# ISFJ vs ISFP??



## a peach (May 21, 2015)

Hello everyone, I'm sorry to be a bother but I'm very confused when it comes to profiles, and why is it I find that I relate heavily to ISFPs more so than ISFJ, even though I was tested and found I had Si, Fe and Ti, and had my mother read over the descriptions of the functions and she stated the ones that resonated with ISFJ as well.

But the things that have to do with aesthetics and enjoying sensual things, or the emotional aspect of it too, I really relate to these things. I am security-seeking, I understand, and don't feel like a Perceiver, but I'm a bit frustrated when I find I relate to these descriptions more so than ISFJ. Is it just because SJ profiles in general are unflattering, and maybe I'm just?? I don't know, are ISFJs and ISFPs really so different?


----------



## penny lane (Nov 21, 2011)

I know I relate to the general descriptions for an ISFP but cognitively I seem to fit ISFJ better.
I got stuck not understanding Si very well .if you find yourself comparing everything to your personal experiences and your own impressions that sounds Si.I know for me I do that without effort making it the dominate function.
I know the ISFJ stereotypes don't help much.I don't fit a lot of them.
Cognitively though ISFP didn't fit.I had to understand the functions better.


----------



## Prada (Sep 10, 2015)

On the shallow level, they're very similar. They usually arrive to the same/similar conclusions by following different thought process.

ISFPs tend to be very active, thrill seeking, nature loving social workers (yes, it's a stereotype and not all of them are like this but they usually are). While ISFJs are more focused on what they are used to. So, yes, if an ISFJ is used to the stuff ISFPs do regularly, then they will look a lot alike. But for ISFPs it's a question of getting sensory stimuli in large quantities in a way they consider right and good while for ISFJs it's about following the known in a way that's deemed acceptable by society or in a way that wouldn't disturb the harmony of a group/society.


----------



## BlueWings (Jan 27, 2015)

Online tests and descriptions are often heavily stereotype-based and inaccurate. Cognitive functions don't really have anything at all to do with your abilities, likes and dislikes and so on, that's all up to how you are as an individual. It's very misleading because really, any type can be into aesthetics and sensual stuff, it all depends on ones motivations when it comes to functions. Si and Se motivation is different. Se wants to experience as much of the external world as possible, and is very much content with what is derived from the present moment. Si is more reflective and grounded, and is all about thoroughness and values it's roots more so than fleeing away at first opportunity.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

If I was in charge, I'd have you deciding if you were INFJ or INFP (and I've got a J lean). I think the reason you almost always test N is because — wait for it — you're an N. It's so simple, I know! You want it to be more complicated. And that's partly because INFs are the types most prone to want their "selves" to be full of rich, tangled depths. :tongue:

The official MBTI is really the only MBTI test with a lot of psychometric support behind it, and if you're interested, there's a link to the "Step I" version (the version most people take) here. And in case you're up for taking it and are interested in some guidance with respect to the proper "frame of mind," here's what the MBTI Manual says:



MBTI Manual said:


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


Also if you're interested — and _only_ if you're interested — the next spoiler has an "introduction to S & N" that I put together a while back (including quotes from Myers and Keirsey).


* *




I think one of the distinctions at the heart of the S/N dichotomy is the one between the "real" world — where physical things (and "facts") exist and events happen in time (S-world) — and the abstract (immaterial and more "eternal") world of ideas, knowledge, scientific laws, patterns, etc. (N-world). Both N's and S's understand that both worlds exist, and have their place. The S/N dichotomy has more to do with which world you find most valuable and meaningful — and focus most of your attention on. A hardcore S will tend to view N-world as valueless except to the extent that it ultimately serves some kind of practical purpose in S-world. A hardcore N, on the other hand, will tend to feel most at home in N-world, and view the physical world as more of a canvas or playground on which the laws of nature, science, psychology, beauty, etc. play themselves out. Just as an S tends to only value ideas to the extent that they serve some practical end, an N will tend to find the facts/details/etc. of the "real world" uninteresting to the extent that they don't embody, illustrate or otherwise tie into some more abstract pattern, principle, law or other aspect of N-world.

