophy, I agree with you in that my beliefs are strong. It's not really in my nature to be in the middle when it comes to philosophical beliefs. I was a devout Christian - don't worry, I wasn't a fundy nut job  - who turned into a strong Atheist in the space of less than a week. My political views are more central. I don't see the point in identifying with the left or right when both sides make valid points, and both sides just seem to blame one another for their problems rather than try to do anything about them. 

I also want to take back anything I may have said about Ne users being ignorant. It did seem arrogant, and I'm sorry for it. There's a difference between "being ignorant" and "considering multiple truths", and when I said naive I was really referring to "being ignorant". In fact, the idea of talking to someone who considers fifty different opinions as subjective truths just "clicks" with my brain. I have heard that ENxP types form a strong dynamic with INxJ types due to the Ne/Ni interplay.

Personally, I wouldn't choose my co-workers or my romantic partners based on what type they were. My interest in Jungian typology is a largely academic one. It provides good theoretical insights, but using it as a two-minute typing device to determine what type someone is would be crude. I've taken some of the two-minute tests - don't get me started on how limited they are. I wouldn't use the MBTI/Jungian system for choosing an employee if I were an employer looking for staff. Your type doesn't determine what job you do best and you'd need to know a person very well to properly type them.

So... INFJ or INTJ?


----------



## Holunder (May 11, 2010)

I can't see you as anything but a thinker. You build up your arguments logically, and are very focused on amassing facts, with hardly any mention of feelings. Apart from that, INFPs have a sort of scattered writing style that is very distinguishable, and you simply don't write that way. INTP seems like a good fit for you, overall.


----------



## Pelopra (May 21, 2013)

@Wuthering In The Willows

Quote:
Having researched the theory, I have decided I'm probably an INFP.

I approached this through a series of deductions, and in a process of elimination decided my type.
_
WARNING: COPIOUS AMOUNT OF TL;DR. The word count is approximately 1200.
_​
*1. Remove the "E":* Process of Elimination- Something I associate with Ti. I decided I was not just introverted from a behavioural perspective, but also from a Jungian one. Jung once described introverts as having this layer between themselves and the world where things get processed internally, and the world does seem to get processed through this layer as I observe it. This makes me suspect a Dominant I function. This does not convince me you are an I, because everything here could just as much describe Ti. (Maybe also Fi? I don't have experience with Fi so I can't vouch for that). There is also no need to assume that the I function is dominant-- secondary functions can be very strongly expressed.

*2. Remove the "S":* I'm contemplative, enjoy theoretical topics and philosophy, start with the big picture and thinks globally without going too far into details, and enjoy novel ideas. I usually think abstractly but sometimes at the cost of thinking realistically. Not necessarily N Dominant in my functions, but it's highly unlikely that I'm N Inferior. This makes me either: INFP, INTP, INFJ, INTJ, ISFP, or ISTP. However, I really don't show all that much Se. I tend to be too detached from the here and now and have troubles "letting loose", and my thoughts tend to drift away from the physical world and the present to the past, the future or something outside the time-space continuum. Either my Se is a puerile function, or not used at all. This probably makes me an INxx type. Suspect you're right about being N-- the entire first sentence was not convincing, but the continuation of the paragraph made a more compelling case

*3. Remove the "J":* Now, I wondered whether I had Ji/Pe or Pi/Je going (P or J). Side note: This entire tone of voice does not, at all, sound like F to me. I honed in on the N function by choosing between Ni and Ne. Ni involves having a strong internal vision, connecting the world to the individual and in working out where a person or thing is in the present in order to determine where it came from and to where it was going. This often leaves Ni users with a "sixth sense" of sorts. Ne, however, involves connecting things within the external world to find patterns (thinking globally), being inquisitive, and exploring several ideas. I wonder what the weird fixation on definitions means. One gets the impression of a robot, going through a program. Ni- definition- compare bits- sum of bits equals 32- Ne- definition- compare bits- sum of bits equals 64- compare variables- Ne > Ni? True. Return Ne.

The latter suits me more by my reckoning. Although I am stubborn, often I find myself second guessing my ideas or changing my mind about things (a couple of times I decided to reject MBTI theory before going back to it having decided it made some very valid points, and a few months ago I told my friends "modern music is dead" before exploring indie music some more and deciding there were enough good indie artists to counter this (possibly irrelevant side note: an INTP I know did this, I as an ENTP have done this. Reason side note is possibly irrelevant: Because I have no data on what other types also do this as a typical thing). I think I have more Ne than Ni. based on? And also, Ne is the only Extraverted function I really identify with, while I identify to at least some respect with all the Introverted functions. What also proved P over J was not having much Te or Fe. Which brings me to...

