# Addressing some lingering doubts



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

After six months of relative certainty, I think the doubts have won out. Too many things don't add up - but every confusion resolved by understanding myself to be a different type only seems to raise further questions. Spurred on by my continued inability to comprehend what should be my dominant function (Si) and my continued confusion as regards which of the two thinking functions I have, I feel now may be the right time to look at what others think about the matter.

On the matter of thinking functions, many seem content to boil it down to rationalism (Ti) vs. empiricism (Te). As always, type is about preference, but both methods of obtaining information seem valid to me. I doubt there are too many Ti users who reject inductive reasoning as a useful tool for establishing general truths despite Hume's seemingly sound conjecture on the matter, and likewise I doubt Te users are solely confined to that which they can verify through experience. The thing is, if we are to perceive the functions as at least related to these two schools of thought, then I honestly couldn't say which I favour. Other distinctions I've come across have been similarly unhelpful in aiding me to distinguish the two.

When it comes to Si, I feel as though I ought to be able to describe a function supposedly so central to my own experience (if my supposition of being an ISTJ is correct) far better than I ever have been able to. Descriptions of other Si users usually don't seem outside the realm of my experience, but aspects of them can do, and other aspects seem true for me but by no means central to my own experience. Basically, something feels incorrect, to me, about the idea that I am an Si-dom, even if I can extrapolated from the usually poor type profiles that ISTJ seems a best fit.

Looking at the dichotomies themselves, I find it hard to believe I wouldn't be some sort of IxTx, but at this point anything's possible. I'm poor at questionnaires about myself and always have been, and I fear the one I attempted below really doesn't prove an exception to that rule... hopefully those interested individuals of the typing community can help me out with this dilemma.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*1) What aspect of your personality made you unsure of your type?*
See the above - uncertainty over thinking functions, inability to describe the function I considered to be my dominant, and just a nagging sense that something is inaccurate.

*2) What do you yearn for in life? Why?*
Already stuck for answers, on the second question... I'd say I yearn to know the state of things, to understand what things are and why they are that way. I strive to have things make sense, and be accurate. Probably more things I can't think of at the moment...

*3) Think about a time where you felt like you were at your finest. Tell us what made you feel that way.*
I'm not sure on this question either. It feels a little mundane but perhaps certain occasions on other online forums, 5 years back or so, where I got so caught up in those forums, for a brief period of time, that the company on there - hostile or pleasant - felt more immediate than any company in real life. Having written that, it doesn't exactly scream "fine" at me, but little else is coming to mind. I don't feel it's quite what the question is angling at, but I've felt "fine" retrospectively upon receiving individual awards of any sort, if I feel that the topic of the award in question is one both of sufficient worth and one that I deserved to receive. Again, this doesn't seem to me what the question is after...

*4) What makes you feel inferior?*
I fear I'm overanalysing these questions... I guess I feel inferior when, for some reason, I'm not capable of contributing something I feel I ought to be able to contribute in a discussion, whether by my own incapacity (through lack of knowledge, for instance) or because someone else is preventing me from clearly stating what I need to state. 

*5) What tends to weigh on your decisions? (Do you think about people, pro-cons, how you feel about it, etc.)*
Decisions with regards to what? All of the suggested considerations are ones I'd consider to be relevant, given the right circumstances. Whether I want to take a particular course of action is relevant, but by no means determinative; likewise with potential consequences of the action. I simply don't think this question is really answerable in the abstract.

*6) When working on a project what is normally your emphasis? Do you like to have control of the outcome?*
My emphasis is generally on attaining a certain outcome, achieving some goal - it doesn't make sense for me to take on a task if I don't intend to achieve something from it. I like to have control of the outcome in the sense that I want that goal to be achieved.

*7) Describe us a time where you had a lot of fun. How is your memory of it?*
Struggling with this one as well; I can think of numerous "fun" examples but none especially stand out as being more than just generally fun. Choosing to walk most of the distance from home to university bought me a couple of hours to walk around, earphones in listening to music, without interacting with anyone; there's a friends' place where I often enjoy staying for a couple of nights engaging in randomly quizzing each other on some topic, having late-night political discussions... just a generally convival atmosphere; just general enjoyment of time spent on the internet at large (mostly browsing/posting on forums). How are my memories of these? From these general topics, I can recall, for instance, discussing underlying theories of democracy and what flowed from them (specifically in relation to tax) from 1am to about 5am until tiredness got the better of me, or walking particular stretches of the footpath, &c.

*8) When you want to learn something new, what feels more natural for you? (Are you more prone to be hands on, to theorize, to memorize, etc)*
I'd say I'm generally inclined to commit data to memory until such time as I can construct the thing I want to learn (a fact, a procedure, a theory, whatever) without needing to refer back to that data. Hard to even be sure of that devoid of context though.

*9) How organized do you to think of yourself as?*
Somewhat organised, but also more interested in the notion of being organised than in actually implementing organisation. Generally good with planning ahead, but less with sticking to that plan.

*10) How do you judge new ideas? You try to understand the principles behind it to see if they make sense or do you look for information that supports it?*
Both, surely? If I'm presented with a new idea, I'll seek to verify it by reference both to its underlying principles (should it be inherently contradictory, for instance, then it should be rejected) and to other information which might have a bearing on the veracity/merit of the idea. I don't know that the two can really be separated.

*11) You find harmony by making sure everyone is doing fine and belonging to a given group or by making sure that you follow what you believe and being yourself?*
The latter more than the former: I can't see the merit to the idea of believing something to be right but then acting in a manner that, by reference to that belief, would be "wrong". But then it's not as if I have a disregard for the satisfaction of others, simply that my regard for them stems from my belief about how things out to be. I wouldn't say I find "harmony" from either of the two, though...

*12) Are you the kind that thinks before speaking or do you speak before thinking? Do you prefer one-on-one communication or group discussions?*
Thinking before speaking, such that what is said has been considered; what sense is there in speaking before considering what is to be said? I prefer one-on-one communication basically because it's more simple and less cluttered; it's far easier to converse with a person if it is only them you need to engage with.

*13) Do you jump into action right away or do you like to know where are you jumping before leaping? Does action speaks more than words?*
I always like to know where I'll stand post-act before I perform the act. Actions can say a lot or not much at all; far more important is what you intend to communicate with the act or phrase.

*14) It's Saturday. You're at home, and your favorite show is about to start. Your friends call you for a night out. What will you do?*
Dependent entirely upon which friends they are, how recently I might have interacted with them, what they intend to do on the night out, &c. Unless I get a pressing urge to join my friends, it's probably more likely that I'll stay home and watch the TV programme.

*15) How do you act when you're stressed out?*
Impatient and angry with anything that isn't functioning as it ought to; typically, a slow or unresponsive computer, or a snapping pencil, or similar. Attempt to eliminate all distractions and resolve the issue that is the cause of the stress; this can result in my being short-tempered with those I perceive as distracting me at such a time, and to a further, more despair-ridden stress if, after some time, I can't seem to make any progress in my resolution of the issue.

*16) What makes you dislike the personalities of some people?*
I dislike arrogance, and unjustified certainty. I dislike attempts to close down conversation with it being clear that the conversation is incomplete (i.e., there's more to be said but one party no longer wants to speak/listen). I dislike the desire to harm others, or the seeming lack of consideration for the harm one's actions might do to others. Probably many other things as well.

*17) Is there anything you really like talking about with other people?*
Generally the more contentious topics, such as politics or ethical philosophies; they provide an insight into a person on what seems to me a more fundamental level. Beyond that, any topic on which I have some degree of passion, which can extend from discussing the course content of my law courses this semester with a friend of mine also doing law to discussing music, football, TV, &c. Whatever the topic, and I suspect this is true for most, I like the conversation to flow naturally and without awkwardness.

*18) What kind of things do you pay the least attention to in your life?*
Hard to say, probably because they are things I don't pay attention to. I can't think of anything specific.

*19) How do your friends perceive you? What is wrong about their perception? What would your friends never say about your personality?*
Different friends obviously have different perceptions. Probably as someone with a very specific set of interests. Despite his enjoyment of discussing and debating things, generally pretty non-confrontational. Has his quirks. It's hard for me to say anything would be wrong about this perception, especially given it's really just my speculation about their perceptions... what would they never say? That's a hard one to answer as well...

*20) You got a whole day to do whatever you like. What kind of activities do you feel like doing?*
That depends on the parameters of "do whatever you like": if that entails my being able to do things that I wouldn't be able to do in the course of my normal life, then I probably undertake those activities. Confining it to essentially "you get a day's freedom within your own life", I probably act as I do most of the time anyway and spend it browsing the web, and then feeling discontent with how I've spent my free time at the end of it all.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, that took a while... and I still don't feel like I've gotten at anything important. Largely meaningless though they might be, here are the results of some cognitive functions tests I did a couple of weeks back:

*cognitivequiz.com*
Introverted Thinking (Ti) ||||||||||||||||||| 8.84
Extroverted Thinking (Te) ||||||||||||||||| 7.62
Introverted Sensation (Si) |||||||||||||| 6.08
Introverted Intuition (Ni) ||||||||| 3.635
Introverted Feeling (Fi) ||||| 1.94
Extroverted Sensation (Se) |||| 1.4
Extroverted Feeling (Fe) ||| 0.68
Extroverted Intuition (Ne) || -0.12
Most Likely: ISTP
or Second Possibility: ESTJ
or Third Possibility: ISTJ

*similarminds.com*
Ti (Introverted Thinking) (60%)
Si (Introverted Sensing) (55%)
Fi (Introverted Feeling) (50%)
Te (Extroverted Thinking) (35%)
Fe (Extroverted Feeling) (30%)
Ne (Extroverted Intuition) (20%)
Ni (Introverted Intuition) (20%)
Se (Extroverted Sensing) (10%)
based on your results your type is likely - intp

*Keys2Cognition*
introverted Sensing (Si) ********************************************** (46)
extraverted Thinking (Te) *************************************** (39.9)
extraverted Intuiting (Ne) ******************************* (31.6)
introverted Feeling (Fi) ***************************** (29.5)
introverted Thinking (Ti) ************************** (26.5)
extraverted Feeling (Fe) *********************** (23.6)
extraverted Sensing (Se) ********************** (22.4)
introverted Intuiting (Ni) ******************** (20.5)
By focusing on the strongest configuration of cognitive processes, your pattern of responses most closely matches individuals of this type: ISTJ

Hopefully someone somewhere on here can help out with this; like I said, there's something that doesn't feel right...