A hardcore S may well view himself as practical, down-to-earth and common-sensical and roll his eyes at dreamy, impractical, pointy-headed intellectuals whose theories and "bright ideas" tend to blind them to the way things actually work — while a hardcore N may view the hardcore S as a deficiently non-intellectual (and perhaps somewhat dim) person who seems to often miss the forest for the trees and is regrettably uninterested in the ideas/laws/patterns that make the world an interesting place.

Isabel Myers said N's "face life expectantly, craving inspiration," while S's "face life observantly, craving enjoyment." N's "admit fully to consciousness only the sense impressions related to the current inspiration; they are imaginative at the expense of observation"; whereas S's "admit to consciousness every sense impression and are intensely aware of the external environment; they are observant at the expense of imagination." She also said that N's "are willing to sacrifice the present to a large extent since they neither live in it nor particularly enjoy it"; whereas S's tend to be "reluctant to sacrifice present enjoyment to future gain or good."

Keirsey says that an N "lives in anticipation. Whatever is can be better, or different, and is seen only as a way station. Consequently, N's often experience a vague sense of dissatisfaction and restlessness. They seem somewhat bothered by reality, constantly looking toward possibilities of changing or improving the actual"; whereas an S "wants facts, trusts facts and remembers facts. He believes in experience and knows through experience (history), both personal and global. ... They focus on what actually happened rather than worrying too much about what might have been or what will be in the future."

Kroeger and Thuesen say N's "find the future and its possibilities more intriguing than frightening" and "are usually more excited about where they're going than where they are"; whereas S's "focus on 'what is' and find 'what can be' unsettling."

Keirsey also notes that an N child "may be difficult to handle. He always seems to have a core of 'being his own person' which adults sometimes find objectionable and offensive. ... He may seem opinionated to others, the NT in particular, and he often is very certain that he knows; at the same time, he cannot justify his convictions to others' satisfaction when questioned."

It's common to read, in MBTI sources, that an N is substantially more likely than an S to be bored and unhappy with a job that could fairly be described as doing the same thing over and over. An NT will enjoy putting some kind of system together, then want to move on to devising a new system, leaving it to the S "administrators" to actually use/apply the system, while the S administrators are more content to be the hands-on people applying the system day in and day out to deal with each day's new demands, and are happy to leave it to the N's to have to endure the brain damage involved in figuring out new systems, or improving old systems.

As Isabel Myers put it, N's "enjoy learning a new skill more than using it," while S's "enjoy using skills already learned more than learning new ones."

The MBTI manual notes that people considered "highly creative" tend to be N's, with writers tending to be NFs, and mathematicians and scientists tending to be NTs. Kroeger and Thuesen note that elementary school teachers are mostly S's, high school teachers are fairly evenly split, and college professors tend to be N's.



The next spoiler has brief bullet-point summaries (from official MBTI reports) of the five "facets" of S/N in the "Step II" version of the MBTI.


* *




The five S/N "facets" from the "Step II" version of the MBTI:

*1. Concrete / Abstract*

Concrete

Exact facts; Literal; Tangible

• Are grounded in reality and trust the facts.
• Interpret things literally.
• Are cautious about making inferences.
• May find it hard to see trends and link facts to the bigger picture.
• Begin with what you know to be true, and have all the facts in order before moving on.
• May be seen by others as resistant to change, although you may not see yourself that way.

Abstract

Figurative; Symbolic; Intangible

• Like to go beyond the surface and read between the lines.
• May use symbols and metaphors to explain your views.
• Consider context and interrelationships important.
• Make mental leaps and enjoy brainstorming.
• May find it hard to identify the evidence for your ideas.
• May find it hard to disengage from the tangents you've followed.

*2. Realistic / Imaginative*

Realistic

Sensible; Matter of fact; Seek efficiency

• Take pride in your common sense and ability to realistically appraise situations.
• Value efficiency, practicality, and cost effectiveness.
• Appreciate direct experiences and tangible results.
• Believe that good techniques lead to good results.
• Are seen as matter of fact and sensible.