*4. INTP vs. INFP.* According to MBTI theory, ISFP is the sibling type to INFP due to the Fi Dominance of both functions. But I actually consider INTP to be my sibling type despite this due to being Introverted with Ne/Si; I even have an INTP sibling (I identified him as such, and he is probably unaware of the theory) i have no idea what you're talking about. So if there's another type I could be, it could very well be INTP. However, having considered the arguments in favour of INFP and INTP, I decided I was Fi Dominant, rather than Ti Dominant.

The main arguments for Ti were: I'm intelligent (any type can be intelligent, and besides I'm not a genius or anything) also, Ti =/= intelligence, I don't express my emotions too much openly (but I do feel them deeply and can talk about them with people I trust) most healthy humans can/do, I'm an Atheist (any type can be an Atheist), I became an Atheist because I thought the Bible was illogical (and suffered heaps of existential angst from lack of faith for a while afterwards) existential angst would be normal assuming religion played an important role in your identity/worldview. that you became an atheist because the bible was illogical is a relevant point, partially because of (at least in this context) the somewhat dry, not even really defensive way you mention that. some atheists claim to have become atheists because of "logic", but when more closely probed this logic reveals itself to be a cover-- they became atheists for emotional reasons, and then found logical support to back them up. this would be negative-stereotypical Fi-Te behaviour (I believe). I get the sense that this is not the case with you, however, which to me is suggestive of Ti/Fe (again, your dismissal of this datapoint is not valid-- existential angst affects Ti types as well), the process of deciding on my type (I don't think you have to be a Ti user to work out functions this way that you see your way of thinking as not type related and universally valid does not mean your way of thinking is not type related or universally valid. there are people who would read your post and wonder what strange planet you dropped from, because "it is not normal to think that way". Those people are not your type. Whereas I think most Ti users read your post and can identify with this method of thinking. (I certainly can). Te users can weigh in on whether they think like this as well.).

The main arguments for Fi were: far more emotional as a child emotional in what way. let it be known that children are not robots. sometimes, being aware of having been "emotional" as a child is actually NOT a sign of having Fi, because the awareness comes from the part that was removed from the emotion and took it as something less than natural, feels emotions deeply on the inside in what way? what kind of emotions?, made quite a few decisions in life based on internal ideals i suppose this could indicate Fi. would need more info about the process of making these decisions and how the internal ideals played a role, being optimistic despite myself could be Ne, could be Se, could be something less related to type, and being brooding and friendly at the same time I don't see what relevance this has to your being Fi.

I found the Fi arguments much less counterable, and this made me decide on INFP and this sentence kinda proves that you're not Fi. I am pretty darn certain no INFP decided their type based on "finding the arguments less counterable". Be honest. When you read INFP descriptions, when you visit the INFP boards, can you relate to them? Because if you ignore whether a decision makes gut sense to you on the basis of your having concluded that it was logical, you are not displaying Fi. Maybe I'm wrong and you didn't do what I just described. But if what I just wrote resonated, I'm also going to throw in some patronizing advice for free-- based on my experience, when doing my careful paring-down and logical analysis, I can miss pieces of information, especially anything that doesn't have an immediate rational justification or place in my internal framework. But when I override my gut feelings to make the decision that my logic compels me to make, I've more than once discovered to my chagrin that when I ignored subconscious cues that manifested as "irrational" gut feelings, I ended up making the wrong decision. 

And here's a little function breakdown, as well.

Dominant Fi: I feel emotions deeply, but my emotions are internal in nature there are "external" emotions?. I don't really have much Fe, as my values are abstract internal values, rather than external ones decided by other people Fe is not "values decided by other people", exactly.... I'm not susceptible to peer pressure and I guess my integrity is good doesn;t need to be Fe. I'm friendly, but I have no problems saying "no" to people This is only associated with people with Fe in upper positions. I'm also argumentative, and come across as aloof, and sometimes even boorish ...you know that could be Ti and weak Fe, right?. I'm loyal to friends and need intimacy, but my loyalties are personal in nature (I don't want to be married, as love is not a thing which needs a signed piece of paper to confirm) I have no idea what functions this is connected to, but I remember coming across something like this (minus the marriage bit) in an ISFJ description and relating to it. (I'm not an ISFJ). . And I also let my emotions have a say in my decision making, which actually does work out well for me for the most part. ...pffft. you "let your emotions have a say" sounds like you sort of make a conscious decision to let them off their leash to play under careful supervision. note: you didn't say "my emotions have a say". you said "I LET my emotions have a say". "I" and "my emotions" are separate entities, with different respective "say"s, but I'm willing to respect them if they respect me. 
Am I right in what I'm describing here?