----------



## Grehoy (May 30, 2014)

StunnedFox said:


> ...


Could you this test and paste the results (with scores) please?

Free Enneagram Personality Test


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

Grehoy said:


> Could you this test and paste the results (with scores) please?
> 
> Free Enneagram Personality Test


Type 1 Perfectionism |||||||||||| 50%
Type 2 Helpfulness |||||||||| 38%
Type 3 Image Focus |||||||||| 34%
Type 4 Individualism |||||||||||| 42%
Type 5 Intellectualism |||||||||||||||| 62%
Type 6 Security Focus |||||||||||||||| 66%
Type 7 Adventurousness |||| 14%
Type 8 Aggressiveness |||||| 26%
Type 9 Calmness |||||||||| 34%

type score type behavior motivation
6 16 I must be secure and safe to survive.
5 15 I must be knowledgeable to survive.
1 12 I must be perfect and good to survive.
4 10 I must be unique/different to survive.
2 9 I must be helpful and caring to survive.
3 8 I must be impressive and attractive to survive.
9 8 I must maintain peace/calm to survive.
8 6 I must be strong and in control to survive.
7 3 I must be fun and entertained to survive.

Your main type is Type 6
Your variant stacking is spsosx
Your level of health is below average, i.e. unhealthy


----------



## Grehoy (May 30, 2014)

StunnedFox said:


> Type 1 Perfectionism |||||||||||| 50%
> Type 2 Helpfulness |||||||||| 38%
> Type 3 Image Focus |||||||||| 34%
> Type 4 Individualism |||||||||||| 42%
> ...


6w5 1w2 4w5 9w1 = Te Ni Fi Si ~ ENTJ

Sent via Tapatalk


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

Grehoy said:


> 6w5 1w2 4w5 9w1 = Te Ni Fi Si ~ ENTJ
> 
> Sent via Tapatalk


Firstly, how do those specific types from the results I achieved on the Enneagram? Secondly, how do those specific Enneagram types correlate themselves to the cognitive functions you presented? Thirdly, which cognitive functions model are you using?

All these questions aside, test results aren't exactly known for their accuracy on such matters, so I'm loath to place any faith in a type suggestion borne solely from the results of one.


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

@Grehoy - I just found and read through the thread detailing your theory on the links between MBTI/cognitive functions and the Enneagram. I can't set any store by any conclusion you draw using that theory unless you can demonstrate that it has some level of veracity to it; at present it appears you are yet to do that.


----------



## Grehoy (May 30, 2014)

StunnedFox said:


> Firstly, how do those specific types from the results I achieved on the Enneagram? Secondly, how do those specific Enneagram types correlate themselves to the cognitive functions you presented? Thirdly, which cognitive functions model are you using?
> 
> All these questions aside, test results aren't exactly known for their accuracy on such matters, so I'm loath to place any faith in a type suggestion borne solely from the results of one.


It's my own theory about enneagram and mbti correlations, which is available at http://personalitycafe.com/enneagra...-enneagram-mbti-correlations.html#post7075969

Cognitive functions model I am using is MBTI.

6>5, so you have Te preference over Ti. Your next strongest one is 1. 1>9 so you have Ni preference over Si. 4>3 and 2, so you have Fi preference over Fe.

Te-Ni-Fi. Your 8 score is coming up low though and I equate 8 with Se so it doesn't seem to fit in that regard.

But the Te-Ni-Fi suggests ENTJ.


----------



## Grehoy (May 30, 2014)

StunnedFox said:


> @Grehoy - I just found and read through the thread detailing your theory on the links between MBTI/cognitive functions and the Enneagram. I can't set any store by any conclusion you draw using that theory unless you can demonstrate that it has some level of veracity to it; at present it appears you are yet to do that.


OK. Do more tests and paste their results to compare. This one for instance.

Socionics Tests


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

@Grehoy



> Test Results
> Your Sociotype: LII-1Ti (INTj)
> Brief Description of the LII
> 
> ...


I really don't know what excessive testing is going to achieve beyond providing more possible options as to what my type might be. This test, as far as I can tell, says little beyond "you may be one of the types you consider it a possibility that you are". Plus, I'm not exactly confident that I can leave my subconscious biases as to how I act, based on what I came to understand prior to now, out of consideration when answering questions. I know there were a lot of questions I chose not to move the slider on, or moved only marginally one way or the other, especially on the "visual compatibility" stuff at the end...


----------



## Grehoy (May 30, 2014)

StunnedFox said:


> @Grehoy
> 
> I really don't know what excessive testing is going to achieve beyond providing more possible options as to what my type might be. This test, as far as I can tell, says little beyond "you may be one of the types you consider it a possibility that you are". Plus, I'm not exactly confident that I can leave my subconscious biases as to how I act, based on what I came to understand prior to now, out of consideration when answering questions. I know there were a lot of questions I chose not to move the slider on, or moved only marginally one way or the other, especially on the "visual compatibility" stuff at the end...


What's the point then? Your descriptions of your self might also be biased so how can we rely on them?

Anyway, I think you are either INTJ or ENTJ. ENTJs actively seek to put themselves in positions of power and try to rise up in the chain of authority. They want to be respected for their superiority and stuff and try to dominate people to that end.

If you are more contained and more interested about your self evaluation about yourself rather than others, you might be an INTJ.


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

Grehoy said:


> What's the point then? Your descriptions of your self might also be biased so how can we rely on them?
> 
> Anyway, I think you are either INTJ or ENTJ. ENTJs actively seek to put themselves in positions of power and try to rise up in the chain of authority. They want to be respected for their superiority and stuff and try to dominate people to that end.
> 
> If you are more contained and more interested about your self evaluation about yourself rather than others, you might be an INTJ.


I can't see that simply interpreting test results tells you anything more about the person that what they can themselves establish from reading the test. I created this thread specifically because I wasn't receiving clear or consistent results from online tests, nor was I coming to any satisfactory conclusion through my own introspection, hence I sought out external impressions.

I don't take any real interest in holding a position of power, or domination, or "being top of the totem pole", so to speak, at least not as an end in itself. To the extent that you're correct in asserting that to be the primary trait of ENTJs, then, I can probably discount that possibility. In any case, I struggle to relate to extraversion in general.

What reasons might you have for supposing me to be an NTJ in general?


----------



## Grehoy (May 30, 2014)

StunnedFox said:


> I can't see that simply interpreting test results tells you anything more about the person that what they can themselves establish from reading the test. I created this thread specifically because I wasn't receiving clear or consistent results from online tests, nor was I coming to any satisfactory conclusion through my own introspection, hence I sought out external impressions.
> 
> I don't take any real interest in holding a position of power, or domination, or "being top of the totem pole", so to speak, at least not as an end in itself. To the extent that you're correct in asserting that to be the primary trait of ENTJs, then, I can probably discount that possibility. In any case, I struggle to relate to extraversion in general.
> 
> What reasons might you have for supposing me to be an NTJ in general?


Mainly because of the relatively high type 1 score. Perfectionism about self. And then your low adventureousness and aggressiveness scores.

Type 9s are more interested in maintaining their internal calmness, which I equate with Si behaviour whereas type 1 is continuously revising his\her inner mechanism\construct so as to be able to achieve perfection and be satisfied with himself\herself so that he\she can silence his\her internal critic. I equate that behaviour with Ni.

Your T scores (5 and 6) are also high. And your helpfulness and image focus score are relatively lower, which means you don't care too much about how you are perceived by others or don't have desire to have an affect others.

Your 5 and 6 preferences are higher than your enneagram 1 score. I believe 5 relies on Ti whereas 6 relies on Te. Either way, your scores seem to suggest that you are a Te or Ti dom with a high Ni and lower Fe.

That must be ENTJ based on my interpretation of the results. Your additional info suggests that you are an INTJ. This also seems to fit with your low aggresiveness (Se) and adventerousness (Ne) scores.


----------



## Bugs (May 13, 2014)

StunnedFox said:


> Firstly, how do those specific types from the results I achieved on the Enneagram? Secondly, how do those specific Enneagram types correlate themselves to the cognitive functions you presented? Thirdly, which cognitive functions model are you using?
> 
> All these questions aside, test results aren't exactly known for their accuracy on such matters, so I'm loath to place any faith in a type suggestion borne solely from the results of one.


No worries , that kid thinks he knows how to type MBTI based on Enneagram. Just another hack. Notice he can't even type himself  Should tell you something.


----------



## Bugs (May 13, 2014)

Grehoy said:


> Mainly because of the relatively high type 1 score. Perfectionism about self. And then your low adventureousness and aggressiveness scores.
> 
> Type 9s are more interested in maintaining their internal calmness, which I equate with Si behaviour whereas type 1 is continuously revising his\her inner mechanism\construct so as to be able to achieve perfection and be satisfied with himself\herself so that he\she can silence his\her internal critic. I equate that behaviour with Ni.
> 
> ...


