# I am testing INTJ consistently, but suspect I'm INFJ— requesting help.



## Lord Fudgingsley (Mar 3, 2013)

JaguarPap said:


> After a lot of thought, I think that I, and almost everyone I know, are right. I'm an INTJ.
> 
> The closest I could narrow it down to was INTJ or INTP and I had to give a lot of thought about primary Ni or Ti and my gut tells me I'm Ni. They way I get along with ESFPs, anecdotally, has a lot of traits of the inverted exact opposite functions and leads me to believe I'm an INTJ, even more so.
> *
> ...


*I want to look through your other posts. I'm completely changing the way I understand typology, and have never properly grasped it. I understand it enough to know in my gut that the way it's understood by many is way too simplistic to work, however.*


----------



## JaguarPap (Mar 26, 2016)

I researched Ni and Ne much more and Ni describes me very accurately.


----------



## Lord Fudgingsley (Mar 3, 2013)

JaguarPap said:


> I researched Ni and Ne much more and Ni describes me very accurately.


Assuming the description itself is accurate.

I am actually starting to lean towards INTJ, but I'm struggling to identify exactly why. Possibly because the vibe you give me isn't especially Ti-ish. But that's not strong enough reasoning for me to accept it in my mind.


----------



## JaguarPap (Mar 26, 2016)

Lord Fudgingsley said:


> Assuming the description itself is accurate.
> 
> I am actually starting to lean towards INTJ, but I'm struggling to identify exactly why. Possibly because the vibe you give me isn't especially Ti-ish. But that's not strong enough reasoning for me to accept it in my mind.


It is self-accurate, I am confident. I am starting to post less and less specific information on my findings so I can self-validate more from this point on, since a lot of my inner process is so subjective and hard to put into words. I need remain centered for awhile while thinking about all of this. There answer is already there, in me. That said, I really appreciate everyone taking the time to help me out!

I will say that my thought patters are a lot like this (and this isn't sourced from any other MBTI material, just purely my own wording): 1st, sequentially, I often will subconsciously know what I am looking for then, 2nd, I will use thinking to chisel away at all of the knowledge that exists to reveal that idea that I want. It is hard to explain.

I posted, before, one of my drawings that I believe is Ni in visual form. (My professors taught every drawing mark is a "thought" and I wholeheartedly believe this): 








I combined a tree and a bird. I think I used Ni to decide what "tree-ness" and "bird-ness" are and the general vibe then combined them, without any conscious effort. The flowing, effortless, looking lines already existed inside of me before my pen touched the paper, then I used thinking to solidify the spacial logic and specify conceptually the objects existed and related to each other in 3 dimensional space. To reiterate and restate my previous points—the drawing existing in my head before drew it in less than a second (instantaneous), then once the general "gist" was there I used logic to think about it in terms of visual space/time.

When I think of things like space and time in art I think of them in very real terms; I am a hound for the logic within. That said, I also think of the previous as part of transcendentals and that they relate to an ultimate beautiful whole—a lot of my NT friends do not relate their thoughts to beauty, but I constantly am. I am constantly thinking of beauty as a theological aesthetic (which also made me initially lean hard to INFJ), that incorporates universal truths that relate to literally everything.


----------



## Lord Fudgingsley (Mar 3, 2013)

@Fried Eggz you around? I'd like to hear your opinion on this.

Reading this, I'm still not convinced, but I'm confusing myself here so I don't really consider anything I'm saying valid anymore.


----------



## JaguarPap (Mar 26, 2016)

_Common Negative traits describing me (by others):
_Inflexible
Arrogant
Intense
Judgemental
Logical to the point of "being on the autism spectrum"
Overbearing
Obsessive
Overthinking
Lazy
Weird

_Common Positive traits describing me (by others):
_Funny
Witty
Creative
Insightful
Abstract (in a good way)
Reliable 
Trustworthy
Direct
Honest
Intuitive
Gifted


----------



## JaguarPap (Mar 26, 2016)

I don't really care if I am any type (except maybe an SJ ha ha), but I want to know for specificity and accurate knowledge of self and the subsequent power that would give me. This power isn't necessarily malicious, like people tend to see power, but I want to be able to use it in the real world and manipulate everything in my life with it creatively.


----------



## Kerik_S (Aug 26, 2015)

All of the posts I've read in this thread from you are very Fi, which tends to happen when an INTJ is self-analyzing in typology.

And INFJ would have deferred more to the actual typological theory and apply it in an impersonal way. You were much more anecdotal than any INFJ I've seen.

Also, your logical focus is much more Te than Ti-- very results-oriented and process-oriented.

INTJs can be emotional. Not understanding that is the result of crappy descriptions that conflate feeling with "Emotions".


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

Lord Fudgingsley said:


> @Fried Eggz you around? I'd like to hear your opinion on this.
> 
> Reading this, I'm still not convinced, but I'm confusing myself here so I don't really consider anything I'm saying valid anymore.


I'm quite honoured to be mentioned for a request. I don't think I deserve it, but still.



Lord Fudgingsley said:


> *I want to look through your other posts. I'm completely changing the way I understand typology, and have never properly grasped it. I understand it enough to know in my gut that the way it's understood by many is way too simplistic to work, however.*


What happened? You correctly typed me as a Ti-dom a while back. I hope you're not going against that.



JaguarPap said:


> However, I have tested as INTJ many many times over the course of 4 years (in contrast, to the popular criticism of MBTI inconsistency.)


Implied Te.



JaguarPap said:


> I don't really care if I am any type (except maybe an SJ ha ha), but I want to know for specificity and accurate knowledge of self and the subsequent power that would give me. This power isn't necessarily malicious, like people tend to see power, but I want to be able to use it in the real world and manipulate everything in my life with it creatively.


