# INFJ or INTJ?



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

I'm certain I'm an INJ type, but for the life of my I can't decide between Fe/Ti and Te/Fi. I find that many descriptions of the functions are either really abstract and hard to apply or are overly stereotyped and don't relate to me at all. Whenever I read type descriptions, I always relate to INTJs more, but that could be personal bias coming through.

I realize that this is a common quandary to be in, but my own self-analysis has been rather fruitless and I'm inclined not to trust myself either.

So that said, a little bit about me:


 Very much a thinker--currently dual majoring in philosophy and neuropsychology.
 While I like to think I'm a rational person, I'm very sensitive and don't really respond to criticism well.
 My creative outlets include: writing, composing music, and (most recently) designing video games.
 I hate sharing my creations with people because I feel self-conscious about presenting my innermost self with others. It has taken a long time for me to become comfortable with that.
 I'm hugely perfectionistic and I hate it when things can't come directly out of my head into reality.
 I get frustrated when I can't figure out how to implement something on my own. For example: I was trying to make a schedule for my classes this year in Excel, but I couldn't figure out how to align the class times like I wanted to, so I threw up my hands and went to an online schedule maker instead.
 I am--frankly--a cynic and I have a hard time seeing the silver lining in some cases.
 Political correctness pisses me off--people should just not get offended as easily instead of wasting everyone's time with unnecessary words.
 Politicians piss me off--very few of them are not corrupt and anyone who honestly wants to be in power, in my mind, has something wrong with them.
 I have high moral standards for other people and even higher for myself, and I can be overly judgmental towards others and myself for not living up to those standards.
 If I could, I would buy an RV and drive around the country for a long time.
 I read people well, but not social situations. I'm clumsy in social settings.
 In a perfect world, public policy would be made based on what was objectively good and considerate towards others, not how it made people _feel_.
 I can get really frustrated with dominant-Fi types who, I think, are over expressing their "individuality". (No, I'm not treading on you, you're just obnoxious.)
 I hate bumper stickers.
 I don't understand smartphones. I have one because at this point it's impossible not to, but I see no reason for having a phone that is one quarter phone and three quarters laptop.
 Snapchat seems stupid to me and I have held out not getting it as a form of silent protest.
 I make an effort not to spend my life with my nose in my phone.
 I dislike talking to be people but I try and force myself to anyway.
 I can be friends with a girl so long as I haven't any romantic thoughts. After that I can't say anything cogent.
 I think too fast for my mouth, thus, I write.
 I can be incredibly lazy and unambitious at times, and this drives me nuts.
 I'm a fairly laid-back person unless things aren't going well.
 I have a very T-sounding writing voice, and depending on my mood I can be a pretty big jerk.
 I like categorizing things.
 Bionicles were my childhood. I still have some because I don't have the heart to throw them away.
 I'm prone to eating when I don't need to and watching too much YouTube when I should be productive.
 I have a hard time finishing long books because at some point, I just want the thing to be over with.
 I like playing out scenarios in my head of how a social experiment might pan out or what might happen if I say something.
 I fancy being confident and standing up for what I believe in, but I'm too shy for this to happen.
 I hate bad grammar and poor spelling.
 I love nature and would spend hours there if I could.
 I'm highly sensitive to noise.
 A person's integrity makes me respect them. If they don't have this, I find them to be crappy people undeserving of my respect and attention.
 Arrogance irritates me in principle.
 I believe the world would be a much better place if everyone decided to just make an effort to get along.
 I hate parties.
 I hate loud music.
 I hate the way people act when under the influence of alcohol and in large group settings.
 Did I mention I hate parties?
 Despite appearances, I do not hate people, but I find that I lose patience with them quickly.
 I get frustrated with people who can only process with their feelings.
 I am very sarcastic, almost sardonic.
 I get energized from theoretical and intellectually simulating conversations.
 I compare myself to others and when I find that someone is better at me in something I care about, it motivates me to get better.
 I find organized things to be aesthetically appealing.
 I have a strong sense of irony and I enjoy puns.
 I hate not finishing things.
 I had finished this list about ten lines ago but added more just to make sure I had described everything, and even now I hate ending here because I don't think it's complete.
 I thought of "I hate not finishing things" _after_ I wrote the bullet before this, but still put it second-to-last.

