# [VIDEO] A different perspective?



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

StunnedFox said:


> I don't see that either system could be viewed as without flaws, really...


I didn't say socionics was perfect 




> I'm curious as to the rationale underpinning both suggestions, particularly the Socionics one, given both your favour for that system and my relative lack of familiarity with it. I know that there are plenty of specific claims about the role each function is said to play - how well would you say these seem to match up?


Ti/Ne in the two systems are close enough.

In MBTI being Ti-dom you can score J just fine.

The only other type I could see for you is Ni/Te or ILI but I find that less likely as I think I'm seeing Ne more than Ni.

I'll get to an analysis later.


----------



## karmachameleon (Nov 1, 2015)

IxTP imo


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

I came to this thread because of your sig link, which I spotted in another post of yours (different thread). I never really thought about your type before, but my first impression from the post I just linked from was Te. These responses have gotten me confused, though. :tongue: (I am pretty confident I was typed correctly as a Te user myself, so here's an example of Te use without making a final decision..haha) Anyway, it seems there's something more "linear" and serious-looking about both your writing and communication style. I think Ne has a bit more spontaneity, even in an aux position. Te in an aux position means a little more laid-back-ness than a Te-dom. For me personally, it often means using direct/accurate language to describe my level of certainty in what I'm saying. Like when they tell you in school to avoid using absolute wording like "always" and "never", and instead use "seemingly", "tend to", etc. That was a no-brainer for me. I actually do this a lot more than one of my INTP friends. He makes more general statements without those qualifiers. Although it could be argued it's because I've been through more schooling than he has? 

In all honesty, personally I think I may have to see more of your posts and/or another video to really get a sense of which functions you're using.


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

ninjahitsawall said:


> I came to this thread because of your sig link, which I spotted in another post of yours (different thread). I never really thought about your type before, but my first impression from the post I just linked from was Te. These responses have gotten me confused, though. :tongue: (I am pretty confident I was typed correctly as a Te user myself, so here's an example of Te use without making a final decision..haha) Anyway, it seems there's something more "linear" and serious-looking about both your writing and communication style. I think Ne has a bit more spontaneity, even in an aux position. Te in an aux position means a little more laid-back-ness than a Te-dom. For me personally, it often means using direct/accurate language to describe my level of certainty in what I'm saying. Like when they tell you in school to avoid using absolute wording like "always" and "never", and instead use "seemingly", "tend to", etc. That was a no-brainer for me. I actually do this a lot more than one of my INTP friends. He makes more general statements without those qualifiers. Although it could be argued it's because I've been through more schooling than he has?
> 
> In all honesty, personally I think I may have to see more of your posts and/or another video to really get a sense of which functions you're using.


Which was the post that gave you an impression of Te - the one in the ambiversion thread, perhaps? I'd be interested to know if anything in particular informed that impression, or whether it was more of a "vibe" thing...

I've generally seen the use of qualifiers/avoidance of talking in absolutes as more typical of Ti than Te, in that the distinction between the two is often treated as a matter of favouring accuracy over efficiency or vice versa, but then I'd also say that such a simplistic delineation doesn't seem reasonable either, and the suggestion that a factor unrelated to type (such as education) could be relevant also is a valid one. It would be true to say that the spontaneity of NP types doesn't fit me well... as is probably apparent, I've got various qualms about the functions side of the theory in general, but my main issue with the idea of Te-aux would be that it seems at odds with my favouring T>F far more than N>S (to the point where I still don't feel that confident in definitively asserting my preference on S/N, despite the arguments for an S preference not being especially strong). 

I may make another video at some point; I'm not sure which posts of mine you've encountered, but obviously there are a fair few out there (none I could point to as particularly good exemplars of my personality, but I don't know if that could really be expected anyway).


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

StunnedFox said:


> Which was the post that gave you an impression of Te - the one in the ambiversion thread, perhaps? I'd be interested to know if anything in particular informed that impression, or whether it was more of a "vibe" thing...
> 
> I've generally seen the use of qualifiers/avoidance of talking in absolutes as more typical of Ti than Te, in that the distinction between the two is often treated as a matter of favouring accuracy over efficiency or vice versa, but then I'd also say that such a simplistic delineation doesn't seem reasonable either, and the suggestion that a factor unrelated to type (such as education) could be relevant also is a valid one. It would be true to say that the spontaneity of NP types doesn't fit me well... as is probably apparent, I've got various qualms about the functions side of the theory in general, but my main issue with the idea of Te-aux would be that it seems at odds with my favouring T>F far more than N>S (to the point where I still don't feel that confident in definitively asserting my preference on S/N, despite the arguments for an S preference not being especially strong).
> 
> I may make another video at some point; I'm not sure which posts of mine you've encountered, but obviously there are a fair few out there (none I could point to as particularly good exemplars of my personality, but I don't know if that could really be expected anyway).


Yes, going back to that post, I think it was primarily your first paragraph that gave that impression. The way you broke the word "ambivert" down to have three different definitions, then made reference to statistical likelihood. The post in general, if I understand you correctly, points to an inclination towards adapting a theoretical framework (MBTI) to factual information (there is more middle-ground on the I/E axis than the current framework allows for), which is more associated with Te. 