I don't think you are SJ. You say things that imply intuition.



JaguarPap said:


> I am an artist, by trade, and am known to conceptualize a lot of abstract over-arching themes into my art, and into my daily life that deal with emotional content.


Do you mind posting a sample for us to use? Carl Jung described Ni/Si as artistic functions.


----------



## JaguarPap (Mar 26, 2016)

Fried Eggz said:


> I don't think you are SJ. You say things that imply intuition.
> 
> 
> Do you mind posting a sample for us to use? Carl Jung described Ni/Si as artistic functions.


Thank you, again, for your interest. I posted a sample and a write up on it above on this page. (It is the 8:30p.m. post) I encourage everyone to look at it, because, I believe it to be self revelatory in a visual and profound way that words alone cannot do.
Here is another one of Resident Evil 1 Tyrant that I did:







Like the above drawing, there is a lot of simultaneous intuitive brevity and spatial logic combined.

A different tangent -- 
One way I interact with people (a lot) at work, that implies Te, is that I will do a lot of experimental interactions. For example, I will wear "a mask" and interact in a way that isn't somewhat untrue just to see if I can get a theoretical response that I think will happen. If it does or doesn't happen I store that data internally and polish my systems that I am building my head to make it stronger and more effective. I will also get other people to interact with others (usually directly telling them) and asking what their results were, I use this method to get information in a way that is a little more objective since I can be detached from the situation. I don't know any way I can make objective deductions about the people I work with, in a lot of cases.


----------



## Kerik_S (Aug 26, 2015)

JaguarPap said:


> A different tangent --
> One way I interact with people (a lot) at work, that implies Te, is that I will do a lot of experimental interactions. For example, I will wear "a mask" and interact in a way that isn't somewhat untrue just to see if I can get a theoretical response that I think will happen. If it does or doesn't happen I store that data internally and polish my systems that I am building my head to make it stronger and more effective. I will also get other people to interact with others (usually directly telling them) and asking what their results were, I use this method to get information in a way that is a little more objective since I can be detached from the situation. I don't know any way I can make objective deductions about the people I work with, in a lot of cases.


Fe would feel _awful_ trying to keep up that kind of deliberate mask.

That seems like Te making a calculated decision for efficacy.

INTJ, bruh.


----------



## JaguarPap (Mar 26, 2016)

Did you see the artwork @Fried Eggz ?

Any INTPs want to speak out on how they knew they were primary Ti and not Ni? And how they knew Ne from Te, as secondary, from their own experience?


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

@Kerik_S as well.



JaguarPap said:


> Did you see the artwork @Fried Eggz ?
> 
> Any INTPs want to speak out on how they knew they were primary Ti and not Ni? And how they knew Ne from Te, as secondary, from their own experience?


Sorry, I got distracted and forgot to respond. What's the abstract meaning behind the art? I need to see your thought process.

I'm currently thinking Ti-dom because of this:


JaguarPap said:


> One way I interact with people (a lot) at work, that implies Te, is that I will do a lot of experimental interactions. For example, I will wear "a mask" and interact in a way that isn't somewhat untrue just to see if I can get a theoretical response that I think will happen. If it does or doesn't happen I store that data internally and polish my systems that I am building my head to make it stronger and more effective. I will also get other people to interact with others (usually directly telling them) and asking what their results were, I use this method to get information in a way that is a little more objective since I can be detached from the situation. I don't know any way I can make objective deductions about the people I work with, in a lot of cases.


Carl Jung, the guy who first theorised Cognitive functions, described Te as consistency between concrete ideas. That means Te judges primarily by using expert opinion, statistical proof and other similar facts that are difficult to deny. If you desire to have 'concrete experience with reality' (Jung again) you need Se, not Te, which is what you seem to be using here.

That said, can you see the self-centred logic (Ti; Te is primarily impersonal) in this quote?
"If it does or doesn't happen I store that data internally and polish my systems that I am building my head to make it stronger and more effective."


----------



## JaguarPap (Mar 26, 2016)

Fried Eggz said:


> @Kerik_S as well.
> 
> 
> Sorry, I got distracted and forgot to respond. What's the abstract meaning behind the art? I need to see your thought process.
> ...


The abstract idea in the art is the conceptualization of forms, primarily the head, ribcage, pelvis, and weight bearing leg. There is a transcendental beauty in this relationship and the spatial logic that lie within; a lot of people think abstract art is just gibberish drawing, and that isn't the case. Great abstract art approaches high level of specificity and in all of my drawings I am trying to approach the highest level of specificity and, as a result, transcendence. (A lot of my major influences are Carravagio, Da Vinci, Rembrant, Burn & Hogarth, Bridgeman, Derek Hess, Honore Daumier). The lines are the "expressiveness" that come out subconsciously, but never should they the outright goal; what happens in that case is you get style over substance. 

The above ideology was specifically taught to me, as an undergrad, from my professor from NYU; that said, I believe that subconciously I have known this and been searching for these concepts all the way back into adolescence. I think, subconsciously, that was why I was drawn to all these artists and ideas who influenced me. 

Specifically, in the Tyrant drawing, I wanted to spatially "talk" about the angled-side plane that is accentuated by the tilt of his head and the big flat plane of his mutated arm.


----------



## JaguarPap (Mar 26, 2016)

> That said, can you see the self-centred logic (Ti; Te is primarily impersonal) in this quote?
> "If it does or doesn't happen I store that data internally and polish my systems that I am building my head to make it stronger and more effective."