Obviously this isn't an exhaustive list, and if you guys need any more information, let me know. I just kind of mind-vomited things onto the page as I thought of them.

Note: In my profile I've listed myself as an INFJ. Like I said, I'm stuck between that and INTJ. I just don't feel like changing it if I don't have to.


----------



## allisreal (Mar 23, 2010)

I'm tempted to say INTJ. Many INTJs report having strong "inner passions" causing them to think they're feelerish, but externally they are more impersonal in achieving their goals and people might view them as more abrasive and less accommodating when compared to INFJs.

These may help:

INFJ or INTJ Test - CelebrityTypes.com
Determining Function Axes, Part 1 | CelebrityTypes
Determining Function Axes, Part 3 | CelebrityTypes
INTJ Description - CelebrityTypes.com
INFJ Description - CelebrityTypes.com


----------



## with water (Aug 13, 2014)

Infp


----------



## allisreal (Mar 23, 2010)

Yeah, I actually think INFP is also possible.


----------



## Mikhail (Aug 26, 2015)

KalimofDaybreak said:


> I'm certain I'm an INJ type, but for the life of my I can't decide between Fe/Ti and Te/Fi. I find that many descriptions of the functions are either really abstract and hard to apply or are overly stereotyped and don't relate to me at all. Whenever I read type descriptions, I always relate to INTJs more, but that could be personal bias coming through.


"personal bias"?


> I realize that this is a common quandary to be in, but my own self-analysis has been rather fruitless and I'm inclined not to trust myself either.


What could convince you? What would make you secure in your assessment? What does generally make you confident about your opinions?


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

KalimofDaybreak said:


> I'm certain I'm an INJ type, but for the life of my I can't decide between Fe/Ti and Te/Fi. I find that many descriptions of the functions are either really abstract and hard to apply


If you are intuitive, then why are you finding it hard to apply them? Intuitives don't feel the need to apply them in order to understand them, and they don't have difficulty processing vague descriptions. You are most likely a senser.


----------



## SiFan (Mar 10, 2015)

allisreal said:


> I'm tempted to say INTJ. Many INTJs report having strong "inner passions" causing them to think they're feelerish, but externally they are more impersonal in achieving their goals and people might view them as more abrasive and less accommodating when compared to INFJs.
> 
> These may help:
> 
> ...


Hi, Allisreal! Tried the *INFJ or INTJ Test - CelebrityTypes.com* test for picking between INFJ and INTJ-- i.e. the test taker is 'known' to be one or the other. 

On any decent MBTI test (and a few of the lemons) I always get INFJ. Yet my result on that 17 question quiz, 53% to 47%, was a pretty near thing! 

It looks like the test picks the wrong questions and/or asks them in the wrong way and is inclined to produce INTJs. So, a reasonable interpretation of the result seems to be that anyone who gets INTJ as a fairly close (say 65% or less) result may or may not be INTJ; but, anyone who gets INFJ is pretty darn likely to be INFJ.


----------



## allisreal (Mar 23, 2010)

@SiFan

Perhaps, I have not taken that test, since I'm neither of those types. I have however liked the tests of theirs that I have taken and many of their articles. I have heard complaints though.


----------



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

You know, I originally scored as an INFP when I first took the test, but I don't say INFP mainly because I'm not Ne. Even when I thought of myself as an INFP, I thought of myself as having an stronger intuition than normal. My issue with this is that a) my extraverted functions are clearly not well developed (hence my confusion between the judging axes) and b) my most conscious function is definitely Ni. I don't take the exploratory approach to the inner world like an INFP would, it's just passive observation of the self. The other big issue that keeps me from saying I'm not Fi-dominant is that I really do have trouble with emotions (I feel them in my stomach or chest area as opposed to my head) and understanding exactly what I'm feeling, or, when I do know what I'm feeling, how to handle that. Why do you guys who said INFP say so?


----------



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

allisreal said:


> I'm tempted to say INTJ. Many INTJs report having strong "inner passions" causing them to think they're feelerish, but externally they are more impersonal in achieving their goals and people might view them as more abrasive and less accommodating when compared to INFJs.


You know, what actually started me on this train of thinking was scoring 59% INTJ on the Celebrity Types test. I'll check out those other articles, though. Thanks!