Imaginative

Resourceful; Inventive; Seek novelty

• Like ingenuity for its own sake.
• Want to experience what is innovative and different.
• Are resourceful in dealing with new and unusual experiences.
• Prefer not to do things the same way twice.
• Readily envision what is needed for the future and enjoy strategic planning.
• May enjoy humour and word games based on nuance.

*3. Practical / Conceptual*

Practical

Pragmatic; Results oriented; Applied

• Find that applying ideas is more appealing than the ideas themselves.
• Need to see an idea’s application to understand it.
• Are impatient listening to ideas if a practical use is not the end result.
• Favor practical utility over intellectual curiosity.

Conceptual

Scholarly; Idea oriented; Intellectual

• Enjoy the role of scholar and thinker.
• Like acquiring new knowledge and skills for their own sake.
• Value mental virtuosity.
• Focus on the concept, not its application.
• Prefer starting with an idea.
• Find that practical uses for your ideas may come as afterthoughts.

*4. Experiential / Theoretical*

Experiential

Hands on; Empirical; Trust experience

• Learn best from direct, hands-on experience and rely on it to guide you.
• Are careful not to generalize too much.
• Focus more on the past and present than the future.
• Concentrate on what is happening now rather than thinking about meanings and theories.
• May sometimes get stuck on details at the expense of larger considerations.

Theoretical

Seek patterns; Hypothetical; Trust theories

• Trust theory and believe it has a reality of its own.
• Enjoy dealing with the intangible.
• Like to invent new theories even more than applying your "old" ones.
• See almost everything as fitting into a pattern or theoretical context.
• Are future oriented.

*5. Traditional / Original*

Traditional

Conventional; Customary; Tried and true

• Identify strongly with what is familiar.
• Are comfortable with the tried-and-true because it provides a precedent to follow.
• Admire and support established institutions and methods.
• Are reluctant to change things that are working well.
• Enjoy participating in traditions at work and at home.

Original

Unconventional; Different; New and unusual

• Place a high value on uniqueness.
• Need to demonstrate your own originality.
• Value cleverness and inventiveness.
• Would rather figure out your own way than read the directions.
• Will change things whether or not they work as they are.



@Abraxas has helpfully posted the "official" discussions of the five subfacets of each of the four MBTI dichotomies from the MBTI Step II Manual, and those add up to a _lengthy_ description of both sides of each dichotomy, and here are the links to the S/N and J/P sections:

Sensing / Intuition
Judging / Perceiving

On the "aesthetics" front, and in case you've been led to believe that either ISFJ or ISFP is a more likely arts-oriented type than INFJ, the opposite is actually true. INFP is arguably the single most likely artist type (with INFJ and INTP both runner-up contenders), while ISFPs and ISFJs are relatively unlikely artist types. The "ISFP as artist" notion came from David Keirsey, and I think Keirsey had quite a few insightful things to say, but the ISFP=artist thing was probably his biggest mistake. For quite a lot more on that issue (stats included), see this post and this post.

In the next spoiler are membership stats for Personality Cafe and Typology Central. For each type, the first percentage is the percentage of that type at the forum, the second percentage (in parentheses) is the estimated "general population" percentage from the official MBTI folks (from this page), and the final number on the right is the self-selection ratio for that type — i.e., the ratio of the forum percentage to the general population percentage.