Yes, I can see how it would be perceived that way, since the system describe is personal. However, the logic and "findings" are ultimately directed outward toward a greater objective understand of the people around me (for efficiency and benevolent power). I don't make outer objective judgements until they are tested and proven.


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

JaguarPap said:


> The abstract idea in the art is the conceptualization of forms, primarily the head, ribcage, pelvis, and weight bearing leg. *There is a transcendental beauty in this relationship and the spatial logic* that lie within; a lot of people think abstract art is just gibberish drawing, and that isn't the case. Great abstract art approaches high level of specificity and in all of my drawings I am trying to approach the highest level of specificity and, as a result, transcendence. (A lot of my major influences are Carravagio, Da Vinci, Rembrant, Burn & Hogarth, Bridgeman, Derek Hess, Honore Daumier). The lines are the "expressiveness" that come out subconsciously, but never should they the outright goal; what happens in that case is you get style over substance.


I'm not seeing any Ni in this. A Ni-dom artist concerns themselves with symbolism and they suppress concrete reality. Your approach is logical, abstract and very rational which points to Jungian Ti again (Yes, Ti is abstract according to Jung). The bold sounds very Ti because you're describing an abstract logical relationship.

Your teachers could be influencing your art significantly, but you don't seem to be trying to make it about Ni at all.



Kerik_S said:


> Fe would feel _awful_ trying to keep up that kind of deliberate mask.


For strong Fe, yes that would be difficult. But as a Ti-dom, I have put on perfectly internally consistent masks many times. As for Te, willingly putting on a mask goes against their valued Fi.


----------



## Kerik_S (Aug 26, 2015)

Hmm. I was thinking of mentioning INTP, but I never got around to it.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

My curiosity must ask, Why do you believe that your an T ?


I would of told that professor to polielty buzz off maybe after I dwendle his ignorance down to a crawl.


----------



## Simpson17866 (Dec 3, 2014)

Any type can be creative (I'm INTP, but I've written a novel-length Doctor Who fanfic and a few original short stories, and several of my readers - including my INFJ father - have complimented the emotional depth of my characters), and T/F is not about "Do you have emotions?" T/F is about "Do you *value* emotion as the basis for important decision making?"

I've even made a chart about how Thinkers' emotions can often be a lot stronger than Feelers' emotions:









The medical word for "someone who does not have emotions" is *psychopath,* not Thinker, and only 1% of the population are psychopaths (against 40% of the population being Thinkers)

"abstract theological, philosopical and metaphysical concepts" are *Intuitive,* not Feeling.

If the only reasons you don't feel that you're INTJ are because you're creative, abstract, and you have emotions, then you're probably INTJ :wink:


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

JaguarPap said:


> Almost all of the INTJ and INTP traits could describe me if I think about it contextually to the broad spectrum of my life. The two can be very hard to tell apart, and is evidenced by the vast amount of forum/social media material of people stuck discerning between these two types. I would be willing to bet, that if you compiled the type descriptions for each and scribbled out the type name to leave them type ambiguous that most people could not tell them apart. This is because they share so many similar behaviors and characteristics; perhaps, because, broadly they are close on the type spectrum.


There is huge differences between Intj and Intp
Sure you can say that most people can't tell the difference, mostly because they don't know the differences or what the two is.

Thats like saying most people can't tell the difference between a fake or real Van gough or Salvador Dali.


----------



## JaguarPap (Mar 26, 2016)

myjazz said:


> My curiosity must ask, Why do you believe that your an T ?
> 
> 
> I would of told that professor to polielty buzz off maybe after I dwendle his ignorance down to a crawl.



No you wouldn't have, but who am I kidding, you probably know more than the old masters and world renowned professors with PhDs. 


1. He was right though, and it is inter-related in everything else. I am currently studying Karl Rahner and Hans Urs Von Balthasar and all of the metaphysical stuff I learned as an undergrad is there, too. Aristotle and Augustine as well, come to think of it.

2. I believe I'm a T because I am a T.


----------



## JaguarPap (Mar 26, 2016)

Fried Eggz said:


> I'm not seeing any Ni in this. A Ni-dom artist concerns themselves with symbolism and they suppress concrete reality. Your approach is logical, abstract and very rational which points to Jungian Ti again (Yes, Ti is abstract according to Jung). The bold sounds very Ti because you're describing an abstract logical relationship.
> 
> Your teachers could be influencing your art significantly, but you don't seem to be trying to make it about Ni at all.


I don't necessarily agree. Sometimes, good art is just approached a certain way. It is like saying an somebody with Ni wouldn't use eggs to make an omelet because it is too objective or concrete. It isn't the best analogy, but the point is that my process descended from the old masters, and it works, professionally, to make a living. It isn't necessarily correlated with cognitive function. Looking at the art itself, especially the marks, is more telling as you see cognitive functions at work. I would politely suggest looking at some of Carravagio's, Da Vinci's, Daumiers, and even contemporaries like Jim Lee and Derek Hess's, work to see this.

Caravaggio 








Daumier








Derek Hess









Looking at my art is enough to see the Ni in action. I am actually seeing these drawings intuitively before I draw them. So ultimately, the process isn't always as telling as the drawings since process might be the effect, rather than the cause or inspiration.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

JaguarPap said:


> No you wouldn't have, but who am I kidding, you probably know more than the old masters and world renowned professors with PhDs.
> 
> 
> 1. He was right though, and it is inter-related in everything else. I am currently studying Karl Rahner and Hans Urs Von Balthasar and all of the metaphysical stuff I learned as an undergrad is there, too. Aristotle and Augustine as well, come to think of it.
> ...


So your saying your are whom you are beause you say so?
Then what is the point of this thread?


