# Can Fi-Ne and Ni-Te have similar manifestations? INxx



## frigus (Oct 4, 2015)

I've recently started a thread here to find my type ( http://personalitycafe.com/whats-my-personality-type/772826-same-old-same-old-type-me.html ) and I kept going in circles whenever I had to figure out which functions I was using. 

The thing that came up the most was INFP (Fi-Ne) because I was absolutely positive that I was a Ne user, since I always ask "what if". But people who have Ne that high up in their stack are almost invariably creative, since Ne is about possibilities. 
I'm not. I never was. When I say "what if" I mean "it is entirely possible that this is also the case" since I try to remain objective with my judgement. And this points me to Te. 
Since I was convinced that I was a Ne user, I almost completely dismissed Ni, especially because it's a difficult function to recognize. 

But then last night it suddenly hit me like a train: I'm a Ni-dom. I am very much a Ni-dom. How could I not see this? Where was I? 

If you ask me how I know what I know, I'll have no idea how to answer you. If you give me a while to think about it and find some logical sequence that leads to my conclusion, I'll be able to explain it. This is not my default mode, though. My default is "getting the feel of something". 
_Feel_ is not the right word to use here, though. I'm not sure how to describe it, but let's just put it in terms of "this makes sense" or "this doesn't". Why? I'm not sure, give me a moment to think about it and I'll come up with a valid explanation.

My first approach to _everything_ is understanding it, but not in a way that takes it apart (Ti) but rather in a way that just "senses" whether something makes sense or not. Then, if it does make sense, I compare it to objective evidence (Te), think of all the possibilities, and then decide. If the evidence against it is heavy, I'll drop it, but also keep it in the back of my mind in case new evidence appears.

I do think I have Fi, but it's a complete mess, and I keep second-guessing whether it's Fi or Fe. 
I seriously don't think it's my dominant function because it's just too wild and I'm very bad at handling my own emotions. My default mode is repression and laughter. It does seem to be a tertiary function gone berserk, therefore influencing my previous results. *My Fi is currently all over the place, and so am I. * This is important to keep in mind.

And the thing that makes me really settle on being a Ni-dom is my Se. It makes perfect sense for it to be in final position because it's a huge burden on me. I often get terrible sensory overload and I'm very disconnected from the physical world, almost to the point of avoidance.
Not to mention my nicotine and sugar addiction along with horrible eating and sleeping habits (barely eating, sleeping too much and at odd times, especially when stressed). 

I don't think of myself as particularly intelligent or superior to other people (as INTJs are said to - any INTJs weighing in on this would be appreciated since this description sounds like quite the serious accusation). 
However, I used to. I'm not a fan of admitting this, but I used to think I was _always_ right. If I've concluded something to be true, then _of course_ it's true. If _I_ don't know, who does? etc. 
Of course, that could be attributed to immaturity, and the reason I even stopped being like this is nothing more than evidence to the contrary along with hurting people's feelings unintentionally one too many times. And trust me when I say that I've said some _seriously_ inconsiderate shit, justifying it as "being objective". Man I was horrible, glad that's over. 

The problem with typing myself this way is: come on, what are the odds? INTJs are not that common, and no matter how much it seems to fit, statistically speaking there's not a high chance of me being one. 
Also not to rely on stereotypes too much but the type descriptions don't fit me (they only fit me as a child). 

There is one description I believe is worth a read, and I do identify with it pretty strongly: 
The INTJ "Mastermind" Personality Type - Personality Development - Personality Hacker 

Thanks to anyone who replies.


----------



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

@frigus

As an answer to the title of this thread, here's my question: can a butterfly look like a moth if viewed from far enough away?

I think the far enough away bit is probably the problem here. A lot of information people and sites will present on the internet (even here) tends to wade around in the shallows of typology instead of actually digging down into the real meat of the material. Often times people will see moths where there are butterflies and vice versa. Much of the 'pulp' typology presented lists processes or certain 'thoughts' that and indicators of a certain function or dichotomy, and this is in of itself problematic. Consider the common understandings of Ni and Si. Ni is prophetic, it predicts the future, etc. Si is detail-oriented and focused on the past for understanding the present. It should be fairly evident why these ideas cannot be true: according to this definition, INxJs should not remember anything, and ISxJs should never think about the future. But both of these things are essential parts of the human experience, and this is why people have so much confusion on account of the information on the internet: it becomes a simple question of which you do most often, but that's also problematic, because how do you pin down when you're doing X versus Y in a certain situation? It's complicated and lacking in any real substance. Another question: why would you define your personality based on whether or not you remember the past or not? Seems pretty shallow.

Where I'm going with this is something that you yourself already mentioned: stereotypes are unreliable and often don't actually fit you. The issue is that a lot of the information on typology falls into the same category. It's overly shallow, overly stereotyped, and whatever the case just isn't representative of actual human beings who feel, think, sense, and intuit regardless of preference.

So with all of that said, I wrote a piece a few weeks ago: http://personalitycafe.com/whats-my-personality-type/767914-how-type-yourself-accurately-honestly.html. I don't know if you ever read that, but anything I say here will just be restating the essence of what I was saying in that post.

If you don't feel like reading that wall of text though, in essence what I was saying is that I think the best way to type yourself is to study the source material (Jung) so you can give everything you learn some better context. After that, apply the concepts to your own thinking and then start making connections and so on and so forth.

Now, on to you specifically. To preface this, let me redefine what a function is because the prevailing understanding is rather crummy. A function is not a set of processes that your brain does, it's a mental perspective. You shouldn't be looking at processes, but an outlook on the world. Functions don't so much tell you what goes on in your head, but how you think and what information you most easily focus on. Take Se for instance. People with extraverted sensation in the dominant position most easily focuses on intense external stimuli. Now I'm just using Se as an easy example to illustrate the principle of what these functions are. This is true of all the irrational functions (Ne, Ni, Se, and Si). Rational functions (Fe, Fi, Te, and Ti) are a little bit different, but the same principle of affecting your focus is the same (these functions focus by reason or criteria, instead of intensity as the irrationals do). You shouldn't be thinking about what you brain thinks about, you should considering why and how your brain thinks, and what your mind most easily focuses on.

Now, my thoughts on you based on what I've seen here. You don't strike me as an INFP, and honestly I don't see you as particularly Fi, but take that with a grain of salt. You do exhibit tendencies common of inferior Se, most specifically the detachment from your physical body and the rest of the world. That's a pretty good indicator or repressed sensation.

I wouldn't rule out INFJ, or INTJ for that matter. Just because that they're rare doesn't mean that you aren't one--you either are or you're not. Rarity has nothing to do with that.

Feel free to ask me more question, which I imagine you'll have. I apologize if this post seemed disjointed or scattered; at the time of writing I am rather scattered.