Yo , how about you type yourself with your technique before you pretend like you know something when typing other people?


----------



## Grehoy (May 30, 2014)

Bugs said:


> Yo , how about you type yourself with your technique before you pretend like you know something when typing other people?


I think type 9s' inner construct is pretty static\rigid whereas 1s' inner construct is pretty dynamic. So there's calmness and order in 9s whereas there's chaos and turmoil in 1s.

How do you experience your 9ness?


----------



## Bugs (May 13, 2014)

Two things -

1. Type yourself with your own knowledge. What would you be MBTI wise? Please don't be afraid to say , that would be petty. Or , if your technique doesn't work with yourself then it probably isn't that great with others. 

2. What is 'inner construct'?


----------



## Grehoy (May 30, 2014)

Bugs said:


> Two things -
> 
> 1. Type yourself with your own knowledge. What would you be MBTI wise? Please don't be afraid to say , that would be petty. Or , if your technique doesn't work with yourself then it probably isn't that great with others.
> 
> 2. What is 'inner construct'?


Sorry, I won't type myself, not yet at least. When I do that people start typism and vomiting out their negative stuff.

I don't know. Just inner world. Their way of deciding about things I guess. So a type 9 would be quite decisive whereas 1 would be doubtful perhaps.

What type do you perceive me to be?


----------



## Bugs (May 13, 2014)

Grehoy said:


> Sorry, I won't type myself, not yet at least. When I do that people start typism and vomiting out their negative stuff.


Anyways...


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

Grehoy said:


> Mainly because of the relatively high type 1 score. Perfectionism about self. And then your low adventureousness and aggressiveness scores.
> 
> Type 9s are more interested in maintaining their internal calmness, which I equate with Si behaviour whereas type 1 is continuously revising his\her inner mechanism\construct so as to be able to achieve perfection and be satisfied with himself\herself so that he\she can silence his\her internal critic. I equate that behaviour with Ni.
> 
> ...


Like I said on page 1, without proof of the veracity of your MBTI-Enneagram correlation theory, I can't really set much store by it.


----------



## Mr inappropriate (Dec 17, 2013)

Obviously Te/Fi but perceiving preference is not clear. ENTJ if you can relate to Se somewhat, you seem like a rational type in socionics.


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

crashbandicoot said:


> Obviously Te/Fi but perceiving preference is not clear. ENTJ if you can relate to Se somewhat, you seem like a rational type in socionics.


I struggle to relate to Se at all really. I'm not familiar with the intricacies of Socionics (my knowledge is limited to what seeps through to other sections of this forum); what's a "rational" type mean in this context? Does it mean a dominant judging function? I also struggle to relate to extraversion in general...

What would you say makes Te/Fi clear?


----------



## Mr inappropriate (Dec 17, 2013)

> My emphasis is generally on attaining a certain outcome, achieving some goal - it doesn't make sense for me to take on a task if I don't intend to achieve something from it. I like to have control of the outcome in the sense that I want that goal to be achieved.


Te, there are similar answers pointing to Te, too. The goal oriented decisions are emphasized.


> 14) It's Saturday. You're at home, and your favorite show is about to start. Your friends call you for a night out. What will you do?
> Dependent entirely upon which friends they are, how recently I might have interacted with them, what they intend to do on the night out, &c. Unless I get a pressing urge to join my friends, it's probably more likely that I'll stay home and watch the TV programme.


Fi, because you made the decision based on how you value(feel about) it.


Rational type would be leading with a judging function in Socionics. Ti or Te, in your case. 

Se is the function I see people either relate or not, not much confusion about it. If you dont relate to it, well you are either a Ni-dom or a Ne/Si type. 

We are left with INTP or xSTJ then. How do you wiew your collage life ? If you are staying in a dorm, how do you get along with roommates, etc. ?


----------



## Le9acyMuse (Mar 12, 2010)

@_StunnedFox_ You're INTJ.

I got from your questionnaire responses that you don't make decisions primarily based on standards upon which people live, or by which systems function. That means you are either N or S dominant. You observe patterned data, and also actively pattern data yourself.

The style in which you perceive the data is improvised (idealized, experimented with, juxtaposed, manipulated). It is not based primarily on the integrity of concrete or external objects (physical, face-value comparisons). It's based on the idea of them and how you could handle them, usually to make them better. This indicates Introversion. Si or Ni.

You don't compile the pleasure of data by their explicit memories. So, no Sensation preference. That leaves Intuition.

You didn't reveal a focus on groups of people and fostering them to keep them together. Your intentions are more executively inclined. Obviously that's Thinking. The Thinking isn't idealized or reinvented. There is more of an implementation style to it from you. It follows a replicable, 'most likely' basis for ordering things effectively. Te.

Congrats. INTJ.


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

@crashbandicoot - 

I'm struggling to figure out the exact scope of your question re: university, but... I don't tend to associate with people much when there (I don't reside on campus, I live about an hour away by public transport times so no need for that), save for a friend of mine from high school who is also doing law, whom I associate with most days - we often converse for a fair while post-lecture. Outside of relations with him, I generally only stay on campus for lectures or, if I arrive early or it's close to a deadline, to use the computers to work on assignments. 

The reasoning for Te/Fi over Ti/Fe seems sound enough.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@Le9acyMuse - 

The reasoning behind the first two points seems reasonable enough, although I'd be interested in seeing what specific answers I gave (if there were any in particular) that gave you these impressions - certainly, if you posed your findings as a question I wouldn't be sure whether I primarily focused on functionality of systems or not. 

I'm uncomfortable with the idea of moving to Ni solely on the basis of a lack of evidence for Si; is there anything you've observed that might evince Ni?

Te seems most likely at this stage, although I still feel I'm yet to grasp the essence of either thinking function.


----------



## Mr inappropriate (Dec 17, 2013)

You're right, I asked in a very vague way. Well, I assumed you live on your own apart from parents and I think it may point out a couple of things, if not ignore my question.
E.g. I thought of myself as messy until collage then I noticed I look like Mr. Monk compared to my peers about how I keep my space clean and orderly.

I didnt know mbti back then but all of my roommates who were reasonably clean, I remember them as Si-types. It may be anecdotal though.

You are probably an introverted perceiver because it doesnt show in the way you write. Go with the one which sounds more normal to you, I dont relate to Si much either but I thought Ni was some kinda mental ilness at first.


----------



## Le9acyMuse (Mar 12, 2010)

StunnedFox said:


> The reasoning behind the first two points seems reasonable enough, although I'd be interested in seeing what specific answers I gave (if there were any in particular) that gave you these impressions - certainly, if you posed your findings as a question I wouldn't be sure whether I primarily focused on functionality of systems or not.


So, I'll be supplying evidence for N and S dominance, and Introversion.

Firstly, questionnaires are off-tangent to me because the questions asked are not phrased as they should be. They ask you what your reaction would be rather than why you react the way you would. The important thing is getting you to display your thinking style. As is, it makes people have to work harder. Nevertheless, I got what I needed. I took your style of answering any number of the questions. I did focus slightly more on questions that asked you about yourself in a candid context.

........................................
*light bulb*

Dammit... Something clicked. In overlooking these poorly phrased questions, I ended up writing off several answers to them which might still hold some significant data. ok... You're a study that emphasizes some precise technicalities. Namely the difference between a general INTJ and an INFJ, Enneatype 5. 5s tend to retain information to help them fend for themselves and not rely on others.

We'll start over... Proof of being a *dominant Perceiver* is that if you were a dominant Judger, you would answer from a perspective of a standard you believe in upholding, as the standard is just the way things occur. I could take relatively any question to emphasize this tendency in you.



> *13) Do you jump into action right away or do you like to know where are you jumping before leaping? Does action speaks more than words?*
> I always like to know where I'll stand post-act before I perform the act. Actions can say a lot or not much at all; far more important is what you intend to communicate with the act or phrase.


 A Judger type would provide an answer that displays its preconceived stance on the topic. Even when it's ground they've yet to tread Judgers approach from a perspective of what they have observed happening in relative instances. It's a logical process that eliminates unlike from like events. It's a strength of theirs. Now, you may in fact cross reference events yourself, but your answer isn't heavy in it. You have to pinpoint or pattern an event to extrapolate some consistent part before you act. Like I do. Your answer implies this more than it displays a penchant to primarily cross-reference.

As a whole I think it's rare for people not to consider effect before they act. It's all about the process they follow before acting.

Now, *Introversion*. Your answers are consistently symptomatic of Introverted thought.



> *4) What makes you feel inferior?*
> I fear I'm overanalysing these questions... I guess I feel inferior when, for some reason, I'm not capable of contributing something I feel I ought to be able to contribute in a discussion, whether by my own incapacity (through lack of knowledge, for instance) or because someone else is preventing me from clearly stating what I need to state.


 You're predisposed to ideal thought. Introversion reinvents former ideas in order to improve it. It's egotistical, in a sense. Extraversion relies on using elements that are already manifest. Your answer here shows you feel an upset when you're unable to complete your mental goal: to render, by your thoughts, the desired conclusion. It's heavy in psyche energy, so to speak.




> I'm uncomfortable with the idea of moving to Ni solely on the basis of a lack of evidence for Si; is there anything you've observed that might evince Ni?


 Si is highly considerate of what makes it uncomfortable because it's part of its purpose to remember what feels good, and also how to make it "better" by making it last. Generally your answers are profuse in thoughts, ideal renderings and the weighing of possibilities. There's just no explicit mention of patterning data for the sake of keeping it around longer for the sake of pleasure.