I am aware of the view that Ti is more tentative for the sake of accuracy. Te might take "shortcuts" to be efficient, but it is more the immature Te users that will actually sacrifice accuracy for the sake of getting something said or done. Once a Te user has a certain level of humility and awareness that their ideas need to be communicated so that others can understand them, they will attempt to be accurate, but it's more like, "What is the simplest way to be accurate?" or especially for INTJ's "How can I be accurate in my words without expending too much energy?" 

I don't think your uncertainty over N vs. S necessarily means your T and F functions are further apart. I've taken many tests, some repeatedly, and have ALWAYS (and I mean 100% of the time.. :wink favored T>F, but I've tested most commonly as either ISTJ or INTJ. Either that or I'd get INTJ but the N/S axis would not indicate as strong a preference as the T/F one. (Other occasional results were ENTJ, INTP, ISTP). I've considered ISTJ, but noticed some trends through several years of test-taking which make me believe either the questions are worded poorly for T users, or I had some insecurity about poor S development. The way I arrived at this is that typically, when I tested as ISTJ I judged some answer choices as "vague", "flaky", "out there" (I don't think many T users would want to say they often have their "head in the clouds" -- some tests use this wording for N>S preference, though :shocked. Of course there was also my real-life experience of noticing I'm most mentally healthy when my thinking has a future-orientation, my career prospects match those listed for NT's far more than SJ's, and I notice a clear difference in processing when communicating with Ti/Ne users. I don't know how to describe it other than Ti logic is a more "abstracted" process, like when you read about logical reasoning on Wikipedia. Te is more, "this is how the world works" and proceeds to describe some phenomena of reality. 

So all of that said... I would lean more towards ISTJ or INTJ than INTP. I am not discounting INTP, as the organization of your posts is very focused and structured. Often, Ti users appear to have a finer focus on detail than Te users. However, if Te is really engaged in a topic, it can also be that way. So, I'm a bit up in the air with that one at the moment.


----------



## Octavarium (Nov 27, 2012)

StunnedFox said:


> my main issue with the idea of Te-aux would be that it seems at odds with my favouring T>F far more than N>S (to the point where I still don't feel that confident in definitively asserting my preference on S/N, despite the arguments for an S preference not being especially strong).


If I may make yet another argument in favour of your having an N preference, I've noticed that you seem very keen to know what things mean; when you notice something, it seems to me that rather than just taking the fact at face value, you want to know what can be inferred from it or what principle it illustrates. Here are three examples from another thread:



StunnedFox said:


> I wonder to what extent the "practical benefits" focus indicates anything personality-wise? Between that and the point about metaphors needing to serve the overall piece - both of which I can absolutely relate to - there seems to be something worth exploring: perhaps the perspective that, whichever of the two options is selected, the deciding factor is some broader concept (ways of expressing things are subordinate to their role within the overall work, schedules and systems are means subordinate to the end they apply to, &c.)? What might that indicate? Of course, as you mention, it could be just the result of being pulled in opposing directions by different preferences, but perhaps not...





StunnedFox said:


> If that sense of a not-quite-right distinction being drawn exists for different people in relation to different dimensions, and isn't just the result of being close to the middle on a dimension, what might it indicate? Still not sure on that one...





StunnedFox said:


> The approach of testing to see which absence is worse seems sound enough to me - I've often taken much the same approach, and perhaps it says something that we both take a "negative" approach, rather than, say, determining which it's better to have an abundance of


"Perhaps it says something that...", "What might that indicate?", sounds like an N taking the view that the facts "mean something" beyond just that that specific fact is true (that you thought about the test questions in a certain way, to use the quoted examples), noticing patterns, making inferences, and searching for underlying meanings and causes. What I found especially interesting about your posts in that thread, from a type perspective, is that you thought the things you'd noticed might have some broader implications/meanings, without having a clear idea of what exactly your observations might imply; you said "there seems to be something worth exploring" but didn't seem to necessarily know exactly what you were looking for. Your sense that it might mean something didn't come from evidence that it meant something in particular, which makes me think it indicates a preference for searching for meanings and patterns and making inferences, and not just the view that, on this particular occasion, it was sensible to take that perspective/approach.

I just reread your posts in this thread and noticed this:


StunnedFox said:


> I'm not sure on the veracity of the conciseness point; I've heard it said of Te also, and also heard it said that NP types tend to "ramble". Though, detailed elaboration - which I'd agree is a trait of mine generally - is sometimes attributed to the S preference, or to Si, so there's that...


...but as I understand it, "detail" in the sense that it's used in relation to the sensing preference means something like concrete specifics, like a detailed description of a specific object or experience. Your particular brand of "detailed elaboration", at least on here, is much more about theoretical complexities, and don't forget that N types are often said to like complexity.