----------



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

Fried Eggz said:


> If you are intuitive, then why are you finding it hard to apply them? Intuitives don't feel the need to apply them in order to understand them, and they don't have difficulty processing vague descriptions. You are most likely a senser.


I'm not a sensor. Perhaps I misspoke there. What I meant by what I said is that many descriptions are hard for me to relate to because they give concrete examples I just don't relate to, or the abstractions seem overly esoteric and lack any real bearing on who I am. My desire for concrete answers stems more from me wanting to be able to objectively say which type I am without interpretation, not because I can't handle abstractions.


----------



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

Mikhail said:


> "personal bias"?


My current mood, my understanding being incorrect, thing like that.



Mikhail said:


> What could convince you? What would make you secure in your assessment? What does generally make you confident about your opinions?


I'm secure/confident if I know I'm right, objectively and without question. If I'm going to have an opinion I want it to be true.


----------



## Mikhail (Aug 26, 2015)

KalimofDaybreak said:


> My current mood, my understanding being incorrect, thing like that.


Can you give me some examples?


> I'm secure/confident if I know I'm right, objectively and without question. If I'm going to have an opinion I want it to be true.


What does this mean? What do the words "right", "objectively", "without question" and "true" mean?


----------



## Lelu (Jun 1, 2015)

@KalimofDaybreak 

The Fi here is *extremely *noticeable. I want to help you, or have others able to help you objectively find a type and to do that I think we need to know one thing: What makes you objectively sure that you are Ni dominant? Reason us through it as best as you can.


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

KalimofDaybreak said:


> I'm not a sensor. Perhaps I misspoke there. What I meant by what I said is that many descriptions are hard for me to relate to because they give concrete examples I just don't relate to, or the abstractions seem overly esoteric and lack any real bearing on who I am. My desire for concrete answers stems more from me wanting to be able to objectively say which type I am without interpretation, not because I can't handle abstractions.


I don't understand why you're limiting yourself to two types. Why are you eliminating all of the sensing types and Ps from consideration?

If you have the experience to know that you're definitely not a senser, then you should also have the experience to know the difference between INTJ and INFJ. It makes no sense to me.


----------



## Reed972 (Aug 9, 2015)

I also wondered, if I could be INFJ and this is what helped me

INTJ

My Life as an INTJ - Funky MBTI in Fiction
My Life as an INTJ - Funky MBTI in Fiction
My Life as an INTJ - Funky MBTI in Fiction

INFJ

My Life as an INFJ - Funky MBTI in Fiction
My Life as an INFJ - Funky MBTI in Fiction

Even though I could not relate COPLETELY on what those INTJs said, I could always relate MOSTLY to what they said. On the other hand, as soon as I read what those INFJs said about how they experience Fe, I quickly NOPED out of there.

I hope this helps.


----------



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

Lelu said:


> @KalimofDaybreak
> 
> The Fi here is *extremely *noticeable. I want to help you, or have others able to help you objectively find a type and to do that I think we need to know one thing: What makes you objectively sure that you are Ni dominant? Reason us through it as best as you can.


That's a hard one. The biggest reason boils down to how I view my internal world. I liked Michael Pierce's descriptions of the introverted judging/perceiving functions as being, respectively, more aggressive/receptive to the internal world. I am _not_ aggressive or evaluating of myself. When I'm thinking--contemplating, rather--I'm not evaluating my thoughts, just observing the stream of consciousness that comes through. When I'm mulling something over I don't actively think about, often times I'll find myself unconsciously repeating the thought in my head until I come to a conclusion just out of nowhere. My best thinking, however, is done when I'm not even aware it's happening, and I tend to descend into that state when I'm driving out in the country since nothing else is really demanding of my attention. I've even found I _can't_ come to conclusions I feel good about if I consciously try to come to a decision. When I am in such a state, forcing myself to interact with the world is difficult, and at its most extreme I feel like I'm moving through the world as if in a trance or i just woke up from a dream. My thoughts during these times are usually very visual, and I tend to see flashes of color or images in my mind's eye, sometimes coupled by audio of some sort, but I tend to just have an intuitive understanding of what's going on in my head.


----------



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

Mikhail said:


> Can you give me some examples?