> *2) What do you yearn for in life? Why?*
> Already stuck for answers, on the second question... I'd say I yearn to know the state of things, to understand what things are and why they are that way. I strive to have things make sense, and be accurate. Probably more things I can't think of at the moment...


 An Si dom's answer would center on some idea of stability about things that make it feel good, safe, scared, secure, etc... They can't risk going as detached in their thoughts as you do because their concern is on what actually makes them feel, which is everything that is around them.



> Te seems most likely at this stage, although I still feel I'm yet to grasp the essence of either thinking function.


 When you had me back up my results with your answers I started to wonder how an INFJ 5 would come off, because while Te is concerned with function, Fe is concerned with the strength of unity. Rereading some of your answers I'd overlooked I saw you actually aren't as...depersonalized as I'd thought. Your thinking style comes off as technical and it throws people off. You actually are concerned with the balance of groups.



> *3) Think about a time where you felt like you were at your finest. Tell us what made you feel that way.*
> I'm not sure on this question either. It feels a little mundane but perhaps certain occasions on other online forums, 5 years back or so, where I got so caught up in those forums, for a brief period of time, that *the company on there - hostile or pleasant - felt more immediate than any company in real life.* Having written that, it doesn't exactly scream "fine" at me, but little else is coming to mind. I don't feel it's quite what the question is angling at, but I've felt "fine" retrospectively upon receiving individual awards of any sort, if I feel that the topic of the award in question is one both of sufficient worth and one that I deserved to receive. Again, this doesn't seem to me what the question is after...





> *4) What makes you feel inferior?*
> I fear I'm overanalysing these questions... I guess I feel inferior when, for some reason, I'm not capable of contributing something I feel I ought to be able to contribute in a discussion, whether by my own incapacity (through lack of knowledge, for instance) *or because someone else is preventing me from clearly stating what I need to state. *





> *7) Describe us a time where you had a lot of fun. How is your memory of it?*
> Struggling with this one as well; I can think of numerous "fun" examples but none especially stand out as being more than just generally fun. Choosing to walk most of the distance from home to university bought me a couple of hours to walk around, earphones in listening to music, without interacting with anyone; there's a friends' place where I often enjoy staying for a couple of nights engaging in randomly quizzing each other on some topic, having late-night political discussions... *just a generally convival atmosphere*; just general enjoyment of time spent on the internet at large (mostly browsing/posting on forums). How are my memories of these? From these general topics, I can recall, for instance, discussing underlying theories of democracy and what flowed from them (specifically in relation to tax) from 1am to about 5am until tiredness got the better of me, or walking particular stretches of the footpath, &c.


 Of course, like with my other explanations of your wording, anyone can say anything, but it's not _that_ you say it that counts. It's _how_ you say it and how it develops your thoughts. You're not as inclined to critically abide by things in an executive capacity. It's like you're sensitive to what presents itself as a conducive setting in order to feel more capable of relaxing. Anyone likes to feel good, true. Ni-Te-Fi focuses less on the unity of groups primarily, and prefers for unity to occur more flexibly than Ni-Fe-Ti which would place a higher priority on others reproducing certain model behaviors so you know things are inclusive, and not exclusive.


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

@Le9acyMuse - 

I'm still not quite sure I follow on the argument for having a dominant perceiving function. With my response to Q13, is your point that I focused on the principles I have surrounding thinking before acting rather than answering based on my experience with how I ordinarily perform in such a situation? I think I follow the point, but I'm unsure.

I agree on introversion; certainly I struggle to characterise myself as in any way extraverted. 

Your points re: INTJ vs. INFJ 5 lead me to an important question - to what extent can Enneagram "explain away", so to speak, aspects of one's MBTI type? For instance, one parallel I've seen drawn before is between Enneagram 6 and xSxJ in MBTI, in that both have a focus on security and stability. So, if one were sure of being, say, an Enneagram 5, would that aid the case for being a type in MBTI that typifies Type 5 (INTx, for instance) or give weight to the possibility of not being a typically Type 5 MBTI type? I realise your specific point is that there is some evidence in my answers to suggest I might use Fe, and that recourse to Enneagram might help explain the dissonance between that and my perceived demeanour, but I'd also consider the reverse to be possible: that what might appear an Fe tendency could be explained in some way by Enneagram... it's hard to say. I have to agree that the questionnaires themselves can lead to misleading impressions if focusing on answers given rather than reasons for giving the answer or means of presenting it.

I still don't feel as though I have a reason to suppose myself an Ni-dom. I don't relate to Si enough to really think that my dominant function either, but to the specific points in your post, I relate to the desire for comfort and need to maintain stability well enough not to rule out the possibility. Further to my point above about the relationship of MBTI to Enneagram, could this be explained by recourse to my being a Type 6 (as, from what reading I've done, I would consider myself to be - 6w5)? Descriptions of Ni don't exactly seem relatable either...


----------



## Le9acyMuse (Mar 12, 2010)

StunnedFox said:


> @_Le9acyMuse_ -
> 
> I'm still not quite sure I follow on the argument for having a dominant perceiving function. With my response to Q13, is your point that I focused on the principles I have surrounding thinking before acting rather than answering based on my experience with how I ordinarily perform in such a situation? I think I follow the point, but I'm unsure.


Basically, yes. Your principles were expressed without that cross-referencing style I'd attribute to T and F dominance. 



> Your points re: INTJ vs. INFJ 5 lead me to an important question - to what extent can Enneagram "explain away", so to speak, aspects of one's MBTI type? For instance, one parallel I've seen drawn before is between Enneagram 6 and xSxJ in MBTI, in that both have a focus on security and stability. So, if one were sure of being, say, an Enneagram 5, would that aid the case for being a type in MBTI that typifies Type 5 (INTx, for instance) or give weight to the possibility of not being a typically Type 5 MBTI type? I realise your specific point is that there is some evidence in my answers to suggest I might use Fe, and that recourse to Enneagram might help explain the dissonance between that and my perceived demeanour, but I'd also consider the reverse to be possible: that what might appear an Fe tendency could be explained in some way by Enneagram... it's hard to say.


 What is important is that one knows what one is looking for. Cognitive developments (MBTI) and motivational compulsions (Enneagram) are different. MBTI solves problems. Enneatypes react more intimately with gratification and security. I got thrown off because my skepticism of the questionnaire caused me to jump around your answers. A cursory glance at your answers comes off as Thinking, but when I looked closer your answers have fundamental differences to a Thinking preference. Thinking in of itself is a standard based on general input-output. It differs from Feeling which is based on specific, social input-output. You come off as socially sensitive, even if it's hidden behind a concern for accuracy and facts. One thing to keep in mind is that Ni or Si dominance is going to be concerned with pinpointing data down to an absolute form anyway.



> I have to agree that the questionnaires themselves can lead to misleading impressions if focusing on answers given rather than reasons for giving the answer or means of presenting it.


 For that purpose weeks ago I'd formulated my own questions that are more thorough. I shouldn't need them now... We'll see.



> I still don't feel as though I have a reason to suppose myself an Ni-dom. I don't relate to Si enough to really think that my dominant function either, but to the specific points in your post, I relate to the desire for comfort and need to maintain stability well enough not to rule out the possibility.


 Let's take another quotation:



> *2) What do you yearn for in life? Why?*
> Already stuck for answers, on the second question... I'd say I yearn to know the state of things, to understand what things are and why they are that way. I strive to have things make sense, and be accurate. Probably more things I can't think of at the moment...


 Of Perceivers and Judgers, we have Pi and Je, then Pe and Ji. Pi and Je attempt to render absolutes. Pe and Ji use a process where they develop many useful possibilities, and do not eliminate them until the best for the situation presents itself. If you're an Introvert, you're most likely Si or Ni. In your answers you mentioned a liking for underlying principles and underlying theories. Any person of any MBTI can like principles and theories, but Ni is the function that has a knack for deducing underlying ones. It searches for the essence of an entity's existence. It's the most proficient at this and it can't be copied by another function, or even an Enneatype.



> Further to my point above about the relationship of MBTI to Enneagram, could this be explained by recourse to my being a Type 6 (as, from what reading I've done, I would consider myself to be - 6w5)? Descriptions of Ni don't exactly seem relatable either...


 I hadn't even thought to look at the Enneatype you chose. At least I was close. haha I had chosen 5 previously because of your inclination to be well-informed for what seemed to be a form of self-defense. Your relation to Si can be explained by the Enneatype 6. The distinction is important to make. If I'm correct, 6s desire consistency due to a fear of being abnormal or without support. They also emulate people around them to help construct said consistency. Si likes the consistency of pleasurable stimuli, and feel secure when they are consistent. The difference is that the 6 isn't distinctly concerned with pleasure in this way. Enneatype 6 vs. Si is like consistence of support vs. consistence of pleasure.


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

@Le9acyMuse - 

I think you're right on my leading with introverted perception of some kind - certainly the reasoning you present for it seems difficult to deny. The problem is, at present I don't feel I sufficiently relate to either function enough to claim it as dominant. You've simplified Si to be about consistency of pleasurable stimuli, which seems remote in relation to my general experience - do you think you could summarise Ni in a similarly succinct manner? Looking back over my answers, I don't think my references to underlying principles/theories really say much - the question on new ideas seemed to me to suggest a distinction I don't feel I (or many others I know) make between seeking out external supporting information and examining internal structural consistency, and the discussion on democracy essentially saw me and the person I was discussing it with (I'm hesitant to type anyone, really, but I'd cautiously say he's an ENTP; he certainly fits the archetype) move on to foundational notions such as the social contract in order to clarify how our respective positions on the subject fit within those theories. I'm not sure how far we got; like I said, I got very tired that night...