----------



## JaguarPap (Mar 26, 2016)

myjazz said:


> So your saying your are whom you are beause you say so?
> Then what is the point of this thread?


To specify Ti or Te, which makes all the difference. Furthermore, my tertiary function would be revelatory as well. 
(Edit, originally it was to specify INFJ or INTJ, and it has evolved since then)

Here is a Kadinsky:








Notice the specificity of form (repeated ones), movement from one major form to the next, and colors that are complimentary or completely neutral (again repeated.) All of the great works are trying to arrive at specificity (consciously or unconsciously which could be MBTI related.) 

Again, I would venture to say that Carl Jung's work of cognitive functions resounds with so many people and has stood the test of speculation is that he was so _specific_ in their nature and relationships.

Finally, I'm not saying I'm not INTP—I'm just putting it to the test before I label myself, as something that I am not, malignantly.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

JaguarPap said:


> To specify Ti or Te, which makes all the difference.
> (Edit, originally it was to specify INFJ or INTJ, and it has evolved since then)
> 
> Here is a Kadinsky:
> ...


Would you mind clairfying on this a little more for me?
I see where you was going but then I got lost on towards the second part.

( i took the pic out due to size of quoting, A beautiful picture though.)


----------



## JaguarPap (Mar 26, 2016)

myjazz said:


> Would you mind clairfying on this a little more for me?
> I see where you was going but then I got lost on towards the second part.
> 
> ( i took the pic out due to size of quoting, A beautiful picture though.)


I meant that Carl Jung's work of cognitive functions elucidates the truth of human behavior in a way that is intricate, specific, and rigorously orchestrated. It resounds with people because it is so comprehensive (especially for his era),and doesn't leave a lot of muddled unclarity like the "Four Temperaments," for example. It is incredibly specific; so specific, that comically, I have a five page forum post arguing whether I am dominant Ni or Ti (which is only the first of four major function groups, which can only be paired in certain ways etc....you're getting the point by now). Similar to a masterpiece.

Contrast this to the common criticism of "my five year old son could make modern art," but when you look at the Kandinsky above, you know that is simply not true. There is a definitive "head, ribcage, pelvis, and weigh-bearing leg" that Kandinsky is visually "talking" about. 

All of this said, though, these things people know unconsciously, it is what makes the human form, art, psychology, science, philosophy, etc. profound—the intuitive perception of, and call to the transcendental.

I see a lot of these themes, actually played out in _The Walking Dead _(again writer specificity,) where there is a constantly tension between survival needs versus the needs of the transcendental.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

Yes, I understand that part but I dont understand how that relates to you as a Dom T?

I especially liked the Beach in the painting was a moment of beauty and bliss


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

_I am trying to get on the same page as you is all..._


----------



## JaguarPap (Mar 26, 2016)

Oh, as far as being a T dom, I think we discussed that for 2-3 pages. I have always tested T-dom in every test I have taken, my ex-girlfriend, anecdotally, remarked I didn't "F" in terms of being T-dom. 

As far as what F I do have—I have a very developed, Fi, I think, being an artist. I rarely show emotion, and many people tell me I never smile (which I don't think is true), but it is noted I tend to be emotionless or deadpan.

I am hyper-analytical and my first reaction (this is the giveaway for me) to any situation is to ponder, instead of react emotionally. I guess the real question is, am I actually pondering (Ti) or am I focusing inward and intuiting (Ni).


This is more of just ramblings ....hunches and "gestures," but ENFPs love me (I make many people take the MBTI to know). I mean, I really get a long with them, it is nuts; like the MBTI says INTJs would. I get along with ENFJs great professionally, and artistically, but in relationships there is a big clash in how ENFJs relate to humanity. I relate to everything out of concepts, and then I think about people second; it sounds cold or uncaring, but I believe, earnestly, that the concepts make me more loving.

















I relate to both of the above, more-so with the INTJ image, though. It mirrors my artistic process, as well.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

JaguarPap said:


> Oh, as far as being a T dom, I think we discussed that for 2-3 pages.


"we" did not include me so we did not. for the sake of the thread lets say we did.

So lets move onto Ni .... I think he/she ran away or someting


----------



## Green Girl (Oct 1, 2010)

JaguarPap said:


> Oh, as far as being a T dom, I think we discussed that for 2-3 pages. I have always tested T-dom in every test I have taken, my ex-girlfriend, anecdotally, remarked I didn't "F" in terms of being T-dom.
> 
> As far as what F I do have—I have a very developed, Fi, I think, being an artist. I rarely show emotion, and many people tell me I never smile (which I don't think is true), but it is noted I tend to be emotionless or deadpan.
> 
> ...


I don't type people online - I don't think it is possible, but your posts do point to INTJ. Your writing style seems much more like an INTJ than an INTP or an INFJ. You use short paragraphs that have a logical construction, with lots of real life examples to demonstrate your points. That sure looks like Te to me. Compare to INFJ posts, which focus on people - how other people react, how they feel about other people. It is a very social focus. Your posts are not using other people as a touchstone the way an INFJ's would. And take a look at INTP posts - much longer paragraphs, not so many examples, a lot of logical theorizing - Ti in action.

In addition, throughout this thread you are pushing toward a decision - you have a lot of discomfort in having multiple options to explore. You want to have one option and really delve into it. That is a key difference between an INTJ and an INTP. INTPs don't have that desire to find an answer - they want to explore all the possibilities and fit them into a web of logic. Most INTPs are happy to keep going with a discussion like this indefinitely.

INFJs and INTJs are both quite creative. Many INTJs are artists, musicians, writers. Ni loves to look at things in new ways, make connections that others don't see. When we attempt to express it, we create something new. And although INFJs have more of a focus on the people around them, INTJs also care about the world. Fi gives mature INTJs a strong value system.