You describe yourself as "favouring T>F far more than N>S" but, honestly, I don't really have that impression of you. I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong about yourself; obviously you know yourself best, and there might be other things you haven't posted about that brought you to that conclusion; as with everything I say about your personality, this is just my impression of you, based on the posts of yours I've read and my interpretation of the theory, so take it for what it's worth. As I've said before, I don't think you're particularly close to the S/N borderline. I don't have any reason to doubt your T preference, but I don't know if you're very strongly T (and I do mean "I don't know", not "I think you're not", and that's partly because I'm not sure what someone who was very strongly T would be like, but I'd think they might take a "harsher" perspective than you seem to, though other preferences might come into that). I'm not saying I think you're especially close to the T/F borderline. I'm also not saying I think you're necessarily more N than T, but even if you're going by functions, I think you shouldn't rule out IxTJ purely on the basis that the S/N preference is dominant in those types. You don't strike me as very Fe-ish, but tertiary Fi seems a distinct possibility. Still, it appears that my arguments haven't entirely convinced you so far, or maybe you were convinced at one point but are no longer sure.


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

@ninjahitsawall; @Octavarium -

As I said, I'm not convinced that the "accuracy vs. efficiency" characterisation is too informative when discussing Ti/Te, but your description of Te types recognising the need for accurate communication, and then searching for the simplest/least energy-expending way of being accurate, doesn't really seem to fit me. Still, I'm not sure much can be derived from that viewpoint anyway...

I would agree with the point you both raise, that S/N uncertainty and T/F clarity doesn't necessarily mean the latter must be further apart in the stack. My reasoning was more that it's difficult to reconcile the two, that I don't really have a reason to suppose S or N is dominant, whereas the clarity of the T preference is evidence in favour of T dominance (far from conclusive, but evidence nonetheless)... certainly, the IxTJ possibility can't be ruled out from either a dichotomy-based or function-based perspective, but, in relation to the latter, I'm not convinced the arguments in favour of it being my type are particularly strong. Beyond the dubious accuracy/efficiency division, what else might split Te and Ti? What differs between dominant T and auxiliary T? It may be another case where there simply isn't sufficient clarity as to what the various possibilities even mean...

On "a clear difference in processing when communicating with Ti/Ne users": when I had INTP listed as my type, I had a few comments from people typing as INTJs (e.g., here) that suggested they experienced communicating with me as showing up the kind of "difference in processing" referred to here; such situations could easily be a matter of confirmation bias, of course... I can think of interactions with people typing as either INTx type where it became apparent they and I approach things in significantly different ways, so I'm not really sure I can look at either type and say that I experience different processing from them.

N>S is odd, in that I can recognise, intellectually, that the arguments for my having a N preference clearly outweigh those for my having an S preference, but I don't quite... have a sense of that on a personal level, maybe? That doesn't seem to accurately describe what I'm getting at... and perhaps that point might support the argument of my being Te-aux, in that rational acceptance needs to be accompanied by an irrational "sense" before the stance is completely accepted, though I can't think of too many other examples where I've held such a perspective, so maybe this is just an odd occurrence. The point about my searching for meanings and drawing inferences, not treating a fact as merely indicative of itself, gives further support to the N>S case, especially without clear reason to think the phenomenon would be indicative of something else... this goes back, also, to the issue of multiple interpretations, with references to "facts" and "details" in S descriptions perhaps swaying me more towards it than is actually accurate. 

I'm probably overstating my point by saying that I favour T>F "far more" than N>S, since what I can really work with is just that T>F is far more apparent to me than N>S is, and descriptions of the feeling preference are harder to relate to than anything save extraversion. I can see the argument that a person with a very strong T preference would seem "harsher", and I'm mindful of how close to middle I tend to score on Big 5 Agreeableness (despite that dimension seeming fairly conceptually distinct from T/F)... still, without ruling out the possibility, it's harder to see T>F as aux/tert than as dom/inf, since I don't have much of a sense of relating to the feeling preference. What might point to "tertiary Fi [seeming] a distinct possibility"? Does anything in particular suggest Ni (or even just N) dominance? I'm just not sure the arguments for the IxTJ (functions-based) possibility are especially convincing...

On "there might be other things you haven't posted about that brought you to that conclusion", I think there's always the inherent possibility that something isn't being conveyed well by the communication method employed, but I'm not sure there's anything in particular that I can see having a major effect on how I'm perceived; if anything, I might be slightly more oriented to the sensing sense of "detail" than the generally theoretical nature of discussions on here suggests, though I'm not even sure on that point.


----------



## Octavarium (Nov 27, 2012)

StunnedFox said:


> I would agree with the point you both raise, that S/N uncertainty and T/F clarity doesn't necessarily mean the latter must be further apart in the stack. My reasoning was more that it's difficult to reconcile the two, that I don't really have a reason to suppose S or N is dominant, whereas the clarity of the T preference is evidence in favour of T dominance (far from conclusive, but evidence nonetheless)... certainly, the IxTJ possibility can't be ruled out from either a dichotomy-based or function-based perspective, but, in relation to the latter, I'm not convinced the arguments in favour of it being my type are particularly strong.