Not sure what to think on the feeling/thinking dilemma - what exactly do you mean by "socially sensitive", and how would you contrast that with what you might expect from a thinker? I don't think I get the general/specific distinction you're drawing either...

I'm still not settled on Enneagram type, although 6w5 seems more fitting than any other possibility I can think of. I wouldn't say my desire for consistency stems from a fear of abnormality, but lack of support (personal, structural/systemic, factual...) seems to be about right. Online tests, inaccurate as they are, tend to suggest I'm most likely 1, 5 or 6... I think, even when I wrote my answer on the "yearning" question, I thought how typically type 5 it sounded.

The general point here, I think, is that I just don't relate to INFJ type profiles that I've read at all, and I struggle still to wrap my head around the idea that I might be a feeler and not a thinker. If your typing is correct, why might that be? What factors might there be influencing my ability to relate to the type description?

If you're willing, I'd be happy to try and answer some of the questions you formulated (emphasising "try", because I'm generally terrible at answering such questionnaires with any conviction): anything that helps is welcome at this stage...


----------



## Le9acyMuse (Mar 12, 2010)

StunnedFox said:


> I think you're right on my leading with introverted perception of some kind - certainly the reasoning you present for it seems difficult to deny. The problem is, at present I don't feel I sufficiently relate to either function enough to claim it as dominant. You've simplified Si to be about consistency of pleasurable stimuli, which seems remote in relation to my general experience - do you think you could summarise Ni in a similarly succinct manner? Looking back over my answers, I don't think my references to underlying principles/theories really say much - the question on new ideas seemed to me to suggest a distinction I don't feel I (or many others I know) make between seeking out external supporting information and examining internal structural consistency, and the discussion on democracy essentially saw me and the person I was discussing it with (I'm hesitant to type anyone, really, but I'd cautiously say he's an ENTP; he certainly fits the archetype) move on to foundational notions such as the social contract in order to clarify how our respective positions on the subject fit within those theories. I'm not sure how far we got; like I said, I got very tired that night...


 I defined Ni, then Ni-Fe in another thread:



Le9acyMuse said:


> *Ni *perceives essences. It's attentive to cryptic features of objects/concepts and hypothesizes how they correspond. Therefore, Ni would hypothesize about, or apply hypotheses to, Fe. It is concerned about using its strength in predicting underlying formulae to better manage concrete/Extraverted unity.
> 
> _For the sake of the groups it's involved with Ni-Fe is easily__: "insightful," "critical," "avant-garde," "meticulous," "sensitive."
> _





> Not sure what to think on the feeling/thinking dilemma - what exactly do you mean by "socially sensitive", and how would you contrast that with what you might expect from a thinker? I don't think I get the general/specific distinction you're drawing either...


 Socially sensitive: you came off as attentive to others behaviorally when you brought up inferiority regarding if someone were to hinder you completing a thought. Also, it could just be me but I think I can pick up on Fe in your typical way of expressing yourself, even if you don't specifically mention other people. I define Fe in that same post from earlier:



Le9acyMuse said:


> *Fe *is an unimprovised, replicable standard of unity used to keep groups of people (friends, society at large) inclusive, and to prevent exclusions (threats to unity). It's charming, warm and decisive. It can come off as superficial when they, as cognitive features, are misunderstood.
> 
> Charm and warmth are tools of engagement used to effectively unify people. Cognition smartly makes use of this feature of human nature.


 I think I can pick up on charm and warmth in your expression. Almost like a compulsion to come off as well-mannered or something? It would help if I'm not way in left field. haha

The input-output was like...you put something in to get a certain result out. Logic, basically. F and T are both logical. I call T general input-output logic because it's depersonalized about using social cues, and cares more for blatant, 'unapologetic' results. I call F specific (or social) input-output because it doesn't look to formulate any and everything around it. It focuses more on stabilizing its connections. Problem is I wouldn't peg you for being 'unapologetic' in seeking your results.



> I'm still not settled on Enneagram type, although 6w5 seems more fitting than any other possibility I can think of. I wouldn't say my desire for consistency stems from a fear of abnormality, but lack of support (personal, structural/systemic, factual...) seems to be about right. Online tests, inaccurate as they are, tend to suggest I'm most likely 1, 5 or 6... I think, even when I wrote my answer on the "yearning" question, I thought how typically type 5 it sounded.


 It's support as far as peer support from people around them. Being between the 5 and the 7 makes the 6 want to gain direction (it often feels lost within itself and aims for consistency) and interaction (it both fears and relies on people). That's the gist of what I'd gathered. I would be comfortable saying you are one or the other, 5 or 6, if it were up to me to hazard a guess.



> The general point here, I think, is that I just don't relate to INFJ type profiles that I've read at all, and I struggle still to wrap my head around the idea that I might be a feeler and not a thinker. If your typing is correct, why might that be? What factors might there be influencing my ability to relate to the type description?


 Why the struggle, you ask? If Enneatypes have anything to do with it, the type 6 is highly questioning, at least of itself without the support of others. 5s rely a bit less on people and are a tad more proud for that, in an egotistical way.

Otherwise, you haven't found the best description yet to satisfy you. Online descriptions aren't something I'd go by. Years ago I thought I was ISFP and found I couldn't relate to INFJ, or Ni-dominance at all.

In your own words, how would you describe your thinking?



> If you're willing, I'd be happy to try and answer some of the questions you formulated (emphasising "try", because I'm generally terrible at answering such questionnaires with any conviction): anything that helps is welcome at this stage...


Have a go at it:

1. When you are entertained what is most enjoyable about it?

2. How do you recognize you're doing something against your own code of conduct? Why does it matter to you to follow or not follow your code (why did it become important to you)?

3. What generally triggers you to concentrate your _hardest_ (e.g. what must be at stake, what alternative is displeasing enough to motivate such a reaction from you...)?

4. This is obviously a matter that makes you react. A monumental event must have taken place to elicit this response from you. Without needing to divulge what event this was, what was your essential, first reaction to the event? This reaction would likely repeat itself many times throughout your lifetime.


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

Le9acyMuse said:


> Socially sensitive: you came off as attentive to others behaviorally when you brought up inferiority regarding if someone were to hinder you completing a thought. Also, it could just be me but I think I can pick up on Fe in your typical way of expressing yourself, even if you don't specifically mention other people. I define Fe in that same post from earlier:
> 
> I think I can pick up on charm and warmth in your expression. Almost like a compulsion to come off as well-mannered or something? It would help if I'm not way in left field. haha
> 
> The input-output was like...you put something in to get a certain result out. Logic, basically. F and T are both logical. I call T general input-output logic because it's depersonalized about using social cues, and cares more for blatant, 'unapologetic' results. I call F specific (or social) input-output because it doesn't look to formulate any and everything around it. It focuses more on stabilizing its connections. Problem is I wouldn't peg you for being 'unapologetic' in seeking your results.


I think I have the same problem with Ni that I did with Si when I was fairly sure I was an ISTJ - it's very difficult for me to be aware of the fact that I'm perceiving things subjectively, that I'm not seeing things as they happen to be. I feel I'm just aware enough of it to know I do it in the general sense, but am not aware of it in a general sense. Hard to say...

Fe is a difficult one, and I'm never quite sure what to think in relation to it. I can relate to valuing unity and inclusiveness, but then I wouldn't call that - at least not as I experience it - a personalised or specific standard: I'd say, in my experience, that my valuing of such things is more generalised and formulaic. I don't myself relate to being charming or warm, or coming across that way... hard to say if I'm compelling myself to appear well-mannered or polite or something though. I'm not consciously restricting myself from expressing anything, I know that much, but I can see what you're getting at, if that makes sense: I just don't know how to describe it.

As for seeking results... my main focus, obvious as it sounds, is to get things right - factually, morally, &c. I can't say I'd forgo rightness to be "apologetic" and preserve unity - I'd consider being right far too important a goal to subjugate to such concerns - but at the same time I see preservation of unity and maintenance of structure are important aspects of rightness, so it'd be a rare situation where the two concerns collide, and I honestly can't say how I'd react in such a situation... 




> It's support as far as peer support from people around them. Being between the 5 and the 7 makes the 6 want to gain direction (it often feels lost within itself and aims for consistency) and interaction (it both fears and relies on people). That's the gist of what I'd gathered. I would be comfortable saying you are one or the other, 5 or 6, if it were up to me to hazard a guess.


I think I was probably right in my initial supposition of 6w5; the wording used often in describing the 6 doesn't feel quite right, but it seems abundantly clear to me when I can gauge what the words are getting at that it's the correct type. 5 is relatable in some ways, not in others.




> Why the struggle, you ask? If Enneatypes have anything to do with it, the type 6 is highly questioning, at least of itself without the support of others. 5s rely a bit less on people and are a tad more proud for that, in an egotistical way.
> 
> Otherwise, you haven't found the best description yet to satisfy you. Online descriptions aren't something I'd go by. Years ago I thought I was ISFP and found I couldn't relate to INFJ, or Ni-dominance at all.
> 
> In your own words, how would you describe your thinking?


Obviously it's folly to rely on online descriptions, especially those that contain obvious overstatements or platitudes, but I can't help feeling that, at least for the majority of the description, I ought to be able to see how someone could possibly perceive me in that way. I could, and can, do that with ISTJ profiles, although some of that could easily be chalked down to being a Type 6, but I can't with INFJ. Even with your descriptions of Ni-Fe, I feel I can see what you're getting at, but it still doesn't sit right. If you don't mind my prying, what was it that saw you change your understanding of your type from ISFP to INFJ?