I'm always concerned my understanding of the functions isn't right. As for my mood, I distrust myself to come to correct conclusions if I'm feeling unusually critical or judgmental or if I'm unconsciously projecting how I think T/F types sound into my words.



Mikhail said:


> What does this mean? What do the words "right", "objectively", "without question" and "true" mean?


I don't really know how else to put it. I want to know that I'm right, and I define rightness by how true it is, and I suppose that such truth would be how I perceive truth to be, but even writing that I don't like saying it because I want my conclusions to be rooted in some sort of absolute truth. That said, I'm aware that, even if humanity did have some sort of absolute truth, my conclusions would be my own perspective on the issue.


----------



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

Fried Eggz said:


> I don't understand why you're limiting yourself to two types. Why are you eliminating all of the sensing types and Ps from consideration?
> 
> If you have the experience to know that you're definitely not a senser, then you should also have the experience to know the difference between INTJ and INFJ. It makes no sense to me.


I'm limited myself to INJs because I'm pretty certain of my Ni dominance. Unless I'm totally wrong on how Ni works (which I don't think I am), I am assuming myself to be such. As for not knowing the difference between the two types, I do understand how they are different, but I have a hard time identifying the functions within myself for some reason. I can see both axes in myself, which I know to be impossible. Most of my reading has been about the perceiving functions, so I imagine my difficulty lies in lack of experience with the judging functions.


----------



## SiFan (Mar 10, 2015)

KalimofDaybreak said:


> I'm certain I'm an INJ type, but for the life of my I can't decide between Fe/Ti and Te/Fi. ....
> 
> ....
> 
> ...


Have a few questions which may help clarify things.

- You mention that you read people fine. From a reading or in a conversation or in a posting, when you pick up on a problem someone has, such as with a relationship or self image or a situation at school, do you feel moved to offer help? Have you done that very often?

- You say that reading the social situation is difficult. Is that mostly for large gatherings or does that apply to smaller gatherings, too? With a small group, are you inclined to intervene to smooth things over to avoid personal conflicts or just let things happen as they may?

- What do you dislike about 'talking with people'?

- You say "I am--frankly--a cynic and I have a hard time seeing the silver lining in some cases." What sort of cases are you talking about?

- Do people sometimes comment about your having an angry look when, in fact, you were simply thinking about something and not feeling a bit angry?

- You say "I hate sharing my creations with people because I feel self-conscious about presenting my innermost self with others. It has taken a long time for me to become comfortable with that." What sort of creations are you talking about? Is there any concern that someone might steal a creation and get the credit?

_ One of your majors is neuropsychology. Do you think you might also do very well in classical psychotherapy such as practiced by Freud and Jung?


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

Mikhail said:


> I know an ENFJ girl, who was typed as INFJ in Socionics (IEI?). The IEI description wasn't describing her perfectly, which is normal, but she felt that certain aspects of IEI descriptions couldn't be applicable to her in any way at all. She found herself in one of the subtypes of IEI.
> 
> I have a feeling they only created the subtype theory because they can't accurately type people, so they had to explain somehow the noticeable differences between people they type in the same type.
> My personal rating of jungian typologies is Jung > MBTI > Socionics. The only problem with the original ideas of Jung is that there's no infrastructure around them, so there's no cross-checking and no way to validate an opinion.


There is more than one IEI description. If you're referring to sociotype.com, then it is a crap description.


Mikhail said:


> Their understanding of functions is shit. I've seen many xSFJs typed as xSFPs, because their understanding of functions tells them that xSFPs are supposed to be moralisers and have a dominant personality, which are more Fe and EJ traits respectively.


You're being loyal to MBTI. That doesn't make Socionics shit.


----------



## Mikhail (Aug 26, 2015)

Fried Eggz said:


> There is more than one IEI description. If you're referring to sociotype.com, then it is a crap description.


Those descriptions were in Russian. 


> You're being loyal to MBTI. That doesn't make Socionics shit.


I'm not "being loyal" to MBTI. MBTI is a more coherent system overall than Socionics. Socionics associates traits with functions that have no place there. When you read the name of the function "Extraverted Feeling", it makes perfect sense that moralizing would be a possible trait for FJs. Socionics expects xSFPs to be moralizers because it calls Se "will sensorics" (or whatever is the usual English translation) and associates with it the trait of imposing your will onto others, which is completely arbitrary and doesn't agree with my experience at all.