I'd agree that it's reasonable to think that if T>F is clearer than N>S, that counts as evidence for T dominance, but apparently that's not the official view. You may recall this MBTI manual extract which was posted in one of your threads, arguing that the theory doesn't predict that there should be any tendency for people to get clearer scores on the dom/inf dimension than on the aux/tert dimension. As I said in that thread, I'm not convinced by their wordy rationalisations. They can argue that preference scores are an indication of clarity of preference (which means, as I understand it, the probability that the test-taker has the preference the test indicated, but correct me if I'm wrong) and not preference strength (or"development, skill, aptitude, maturity, or excellence in the use of a function"), but that only works if there's no correlation between preference clarity and preference strength, which I'd say is unlikely, and if there is no such correlation, I'd say that indicates a flaw in the test. 

I wonder what's meant by "facet scale patterns revealed in the MBTI Step II instrument may help illuminate sources of differences in clarity for both dominant and auxiliary functions"? Any ideas? Thinking about it some more, perhaps it just means that data from Step II might confirm the dom/aux function hypothesis, or that there might be certain S/N or T/F facets where the dom is clearer than the aux, but why would they think that would be the case given that it hasn't been for step I? Could it be that, supposedly, Step II provides an indication of preference strength and Step I doesn't? I'm not sure how that works; it's not just a question of how many facets are in-preference and how they are weighted, because it's possible to score in the mid-zone of any facet, but I don't know that much about psychometrics so I could be missing something.

Anyway, the point I was originally trying to make was that, yes, it's
reasonable to think that a clearer T preference counts as evidence of T-dominance, but that fits with neither the data nor the official view, which just goes to show, yet again, the problems with the functions.



> N>S is odd, in that I can recognise, intellectually, that the arguments for my having a N preference clearly outweigh those for my having an S preference, but I don't quite... have a sense of that on a personal level, maybe? That doesn't seem to accurately describe what I'm getting at... and perhaps that point might support the argument of my being Te-aux, in that rational acceptance needs to be accompanied by an irrational "sense" before the stance is completely accepted, though I can't think of too many other examples where I've held such a perspective, so maybe this is just an odd occurrence. The point about my searching for meanings and drawing inferences, not treating a fact as merely indicative of itself, gives further support to the N>S case, especially without clear reason to think the phenomenon would be indicative of something else... this goes back, also, to the issue of multiple interpretations, with references to "facts" and "details" in S descriptions perhaps swaying me more towards it than is actually accurate.


Is it that you feel as though there's some kind of sensing side of your personality that you haven't quite managed to articulate on here? Anything in particular you can tell us about that seems more S than N? Is it the connotations of words like "intuition" and "intuitive" and the mystical descriptions in some sources? Is it issues with not quite relating to either Ni or Ne? When you read type profiles, do you find that, as a general rule, the xNxx profiles fit you better than the xSxx profiles? (It might also be worth answering the same question in relation to xxxJ vs. xxxP profiles). And a couple more questions that might help with S/N, but also with anything else you still want responses about: what kinds of people tend to feel most like kindred spirits to you, I.E. what traits or qualities do those people have? What traits, behaviours or ways of thinking completely baffle you? 



> I'm probably overstating my point by saying that I favour T>F "far more" than N>S, since what I can really work with is just that T>F is far more apparent to me than N>S is, and descriptions of the feeling preference are harder to relate to than anything save extraversion. I can see the argument that a person with a very strong T preference would seem "harsher", and I'm mindful of how close to middle I tend to score on Big 5 Agreeableness (despite that dimension seeming fairly conceptually distinct from T/F)... still, without ruling out the possibility, it's harder to see T>F as aux/tert than as dom/inf, since I don't have much of a sense of relating to the feeling preference. What might point to "tertiary Fi [seeming] a distinct possibility"? Does anything in particular suggest Ni (or even just N) dominance? I'm just not sure the arguments for the IxTJ (functions-based) possibility are especially convincing...
> 
> On "there might be other things you haven't posted about that brought you to that conclusion", I think there's always the inherent possibility that something isn't being conveyed well by the communication method employed, but I'm not sure there's anything in particular that I can see having a major effect on how I'm perceived; if anything, I might be slightly more oriented to the sensing sense of "detail" than the generally theoretical nature of discussions on here suggests, though I'm not even sure on that point.


The tertiary Fi point was partly a vibe thing, and "a distinct possibility" probably wasn't quite the right way to put it. My thoughts on it were: firstly, if you're IxTx, you're either tert Fi or inf Fe, and disregarding the Ti/Te issue for the moment, I don't think tert Fi is significantly less likely than inf Fe. It's not that I have a particularly clear idea of what a tertiary Fi type would be like, more that my general impression is that you'd probably relate at least moderately to Fi, and you seem more Fi than Fe; even if you don't relate really strongly to FI, that's probably not necessary for a tertiary function, which is, after all, a non-preference in dichotomous terms. So really my main point was that if the feeling function in a type you're considering is Fi rather than Fe, I don't think it's problematic that it's a bit higher up in the stack.