----------



## JaguarPap (Mar 26, 2016)

Green Girl said:


> I don't type people online - I don't think it is possible, but your posts do point to INTJ. Your writing style seems much more like an INTJ than an INTP or an INFJ. You use short paragraphs that have a logical construction, with lots of real life examples to demonstrate your points. That sure looks like Te to me. Compare to INFJ posts, which focus on people - how other people react, how they feel about other people. It is a very social focus. Your posts are not using other people as a touchstone the way an INFJ's would. And take a look at INTP posts - much longer paragraphs, not so many examples, a lot of logical theorizing - Ti in action.
> 
> In addition, throughout this thread you are pushing toward a decision - you have a lot of discomfort in having multiple options to explore. You want to have one option and really delve into it. That is a key difference between an INTJ and an INTP. INTPs don't have that desire to find an answer - they want to explore all the possibilities and fit them into a web of logic. Most INTPs are happy to keep going with a discussion like this indefinitely.
> 
> INFJs and INTJs are both quite creative. Many INTJs are artists, musicians, writers. Ni loves to look at things in new ways, make connections that others don't see. When we attempt to express it, we create something new. And although INFJs have more of a focus on the people around them, INTJs also care about the world. Fi gives mature INTJs a strong value system.



Damn. You're good haha. It's like you are reading me like an owner's manual. Just to rule out another variable, what about ISTJ? I clash like crazy with these guys, but I need to rule it out. Sensing doesn't really resonate with me, I often forget about time and space. I forget where I am, often...which doesn't seem like the ISTJs I know, who are notoriously concrete.


----------



## Green Girl (Oct 1, 2010)

JaguarPap said:


> Damn. You're good haha. It's like you are reading me like an owner's manual. Just to rule out another variable, what about ISTJ? I clash like crazy with these guys, but I need to rule it out. Sensing doesn't really resonate with me, I often forget about time and space. I forget where I am, often...which doesn't seem like the ISTJs I know, who are notoriously concrete.


Si versus Ni is tricky. They're both directed inward and they are both perceiving functions, so it can be hard to differentiate. But I do know an ISTJ, two ISFJs and an ESTJ, and I see some similarities in how they approach things. My ISFJ friend once explained to me that she loves collecting teapots, but not just any teapots, and only special ones. She loves them because each teapot has a connection to her, to her memories, and every time she uses them, they get another layer of memory, another layer of meaning. I thought that was pretty cool, and really, really different from how I operate. She uses Si-Fe.

My ISTJ coworker and ESTJ mother approach projects the same way. My mother wanted to get better at making bread. So she learned how to grow sourdough starter and made loaves once a week, perfecting her recipe and technique, tweaking it to get the best outcome, developing her skill, but sticking with the same recipe. My ISTJ coworker is similar - she will take a set of instructions for, say, an origami crane, and follow them carefully, precisely. Then she will do it again, maybe changing the color of the paper or the size, but still sticking with the same method. She is willing to do it again and again, becoming an expert, making beautiful creations.

You see the similiarites? Si likes to take something and repeat it, getting better and better at it. Each time it gains in meaning, and the Si user gets a lot of satisfaction and pleasure out of both the repetition and the mastery. But I'm an Ni Te user, and I just don't operate like that. If you give me a recipe for bread, I'll probably follow it the first time, but I'll be focused on why it works, the principles going into it. And once I understand it and have made a half decent loaf, I'll be satisfied. I don't want to follow the recipe again - I've gotten what I want from it. Now I want to change it, experiment, try adding different ingredients, see what will happen. I don't actually care that much about the outcome, except to learn from it. 

So the ISTJ is much more likely to make a perfect loaf of bread; the INTJ is much more likely to create a new recipe. Both are creative, but in different ways.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

I'd guess the OP is an INTP. He sounds very Ti in his analysis of his N, and the Fi seems to be Role function to me.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

Green Girl said:


> Si versus Ni is tricky. They're both directed inward and they are both perceiving functions, so it can be hard to differentiate. But I do know an ISTJ, two ISFJs and an ESTJ, and I see some similarities in how they approach things. My ISFJ friend once explained to me that she loves collecting teapots, but not just any teapots, and only special ones. She loves them because each teapot has a connection to her, to her memories, and every time she uses them, they get another layer of memory, another layer of meaning. I thought that was pretty cool, and really, really different from how I operate. She uses Si-Fe.
> 
> My ISTJ coworker and ESTJ mother approach projects the same way. My mother wanted to get better at making bread. So she learned how to grow sourdough starter and made loaves once a week, perfecting her recipe and technique, tweaking it to get the best outcome, developing her skill, but sticking with the same recipe. My ISTJ coworker is similar - she will take a set of instructions for, say, an origami crane, and follow them carefully, precisely. Then she will do it again, maybe changing the color of the paper or the size, but still sticking with the same method. She is willing to do it again and again, becoming an expert, making beautiful creations.
> 
> ...


If I may, I'm an ENTP but my father is an ISTJ and mom may be an ESFJ so I think I should know a little bit about Si. I like what you wrote about Si! I relate a little bit, as I probably should according to the theory, but probably also due to my up-bringing. Si dom would definitely collect things like that, it's not just any things that fit a pattern, but things where they see a story. 