----------



## BroNerd (Nov 27, 2010)

frigus said:


> I've recently started a thread here to find my type ( http://personalitycafe.com/whats-my-personality-type/772826-same-old-same-old-type-me.html ) and I kept going in circles whenever I had to figure out which functions I was using.
> 
> The thing that came up the most was INFP (Fi-Ne) because I was absolutely positive that I was a Ne user, since I always ask "what if". But people who have Ne that high up in their stack are almost invariably creative, since Ne is about possibilities.
> I'm not. I never was. When I say "what if" I mean "it is entirely possible that this is also the case" since I try to remain objective with my judgement. And this points me to Te.
> ...


Just because INTJ is a rare type doesn't mean you can't be one. About 2%. When you look at 7 billion people in the world - approximately 70 million INTJs. You could be one of those 70 million. Just because there are probably dozens of mistyped INXJs (particularly INFJ though) on this forum doesn't mean you can't be one. Seems like you're between the four IN types overall. Since you seem fairly confident in your assessment of being an introvert. I'd first try to figure out if you're a J or a P. How do you go about making decisions? Do you prefer to have things settled or do you prefer to keep your options open? 

Dominant/auxiliary Ni users prefer things to be settled. Ni gives the answer and that's the path to take.
Dominant/auxiliary Ne users prefer things to remain open and have options. Ne keeps the person cognizant of possibilities. 

I'm also assuming that you feel comfortable that either Ni is your dominant function or Ne is your auxiliary function. So I won't bother to elaborate on Si or Se. 

If you decide on Ni, then you really have to think about Te or Fe playing an auxiliary role in your life.
If you decide on Ne, then you really have to think about Ti or Fi playing the dominant role in your life.

Here I'd rely on what is your preferred tool for decision making. 
For me, I feel very confident that I'm an Ne user and a Ti user. Sure, Fe rears itself in on occasion but I know Ti takes precedence. 
If you're an INTJ, you should find that Te feels more natural/developed for you than Fi especially if Ni is truly dominant.

With that said, I'm seeing INTJ mostly at work for you here based on your thought process.


----------



## frigus (Oct 4, 2015)

I messed up. I typed up the whole response and forgot to submit it. Deep breath. Here I go again.



KalimofDaybreak said:


> @frigus
> 
> As an answer to the title of this thread, here's my question: can a butterfly look like a moth if viewed from far enough away?
> 
> I think the far enough away bit is probably the problem here. A lot of information people and sites will present on the internet (even here) tends to wade around in the shallows of typology instead of actually digging down into the real meat of the material. Often times people will see moths where there are butterflies and vice versa. Much of the 'pulp' typology presented lists processes or certain 'thoughts' that and indicators of a certain function or dichotomy, and this is in of itself problematic.


I found this somewhat confusing myself, since some people claim you can use either one function or the other. But following that logic, if I'm not a Si user, I basically have retrograde amnesia? It makes no sense.
The dominant function is especially difficult to identify because it comes so naturally to us that we don't even realize it's there. This is especially a problem with Ni, since it's also very difficult to explain.



> So with all of that said, I wrote a piece a few weeks ago: http://personalitycafe.com/whats-my-personality-type/767914-how-type-yourself-accurately-honestly.html. I don't know if you ever read that, but anything I say here will just be restating the essence of what I was saying in that post.


I did read the post, but I can't read Jung at the moment because it seems time-consuming and I'm a full-time student. I'm already wasting enough time on this as it is.



> Now, on to you specifically. To preface this, let me redefine what a function is because the prevailing understanding is rather crummy. A function is not a set of processes that your brain does, it's a mental perspective. You shouldn't be looking at processes, but an outlook on the world. Functions don't so much tell you what goes on in your head, but how you think and what information you most easily focus on.


I know I wrote something here originally, but for the life of me can't remember what that was. Still upset about losing my original post.



> Now, my thoughts on you based on what I've seen here. You don't strike me as an INFP, and honestly I don't see you as particularly Fi, but take that with a grain of salt. You do exhibit tendencies common of inferior Se, most specifically the detachment from your physical body and the rest of the world. That's a pretty good indicator or repressed sensation.
> 
> I wouldn't rule out INFJ, or INTJ for that matter. Just because that they're rare doesn't mean that you aren't one--you either are or you're not. Rarity has nothing to do with that.


When I initially told my friends that I tested as INFP, they all had nearly the same reaction: Laughter, followed by "Are you sure?" 
I suppose something can be made of that as well.



> Feel free to ask me more question, which I imagine you'll have. I apologize if this post seemed disjointed or scattered; at the time of writing I am rather scattered.


The post is coherent, don't worry. Also thank you for taking the time to type all of this up and help me. 
I _would_ like your opinion on ways to differentiate an INFJ from an INTJ, more specifically the approach you'd take in doing so.


----------



## frigus (Oct 4, 2015)

BroNerd said:


> Just because INTJ is a rare type doesn't mean you can't be one. About 2%. When you look at 7 billion people in the world - approximately 70 million INTJs.


Did you mean 1%? Because that's 1%. (also clarifying: not trying to be an asshole)



> Just because there are probably dozens of mistyped INXJs (particularly INFJ though) on this forum doesn't mean you can't be one. Seems like you're between the four IN types overall. Since you seem fairly confident in your assessment of being an introvert. I'd first try to figure out if you're a J or a P. How do you go about making decisions? Do you prefer to have things settled or do you prefer to keep your options open?


Having things settled gives me a sense of security and I _need_ structure in my life, but I dislike being _restricted_. I've mentioned in the other thread that I'm most comfortable with clear, detailed instructions and a goal in mind. Otherwise I end up doing nothing, wasting time and feeling aimless.



> Here I'd rely on what is your preferred tool for decision making.
> For me, I feel very confident that I'm an Ne user and a Ti user. Sure, Fe rears itself in on occasion but I know Ti takes precedence.
> If you're an INTJ, you should find that Te feels more natural/developed for you than Fi especially if Ni is truly dominant.


Like I said, Fi makes me very anxious. It's very apparent, but I'm also very uncomfortable with it. 
Te is something that decides for me. When I entered university, the only thing I thought was "how much money can I make with this?" since the point of working is making money. That's how it works. So I ended up in law school, and then my Fi went wild and I dropped out. Right now I'm studying a foreign language and linguistics because it's what I'm good at, not because it's what I want to do for the rest of my life, so to speak. So yeah I'd say Te is a huge influence on my decisions.



> With that said, I'm seeing INTJ mostly at work for you here based on your thought process.


Having another person agree does make it more likely in my eyes.


----------



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

frigus said:


> I messed up. I typed up the whole response and forgot to submit it. Deep breath. Here I go again.