* *




November 2014 membership stats for Personality Cafe:

INFJ — 9133 — 15.7% (1.5%) — ssr: 10.5
INTJ — 7307 — 12.6% (2.1%) — ssr: 6.0
INFP — 11865 — 20.4% (4.4%) — ssr: 4.6
INTP — 7825 — 13.5% (3.3%) — ssr: 4.1
ENTP — 3709 — 6.4% (3.2%) — ssr: 2.0
ENTJ — 1681 — 2.9% (1.8%) — ssr: 1.6
ENFJ — 1904 — 3.3% (2.5%) — ssr: 1.3
ENFP — 4915 — 8.5% (8.1%) — ssr: 1.0
ISTP — 1926 — 3.3% (5.4%) — ssr: 0.6
ISFP — 1986 — 3.4% (8.8%) — ssr: 0.4
ISTJ — 2094 — 3.6% (11.6%) — ssr: 0.3
ESTP — 635 — 1.1% (4.3%) — ssr: 0.3
ISFJ — 1374 — 2.4% (13.8%) — ssr: 0.2
ESFP — 620 — 1.1% (8.5%) — ssr: 0.1
ESFJ — 573 — 1.0% (12.3%) — ssr: 0.1
ESTJ — 542 — 0.9% (8.7%) — ssr: 0.1

November 2014 membership stats for Typology Central:

INFJ — 1782 — 16.1% (1.5%) — ssr: 10.7
INTJ — 1437 — 13.0% (2.1%) — ssr: 6.2
INTP — 1958 — 17.7% (3.3%) — ssr: 5.4
INFP — 2016 — 18.2% (4.4%) — ssr: 4.1
ENTP — 781 — 7.0% (3.2%) — ssr: 2.2
ENTJ — 298 — 2.7% (1.8%) — ssr: 1.5
ENFP — 1156 — 10.4% (8.1%) — ssr: 1.3
ENFJ — 321 — 2.9% (2.5%) — ssr: 1.2
ISTP — 304 — 2.7% (5.4%) — ssr: 0.5
ISFP — 256 — 2.3% (8.8%) — ssr: 0.3
ISTJ — 278 — 2.5% (11.6%) — ssr: 0.2
ESTP — 100 — 0.9% (4.3%) — ssr: 0.2
ISFJ — 181 — 1.6% (13.8%) — ssr: 0.1
ESFP — 84 — 0.8% (8.5%) — ssr: 0.1
ESTJ — 74 — 0.7% (8.7%) — ssr: 0.1
ESFJ — 65 — 0.6% (12.3%) — ssr: 0.05



As between an average INFJ and an average ISFJ, it appears that the INFJ is somewhere in the neighborhood of _50 to 100 times more likely_ to end up at an MBTI-related forum than the ISFJ. So... the mere fact that you're here trying to figure out your type is worth one or two INFJ-over-ISFJ points as far as I'm concerned.

You'll also note that 62% of PerC's members are INs (as compared to 11% of the general population), and 83% of the members are N's (as compared to 27% of the general population), and that's somewhat consistent with the fact that, although I agree with Keirsey that I have some significant things in common with my fellow NTs, I've increasingly come around to the view that, if I had to pick a group of four MBTI types to really be my "kindred spirits" group, it would be the INs rather than the NTs. And if you want to read a bit of "reckful on INs" — to maybe help you decide if we're your peeps — you can find it in the spoiler at the end of this post.

Another possible point of typing confusion is that it's not uncommon for INTJs and INFJs who get exposed to function descriptions to question their type at some point because "Ni" descriptions sound too mystical or psychic or whatever, and if you've been resisting the INFJ possibility on that basis, you may want to take a look at this post.

If you're interested — and _only_ if you're interested — in quite a lot of input from me on J/P, see the spoiler in this post.

Your OP asked, "are ISFJs and ISFPs really so different?" Well, J vs. P is a pretty consequential difference if you're talking about people who aren't that close to the borderline, buuut if anybody tries to tell you that INFJs and INFPs (or ISFJs and ISFPs) are waaay different (_because functions_!) or that you can't possibly be an INFx or ISFx (_because functions_!), you may want to look at this post.

In case they're useful, the last spoiler in this post has roundups of online profiles of the 16 types.

As an almost-final type-related note, there's a well-established fifth temperament dimension that isn't included in the Myers-Briggs typology and is often referred to as "neuroticism" (although it isn't a psychological disorder). The Big Five/SLOAN typology labels it Emotional Stability and refers to the two poles as Calm and Limbic. Being Limbic on that dimension tends to be associated with, among other things, anxiety/worry-proneness; emotional sensitivity/volatility; proneness to annoyance/irritation; self-consciousness; and (sometimes) depression. I'm Limbic, and it makes me less of a cucumber than some of my fellow INTJs — and you've described yourself as "a very emotional and sensitive person," so you may be Limbic as well.