I see the stories too, but I don't stick with them, I don't hold onto the objects but I just mentally pick up the story and move on. I don't want to own any more than one teapot and I don't want to make bread every week, but when I see a teapot, the shapes and texture and feel of it and maybe the back story of it, I'll know if it reminds me of something and if it means something to me and if I'll like it or not. And it'll get the layers. However if I have a tea pot like that, I won't have a problem getting rid of it if I don't need it, assuming it's not an unique piece. I might even replace the one with layers with a more interesting one without layers. My dad would either display the unused pot on an open shelf in the kitchen, carefully store it in case it is needed later or he would give it to me or my siblings as a thoughtful gift. If he has to replace an old item due to wear and tear, he would most likely look for the same model and he would feel like the layers of the preceding object will then move to the new one. I won't care what happens to the physical object, but I'll never forget the idea of the teapot or what ever, even if I loose to object. I view his thoughtful collections around the house as dust gatherers. They are not hoarders and it's not a museum, it's a beautiful and creatively decorated house, but there is a lot of stuff that they've kept and display as memorabilia and he keeps creating new arrangements where ever there is space.

And I've thought about growing my own dough root (haven't done it but have found out how it's done). I've baked bread many times with the most simple recipes, but I've never kept it up, the inspiration comes and goes. I'll experiment, but I'll still be looking for that perfect loaf and make (mental) notes of how to recreate it. I won't bake anything that seems like a lot of work for an iffy or mediocre result. I don't like the actual work that much. I want perfection in terms of taste and structure and scent and nostalgia factor, but only for minimal input. Once I've gotten that perfection, I'll experiment very little because I do want it to be perfect every time. Nowadays I only bake no-knead breads in a specific pot with specific tools using specific local flours. I would rather not bake at all than use a bread machine. Of course all this bakery thing is just a luxury in life, if I had to bake bread to feed people, I'd use what ever is the most practical and forget about the sentimentals. I'd still probably find something familiar in the process, maybe just the scent of freshly baked bread if all else is alien.

This was Ne rambling, but maybe this will clear a little bit of N vs S approach. I think @_JaguarPap_ is an INTJ, but a lot of what has been said in these latter parts of the thread about T struck me too as Ti. I appreciated @_JaguarPap_ 's art examples and their explanations a lot. So thanks about that.

Edit: Hahahahaha got the name wrong, sorry @_JaguarPap_ and @_Jaguar_ !

Edit II: One more thing @JaguarPap, in comparison, my INTJ's approach to memorabilia is much more... uhm... primitive. If my ISTJ dad has a beloved leather jacket that doesn't fit him anymore, he would try to find a place for it, like hang it somewhere but if that isn't possible he might just cut out a detail (label, zipper) and keep it with a framed picture of him wearing the jacket or something like that, and get rid of rest of the jacket. I might do the same, cut out a part of the jacket before throwing it away, but I wouldn't get around to making anything of it and would just lose the piece I intended to preserve, but I wouldn't mind. INTJ with a leather jacket that doesn't fit refuses to get rid of it, doesn't want anything to happen to it, but will never wear or look at it either, so it sits in a box forever forgotten, unless someone else throws it away without telling him. This isn't complete picture of Si surely, just what seems the most relevant to me.

Okay, another thing, I might imagine Ni dom gets attached to ideas and concepts in similar way, INTJ delights in finding familiar elements in a theory as ISTJ delights in finding familiar elements in surroundings. Help yourself to a grain of salt or a handful with this, just my thoughts. I wouldn't have written any of this if @Green Girl hadn't started with the teapots and dough.


----------



## Kerik_S (Aug 26, 2015)

JaguarPap said:


> I don't necessarily agree. Sometimes, good art is just approached a certain way. It is like saying an somebody with Ni wouldn't use eggs to make an omelet because it is too objective or concrete. It isn't the best analogy, but the point is that my process descended from the old masters, and it works, professionally, to make a living. It isn't necessarily correlated with cognitive function. Looking at the art itself, especially the marks, is more telling as you see cognitive functions at work. I would politely suggest looking at some of Carravagio's, Da Vinci's, Daumiers, and even contemporaries like Jim Lee and Derek Hess's, work to see this.
> 
> Caravaggio
> View attachment 503050
> ...


That's not how Ni works. It's irrational and largely automatic. You'd explain the process in the same Ni way as the actual drawings.

You explained the process in a Ti way, and there's nothing particularly Ni about the drawings in and of themselves anyway.


----------



## Kerik_S (Aug 26, 2015)

Using a developed skill on a physical medium is a terrible way to type someone.


----------



## JaguarPap (Mar 26, 2016)

No, but it is a good way to see a cognitive process. I wasn't using it for objective typing.

The Ni is seen in be ability to "see" the whole before it is drawn. In my artwork, "see it" cognitively before any analytical process begins--that is, what I understand, to be Ni.


----------



## Kerik_S (Aug 26, 2015)

JaguarPap said:


> No, but it is a good way to see a cognitive process. I wasn't using it for objective typing.
> 
> The Ni is seen in be ability to "see" the whole before it is drawn. In my artwork, "see it" cognitively before any analytical process begins--that is, what I understand, to be Ni.


Considering it's a static image, that could easily be explained by Ne as well.

And depending on what the forms are based on, it could also be Si or Se.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> I'd guess the OP is an INTP. He sounds very Ti in his analysis of his N, and the Fi seems to be Role function to me.


What do you mean by Role function? do you mean Fi dom


----------



## JaguarPap (Mar 26, 2016)

Role function would be 3rd, in order, according to socionics.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

myjazz said:


> What do you mean by Role function? do you mean Fi dom


INTP is:
Ti
Ne
Si
Fe

Shadow
Ni
Te
Fi
Se

Role is the location of Fi in that structure. Different theoretical models organize the shadow differently; another model places the Shadow like so:
Te
Ni
Se
Fi

I disagree with that model myself, but it can be valid. Either way, the strength of the function is higher when it is higher up in the stack, which means a Ti dom will inevitably have very low Fi.