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

Octavarium said:


> I'd agree that it's reasonable to think that if T>F is clearer than N>S, that counts as evidence for T dominance, but apparently that's not the official view. You may recall this MBTI manual extract which was posted in one of your threads, arguing that the theory doesn't predict that there should be any tendency for people to get clearer scores on the dom/inf dimension than on the aux/tert dimension. As I said in that thread, I'm not convinced by their wordy rationalisations. They can argue that preference scores are an indication of clarity of preference (which means, as I understand it, the probability that the test-taker has the preference the test indicated, but correct me if I'm wrong) and not preference strength (or"development, skill, aptitude, maturity, or excellence in the use of a function"), but that only works if there's no correlation between preference clarity and preference strength, which I'd say is unlikely, and if there is no such correlation, I'd say that indicates a flaw in the test.
> 
> I wonder what's meant by "facet scale patterns revealed in the MBTI Step II instrument may help illuminate sources of differences in clarity for both dominant and auxiliary functions"? Any ideas? Thinking about it some more, perhaps it just means that data from Step II might confirm the dom/aux function hypothesis, or that there might be certain S/N or T/F facets where the dom is clearer than the aux, but why would they think that would be the case given that it hasn't been for step I? Could it be that, supposedly, Step II provides an indication of preference strength and Step I doesn't? I'm not sure how that works; it's not just a question of how many facets are in-preference and how they are weighted, because it's possible to score in the mid-zone of any facet, but I don't know that much about psychometrics so I could be missing something.
> 
> ...


I'd say it would be reasonable for the official view to be that the correlation between clarity and strength of preference is insufficient to draw meaningful conclusions about whether a given function is dominant, but, as you say, the stance that scores say nothing of preference strength seems to rely upon the complete absence of correlation, which is problematic. And then there's the added complication that my claim to favouring T/F more than N/S isn't solely limited to any empirical determination on these matters, meaning that aspects that are, in fact, pertinent to preference strength may be mixed in with factors that aren't. I agree entirely that this whole matter of reconciling seeming inconsistencies points to issues with the functions side of the theory.

The suggestion of that sentence might be that Step II facet scores have the potential to isolate a factor that might be pertinent to overall preference clarity - e.g., an ENFJ relating more to the N preference because they have one or two facets clearly on the T side, but nothing on S/N out-of-preference, might suggest that the higher clarity for the N preference derived from being drawn to T responses on some items, but with no comparable tug to any S responses. In such a case, F could still be more strongly preferred, but more N responses would be selected on the Indicator, making that clearer... page 4 of this sample Step II report says "the length of the line shows how clearly you scored toward that pole", which might imply it's once again a question of clarity and not strength, but then the provision of mid-zone descriptions suggests that someone's lack of clarity as to which pole they prefer is itself meaningful enough to produce descriptions such as "appear at ease socially in familiar situations, and much less so in large social gatherings" (Initiating-Receiving). More inconsistency, really, so I don't know that much is really cleared up by it... 



> Is it that you feel as though there's some kind of sensing side of your personality that you haven't quite managed to articulate on here? Anything in particular you can tell us about that seems more S than N? Is it the connotations of words like "intuition" and "intuitive" and the mystical descriptions in some sources? Is it issues with not quite relating to either Ni or Ne? When you read type profiles, do you find that, as a general rule, the xNxx profiles fit you better than the xSxx profiles? (It might also be worth answering the same question in relation to xxxJ vs. xxxP profiles). And a couple more questions that might help with S/N, but also with anything else you still want responses about: what kinds of people tend to feel most like kindred spirits to you, I.E. what traits or qualities do those people have? What traits, behaviours or ways of thinking completely baffle you?


I do have some sense that there's something not being completely conveyed, and the extent to which discussions on here are by nature more theoretical leads me to think it could be S-related, but then I don't think there's much I can point to in support of that conjecture beyond the point itself. Issues of not relating to either attitude of the N function, or "mystical" descriptions, don't, I think, play into my hesitancy in accepting that I have an N preference - it really does feel almost like the conclusion has been arrived at, but is still pending proper situation in my mental framework, if that makes any sense at all... or like a puzzle piece in a jigsaw, sitting on top of the spot it goes in, not yet placed but with its place unquestionably determined. It doesn't even make sense to me, really, but hopefully that explains something of what I'm getting at...

Type profiles for intuitive types tend to fit better than their sensing counterparts - if something is jarring in the N profile, there's usually something that jars even more in the S profile (e.g., ENFPs being project-initiating innovators stimulated by new people and novel experience, vs. ESFPs learning best through action and thus jumping into experiences and being involved in immediate things). I'm not so sure on J/P, and didn't really find myself clearly favouring one or the other in each of the pairings... I don't really know with "kindred spirits": willingness to question and probe the intricacies of a given issue, perhaps. I'm struggling to think of anything that's completely baffling, but a number of things can take me some to comprehend: unduly antagonistic approaches to interaction, say, or an unwillingness to explain things. 