For more on that issue (including links to a couple tests), see this post.

And _finally_ (phew!), if you're interested in more discussion by me of the relationship between the dichotomies and the functions, the place of the functions (or lack thereof) in the MBTI's history, and the tremendous gap between the dichotomies and the functions in terms of scientific respectability, you can find quite a lot of that in this post, this post, and the posts they link to.

As a final (I mean it this time) note, though, I'm a hardcore T myself, and you should definitely not feel the slightest obligation to follow any of my links or otherwise pay attention to anything else in this post beyond what you're motivated to do for your own selfish reasons. It may look like I must have spent a lot of time putting this post together, but it's certified 95% recycled.


----------



## soseductive (Jan 5, 2016)

> ISFPs tend to be very active, thrill seeking, nature loving social workers (yes, it's a stereotype and not all of them are like this but they usually are).


I am not a thrill seeker, i am complete opposite of that!


----------



## soseductive (Jan 5, 2016)

Honestly? By looking at all of this, i think i am typeless. My type doesn't exist in this system.


----------



## soseductive (Jan 5, 2016)

@music box @penny lane if i think about it, i feel the opposite. ISFJ description fits me more, while functions are complete NO.


----------



## soseductive (Jan 5, 2016)

Ok, now i get it. Before i thought MBTI and Socionics disagree if my type is rational or irrational, but now i know that ISFJ (MBTI) and ESI/ISFJ (Socionics) are exactly the same type, it's just in MBTI they switched functions of rational and irrational introverts and now we have this mess. So, basically if you'll try to type introverts by functions, then you'll get a completely different type.


----------



## Wisteria (Apr 2, 2015)

I think ISFJs can easily enjoy aesthetics and sensory things. The J letter seems to take away the perceiving aspect of dominant Si, making ISFPs the more sensoric and easy going type. The jungian and socionics description of Si contradicts the nature of SJs in MBTI entirely. Type yourself in MBTI based on the four letters, without getting caught up in the cognitive functions and so on, that is my advice. I was an INFJ because I related more to the profile and seemed very much like a "judging" type, but with the JCF I am Fi-Ne.


----------



## Pretender (Apr 27, 2016)

music box said:


> Hello everyone, I'm sorry to be a bother but I'm very confused when it comes to profiles, and why is it I find that I relate heavily to ISFPs more so than ISFJ, even though I was tested and found I had Si, Fe and Ti, and had my mother read over the descriptions of the functions and she stated the ones that resonated with ISFJ as well.
> 
> But the things that have to do with aesthetics and enjoying sensual things, or the emotional aspect of it too, I really relate to these things. I am security-seeking, I understand, and don't feel like a Perceiver, but I'm a bit frustrated when I find I relate to these descriptions more so than ISFJ. Is it just because SJ profiles in general are unflattering, and maybe I'm just?? I don't know, are ISFJs and ISFPs really so different?


Sounds like you're confused by the flowery descriptions of the ISFP and their penchant for art. I'd say that ISFJs tend to be the most artistically inclined out of all the SJs, but this is not something that the general descriptions tend to discuss.



Prada said:


> On the shallow level, they're very similar. They usually arrive to the same/similar conclusions by following different thought process.


Not only is ISFP and ISFJ thought process is different but so is their value system, so your claim that they usually arrive to similar conclusions sounds baseless to me.


----------



## Prada (Sep 10, 2015)

Pretender said:


> Not only is ISFP and ISFJ thought process is different but so is their value system, so your claim that they usually arrive to similar conclusions sounds baseless to me.


Values are a personal thing, they have nothing to do with MBTI. More with Enneagram but nothing about MBTI indicates values.