For details on Role in the exact way I meant it, you'd need to check out Socionics. In Model A, Role is the third function and it is 2D in strength, which matches the model I posted above but not the variant. 2D means it is of the second order of strength out of 4 possible levels. 1D is the weakest function.

The INTJ and the INTP both have 1D Se and Fe, 2D Fi and Si, 3D Te and Ne, and 4D Ti and Ni. The difference is in how these functions manifest, and whether they are conscious. 

Role Fi, which the INTP has:
"The individual recognizes the existence and importance of personal relationships, so he is usually cautious at first about offending others if he does not know them well. To minimize this risk he adheres somewhat simplistically to the relevant social conventions (e.g. political correctness). However, if taken too far this produces stress, as it inhibits his natural introverted logic (Ti) inclination to voice exactly what his thoughts are on a given issue or situation, with the expectation that others will appreciate his straightforwardness, rather than accusing him of being insensitive. This caution gradually disappears as he gets to know people better. He prefers to develop relationships indirectly with others based on open conversation and common activities, and only reveals his innermost personal feelings to those he has known for a long time. He may become confused and suspicious if they are directly solicited by others."

Suggestive Fi, which the INTJ has:
"The individual longs for close personal relationships where personal and private experiences can be shared easily in an atmosphere of mutual trust, sustained by shared sentiments and ethical beliefs that make external expression of emotions unnecessary. The individual is inclined to take first steps, but he is not confident of his ability to correctly evaluate the existence or status of such a relationship and therefore is attracted to persons who value clear and unambiguous personal relationships with others and who follow a clear set of ethical principles, which gives them credibility and makes them deserving of trust in the individual's eyes.

The individual tends not to consider whether people are friends or enemies or whether they feel good will or ill will towards them. Instead, he or she usually acts right from the start as if the other person were a friend or an enemy based on their prior knowledge of what the person does. This makes it possible to mistake a friend for an enemy and vice versa. Only gradually does the individual come to recognize what feelings others have for him, and there is always an element of doubt unless others express those feelings verbally and unambiguously and act in a way that clearly matches their stated feelings, over a sufficient period of time. The individual is easily made insecure about the status of personal relationships and needs frequent reassurance that the other person's feelings have not changed.

The individual is sheepish about expressing his personal feelings about people ("I find you really interesting" or "I like you a lot"), but responds very well to these statements, as if they were unexpected treats. Instead, the person tends to focus on whether others' behavior makes sense or not."


----------



## JaguarPap (Mar 26, 2016)

Green Girl said:


> .
> Si likes to take something and repeat it, getting better and better at it. Each time it gains in meaning, and the Si user gets a lot of satisfaction and pleasure out of both the repetition and the mastery. But I'm an Ni Te user, and I just don't operate like that. If you give me a recipe for bread, I'll probably follow it the first time, but I'll be focused on why it works, the principles going into it. And once I understand it and have made a half decent loaf, I'll be satisfied. I don't want to follow the recipe again - I've gotten what I want from it. Now I want to change it, experiment, try adding different ingredients, see what will happen. I don't actually care that much about the outcome, except to learn from it.
> 
> So the ISTJ is much more likely to make a perfect loaf of bread; the INTJ is much more likely to create a new recipe. Both are creative, but in different ways.


 @Green Girl
I have a tendency towards repetition, sometimes. 

In my case, I would become obsessed with mastery of the teapots, conceptual fundamental understanding what makes them ideal, and the what the teapots are "as a body of work."

I would want the teapots to have a abstract ontological existence apart from their physical form of being a teapot, and for their teapot "essence" to captivate people with transcendental beauty. 

When brainstorming how to make the teapots the initial "what" to make would hit me like _boom_ with a rampant overflowing of ideas after the lightbulb moment. My gut would see what I need to make before doing anything, then logically, I would use conceptual frameworks to relate it to the transcendental. The execution phase would be intense and have a "bull-dozer" feeling to it, where I fervently impose my will into reality to create the idea. 

This sounds a lot different from your friend.


And also, I like bread.


----------



## Green Girl (Oct 1, 2010)

JaguarPap said:


> @Green Girl
> I have a tendency towards repetition, sometimes.
> 
> In my case, I would become obsessed with mastery of the teapots, conceptual fundamental understanding what makes them ideal, and the what the teapots are "as a body of work."
> ...


Sounds interesting, but unfortunately I have no idea what function that is coming from. Probably multiple ones. Like I said earlier, I don't think it is possible to figure out a person's type this way. I suggest taking a look at your day to day behavior and preferences, in many situations. Focus on how you make decisions and process information - that's what all of this is based on.

I'm glad you like bread. So do I. I also like tea.


----------



## JaguarPap (Mar 26, 2016)

http://personalitycafe.com/whats-my...ive-scenario-questionnaire-2-0-self-type.html
Gave me:
Fi user (big time vs Fe)
Te user 
Introverted 
Thinking Primary
Abstract
Cooperative

It also put be in with NFs based on one question, that I don't agree with the reasoning for. (7). I guess that would be INFJ, but I think they have Ti. INTJ _does_ have Te and Fi, though.


----------



## Kerik_S (Aug 26, 2015)

JaguarPap said:


> Role function would be 7th or 8th, in order, according to socionics.


Actually, it's 3.


----------



## JaguarPap (Mar 26, 2016)

@Green Girl What do you think about my large preference for Fi over Fe in the discernment of my type? So far, it has been much clearer than Ti vs Ni or, Te vs Ne.


----------



## Green Girl (Oct 1, 2010)

JaguarPap said:


> @Green Girl What do you think about my large preference for Fi over Fe in the discernment of my type? So far, it has been much clearer than Ti vs Ni or, Te vs Ne.