Auxiliary Ne: I think globally, make connections, pursue new ideas and things, reconsider ideas (regardless of how strongly I hold them), and find meaning behind things. I guess most of my intelligence comes from this Ne function, but there's different kinds of intelligences and I don't profess to being a genius. And I have "artsy" interests, such as literature (guess which books I had in mind for my username?), music, movies, and philosophy. Having artsy interests doesn't necessarily make you an Ne user, but this doesn't refute my argument.blah, i hate sorting out Ni/Ne/Si/Se/perception
Tertiary Si: The Si function doesn't stack too highly due to me being offbeat and not following tradition too closely, even though it means I can sometimes be quite scatter-brained! must resist urge to analyze that exclamation point to death But I do have a good long term memory, and I can organise and order things around and make and follow checklists. And although I don't hold grudges against people easily, when I do it's not easy to let go. i feel like none of this has very much to do with Si but whatever.
Inferior Te: I can be assertive when I want to be, think practically and organise the world around me. My morals also have a pragmatic bent to them. But I'm not a hugely practical person, and the Te function is more of an extension than a core component of my nature. .......this does not sound like Te. (Not gonna lie and say that my understanding of Te is top notch, but this still doesn't sound like Te.)

And some other trivia to get a better idea of who I am:
* Currently studying and training for a career in computers, with the emphasis on the programming aspect. I love computers! what do you love about computers? is it relevant to you whether your career is personally meaningful, or is it more important that you're having fun? 
* I play electric guitar... and sometimes I play the fool. 
* Philosophical values are existential, and I believe values are (partially) subjective. I do have ideas about right and wrong, though. I have had it hammered into my head that Fe/Ti=subjective values and Fi/Te=objective values, so this just triggers a big giant Ti/Fe sign for me. 
* Music is a big passion of mine!
* I have a deadpan sense of humour.
* I have oratory gifts in public speaking and debating.
* Loves black comedy and "high-brow" comedy, but blue humour to me is quite crass.
* Enjoy science fiction and fantasy-typed stuff.
* I talk a lot when I'm in a talkative mood, but usually I'm a quiet guy.
* I did better in English-based subjects in high school than Physics or Calculus.
* Sometimes I write.
* Regular walks make me feel refreshed.
* I'm... and okay person, I guess. I try not to be a tool, but I'm not a saint.
* I like saying "I" a lot.

There's so much more I could say about myself, and it's hard to restrain myself from the keys.

Pat yourself on the back if you made it to the end. Having read all this, would you agree with my judgement, or would you defer. And why?


----------



## Pelopra (May 21, 2013)

Wuthering In The Willows said:


> My Thinking and Feeling are more or less balanced, which means it's less of a question of deciding whether I'm Thinking or Feeling as it is deciding whether I use Fe/Ti or Te/Fi. also on determining whether you're operating off a correct definition/understand of these functions The thing with me and my Thinking is that, while I may be competent at Thinking, it was a Function I had to grow into rather than one I started off with. For much of my childhood I was heavily emotional could you please elaborate on this?, and didn't start developing my Thinking until adolescence (i.e. the last few years).
> 
> Fortunately, INTJ is dominated by Intuition, not Thinking. This makes the idea of an INTJ developing their Thinking over time a bit more plausible than it would for someone whose Thinking is "ground zero" like it would be for an ENTJ or INTP. I guess that I could be an INTJ who developed differently. If my Fi function is Tertiary, it is very acute for a Tertiary one. There are also other INTJs who have a very potent Tertiary Fi (such as Christopher Hitchens). And the fact it is Tertiary could explain some of the lapses in the function (pragmatic morals, outspoken, not being afraid to say "no"). Whereas my Te Function may have taken longer to develop than it normally would. INTJs are stereotyped as being masterminds, capable of planning several steps ahead and engineering the world around them. Yes, I do plan ahead and have organisational skills. sometimes your add fixation on the exact definition just strikes me as bizarre. i wonder if that is indicative of a function difference between us (and if so, it is you having Ni/Se, or Te/Fi?) or whether it's just something that happens to newbies in MBTI theory...
> 
> ...


I would consider all of the NTs. (I think INFJ could probably be tossed. I am under the strong impression that "meaningful service" is a strong theme in INFJs lives and it doesn't really exist in anything you've written.)