> The tertiary Fi point was partly a vibe thing, and "a distinct possibility" probably wasn't quite the right way to put it. My thoughts on it were: firstly, if you're IxTx, you're either tert Fi or inf Fe, and disregarding the Ti/Te issue for the moment, I don't think tert Fi is significantly less likely than inf Fe. It's not that I have a particularly clear idea of what a tertiary Fi type would be like, more that my general impression is that you'd probably relate at least moderately to Fi, and you seem more Fi than Fe; even if you don't relate really strongly to FI, that's probably not necessary for a tertiary function, which is, after all, a non-preference in dichotomous terms. So really my main point was that if the feeling function in a type you're considering is Fi rather than Fe, I don't think it's problematic that it's a bit higher up in the stack.


It's certainly true to say that I wasn't moved to question tertiary Fi when first on here typed as ISTJ (though that could just be because issues with S-dominance and Te/Ti were easier to pick up on)... I can find some Fi descriptions relatable, in a way that I don't really recall any Fe descriptions being, but I've also found it seems somewhat ill-defined (what are "personal values", exactly?), and it may just be easier to relate to because it's an introverted function (online tests tend to give me Ti>Si>Fi>Ni for those, but how Ni is presented alters its placement a fair bit). And then there's the question of whether XYXY is even the perspective to be taken... still, I'd certainly agree that it's not an unrealistic possibility; I'm just not sure whether there's a particularly compelling argument in its favour...


----------



## Octavarium (Nov 27, 2012)

StunnedFox said:


> I'd say it would be reasonable for the official view to be that the correlation between clarity and strength of preference is insufficient to draw meaningful conclusions about whether a given function is dominant, but, as you say, the stance that scores say nothing of preference strength seems to rely upon the complete absence of correlation, which is problematic. And then there's the added complication that my claim to favouring T/F more than N/S isn't solely limited to any empirical determination on these matters, meaning that aspects that are, in fact, pertinent to preference strength may be mixed in with factors that aren't. I agree entirely that this whole matter of reconciling seeming inconsistencies points to issues with the functions side of the theory.
> 
> The suggestion of that sentence might be that Step II facet scores have the potential to isolate a factor that might be pertinent to overall preference clarity - e.g., an ENFJ relating more to the N preference because they have one or two facets clearly on the T side, but nothing on S/N out-of-preference, might suggest that the higher clarity for the N preference derived from being drawn to T responses on some items, but with no comparable tug to any S responses. In such a case, F could still be more strongly preferred, but more N responses would be selected on the Indicator, making that clearer... page 4 of this sample Step II report says "the length of the line shows how clearly you scored toward that pole", which might imply it's once again a question of clarity and not strength, but then the provision of mid-zone descriptions suggests that someone's lack of clarity as to which pole they prefer is itself meaningful enough to produce descriptions such as "appear at ease socially in familiar situations, and much less so in large social gatherings" (Initiating-Receiving). More inconsistency, really, so I don't know that much is really cleared up by it...


So is the point of your ENFJ example that the test-taker might choose more N responses than F responses, but the F preference might still be stronger because the F responses were more strongly preferred than the N responses? If so, I'm still not sure how Step II would make things clearer than Step I. Step II can give some indication of preference strength by indicating how many facets are in-preference, but it claims to be able to indicate the strength of preference for individual facets despite being a forced-choice test. If there are algorithms that can reliably determine preference strengths from responses to forced-choice questions, why wouldn't they be used in Step I? 

I think too much is made of the clarity/strength distinction; I understand the argument that a forced-choice test cannot as reliably indicate preference strength than a test with mildly/strongly/in the middle options, because a forced-choice test doesn't ask how strongly each choice was preferred, but wouldn't the same apply to clarity? Without knowing how strongly each choice was preferred, indications of clarity will be less reliable; if, for example, two test-takers gave the same number of T responses, but one mildly preferred most of them while the other strongly preferred most of them, isn't it more likely that the second test-taker was accurately typed by the test as a T? Both clarity and strength are about the probability that the preference will be exhibited. There isn't some magical sharp line separating Ts from FS, or JS from PS; to have a preference is just to be more one than the other. In any case, if clarity is about the probability that the test correctly indicated a preference, then preferences can only be as clear as the test is accurate. So that's why I don't buy into arguments that depend on a clear separation between clarity and strength.



> I do have some sense that there's something not being completely conveyed, and the extent to which discussions on here are by nature more theoretical leads me to think it could be S-related, but then I don't think there's much I can point to in support of that conjecture beyond the point itself. Issues of not relating to either attitude of the N function, or "mystical" descriptions, don't, I think, play into my hesitancy in accepting that I have an N preference - it really does feel almost like the conclusion has been arrived at, but is still pending proper situation in my mental framework, if that makes any sense at all... or like a puzzle piece in a jigsaw, sitting on top of the spot it goes in, not yet placed but with its place unquestionably determined. It doesn't even make sense to me, really, but hopefully that explains something of what I'm getting at...
> 
> Type profiles for intuitive types tend to fit better than their sensing counterparts - if something is jarring in the N profile, there's usually something that jars even more in the S profile (e.g., ENFPs being project-initiating innovators stimulated by new people and novel experience, vs. ESFPs learning best through action and thus jumping into experiences and being involved in immediate things). I'm not so sure on J/P, and didn't really find myself clearly favouring one or the other in each of the pairings... I don't really know with "kindred spirits": willingness to question and probe the intricacies of a given issue, perhaps. I'm struggling to think of anything that's completely baffling, but a number of things can take me some to comprehend: unduly antagonistic approaches to interaction, say, or an unwillingness to explain things.