If that is the case, you can rule out INFJ, ENFJ, ESFJ, ISFJ, since they all use Fe as a first or second function. It isn't useful to try to pin down third and fourth functions -they are hard to spot and even harder to be sure about. I suggest you focus on the first two, which are ones that you use more consciously. Those are the only two you need to figure out your type. If you think you are an introvert using Fi as a first or second function, then your type would be ISFP, INFP, ESFP, or ISFP. If you don't think you fit one of those, and don't use Fe, then you have to look at Te vs Ti as a first or second function.

Another approach that can work is to figure out your type using the MBTI designations and not fussing too much about the cognitive functions. This is simpler sometimes. It's how I got started figuring out INTJ. I broke it down and by process of elimination ended up with INTJ. I started with the letters I was confident about and worked from there:

I vs E: I clearly have an introvert preference, no question. That rules out 8 types. IXXX

J vs P: Unquestionably a judging preference. I hate indecision, am always rushing to make a decision. So I was sure of IXXJ.

N vs S: This was harder for me. I learned about N and S, and then Ni vs Si. It was soon clear that I don't use Si, at all. So INXJ.

F vs T: Trickiest one. I actually thought I was an INFJ for a little while. But I realized that was partly wishful thinking - the INFJs sound nicer than INTJs in all the descriptions, and more like women are expected to be in our culture. But when I really looked at how I make choices and relate to the world, it was clear that I use Te, not Fe. I don't actually care how other people feel about something; I focus on what will work, what makes sense. So, INTJ.


----------



## JaguarPap (Mar 26, 2016)

That kind of testing gets me INTJ and rules out INTP everytime...as you can see I hate indecision, ha ha.

I get INTj everytime with the method you describe and tests that test similarly.


----------



## Green Girl (Oct 1, 2010)

JaguarPap said:


> That kind of testing gets me INTJ and rules out INTP everytime...as you can see I hate indecision, ha ha.
> 
> I get INTj everytime with the method you describe and tests that test similarly.



You'll never know for sure. This stuff isn't science, and there aren't any definitive tests. Experts say the brain doesn't actually work this way and that since it relies on self-reporting, all the typing methods are unreliable. It's really just a model, a tool for understanding differences in how people make choices and process information. 

If you think INTJ fits you best, try it out for a spin, see how it fits. I suggest lurking around the INTJ subforum for a while, making a few posts. I don't know what percentage of the posters in there are actually INTJs, but I have the sense that most of the long term members are. You'll soon get a feel for how you mesh with them, if you have a similar approach or not.

(By the way, INTj is a socionics designation. INTJ is Myers-Briggs (MBTI). They are not the same thing. Socionics uses the same letters, but divides people up differently and has a different approach. I don't know anything about socionics, so can't help on that. The 16 type subforums here are based on the Myers-Briggs approach.)


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

Green Girl said:


> (By the way, INTj is a socionics designation. INTJ is Myers-Briggs (MBTI). They are not the same thing. Socionics uses the same letters, but divides people up differently and has a different approach. I don't know anything about socionics, so can't help on that. The 16 type subforums here are based on the Myers-Briggs approach.)


The main difference in this switch of abrreviation usuage is that. MBTI use's the model based on the Extraverted aspect, so when it comes to introverts its the second Function that is focused on a lot. For instance Infj is not really primary J but a P technically

In Socionics they don't focus on how people are or react towards the outside world in the way MBTI does.


----------



## JaguarPap (Mar 26, 2016)

_This was extracted from one of my threads today. I am asking for analysis of the functions:
_
Please specify the cognitive functions/system used in this driving circumstance.
Let me preface: I am going to describe an account that happened earlier today that used a lot of distinct cognitive functions. I remembered them specifically for cognitive function analysis—please do not side-track this in what you thought, personally, about the situation. Just keep the comments about specific analysis of functions used.

I was driving down a road and an older woman in a small car needed let over to get into the turning lane. I slowed down, since traffic was slowing anyways, to let her in (I specifically remember feeling good as she was visibly delighted to be aided) and the man behind me honked aggressively. I felt a cognitive dissonance between the objective logic of the greater picture of traffic being served by letting people into lanes when traffic is at a lull and the anger of the man behind me. I started to think about the "whys" behind his behavior but figured he was not safe and a contradiction to the greater picture of "driving safety" so I decided to not allow him to pass me because I thought it would be objectively best to creating objective safety. 

I started formulating strategies to prevent him from affecting the greater "good of driving" which is a somewhat nebulous idea in my head, but, I know personally, what it looks like as an interrelating transcendental system. So..I tried to prevent him from passing.

Ultimately, I could not prevent him from passing as we neared construction and then he started to brake light me intentionally, which I could not conceptualize to the "greater good of driving." I started conceptualizing more, and this is when I became much more cognitively aware of my own thoughts, and originally came up with the idea for this post as a beneficial way to source my own cognitive functions with P-Cafe. Afterwards I started to analyze my own functions more, and was left ultimately baffled by his behavior and could not come up with a a logical conceptualization for his behavior. The primary dissonance being the juxtaposition between "the greater good of driving" and contradictory attitude and behavior. This contradiction was internalized in a keystone ironic image of "dual baby on board" signs on the back of his vehicle. 

To relieve the stress, cathartically, I cleaned out the interior of my car intensively and the exterior moderately, which was already intensively cleaned a week ago to reach optimum black. I came home to my apartment confused and sad for humanity—ultimately sad that I could not come up with a system to objectively remedy the situation (and all similar ones). 

Then I made this post nearly an hour later.


----------