I suggest you read some profiles (I know, they're flawed, eye gougingly so, just do it anyway) and also visit each of the four forums, maybe particularly checking out the "you know you're an ___ when" sorts of threads. (included: "things you'd never hear a __ say", "talk like a ____", etc). 

a pretty good sign you've found your type? the sheepish grin upon reading a description of a very specific flaw that is 100% spot on. (on the other hand, expect plenty of overlap between NTs. we're all about being cold rational geniuses full of BRAAAAINS and hubris) (and secret squishy feeling bits)


----------



## Wuthering In The Willows (Jul 2, 2013)

It's good to see that people have taken an interest to my thread.  There's an almost total agreement that Thinking measures higher than Feeling, even though I think they're nearly equal. Why did I identify myself as Feeling Dominant? Yes I do have Feeling qualities, but like Jung said "no one is 100% Thinking or Feeling. Such a man would belong in a lunatic's asylum!" I guess the Feeling qualities are just me being a healthy (if a little eccentric) human being. I guess I considered myself a Feeler because I was emotional as a kid and had to learn to reason. Can kids even be typed? As for my reasons for considering myself emotional back then, those reasons are personal. There's a difference between trying to describe how I think, and what I've been through. This makes it a bit harder to type me, I know. Besides, although my Thinking developed recently, I'm still a young man. I still have plenty more mental development to do. So ignore the thread title, pwetty please.  For the sake of determining type, I'll use NT as a focal point, but I'll leave in the possibility of being an INFJ or ENFP with a _very_ acute Tertiary Function.

Of all the NT types, ENTJ seems to be the weakest fit, both on a description level and a functional level. If I have Te, it is not Dominant. Once again, the vagueness of the Te/Ti distinction confounds me, but based on my impression of Te I know it's not a defining function. Ti could very well be a Dominant Function, however.

I think of myself as being Introverted. I'm not shy, or course (not that Introverts are necessarily shy). And given the right topic, I could be quite the motormouth. Yeah, there's more to being an Introvert than liking my alone time. But didn't Jung describe Introverts as having an inner filter between themselves and the world? But I'll leave in the possibility of ENTP, or perhaps a Thinking-sharp ENFP. Of all the Extroverts, the Ne Dominant types are usually the most Introverted. And being Ne Dominant makes more sense to me than being Te Dominant, as much as I can understand arkigos assessment of me as an Ni user.

I briefly flirted with the idea of being an ISTP with a strong Tertiary Ni, but my Se doesn't rank very highly (if at all). If I have Fe, it would be more likely to be Auxiliary than Se would. INFJ is still an option.

Although I have lots of logical reasons for my Atheism, the logic had built up more after I decided Christianity was illogical. It was a few holes that made me abandon my faith, and from there my logical reasons against it had blossomed. I know it sounds strange that I wouldn't notice the flaws for so long, but bare with me on this. I had a "Eureka moment", and that Eureka moment made me consider whether or not I needed Christianity, or religion in general. I decided then I could live without religion and became an Atheist. That fact I decided I didn't need religion made me not bother to explore other religions. I know a basic amount about other religions, but the way I see it everyone of them says they're the right one and the others are wrong. Perhaps it's Intuition leading the way and Thinking catching up with it?

I'll admit my logic to determining my type in Post #1 is flawed, and that I was using a heavy dose of logic to approach the type nevertheless.

Yes I am a bit of a noob. I've learnt about functions, read about descriptions, read websites and a couple of books and lurked around the forum before joining, but I have more to learn. There are still key books I haven't read. And I'm sure an expert wouldn't make the mistake of trying to consider their childhood for deciding their type.

I'll admit the statement made about Si in Post #1 is partially incorrect. I failed to mention the use (if not reliance) on information from the past that Si-types have when using data for decision making. Si users can also have a strong attention to detail and pay attention to the small stuff, though. I guess the latter thing I mentioned could be a Sensor thing in general (i.e. your head would be off floating into the clouds if it wasn't screwed on straight). I'm still a little confused about whether or not I have Ni or Ne, even though arkigos makes a convincing argument for me having Ni. But I know I'm Intuitive.


----------



## Pelopra (May 21, 2013)

actually childhood can be useful to deciding type and children do have type (if naturally somewhat immature/undeveloped) the question was the nature of your "emotional" as a child.


----------



## Wuthering In The Willows (Jul 2, 2013)

Discussing my childhood is a personal area. I accept that elaborating on how "emotional" I was back then could potentially a key factor deciding on type, and could reveal ways in which I could have developed Thinking had it been a function I had to grow into. But I just couldn't discuss the ways in which I was emotional. I would have to use personal experience as examples, and although I'm willing to describe how I think or the things which are important to me personal experiences would be too much for me.

Come to think of it, what I said above was the most F-like thing I said in this entire thread.


----------