Relating more to the N profiles is probably a decent N indicator, and "willingness to question and probe the intricacies of a given issue" as an answer to the kindred spirits question suggests NT to me. Would you say that, for you, a "kindred spirit" is essentially a "mindmate"? Speaking of kindred spirits, when you go into the individual type forums on here, do you find that one of them seems most like a place full of people like you, a place where you naturally fit in and belong? I'm not sure what the "unwillingness to explain things" answer indicates. It perhaps depends on what things and in what contexts. I know some people perceive questioning/challenging of their points/arguments, E.G. being asked for their sources, as an "unduly antagonistic approach to interaction" ("don't you trust me?" they say. It's a problem I've run into more than once with certain people) but given your answer to the kindred spirits question, I'm guessing that's not what you meant.



> It's certainly true to say that I wasn't moved to question tertiary Fi when first on here typed as ISTJ (though that could just be because issues with S-dominance and Te/Ti were easier to pick up on)... I can find some Fi descriptions relatable, in a way that I don't really recall any Fe descriptions being, but I've also found it seems somewhat ill-defined (what are "personal values", exactly?), and it may just be easier to relate to because it's an introverted function (online tests tend to give me Ti>Si>Fi>Ni for those, but how Ni is presented alters its placement a fair bit). And then there's the question of whether XYXY is even the perspective to be taken... still, I'd certainly agree that it's not an unrealistic possibility; I'm just not sure whether there's a particularly compelling argument in its favour...


I'd define "personal values" in this context as internal ideals, convictions, a sense of integrity and of wanting to do the right thing and be genuine, even potentially at the expense of harmony within relationships (although that doesn't necessarily mean enjoying conflict or confrontation). That is contrasted by Fe's more group-based values, which are about adapting to the people around you, even at the expense of your own values by, for example, actively expressing warmth or interest at the appropriate times even when you don't feel it, or telling a white lie to make someone feel better. If you're familiar with the concept of high/low self-monitoring, I'd say it's similar to that. I think Fi/Fe is expressing something true of human personality, more than the other functions, but I'm not sure if it links in with the dichotomies in the way it's supposed to.


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

Octavarium said:


> So is the point of your ENFJ example that the test-taker might choose more N responses than F responses, but the F preference might still be stronger because the F responses were more strongly preferred than the N responses? If so, I'm still not sure how Step II would make things clearer than Step I. Step II can give some indication of preference strength by indicating how many facets are in-preference, but it claims to be able to indicate the strength of preference for individual facets despite being a forced-choice test. If there are algorithms that can reliably determine preference strengths from responses to forced-choice questions, why wouldn't they be used in Step I?
> 
> I think too much is made of the clarity/strength distinction; I understand the argument that a forced-choice test cannot as reliably indicate preference strength than a test with mildly/strongly/in the middle options, because a forced-choice test doesn't ask how strongly each choice was preferred, but wouldn't the same apply to clarity? Without knowing how strongly each choice was preferred, indications of clarity will be less reliable; if, for example, two test-takers gave the same number of T responses, but one mildly preferred most of them while the other strongly preferred most of them, isn't it more likely that the second test-taker was accurately typed by the test as a T? Both clarity and strength are about the probability that the preference will be exhibited. There isn't some magical sharp line separating Ts from FS, or JS from PS; to have a preference is just to be more one than the other. In any case, if clarity is about the probability that the test correctly indicated a preference, then preferences can only be as clear as the test is accurate. So that's why I don't buy into arguments that depend on a clear separation between clarity and strength.


That's partially the point of my example, with Step II understood as "explaining" why N comes out clearer by pointing to a couple of facets for which the T responses may have seemed preferable (e.g., if the person were quite "tough" rather than "tender"), with no equivalent out-of-preference facet to lead the test-taker to pick any particular S responses. I do think there's a valid separation to be had between clarity and strength, simply because the notion that the items are designed to test for the presence of a preference, not its degree, makes sufficient sense; nevertheless, it's hard not to see the dogged insistence on the lack of a meaningful link between the two as a cover for the lack of a meaningful basis for the assertions of the type dynamics side of the theory...



> Relating more to the N profiles is probably a decent N indicator, and "willingness to question and probe the intricacies of a given issue" as an answer to the kindred spirits question suggests NT to me. Would you say that, for you, a "kindred spirit" is essentially a "mindmate"? Speaking of kindred spirits, when you go into the individual type forums on here, do you find that one of them seems most like a place full of people like you, a place where you naturally fit in and belong? I'm not sure what the "unwillingness to explain things" answer indicates. It perhaps depends on what things and in what contexts. I know some people perceive questioning/challenging of their points/arguments, E.G. being asked for their sources, as an "unduly antagonistic approach to interaction" ("don't you trust me?" they say. It's a problem I've run into more than once with certain people) but given your answer to the kindred spirits question, I'm guessing that's not what you meant.