----------



## Pretender (Apr 27, 2016)

Prada said:


> Values are a personal thing, they have nothing to do with MBTI. More with Enneagram but nothing about MBTI indicates values.


I'm not talking about morals. Value system as in SJs value security, SP sensation, NT knowledge, NF identity.
And ISFP and ISFJ don't have any cognitive functions in common either. 

So I'm at a loss here how you can make a statement that they usually come to a similar conclusion. What do you base that on?


----------



## Prada (Sep 10, 2015)

Pretender said:


> I'm not talking about morals. Value system as in SJs value security, SP sensation, NT knowledge, NF identity.


No, they don't. SJs, especially STJs can equally value knowledge as NTs. Any type can value identity. SJs don't have to value security, they have Ne so they might like experimenting, especially extroverted SJs. Have you heard of hyperactive Ne? This makes no sense.


As for why ISFJs and ISFPs might come to similar conclusions is because of them being feelers. Fi-doms often have a desire to support and help the people around them BECAUSE they consider it right. FJs might have a similar need because Fe wants to keep harmony. However, ISFJs will be much more passive about it because they lack Se spontaneity and thus might come off and passively supportive. While Fi usually values own morals and ethics over everything so they often don't push themselves to help others.

In other words, the way they help and support others looks the same in many cases but the motivation is different. Also, due to them both being Sensors, they focus more on the present and real world than INFJs or INFPs. They are both good at noticing details and living in the present moment. Not to mention that they both don't like revealing their feelings and might be rather passive agressive. Both types prefer expressing their feelings through actions rather than words.


----------



## The_Wanderer (Jun 13, 2013)

ISFJs like cute cat pictures, harmonious wierdos who like comfortable atmospheres that everybody gets to enjoy. ISFPs are morally upright, quite private and individualistic people with spines that don't bend easily.


----------



## Pretender (Apr 27, 2016)

Prada said:


> No, they don't. SJs, especially STJs can equally value knowledge as NTs. Any type can value identity. SJs don't have to value security, they have Ne so they might like experimenting, especially extroverted SJs.


Yes, and ENTJs feel from time to time, doesn't mean it's their default modus operandi



> As for why ISFJs and ISFPs might come to similar conclusions is because of them being feelers.


You just painted 8 types with a giant Feeler brush. You're not going to narrow down type behavior with that. If you are using such a broad approach you're rendering the whole system useless.




> Fi-doms often have a desire to support and help the people around them BECAUSE they consider it right. FJs might have a similar need because Fe wants to keep harmony. However, ISFJs will be much more passive about it because they lack Se spontaneity and thus might come off and passively supportive. While Fi usually values own morals and ethics over everything so they often don't push themselves to help others.
> 
> In other words, the way they help and support others looks the same in many cases but the motivation is different. Also, due to them both being Sensors, they focus more on the present and real world than INFJs or INFPs. They are both good at noticing details and living in the present moment.


Living in the present is an SP thing. Their thought process tends to be more focused on the present experience than subsequent consequences.

SJs prefer to live in the past. They rely highly on their own experience as well as the experience of others.



> Not to mention that they both don't like revealing their feelings


That's just an attribute of of an introverted feeler, or any thinker for that matter.



> and might be rather passive agressive.


ISFJs are a lot more prone to passive aggressive behavior than ISFPs, because ISFJs are keenly aware of social etiquette and often assume that other people are as well. This leads them to believe that when another person is acting out of the norms of what they perceive is "proper behavior" they are doing so intentionally, since ISFJs often don't realize that not everyone is as aware of social norms as they are. So, to maintain social etiquette, they often resort to passive aggressiveness as a method for dealing perceived "open aggression" in order to maintain plausible deniability for their retaliatory actions, since again, like other SJs, they value social norms and the appearance of propriety (which a subset of valuing security, as I mentioned earlier). 

ISFPs are more likely to just avoid people they don't like than to engage in passive aggressive behavior.