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

Mikhail said:


> I'm not "being loyal" to MBTI. MBTI is a more coherent system overall than Socionics.


Except MBTI has been largely abandoned by professionals because it didn't work.



Mikhail said:


> Socionics associates traits with functions that have no place there...
> 
> ...which is completely arbitrary and doesn't agree with my experience at all.


It's not arbitrary at all. Se users try to 'get things moving' because we're the ones who focus on the moment. Hence you get Se being seen as will power; although IMO it's more about being bold, confrontational and pushy. With Se-Fi you get someone pushy towards their personal ideals. Fe-doms are controlling through moral rules. Te-doms are controlling of resources, which includes people. Part of the problem with Se is the fact that Socionics was founded by a Ne-dom, so they don't really know why people are doing it, they only know how it appears on the outside.



Mikhail said:


> When you read the name of the function "Extraverted Feeling", it makes perfect sense that moralizing would be a possible trait for FJs. Socionics expects xSFPs to be moralizers because it calls Se "will sensorics" (or whatever is the usual English translation) and associates with it the trait of imposing your will onto others


Moralising is a trait of feelers in general.


----------



## Mikhail (Aug 26, 2015)

Fried Eggz said:


> Except MBTI has been largely abandoned by professionals because it didn't work.


And socionics does?


> It's not arbitrary at all. Se users try to 'get things moving' because we're the ones who focus on the moment. Hence you get Se being seen as will power; although IMO it's more about being bold, confrontational and pushy.


That's quite a convoluted explanation. Ne types may want to "get things moving" because of their uber important ideas. Te types because they know what is right and how to make things right. Same for Fe types, but in a different sense. And being "bold, confrontational and pushy" is a character trait that has nothing to do with your cognitive process, MBTI type or any jungian type. It's a kind of trait that depends more on things like the level of testosterone in your blood.


> With Se-Fi you get someone pushy towards their personal ideals.


Nope. Se-Fi are the kind of people who want to live and experience life in all its forms, and form their own value systems based on that. 


> Fe-doms are controlling through moral rules.


They can be, that's true.


> Te-doms are controlling of resources, which includes people.


Another piece of nonsense. I don't see what "Thinking" has to do with "resources" at all. Unless you apply "thinking" to "resources", but "resources" is not the only thing you can apply "thinking" to.


> Moralising is a trait of feelers in general.


There's a drastic difference between Fi types and Fe types in this regard. Fi types may preach and teach, but they aren't very eager to impose. Fe types may want to impose certain moral standards in a specific situation even if they themselves don't have any.


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

Mikhail said:


> And socionics does?


It's been studied and observed, and actually makes verifiable predictions about intertype relations, so I would say yes.



Mikhail said:


> Another piece of nonsense. I don't see what "Thinking" has to do with "resources" at all. Unless you apply "thinking" to "resources", but "resources" is not the only thing you can apply "thinking" to.


So talk to people more. It's really not that difficult to observe that Te is resource oriented.



Mikhail said:


> And being "bold, confrontational and pushy" is a character trait that has nothing to do with your cognitive process, MBTI type or any jungian type. It's a kind of trait that depends more on things like the level of testosterone in your blood.


I can't imagine Night Huntress has a lot of testosterone in her blood, but I can imagine she's a Se-Fi.



Mikhail said:


> Fe types may want to impose certain moral standards in a specific situation even if they themselves don't have any.


LOL. Who's talking nonsense now? Strong Fe types are full of moral standards. That's what they do and your opinion is going against Jung as well.


----------



## Mikhail (Aug 26, 2015)

Fried Eggz said:


> It's been studied and observed, and actually makes verifiable predictions about intertype relations, so I would say yes.


Verifiable how? What does it mean "it's been studied and observed"? MBTI hasn't? 


> So talk to people more. It's really not that difficult to observe that Te is resource oriented.


Proofs and examples?


> I can't imagine Night Huntress has a lot of testosterone in her blood, but I can imagine she's a Se-Fi.


Who's Night Huntress? Do you know her in person?


> LOL. Who's talking nonsense now? Strong Fe types are full of moral standards. That's what they do and your opinion is going against Jung as well.