Looks to me like this questionnaire will be as difficult for me as the last...

*1. When you are entertained what is most enjoyable about it?*
Really difficult one - after a bit of thought, maybe it's the stimulation of it? That could account for both the things I'm entertained by in a more "simple" sense and the more layered and interesting things as well... but that's only me positing a theory. In reality, I probably haven't really considered what it is that's enjoyable about something too often.

*2. How do you recognize you're doing something against your own code of conduct? Why does it matter to you to follow or not follow your code (why did it become important to you)?*
On the second question first, it ties in with my above comment about "rightness"; I want to be a person that does what he thinks good and right, and I consider that an important standard to uphold. I choose to follow such a standard believing not only that I should follow it but that everyone ought to be able to follow it if it is truly the right standard. How do I recognise that I'm breaching it? I suppose by reference to the actions of others - if I'd consider it wrong of them to act in a certain way, either my situation meaningfully differs from theirs such that I could act that way and not be wrong, or I would also be wrong to act that way.

*3. What generally triggers you to concentrate your hardest (e.g. what must be at stake, what alternative is displeasing enough to motivate such a reaction from you...)?
4. This is obviously a matter that makes you react. A monumental event must have taken place to elicit this response from you. Without needing to divulge what event this was, what was your essential, first reaction to the event? This reaction would likely repeat itself many times throughout your lifetime.*
I'm not actually clear on what these questions entail - could you clarify? Q3 doesn't seem to flow directly to Q4...


----------



## Le9acyMuse (Mar 12, 2010)

StunnedFox said:


> I think I have the same problem with Ni that I did with Si when I was fairly sure I was an ISTJ - it's very difficult for me to be aware of the fact that I'm perceiving things subjectively, that I'm not seeing things as they happen to be. I feel I'm just aware enough of it to know I do it in the general sense, but am not aware of it in a general sense. Hard to say...


 Next step, I'd say is to compare yourself to other people of the same persuasion as you. I can look some people up, proof them, and show them to you. I'll show you an ISTJ, 6w5, an INTJ, 6w5, and an INFJ, 6w5. I'll show you whatever other type you'd like to see. I'm more used to physical typing than text typing, so there's less chance of me possibly misreading.



> Fe is a difficult one, and I'm never quite sure what to think in relation to it. I can relate to valuing unity and inclusiveness, but then I wouldn't call that - at least not as I experience it - a personalised or specific standard: I'd say, in my experience, that my valuing of such things is more generalised and formulaic. I don't myself relate to being charming or warm, or coming across that way... hard to say if I'm compelling myself to appear well-mannered or polite or something though. I'm not consciously restricting myself from expressing anything, I know that much, but I can see what you're getting at, if that makes sense: I just don't know how to describe it.


 At my college I'd had three INFJ, Enneatype 5 professors. I doubt they found themselves anymore intentionally charming and warm than you. I doubt they would commonly even come off as charming or warm to others. The professors would sooner be considered quirky and offbeat. They were distant, but not cold. Now, an INTJ professor I had was cold (people not used to sternness would've agreed, but it was just her disposition), albeit she is an 8.



> As for seeking results... my main focus, obvious as it sounds, is to get things right - factually, morally, &c. I can't say I'd forgo rightness to be "apologetic" and preserve unity - I'd consider being right far too important a goal to subjugate to such concerns - but at the same time I see preservation of unity and maintenance of structure are important aspects of rightness, so it'd be a rare situation where the two concerns collide, and I honestly can't say how I'd react in such a situation...


 I'll admit I've never encountered, that I know of, an INTJ, 6. So, it's possible I'm mistaking your meticulous carefulness (which is 6w5-ish) for a Feeling preference. Maybe INTJ 6s give a lesser impression of sheer, austere Te. I hypothesized Te would give an impression in an INTJ 6 similarly to how it would in any other. Could be wrong. 

When people prioritize togetherness over rightness it could either be they have a 9 in them trying not to make waves, or their use of empathy. Also, my brother, an INFJ, 6w5, has a 1 gut fix and isn't known to sacrifice what he sees as right over maintaining unity (he can come off as cold), but empathy and guilt can get to him, and pressure him not to make things worse when caught in a catch-22.

Of course, it's also possible you don't have an Fe preference. Hm...




> I think I was probably right in my initial supposition of 6w5; the wording used often in describing the 6 doesn't feel quite right, but it seems abundantly clear to me when I can gauge what the words are getting at that it's the correct type. 5 is relatable in some ways, not in others.


 That is good to know for when I return you some celebs/whoevers who fit the types I mentioned earlier.




> Obviously it's folly to rely on online descriptions, especially those that contain obvious overstatements or platitudes, but I can't help feeling that, at least for the majority of the description, I ought to be able to see how someone could possibly perceive me in that way. I could, and can, do that with ISTJ profiles, although some of that could easily be chalked down to being a Type 6, but I can't with INFJ. Even with your descriptions of Ni-Fe, I feel I can see what you're getting at, but it still doesn't sit right.


 Fingers crossed for getting to the bottom of it.



> If you don't mind my prying, what was it that saw you change your understanding of your type from ISFP to INFJ?


 A controversial group called Pod'Lair came to personality cafe and voluntarily typed people who submitted videos to them. They were pretty good to get me from ISFP to INFJ. I sorta studied their methods for a while and picked up on ways to read people in person.

The link I gave you will take you to their Virtual Village. Look at the top-right side and see the 4 faces reading "Nai'xyy" (INFJ), "Nai'zyy" (INTJ), "Vai'xyy" (ISFJ) and "Vai'zyy" (ISTJ). Click on 'em and see if their descriptions fit you in any way.




> *1. When you are entertained what is most enjoyable about it?*





> Really difficult one - after a bit of thought, maybe it's the stimulation of it? That could account for both the things I'm entertained by in a more "simple" sense and the more layered and interesting things as well... but that's only me positing a theory. In reality, I probably haven't really considered what it is that's enjoyable about something too often.
> 
> *2. How do you recognize you're doing something against your own code of conduct? Why does it matter to you to follow or not follow your code (why did it become important to you)?*
> On the second question first, it ties in with my above comment about "rightness"; I want to be a person that does what he thinks good and right, and I consider that an important standard to uphold. I choose to follow such a standard believing not only that I should follow it but that everyone ought to be able to follow it if it is truly the right standard. How do I recognise that I'm breaching it? I suppose by reference to the actions of others - if I'd consider it wrong of them to act in a certain way, either my situation meaningfully differs from theirs such that I could act that way and not be wrong, or I would also be wrong to act that way.
> ...


Q3: people generally concentrate/focus their hardest when an undesired threat to something they value manifests.
Q4: the undesired threats that force you to be more judicious and focused usually lead back to an incident you experience earlier in life. You would react to Q3's undesired threats enough to keep something terrible from ever happening again. Without needing to tell me what that was, tell what your reaction to this threat was.

From what I've received thus far, I feel I continue to get INXJ, at _least_. Your answers are too flighty to me to reveal a Sensation preference. Sensation is more focused on its surroundings in order to remember how to organize stimuli. You're very...explorative, and prone to whimsy compared to Sensation.

I dunno if I can deduce T or F only because I'm concerned about any of the 6w5's nature throwing me off. That sense that "everyone ought to be able to follow it if it is truly the right standard" is of an Extraverted function. The mention of "everyone" and right or wrong behaviors could be F, or maybe that's the 6's tendency to model itself after others for support, and it's working alongside Te in a way that obscures its symptoms. I think I'd still go INFJ. If you wish to answer the remaining questions, I'll factor them in as well.


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

@Le9acyMuse - 

If you can find some people you believe represent those MBTI/Enneagram types, and potentially the Type 5w6 variants of each one as well, that'd be appreciated. I'm not sure what I'll get from it, but, like I said before, anything's worth a shot.

I wouldn't consider myself "cold" either, but if you were to ask me whether others would perceive me as cold or warm, I'd lean towards cold. But I guess, like most things, that's going to be situational; there'd be very few who would describe me as abrasive or confrontational, for instance.

Can't relate to anything too well on the Pod'Lair page; can definitely see why they would be considered controversial.

I can't think of a response I'd give for Q3, and that also prevents me from answering Q4 as well. I suppose what I'd like to know is whether anything I've shown seems to you explicitly to reveal an intuition preference - you've often remarked upon indications of what you'd consider a lack of sensation preference, and I get what you're saying in relation to seeming too whimsical and less focused on pleasurable memory or immediate surroundings, but is there anything that might be considered "positive evidence" for Ni?


----------



## Le9acyMuse (Mar 12, 2010)

StunnedFox said:


> @_Le9acyMuse_ -
> 
> If you can find some people you believe represent those MBTI/Enneagram types, and potentially the Type 5w6 variants of each one as well, that'd be appreciated. I'm not sure what I'll get from it, but, like I said before, anything's worth a shot.


 I'll post them separately from this once I get them together.



> I wouldn't consider myself "cold" either, but if you were to ask me whether others would perceive me as cold or warm, I'd lean towards cold. But I guess, like most things, that's going to be situational; there'd be very few who would describe me as abrasive or confrontational, for instance.


 Probably depends on whether one answers in the context of impressions or of cognitive functions. An impression of some Fe-doms I know is "cold." Cognitively, it's noticeable how they aspire to foster relationships with their charm, and such, even if others disagree with them.