Ich. I hate it when that happens.



frigus said:


> I found this somewhat confusing myself, since some people claim you can use either one function or the other. But following that logic, if I'm not a Si user, I basically have retrograde amnesia? It makes no sense.
> The dominant function is especially difficult to identify because it comes so naturally to us that we don't even realize it's there. This is especially a problem with Ni, since it's also very difficult to explain.


Yeah. And this is that pulp MBTI I was talking about. People want MBTI to explain why they like chocolate or something ridiculous like that. You're right about the dominant function as well. You have to exercise a lot of metamemory to see its machinations. We are in a rather unfortunate position in this regard; we must find something with no idea of what it is, how to find it, or what might indicate that it is working.



frigus said:


> I did read the post, but I can't read Jung at the moment because it seems time-consuming and I'm a full-time student. I'm already wasting enough time on this as it is.


That's fine. There are a few excerpts around here just of the eight types that he outlines, so you could probably just Google 'Jung extraverted thinking description' and get a few verbatim pieces to study. Those aren't terribly wrong (although, ironically, the Te one is).



frigus said:


> I know I wrote something here originally, but for the life of me can't remember what that was. Still upset about losing my original post.


Whenever this happens, I just tell myself that I'd remember it if it was important. Usually that is not the case, but it permits a moment of clarity in the frustration of forgetting. 



frigus said:


> When I initially told my friends that I tested as INFP, they all had nearly the same reaction: Laughter, followed by "Are you sure?"
> I suppose something can be made of that as well.


You've read that post; you know my qualms with tests. As far as your friends, that is probably accurate.



frigus said:


> The post is coherent, don't worry. Also thank you for taking the time to type all of this up and help me.


Any time. I do this for fun.



frigus said:


> I _would_ like your opinion on ways to differentiate an INFJ from an INTJ, more specifically the approach you'd take in doing so.


Well on some level I'm the wrong person to be ask of this, because honestly, there really isn't too much difference between the INxJ types. They are both Ni-doms, and you're dominant function is essentially definitive in your personality.

The issue of the auxiliaries is that the common MBTI standard is, in my opinion, quite incorrect. In the Jungian sense, both the auxiliary and tertiary functions are positioned in between the conscious and unconscious mind. I don't know how much of Jung you've read, but within his theory, attitude (I/E) is independent of the function, and the pairing of the two is more of an incidental pairing. "Oh, you're an introvert and you prefer intuition? Well, that makes you an INxJ!" This is because Jung distinguished the attitudes from the functions in that the attitudes are a psychic disposition, and the functions are mental perspectives. The attitude is more...global, I guess, and the functions are more self-contained. What this means in practical terms is that the psyche, as it is divided into the two parts--conscious and unconscious--will take one of the two attitudes in the conscious/ego, dominant part and repress the other to the unconscious. So for an introvert, introversion is the dominant attitude and extraversion is repressed. The issue with the auxiliaries, then, is that the are neither preferred nor repressed. The psyche is neutral towards them, hence their position between the conscious and unconscious minds. This position grants them an interesting quality: technically, they are both orientations. Now, this isn't to fly in the face of the standard i-e-i-e function stack--that is still valid and 'normal' in my opinion--but it's important to note that for the middle functions, this is by no means definitive. While I still have quite a lot of Fe, I also have quite a lot of Fi just by virtue of being an introvert and concerning myself with feeling things. Likewise with thinking (which I find is more differentiated than my feeling), I am frequently Ti, but not without my moments of Te. Basically what all of this is saying is that distinguishing between Ti and Te, Fi and Fe for your auxiliary and tertiary functions is going to be difficult, and perhaps more effort than is necessary, simply because neither is necessarily preferred and because of that their attitudes are fluid.

So, with that in the background, here's what I would say. On some level, I wouldn't bother with it to much, because both feeling and thinking are present in the INxJ psyche. For me, answering which auxiliary I prefer is difficult, because I have quite a lot of both feeling and thinking. For every argument I have for favoring one, I start to notice the influence of the other. Looking at my interests doesn't help either, because often times what I find meaningful or relaxing is a mix of my feeling and thinking without really favoring one or the other. The best way I have found to distinguish between the two is by a phenomenon called apperception. In essence, apperception is just T and F's way of fulfilling the 'perspective' bit of the function definition. Being rational, they focus on information according to its use (T) or value (F) to a person. In the case of an INTJ, for instance, their perspectives will be colored by that thinking perspective; there will be an auxiliary filter for them to make sense of their intuitive perceptions that groups the ideas presented there according to concept, use, or some other kind of logical relationship. In the case of the INFJ, their perceptions will be sorted according value, meaning, or some other kinds of personal/ethical relationship. Unfortunately for me, I see both of these fairly strongly in my own mind, but, in theory, this should be the most telling factor between INFJ and INTJ. Like I said, I may not be the best person to ask this to because I don't really see a meaningful preference either way in myself. I identify as INFJ because that denotes Ni and Ti in the function stack and because my general disposition is that of a feeler, but in terms of my mind actually operates, that's a little more fuzzy.

Anyway, that was really lengthy and complicated, but I hope it's a little helpful. Again, feel free to keep asking me questions.


----------



## Prada (Sep 10, 2015)

@frigus I would recommend not looking at Ni and Ne as completely different functions. Which is what you seem to do. They're both the same function just with a different focus. If your iNtuition is high, then you just need to figure out whether it focuses on external or internal world. How do you make connections? Based on the things outside of you or on your own internal process? 

As a rule of thumb, high Ne users can see the reasons for their connections, which is why they made it in the first place, the process is objective, based on outside information. While high Ni users need to step back and think about how they got to that point (they confront their extroverted function), the process is subjective, true to that single person only.

Everything else (detailed future planing, brainstorming, etc.) are just side effects that anyone can do though Ne/Ni users have a stronger predisposition to that. Also, every person uses all functions. They're a spectrum not black and white. Your main 4 functions just say which you PREFER using. It doesn't mean you don't use anything else. So maybe the reason why you think Ne belongs to your main functions is that you're simply more in touch with it than an average INTJ.


----------



## frigus (Oct 4, 2015)

KalimofDaybreak said:


> That's fine. There are a few excerpts around here just of the eight types that he outlines, so you could probably just Google 'Jung extraverted thinking description' and get a few verbatim pieces to study. Those aren't terribly wrong (although, ironically, the Te one is).


I just found one about Ni, I'll start there. Thank you.



> The attitude is more...global, I guess, and the functions are more self-contained.


It seems to me like the opposite would be true though. Could you maybe elaborate on this?



> On some level, I wouldn't bother with it to much, because both feeling and thinking are present in the INxJ psyche.