I didn't say they aren't. What I'm trying to say is that Fe types pay more attention to optimising the human condition (whatever their perception of it is) in any given specific situation than to keeping their moral principles consistent across all situations.


----------



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

SiFan said:


> Thanks for the interesting answers, Kalimo. Ended up somewhere between the high-Fi INTJ -- e.g what you and @Lelu discussed-- and the Fe expressing INFJ with nearly equal Fe and Ti. Glad you found your type!


As I've been reading up more on INTJs and thinking about who I was when I was younger, I've become more inclined towards the high-Fi INTJ. I can see the nearly equal INFJ, but I just don't relate to the Fe social harmonizing as much as I do Fi's deep-seated internal passions (not saying that Fe types don't have internal passions, but my beliefs come from a very deep sense of what I think is true, which smacks more of Fi than Fe to me) and as I've been thinking about it more, I've realized what I initially thought was Ti is actually an Ni-Te combination. If ever I get an intuition (thinking specifically of a discussion in class today) my first response is to articulate is as clearly and accurately as possible, regardless of how it sounds. I also really strongly relate to the under-worked Te in my previous post, bad as that is. Regardless of why that is the case, it does give me something to look towards for personal growth, and if I find that Te takes too much effort, I'll probably look into Fe. Thanks for the help.


----------



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

And as for the Socionics/MBTI debate, I did not bring that in to start an argument. Kindly move it to another, more appropriate, thread.


----------



## Mikhail (Aug 26, 2015)

KalimofDaybreak said:


> And as for the Socionics/MBTI debate, I did not bring that in to start an argument. Kindly move it to another, more appropriate, thread.


Why not continue it here? What exactly had motivated you to write this?


----------



## Lelu (Jun 1, 2015)

KalimofDaybreak said:


> As I've been reading up more on INTJs and thinking about who I was when I was younger, I've become more inclined towards the high-Fi INTJ. I can see the nearly equal INFJ, but I just don't relate to the Fe social harmonizing as much as I do Fi's deep-seated internal passions (not saying that Fe types don't have internal passions, but my beliefs come from a very deep sense of what I think is true, which smacks more of Fi than Fe to me) and as I've been thinking about it more, I've realized what I initially thought was Ti is actually an Ni-Te combination. If ever I get an intuition (thinking specifically of a discussion in class today) my first response is to articulate is as clearly and accurately as possible, regardless of how it sounds. I also really strongly relate to the under-worked Te in my previous post, bad as that is. Regardless of why that is the case, it does give me something to look towards for personal growth, and if I find that Te takes too much effort, I'll probably look into Fe. Thanks for the help.


I like this response, and I presume you do too judging by your reasoning here. I am positive that Ni and Fi are in your stack at least. Glad you were able to come to a conclusion that hopefully felt worthwhile. And welcome to the club!


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

Mikhail said:


> Verifiable how? What does it mean "it's been studied and observed"? MBTI hasn't?


No, MBTI hasn't. MBTI doesn't make predictions. Socionics does make predictions about things like intertype relations, and those intertype relations have been observed and studied.



Mikhail said:


> Proofs and examples?


I don't keep a stock of them, and I'm not a Te user such that I could provide personal experience. Why not start a thread in the Socionics section asking for personal experiences of Te being resource oriented?



Mikhail said:


> Who's Night Huntress? Do you know her in person?


A user on this forum who has been typed by multiple people as an SEE (Se-Fi).



Mikhail said:


> I didn't say they aren't. What I'm trying to say is that Fe types pay more attention to optimising the human condition (whatever their perception of it is) in any given specific situation than to keeping their moral principles consistent across all situations.


Yes, Fe is dynamic, but Fe-doms have long lasting objective ideals. Heck, Jung noted that some Fe-doms would have an entire list of shallow requirements.


----------



## Mikhail (Aug 26, 2015)

Fried Eggz said:


> No, MBTI hasn't. MBTI doesn't make predictions. Socionics does make predictions about things like intertype relations, and those intertype relations *have been observed and studied*.


How? When? Where? Links to studies? What prohibits you from explaining most of the predictions in the framework of MBTI theory? It's perfectly doable with little to no extra assumptions.


> I don't keep a stock of them, and I'm not a Te user such that I could provide personal experience. Why not start a thread in the Socionics section asking for personal experiences of Te being resource oriented?