> I'd define "personal values" in this context as internal ideals, convictions, a sense of integrity and of wanting to do the right thing and be genuine, even potentially at the expense of harmony within relationships (although that doesn't necessarily mean enjoying conflict or confrontation). That is contrasted by Fe's more group-based values, which are about adapting to the people around you, even at the expense of your own values by, for example, actively expressing warmth or interest at the appropriate times even when you don't feel it, or telling a white lie to make someone feel better. If you're familiar with the concept of high/low self-monitoring, I'd say it's similar to that. I think Fi/Fe is expressing something true of human personality, more than the other functions, but I'm not sure if it links in with the dichotomies in the way it's supposed to.


"Mindmate" is fairly apt, yes. I don't think any of the individual type forums on here feel especially like a natural fit for me; I tend to find myself reading threads from the INTP section more than any others, but I don't think that really flows from a sense of "belonging"... 

Is there a direct contrast between Fi and Fe, when framed that way? A person who favours adapting to the social environment, prioritising harmonious relationships and the like - would they want for ideals, convictions, &c.? The main difference seems to be what gets presented externally, something "true to values" vs. something "adapted": what would be the internal differences between types? Would Fe types be inclined to actually take on the values of the group? High/low self-monitoring (which I've not come across before) matches up to that sense I get from your description, of it all being about external presentation, but then it's difficult, again, not to see a standard I/E link (I'd imagine it to be more common for extraverts to be high self-monitors, and introverts low), which makes evaluation more difficult. I'd say I can relate to Fi as you describe it more than Fe, since the latter doesn't really fit at all, but it still seems a little unclear: do Fe types experience themselves as lacking in ideals and convictions, or only holding to such things for social purposes? If they do have internal convictions and ideals, then in what sense are those a fundamentally Fi thing?


----------



## Octavarium (Nov 27, 2012)

StunnedFox said:


> That's partially the point of my example, with Step II understood as "explaining" why N comes out clearer by pointing to a couple of facets for which the T responses may have seemed preferable (e.g., if the person were quite "tough" rather than "tender"), with no equivalent out-of-preference facet to lead the test-taker to pick any particular S responses. I do think there's a valid separation to be had between clarity and strength, simply because the notion that the items are designed to test for the presence of a preference, not its degree, makes sufficient sense; nevertheless, it's hard not to see the dogged insistence on the lack of a meaningful link between the two as a cover for the lack of a meaningful basis for the assertions of the type dynamics side of the theory...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't think the point is that ideals and convictions are "a fundamentally Fi thing" or that Fe types don't have them. It's more about their relative importance compared to adapting to the group and maintaining harmonious relationships. So yes, it's about what gets presented externally, but differences in external presentation come from internal factors. It's a difference in priorities, but also, I think, a difference in expectations of others; just as Fe types are more willing to adapt to others, they expect others to adapt to them more (wanting people to make them feel appreciated, for example). Fi types are, perhaps, more steadfast in their convictions, being less willing to compromise them. I've heard some Fe types saying they have difficulty separating their feelings from the feelings of others, or that they don't know what they think until they hear others' opinions. But like any personality dimension, it's a matter of degree; contrary to standard function theories, I think there are differing strengths of preference for Fi and Fe, and it may be that those whose values are entirely dependent on the social situation are at the extreme end. But I think any amount of Fe-ish behaviour involves taking on the values of the group in some sense, just as an actor takes on the feelings and dispositions of the character they're playing; it's not that the actor has no personality of their own, but the performance will be more convincing if they temporarily become the character, experiencing the character's feelings.

You're probably right to say that Fi/Fe, or high/low self-monitoring, correlates with I/E, but I'd think the other dimensions have an impact, too. I'd think it must have some relationship with T/F; people on here sometimes complain that the F items on the MBTI and other online tests are more Fe than Fi. On the other hand, "authenticity" is an Fi thing, but is usually said to be an NF thing... so I don't know if it really correlates with a single MBTI dimension


----------



## jamaix (Sep 20, 2013)

Oops!
Deleted, comments were intended for a different thread. 

Sorry!


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

StunnedFox said:


> do Fe types experience themselves as lacking in ideals and convictions, or only holding to such things for social purposes? If they do have internal convictions and ideals, then in what sense are those a fundamentally Fi thing?


F is Feeling values and yes, Feeling ideals. So both Fi and Fe. For Fe however it's about the external, determined by objective (=external) circumstances, for Fi it's personal and subjective. For the latter, the self is directly linked with the convictions.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

OK so why I thought Ne for you - I can't recall what posts I saw from you that definitely seemed Ne but on the whole I think your brand of intuition that you utilize is more broad than deep.


----------