Anyway, back to the original point. The issue was that when you said ISFJs and ISFPs usually come to the same conclusions. That, to me, implies that that ISFJs and ISFPs are more similar to each other than other types. Was that your intended point? Because I would strongly disagree with that assessment. The closest type neighbor of ISFJs are ESFJs, who are more likely to come to similar conclusions as ISFJs, than ISFJs and ISFPs.


----------



## soseductive (Jan 5, 2016)

You guys both are wrong. SPs? Sensation? Sensation is Si. Again, it means ISFP is a Si user, not Fi.

What "similar conclusion" even means? If you are hungry, then you need to eat. If we go that way, then every type will arrive to the same/similar conclusion. You should've said "every type can do the same thing, but their motivation will be different", not just ISFP an ISFJ. On the shallow level everyone is similar. He can't understand this simple thing, but you make it even more complicated by adding other layers to that and because of that you can't arrive to the same/similar conclusion. I think word "conclusion" is what created misunderstanding.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Prada said:


> Values are a personal thing, they have nothing to do with MBTI. More with Enneagram but nothing about MBTI indicates values.


You're free to concoct any personality typology you like, Prada, but if it has nothing to do with values, then it's not much like the MBTI.

Jung certainly thought the different types tended to have different values. He said that each of his eight "functions" effectively constituted what he called a _Weltanschauung_, which means "world view," and that "the conscious attitude is always in the nature of a _Weltanschauung_, if it is not explicitly a religion." Jung wrote about how his types differed with respect to countless aspects of personality, including their religious and philosophical perspectives, what aspects of the world they find interesting, meaningful and valuable, what kinds of leisure time activities they're likely to favor, and on and on.

Jung said the Se-dom "is the lover of tangible reality, with little inclination for reflection and no desire to dominate. *To feel the object, to have sensations and if possible enjoy them—that is his constant aim.*"

He said the Ne-dom "seeks to discover what possibilities the objective situation holds in store. ... It is *constantly seeking fresh outlets and new possibilities in external life*. In a very short time every existing situation becomes a prison for the intuitive, a chain that has to be broken. ... *Nascent possibilities are compelling motives from which intuition cannot escape and to which all else must be sacrificed.*"

Describing the motivations behind an Fe-dom woman's choice of a husband, Jung explained that her "feelings harmonize with objective situations and general values. This is seen nowhere more clearly than in her love choice: the 'suitable' man is loved, and no one else; he is *suitable not because he appeals to her hidden subjective nature, ... but because he comes up to all reasonable expectations in the matter of age, position, income, size and respectability of his family, etc.*"

He said the Te-dom "will, by definition, be a man whose constant endeavour ... is to make all his activities dependent on intellectual conclusions, which in the last resort are always oriented by objective data, whether these be external facts or generally accepted ideas. ... This type of man elevates objective reality, or an objectively oriented intellectual formula, into *the ruling principle not only for himself but for his whole environment*. ... Because this formula seems to embody the entire meaning of life, it is made into a universal law which must be put into effect everywhere all the time, both individually and collectively."

Similarly, there's no shortage of values and motivations in Myers' characterizations of the preferences and the types. As she explained in Gifts Differing, "Type research has shown that the types differ in their *interests, values, and needs*. They learn in different ways, *cherish different ambitions, and respond to different rewards*."

Whether you're talking about dichotomy-centric theorists or function-centric theorists, virtually every reasonably well-known MBTI theorist I've ever read has described the different types in ways that don't leave values out of the mix.

As Keirsey explained: "Different people value different things, and *it is in this, the domain of values, that the four types of personality stand apart most noticeably*. The temperaments differ in their preferred mood, in what they put their trust in, in *what they yearn for, in what they seek, in what they prize, and in what they aspire to*. These contrasts in values are usually what people see first in others, when they begin to recognize the four temperament patterns."

Berens and Nardi explain that for ENFJs, "life is a process of succeeding at relationships. There can never be enough truly empathic relationships to foster mutual growth." For INTJs, on the other hand, "life is a process of maximizing achievement — not just accomplishments — but achievements that reflect penetrating thought and insightful integration of all they've learned. And they can never learn enough. ... They enjoy mastering anything that attracts them — the more challenging, the better."