I do realize that, but having that x there bothers me more than words can describe. I need to _know_.



> For me, answering which auxiliary I prefer is difficult, because I have quite a lot of both feeling and thinking. For every argument I have for favoring one, I start to notice the influence of the other. Looking at my interests doesn't help either, because often times what I find meaningful or relaxing is a mix of my feeling and thinking without really favoring one or the other.





> Unfortunately for me, I see both of these fairly strongly in my own mind, but, in theory, this should be the most telling factor between INFJ and INTJ. Like I said, I may not be the best person to ask this to because I don't really see a meaningful preference either way in myself.


I know _exactly_ what you mean.



> Anyway, that was really lengthy and complicated, but I hope it's a little helpful. Again, feel free to keep asking me questions.


I'll definitely read up on Ni and Te (even though apparently this one isn't as accurate) and try to see where to go from there. You've already helped a lot though. Another INxJ's perspective definitely holds some weight.


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

frigus said:


> I've recently started a thread here to find my type ( http://personalitycafe.com/whats-my-personality-type/772826-same-old-same-old-type-me.html ) and I kept going in circles whenever I had to figure out which functions I was using.
> 
> The thing that came up the most was INFP (Fi-Ne) because I was absolutely positive that I was a Ne user, since I always ask "what if". But people who have Ne that high up in their stack are almost invariably creative, since Ne is about possibilities.
> I'm not. I never was. When I say "what if" I mean "it is entirely possible that this is also the case" since I try to remain objective with my judgement. And this points me to Te.
> ...


 *I have Fi, but it's a complete mess, and I keep second-guessing whether it's Fi or Fe.* 

There is only one simple question to ask yourself here, do you extrovert your emotions ? Fi rarely extroverts their emos, and when they do it will be seen in raw form. It might look messy externally even if it is sits in a neat little space internally. It looks messy because of the difficult task it takes coming from the core up towards you mouth then having to actually let it leave your lips. If you answer yes, you emo quite easy, you don't have any issues talking about your emoitions, or showing your emotions to people when in conversation, that is Fe. However If you have a hard time trying to express how you feel, or just don't express your emos at all accept with your loved ones, then that is Fi. Fi and Fe are opposites, so it isn't confusing .

I don't know how common types are, I haven't ever seen a real survey done by anyone relevant, so therefore in my mind there isn't such a thing as a rare type, or one type more uncommon than others.

I live with an INTJ, I can predict his Ni every second of every day. Ni is not hard to understand, however it is hard to explain, much like Fi. Ni is the whole of something then breaking it down to the obvious , this I know for sure.


----------



## frigus (Oct 4, 2015)

Prada said:


> I would recommend not looking at Ni and Ne as completely different functions. Which is what you seem to do. They're both the same function just with a different focus. If your iNtuition is high, then you just need to figure out whether it focuses on external or internal world. How do you make connections? Based on the things outside of you or on your own internal process?
> 
> As a rule of thumb, high Ne users can see the reasons for their connections, which is why they made it in the first place, the process is objective, based on outside information. While high Ni users need to step back and think about how they got to that point (they confront their extroverted function), the process is subjective, true to that single person only.


Well it's a given that a person would make connections based on the information they get, and a lot of it is situational. However I do tend to reach a conclusion immediately, and then deal with justifying it. If it doesn't hold up after that, well, tough luck. That itching feeling that I'm right anyway still remains though. 
E.g. typing myself as INFP, the evidence seemed to be there but I just sensed that it was wrong somehow. 
Also to provide a chess example, I accidentally won several times. I had no idea I'd won until the opponent reacted. Mind you, I wasn't just aimlessly moving the pieces, I just didn't have a _defined_ plan in mind. Planning ahead too much actually tires me out in chess. I just move according to what I think is right and occasionally plan a few moves ahead if I an opportunity presents itself. 
This is where the stereotypes used to confuse me, since the description reads "mastermind". That's not how I operate. I keep my eyes on the opponent's king from the start, with no clear plan how to get to it.



> Everything else (detailed future planing, brainstorming, etc.) are just side effects that anyone can do though Ne/Ni users have a stronger predisposition to that. Also, every person uses all functions. They're a spectrum not black and white. Your main 4 functions just say which you PREFER using. It doesn't mean you don't use anything else. So maybe the reason why you think Ne belongs to your main functions is that you're simply more in touch with it than an average INTJ.


Being in touch with a function that isn't in my stack seemed contradictory so I was completely at a loss as to how to type myself. It almost seemed like "cheating" if I chose one function over the other since I clearly use both. And the Ne made it impossible for me to even consider Ni. Additionally, the Ni descriptions I've come across all seem to peg it as something "mysterious", which is really not my area. I mean I am pretty superstitious despite knowing none of it is real (Ni-Te, I presume). 

Thank you for your comment. 
Also unrelated, but how do I mention a user in a comment? I can see the mention button but it only produces an @ with no username in the preview (man I hope the answer isn't something ridiculously obvious).


----------



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

frigus said:


> It seems to me like the opposite would be true though. Could you maybe elaborate on this?


Jung places primary emphasis upon the attitudes, so at its heart, that's what that statement was getting at. More specifically, I was referring to its relevance to the whole psyche. Functions just tell you what your higher mental processes are like, and are in of themselves rather independent. Obviously there's the issue of preferring one means repressing the others, but that isn't so much inherent to the functions themselves as it is a quality of the psyche as a whole. Attitude, on the other hand, is a fundamental orientation that colors your entire psyche, from the lowest and most instinctual parts of our brains to our metacognition. And again, there's the obvious issue of intuitives having odd little quirks associated with repressed sensation such as acute hypochondria, but _in general_, the functions have a much smaller influence than the attitudes. And again, that is due to their nature of being cognitive. They are rather elemental with respect to our cognition (if you can envision _Avatar: The Last Intuitive_ ), but are limited in their scope.



frigus said:


> I do realize that, but having that x there bothers me more than words can describe. I need to _know_.


Oh don't get me wrong, I feel you. There's a definite part of me that hates not knowing. The problem is, in my opinion, that the auxiliaries are the hardest to tell apart because they are so equal. Typing oneself is, in Jung's terms, a painful question, and for practical purposes, I don't think one really needs to know what their auxiliaries are, so long as they know whether they are rational/irrational. But yes, the theory nut inside me hates not knowing, but at this point in my life I can't really dedicate the time to figuring that out; like I said, whenever I try to it's almost like the other side compensates in response. Maybe that's how the auxiliaries work?



frigus said:


> I know _exactly_ what you mean.