I've met amicable INTJs, and Thinkers in general, and they still commonly have this aura of "you're expendable if you interfere with this process." It's highest, it seems, on the surface of INTJs I've seen, 8 or otherwise.



> Can't relate to anything too well on the Pod'Lair page; can definitely see why they would be considered controversial.


 Controversial, but I find them consistent. Creepy, but consistent.



> I can't think of a response I'd give for Q3, and that also prevents me from answering Q4 as well.


 Does the fear of losing people you care about make you try to be more thorough? Trying not to mess up so beloved people would have reason to abandon you?



> I suppose what I'd like to know is whether anything I've shown seems to you explicitly to reveal an intuition preference - you've often remarked upon indications of what you'd consider a lack of sensation preference, and I get what you're saying in relation to seeming too whimsical and less focused on pleasurable memory or immediate surroundings, but is there anything that might be considered "positive evidence" for Ni?


 I could refer back to earlier points I'd made. If I tried rendering new explanations I think I'd be repeating old ones.



Le9acyMuse said:


> Si is highly considerate of what makes it uncomfortable because it's part of its purpose to remember what feels good, and also how to make it "better" by making it last. *Generally your answers are profuse in thoughts, ideal renderings and the weighing of possibilities.* There's just no explicit mention of patterning data for the sake of keeping it around longer for the sake of pleasure.





Le9acyMuse said:


> An Si dom's answer would center on some idea of stability about things that make it feel good, safe, scared, secure, etc... They can't risk *going as detached in their thoughts as you do* because their concern is on what actually makes them feel, which is everything that is around them.


 The flow of your thoughts is my biggest tip off that you're an Intuitivist. The above bolded words are supporting details. If I'd say anything different, it might be that, instead of pinpointing the appearance and associated feeling of objects, it seems you tend to focus on features of objects. You don't look at the whole object to develop a thought, which would be indicated by an emphasis on how they make you feel and remembering to either avoid it or amass it. You may take dissimilar qualities of an object and toy with them. You deconstruct it, in a sense. That's where the profuse ideas come from - possibilities extracted from this process. It just goes with your flow of thought. It doesn't communicate like, or align to Sensation.


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

Le9acyMuse said:


> Does the fear of losing people you care about make you try to be more thorough? Trying not to mess up so beloved people would have reason to abandon you?


I don't think the idea that people might become "lost" to me, or abandon me, has even been something I've entertained. I'd say I'm a fairly loyal person, unlikely to change radically on a whim, and I guess there's some aspect of me that presumes most people I associate with are the same. My motivation to be meticulous is, at least as far as I can tell, not motivated by such considerations.


----------



## Le9acyMuse (Mar 12, 2010)

StunnedFox said:


> I don't think the idea that people might become "lost" to me, or abandon me, has even been something I've entertained. I'd say I'm a fairly loyal person, unlikely to change radically on a whim, and I guess there's some aspect of me that presumes most people I associate with are the same. My motivation to be meticulous is, at least as far as I can tell, not motivated by such considerations.


 Do you concentrate on anything more when you're afraid of something? Where do you put the adrenaline towards?

That aside, any interview from these guys will do. For Dick Cheney (and maybe Carl Jung) I would recommend finding videos in which they are younger. Their personalities seemed to had gotten 'flat' up in age. It was like typing sandpaper.

matthew broderick INFJ, 5w6
jim parsons INFJ, 6w5
carl jung INTJ, 5w6
dick cheney INTJ, 6w5
tony shalhoub ISTJ, 6w5

I gave up on finding an ISTJ, 5w6. It was toilsome even finding an INTJ, 6w5.


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

Le9acyMuse said:


> Do you concentrate on anything more when you're afraid of something? Where do you put the adrenaline towards?


How to avoid the feared thing, I suppose, or how to resolve the matter such that I no longer fear it. Resolving the problem, I guess. Hard to say more in the abstract.

That aside, any interview from these guys will do. For Dick Cheney (and maybe Carl Jung) I would recommend finding videos in which they are younger. Their personalities seemed to had gotten 'flat' up in age. It was like typing sandpaper.

matthew broderick INFJ, 5w6
jim parsons INFJ, 6w5
carl jung INTJ, 5w6
dick cheney INTJ, 6w5
tony shalhoub ISTJ, 6w5

I gave up on finding an ISTJ, 5w6. It was toilsome even finding an INTJ, 6w5.[/QUOTE]

I think I'm being a little too specific in my expectations when watching interviews of any of them; I struggled to find any of them particularly relatable. It seemed to be somewhat an adopted persona, but Parsons generally was far too gregarious in his manner for mine; by contrast, Cheney and Jung both seemed too directed and on-topic with their answers (although the fact they were the only two non-actors, and were in more "serious" interview scenarios, may have played a hand in that). A younger Broderick interview (circa Ferris Bueller's) I could somewhat relate to, but I think more on the typical introversion front than on any front that might distinguish him from the others. Shalhoub I struggled to form any real impression on one way or the other.


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

Bump.

Any other opinions out there on my type? At the moment I'm leaning towards INTJ, but not with the level of conviction I'd like to have.


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

Obviously, like all tests, it isn't anything more than food for thought when it comes to matters of type, but I thought I'd take a combined MBTI/Enneagram test, to reduce the chance that I was consciously or unconsciously biasing my response to achieve any particular result. Ended up with the same typings as I had before starting this thread...



> *Jung Test Results*
> 
> Introverted (I) 71.43% Extroverted (E) 28.57%
> Sensing (S) 53.33% Intuitive (N) 46.67%
> ...


----------



## suremarc (Jan 13, 2013)

Instinctively, reading OP suggests to me that you're a 5w6. You hoard knowledge like a 5, and I feel that you are more of an independent thinker than a 6. The 5 is an ego type, while the 6 is a superego type--it sounds to me like you're more of an ego type, whereas your ethics come out in your wing. Also, 



> I guess I feel inferior when, for some reason, I'm not capable of contributing something I feel I ought to be able to contribute in a discussion, whether by my own incapacity (through lack of knowledge, for instance) or because someone else is preventing me from clearly stating what I need to state.


This is chiefly a 5 quality. The disintegration points of 5 and 6 are 7 and 3, respectively. Your reaction to stress definitely is 7-like in that you fear being trapped in despair, although that appears to get mixed in with 3-ish irrational anger and impatience. 

I'm not as expert in regards to MBTI, but you definitely don't seem like a Judging type to me. This analysis of INTP cognitive functions seems to fit you very well.


----------



## Reticence (Aug 10, 2014)

Ksilva said:


> Just as an aside, I have seen at least three other INFJ typing threads in the one or two months I've been here in this same loop, and they too were quite long. The answers were very thorough, and the users seemed overly intellectual in their answers, almost as if overcompensating...which would make sense given that they are bypassing their auxiliary function.


His loop seems similar but different. It could be more like a Ti-Si now that we've gone over it, where Ti percieves by internal analyzing of data, Si checks consistency with previous experiences and stimuli, Ti further analyzes, Si disagrees with analysis of Ti and asks for a more better analysis of the situation, Ti further analyzes, Si disagrees, Ti further analyzes, etc.


----------



## something987 (Jul 20, 2014)

Reticence said:


> His loop is similar but different. His loop seems more like a Ti-Si now that we've gone over it, where Ti percieves by internal analyzing of data, Si checks consistency with previous experiences and stimuli, Ti further analyzes, Si disagrees with analysis of Ti and asks for a more better analysis of the situation, Ti further analyzes, Si disagrees, Ti further analyzes, etc.


Hmm, that makes sense too. I can see that. That would mean INTP though, wouldn't it? I thought you were thinking ISTP?


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

Ksilva said:


> @StunnedFox you seem to have a good grasp on a lot of your personality. Your answers are very elaborate and well-formed. And you also have what seems to be a strong belief that you are one of two types (IxTJ). So this would be the Ni. The loop is where Ti comes in and stomps on everything, so that every single trait/function you identify with comes with a counterargument. Granted I did not read every post in its entirety but this seems to be the reason the thread has gone on so long, no?
> 
> I think the reason you cannot fully identify with either is because you are neither. I actually believe you are INFJ. Your answers seem to be introspective to a fault, where everything is analyzed with a magnifying glass but nothing is seen from a few meters back, if that makes sense. It seems like your introverted functions are in overdrive, meaning some sort of loop, and from what I'm seeing, Ni and Ti are the functions that stand out. As opposed to a Ti-Ni loop, where every thought is rationalized by Ni, the opposite seems to be happening, where everything is opposed by Ti.
> 
> Just as an aside, I have seen at least three other INFJ typing threads in the one or two months I've been here in this same loop, and they too were quite long. The answers were very thorough, and the users seemed overly intellectual in their answers, almost as if overcompensating...which would make sense given that they are bypassing their auxiliary function.


I can definitely see the Ti after the last few pages of discussion. And the distinction you draw between Ti-Ni loops and Ni-Ti loops clears things up for me: it seemed to me those two functions, in conjunction, would lead to unreasonable confirmation of insufficiently supported claims, but one where all possibilities were subject to high scrutiny certainly seems feasible... but yet I still can't see Ni. I'm not too convinced to IxTJ - the main reason I've stuck with that in my signature is that it seems to fit if I work purely from dichotomies, which is not an approach I'm wholly prepared to disregard; by cognitive functions, I definitely don't have such certainty, because I still struggle to see either Si or Ni as my dominant function.

You're absolutely correct as to why this thread has gone on so long, generally it's involved me engaging in dialogue with posters who've made suggestions as to my type and trying to work out the reasoning they've used to reach their conclusion so that I can see if it's sound, and dispute anything that seems faulty. Finding the type that best fits me would seem to demand no less... I am open to the suggestion that I'm in a loop, because there's no doubt, for me, that introversion is the clearest of my four preferences, and that would tally with that. 