After Pretender said...



Pretender said:


> I'm not talking about morals. Value system as in SJs value security, SP sensation, NT knowledge, NF identity.


...you replied, "No, they don't."

Well, excuse me, but if you think the average NF is no more likely to value exploring and learning about issues involving identity and psychology than the average ST, you can't be very familiar with the MBTI types. Ditto if, on the security-cherishing to risk-taking spectrum, you think the average NP is as likely to be risk-averse (and change-averse) as the average SJ. And yes indeed, a typical SP is more likely to be an avid pursuer of sensual delights than a typical NJ, and a typical NT is more likely to be somebody who enjoys dweebily storing up knowledge for its own sake than a typical SF.

If you choose to close your eyes to the many influences that someone's MBTI type can have on their values, and the things they value, you're closing yourself off from a lot of the richness of the MBTI.


----------



## teddy564339 (Jun 23, 2010)

Pretender said:


> Living in the present is an SP thing. Their thought process tends to be more focused on the present experience than subsequent consequences.
> 
> SJs prefer to live in the past. They rely highly on their own experience as well as the experience of others.


Generally speaking I agree with you. The details for SJs can vary a lot, but since I know you just wanted to make a quick overall statement, I think the gist of it is correct.







Pretender said:


> ISFJs are a lot more prone to passive aggressive behavior than ISFPs, because ISFJs are keenly aware of social etiquette and often assume that other people are as well. This leads them to believe that when another person is acting out of the norms of what they perceive is "proper behavior" they are doing so intentionally, since ISFJs often don't realize that not everyone is as aware of social norms as they are. So, to maintain social etiquette, they often resort to passive aggressiveness as a method for dealing perceived "open aggression" in order to maintain plausible deniability for their retaliatory actions, since again, like other SJs, they value social norms and the appearance of propriety (which a subset of valuing security, as I mentioned earlier).
> 
> ISFPs are more likely to just avoid people they don't like than to engage in passive aggressive behavior.


I agree with you that ISFJs are more likely to be passive aggressive, but I don't know if I fully agree with the ISFJ thought process that you're describing.

I think you're defining "social norms" in a way that's a little too formal. For some ISFJs (and SJs in general), I think a broad set of social defined rules is what they go by. But a lot of times, these social norms are based on the particular group of people that are in that situation. These social norms can change based on those people. It's more about creating harmony within a particular group than it is holding up a universal set of norms.

But, a lot of that depends on how much the ISFJ uses Fe. If their Si is very strong, then they will use their own past experiences to define these social norms. If their Fe is stronger, they'll adapt these norms more to the group that they're in.


But a lot of times the reason for passive-agressiveness isn't because they want to present themselves as looking appropriate. Again, that's too formal, I think. It's moreso that they can be conflict averse and don't like to rub people the wrong way. So they have an inner conflict...they want there to be group harmony (that aligns with the group's social norms), but they also don't want to get into a direct conflict with the person violating the group's norms. So they become torn and that's where they become passive aggressive.

That doesn't mean that they don't try to save face, but I don't think it's about looking as formal and upright as you're making it out to be. It's not like they put on an air of perfection and rule following (they can, but it's not always that). It's moreso about not wanting to disrupt harmony.


But again, this does depend greatly upon how strong their Fe is compared to their Si. Stronger Si adheres to past rules and consistency more, stronger Fe adheres to current group harmony more.


But I do agree that it goes back to valuing security. Sometimes this is based on past experiences and not wanting them to change (Si), and sometimes this is based on feeling comfortable in a group and connecting with them (Fe).


----------



## Stevester (Feb 28, 2016)

I always saw ISFP as a somewhat ''common denominator'' type. The essential traits are: individual expression, freedom and embracing the moment. Doesn't everyone feel like they do or strive for that on some level? Therefore it's probably the most common mistype when people are trying to figure out their MBTI. 

But yeah, if you break down your functions one by one, you may easily realize that it doesn't fit.


----------