Such is the life of the INxJ. But on a different note, the fact that you relate to this is a good indication you do _not_ have thinking or feeling in a dominant spot, which rules out ExxJ and IxxP from your options.



frigus said:


> I'll definitely read up on Ni and Te (even though apparently this one isn't as accurate) and try to see where to go from there. You've already helped a lot though. Another INxJ's perspective definitely holds some weight.


That was a typo on my part. I meant to say 'long' instead of wrong. Don't know how that happened. In general, take Jung's stuff pretty seriously. He was wrong not infrequently, but darn it if he wasn't right a lot either.

And yes, it does take one to know one.  I do sort of pride myself on my ability to spot types, but I swear I can stop another Ni-dom from a mile away. Once you get their general vibe, their hard to not spot, especially being one myself.



frigus said:


> Also unrelated, but how do I mention a user in a comment? I can see the mention button but it only produces an @ with no username in the preview (man I hope the answer isn't something ridiculously obvious).


You just write @ and the username next to it. So @KalimofDaybreak would mention me.


----------



## frigus (Oct 4, 2015)

MuChApArAdOx said:


> Fi rarely extroverts their emos, and when they do it will be seen in raw form. It might look messy externally even if it is sits in a neat little space internally. It looks messy because of the difficult task it takes coming from the core up towards you mouth then having to actually let it leave your lips.


I tend to come across as pretty dramatic (I've been told) when it comes to emotional displays, but I've also been called cold and empty by quite a number of people. 
I have a very hard time dealing with emotions because they're very irrational in their essence, and I usually don't know what to make of them. I try my best to take other people's feelings into consideration and sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. But whether I succeed or fail, there is always one thing those attempts have in common: they exhaust me. I feel absolutely drained when I do that.
If the emotion is superficial, it comes out immediately. If it's more complicated, my anxiety kicks in and I become a complete mess.



> If you answer yes, you emo quite easy, you don't have any issues talking about your emoitions, or showing your emotions to people when in conversation, that is Fe. However If you have a hard time trying to express how you feel, or just don't express your emos at all accept with your loved ones, then that is Fi. *Fi and Fe are opposites, so it isn't confusing.*


The issue is that I _do_ find them confusing, no matter how many descriptions or explanations I read. I do see that these descriptions _seem_ like opposites, but to me they just aren't. 
Why? Your guess is as good as mine.



> I live with an INTJ, I can predict his Ni every second of every day. Ni is not hard to understand, however it is hard to explain, much like Fi. Ni is the whole of something then breaking it down to the obvious , this I know for sure.


If you ask me, all of the functions are hard to explain. And there's my problem with finding a type.


----------



## frigus (Oct 4, 2015)

KalimofDaybreak said:


> Jung places primary emphasis upon the attitudes, so at its heart, that's what that statement was getting at. More specifically, I was referring to its relevance to the whole psyche. Functions just tell you what your higher mental processes are like, and are in of themselves rather independent. Obviously there's the issue of preferring one means repressing the others, but that isn't so much inherent to the functions themselves as it is a quality of the psyche as a whole. Attitude, on the other hand, is a fundamental orientation that colors your entire psyche, from the lowest and most instinctual parts of our brains to our metacognition. And again, there's the obvious issue of *intuitives having odd little quirks associated with repressed sensation* such as acute hypochondria, but _in general_, the functions have a much smaller influence than the attitudes. And again, that is due to their nature of being cognitive. They are rather elemental with respect to our cognition (if you can envision _Avatar: The Last Intuitive_ ), but are limited in their scope.


Well, I sure have a lot of those (and I hate them with a passion). 
I misunderstood at first because the functions are constant in the sense that they're always present, so it got mixed up in relation to the words you used to describe them. There you have different associations to the same words in action though. This does clear it up for me, thank you.



> Oh don't get me wrong, I feel you. There's a definite part of me that hates not knowing. The problem is, in my opinion, that the auxiliaries are the hardest to tell apart because they are so equal. Typing oneself is, in Jung's terms, a painful question, and for practical purposes, I don't think one really needs to know what their auxiliaries are, so long as they know whether they are rational/irrational. But yes, the theory nut inside me hates not knowing, but at this point in my life I can't really dedicate the time to figuring that out; like I said, whenever I try to it's almost like the other side compensates in response. Maybe that's how the auxiliaries work?


That's certainly an interesting approach. Since we keep getting them mixed up, that could mean they aren't as defined as the dominant/repressed. As for me, typing myself is literally a painful process, insofar as it actually gives me anxiety although I have absolutely no idea why. Looking too deeply into myself always does.



> Such is the life of the INxJ. But on a different note, the fact that you relate to this is a good indication you do _not_ have thinking or feeling in a dominant spot, which rules out ExxJ and IxxP from your options.


Well that's a relief, since it means I probably won't end up back where I started.



> That was a typo on my part. I meant to say 'long' instead of wrong.


Then it's good that I mentioned it, I may not have bothered with reading it at all. But if it's long, it may have to wait.



> You just write @ and the username next to it. So @KalimofDaybreak would mention me.


I've tried doing that and the preview didn't show it as a mention so that confused me. I'm gonna use you as a guinea pig right now though: @KalimofDaybreak

(edit: So it works fine, the preview is just inaccurate. Thank you very much.)


----------



## Prada (Sep 10, 2015)

If people weren't using all functions than Se users wouldn't be able to remember anything and Si users would be constantly crashing into stuff. You use all functions but to different degrees. So, obviously, a Ni user will make connections based on outside information but much more often the connections they make would be internal. How you describe connection making is Ni.

I can relate to that eternal struggle of Ni and Te. In my case though, Te is stronger so I have hard time accepting anything that can be disproven but not proven.

As for your question, all you need to do is write @ and then the username. Like: @frigus


----------



## frigus (Oct 4, 2015)

Prada said:


> If people weren't using all functions than Se users wouldn't be able to remember anything and Si users would be constantly crashing into stuff. You use all functions but to different degrees. So, obviously, a Ni user will make connections based on outside information but much more often the connections they make would be internal. How you describe connection making is Ni.


Obviously that makes more sense. 
The final function in the stack confuses me only on one account though. Some say that your fourth function is your least developed one, and it causes problems for you (for me that's Se, without a doubt). But some typings I've seen describe the fourth function as relatively well-developed, just not as developed compared to the first three. 
If the first approach is accurate, it would make more sense, since all the other functions would be somewhere in between the first and fourth. But if we determine all functions in someone's stack based on what they prefer, then I wouldn't have Se in my stack at all.
This is a bit messy, but I hope you see what I'm getting at.



> I can relate to that eternal struggle of Ni and Te. In my case though, Te is stronger so I have hard time accepting anything that can be disproven but not proven.


So related to what I wrote just now, how does your Fi work? I'm guessing it doesn't get too involved in the decision-making process, but are you "good" with it in general? Or does it create problems for you?