If you can find and link to any of those other threads, that'd be much appreciated; they could prove quite instructive.



Reticence said:


> With how difficult it was for you to decide on this, your function stack is probably something along the lines of: Si, Fe, Ti with Se/Ne that you're rejecting.
> 
> Order that again, but this time with INFP, ENFP, ESTJ, INTP, ENTP, ESFJ. (I've simply replaced ISFJ with INTP)
> Try to instead of disconnecting yourself from their extroverted attributes,
> ...


Completely divorcing each type from its relative introversion and extraversion seems a touch counter-intuitive, but I think the conclusion that leads to is INTP>ENTP>ESTJ>INFP>ENFP>ESFJ. With even less potentially distinguishing material to work with, I'm by no means sure of my ordering though. Might add that "situations where you have to be extraverted" are not ones I frequently place myself in...

My qualms with INFJ as a potential type for me are similar to the ones I had with ISTP, albeit not quite so vehemently: that not only does the function I'm supposedly skipping over not appear as prominently as it "ought" to in the present moment, but that I also couldn't say I'd ever been a strong Fe user. More plausible than ISTP, though, I think: Se just seems so utterly distant that it being my auxiliary would seem incredibly out of place, whereas Fe is at least something I can see some evidence of in myself. I don't _think_ I'm deluding myself with Si - let's not forget I typed as ISTJ for six months, so there'd have to be something there (you'd think someone using primarily Ni and Ti, for instance, would be reasonably quickly able to discern differences between themselves and ISTJs; there are differences, but they certainly aren't as prominent as being a potential Ni-Ti user would suggest).

I've considered starting a new thread before, simply because this one is getting to unwieldy lengths and that could deter people from reading over it and potentially providing useful and relevant suggestions, but I'm not sure what to put in the OP. There is simply so much still unclear... I'll look into it though; would be great to try and get some more new advice.

On the two subsequent posts to the one I'm quoting currently, the description you provide of a Ti-Si loop seems about as true as the Ni-Ti/Ti-Ni suggestions if taken in isolation; I'm more inclined to think that fits, solely because it incorporates Si, and the heightened prominence it gains from the loop's exclusion of Ne would go some way to explaining why ISTJ seemed such a good fit.


----------



## Reticence (Aug 10, 2014)

@StunnedFox

Basically here's how comparisons worked:

I kept asking you to order the different types into groups of 3. What I was basically doing was asking you to rate types with functional stack that are the same ones I was actually comparing. For instance, ISTP, ESTP, INFJ, and ENFJ have the same functions.

Each time, I compared your type to a different type:

1. ISTP vs INTJ, ISTP won out. I expected that.

2. ISTP vs ISTJ, almost equal, hard to tell.

3. INTP vs ISTJ, considerable difficulty, slightly INTP

4. ISTJ vs ISFJ, which I expected to lean towards ISFJ, it did. 
(ENTP/INTP with the extroverted ESFJ at the end is a fairly good conclusion)

I'd read into being an ISFJ/INTP based on those last two comparisons.
I'm leaning towards ISFJ with weakened Fe by lack of interaction. 
INTP might have too much Ne, but that's for you to decide.

I'd suggest starting a new thread, I'm afraid I've probably exhausted my ability without particularly new insight.

Maybe these videos would help:

ISTP vs ISTJ





INTP vs ISTP





ISTJ vs ISFJ





INTP and Fe


----------



## something987 (Jul 20, 2014)

@StunnedFox I can't recall the names of the previous threads, but this is one that's going on currently http://personalitycafe.com/whats-my-personality-type/324986-i-have-no-type.html


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

@Ksilva - 
I only skim-read that thread (will give it a more thorough read if you think it could prove more instructive), but the dilemma seems a little too different to be useful. The first post seemed to give off quite an Ni vibe, I guess... 

@Reticence - 
I'm cautious about reading so much into type rankings, especially given as your main focus is on the functions used when the descriptions seem to try and traverse both sides of the matter. 

ISFJ is, if anything, more problematic than ISTJ was; my problem was ISTJ was, at least partly, that Si dominance just didn't fit, and combining that with a feeling type seems only to make it less likely (even if it is supposedly diminished). Ti seems almost assured, so it being dominant is more plausible than Si being dominant, but the knock on INTP would be as you say, that I don't have "enough" Ne for it to fit (although it being at a reduced level, or wholly subsumed by Ti and Si, would explain why the sensing/intuition dichotomy is so unclear for me whereas I think it fairly clear I have a preference for thinking over feeling). 

I've seen enough videos from those YouTube users that I don't think I could draw any useful insights from them; I have trouble attaching much credibility to their claims. I do think I'll start a new thread, once I can work out exactly what I think should go in the OP...


----------



## Reticence (Aug 10, 2014)

StunnedFox said:


> ISFJ is, if anything, more problematic...


Yeah, never-mind, just go for checking if you're an INTP, it seems likely. 
ISFJ has the same problem as ISTJ in that Ni/Fe are too low on the stack anyway.
It does, however, have Ti/Fe unlike ISTJ. Then again, you always respond on the topic of "credibility" so often that Ti seems to make less sense, its like you're trying to contradict yourself :tongue:

Also, go engage in the external world and try to see what you use when being extraverted, 
see what extroverted function you come up with as being the most applicable :laughing:

For now, it really does seem to be Te, so ISTJ makes a lot of sense.
You really don't seem to be an INTJ though. Good luck.


----------



## Pancreatic Pandora (Aug 16, 2013)

@StunnedFox Meh, I think your previous typing of ISTJ was the correct one (and if this was socionics, I'd type you as a Te-subtype). You relate to Ni dominance because you relate to being a dominant introverted perceiver, because you are lacking in Pe. But I don't think your inferior is Se, and neither is Ni your dominant. It's been my experience with a couple other ISTJs that they have trouble seeing which type seems like a more likely fit, or the correct one. They accumulate a big amount of information but then have a problem deciding what to do with it, where they can't quite make the math and see how everything is related and tell, based on a few factors, what their type is when there is no empirical or 100% acccurate method to determine it. Sometimes it happens with other sensors too. And I suspect you prefer the dichotomies because they are much more tangible and "simple" than the cognitive functions, which exist in an entirely intuitive level. For intuitives, usually, theories and stuff that are as abstract as cognitive functions feel very real, sometimes as much as the physical world, where sensors tend to have an opposite perspective. Which doesn't mean they are irreconciliable points of view and that understanding the opposite one is not possible, because it is.

Also, you didn't identify with Ni at all. Usually, at this point, an Ni-dom would have recognized Ni in him/herself and things might have just "clicked" for the person. I think identifying with Ni would be forcing it, honestly.

If you really want to understand Si as a cognitive function you'll have to read Jung since MBTI's Si description is pretty bad, imo. Well, "bad" depends on what constitutes a proper Si definition and that would be a really long discussion regarding why I think MBTI is inconsistent if taken at face value and why linking it to Jung's theory greatly helps in understanding the reality of the functions. It's not entirely wrong either, it's complicated.

Anyway, basically, Si forms an ideal, abstracted, image, or an archetype similar to Ni, that exists separately from external objects. Thus, Si types don't really value sensations for the qualities inherent to an object that exists outside themselves, but they value concrete ("explicit") information that originated internally. It is ideal because it is not determined by objective reality, instead it's subjectively determined. Se is objective sensation because Se-doms go after external objects, which can manifest in the form of hedonistic, materialistic and "search and conquer" tendencies. They want things, desire plays a big role in their lives. Sometimes they go for things they don't need just because they are difficult to obtain, and being extroverts they don't really orient themselves towards energy saving. If you don't value any of those aspects of reality it further confirms your ISTJ typing.

On the other hand, Si is more reactive to their enviroment, they adapt to external conditions with the intention of maintaining internal harmony, a physical one. They attempt to achieve an ideal state that is subjectively determined. Which means they can focus on things like comfort and how aesthetics affect themselves and others. If you read Jung's (or socionics') description of inferior sensation he will mention it can manifest in the form of hypocondriac behaviour, for instance, which is the opposite to the connectedness to their internal state that Si types have. From Psychological Types:



> In the introverted attitude sensation is definitely based upon the subjective portion of perception. What is meant by this finds its best illustration in the reproduction of objects in art. When, for instance, several painters undertake to paint one and the same landscape, with a sincere attempt to reproduce it faithfully, *each painting will none the less differ from the rest,* not merely by virtue of a more or less developed ability, *but chiefly because of a different vision;* there will even appear in some of the paintings a decided psychic variation, both in general mood and in treatment of colour and form. Such qualities betray a more or less influential cooperation of the subjective factor. The subjective factor of sensation is essentially the same as in the other functions already spoken of. It is an unconscious disposition, which alters the sense-perception at its very source, thus depriving it of the character of a purely objective influence. In this case, sensation is related primarily to the subject, and only secondarily to the object.





> The character of significance and meaning clings to subjective perception. It says more than the mere image of the object, though naturally only to him for whom the subjective factor has some meaning. *To another, a reproduced subjective impression seems to suffer from the defect of possessing insufficient similarity with the object*; it seems, therefore, to have failed in its purpose. Subjective sensation apprehends the background of the physical world rather than its surface.


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

I've now started a new thread on my type, to try and get a few fresh perspectives: http://personalitycafe.com/whats-my-personality-type/331354-tangled-web-typology-weaves.html

Preferably all discussions about my type goes into that thread from here on.


----------