Why would I do your work for you? You make a claim, you give a proof or an explanation at least. Until you give one, you might as well be talking out of your ass.


> A user on this forum who has been typed by multiple people as an SEE (Se-Fi).


Do you know her in person?


> Yes, Fe is dynamic, but Fe-doms have long lasting objective ideals. Heck, Jung noted that some Fe-doms would have an entire list of shallow requirements.


You still aren't quite getting what I'm trying to say to you. First, I'm not talking about Fe-doms, I'm talking about how Fe works in principle. Second, if by "objective ideals" you mean "things they aspire to or defend", than yes, it's perfectly in the vein of Fe. When however there's a conflict of ideals, and you need to chose one over another, that's when they usually lack consistency. Consistency in such cases is ensured by applying moral principles, which are abstract and general enough to work across all similar situations. An example of such principle would be the principle of presumption of innocence. When you see a suffering victim and what seems to be a strong evidence leading to the suspect, who appears smug and arrogant, you still can't judge the suspect as morally guilty and even as a bad person until the suspect's guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt. To many FJs it seems to be a very counter-intuitive principle. They usually agree that it's a bad thing to punish an innocent person for a crime he or she did not commit, but if they don't have enough sympathy for the suspect and their sympathy for the victim is strong enough, they forget that. Fi types love principles like that because it helps them find the right balance between different ideals, thus ensuring the internal consistency of their value systems.


----------



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

Mikhail said:


> Why not continue it here? What exactly had motivated you to write this?


Forgive me if I came across as terse. That was not my intention. I've always assumed that forums like to keep their thread topics narrowed so anyone searching for relevant information can easily find it without having to search through tons of unrelated threads. This discussion seems long and complicated enough to be in another thread and more easily accessed by people wondering about Socionic vs. MBTI.


----------



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

Lelu said:


> I like this response, and I presume you do too judging by your reasoning here. I am positive that Ni and Fi are in your stack at least. Glad you were able to come to a conclusion that hopefully felt worthwhile. And welcome to the club!


Haha, thanks. I appreciate the welcome, and all of the help.


----------



## SiFan (Mar 10, 2015)

KalimofDaybreak said:


> As I've been reading up more on INTJs and thinking about who I was when I was younger, I've become more inclined towards the high-Fi INTJ. I can see the nearly equal INFJ, but I just don't relate to the Fe social harmonizing as much as I do Fi's deep-seated internal passions (not saying that Fe types don't have internal passions, but my beliefs come from a very deep sense of what I think is true, which smacks more of Fi than Fe to me) and as I've been thinking about it more, I've realized what I initially thought was Ti is actually an Ni-Te combination. If ever I get an intuition (thinking specifically of a discussion in class today) my first response is to articulate is as clearly and accurately as possible, regardless of how it sounds. I also really strongly relate to the under-worked Te in my previous post, bad as that is. Regardless of why that is the case, it does give me something to look towards for personal growth, and if I find that Te takes too much effort, I'll probably look into Fe. Thanks for the help.


Yw! Like the analysis.


----------



## Mikhail (Aug 26, 2015)

KalimofDaybreak said:


> Forgive me if I came across as terse. That was not my intention. I've always assumed that forums like to keep their thread topics narrowed so anyone searching for relevant information can easily find it without having to search through tons of unrelated threads. This discussion seems long and complicated enough to be in another thread and more easily accessed by people wondering about Socionic vs. MBTI.


I was simply curious actually. You don't have to be nice to me. I rarely am.
Socionics vs MBTI is a holywar topic. I don't think we would want to escalate our little discussion here.


----------



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

Mikhail said:


> I was simply curious actually. You don't have to be nice to me. I rarely am.
> Socionics vs MBTI is a holywar topic. I don't think we would want to escalate our little discussion here.


I prefer to treat others respectfully. Call it a personal preference. I trust your judgment about the discussion.


----------



## surgery (Apr 16, 2010)

KalimofDaybreak said:


> This is a quote from Lenore Thomson's Psychological Type: An Owner's Manual


Yes, it is. 
http://personalitycafe.com/intj-articles/129801-lenore-thomsons-intj.html 
http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/129792-lenore-thomsons-introverted-intuition.html


----------