> As for your question, all you need to do is write @ and then the username. Like: @frigus


I know now, and thank you very much. Like I've mentioned in a previous comment, the preview didn't show it as a mention so I thought I was doing something wrong.


----------



## frigus (Oct 4, 2015)

Oh, also @Prada @KalimofDaybreak : 
Could I pick your brains on SLOAN typing (or Big Five)? I feel like people tend to rely on that a lot (and believe certain types are more likely to get certain results), so I was wondering if you shared that view? Or if you don't, why?

(edit: If you're willing to share your results, I'd love to hear them. For reference, mine was RLuEI)


----------



## Prada (Sep 10, 2015)

frigus said:


> Obviously that makes more sense.
> The final function in the stack confuses me only on one account though. Some say that your fourth function is your least developed one, and it causes problems for you (for me that's Se, without a doubt). But some typings I've seen describe the fourth function as relatively well-developed, just not as developed compared to the first three.
> If the first approach is accurate, it would make more sense, since all the other functions would be somewhere in between the first and fourth. But if we determine all functions in someone's stack based on what they prefer, then I wouldn't have Se in my stack at all.
> This is a bit messy, but I hope you see what I'm getting at.


I will confuse you even more and say both are true.  Sorry. You see, your stack operates only as well as you develop it. Age, maturity (mental and physical), mental health, nurture etc. all matter. Sometimes, even your dominant function might be underdeveloped but then you act very erratically as this is a very unhealthy condition. Depending on your age (some people say that cognition is truly developed around the age 25) you have developed various functions. Children develop mainly their dominant one, young teens develop their auxiliary, teens tertiary and older teens/young adults inferior. 

Also, if you're Fi inferior and you live in a family of Feelers, your Fi will be as developed than the Fi of an INTJ who lives in a family of Thinkers. Since this applies to me, those who try to type me based on my Fi alone, say that I'm an INTJ. But I'm pretty much a walking Te machine, my poor Ni is too abused for being illogical to be dominant and my Se is too strong to be inferior. XD 

This is a very complex process and it's very likely that you have trouble seeing your inferior function if it was suppressed by anything above (or you're young- I'm not sure if you disclosed your age or not). 

As for the "prefer" thingy, I get what you mean but I feel like you misunderstood me. Functions are actually N, S, T and F. When I say that you prefer something, it means you prefer the orientation - i/e. Let's put it this way, imagine the preference is percentage. You prefer Ni for 80% which leaves 20% to Ne. Since N is your dominant function, Ne is your strongest/best developed shadow function because N is your strongest function. As for the rest, let's say you prefer Te for 75%, Fi for 70% and Se for 60%. Which means that you potentially use Si 40% of the time which is quite a lot but it's still less that Se which makes Se part of your stack. However, as you can see, even in case of Ni, you still use Ne for 20% of the time. But that doesn't mean that your Si is stronger than your Ni. It's just on i/e scale not on the scale of comparing core functions. You still use it less than Ne. This is just an analogy to make it simpler, don't consider it 100% true to MBTI, it is not. I'm trying to say that "preference" ties with introversion and extroversion (Ni vs. Ne) not to functions (Ne vs. Te). And there is also a different preference intuition vs. sensing, thinking vs. feeling, etc. All of these 3 are completely different things unrelated to one another.

This is probably very confusing for you which is why you hear so little about shadow functions and people usually think of functions as either Se or Si rather than a scale. It simply makes things easier to process. Just like they don't tell you in first grade about negative numbers and instead they tell you that you can't subtract 2-3. It's not true but at that point, that's all you need. Same thing applies here. It's not true that you use only Ni and not Ne but for all intents and purposes, you need to know that you have Ni in your stack and the fact that Ne is your strongest shadow function is an unnecessary information that doesn't change anything about your stack and only serves to confuse you.

Your brain uses the orientation of the function you prefer naturally while the orientation you don't prefer is used consciously and it's harder. Also, your shadow functions are ordered by the order of your stack so an INTJ has Ne-Ti-Fe-Si as their shadow functions. Si should be the hardest to use while Ne the easiest but there are always exceptions to the rule. I'm pretty good at Ti (though better at Fi) while I suck at Fe. Completely. Unless you start crying on my shoulder I will have no idea what you feel like. Shadow functions have to be practiced to be good at using them, the lower they are the harder it is. So, no, you don't have all functions between Ni and Se, you have 4 functions between Ni and Se with the possibility of accessing your shadow functions if you try hard enough. Your stack is natural and easy for you to use. Your shadow functions aren't unless you spend your whole life practicing them and even then it will take more energy to use them.



frigus said:


> So related to what I wrote just now, how does your Fi work? I'm guessing it doesn't get too involved in the decision-making process, but are you "good" with it in general? Or does it create problems for you?


Since I spent majority of my life around Fi-doms and like having ExFJs around, my Fi is considerably well developed. You shouldn't see the inferior function as the odd one out. It's just the least developed out of the main 4 that you use. In other words, I use Fi quite a lot. Definitely a lot more than Ti (which is an intentional process while Fi simply happens without asking me). Whenever there is an ethical problem or something related to feelings. Your inferior function can cause you trouble (inferior Fi hates dealing with emotions especially of other people or inferior Se has trouble with too much sensory stimuli and overloads) but that's not the only thing it does. It's simply because you don't have as much experience using it as your dominant function.

To describe it in a less abstract way, imagine your dominant function to be like a car you drive daily. It's comfortable, fast and you're good at it because you use it often. Now, imagine your inferior function to be like a bike that you drive once a week. You're still good at it but it's not as comfortable for long rides, slow and everyone in the traffic hates you. In this analogy, your shadow functions would be a monocycle that your crush finds attractive but you wouldn't drive it if you had a choice because it looks ridiculous, is uncomfortable, slow and everyone laughs at you (+ everyone in traffic hates you because it's simply a lame bike). But there is still that one reason that you want to use it. You can get better at the monocycle but you will still prefer bike and keep the monocycle locked up in garage, pretending it doesn't exist until your crush asks you to race them on it.



frigus said:


> I know now, and thank you very much. Like I've mentioned in a previous comment, the preview didn't show it as a mention so I thought I was doing something wrong.


Sorry, I noticed that someone already replied after I already posted the post and I was too lazy to edit it.


----------



## frigus (Oct 4, 2015)

Prada said:


> Sometimes, even your dominant function might be underdeveloped but then you act very erratically as this is a very unhealthy condition. Depending on your age (some people say that cognition is truly developed around the age 25) you have developed various functions. Children develop mainly their dominant one, young teens develop their auxiliary, teens tertiary and older teens/young adults inferior.


Since I'm not exactly stable in many ways, I'd say that my dominant function is underdeveloped, in the sense that I am unable to trust it (if I'm right about Ni being the dominant). I was extremely introverted and stubborn as a child, but never really caused any trouble. My biggest problem has always been lacking a sense of identity, even though if you ask my friends they'll say a have a very "specific" personality. I'm fairly certain that's a euphemism for something. 
Ever since childhood I've had this subconscious perception of what desirable attributes are in a person, and once I found a person like that, I'd start to emulate them. I grew out of that in my mid teens, but the consequences are still there. I have trouble discerning what my default is. The one default thing I'm sure of is being stubborn though. Now it's the opposite most of the time because I have this intense dislike of being wrong, so I just distance myself from definite statements. I suppose this could be that manifestation of Ne I talked about.



> This is a very complex process and it's very likely that you have trouble seeing your inferior function if it was suppressed by anything above (or you're young- I'm not sure if you disclosed your age or not).


I'm 24, for what it's worth. I do outwardly act and look younger than my age, and avoid acting serious, but the way I actually think and the amount of worrying I do makes me feel like I've seen it all and am about to meet my Maker. Objectively I know that's impossible, which makes me feel even worse because if I'm already like this, how messed up will I be 10 years from now?



> When I say that you prefer something, it means you prefer the orientation - i/e. Let's put it this way, imagine the preference is percentage. You prefer Ni for 80% which leaves 20% to Ne. Since N is your dominant function, Ne is your strongest/best developed shadow function because N is your strongest function. As for the rest, let's say you prefer Te for 75%, Fi for 70% and Se for 60%. Which means that you potentially use Si 40% of the time which is quite a lot but it's still less that Se which makes Se part of your stack.


This again makes me lean toward Si, but Si is very tricky because we all use it very obviously. It definitely comes easier to me than Se. Se is a nightmare (and so is my F, but that's because of my anxiety). 
Speaking of anxiety, it's very apparent in the Se field to me as well. Without going into too many details, let's just say I've passed out a few times because I'd neglected my physical needs. I also have a huge fear of serious injuries and illnesses, whether it's about me or the people I love.



> Your brain uses the orientation of the function you prefer naturally while the orientation you don't prefer is used consciously and it's harder. Also, your shadow functions are ordered by the order of your stack so an INTJ has Ne-Ti-Fe-Si as their shadow functions. Si should be the hardest to use while Ne the easiest but there are always exceptions to the rule.


I do find Ne very easy to access, but Si isn't particularly hard. Or relevant, for that matter.
Maybe I still don't have a good idea of what it even is. I just associate it with memory (I tend to forget details in general) and deciding based on past experience. That's a given for everyone, so it shouldn't be hard to use at all. 
So what I'm saying is, I'm very aware of my Se and the problems it causes, but I'm indifferent when it comes to most things I read about Si. Which is why I fear that I might be overlooking it like I did with Ni. 
I read Jung's description of Si again just now, and all I get from it is the introverted quality of it. I mean if I could, I'd just type myself as all the introverted functions since whatever I read about them resonates with me. 
Well, at least I know my dominant is definitely introverted. I mean I can't imagine being a sensor, but since I'm pretty unstable (personality wise), who knows?



> Your stack is natural and easy for you to use. Your shadow functions aren't unless you spend your whole life practicing them and even then it will take more energy to use them.


This is the kind of thing that makes me second-guess everything, if I'm that horrifyingly inept when it comes to Se, does that mean it might not be in my stack at all? Then again, why would it have such a big impact on my life if it isn't?



> Your inferior function can cause you trouble (inferior Fi hates dealing with emotions especially of other people or inferior *Se has trouble with too much sensory stimuli and overloads*) but that's not the only thing it does. It's simply because you don't have as much experience using it as your dominant function.


This is very definitely me, but if it's actually a disorder like someone suggested, I'm not sure if I should attribute it to the functions.



> To describe it in a less abstract way, imagine your dominant function to be like a car you drive daily. It's comfortable, fast and you're good at it because you use it often. Now, imagine your inferior function to be like a bike that you drive once a week. You're still good at it but it's not as comfortable for long rides, slow and everyone in the traffic hates you. In this analogy, your shadow functions would be a monocycle that your crush finds attractive but you wouldn't drive it if you had a choice because it looks ridiculous, is uncomfortable, slow and everyone laughs at you (+ everyone in traffic hates you because it's simply a lame bike). But there is still that one reason that you want to use it. You can get better at the monocycle but you will still prefer bike and keep the monocycle locked up in garage, pretending it doesn't exist until your crush asks you to race them on it.


I get the general idea, and the comparison is helpful. But of course, I still have no idea how my sensing fares compared to this. But since I'm so out of touch with it/find aspects of it repulsive even, I can at least deduce that I am probably an N-dom. I'm currently overthinking this whole thing so it's difficult for me to "see the light".


----------



## Prada (Sep 10, 2015)

frigus said:


> Could I pick your brains on SLOAN typing (or Big Five)? I feel like people tend to rely on that a lot (and believe certain types are more likely to get certain results), so I was wondering if you shared that view? Or if you don't, why?
> 
> (edit: If you're willing to share your results, I'd love to hear them. For reference, mine was RLuEI)


Sorry, I noticed this just now. 

For Big 5 I got O - about 75%, C - about 72%, E - about 67%, A - about 62% and N - about 33%. Fitting but the description is too broad and strange imo. I can't say I would trust it more than MBTI. First of all, it's apparently all "moderate" results despite being 40% apart. Second of all, the test was ridiculous. What does me visiting art museum have to do with being open to new ideas? If anything, traditional art is the most conservative source of entertainment. Third of all, I have no idea why I scored so low on "extroversion" but I suspect it's because I'm not spreading enthusiasm where I go (which has nothing to do with extroversion at all) and I can't read emotions of people (which, again has nothing to do with extroversion). All in all, I find that Big 5 evaluates completely unrelated things and groups them together on no basis at all. Also, so you don't think I take this information from a untrustworthy test, I read several articles about it and on first glance they compare completely unrelated traits (e.g. being outgoing and being reserved are not opposites, I'm both, reserved means you don't let people close to you emotionally and being outgoing means you spend a lot of time outside and with others, you can easily be both).

As for SLOAN, I will just show you what I posted in the related thread:
http://personalitycafe.com/whats-my...sloan-personality-typing-80.html#post24128722

It seems to work with black and white stereotypes. You're either mother Theresa or a terrible human being who should be ashamed for existing. Since I'm definitely not the former, I ended up with the latter. Apparently, it assigned me the businessman archetype.

Both of these typings seem very underdeveloped, shallow and not describing real complex people.

EDIT: @frigus You think about it too much. Take a step back, stop focusing on MBTI and think about the past week as to WHAT motivated you to act as you did.

As for sensory overload and inferior Se, I can't tell you whether you have a disorder but every single INTJ I've ever known suffered from this. Too much noise, too many smells, too much touch, etc. made the INTJs I knew lock up and refuse to operate. INTJs are the people on a party who sit in a corner alone and play on their phone. Because they can't handle so much information from their surroundings at a time. INTPs I know usually socialise with 1-2 people they know and wish the party will pass fast. INTJs ignore the party to survive.

As for Si, don't read Jung. The description of Si of Jung is just ridiculous and MBTI DOESN'T work with it. MBTI uses a different Si (and some other functions are altered) than Jung ALTOGETHER. Jung's Si is almost identical to Ni. And Si is not memory. Everyone remembers, learns from experience and uses past information to a degree. However, Si decides mainly on past information. Ni asks: "Will this help me reach my goal?" Si asks "Can I use here something from my past that worked?". You can also ask both but which one is the first question you have is important. Si is literally dependent on past experience. It wouldn't be able to operate without it. Ni doesn't care.


----------



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

frigus said:


> Well, I sure have a lot of those (and I hate them with a passion).
> I misunderstood at first because the functions are constant in the sense that they're always present, so it got mixed up in relation to the words you used to describe them. There you have different associations to the same words in action though. This does clear it up for me, thank you.


No problem. Yeah, I think it is one of the failings of contemporary MBTI that it relegates the I/E distinction to the back seat; one's attitude is more incidental due to one's functional preference. Say what you will about Jung, I think he was right to emphasize the importance of introversion and extraversion over the functions. Like I said, they are fundamental orientations, and knowing about them is fairly crucial to understanding how to deal with them. Call me cynical, but honestly I think that the lack of focus on those two is due to the fact that so little of modern typology is actually about self-analysis and critique, which is where this stuff is most valuable. Part of it is, of course, the reverse corruption of the psychological meaning of the words due to the vernacular meaning, but then again, it seems to me that the typology enthusiasts in the world should be the ones reminding everyone that it's complicated and important than just being social or not. Facing I and E as orientation means facing one's flaws, and in theory the functions should do the same, but so often the functions are nigh but deified (*cough* Ni *cough*) that admitting their weaknesses is rather trivial in the face of the awe-inspiring power that such a function carries (like seeing the future, apparently).



frigus said:


> That's certainly an interesting approach. Since we keep getting them mixed up, that could mean they aren't as defined as the dominant/repressed.


That's essentially what Jung would say.



frigus said:


> As for me, typing myself is literally a painful process, insofar as it actually gives me anxiety although I have absolutely no idea why. Looking too deeply into myself always does.


We live in a society where people aren't cultured to be very reflective, and perhaps even encouraged not to be self-critical. I imagine that has more than a little to do with it.



frigus said:


> Well that's a relief, since it means I probably won't end up back where I started.


Oh, trust me, you will. You'll doubt yourself a lot. 90% of typing yourself is just becoming acclimated to a type, which means that you have to eventually stop pointing out every little time you do something that your chosen type isn't supposed to do. Ideally you should come to this point with an accurate type.



frigus said:


> (edit: So it works fine, the preview is just inaccurate. Thank you very much.)


No problem.



frigus said:


> Oh, also @Prada @KalimofDaybreak :
> Could I pick your brains on SLOAN typing (or Big Five)? I feel like people tend to rely on that a lot (and believe certain types are more likely to get certain results), so I was wondering if you shared that view? Or if you don't, why?
> 
> (edit: If you're willing to share your results, I'd love to hear them. For reference, mine was RLuEI)


Ahh, fine, I'll go take the tests. 

_Openness to Experience/Intellect
High scorers tend to be original, creative, curious, complex; Low scorers tend to be conventional, down to earth, narrow interests, uncreative.
You enjoy having novel experiences and seeing things in new ways. (Your percentile: 95)_

The Openness dimension correlates with MBTI intuition, and of the OCEAN dichotomies has the strongest correlation of all the dimensions. Being N-dom, it makes sense that this would be my highest score. The way it portrays sensors is rather shallow and negative.

_Conscientiousness
High scorers tend to be reliable, well-organized, self-disciplined, careful; Low scorers tend to be disorganized, undependable, negligent.
You tend to do things somewhat haphazardly. (Your percentile: 21)_

Correlates with MTBI J. This is fairly accurate of me, but I don't place too much stock on the last letter as far as cognition is concerned.

_Extraversion
High scorers tend to be sociable, friendly, fun loving, talkative; Low scorers tend to be introverted, reserved, inhibited, quiet.
You probably enjoy spending quiet time alone. (Your percentile: 7)_

Not much to say here.

_Agreeableness
High scorers tend to be good natured, sympathetic, forgiving, courteous; Low scorers tend to be critical, rude, harsh, callous.
You are neither extremely forgiving nor irritable. (Your percentile: 50)_

I think this is rather low score for me; obviously this correlates with MBTI F. In terms of functions, I'm okay with this, but this isn't a great reflection of my behavior.

_Neuroticism
High scorers tend to be nervous, high-strung, insecure, worrying; Low scorers tend to be calm, relaxed, secure, hardy.
You aren't particularly nervous, nor calm. (Your percentile: 55)_

Doesn't correlate with MBTI--I am far more neurotic than this.

I think there definitely is meaningful correlation between OCEAN and MBTI, but my same criticisms for modern MBTI apply here: Big Five is almost entirely behaviorist, which, given that type is about cognition, this can only be so useful. Frankly, I don't put too much stock in behavioral trends because they are so changeable. Nothing that Big Five can say about you is going to be terribly life-altering or useful in terms of understanding your relationships with others. MBTI is at least grounded in concepts that can be used for that end.

As an aside, I also find it interesting that the names of the Big Five dimensions would translate to a high-strung ENFJ. Take that for what it's worth.

On to SLOAN.

_Extroversion results were low which suggests you are very reclusive, quiet, unassertive, and private.

Orderliness results were medium which suggests you are moderately organized, structured, and self controlled while still remaining flexible, varied, and fun.

Emotional Stability results were moderately low which suggests you are worrying, insecure, emotional, and anxious.

Accommodation results were moderately high which suggests you are, at times, overly kind natured, trusting, and helpful at the expense of your own individual development (martyr complex).

Inquisitiveness results were high which suggests you are very intellectual, curious, imaginative but possibly not very practical.

Your Global5/SLOAN type is RLOAI
Your Primary type is Reserved_

I'm not well-versed in the SLOAN typing, but I don't find this to be anything game-changing. The correlations are fairly intuitive, and in the end I don't see this as being terribly different from Big Five. I give it a resounding 'eh'. Stick with MBTI, I think.


----------

